12-13-99 agendaCITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
MONDAY, DECEMBER 13, 1999
REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING
7:00 P.M.
COUNCIL CHAMBERS
RICHFIELD CITY HALL
AGENDA
INTRODUCTORY PROCEEDINGS
CALL TO ORDER
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
ROLL CALL
APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF (1) REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF
NOVEMBER 22,1999; (2) SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF NOVEMBER 29,
1999; (3) SPECIAL JOINT CITY COUNCIURICHFIELD SCHOOL BOARD MEETING
OF DECEMBER 6,1999; AND (4) SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF
DECEMBER 6, 1999
,. PRESENTATIONS
1. PRESENTATION OF GOVERNMENT FINANCE OFFICERS ASSOCIATION
DISTINGUISHED BUDGET PRESENTATION AWARD TO FINANCE MANAGER,
CHRIS REGIS
INDIVIDUALS WHO WISH TO ADDRESS THE COUNCIL ARE REQUESTED TO
PRINT THEIR NAME AND ADDRESS ON THE SPEAKER'S REGISTER FOR THE
RECORD.
2. OPPORTUNITY FOR CITIZENS TO ADDRESS THE COUNCIL ON ITEMS NOT
ON THE AGENDA
AGENDA APPROVAL
3. COUNCIL APPROVAL OF AGENDA
CONSENT CALENDAR
4. CONSENT CALENDAR CONTAINS SEVERAL SEPARATE ITEMS WHICH ARE
ACTED UPON BY THE CITY COUNCIL IN ONE MOTION. ONCE THE CONSENT
CALENDAR HAS BEEN APPROVED, THE INDIVIDUAL ITEMS AND
RECOMMENDED ACTIONS HAVE ALSO BEEN APPROVED. NO FURTHER
COUNCIL ACTION IS NECESSARY. HOWEVER, ANY COUNCIL MEMBER MAY
REQUEST THAT AN ITEM BE REMOVED FROM THE CONSENT CALENDAR
AND PLACED ON THE REGULAR AGENDA FOR COUNCIL DISCUSSION AND
ACTION. ALL ITEMS LISTED ON THE CONSENT CALENDAR ARE
RECOMMENDED FOR APPROVAL.
A. CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF REVISED RESOLUTION WHICH
SPECIFIES CERTAIN IMPROPER CONDUCT OF ON-SALE INTOXICATING
LIQUOR, WINE AND 3.2 MALT LIQUOR LICENSEES AND RECOMMENDED
DISCIPLINE ACTION C.L. 289
B. CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF RESOLUTION APPOINTING
REPRESENTATIVES TO RICHFIELD TOURISM BOARD, INC. C.L. 290
C. CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF RESOLUTION ISSUING NEGATIVE
DECLARATION OF NEED FOR ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT FOR
RICHFIELD LAKE WATER QUALITY PROJECT C.L. 291
D. CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING
AGREEMENT WITH HENNEPIN COUNTY FOR PARTICIPATION IN FEDERAL-
AID PRESERVATION PROGRAM FOR REPLACING TRAFFIC SIGNAL
CONTROLLERS AND CABINETS, REPLACING RED INCANDESCENT TRAFFIC
SIGNAL INDICATIONS WITH RED LIGHT EMITTING DIODES INDICATIONS
AND SIGNAL PAINTING C.L. 292
E. CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF LJR INC. CONTRACT WITH 1-494
CORRIDOR COMMISSION, 1999-2000 C.L. 293
F. CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS FOR
RAISING SELECTED AREAS OF TRAIL AT WOOD LAKE NATURE CENTER,
ORDERING PROJECT, AUTHORIZING NOTICE OF BID, AND AUTHORIZING
EXECUTION OF AGREEMENT WITH MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT OF
TRANSPORTATION FOR FUNDING PURPOSES C.L. 294
G. CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF RESOLUTION APPROVING CITY OF
RICHFIELD'S PARTICIPATION IN JOINT POLICE AND FIRE TRAINING
FACILITY C.L. 295
H. CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF CANCELING CITY COUNCIL MEETING
OF DECEMBER 27, 1999 C.L. 296
1. CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF PURCHASE IN EXCESS OF $25,000
FOR MOBILE COMPUTING DEVICES AND RELATED HARDWARE FOR
INSTALLATION IN POLICE VEHICLES C.L. 297
J. CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF NEW TAXI LICENSE FOR
METROPOLITAN TAXI; ONE VEHICLE C.L. 298
PUBLIC HEARINGS
5. DISCIPLINARY HEARING AND CIVIL ENFORCEMENT FOR ALCOHOL
ESTABLISHMENTS IN RICHFIELD THAT RECENTLY UNDERWENT ALCOHOL
COMPLIANCE CHECKS AND FAILED BY SELLING ALCOHOL TO UNDERAGE
YOUTH
COUNCIL LETTER NO. 299
6. PUBLIC HEARINGS TO CONSIDER THE FOLLOWING 2000 LIQUOR LICENSE
RENEWALS:
A. ON-SALE INTOXICATING, SUNDAY LIQUOR AND TAVERN FOR CHI-CHI'S,
INC., DBA CHI-CHI'S MEXICAN RESTAURANTE, 7717 NICOLLET AVENUE
C.L. 300
B. ON-SALE INTOXICATING AND SUNDAY LIQUOR FOR DON PABLO'S
OPERATING CORP., DBA DON PABLO'S, 980 WEST 78TH STREET C.L.
301
C. ON-SALE INTOXICATING AND SUNDAY LIQUOR FOR AMERICANA DINING
CORPORATION, DBA CHAMPPS SPORTS CAFE, 790 WEST 66TH STREET
C.L. 302
D. ON-SALE AND SUNDAY LIQUOR FOR PAISAN INCORPORATED, DBA
KHAN'S MONGOLIAN BARBEQUE, 500 EAST 78TH STREET C.L. 303
E. ON-SALE INTOXICATING AND SUNDAY LIQUOR FOR THE GROUND
ROUND OF MINN., INC., DBA THE GROUND ROUND, 1500 EAST 78TH
STREET C.L. 304
F. CLUB ON-SALE AND SUNDAY LIQUOR FOR FRED BABCOCK V.F.W. POST
NO. 5555, 6401 LYNDALE AVENUE C.L. 305
G. CLUB ON-SALE AND SUNDAY LIQUOR FOR MINNEAPOLIS-RICHFIELD
AMERICAN LEGION POST 435, 6501 PORTLAND AVENUE C.L. 306
H. ON-SALE WINE AND 3.2 PERCENT MALT LIQUOR FOR THOMPSON'S
FIRESIDE PIZZA, INC., DBA FIRESIDE PIZZA, 6736 PENN AVENUE C.L.
307
1. ON-SALE WINE AND 3.2 PERCENT MALT LIQUOR FOR THE
FRENCHMAN'S, 1400 EAST 66TH STREET C.L. 308
J. ON-SALE WINE AND 3.2 PERCENT MALT LIQUOR FOR GIN NG INC., DBA
SILVER SPOON RESTAURANT, 6700 PENN AVENUE C.L. 309
K. ON-SALE WINE AND 3.2 PERCENT MALT LIQUOR FOR KIANG'S RED
PEPPER INC., DBA RED PEPPER CHINESE RESTAURANT, 2902 WEST
66TH STREET C.L. 310
L. ON-SALE WINE AND 3.2 PERCENT MALT LIQUOR FOR SUBECK
INCORPORATED, DBA KETSANA'S THAI RESTAURANT, 7545 LYNDALE
AVENUE C.L. 311
7. PUBLIC HEARINGS TO CONSIDER THE FOLLOWING 2000 PAWNBROKER
AND SECONDHAND GOODS DEALER LICENSE RENEWALS:
A. METRO PAWN AND GUN, INC. 7529 LYNDALE AVENUE C.L. 312
B. PLAZA PAWN, 6414 NICOLLET AVENUE C.L. 313
8. PUBLIC HEARING AND CONSIDERATION OF RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING
ISSUANCE OF UP TO $20,000,000 OF SENIOR HOUSING REVENUE BONDS,
SERIES 2000A AND 2000B
COUNCIL LETTER NO. 314
9. PUBLIC HEARING AND SECOND READING OF ORDINANCE AMENDMENT
REZONING PROPERTIES TO BE CONSISTENT WITH COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
COUNCIL LETTER NO. 315
10. PUBLIC HEARING AND CONSIDERATION OF RESOLUTION ON FINAL PLAT
FOR RICHFIELD URBAN VILLAGE
COUNCIL LETTER NO. 316
PROPOSED ORDINANCES
11. CONSIDERATION OF FIRST READING OF ORDINANCE AUTHORIZING
CONSTRUCTION OF REPLACEMENT GOLF COURSE
COUNCIL LETTER NO. 317
12. CONSIDERATION OF FIRST READING OF ORDINANCE RELATING TO
COUNCIL MEMBER ATTENDANCE AT COUNCIL MEETINGS; AMENDING
SUBSECTION 205.15 OF RICHFIELD CITY CODE
COUNCIL LETTER NO. 318
RESOLUTIONS
13. CONSIDERATION OF RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING ADJUSTMENT OF 1999
REVISED GENERAL FUND BUDGET FOR PORTION OF UNSPENT YEAR-END
FUNDS FOR AIRPORT MITIGATION EXPENDITURES
COUNCIL LETTER NO. 319
14. CONSIDERATION OF ADOPTION OF 1999 REVISED/2000 PROPOSED
BUDGET AND FINAL TAX LEVY AND RELATED RESOLUTIONS
40 COUNCIL LETTER NO. 320
ADMINISTRATIVE REPORTS AND OTHER BUSINESS
15. CONSIDERATION OF APPOINTMENTS TO PLANNING COMMISSION
COUNCIL LETTER NO. 321
AIRPORT BUSINESS
16. AIRPORT STATUS REPORT
CORRESPONDENCE
17. LEGISLATIVE REPORT
COUNCIL CHOICE
18. COUNCIL DISCUSSION ITEMS
19. CLAIMS AND PAYROLLS
0 20. 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.
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Council Letter No. 322
Agenda December 13, 1999
Issue Statement:
Consideration of approval of mediated contract dispute settlement with Thermex for
construction of rink refrigeration system for second ice sheet.
Backaround:
During the construction of the rink refrigeration system of the Second Ice Sheet, a
number of problems arose with respect to the Thermex contract. Thermex indicated
that they did not know they were to obtain the permit for their work instead of the
General Contractor. As a result they began the work without a permit. Thermex was
later cited by the Building Inspections Department and were required to not only
purchase the permit but also pay a penalty fee of approximately $3,600.
Further, their work on the rink floor refrigeration system did not meet contract
specifications and they were required to redo that portion of their work. The portion of
the work that was to be redone required Thermex to install a more substantial steel
reinforcement system into the concrete floor than they believe was stated in the
specification that they based their bid upon. Nevertheless, they agreed to proceed with
the project so that it would be completed on time. The disagreement was to be sorted
out later.
. At the conclusion of the project, Thermex filed a claim for just over $20,000 that they
felt they had sustained in completing this project. Thermex asserted that the plans and
specifications were not clear. Furthermore, it was their position that the City had
received a much higher quality rink floor than it paid for.
In an attempt to resolve the problem before all parties had to enter into a costly
arbitration case on the matter, mediation was agreed upon. The mediation included the
City, Thermex, the construction manager, the architect and designer as well as the rink
floor sub-contractor.
The mediation resulted in a proposed settlement agreeable to all parties. Richfield's
portion of the settlement was to refund the permit penalty and an additional amount
which were to total $5,000. All parties desire to complete this matter and bring it to
closure as quickly as is possible.
Recommended Motion:
Approve the mediated settlement consisting of the return of construction permit penalty
of approximately $3,600 and payment of additional contract payment of up to $1,400 to
Thermex, Inc. as a full and final settlement to Ice Arena contract dispute.
Basis of Recommendation:
1. Thermex has initiated a contract claim of approximately $20,000 for additional work
and costs sustained in connection with the construction of the Second Ice Sheet.
0
2. The parties involved have agreed to mediation as a first step in resolving this
dispute prior to proceeding to a much more costly venue such as arbitration or
court.
3. All parties involved including the City, Thermex and subcontractors have agreed to
contribute to a mediated settlement of this. dispute.
4. The proposed settlement represents a very economical way for the City to resolve
this matter.
Alternative Recommendation:
1. The City Council could reject this settlement and pursue the matter in arbitration.
2. The City Council could propose another settlement option.
Discussion/Decision Mode:
Action on this matter is requested on December 13, 1999 so that this matter can be
resolved as soon as possible. The next City Council Meeting may not be until
January, 2000.
Res tfully submitted,
Sa ntha Orduno
. ity Manager
SO:sld
/
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Council Letter No.321
Agenda December 13, 1999
Issue Statement:
Consideration of appointments to the Planning Commission.
Background:
The Planning Commission currently has three vacancies. Advertisements were placed
in the Richfield Sun, Your City newsletter, on the message board outside City Hall and
the Web page.
Applicants were interviewed at a Special City Council meeting on Monday, November
29, 1999.
Recommended Motion:
Appoint three members to the Planning Commission: Two appointments with terms
ending January 31, 2000 and one appointment with term ending January 31, 2001.
Basis of Recommendation:
In order to ensure a quorum for future meetings, appointments should be made at this
time.
• Alternative Recommendation:
Defer the appointments to a later Council meeting.
Discussion/Decision Mode:
This item is placed on the December 13, 1999 agenda for Council consideration.
R4amha"Ord y submitted,
Suno
City Mana ger
SO:cak
.7
/5-f
E
O O T-
O O 0
O O 0
N N N
r ? T--7
M M CM
L,
cu M c0
=3 7
C C C
c6 c6 c0
0
U)
W_
V
z
Q
V
Q
z
O
U)
U)
O
V
C7
z
z
z
Q
J
CL
>% A
U
U U
C C C
ca ca M
CO w
> > >
T- r r
CITY OF RICHFIELD MINNESOTA
Council Letter No.320
Agenda December 13, 1999
Issue Statement:
Adoption of the 1999 Revised/2000 Proposed budget and final tax levy and related
resolutions.
Background:
The City of Richfield has conducted and closed its 1999 truth-in-taxation hearing on
December 6, 1999. During the course of the public hearing, there was an opportunity
for testimony from the general public. Information was also presented by staff regarding
the proposed levy and budget. No official City Council action to act on the levy was
permissible on the day of the public hearing.
The City Council must now take final action on the City's budget and tax levy. State
Statute requires that municipalities conduct public hearings no later than December 20
of each year. Cities then have five working days after December 20 or no later that
December 28 to prepare all the documentation necessary to certify a final levy to the
County Auditor and State Department of Revenue.
In addition to the resolutions authorizing the revised 1999 budget and adopting a 2000
budget and tax levy, several other resolutions included within the total budget document
10 need to be considered. Resolutions pertaining to water and sewer utility rates, capital
improvement and program budget and license/permit fees should also be considered.
In addition, the resolution restating the City Manager's charter and ordinance authority
to modify the budget during the budget year and pay plan resolutions for the 2000
General Services, Specialized and Management pay plans are also included.
In addition, resolutions increasing the 1999 General Services and Specialized pay plans
by .5% effective the last full pay period in 1999 are also included. This increase is
needed to adjust these two pay plans containing the City's female-dominated positions
to a position of keeping up with the annual adjustments of the City male-dominated
contract employees such as the Police and Labor and Trades units. This equity is
especially critical inasmuch as the City will be required to file a pay equity compliance
report for pay data in effect for December 31, 2000. Even with these relatively minor
adjustments, it may be necessary to make a larger adjustment in 2000 to ensure
Richfield's compliance with the Pay Equity Act. Richfield remains committed to
maintaining compliance with the Act.
In September 1999 the City approved and certifies a preliminary tax levy of $8,171,762
to Hennepin County. The final tax levy must now be considered and approved by the
City Council. The final levy may be less but cannot be greater than the preliminary levy
amount. Taxpayers have received individual parcel specific tax notices in anticipation of
the truth-in-taxation public hearing.
0
10-)
Recommended Motion:
Adopt the resolutions approving the 1999 Revised/2000 Proposed budget and tax levy
and related resolutions.
Basis of Recommendation:
1. A revised 1999 budget and final 2000 budget and tax levy must be adopted on or
before December 20, 1999.
2. A proposed 2000 tax levy has been submitted to the City Council for consideration.
3. The gross tax levy for 2000 reflects a 1.45 percent increase over the previous year
and the local 2000 tax levy represents a .33 percent decrease over 1999.
4. A truth-in-taxation public hearing for the 2000 proposed budget and tax levy has
been conducted in accordance with state law.
Alternative Recommendation:
The City Council could adopt a final 2000 budget and a tax levy in any amount which
does not exceed the preliminary levy of $8,171,762.
Discussion/Decision Mode:
It is suggested that the City Council take action on these items at the December 13,
1999 regular City Council meeting to ensure ample time to prepare final documents for
• submission to the County Auditor. Action on this item cannot be taken on the same
night as public testimony at the initial truth-in-taxation hearing on the budget and tax
levy are taken, according to state law.
submitted,
S an a Orduno
City anager
SO:cak
I?
U
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION ADOPTING A BUDGET AND TAX LEVY
FOR THE YEAR 2000
WHEREAS, the Minnesota Truth in Taxation law provides for a proposed tax levy to
be certified to the County Auditor by September 15, 1999 and then recertified before
December 31, 1999.
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 2000 is hereby approved and
adopted with appropriations for each of the departments to be as follows:
General Fund
Leg islative/Executive
Administrative Services
Public Safety
Community Development
Public Works
Recreation Services
Transfers
TOTAL GENERAL FUND
$ 686,560
1,009,820
8,250,330
252,380
3,309,650
1,464,880
118,320
$15,091,940
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 2000 which are
more fully detailed in the City Manager's official copy of the 2000 budget, are
hereby found and determined to be as follows:
TOTAL GENERAL FUND $ 15,091,940
3. There is hereby levied upon all taxable property in the City of Richfield a direct ad
valorem tax in the year 1999, payable in 2000 for the following purposes and in
the following amounts:
PURPOSE AMOUNT
GENERAL FUND' $ 28,171,762
' 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.
•
Resolution No.
Iq-3
4. The budget for the Housing and Redevelopment Authority of Richfield for the year
2000 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 1999, payable
in 2000 for the following purposes:
PURPOSE AMOUNT
Housing and Redevelopment
Authority $ 195,250
5. A certified copy of this resolution shall be transmitted to the County Auditor.
Adopted by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this 13th day of
December, 1999.
Martin J. Kirsch, Mayor
ATTEST:
Thomas P. Ferber, City Clerk
E
/U-`1
0 RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING BUDGET REVISIONS
WHEREAS, the City Charter and Minnesota Statutes provide for a process for adopting
an annual budget and tax levy; and
WHEREAS, the City Charter provides certain authority for the City Manager and/or City
Council to revise the annual budget; and
WHEREAS, it would be beneficial to restate such authority with the adoption of the
budget.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Richfield,
Minnesota as follows:
1. The City Manager may increase the budget by City Council action provided that
unbudgeted receipts will be available to equal or exceed the increased expenditures.
2. The City Manager may authorize transfers between divisions within a department providing
the transfers do not increase or decrease the department or total budget.
3. The City Manager may transfer budgeted amounts between departments only with the
approval of the City Council.
Adopted by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this 13th day of
December, 1999.
Martin J. Kirsch, Mayor
ATTEST:
Thomas P. Ferber, City Clerk
0
RESOLUTION NO.
iy-,S-
RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING REVISION OF 1999 BUDGET OF VARIOUS DEPARTMENTS
WHEREAS, Resolution No. 8649 appropriated funds for personal services, other
expenses and capital outlays for each department of the City for the year of 1999; 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 1999 budget
appropriations in accordance with Charter provisions and as detailed in the Proposed 2000
budget document.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Richfield,
Minnesota as follows:
1. That the 1999 appropriations for each department of the General Fund be amended
to establish the following totals:
General Fund
Legislative/Executive $ 683,810
Administrative Services 962,170
Community Development 8,163,060
Public Safety 245,040
Public Works 3,213,710
Recreation Services 1,423,110
Transfers 514,050
TOTAL GENERAL FUND $15,204,950
INCREASE $ 632,510
2. Estimated 1999 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 2000
budget, are hereby revised as follows:
INCREASE
$ 632,510
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 13th day of
December, 1999.
0 ATTEST:
Martin J. Kirsch, Mayor
Thomas P. Ferber, City Clerk
/4-(v
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING ANNUAL ADJUSTMENT TO CITY'S MILEAGE
REIMBURSEMENT RATE TO CONFORM TO INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE
STATUTORY MILEAGE REIMBURSEMENT RATE
WHEREAS, the Internal Revenue Service allows a business mileage
reimbursement of 32.5 cents for 2000; and
WHEREAS, the Internal Revenue Service annually adjusts the business
mileage reimbursement; and
WHEREAS, the City of Richfield's present mileage reimbursement is 31 cents;
and
WHEREAS, the City has not adjusted its business mileage reimbursement
amount in two years and is not in conformance with the Internal Revenue Service rate.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of
Richfield, Minnesota:
1. That the City Manager of Richfield is hereby authorized and directed to annually
adjust the City's mileage reimbursement rate to be in conformance with Internal
Revenue Service guidelines.
2. That the City's mileage reimbursement rate is not to exceed the Internal Revenue
Service guidelines.
Approved by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this 13th day of
December, 1999.
Martin J. Kirsch, Mayor
ATTEST
Thomas P. Ferber, City Clerk
40
14--7
0 RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING CANCELLATION OF CERTAIN AD VALOREM TAX
LEVIES ON THE IMPROVEMENT BONDS OF 1980
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 1999 of
$467,900 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 2000, 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 1999, collectible in 2000 on Resolution No. 6310 in the
amount of $467,900 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 13th day of
December, 1999.
Martin J. Kirsch, Mayor
ATTEST:
0 Thomas P. Ferber City Clerk
RESOLUTION NO. 14-8
RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING WASTEWATER SERVICE RATES AND CHARGES,
WATER RATES AND CHARGES, SPECIAL WATER SERVICE CHARGES, STORM
SEWER RATES AND CHARGES, AND 6.5% PENALTY ON PAST DUE ACCOUNTS
BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota, as follows:
SANITARY SEWER SERVICE RATES AND CHARGES FOR 1999
1. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 7.05 of the Ordinance Code of the City of
Richfield, the rates and charges for use and service of the sanitary sewer system are
hereby established to be those set forth in the following paragraphs of this resolution
which rescinds Resolution No. 8529:
2. Where the rate is not based upon the metered use of water, the following quarterly flat
charges are established effective January 1, 2000 for each billing district as defined in
paragraph 3 of this resolution.
2000
A) Residential per unit $ 45.90
B) Commercial -
. For the equivalent of 10 or less persons $ 45.80
More than 10, less than 16 84.00
More than 15, less than 21 118.00
More than 20, less than 26 156.80
C) Institutional -
For each public or private school the quarterly flat charge shall
be charged whether the school is in session or not (rates being
charged upon average yearly use);, shall be based upon the
number of students enrolled at the beginning of the quarterly
billing period or the preceding period if school is not then in
session; and shall be as follows:
2000
For each 100 grade school students or fraction $ 55.30
in excess thereof
For each 100 junior high school students or high 138.90
School students or fraction thereof
D) In addition to the above flat rates there shall be a customer
Charge on each invoice as determined in paragraph 4 of this
Resolution and a certification charge as determined in Section
is 7.05 of the City Ordinance Code.
3. Where the rate for sanitary sewer service is based upon the metered use of water on the
premises, such rates shall be as follows:
4. 14-1
A) For all residential premises the rate shall be based on
The actual use, or less of water for the preceding
Winter quarter, per thousand gallons with a minimum
of 7,000 gallons, effective January 1, 2000, for each 2000
customer billing district and shall be as follows:
$ 2.29
For the purpose of this paragraph A), the winter
Quarter shall be the winter quarter as specified in
Subdivision 3 of said section 7.05.
B) For all commercial, institutional, industrial, and other
Premises, the rate per thousand gallons of water
effective January 1, 2000, shall be as follows: $ 2.29
C) A customer charge shall be made for each invoice
Rendered effective January 1, 2000 as follows: $ 3.00
If the invoice is for water service, as well as sanitary
Sewer service, the customer charge, when collected,
shall be allocated proportionally between the City's
water fund, sewer fund, and its storm sewer fund
based on the user fees billed for by each fund.
D) Where the metered use of water on the premises for the
Preceding winter quarter was not normal, the rate may be
adjusted as provided in Subdivision 3 of said Section 7.05.
4. The foregoing rates and charges are in addition to, and not in lieu of, other rates and
charges established by ordinance or resolution.
WATER RATES AND CHARGES FOR 2000
1. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 7.15 of the Ordinance Code of the City of
Richfield, the rates and charges for City water and water service are hereby established
to be those set forth in the following paragraphs of this resolution:
The charge due and payable to the City by each water customer of the City, during any
quarter shall be $1.62 per 1,000 gallons. Water charges shall be payable quarterly, and all
bills issued after January 1, 2000 shall be at this rate.
SPECIAL WATER SERVICE CHARGES FOR 1999
1. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 7.15 of the Ordinance Code of the City of
Richfield, the rates and charges for special customer services are hereby established to
be those set forth in the following paragraphs of this resolution:
2. The charge for establishing a new customer account shall be $13.50 per account.
3. The charge for installation of meters or outside meter readers shall be $19.50 per lq-iD
installation.
4. The charge to flush and maintain fire hydrants located on privately owned property
within the City shall be $39.00 per hydrant per year plus any required parts.
5. The charge to thaw and service water pipes on customer property shall be actual cost to
the City plus thirty percent.
6. The charge for any other services not covered by the above shall be based on actual
hourly cost to the City plus thirty percent.
STORM SEWER RATES AND CHARGES FOR 2000
1. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 7.20 of the Ordinance Code of the City of
Richfield, the rates and charges for City storm sewer service are hereby established to
be those set forth in the following paragraphs of this resolution:
2. The rates and charges for the use and availability of the system are determined through
the use of a "Residential Equivalent Factor" (REF). One REF is defined as the ratio of
the average volume of surface runoff coming from one acre of land and subjected to a
particular use, to the average volume of runoff coming from one acre of land subjected
to typical single-family residential use within the City during a standard one year rainfall
event. The REF's for the following land uses within the City and the billing
classifications for such land uses are as follows:
LAND USES REF CLASSIFICATION
Cemeteries .25 1
Parks and railroads .75 2
Two-family residential 1.00 3
Single-family residential 1.00 4
Public and private schools
and institutional uses 1.25 5
Multiple-family residential
uses and churches 3.00 6
Commercial, industrial, and
Warehouse uses 5.00 7
3. The basic system quarterly rate for storm sewer service is $44.00 per acre of land.
$8.80 is the quarterly rate for a single-family residence, which is considered to have an
acreage of one-fifth acre. The charge made against each parcel of land is then
determined by multiplying the REF for the parcel's land use classification times the
parcel's acreage times the basic system rate.
9
r4--1I
6.5% PENALTY ON PAST DUE ACCOUNTS
1. Customers will have thirty (30) days to pay their water, sanitary sewer, and storm sewer
quarterly bills from the date of the mailing by the City. Any unpaid amount will be added
to the next quarterly bill along with a 6.5% penalty on the delinquent amount.
2. The penalty charge when billed on past due accounts shall be allocated proportionally
between the City's water fund, sewer fund, and storm sewer fund based on the user
fees billed for each fund.
- Adopted by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this 13th day of
December, 1999.
Martin J. Kirsch, Mayor
ATTEST:
Thomas P. Ferber, City Clerk
0
/4-/2
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION ADOPTING THE 2000 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT BUDGET
WHEREAS, a proposed Capital Improvement Budget for 2000 has been
prepared and submitted for review by the City Council in accordance with charter
requirements; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has received the recommendations and benefit of
review of these proposed documents by the Planning Commission and has itself
reviewed these proposals.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the 2000 Capital Improvement
Budget in the sum total of $33,054,000 is hereby approved as amended and adopted
with full recognition of the fact that the cost estimates are approximate and are subject
to final cost estimates and that all awards of contracts for these projects are subject to
necessary hearings and must be approved by the City Council in accordance with
established laws and practices governing such action, and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Manager is hereby authorized and
directed to initiate the procedures which will lead to more formal and detailed
consideration of these projects in accordance with the aforementioned laws and
practices.
Adopted by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this 13th day of
December, 1999.
Martin J. Kirsch, Mayor
ATTEST:
Thomas P. Ferber, City Clerk
is
N-i3
0 RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION ADOPTING THE 2001-2005 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM
WHEREAS, a proposed Capital Improvement Program 2001-2005 has been
prepared for review by the Planning Commission in accordance with charter
requirements; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has received the recommendations and benefit of
review of these proposed documents by the Planning Commission and has itself reviewed
these proposals.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the 2001-2005 Capital Improvement
Program is hereby approved and adopted subject to annual review and revision.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Manager is hereby authorized and
directed to initiate the procedures which will lead to more formal and detailed
consideration of these projects in accordance with the aforementioned laws and practices.
Adopted by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this 13th day of
December, 1999.
Martin J. Kirsch, Mayor
ATTEST:
Thomas P. Ferber, City Clerk
0
RESOLUTION NO.
lq-)q
RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING POLICIES, PROCEDURES, AND FEES FOR
THE ASSESSING DIVISION
WHEREAS, the City Assessing Division provides a variety of services to the public,
to title companies and to realtors, relating to information necessary for sale and purchase of
property; and
WHEREAS, special assessment searches are requested when closing on purchased
properties; and
WHEREAS, listing information is requested when there is an interest in property
sales or purchases; and
WHEREAS, residential property records are requested when comparing properties
for market values; and
WHEREAS, certain specific information, such as special assessment searches,
property listing information, comparable residential property records and homestead
information are regularly sought by realtors, title companies and homeowners in the sale
and transfer of property within the City; and
WHEREAS, the above list of requests for information constitutes a large portion of
the work load of the City Assessing Division; and
WHEREAS, said policies, procedures and fees must be reviewed and modified as
needed.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council hereby establishes the
following policies, procedures and fees for dissemination of certain information in the City's
Assessing Division.
1.
SPECIAL ASSESSMENT PROCEDURES
SEARCHES
Provided, upon receipt or
written request for multiple
searches or phone request
for same day pickup of a
single search, by City
Assessing Division identifying
levied and pending
assessments
Provide written request and
$12.00 fee per Property
Identification Number (PID).
Searches are normally in the
mail 24 hours after receipt.
Provide verbal update by
phone of previously
requested certified City
special assessment
searches.
Provided the same day if a
single certified or
non-certified search is
requested and if picked up at
the City.
FEES
$12.00 per Property
Identification Number
(PID). The search is a
billing statement.
Provided free of charge
if a certified City search
is not requested.
E
•
14-/s7
I. (con't)
SPECIAL ASSESSMENT
SEARCHES
Do not provide additional
billing statements for
assessments.
Provide, upon written
request, a report (or run) of
all properties affected by a
levied or pending special
assessment.
II.
LISTING INFORMATION
-2-
PROCEDURES
Provided the following work
day for multiple certified or
non-certified search requests
and will be available for
pickup after 3:00 p.m.
Verbal verification (update) of
City certified levied and
pending assessments before
closing. After identifying self,
caller will provide property
address, PID number, date
and receipt number of
search.
Provided within a minimum of
48 hours if there is an
existing program, additional
hours if more than one report
is requested. A non-existing
program would require
additional time. A program
would be created on a priority
basis and then printed.
Requesting party would be
notified as to fee and date.
Report(s) can be picked up at
the Assessing office prior to
printing.
PROCEDURES
A phone or written request
and receipt of $3.00.
Allow 1/2 hour before pickup
for a single property request
to prevent waiting for
information. Allow 24 hours
from receipt of request for
pickup of listing information
on multiple properties.
FEES
Homeowner may
request a $12.00 search
for closing. An initiation
fee of $30.00 for each
requested report. Plus,
$.05 for each Property
Identification (PID)
Number.
A requested new
program would require a
minimum fee of $25.00.
Fees would be based on
time and materials to
create and print the
program.
FEES
$3.00 per PID number or
per printed sheet.
Homeowners may
request a free printout.
Provided free of charge
if printout is not
requested.
-3-
II (con't)
LISTING INFORMATION
PROCEDURES
Lot size
Year built
Square footage
Give name, firm, address of
property and PID number
(if available for requests).
Provide verbal updates by Three listing inquiries on the
phone of previously following accessible
requested City printouts. information will be provided
by phone by the City:
PID number
Year built
Lot size
School district
Legal description
Taxes
Square footage
Mill rate for Richfield
Estimated difference
between homestead and
non-homestead tax
amounts.
Fee owner/taxpayer
Market value
Homestead status
Inquiries by phone for square
footage of buildings will be
limited to two properties.
Additional properties will
require obtaining information
in person at the City
Assessor's office. Net
rentable areas for income
properties are protected
under the Data Privacy Act;
and therefore, will not be
given as listing information.
Special assessments will not
be given by phone. However,
they will be given the City
office when requested.
FEES
lqq?
•
1q,11
II. (con't)
LISTING INFORMATION
-4-
PROCEDURES
Exception: Homeowners will
be given special assessments
by phone if they provide their
social security numbers.
Otherwise, the owner can
request a free complete
listing printout. Give name,
firm, property address, PID
number, date of printout and
receipt number when
updating printouts.
Requested complete listing
information, without a
requested printout, will be
partially supplied verbally by
the Assessing Division. The
Division will orally supply
special assessments, next
year's market value (when
available), and homestead
status. Requesting party will
be allowed to use the
County's terminal screen for
additional information (only
screens 101, 103, 105, 108,
109, 120, 275 and 282).
Interruptions will occur for
City use. Time limits on the
County's terminal will be set
based on City's immediate
needs.
III.
REVIEW OF COMPARABLE PROCEDURES
RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY
RECORDS
Provide a field card record of a Request for more than
subject property and five properties must be
comparable properties. submitted in writing and
include individual
property addresses
FEES
FEES
May request $1.00 per
copy for up to five
comparable properties.
Certified copies $5.00.
-5-
Ill. (cont.)
REVIEW OF COMPARABLE
RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY PROCEDURES
RECORDS
•
•
(PID numbers will help
cut response time).
The individual must allow
the City to set the time
convenient for the City to
supply information on a
one-on-one basis.
More than five
comparable properties,
will be allowed to view
and record information
under strict supervision of
the Assessing Division.
The City will not
assemble or analyze
data.
Certified copies will state:
"This is a true and correct
reproduction of the
original on file at the City
Assessor's office"
IV.
REVIEW OF COMPARABLE PROCEDURES
COMMERCIAL, INDUSTRIAL
AND APARTMENT
PROPERTY RECORDS
Provide partial field card record
of a subject property and
comparable properties.
Request for more than
five properties must be
submitted in writing and
include individual
property addresses (PID
numbers will help cut our
response time).
Because of the data
privacy act, viewing the
property field cards will
be prohibited.
/ q - 10,0
FEES
Free of charge when
personally writes
information supplied by
the Assessing Division.
FEES
May request $2.00 per
copy.
Certified copies $5.00.
Free of charge when
personally writes
information orally
supplied by the
Assessing Division.
/q-/g -6-
IV. (con't)
REVIEW OF COMPARABLE PROCEDURES FEES
COMMERCIAL, INDUSTRIAL
AND APARTMENT PROPERTY
RECORDS
Confidential , private or
nonpublic data is protected
under the data privacy act.
The following confidential data
is recorded on the property field
cards:
a. Detailed income and expense
figures:
b. Average vacancy factors;
c. Verified net rentable areas or
net usable areas;
d. Anticipated income and
expenses for the current year;
and
e. Projected vacancy factor for
the current year.
The above confidential
information will be blocked out
when photocopying field cards.
The individual must allow the
City to set the time convenient
for the City to supply information
on a one-on-one basis.
The City will not The City will not
assemble or analyze data.
Certified copies will state: "This
is a true and correct
reproduction of the original on
file at the City Assessor's
office".
Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota, this 13th day of December,
1999.
Martin J. Kirsch, Mayor
0 ATTEST:.
Thomas P. Ferber, City Clerk
RESOLUTION NO. /q-zo
RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING 2000 LICENSE, PERMIT
AND MISCELLANEOUS FEES PURSUANT TO THE PROVISIONS OF
APPENDIX D OF THE ORDINANCE CODE
OF THE CITY OF RICHFIELD
BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota as follows:
SECTION 1. ESTABLISHING FEES
A. License, permit and miscellaneous fees required under the ordinances of the City of Richfield shall be as
stated in the sections of this Resolution.
B. A period of no less than 30 days will be allowed for the remittance of City Business license renewal fees contained in Sections 5,7, 8
and 9 of this resolution.
C. A 10% administrative surcharge will be assessed upon all renewals contained in Section 5, 7, 8 and 9 of the resolution if not received
by the City on or before December 31st of each year. The 10% surcharge will be based upon the cost of the license.
D. Nothing in this section shall be deemed to require the City to issue or renew any license for which the fee
has not been paid in a timely manner.
SECTION 2. CONSTRUCTION AND RELATED PERMIT FEES AND CHARGES
TYPE OF PERMIT SECTION
OR LICENSE REQUIRING TOTAL VALUATION FEE SCHEDULE
(1) Building 400.03-400.09 $1 to $500
Permits
•
$501 to $2,000
$2,001 to $25,000
$25,001 to $50,000
$50,001 to $100,000
$100,001 to $500,000
$500,001 to $1,000,000
1,000,001 and up
$21.00
$21.00 for the first $500 plus $2.75
each additional $100, or fraction
thereof, to and including $2,000.
$62.25 for the first $2,000 plus
$12.50 for each additional $1,000,
or fraction thereof, to and
including $25,000.
$349.75 for the first $25,000 plus
$9.00 for each additional $1,000,
or fraction thereof, to and
including $50,000.
$574.75 for the first $50,000 plus
$6.25 for each additional $1,000,
or fraction thereof, to and
including $100,000.
$887.25 for the first $100,000 plus
$5.00 for each additional $1,000,
or fraction thereof, to and
including $500,000.
$2,887.25 for the first $500,000 plus
$4.25 for each additional $1,000,
or fraction thereof, to and
including $1,000,000.
$5,015.25 for the first $1,000,000 plus
$2.75 for each additional $1,000,
or fraction thereof.
0
Iq
TED
TYPE OF PERMIT SECTION
OR LICENSE REQUIRING DESCRIPTION FEE
(a) Inspections outside of normal business hours $42.00 per hour
(minimum charge - two hours)
(b) Reinspection fees assessed under provisions
of Section 108.8 $42.00 per hour
(c) Additional plan review required by changes,
additions or revision to plans
(minimum charge - two hours) $42.00 per hour
*Or the total hourl y cost to the jurisdiction, whichever is the greatest. This cost shall include supervision,
overhead, equipment, hourly wages and fringe benefits of he employee involved.
(2) Driveway, Parking
Area Permits 515.05 (no permit fee for sidewalks) $ 25.00
(3) Fire Extinguishing
System Permit 400.03-400.09 Based on Building Permit fee schedule with a
minimum of $ 21.00
(4) Swimming 420.00 Permanent above or below ground pools are
based Building Permit. Portable Pools $ 21.00
(No fee shall be charged for construction or
erection of any pool 24 inches or less in depth at its
deepest part and not exceeding 177 sq ft in water surface)
(5) Public Swimming 420.10 1st Pool $ 85.00
Pool Inspection Each Additional $ 45.00
(6) Plan Review Fee 400.03-400.09 65% of building permit fee, except no fee for the following:
and State Building Co de (a) Existing single family dwelling alterations when habitable area is not enlarged.
(b) Single and two family dwelling repair and
maintenance work.
(c) Commercial and industrial repair and maintenance
work not exceeding $1,000 or where plans are not required.
(d) Residential garages and storage buildings.
(7) Contractors License Verification Fee $ 5.00
(8) Moving Dwellings 845 Pre-inspection Fee: IN Richfield $ 35.00
and Buildings other
than Dwellings OUTSIDE Richfield $ 70.00
Moving Permit Fee:
WITHIN Richfield $ 35.00
INTO Richfield $ 70.00
Moving Out of City $ 35.00
(9) Garage 845 Pre-inspection Fee:
Moving (if relocated in City) $ 23.00
Garage Moving Permit Fee $ 16.00
(10) Structure
Demolition 400.00-400.09 (a) Commercial
Demolition cost as per Building Permit
Schedule with a minimum of $ 21.00
(b) Dwelling
1. One or two story $ 22.00
2. Residential - Garage and lesser structure $ 8.50
(11) Excavation in 800.01-800.15 For each transverse excavation and $100.00
Public each 100 feet or portion thereof longitudinal
Right of way excavation and for each curb and gutter
section installed or driveway apron installed,
except when survey and grade stakes are set by City
SECTION 2. CONSTRUCTION AND RELATED PERMIT FEES AND CHARGES (CONTINUED) /4~22
TYPE OF PERMIT SECTION
OR LICENSE REQUIRING DESCRIPTION FEE
(12) Utility 700.05 (a) Sewer $ 20.00
Abandonment 710.01 (b) Water $ 20.00
(13) Certification
Charge 705.03-705.21 (Delinquent) $ 25.00
(14)(a) Sewer 700.05 Residential $ 35.00
Construction Industrial/Commercial $ 50.00
(b) Water Service 715.01 As per Ordinance - To connect to existing
Service Connection water service leads at the curb box $ 35.00
To connect to main where a curb box and service
lead is not installed the fee is the actual cost of
material and estimated cost of labor.
To turn on water after discontinuance of service $ 35.00
For raising or lowering stop-box tops to correspond
with ground level change made by property owner.
Cost plus 30% material and labor.
(15) Plumbing Permit 400.03-400.09 Residential
(a) Minimum Fee 2% of Total Job cost with a minimum of $ 30.00
(b) Work required to comply with minimum
Housing Code Provisions $ 18.00
(16) Plumbing Permit 400.03-400.09 Commercial - Based on Total Job cost
2% of Estimated Job cost with a minimum of $ 40.00
(17) Electrical Permit 400.03-.400.09 Residential
(a) Minimum Fee $ 30.00
(b) Complete Wiring Fee:
Single Family Residence $ 55.00
Two Family Residence $106.00
(c) New Service - up to 200 amps $ 13.50
(d) Temporary Service - (for construction) $ 19.00
(e) Installation or replacement of each major appliance
during or after completion of building $ 9.00
(f) Swimming Pools $ 25.00
(g) Wiring of Addition or rewiring:
First Room $ 13.50
Each Additional Room $ 6.50
(h) Furnace or Air Conditioning: Per Unit $ 9.00
(i) Electrical Heating System:
2% of estimated job cost with a minimum of $ 19.00
(j) Electric or base board (Infrared Heaters): Per Circuit $ 9.00
(k) Work required to comply with minimum Housing Code
provisions other than new service - 2% of contract
cost with minimum of $ 18.00
(18) Electrical Permit 400.03-400.09 Commercial, Industrial and multiple dwellings
Commercial (more than two units) Minimum Fee $ 40.00
(a) Based on total job cost
- 2% of estimated job cost with a minimum of $ 40.00
-Over $50,000 - Fee/ $1,000.00
plus 1 1/2% of cost over $50,000.00
(b) Traffic Signals: Per Intersection $185.00
0
•
2.
TYPE OF PERMIT
OR LICENSE SECTION
REQUIRING
(19) Electrical Permit 400.03-400.09
Signs
(20) Heating, 400.03-400.09
Ventilating, Air
Conditioning and Refrigeration
(21) Heating, 400.03-400.09
Ventilation,
Air Conditioning, Refrigeration
Storage Tanks
(22) Benches
(23) Fire
Prevention Code
(24) Sign
Installation
(25) Parking Areas
(26) Housing
Inspection Fee
FEE
$ 40.00
$ 30.00
$ 10.00
$ 20.00
$ 10.00
$ 30.00
$ 80.00
$ 15.00
$ 50.00
$ 25.00
$ 25.00
$ 10.00
$ 15.00
$ 25.00
$ 15.00
$ 25.00
$ 8.00
$ 75.00
$ 25.00
805.01-805.27
RELATED
DESCRIPTION
Based on 2% of cost of electrical job to customer
with a minimum of
(separate electrical permit required for signs)
Central Systems and Additions, Alterations and Repairs
1 1/2% estimated cost with a minimum of
(a) Fuel storage Tanks (Underground or Enclosed)
Installation to be used with oil burner only.
Per tank not exceeding 1,000 gal.
Per tank exceeding 1,000 gal.
(b) Fuel Storage Tanks (Above ground or not enclosed)
Installation to be used with oil burner only.
Per tank
(c) Other Tanks (Installation modification,
removal, abandonment)
Each above ground tank
Each below ground tank
For installation or alteration of piping
First Year
Renewal
400.21-400.29 For initial fee required under code Per year
For each additional fee required under code Per year
If not renewed within 2 months of notification
add penalty of
415.01-415.11 50 sq. ft. or less per sign
Each additional 50 sq. ft. or less - per 50 sq. ft.
(a) Temporary sign permit
(b) Sign support structures based on building
permit fee schedule
800.15-800.23
400.11-400.17 First Unit
Additional Unit
This fee should apply to each inspection when:
1. Seller calls for minimum housing inspection
2. Homeowner calls for minimum housing inspection
3. House industry calls for minimum housing inspection
4. Government agencies call for minimum housing inspection
5. Private lending institution calls for minimum housing inspection
•
SECTION 3. CONSTRUCTION AND RELATED LICENSE FEES
TYPE OF PERMIT SECTION
OR LICENSE REQUIRING DESCRIPTION FEE
(1) Heating and 400.07 1 Year $ 45.00
Ventilating Installer
(2) Sign Installer 16.01-416.13 1 Year $ 45.00
(3) Electrical Installer 00.03-.400.09 State License Required
(4) Plumber 400.03-400.09 State License Required
(5) Well Driller 620 State License Required
SECTION 4. ZONING. LAND USE AND RELATED CHARGES J (a ?a
TYPE OF PERMIT SECTION
OR LICENSE REQUIRING DESCRIPTION FEE
(1)* Planned Unit 536 (a) $450 plus $51 $1,000 of project value up to a
Development maximum fee of $3,000.00
(b) PUD Plan Amendment fee $ 500.00
(2)* C-3 Zoning District 526.39 (a) $400 plus $5 / $1,000 of project value to a
Site Plan Review maximum fee of $3,000.00
(b) Plan Amendment Fee $ 500.00
Transitional Activity
permit 526.63 $300 plus $51 $1,000 of project value up to a
maximum fee of $3,000.00
(3)* Variance 546.09 Residential $ 225.00
Non Residential $ 400.00
Variance Appeal Residential and Non Residential $ 75.00
(4)* Conditional 546.05 (a) change in use $ 350.00
Use Permit (b) new construction or building addition up
to 20,000 sq. Ft. $ 550.00
(c) new construction or building addition over
20,000 sq. Ft. $550 + $.501$1,000 of construction
value up to a maximum fee of $3,000.00
(5)* Zoning District
Change 546.07 $ 450.00
(6)* Subdivision
Approval 500.01-500.05 $ 500.00
Subdivision
Waiver 500.05-Subd.2 $ 300.00
* Any additional expense of notification necessitated by applicants request for continuance will be charged to
the applicant.
(7) Off-street
Parking Permit 541.07 (a) As part of conditional use permit process No Fee
800.15-800.23 (b) In conjunction with permitted use $ 300.00
(8) Street Vacation 820 $ 350.00
(9) Forestry Permit 810 $ 20.00
(10) Conditional Activity
Permit 521.103 $ 300.00
(11) Nonconforming
Use Permit 521.105 $ 300.00
(12) Boulevard feature 811.07 (a) Application to place a privately owned $ 20.00
Permit feature in the boulevard
SECTION 5. AMUSEMENT AND RECREATION LICENSES AND PERMITS
TYPE OF PERMIT SECTION
OR LICENSE REQUIRING DE SCRIPTION FEE
(1) Arcade 1105 1 Year $ 300.00
(2) Amusement 1100.01 (a) Mechanical Amusement Device (Pinball) 1 Year $ 15.00
Device
(b) Mechanical Music Box 1 Year $ 15.00
(c) Video Games 1 Year $ 15.00
i?-ate
SECTION 5. AMUSEMENT AND RECREATION LICENSES AND PERMITS (CONTINUED
•
TYPE OF PERMIT SECTION
OR LICENSE REQUIRING DE SCRIPTION
(3) Lawful Gambling 1100.13 Bingo, Tipboard, Paddle Wheel, Raffle, Pull Tabs
(a) Lawful Gambling Permit
1 year $ 124.00
$ 6.50
(those exempt from State Licensure) 1 year $ 100.00
(State Statute 349.213)
(b) Lawful Gambling Investigative Fee 1 year $ 100.00
(State Statute 349.16)
STATE LICENSE REQUIRED
r
(4) Itinerant Place
of Amusement
(5) Public Dance
(6) General
Amusement
(7)Musical Concert
(8) Theatre Cinema
Investigation fee (actual cost minimum)
(9) Roller Rink 1115
(10) Commercial Adult- 605
Oriented Enterprises Investigation fee
(11) Massage
Practitioner 605
(12) Public Baths 610
1100.05-1100.11
1110.03
1100.03
Per event $ 25.00
1110.01
1120
1 day $ 160.00
For each day dances are held - $2 1 month $ 25.00
No fee for locations holding tavern licenses.
(a) Billiard, Pool or Pigeonhole table (each) 1 year $ 15.00
1. Coin operated 1 year $ 15.00
(b) Bowling Alley (per lane) 1 year $ 25.00
(c) Circus 1 year $ 129.00
(d) Dance Hall 1 day $ 129.00
(e) Golf
1. Miniature 1 year $ 30.00
2. Driving Tee 1 year $ 30.00
(f) Mountback 1 day $ 124.00
(g) Rides, mechanical/animal of any kind (ea) I year $ 15.00
(h) Shows, any kind 1 day $ 124.00
(i) Shuffleboard (each lane) 1 year $ 14.00
0) Other games 1 day $ 15.00
Plus a notice publication fee
1 year or portion thereof
1 Year
Certificate fee
Investigation fee
(13) Fortune Teller 1130.05-1130.07
and related trade
(14) Adult Establishments
SECTION 6. ANINL
TYPE OF PERMIT
OR LICENSE
(1) Animals
1196
kL LICENSES
SECTION
REQUIRING
905.01-905.29
Annual license
Investigation fee (new license)
AND PERMITS
DESCRIPTION
(a) Animals (Spayed or Neutered)
with option to purchase a multi-year license
(b) Animals (Not Spayed or Neutered)
(c) Duplicate Animal License
(d) Late Penalty
905.31-905.33 (e) Commercial Kennel
(f) Residential Kennel
(g) Veterinary
905.37-905.39 (h) Pigeons
905.41 (i) Non-domestic Animals (Temporary Permit)
FEE
$ 124.00
1 year $1,500.00
$1,500.00
1 year $ 50.00
1 year $ 124.00
1 year $1,737.00
$1,737.00
1 day $ 100.00
I week $ 300.00
1 month $ 600.00
1 year $1,000.00
1 year $1,500.00
$1,500.00
FEE
1 year $ 8.00
1 year $ 12.00
$ 5.50
$ 5.00
1 year $ 150.00
1 year $ 85.00
$ 150.00
1 year $ 30.00
$ 20.00
SECTION 6. ANIMAL LICENSES AND PERMITS (CONTINUED) 1(4-a(,
905.01-905.29 (j) Impounding (each animal) 1st time $ 25.00
2nd Time $ 50.00
3rd time (each impound after) $ 75.00
SECTION 7. VEHICLE AND TRANSPORTATION LICENSE AND PERMIT FEES
TYPE OF PERMIT SECTION
OR LICENSE REQUIRING DESCRIPTION FEE
(1) Bicycle 1335 Minnesota State Registration
(2) Aircraft 1340 1 day $ 30.00
(3) Food Vehicle 615 (a) Bakery vehicle 1 year $ 75.00
(b) Catering - for first food vehicle 1 year $160.00
Second vehicle 1 year $ 65.00
Each additional vehicle 1 year $ 35.00
(c) Readily perishable (Same as (b) above)
(4) Garbage and Refuse Commercial and Residential
Collection 601.01-601.33 First vehicle 1 year $150.00
Each additional vehicle 1 year $ 32.00
(5) Motor Vehicle
Dealer 1155 Per place of business 1 year $225.00
Each additional place of business 1 year $ 85.00
(6) Motor Bicycle
Business 1160 Per place of business 1 year $129.00
Per place of business to sell, rent or lease 1 year $ 65.00
(7) Sound Truck 1165 Per vehicle 1 year $129.00
Per vehicle 1 day $ 20.00
(8) Taxicab 1170 First vehicle or auto livery 1 year $325.00
Each additional vehicle or auto livery
operated at any time within license period 1 year $ 40.00
(9) Taxicab Driver 1175 1 year $ 30.00
(10) Rental or Utility 1185
Trailers and Trucks Each place of business 1 year $ 65.00
SECTION 8. COMMERCIAL BUSINESS AND TRADE LICENSES AND PERMITS
TYPE OF PERMIT SECTION
OR LICENSE REQUIRING DESCRIPTION FEE
(1) Firearms Dealer 920.01-920.05 1 year $1,000.00
(2) Itinerant Food 615
Establishment 1 year $ 80.00
(3) Retail Candy 615 First facility 1 year $ 80.00
Shop Each additional on same premises 1 year $ 20.00
(4) Food Establishment 615 (a) Retail or Wholesale Food Sales (Grocery) 1 year $210.00
(b) Restaurant (Prepackaged food only sold for
consumption) 1 year $210.00
(c) Restaurant (Prepared food sold for
consumption) 1 year $395.00
(d) Plan Review Fee (New/remodeled food
preparation facility) $200.00
(e) Additional Food Facilities
(Baked goods, meat, produce, microwave
ovens) Each $ 1.00
TYPE OF PERMIT SECTION
OR LICENSE REQUIRING DESCRIPTION FEE
(5) Vending Machine 615 (a) Food vending machine requiring coin or token
(excepting those machines dispensing bottled
or canned soft drinks) I year $ 15.00
(b) Other food vending machines (excepting
those dispensing bottled or canned
soft drinks) 1 year $ 15.00
(c) Ice vending machine 1 year $ 15.00
(6) Automobile Washing
Establishment 1125 Per calendar year or fraction thereof $ 100.00
(7) Scavenger 600.25 Each vehicle 1 year $ 30.00
Permit for opening cesspool or dumping
fee g
contents of each cesspool into City sewer $ 15.00
(8) Incinerator 600.01-600.23 1 year $ 30.00
(9) Tobacco 1146.01(MS 461.12) Retail Sale and Distribution - License issued on $ 250.00
calendar year (cigarette vending machines prohibited)
(Bill No. 1998-19)
(10) Soft drink 1145.01 (a) Cans, bottles from shelf or cooler, fountain service $ 25.00
(b) Vending machine dispensing bottles or cans -0-
(c) Other vending machines
Per year or fraction thereof $ 25.00
Per each additional machine $ 25.00
(11) Transient
Merchant 1181.01-1181.09 1 day $ 60.00
(12) Wagon
Peddler 1181 1 year $ 150.00
(13) Christmas
Tree Sales 1130.03 1 year $ 80.00
(14) Motel 1190 First Unit $ 140.00
Per year each additional unit $ 9.00
(15) Outdoor
Merchandising 1135 Permit $ 65.00
(16) Storage
Enclosure 1135 Per Enclosure $ 56.00
(17) Pawnbroker 1187 (a) Pawnbroker 1 year $2,500.00
(b) Owner investigation fee (nonrefundable) 1 year $1 ,500.00
(c) Manager investigation fee (nonrefundable) 1 year $ 500.00
(d) Employee investigation fee (nonrefundable) 1 year $ 50.00
(e) Transaction fee - per transaction $ 1.50
(18) Secondhand
Goods Dealer 1186 (a) Secondhand Goods Dealer I year $ 300.00
(b) Initial investigation fee (nonrefundable) $1 ,200.00
actual costs in excess of above with total
not exceeding
Applicant shall deposit $1200.00 with Licensing Clerk
along with application. Amount in excess of actual
application costs shall be refunded.
SECTION 8. COMMERCIAL BUSINESS AND TRADE LICENSES AND PERMITS (CONTINUED) /
(19) Auto Detailing 1195.01
Establishment 1 year $ 225.00
(20) Tattoo, Body Piercing, 630 (a) Tattoo, body piercing, body painting
Body Painting or Body or body branding 1 year $ 500.00
Branding (b) Initial investigation fee (nonrefundable) I year $1,500.00
(21) Temporary Tattoo,
Body Piercing, Body 630 per booth $ 30.00
Branding and Body
painting events
SECTION 9. LIOUOR AND RELATED LICENSE AND PERMIT FEES
TYPE OF PERMIT SECTION
OR LICENSE REQUIRING DESCRIPTION FEE
(1) Nonintoxicating
Malt Liquor 1210 (a) On-Sale 1 year $ 550.00
(b) Tavern (dance) 1 year $ 450.00
(c) Wholesale 1 year $ 21.00
(d) Off-Sale 1 year $ 160.00
(e) Club (Bottle Club) 1 year $ 365.00
(2) Liquor 1200.01-1200.25,
1200.29-1200.39 (a) On-Sale 1 year $11,200.00
1215 (b) Sunday (Fee set by state law) 1 year $ 200.00
1225 (c) Wine 1 year $ 800.00
1200.01-1200.25 (d) Veterans' Organization (Ex-Sunday) 1 year $ 520.00
1200.29-1200.39
(3) Employee License 1200.01-1200.25, Effective 10/1/95 all licenses issued shall be valid
On-Sale Liquor 1200.29-1200.39 for a period of two years from the date of initial
Establishments application $ 21.00
(4) Investigation 1200.01-1200.25, (a) On-Sale liquor including Veterans' Organization
Fee 1200.29-1200.39 each person shown on application $500.00 and
actual costs in excess of above.
Each additional investigation for each person not
listed on original or renewal application. $ 150.00
1225 (b) Wine - Original Application initial Fee $275,00 and
actual costs in excess of above
with total fee not to exceed $2,107.00
Renewal Application Initial Fee $62.00 and
actual costs in excess of above
with total cost not to exceed $2,107.00
1200.09 Additional Investigation under 1200.09 Subd. 3 $124.00 and
not to exceed $2,107.00
Investigation of substitute manager $ 62.00
SECTION 10 -MISCELLANEOUS FEES
TYPE OF PERMIT SECTION
OR LICENSE REQUIRING DESCRIPTION FEE
(1) Registration 1181 (a) State hawker or Peddler license
6 month/per person covered $ 30.00
(b) Canvasser or Solicitor
• 6 month/per person covered $ 30.00
(2) Permit to reside 1190 In motel for more than six months $ 15.00
I g_a?
SECTIC110 -MISCELLANEOUS FEES CONTINUED
(3) License for 405.25 (a) Apartment House (includes first 4 Units)
Apartment Houses each additional unit in excess of 4
and Rental Homes
(b) Rental Home - single family dwelling
TYPE OF PERMIT SECTION
OR LICENSE REQUIRING
fee remains unpaid.
(4) Certificate of 405.26
. Housing maintenance
or owner/occupied
Compliance
(5) Permit Fee for
1 year $ 60.00
$ 8.50
1 year $60.00
DESCRIPTION FEE
(c) Duplexes/double bungalows, triples and quads
First unit 1 year $60.00
Each additional rental unit 1 year $21.00
(d) Late Fee
10% penalty for each month or portion thereof
during which said
(e) License Transfer Fee
(f) Reinstatement of suspended license
50% of license fee
(g) Reinstatement of Revoked license
100% of license fee
(a)
portion of a 2-family home
. Rooming House 405.19
(6) Permit to Carry Mn Uniform Crime Bill (a) Processing Fee
a Gun Chapt 636 Article 3
(7) Seasonal Load
Limit Exemption
(8) Antenna 426
Commercial Wireless
Telecommunication Service
(CWTS)
40
(a) CWTS antenna permit application fee
(b) Antenna permit fee for additional antennas
added to an existing antenna location
Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield this 13th day of December, 1999.
ATTEST:
Thomas P. Ferber City Clerk
Martin J. Kirsch Mayor
$10.00
Single family home
$60.00
1 year $75.00
$10.00
Per load $20.00
$75.00
$25.00
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION RELATING TO THE 1999 GENERAL SERVICES N-3D
SALARY COMPENSATION PLAN
WHEREAS, the municipal code of the City of Richfield provides for the adoption of a pay plan for General Services
employees from time-to-time, and
WHEREAS, the City is to prepare a Comparable Worth Analysis at the end of selected calendar years; and
WHEREAS, the General Services pay plan contains female-dominated classes comparable to the male-
dominated, contracted labor units; and
WHEREAS, the City administration has prepared a pay plan for the last payroll period in 1999 for position
classifications for the General Services employees, designed to provide greater salary range equity between the female-
dominated and male-dominated employees; and
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council do and hereby does establish for the year 1999 the
following pay plan, which is to be effective December 5, 1999 and subject to all applicable provisions of the City Code:
GENERAL SERVICES COMPENSATION PLAN
STEP 1 2 3 4 5 6
RANGE
GS1 YR 22,276.80 23,608.00 24,939.20 26,270.40 27,830.40 28,683.20
MO 1,856.40 1,967.33 2,078.27 2,189.20 2,319.20 2,390.27
BW 856.80 908.00 959.20 1,010.40 1,070.40 1,103.20
HR 10.71 11.35 11.99 12.63 13.38 13.79
GS2 YR 24,544.00 25,812.80 27,060.80 28,454.40 29,868.80 31,387.20
MO 2,045.33 2,151.07 2,255.07 2,371.20 2,489.07 2,615.60
BW 944.00 992.80 1,040.80 1,094.40 1,148.80 1,207.20
HR 11.80 12.41 13.01 13.68 14.36 15.09
• GS3 YR 27,060.80 28,454.40 29,910.40 31,387.20 32,947.20 34,756.80
MO 2,255.07 2,371.20 2,492.53 2,615.60 2,745.60 2,896.40
BW 1,040.80 1,094.40 1,150.40 1,207.20 1,267.20 1,336.80
HR 13.01 13.68 14.38 15.09 15.84 16.71
GS4 YR 29,910.40 31,387.20 32,988.80 34,632.00 36,379.20 38,272.00
MO 2,492.53 2,615.60 2,749.07 2,886.00 3,031.60 3,189.33
BW 1,150.40 1,207.20 1,268.80 1,332.00 1,399.20 1,472.00
HR 14.38 15.09 15.86 16.65 17.49 18.40
GS4E YR 32,136.00 33,716.80 35,443.20 37,252.80 39,124.80 41,121.60
MO 2,678.00 2,809.73 2,953.60 3,104.40 3,260.40 3,426.80
BW 1,236.00 1,296.80 1,363.20 1,432.80 1,504.80 1,581.60
HR 15.45 16.21 17.04 17.91 18.81 19.77
GS5 YR 32,988.80 34,632.00 36,379.20 38,272.00 40,185.60 42,203.20
MO 2,749.07 2,886.00 3,031.60 3,189.33 3,348.80 3,516.93
BW 1,268.80 1,332.00 1,399.20 1,472.00 1,545.60 1,623.20
HR 15.86 16.65 17.49 18.40 19.32 20.29
GS5E YR 35,443.20 37,252.80 39,083.20 41,121.60 43,160.00 45,323.20
MO 2,953.60 3,104.40 3,256.93 3,426.80 3,596.67 3,776.93
BW 1,363.20 1,432.80 1,503.20 1,581.60 1,660.00 1,743.20
HR 17.04 17.91 18.79 19.77 20.75 21.79
GS6 YR 36,379.20 38,272.00 40,185.60 42,203.20 44,324.80 48,900.80
MO 3,031.60 3,189.33 3,348.80 3,516.93 3,693.73 4,075.07
BW 1,399.20 1,472.00 1,545.60 1,623.20 1,704.80 1,880.80
HR 17.49 18.40 19.32 20.29 21.31 23.51
GS6E YR 39,083.20 41,121.60 43,180.80 45,323.20 47,590.40 52,561.60
MO 3,256.93 3,426.80 3,598.40 3,776.93 3,965.87 4,380.13
BW 1,503.20 1,581.60 1,660.80 1,743.20 1,830.40 2,021.60
HR 18.79 19.77 20.76 21.79 22.88 25.27
144-31
Normal Progression Through General Services Compensation Plan
a. Step 1 - Start
b. Step 2 - One year from anniversary date.
c. Step 3 - One year since last increase.
If an employee is rated Needs Improvement, the employee may not advance to Step 3 until performance
is rated Satisfactory or higher.
d. Step 4 - One year since last increase.
If an employee is rated Needs Improvement, the employee may not advance to Step 4 until performance
is rated Satisfactory or higher.
e. Step 5 - One year since last increase.
An employee must achieve a Satisfactory rating or better in all areas of responsibility before advancing to
Step 5.
f. Step 6 - One year since last increase.
An employee must achieve a Satisfactory rating or better.in all areas of responsibility before advancing to
Step 6.
Employees whose competency level and/or performance are rated Unsatisfactory may not advance to the next step
until their performance improves.
Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this 13th day of December 1999.
Martin J. Kirsch
ATTEST:
.Thomas P. Ferber City Clerk
Mayor
r?
GENERAL SERVICES POSITION CLASSIFICATION STRUCTURE 114-32-
0
C?
GRADE POSITION TITLES CLASS
1 Clerk Typist Non-Exempt
Data Entry Operator Non-Exempt
Switchboard-Receptionist Npn-Exempt
2 Community Development Technician Non-Exempt
Community Service Officer Non-Exempt
Custodian Non-Exempt
Finance Clerk Non-Exempt
Lead Liquor Clerk Non-Exempt
Licensing Clerk Non-Exempt
Police Cadet Non-Exempt
Senior Clerk Typist Non-Exempt
Special Projects Aide Non-Exempt
Transportation Specialist Non-Exempt
3 Accounting Clerk Non-Exempt
Arena Operations Assistant Non-Exempt
Code Compliance Officer Non-Exempt
Community Development Technician II Non-Exempt
Health/Licensing Specialist Non-Exempt
Leased Housing Assistant Non-Exempt
Secretary Non-Exempt
4 Assessment Clerk Non-Exempt
Assistant Turf Supervisor Non-Exempt
Central Services Technician Non-Exempt
Data Processing Technician Non-Exempt
Housing Inspector I Non-Exempt
4E Administrative Aide Exempt
Associate Planner Exempt
Enterprise Facilitator Exempt
Payroll Accountant Exempt
Communications/Special Project Assistant Exempt
Records Supervisor Exempt
5 Assistant Building Superintendent Non-Exempt
Community Development Assistant Non-Exempt
Engineering Technician Non-Exempt
Housing Inspector II Non-Exempt
of
•
0
/033
(Rev. 7-99)
GRADE POSITION TITLES CLASS
5E Administrative Assistant Exempt
Assistant Golf Course Manager Exempt
Assistant Liquor Store Manager Exempt
Civilian Crime Prevention Specialist Exempt
Community Center Programmer Exempt
Community Development Accountant Exempt
Human Services Planner/Coordinator Exempt
Leased Housing Specialist Exempt
Motor Vehicle Licensing Supervisor Exempt
Naturalist Exempt
Planning and Research Specialist Exempt
Recreation Supervisor Exempt
Redevelopment Specialist Exempt
Rehabilitation Specialist Exempt
Youth Resource Specialist Exempt
Zoning Administrator Exempt
6 Building/Trade Inspector Non-Exempt
Programmer/Analyst Non-Exempt
6E Accountant Exempt
0
RESOLUTION NO. 1 '7" , 3
RESOLUTION RELATING TO THE 1999 SPECIALIZED PAY PLAN ///
WHEREAS, the municipal code of the City of Richfield provides for the adoption of a pay plan for
Specialized pay plan employees from time-to-time;
WHEREAS, the City is to prepare a Comparable Worth Analysis at the end of selected calendar
years; and
WHEREAS, the Specialized pay plan contains female-dominated classes comparable to the male-
dominated, contracted labor units; and
WHEREAS, the City administration has prepared a pay plan for the last payroll period in 1999 for
position classifications for the Specialized pay plan employees, designed to provide greater salary range
equity between the female-dominated and male-dominated employees; and
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council do and hereby does establish for
the year 1999 the following pay plan which is to be effective on December 5, 1999 and subject to the
provisions of the personnel rules and regulations ordinance:
SPECIALIZED PAY PLAN
INTERMITTENT AND SEASONAL
Pay Grade Step 1 Step 2 Step 3 Step 4 Step 5
SP1-E/NE HR 5.39 5.67 5.91 6.22
• SP2-E/NE HR 5.70 5.96 6.25 6.55 6.87
SP3-E/NE HR 6.15 6.43 6.76 7.09 7.44
SP4-E/NE HR 6.62 6.94 7.30 7.65 8.05
SP5-E/NE HR 7.14 7.48 7.88 8.26 8.68
SP6-E/N E HR 7.73 8.13 8.52 8.92 9.38
SP7-E/N E HR 8.36 8.73 9.18 9.64 10.12
SP8-E/NE HR 9.02 9.45 9.92 10.42 10.92
SP9-E/NE HR 9.70 10.18 10.72 11.24 11.80
SP10-E/NE HR 10.50 11.04 11.58 12.17 12.78
SP11-E/NE HR 11.34 11.87 12.50 13.13 13.76
SP12-E/NE HR 12.22 12.85 13.48 14.15 14.87
SP13-E/NE HR 13.12 13.78 14.52 15.27 16.06
Instructor's Range: $5.15-$50
Election Judge: $6
Election Assistant. Chair Person: $6.50
Election Chairperson: $7
q -35-
Normal Progression Through the Specialized Pay Plan
Individual employees will be eligible to received increases to the next higher grade step based on
individual performance and the following progression:
a. Step 1 - Start
b. Step 2 - One year from anniversary date
c. Step 3 - One year from last increase
d. Step 4 - One year from last increase
e. Step 5 - One year from last increase
Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this 13th day of December, 1999.
Martin J. Kirsch Mayor
ATTEST:
Thomas P. Ferber City Clerk
0
1 E Driving Range I E Concession Supervisor - Pool
E Pool Attendant E Pool Night Watch
E Student Intern 8 NE Adaptive Coordinator
NONE NE Administrative Services Clerk
NE Bike Patrol Officer NE Clerk Typist - Int. & Substitute
NE Concession I (all sites EXCEPT Pool, NE Construction Inspector
Vet's & Taft) NE Farmers Market Coordinator
NE Range Picker NE Publication Supervisor
NE Scorer/Timer E Golf Course Technician I
NE Recreation Attendant I E Tennis Coordinator
E Concession I (Pool, Vet's & Taft only) E Winter Golf Course Technician
E Facility Rental Attendant 9 NE Community Development Tech.
4 NE Arena Attendant E Golf Course Technician II
NE Dance Coordinator & Skate E Special Facilities Coordinator
Coordinator 10 NE Athletic Coordinator
NE Recreation Attendant II (Men's Open NE Engineering Aide
Gym & Sports Attendant) E Pool Supervisor
E Concession II E Clubhouse Coordinator
E Facility Cashier E Playground Coordinator
E Mini Golf Attendant 11 NE Community Relations Coordinator
E Pool Night Watch 12 NONE
E Ranger 13 NE 911 Dispatcher
E Recreation Attendant II (Parks Water
Slide Attendant) Instructors
5 NE Adaptive Assistant NE Building Inspector
NE Custodian NE Figure Skating
10 NE
NE Professional Intern
Substitute Van Driver NE
NE Hockey (Arena)
Housing & Redevelopment Tech.
NE Survey Crew Person NE Sports Official
NE Winter Sports Attendant NE Substitute Naturalist
E Driving Range II NE Dance
E Par-3/Driving Range Attendant E Cross Country Ski
E Starter E Golf Professional
E Warming House Attendant E Hockey (outside)
6 NE Adaptive Leader/Specialist E Tennis
NE Concession III (all sites EXCEPT Pool) E WSI
NE Pro Shop Attendant OTHER
NE Receptionist Election Judge $5.50
E Concession III (Pool only) Election Chair Person $5.75
E Golf Course Laborer Election Chairperson $6.25
E Lifeguard
E Outdoor Skating Supervisor
E Playground Leader
E Warming House Supervisor
E Mini Golf Supervisor
7 NE Accounting Clerk
NE Adaptive Program Supervisor
NE Concession Supervisor (all sites
EXCEPT Pool)
NE Construction Specialist
IN, NE Liquor Sales Associate
NE Maintenance Laborer
NE Naturalist I
NE Video Production Assistant
NE Zamboni Operator
NE=Non-Exempt, may work up to 40 hours per week
without overtime pay.
E-Exempt, may work up to 48 hours per week without
overtime pay.
All Pool positions are exempt from overtime, even Concessions.
All Golf positions, except Concessions/Pro Shop positions, are exempt.
All Playground and outdoor Rink positions are exempt.
All Community Center, Woodlake Nature Center, Ice Arena and
Maintenance positions are non-exempt.
(revised 7-99)
Re v; sed.
RESOLUTION NO. / T -37
RESOLUTION RELATING TO THE 2000 MANAGEMENT
SALARY COMPENSATION PLAN
WHEREAS, the municipal code of the City of Richfield provides for the adoption of a pay plan for
Management employees from time-to-time; and
WHEREAS, the City administration has prepared a 2000 pay plan for position classifications for
Management employees. The City Manager is authorized to add or reclassify positions as necessary. Examples
of positions in each pay grade are attached.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council do and hereby does establish for the year
2000 the following pay plan, which is to be effective January 2, 2000, the first full pay period in 2000 and subject
to all applicable provisions of the City.
MANAGEMENT COMPENSATION PLAN
PAY GRADE MINIMUM MID-RANGE MAXIMUM
M-NE - YR 36,712.00 43,929.60 51,417.60
MO 3,059.33 3,660.80 4,284.80
BW 1,412.00 1,689.60 1,977.60
HR 17.65 21.12 24.72
M-1 YR 39,665.60 47,507.20 55,494.40
MO 3,305.47 3,958.93 4,624.53
BW 1,525.60 1,827.20 2,134.40
HR 19.07 22.84 26.68
M-2 YR 44,803.20 53,601.60 62,608.00
MO 3,733.60 4,466.80 5,217.33
BW 1,723.20 2,061.60 2,408.00
HR 21.54 25.77 30.10
M-3 YR 51,084.80 61,172.80 71,739.20
MO 4,257.07 5,097.73 5,978.27
BW 1,964.80 2,352.80 2,759.20
HR 24.56 29.41 34.49
M-4 YR 56,971.20 68,120.00 79,726.40
MO 4,747.60 5,676.67 6,643.87
BW 2,191.20 2,620.00 3,066.40
HR 27.39 32.75 38.33
M-5 YR 66,102.40 79,019.20 92,206.40
MO 5,508.53 6,584.93 7,683.87
BW 2,542.40 3,039.20 3,546.40
HR 31.78 37.99 44.33
N-39
N
U)
O
= Z
CL 'r? n o
m ?M
ea
a?•`
?0 0 0
c )
c w o ?- cq
O O?
0,+ ,
0
i C
v0
` U) •^ ^ •? •?
-
m 3 V
<
o
E 0
W
CL m? >mmmm
C mL 0mcc
o 0-
++
? N w
o '3 W
C9
m _
a 0 z
c
E
CL
E c zq
0 .5 q to u)
?
m a) ?0
.. c C g IL
c o
E
> z, _
v?g?°• o
? 6 m Z U. + + ,
c (D N
0 z
Olot QQQQ
(D
m w ~ 0 O O O O N
ca
EC a; r
O
O
N c ??Mix
a
0 E
L %
F- is 0
O
•;; 0 c
c N m
H e o o E
:' L- ZLnOUl o
3 U 0IT C7? t
0 0 a o 0 o a
a m ca ??-co? -
?
0 C
N O ?e-
O
Z Cc U a/ Q Q Q Q
cn
o
C a C
C
E C
Z N m m m O
Mit wit Ix z
:o a
c ?
0
a
W
O 'D z
c
a'
Q a?
w ?z c
F-
E
N i ai
4-- 0
C c m. o.
a ?? E c
CL 0 a) U)
a) mm m a) c
ai
O
O
a?
.o
U
N
0
V
L
_M
N
L
O
0
U
O
c
N
L
U
N
L
v
c
0
U
_a
U
O
L
L
.a
O
a
L
2
L
U
12
Y
ca
Y
N
v
U
LL
w E
o
Q FL-
•
E
(Rev. 7-99)
MANAGEMENT POSITION CLASSIFICATION STRUCTURE
RANGE POSITION TITLES CLASS
M-NE Turf Supervisor Non-Exempt
M-1 City Clerk Exempt
Facility/Program Manager Exempt
Supervisor Exempt
Health Administrator Exempt
Liquor Store Manager Exempt
M-2 Asst. Fire Chief/Fire Marshal Exempt
Chief Building Official Exempt
Community Development Manager Exempt
Data Processing Manager Exempt
Engineering Supervisor Exempt
Housing & Redevelopment Manager Exempt
Superintendent Exempt
Transportation Engineer Exempt
M-3 Finance Manager Exempt
Human Resources Manager Exempt
Operations Coordinator Exempt
Utility Coordinator Exempt
M-4 Liquor Operations Director Exempt
Recreation Services Director Exempt
M-5 Department Director Exempt
lq-3V
•
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION RELATING TO THE 2000 GENERAL SERVICES
SALARY COMPENSATION PLAN
WHEREAS, the municipal code of the City of Richfield provides for the adoption of a pay plan for General Services
*employees from time-to-time, and
WHEREAS, the City administration has prepared a 2000 pay plan for position classifications for General Services
employees. The City Manager is authorized to add or reclassify positions as necessary. Examples of positions in each
pay grade are attached.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council do and hereby does establish for the year 2000 the
following pay plan, which is to be effective January 2, 2000, the first full pay period in 2000 and subject to all applicable
provisions of the City Code:
STEP GENERAL SERVICES COMPENSATION PLAN
1 2 3 4 5
6
RANGE
GS1 YR 22,942.40 24,315.20 25,688.00 27,060.80 28,662.40 29,536.00
MO 1,911.87 2,026.27 2,140.67 2,255.07 2,388.53 2,461.33
BW 882.40 935.20 988.00 1,040.80 1,102.40 1,136.00
HR 11.03 11.69 12.35 13.01 13.78 14.20
GS2 YR 25,272.00 26,582.40 27,872.00 29,307.20 30,763.20 32,323.20
MO 2,106.00 2,215.20 2,322.67 2,442.27 2,563.60 2,693.60
BW 972.00 1,022.40 1,072.00 1,127.20 1,183.20 1,243.20
HR 12.15 12.78 13.40 14.09 14.79 15.54
GS3 YR 27,872.00 29,307.20 30,804.80 32,323.20 33,945.60 35,796.80
MO 2,322.67 2,442.27 2,567.07 2,693.60 2,828.80 2,983.07
1 BW 1,072.00 1,127.20 1,184.80 1,243.20 1,305.60 1,376.80
HR 1.3.40 14.09 14.81 15.54 16.32 17.21
GS4 YR 30,804.80 32,323.20 33,987.20 35,672.00 37,460.80 39,416.00
MO 2,567.07 2,693.60 2,832.27 2,972.67 3,121.73 3,284.67
BW 1,184.80 1,243.20 1,307.20 1,372.00 1,440.80 1,516.00
HR 14.81 15.54 16.34 17.15 18.01 18.95
GS4E YR 33,092.80 34,736.00 36,504.00 38,376.00 40,289.60 42,348.80
MO 2,757.73 2,894.67 3,042.00 3,198.00 3,357.47 3,529.07
BW 1,272.80 1,336.00 1,404.00 1,476.00 1,549.60 1,628.80
HR 15.91 16.70 17.55 18.45 19.37 20.36
GS5 YR 33,987.20 35,672.00 37,460.80 39,416.00 41,392.00 43,472.00
MO 2,832.27 2,972.67 3,121.73 3,284.67 3,449.33 3,622.67
BW 1,307.20 1,372.00 1,440.80 1,516.00 1,592.00 1,672.00
HR 16.34 17.15 18.01 18.95 19.90 20.90
GS5E YR 36,504.00 38,376.00 40,248.00 42,348.80 44,449.60 46,675.20
MO 3,042.00 3,198.00 3,354.00 3,529.07 3,704.13 3,889.60
BW 1,404.00 1,476.00 1,548.00 1,628.80 1,709.60 1,795.20
HR 17.55 18.45 19.35 20.36 21.37 22.44
GS6 YR 37,460.80 39,416.00 41,392.00 43,472.00 45,656.00 50,377.60
MO 3,121.73 3,284.67 3,449.33 3,622.67 3,804.67 4,198.13
BW 1,440.80 1,516.00 1,592.00 1,672.00 1,756.00 1,937.60
HR 18.01 18.95 19.90 20.90 21.95 24.22
G36E YR 40,248.00 42,348.80 44,470.40 46,675.20 49,025.60 - 54,142.40
MO 3,354.00 3,529.07 3,705.87 3,889.60 4,085.47 4,511.87
BW 1,548.00 1,628.80 1,710.40 1,795.20 1,885.60 2,082.40
HR 19.35 20.36 21.38 22.44 23.57 26.03
14- t-)
Normal Progression Through General Services Compensation Plan
a. Step 1 - Start
b. Step 2 - One year from anniversary date.
c. Step 3 - One year since last increase.
If an employee is rated Needs Improvement, the employee may not advance to Step 3 until
performance is rated Satisfactory or higher.
d. Step 4 - One year since last increase.
If an employee is rated Needs Improvement, the employee may not advance to Step 4 until
performance is rated Satisfactory or higher.
e. Step 5 - One year since last increase.
An employee must achieve a Satisfactory rating or better in all areas of responsibility before
advancing to Step 5.
f. Step 6 - One year since last increase.
An employee must achieve a Satisfactory rating or better in all areas of responsibility before
advancing to Step 6.
Employees whose competency level and/or performance are rated Unsatisfactory may not advance to the
next step until their performance improves.
Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this 13th day of December 1999.
Martin J. Kirsch Mayor
ATTEST:
40 Thomas P. Ferber City Clerk
•
GENERAL SERVICES POSITION CLASSIFICATION STRUCTURE I' q- q2-
GRADE POSITION TITLES CLASS
1 Clerk Typist Non-Exempt
Data Entry Operator Non-Exempt
Switchboard-Receptionist Non-Exempt
2 Community Development Technician Non-Exempt
Community Service Officer Non-Exempt
Custodian Non-Exempt
Finance Clerk Non-Exempt
Lead Liquor Clerk Non-Exempt
Licensing Clerk Non-Exempt
Police Cadet Non-Exempt
Senior Clerk Typist Non-Exempt
Senior Clerk Typist/Investigative Clerk Non-Exempt
Special Projects Aide Non-Exempt
Transportation Specialist Non-Exempt
3 Accounting Clerk Non-Exempt
Arena Operations Assistant Non-Exempt
Code Compliance Officer Non-Exempt
Community Development Technician II Non-Exempt
Health/Licensing Specialist Non-Exempt
Leased Housing Assistant Non-Exempt
Secretary Non-Exempt
4 Assessment Clerk Non-Exempt
Assistant Turf Supervisor Non-Exempt
Central Services Technician Non-Exempt
Data Processing Technician Non-Exempt
Housing Inspector I Non-Exempt
4E Administrative Aide Exempt
Communications/Special Projects Assistant Exempt
Enterprise Facilitator Exempt
Payroll Accountant Exempt
Project Assistant Exempt
Records Supervisor Exempt
5 Assistant Building Superintendent Non-Exempt
Community Development Specialist Non-Exempt
Engineering Technician Non-Exempt
Housing Inspector II Non-Exempt
•
•
lq-q5
(Rev. 7-99)
GRADE POSITION TITLES CLASS
5E Administrative Assistant Exempt
Assistant Golf Course Manager Exempt
Assistant Liquor Store Manager Exempt
Civilian Crime Prevention Specialist Exempt
Community Center Programmer Exempt
Community Development Accountant Exempt
Human Services Planner/Coordinator Exempt
Leased -Housing Specialist Exempt
Motor Vehicle Licensing Supervisor Exempt
Naturalist Exempt
Planning and Research Specialist Exempt
Recreation Supervisor Exempt
Redevelopment Specialist Exempt
Rehabilitation Specialist Exempt
Youth Resource Specialist Exempt
Zoning Administrator Exempt
6 Electrical/Building Trade Inspector Non-Exempt
Programmer/Analyst Non-Exempt
6E Accountant Exempt
0
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION RELATING TO THE 2000 SPECIALIZED PAY PLAN
WHEREAS, Section 310.17 of the Ordinance Code of the City of Richfield provides that the pay
grades, the number of steps or range of each pay grade, the compensation rates in each pay grade and
the method of normal progression through the pay grade be established by Council resolution; and
WHEREAS, the City administration has prepared a 2000 pay plan for the positions for which there
are no essentially similar position classification in other regular pay plans. The City Manager is authorized
to add or reclassify positions as necessary. Examples of positions in each pay grade are attached.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council do and hereby does establish for
the year 2000 the following pay plan which is to be effective on January 2, 2000, the first full pay period in
2000, and subject to the provisions of the personnel rules and regulations ordinance:
SPECIALIZED PAY PLAN
INTERMITTENT AND SEASONAL
? 01
Pay Grade Step 1 Step 2 Step 3 Step 4 Step 5
SP1-E/NE HR 5.55 5.84 6.09 6.41
SP2-E/N E HR 5.87 6.14 6.44 6.75 7.08
SP3-E/NE HR 6.33 6.62 6.96 7.30 7.66
SP4-E/N E HR 6.82 7.15 7.52 7.88 8.29
SP5-E/NE HR 7.35 7.70 8.12 8.51 8.94
S P6-E/N E HR 7.96 8.37 8.78 9.19 9.66
SP7-E/NE HR 8.61 8.99 9.46 9.93 10.42
SP8-E/NE HR 9.29 9.73 10.22 10.73 11.25
SP9-E/NE HR 9.99 10.49 11.04 11.58 12.15
SP10-E/NE HR 10.82 11.37 11.93 12.54 13.16
SP11-E/NE HR 11.68 12.23 12.88 13.52 14.17
SP12-E/NE HR 12.59 13.24 13.88 14.57 15.32
SP13-E/NE HR 13.51
Instructor's Range: $5.15 - $50
40 Election Judge: $7.25
Election Assistant Chair Person: $7.50
Election Chairperson: $8
14.19 14.96 15.73 16.54
H-45 Normal Progression Through the Specialized Pay Plan
Individual employees will be eligible to received increases to the next higher-grade step based on
individual performance and the following progression:
a. Step 1 - Start
b. Step 2 - One year from anniversary date
c. Step 3 - One year from last increase
d. Step 4 - One year from last increase
e. Step 5 - One year from last increase
Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this 13th day of December,
December 1999.
Martin J. Kirsch Mayor
ATTEST:
Thomas P. Ferber City Clerk
•
I E Driving Range I E Pool Night Watch l `? cU
E Pool Attendant 8 NE Adaptive Coordinator
E Student Intern NE Administrative Services Clerk
2 NONE NE Clerk Typist - Int. & Substitute
?3 NE Bike Patrol Officer NE Construction Inspector
NE Concession I (all sites EXCEPT Pool, NE Farmers Market Coordinator
Vet's & Taft) NE Publication Supervisor
NE Range Picker E Maintenance/Golf Course Technician
NE Scorer/Timer E Tennis Coordinator
NE Recreation Attendant I E Winter Golf Course Technician
E Concession I (Pool, Vet's & Taft only) 9 NE Community Development Tech.
E Facility Rental Attendant E Golf Course Technician II
4 NE Arena Attendant E Special Facilities Coordinator
NE Dance Coordinator & Skate 10 NE Athletic Coordinator
Coordinator NE Engineering Aide
NE Recreation Attendant II (Men's Open E Pool Supervisor
Gym & Sports Attendant) E Clubhouse Coordinator
E Concession II E Playground Coordinator
E Facility Cashier 11 NE Community Relations Coordinator
E Mini Golf Attendant 12 NONE
E Ranger 13 NE 911 Dispatcher
E Recreation Attendant II (Parks Water
Slide Attendant) Instructors
5 NE Adaptive Assistant NE Building Inspector
NE Custodian NE Figure Skating
NE Professional Intern NE Hockey (Arena)
NE
NE Substitute Van Driver
Survey Crew Person NE
NE Housing & Redevelopment Tech.
Sports Official
NE Winter Sports Attendant NE Substitute Naturalist
E Driving Range II NE Dance
E Par-3/Driving Range Attendant E Cross Country Ski
E Starter E Golf Professional
E Warming House Attendant E Hockey (outside)
6 NE Adaptive Leader/Specialist E Tennis
NE Concession III (all sites EXCEPT Pool) E WSI
NE Pro Shop Attendant OTHER
NE Receptionist Election Judge $7.25
E Concession III Election Chair Person $7.50
E Golf Course Laborer Election Chairperson $8
E Lifeguard
E Outdoor Skating Supervisor NE=Non-Exempt, may work up to 40 hours per
E Playground Leader week without overtime pay.
E Warming House Supervisor E-Exempt may work up to 48 hours per week
E Mini Golf Supervisor without overtime pay.
7 NE Accounting Clerk
g All Pool positions are exempt from overtime, even Concessions.
All Golf positio ns, except Concessions/Pro Shop positions, are
NE Adaptive Program Supervisor exempt.
NE Concession Supervisor (all sites All Playground and outdoor Rink positions are exempt.
EXCEPT Pool All Community
M
i Center, Wood Lake Nature Center, Ice Arena and
i
i
t
ntenance p
a os
ons are non-exemp
.
t
NE Construction Specialist (Revised 7-99)
NE Liquor Sales Associate
NE Maintenance Laborer
NE Naturalist I
NE Zamboni Operator
NE Video Production Assistant
E Concession Supervisor
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Council Letter No. 319
Agenda December 13, 1999
Issue Statement:
Resolution providing authorization to adjust the 1999 Revised General Fund Budget for
a portion of unspent year-end funds for airport mitigation expenditures.
Background:
The City Council has been previously made aware of the costs expended to manage
issues involved with the airport and its pending expansion and the affects on Richfield.
Expenditures for the year are expected to reach in excess of $1,000,000. As you are
aware, there has been no specific funding identified for these costs. Presently,
$275,000 has been set aside as part of the 1999 General Fund Revised Budget to help
fund a portion of these costs. The additional amount requested to be transferred, if
funds are available at year-end, is $850,000. This would bring total transfers to cover
airport expenditures to $1,125,000. If funds are not available, the costs will have to be
covered through accumulated fund balances.
Recommended Motion:
Adopt a resolution providing authority to adjust the 1999 Revised General Fund Budget
to use a portion of unspent year-end funds for airport expenditures.
. Basis of Recommendation:
1. It is likely that there will be surplus funding available in the 1999 Budget to provide
the needed funding.
2. The airport expenditures are costs of doing business the City has incurred and must
incur to protect the residents of the City.
Alternative Recommendation:
The City Council could decide to not make any adjustment in the 1999 Revised General
Fund Budget and seek alternative funding sources to pay for airport expenditures.
Discussion/Decision Mode:
If the City is to approve the use of the 1999 surplus funds for airport costs, December
13, 1999 would be the last opportunity to do so.
Respectfully submitted,
Sa >ntharduno
City Manager
0 SO:cak
l3-I
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING ADJUSTMENT OF
1999 REVISED GENERAL FUND BUDGET
•
WHEREAS, the year-end 1999 General Fund Budget year will likely end with
unspent budget authorizations and revenues in excess of budget estimates; and
WHEREAS, the City has incurred significant expenditures related to airport
mitigation in 1999 and funding is needed for these expenditures.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Manager is authorized to
take actions necessary to make adjustments to the 1999 Revised General Fund Budget
by utilizing up to $850,000 of unspent year-end funds for airport expenditures.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that expenditures contained in this resolution are
authorized only to the extent that there are year-end unspent funds available.
Adopted by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this 13th day of
December, 1999.
Martin J. Kirsch, Mayor
ATTEST:
Thomas P. Ferber, City Clerk
0
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Council Letter No. 318 /
Agenda December 13, 1999
Issue Statement:
Consideration of first reading of ordinance relating to Council Member attendance at
Council meetings; amending Subsection 205.15 of Richfield City Code.
Background:
Subsection 205.15 of the Richfield City Code establishes an attendance policy for
Council Members. The policy requires attendance to be taken at every regular and
special meeting of the City Council and provides for the imposition of a monetary
penalty for unexcused absence from a Council meeting. The policy may be annually
invoked by resolution of the City Council. For 1999, that Resolution is No. 8669.
At the October 25, 1999 Council meeting, Council Member Sandahl raised a question
about the application of Resolution No. 8669 to Special Council meetings called when a
quorum or more of the Council may be present at community events and similar
functions. At the direction of the Council, the City Attorney reviewed the ordinance and
Resolution No. 8669 and is recommending that the Council consider amending the
ordinance and adopting a revised resolution. The proposed ordinance and resolution
are attached for the Council's consideration.
Subsection 205.15 requires that the attendance policy apply to all Regular and Special
Council meetings. The ordinance does not distinguish between Council meetings called
for the purpose of conducting City business and those called for purposes that are
ceremonial (such as ribbon cuttings) or informational (such as a League of Minnesota
Cities training session). The proposed ordinance would modify subsection 205.15 by
requiring that the attendance policy apply to all Regular Council meetings but only to
those Special Council meetings that the Council specifies in its annual resolution.
Under the current Resolution No. 8669, the requirement for taking attendance and
obtaining Council approval for an excused absence applies to all regular and special
meetings, but the monetary penalty is imposed only for unexcused absences from
regular meetings or special business meetings of the Council. The proposed resolution
would remove the requirement for taking attendance at special informational and
ceremonial Council meetings. The proposed resolution also clarifies that special
business meetings are intended to include special work study sessions and special
meetings called for the purpose of conducting public hearings (which otherwise might
be considered informational meetings).
The proposed ordinance and resolution also delete a provision that allowed notices of
special meetings to be mailed to the Council Member's voter registration address. The
City Attorney recommended removing that provision, because it is inconsistent with the
provisions of subsection 205.03 of the City Code, which requires personal service of
meeting notices. If the Council wants to allow that form of delivery of special meeting
notices, an amendment to subsection 205.03 would be appropriate.
The Council discussed the proposed ordinance and resolution at their November 22
Council meeting and scheduled the first reading of the ordinance for December 13. The
public hearing and second reading of the ordinance and approval of the resolution are
scheduled for January 10, 2000.
Recommended Motion:
Approve first reading of the proposed ordinance related to Council Member attendance
at Council meetings; amending Subsection 205.15 of the Richfield City Code, and
schedule the public hearing and second reading and approval of the attendance
resolution for January 10, 2000.
I2
Basi-/
s of Recommendation:
1. The Council has indicated that the present attendance policy should not be applied
to special meetings that are informational and ceremonial in nature.
40 2. The Council discussed the proposed ordinance and resolution at their November 22,
1999 Council meeting.
Alternative Recommendation:
Take no action on the proposed changes, and leave the current ordinance and
resolution unchanged.
Discussion/Decision Mode:
This matter is submitted to the City Council for discussion and approval.
Res Ily submitted,
City Manager
SO:cak
0
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE RELATING TO COUNCIL MEMBER ATTENDANCE
AT COUNCIL MEETINGS; AMENDING
SUBSECTION 205.15 OF THE RICHFIELD CITY CODE
THE CITY OF RICHFIELD ORDAINS:
Section 1. Subsection 205.15 of the Richfield City Code is amended to read as
follows:
205.15. Attendance at council meetings. Attendance of council members at
meetings is one of the most important duties imposed by law on members. Member
presence to participate in the hearings, deliberations and decisions of the council is
essential to the proper discharge of the member's official duties. Recognizing that it is not
always possible for a member to be present at all meetings, and that by reason of
business demands, state of health, personal problems, vacations and other matters
occasional absences are excusable, the following rules apply to absences of council
members from meetings when invoked by resolution of the council:
(a) such rules shall remain in effect until the end of the calendar
year during which the resolution is passed unless revoked prior to that time
by resolution of the council;
(b) unless excused by a majority of the city council, a member of
the council may not be absent from any regular or duly Galled speGia
meeting or from such
special meetings as the council may specify in the resolution;
(`+) R9tinee of speeial FneetffiRg + shall he deemed nrened
10 eddFessed if addFes ed to the • ddFess sho yin en the memher'S deter
registration,
i
{dUc for each unexcused absence from a regular or special
meeting of the council each council member&hatl may be penalized by a
fine of not to exceed $75, and the mayor may be penalized by a fine of an
amount not to exceed $100, but the resolution may specify a lesser penalty
for absence from a special meeting than a regular meeting;
Wfd) any member of the council desiring to be excused shall
insofar as possible give advance notice to the manager, stating (i) the
meeting at which the member will be absent, (ii) 4s the member's reason
for being absent and, (iii) the member's location during the meeting.
Sec. 2. This ordinance is effective in accordance with section 3.09 of the
Richfield City Charter.
Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield this day of
000.
Martin J. Kirsch, Mayor
ATTEST:
•
Thomas P. Ferber, City Clerk
RESOLUTION NO. /2--3
RESOLUTION REGARDING ATTENDANCE
BY COUNCIL MEMBERS AT COUNCIL MEETINGS
WHEREAS, the attendance of Council Members at meetings is one of the most
important duties imposed by law on members; and
WHEREAS, member presence to participate in hearings, deliberations and
decisions of the Council is essential to the proper discharge of the member's official
duties; and
WHEREAS, recognizing that it is not always possible for a member to be present
at all meetings and that by reason of business demands, state of health, personal
problems, vacations and other matters, occasional absences are excusable; and
WHEREAS, Subsection 205.15 of the Richfield City Code establishes rules for
attendance at City Council meetings that may be invoked by resolution of the Council.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City of Richfield, Minnesota that
the following rules apply to absences of Council Members from meetings during
calendar year 2000:
1. This resolution applies to all regular meetings of the Council, as defined in
Subsection 205.01 of the Richfield City Code. This resolution also applies to duly
called special business meetings of the Council. The resolution does not apply to
special informational or special ceremonial meetings. Special Council meetings are
those called pursuant to Subsection 205.03 of the Richfield City Code. For purposes
of this resolution, special meetings are further categorized as:
a) Special business meetings. Special business meetings include: Special
meetings called to conduct official business of the City where the Council
considers action requiring a vote of the City Council; special work study
meetings; and special meetings called for the purpose of conducting a
public hearing.
b) Special informational meetings. Special informational meetings are those
called for the City Council to receive information or to participate in
discussion but where no official action of the City Council is taken, except
that the term does not include special work study meetings or meetings
called for the purpose of conducting a public hearing.
c) Special ceremonial meetings. Special ceremonial meetings are those
called for ceremonial activities but where no official action of the City
Council is taken, including ribbon cuttings, community celebrations and
similar activities.
2. Any member of the Council desiring to be excused shall insofar as possible, give
advance notice to the City Manager stating i) the meeting at which the member
will be absent; ii) the member's reason for being absent; and iii) the member's
location during the meeting.
3. At the beginning of each regular or special business meeting, the Clerk shall call
the roll. If a member is absent, the City Manager shall report any communication
from the absent Council Member regarding the reason for absence. The Mayor
shall request the Council Members to determine whether the absence is
excusable or inexcusable.
4. For each unexcused absence from a regular or special business meeting, the
absent member shall be penalized by a fine of $25 and the Mayor, if absent, shall
12- ! be penalized by a fine of $50. The fine shall be automatically deducted from the
next Council Member payment unless otherwise directed by a majority of the City
Council Members present.
5. This resolution remains in effect until December 31, 2000 unless revoked prior to
that date by resolution of the City Council. This resolution supersedes
Resolution No. 8669.
Adopted by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this 10th day of January,
2000.
Martin J. Kirsch, Mayor
ATTEST:
Thomas P. Ferber, City Clerk
0
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Council Letter No.317
Agenda December 13, 1999
Issue Statement:
First reading and consideration of an ordinance to authorize construction of a
replacement golf course and set the public hearing and second reading for January 10,
2000.
Background:
During 1999, the City received official notice from the Metropolitan Airports Commission
(MAC) that Richfield's Rich Acres Golf Course operation must be terminated at the end
of the 1999 season. It further stated that the leased golf course property must be
turned back to the MAC on or before April 1, 2000.
In anticipation of losing the golf course facility, in 1998 the City began to work on
options for replacing the lost recreation asset and revenues. The most promising
avenue appeared to be to enter into discussions with the Minneapolis Park and
Recreation Board for an opportunity to sub-lease or take over operations of the Fort
Snelling Golf Course. Minneapolis was interested in acquiring property in the Upper
Bluffs area, including the Polo Grounds, to construct an athletic fields complex. While
the Fort Snelling Golf Course was part of the entire "Upper Bluffs package,"
Minneapolis was agreeable to either letting Richfield attempt to acquire or sub-lease the
Fort Snelling Golf Course operation. Richfield could have then moved a portion of its
staff and equipment to the Fort Snelling Course for operation in the 2000 golf season.
Eventually, the City could have pursued acquisition and remodel of this course.
For nearly a year and one half, numerous discussions regarding the impact of airport
expansion and its effects upon Richfield, including recreation assets, were held with the
Minneapolis Park Board, MAC, the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (DNR),
the Veterans' Administration, the Metropolitan Council and a number of other pertinent
entities. During those discussions, it was always the City's goal and understanding that
Richfield would likely have the opportunity to take over operations of the Fort Snelling
Golf Course at some point in the near future.
Within the past few weeks, Richfield has become aware that adverse developments
affecting the Minneapolis Park Board and their acquisition of properties in the Upper
Bluffs area have influenced their decision to allow Richfield to contract for the operation
of the Fort Snelling Golf Course. It is staff's understanding that Minneapolis now
wishes to keep the Fort Snelling course.
Upon learning of Minneapolis' position, the City of Richfield immediately contacted the
DNR, which owns the Fort Snelling Golf Course and other major holdings in the Upper
Bluffs area, to see where lease negotiations between the Minneapolis Park Board and
the DNR stand with respect to that area. The DNR informed City staff that the DNR
11-1
would soon be sending a letter out to Richfield, as well as a number of other interested
parties, informing them that the DNR would be accepting proposals for the entire Upper
Bluffs area and sub-parcels of the project. That means that Richfield could submit a
proposal for the Fort Snelling Golf Course. The proposal could be further strengthened
by teaming with a developer who could submit a proposal to redevelop a portion of the
officers' buildings adjacent to the Golf Course site. The DNR estimates that it will
accept proposals until sometime in late January 2000.
This change in the DNB's perspective, with respect to the Upper Bluffs property,
represents a one-time opportunity for Richfield to replace the loss of the City's valuable
recreational asset at Rich Acres Golf Course. Unfortunately, it leaves little time to react
and prepare a proposal.
It has been estimated that it would cost approximately $2.5 million to build a nine hole
public course at the Fort Snelling course site complete with club house, driving range
and potential teaching facility. A course concept design by David A. Kirscht Associates,
Inc., previously authorized by the City Council early in 1999, shows the feasibility of
such a project.
The funding for the facility would likely come from a combination of sources. Staff
currently estimates that just over $640,000 is owed to the City by the MAC for the
undepreciated capital assets at Rich Acres Golf Course. Additional funds might be
• secured through a recreational facility revenue bond issue, which would be repaid from
future course revenues. However, if the City acquired the course, staff might make
minor improvements the first season or two and build the more significant
improvements later.
In order to move forward with this process, while being sensitive to compliance with the
letter and spirit of the City Charter, this issue is being brought to the City Council for
ordinance consideration at this time.
Recommended Motion:
Approve first reading of an ordinance to authorize construction of a replacement golf
course facility and set the public hearing and second reading for January 10, 2000.
Basis of Recommendation:
1. The City is losing Rich Acres Golf Course at the end of the 1999 season because of
airport expansion.
2. Rich Acres Golf Course has been an extremely valuable community recreation
asset and revenue source for other recreation facilities.
3. An opportunity to sub-lease the Fort Snelling Golf Course from Minneapolis for
• 2000 and beyond now appears impossible.
//-Z
4. The DNR has informed Richfield staff that it intends to accept proposals for the
development of parcels of the Upper Bluffs area sometime in the next several
weeks.
5. This opportunity to submit a proposal for the Fort Snelling Golf Course may
represent the last one for the reasonable future, as the DNR may be looking at a 30
year lease for the site.
Alternative Recommendation:
1. The Council may decide to delay first reading in order to provide additional
information. If this option is chosen, the Council should identify the specific
additional information requested.
2. The Council may decide to not approve first reading.
Discussion/Decision Mode:
This matter is being presented at the December 13, 1999 Council meeting for first
reading consideration in order to meet the City Charter requirements for publication and
public hearing before submitting a proposal to the DNR later in January 2000.
Ily submitted,
CJ
Ana urauno
anager
SO:cak
0
11-3
TRANSITORY ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE APPROVING A CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT
PROJECT PURSUANT TO RICHFIELD CITY CHARTER
SECTION 8.04
THE CITY OF RICHFIELD DOES ORDAIN:
Section 1. Background, findings.
1.01. Section 8.04 of the Richfield City Charter requires that any capital improvement on
City-owned property that has an estimated cost exceeding $500,000.00 or expenditures
for design or engineering costs exceeding $75,000.00 must be approved by ordinance
after a public hearing.
1.02. It is proposed that the City Council approve a capital improvement project on
property currently owned by the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources but that the
City would acquire.
1.03. The capital improvement project consists of improvement of the City owned
property with a 9-hole public golf course and related facilities, including without limitation a
driving range and clubhouse (the "Project").
1.04. The estimated construction cost of the capital improvement, excluding design and
engineering costs, is $2.5 million to $3.0 million. The design and engineering costs are
estimated at $ (left blank intentionally).
1.05. A public hearing was held on January 10, 2000 after due notice as required by
Section 8.05 of the Richfield City Charter.
1.06. For the reasons specified in the following sections, the Council finds and
determines that it is in the best interests of the City and its inhabitants that the Project be
approved.
1.07. As the result of airport expansion, the City has been forced to close the Rich Acres
Golf Course.
1.08. The Rich Acres Golf Course was the only golf course located within the City and
was an important recreational asset for the residents of Rich Acres and surrounding
communities. The Council finds it to be in the public interest to replace that recreational
asset.
1.09. The Rich Acres Golf Course generated significant revenue for the City. The
Council deems it to be in the public interest to replace that source of revenue.
It, q
Sec. 2. Approval; effective date.
2.01. The Project is approved, and planning, design and construction of the Project may
proceed according to the procedures required by law.
2.02. The purpose of this Ordinance is to comply with the requirements of Section 8.04 of
the Richfield City Charter. This Ordinance shall not be construed to require that the City
proceed with the Project; nor does it vest any rights in the Project to any individual or
entity. The City Council reserves the right to abandon the Project or to modify elements
of the Project, if the Council deems abandonment or modification to be in the public
interest.
2.03. This ordinance is effective 30 days following its publication.
Adopted this day of , 2000.
Martin J. Kirsch, Mayor
ATTEST:
Thomas P. Ferber, City Clerk
is
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA /
Council Letter No. 316
Agenda December 13, 1999
Issue Statement:
Public hearing and consideration of resolution on a final plat for Richfield Urban Village.
Background:
Richfield State Agency (RSA) is requesting approval of a final plat for the area
encompassed by the Woodlake Centre (formerly Urban Village) redevelopment project.
The area is bounded by 66th Street on the north, Pleasant Avenue on the east, 67th
Street on the south, and Lyndale Avenue on the west. The plat proposes to divide the
property into five separate lots and four outlots. RSA has developed Easements and
Declaration of Covenants and Restrictions that allow for cross access and shared use of
the parking ramp, the plaza area and the drive aisles and walk areas. Emergency
access is also reserved.
Recommended Motion:
Conduct a public hearing and adopt a resolution approving the final plat of Richfield
Urban Village with the following stipulations:
1. The developer shall prepare and record an instrument, satisfactory to the City
Attorney, that provides to the City an easement for emergency access purposes
over Outlots A, B, C and D.
2. The developer shall prepare and record an instrument, satisfactory to the City
Attorney, that provides for the construction of a firewall between the parking ramp
and the medical clinic at such time as Lots 2 and 3, block 1 are not held in common
ownership.
M Basis of Recommendation:
1. The Easements and Declaration of Covenants and Restrictions establish cross
access agreements to provide access to the parking ramp, plaza and access drives
for all uses and for emergency vehicles.
2. The necessary utility easements are established on the plat.
3. The City Attorney has reviewed the plat.
4. On January 11, 1999, the City Council approved a preliminary plat.
5. Notice of the public hearing was published in the Sun-Current.
Alternative Recommendation:
1. Approve the final plat with revisions.
2. Do not approve the final plat.
Discussion/Decision Mode:
A public hearing is scheduled for 7:00 p.m., Monday, December 13, 1999 in the Council
Chambers, Richfield City Hall, 6700 Portland Avenue.
Dntha fully submitted,
is Ordu
no
o
City Manager
SO:cak
RESOLUTION NO.
lo--l
RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING FINAL APPROVAL OF A SUBDIVISION FOR
RICHFIELD STATE AGENCY AND THE OAKS, LLC
WHEREAS, Richfield State Agency has requested final approval to combine
several tracts of land bounded by 66th Street on the north, Pleasant Avenue on the
east, 67th Street on the south and Lyndale Avenue on the west in the City of Richfield;
and
WHEREAS, the proposed subdivision is to be known as RICHFIELD URBAN
VILLAGE; and
WHEREAS, a public hearing on the proposed final plat of RICHFIELD URBAN
VILLAGE was held on December 13, 1999 at which all interested persons were given
the opportunity to be heard.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of
Richfield, as follows:
1. The proposed plat of RICHFIELD URBAN VILLAGE satisfies the
requirements of the City's subdivision ordinances.
2. Final approval is granted to Richfield State Agency and The Oaks, L.L.C.
for the plat of RICHFIELD URBAN VILLAGE, subject to the following
conditions:
a. The developer shall prepare and record an instrument, satisfactory to
the City Attorney, that provides to the City an easement for
emergency access purposes over Outlots A, B, C and D.
b. The developer shall `prepare and record an instrument, satisfactory to
the City Attorney, that provides for the construction of a firewall
between the parking ramp and the medical clinic at such time as Lots
2 and 3, block 1 are not held in common ownership.
Adopted by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this 13th day of
December, 1999.
Martin J. Kirsch, Mayor
ATTEST:
Thomas P. Ferber, City Clerk
0
•
r
•
2Z
?O
C? 1.4
ci C
W
C?
J
Z
Q
m
O
V
Bbl
=or?
rta
k? -°
e8•
i
i
Ile El
`El°lE S
V.2 sc-o e ms's Y
a
a
g=s
- '
'8
X °
d
°
°
a€
's.
-
fig. I I
x N
a 38EZ os Y ? _
I` -°x? °FaB B B $
o
ol g. f ?
o IFS - s s
°C
E? E is -
_ ° z ° °
2 °° 3- s E S i u u O R i u
26 C r _
_
C"?e
-- ZNC
- - e°
i ._ _
_ N Dv
3Y
c3 nc °w v - °c <oa
as
16 .:
yoeE
- pSA
,
18
pc3n ?= PE?w
^
°e Lu?
„?=E7C :°°
p5
n
n e
2 m
!
3u y
Tc .?Z Oo
uu
?a E
E D
cc
E
? J
a IT
E
a?
8$
?a
8-
P8
E?
ZE
co
c e
i`n U
°E
i'
E
Y
8
?- In
O
8
r
s
CIE
E .R
a;
y$E' _
i8
gE
S
°r 3
NU ?2
°E
rg
u
c
aNi ?
O
U ?
O N
N
Q 0
'O
C
v ?.
m
m
Q r
v N
r
m
0
v
1.
LO
?- -
A ?? -
R
99 f69- - e M .01.01.0N
-------------
ae ?
CV C
• I E?
LEI
Z Z
- I
V ::1
A
R
R
Y?
° W
Oi
W
.. s
o
.k
i ?o ,uy..maa
? amnr ?r?w
_
? .o e°aw?,e 4.avwn
u
3
y=M
all
A y ?Eo`o`o
?cec
u
c
V1
u
0
N
N
Q
C
0
0
U
t
0
it
N
Q)
Q)
t
V/
N
w
0
N
t
N
9
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Council Letter No. 315
Agenda December 13, 1999
Issue Statement:
Public hearing and second reading of an ordinance amendment rezoning properties to
be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan.
Background:
State law requires that cities' zoning ordinances be made consistent with their
Comprehensive Plans. In 1998, the Planning Commission reviewed the City's zoning
classifications and identified those parcels with zoning that are inconsistent with the
Comprehensive Plan. Of those parcels, the Commission determined that one category
of parcels, that in which the land use is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan but the
zoning is not, should be rezoned.
Attachment A identifies 13 properties to be rezoned so thatthe zoning is consistent with
the Comprehensive Plan. Attachment B is a current zoning map that highlights the
subject properties. Attachment C is a Comprehensive Plan map. All 13 properties are
currently zoned either C-2 (general commercial) or C-1 (neighborhood commercial). All
properties are currently guided in the Comprehensive Plan for multi- or single-family
residential, and all properties are used as either multi- or single-family residential.
40 The Planning Commission will begin the rezoning process for a second group of
properties in January.
Recommended Motion:
Conduct a public hearing and approve second reading of an ordinance amendment
rezoning property, as identified in Attachment A, to be consistent with the
Comprehensive Plan.
Basis of Recommendation:
1. The Planning Commission reviewed the parcels with zoning inconsistent with the
Comprehensive Plan and determined that those parcels where the land use is
consistent with the Comprehensive Plan but the zoning is not should be rezoned.
2. State law requires cities to bring their zoning ordinances into consistency with their
Comprehensive Plans. The Planning Commission has determined that rezoning the
subject parcels is an appropriate response to this requirement.
3. The use of these properties is currently consistent with the Comprehensive Plan.
Leaving the zoning as is would allow these properties to be redeveloped in a manner
that would be inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan.
4. The proposed zoning classifications are consistent with the present use of the
properties.
TA
5. The Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on the proposed rezonings on
August 24, 1999 and recommended unanimously to approve the rezonings.
6. Notice of the public hearing was published in the Sun-Current and mailed to owners
of the subject properties and to property owners and occupants within 350 feet of the
subject properties.
Alternative Recommendation:
1. Approve the amendment with changes.
2. Do not rezone the properties.
3. Return the rezoning proposal to the Planning Commission for further study.
Discussion/Decision Mode:
A public hearing is scheduled for 7:00 p.m., Monday, December 13, 1999 in the Council
Chambers, City Hall, 6700 Portland Avenue.
Respectfully submitted,
4m2a a Or uno
City Manager
SO:ds
Attachments
•
9-2
BILL NO.
AMENDMENT TO SECTION
OF THE ORDINANCE CODE OF THE
CITY OF RICHFIELD
THE CITY OF RICHFIELD DOES ORDAIN:
1.01 Appendix 1 of the zoning ordinance code of the City of Richfield, which describes
the boundaries of various zoning districts of the City, is hereby amended:
A. Section 2, Paragraph (7) is amended to read as follows:
(7) M-15 (SE corner. 70th and Nicollet) That area lying between the center line of
Nicollet Avenue and a line distant 93.5 feet west of the center line of First Avenue and
parallel thereto, and between the centerline of 70th Street and line distant 444&152 feet,
southerly and parallel thereto.
B. Section 2, Paragraph (10) is amended to read as follows:
(10) M-17 (W side of Chicago, 71st to 72nd) That area lying between the east line of
Block 1, Wallace's Sunnyside Acres Sixth Addition and the center line of Chicago
Avenue, and between the center lines of 74staT4-72nd Streets. and a line distant 140
• feet south and parallel to the center line of 71 st Street.
C. Section 2, Paragraph (11) is amended to read as follows:
(11) M 17- (F
Side Gf GhiGagp
N of 72Rd) That aFea 1
*R
betwee R the GeRteF lines 0
=
, y
q
D. Section 3, Paragraph (3) is amended to read as follows:
(3) M-9, 40 (NE corner, 66th and Vincent' et 11 of RiGhf eld GaFde"° excep +h°
morth 2-2-0feet thefeef false R.L.c Ne 1044) Lots B, C, D, and E of Registered Land
Survey No. 1018.
E. Section 3, Paragraph (35) is amended to read as follows:
(35) M-5 (surrounds "HUB" Center) The area lying between the center lines of the
Soo Lin Railway right-of-way and Nicollet
Avenue, and between the center line of 66th Street and the south line of
Rearrangement of Nicollet Homes Second Addition except that part of the above
described property described as follows:
0
q-3
A- That area lying between the center lines of the Soo Line Railway right-of-way and
Pillsbury Avenue, and between the center line of 65th Street and the south line of
Rearrangement of Nicollet Homes Second Addition.
B-
Beginning at the southeast corner of the Northwest Quarter of Section 27,
Township 28, Range 24, then north along the center line of said Section 27, a
distance of 685.9 feet to an extension of the south line of Tract C, R.L.S. 692,
then westerly along the extension of the south line of said Tract C 50 feet to the
southeast corner of said Tract C, then westerly 148 feet along the south line of
said Tract C to the southwesterly corner of Tract B, R.L.S. 692, then north 154.13
feet, then westerly to a point on the easterly line of Block 1, Richfield Plaza
Addition 48 feet south of the southeast corner of Lot 5, Block 7, Nicollet Homes
Second Addition, as measured at right angles to the south line of Nicollet Homes
Second Addition; then westerly 321.19 feet parallel to the north line of Block 1,
Richfield Plaza Addition, then southwesterly 181.21 feet along a tangential curve,
concave to the southeast, radius 230 feet central angle 45 degrees, 08 minutes,
32 seconds, then southwesterly 47.92 feet tangent to said curve, then
southwesterly 180.64 feet along a tangential curve concave to the northwest,
radius 230 feet, central angle 45 degrees, then westerly 244 feet to the east
right-of-way line of the Soo Line Railway, then south along said railroad right-of-
way line to a point 141.56 feet north of the center line of 66th Street, then east
and at right angles to the railroad right-of-way 282 feet, then south and at right
angels to the north right-of-way line of 66th Street 71.56 feet, then west and
parallel to the north right-of-way line of 66th Street 15 feet, then south and at
right angles to the north right-of-way line of 66th Street to the center line of 66th
Street, then east on said center line to the point of beginning.
F. Section 3, Paragraph (39) is amended to read as follows:
(39) M-5 (NW corner. 66th and Portland) That area lying between the center lines of
66th Street and a line distant 150 feet north and parallel to said center line. and
between the west right-of-way line of Portland Avenue and a line distant 125 feet
west and parallel to said right-of-way line, excluding public streets. Fifth and
G. Section 12, Paragraph (15) is amended to read as follows:
(15) M-5 (SF= nnrY°r 64th and Pleara„+Pleasant, E side, 64th to 65th) Lots 6 through
10, Block 5, Rearrangement of Nicollet Homes Second Addition and that area
between Pleasant and Pillsbury Avenues between 65th Street and the south line
of Rearrangement of Nicollet Homes Second Addition, except that area between
the west right-of-way line of Pillsbury Avenue and a line distant 122 feet west and
parallel to said right-of-way line, and between the south line of Rearrangement of
Nicollet Homes Second Addition and a line distant 65 feet south and parallel to
said south line.
H. Section 12, Paragraph (33) is amended to read as follows:
9- q
(33) M-17 (E side of Chicago, S-efbetween 71st and 72nd) That area lying between
Elliott Avenue and Chicago Avenue, and between Zubert's Elliott Avenue Addition and a
line parallel with and distant 70 feet north from the north line of Zubert's Elliott Avenue
Addition (Added, Bill No. 1993-17), and that area lying between the center lines of
Chicago Avenue and Block 12, Fallden's Third Addition and between the center lines of
Chicago Avenue and Block 4, Zubert's Elliot Avenue Addition, and between the center
line of 72nd Street and the north line of Zubert's Elliot Avenue Addition Block 4.
1. Section 12, Paragraph (37) is added to read as follows:
37) M-5 (NE corner of 66th and 5th Avenues) That area Ivina between the center
lines of Fifth and Portland Avenues and between the center line of 66th Street and the
south line of Block 1. Bauman-Wheelock Addition, except that area distant 150 feet
north and parallel to said center line, and between the west right-of-way line of Portland
Avenue and a line distant 125 feet west and parallel to said riaht-of-wav line. and
excluding public streets.
J. Section 12, Paragraph (38) is added to read as follows:
(38) M-17 (SW corner 71st and Chicago) That area lying between the east line of
Block 1, Wallace's Sunnyside Acres Sixth Addition and the center line of Chicago
Avenue and between the center line of 71st Street and a line distant 140 feet south and
parallel to said center line.
K. Section 13, Paragraph (16) is added to read as follows:
(16) M-9 (N side 66th at Upton) The west 1/2 of the south 1/2 of lot 12, Richfield
Gardens- and lot A of Registered Land Survey No. 1018.
2.01 This amendment constitutes a rezoning of the following property:
200 65th Street West, 212 65th Street West, 500 66th Street East, and 6437
Pleasant Avenue South from C-2 to MR-2; 2740 66th Street West from C-2 to
MR-3; 7100 Chicago Avenue South, 7115 Chicago Avenue South, 7121 Chicago
Avenue South, 7127 Chicago Avenue South, 7137 Chicago Avenue South, and
7145 Chicago Avenue South from C-1 to MR-2; 7009 Nicollet Avenue South from
C-1 to R; 6430 Pillsbury Avenue South from C-2 to R.
Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this 13th day of
December, 1999.
ATTEST:
Martin J. Kirsch, Mayor
Thomas P. Ferber, City Clerk
9-S
•
0
Q
Z
LLI
TC
i
U
H
"NEI
?.V
?N
a
..r
L
V
a
z
Z
O
N
3
W
Z
Z
g
CL
a
V
_ W
N
O
Z
g
0
Z
Z
O
N
W
0
D
Q
f`l N M (V (11 (V c1l N N N
U U U U U U U U U U U U U
W W W W W W N
x
F-
o
x
F-
x
H
?
M
F"
% Q
< Q
U Q
a
U Q
s
uU Q
<
U Q
Q
U
o ?•'
N
.?
a
a
C Cl O O O -- t` l` vi C% O t-
a ^
l l
C M M M
ell Cl V
l n
N t? t- .
r- .
l? .
.
l- t- t- c
?
Q
0
r,
?D
a
-? a
m
m c
?- al
aci m
c d
y??
O Me
ie 4) LL
a?
?w-
Q N N
C C
E 0 0
?p L L
C
eo?_=I
a
E
o
0
N
m
C E
d LL
E
r c
m
a.r-
y Q CO
Q- LIJ
J Q
Q'
Ol
C
N cm
7
O C
?a>oLa
S2 E
CC> O
wV 7?
E
E Oo
U =p•N E
N d E N LL
a`= =0 N
C C)-6 L-
N y N ?f C_
z _
N C?
UUM,'?
H
F
N
L
r
0
T
G4
C7
9
ri)
0
F+1
IL)
0U
m
C
N
E
-6
Q
any Jepao
any
KMI
any
?m
any uua
a
?a
CD C0
v t
?o
I rc
v Eapaa=
w oE??`??e??I?$?
-E E
8 ?-O1?L pu?B pp$E e sc5
r
a ';cr O7NrcK
ca" do,
DN 1
0
mi OEM
EDE
EM
EEB
Esw
19
E®
HE
a?
IM mgh
Him
02
8
r
e ?
IL
QZ
Y??1 I ? r
r t
a?
Z
I I any JBPGO cm ® m
mmmwm?m
ffE; SmffE
•rru:
,noon
a
a
.S•i
^f^•di?l
U
8ny
a ®®
EEEM
His
0 f2z
.?
a
ny a1epw(
U OF
/W
any
0
U
c
a?
E
cr3
Q
EER
71
9,2
® o ?= Y v
th j
3
®®
ESHEE
r®
82Z12??'`ZT?
d
e
az
F 'O®
uuu
t unu
Inn
?au?
nM...
•?
u
o?
N
Z
'? L L L
NC ('p O (^O
N l? I?
8
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Council Letter No. 314
Agenda December 13, 1999
Issue Statement:
Public hearing on the consideration of a resolution authorizing the issuance of up to
$20,000,000 of Senior Housing Revenue Bonds, Series 2000A and 20008.
Background:
On October 18, 1999 the Richfield Housing and Redevelopment Authority (HRA)
accepted the terms to a Contract for Private Redevelopment with Richfield Senior
Housing, Inc. for the redevelopment of a portion of the Lyndale Gateway area. The
Richfield Senior Housing development is planned for the east side of Lyndale Avenue
and the west side of Garfield Avenue between 76th and 77th Streets. This development
will include a 161 unit senior apartment complex with 38,000 sq. ft. of adjoining office
space.
Richfield Senior Housing has requested that the City of Richfield be the issuing body for
the bonds necessary in order to acquire the property and construct the development.
These bonds would be limited obligations of the City. The principal of the bonds and
the associated interest would be payable solely from the revenues pledged by Richfield
Senior Housing, Inc. According to the bond documents, the holder of the bonds shall
not ever have the right to compel any exercise of the taxing power of the City to pay the
fe bonds or interest, nor shall the bonds constitute a debt for the City. If approved, the
bonds are expected to close in early February.
Recommended Motion:
Conduct a public hearing and adopt a resolution authorizing the issuance of up to
$20,000,000 in Senior Housing and Revenue Bonds, Series 2000A and 2000B in
accordance with the attached bond documents.
Basis of Recommendation:
1. The HRA has entered into a Contract for Private Redevelopment with Richfield
Senior Housing, Inc. for the redevelopment of a portion of the Lyndale Gateway
area.
2. Richfield Senior Housing, Inc. has requested that the City be the issuer of the bonds
necessary in order to acquire the property and construct the development.
3. The bonds would be of limited obligations of the City and would be payable solely
from the revenues pledged by Richfield Senior Housing, Inc.
Alternative Recommendation:
1. Do not approve the issuance of the bonds, in which case the financing of the
development is unlikely.
0
2. Defer a decision on the issuance of bonds until the January 10, 2000 City Council
meeting, however, the bond underwriter would prefer to market the bonds prior to
this date which requires Council approval.
Discussion/Decision Mode:
Full bond documentation is available in the Community Development Department for
your review.
Ily submitted,
SamaTltha Orduno
City Manager
SO:cak
0
8-2-
RESOLUTION NO.
• RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING SALE OF
SENIOR HOUSING REVENUE BONDS
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota, is authorizing the
issuance, sale, and delivery of Senior Housing Revenue Bonds (Richfield Senior
Housing, Inc. Project), Series 2000A and 2000B, in the original aggregate principal
amount of up to $20,000,000 (the "Bonds"), which Bonds and the interest and any
premium thereon shall be payable solely from the revenues pledged pursuant to the
Indenture of Trust; approving the form of and authorizing the execution and delivery of
the Indenture of Trust, the Bond Purchase. Agreement, the Loan Agreement, the
Preliminary Official Statement and the Official Statement; approving the form of and
authorizing the execution and delivery of the Bonds; and providing for the security,
rights, and remedies of the holders of the Bonds; and
WHEREAS, the City of Richfield, Minnesota (the "Issuer"), is a home rule charter
city duly organized and existing under the Constitution and laws of the State of
Minnesota; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to the Constitution and laws of the State of Minnesota,
particularly Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 462C, as amended (the "Act"), the Issuer is
authorized to issue its revenue bonds or obligations in such principal amount as, in the
opinion of the Issuer, is necessary to provide sufficient funds for financing a
"development" as defined in the Act; and
WHEREAS, Richfield Senior Housing, Inc., a Minnesota nonprofit corporation
(the "Borrower") intends to acquire and construct a 130-unit senior housing facility and
an attached 31-unit assisted living facility in the City of Richfield (collectively, the
"Project"); and
WHEREAS, the Issuer proposes to finance the Project pursuant to the Act and
this Resolution by the issuance of the Bonds; and
WHEREAS, the Bonds will be issued under an Indenture of Trust, as hereinafter
defined, and a pledge and assignment of certain other revenues, all in accordance with
the terms of the Indenture of Trust, and the Bonds and the interest on the Bonds shall
be payable solely from the revenues pledged therefor and the Bonds shall not constitute
a debt of the Issuer within the meaning of any constitutional or statutory limitation, nor
shall the Bonds constitute nor give rise to a pecuniary liability of the Issuer or a charge
against its general credit or taxing powers and shall not constitute a charge, lien, or
encumbrance, legal or equitable, upon any property of the Issuer other than the Project;
and
WHEREAS, the Issuer on the date hereof has held a public hearing with respect
to the Chapter 462 Housing Program (the "Program") relating to the issuance of the
Bonds with respect to the Project in accordance with the requirements of the Act and
19 Section 147(f) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended;
S-3
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of
Richfield, Minnesota as follows:
1. The Program is hereby approved. For the purpose of financing the
Project, as well as the establishment of a reserve to secure the Bonds and the payment
of all other expenditures of the Issuer incident to and necessary or convenient to carry
out the purposes of the Project, there is hereby authorized the issuance, sale and
delivery of the Bonds in the original aggregate principal amount not to exceed
$20,000,000. The Bonds shall be in such principal amounts, shall be numbered, shall
be dated, shall mature within forty years of the date of issuance thereof, shall be subject
to redemption prior to maturity, and shall be in such form and have such other details
and provisions as are prescribed in the Indenture of Trust (the "Indenture"), between the
Issuer and U.S. Bank Trust National Association, as trustee (the "Trustee"),
substantially in the form now on file with the Issuer. The Bonds shall bear interest at the
rates established by the marketing of the Bonds; provided that the average weighted
interest rate on the Bonds shall not exceed eight percent per annum. Notwithstanding
the preceding, the Mayor may establish or change the maturity dates for the Bonds, the
principal amount of the Bonds maturing on any date of maturity, the principal amounts of
the Bonds subject to redemption, and the dates of redemption of the Bonds. The forms of
the Bonds included in the Indenture are approved in substantially the forms in the
Indenture, subject to such changes not inconsistent with this resolution and applicable law,
and subject to such changes that are approved by the Mayor. The issuance and delivery
of the Bonds shall be conclusive evidence that the Mayor has approved all provisions of
the Bonds as issued and any changes to the forms of the Bonds on file with the Issuer on
the date hereof.
2. The Bonds shall be special obligations of the Issuer payable solely from
the revenues, provided by the funds pledged pursuant to the Indenture. The Issuer
hereby authorizes and directs the Mayor and the City Manager of the Issuer to execute
and deliver the Indenture, and hereby authorizes and directs the execution of the Bonds
in accordance with the Indenture, and hereby provides that the Indenture shall provide
the forms and conditions, covenants, rights, obligations, duties, and agreements of the
bondholders, the Issuer, and the Trustee, as set forth therein.
All the provisions of the Indenture, when executed as authorized herein, shall be
deemed to be a part of this Resolution as fully and to the same extent as if incorporated
verbatim herein and shall be in full force and effect from the date of execution and
delivery of the Indenture. The Indenture shall be substantially in the form now on file
with the Issuer, with such necessary and appropriate variations, omissions, and
insertions as do not materially change the substance thereof, or as the Mayor, in the
Mayor's discretion, shall determine, and the execution thereof by the Mayor shall be
conclusive evidence of such determination.
3. The Mayor and City Manager of the Issuer are hereby authorized and
directed to execute and deliver the Loan Agreement (the "Loan Agreement") among the
Issuer and the Borrower, providing for the loan of the proceeds of the Bonds to the
Borrower. All of the provisions of the Loan Agreement, when executed and delivered as
authorized herein, shall be deemed to be a part of this Resolution as fully and to the
same extent as if incorporated verbatim herein and shall be in full force and effect from
the date of execution and delivery of the Loan Agreement. The Loan Agreement shall
be substantially in the form now on file with the Issuer with such variations, omissions,
and insertions as do not materially change the substance thereof, or as the Mayor, in
the Mayor's discretion, shall determine, and the execution thereof by the Mayor shall be
conclusive evidence of such determination.
4. The Mayor and City Manager are hereby authorized and directed to
execute the Bond Purchase Agreement, among the Issuer, Dougherty Summit
Securities LLC (the "Underwriter"), and the Borrower (the "Bond Purchase Agreement"),
relating to the Series 2000A Bonds. All of the provisions of the Bond Purchase
Agreement, when executed and delivered as authorized herein, shall be deemed to be
a part of this Resolution as fully and to the same extent as if incorporated verbatim
herein and shall be in full force and effect from the date of execution and delivery of the
Bond Purchase Agreement. The Bond Purchase Agreement shall be substantially in
the form now on file with the Issuer, with such necessary and appropriate variations.
omissions, and insertions as do not materially change the substance thereof, or as the
Mayor, in the Mayor's discretion, shall determine, and the execution thereof by the
Mayor shall be conclusive evidence of such determination.
5. The Trustee is hereby appointed the custodian of the funds and accounts
created under the Indenture and the paying agent and bond registrar with respect to the
Bonds.
6. The Mayor and City Manager are hereby authorized to execute and
deliver, on behalf of the Issuer such other certificates, instruments, and other
documents as are necessary, customary, or appropriate in connection with the
issuance, sale, and delivery of the Bonds, or are necessary to establish the validity or
enforceability of the Bonds, or are required by Bond Counsel to establish the validity or
enforceability of the Bonds or the exclusion from gross income of interest on the Bonds
for purposes of Federal and State of Minnesota income taxation (including a certificate
as to the status of the Bonds as "arbitrage bonds," an Information Return for Tax-
Exempt Private Activity Bonds Issues, Form 8038, UCC-1 financing statements, and an
assignment of mortgage to the Trustee).
7. The Issuer hereby consents to the distribution of the Preliminary Official
Statement, relating to the Bonds (the "Preliminary Official Statement"). The Issuer
hereby consents to the use by the Underwriter of the final Official Statement
substantially in the form of the Preliminary Official Statement described above (the
"Official Statement") in connection with the offer and sale of the Bonds. The Preliminary
Official Statement and the Official Statement are the sole materials consented to by the
Issuer for use in connection with the offer and sale of the Bonds. The Issuer has not
participated in the preparation of the Preliminary Official Statement or the Official
Statement and takes no responsibility for and makes no representation or warranty as
to the accuracy or completeness of such information.
8. All covenants, stipulations, obligations, and agreements of the Issuer
contained in this resolution and the aforementioned certificates, instruments, and
B-5
documents shall be deemed to be the covenants, stipulations, obligations, and
agreements of the Issuer to the full extent authorized or permitted by law, and all such
covenants, stipulations, obligations, and agreements shall be binding upon the Issuer.
No covenant, stipulation, obligation, or agreement herein contained or contained in the
aforementioned certificates, instruments, or documents.shall be deemed to be a
covenant, stipulation, obligation, or agreement of any member of the City Council of the
Issuer, or any officer, agent, or employee of the Issuer in that person's individual
capacity, and neither the City Council of the Issuer nor any officer or employee
executing the Bonds shall be liable personally on the Bonds or be subject to any
personal liability or accountability by reason of the issuance thereof.
No provision, covenant, or agreement contained in the aforementioned
certificates, instruments, or documents, or in the Bonds, or in any other document
related to the Bonds, and no obligation therein or herein imposed upon the Issuer or the
breach thereof, shall constitute or give rise to any pecuniary liability of the Issuer or any
charge upon its general credit or taxing powers. In making the agreements, provisions,
covenants, and representations set forth in such documents, the Issuer has not
obligated itself to pay or remit any funds or revenues, other than funds and revenues
derived from the Loan Agreement which are to be applied to the payment of the Bonds,
as provided therein and in the Indenture.
9. Except as herein otherwise expressly provided, nothing in this resolution
or in the aforementioned documents expressed or implied, is intended or shall be
construed to confer upon any person or firm or corporation, other than the Issuer or any
holder of the Bonds issued under the provisions of this resolution any right, remedy, or
claim, legal or equitable, under and by reason of this resolution or any provision hereof,
this resolution, the aforementioned documents and all of their provisions being intended
to be and being for the sole and exclusive benefit of the Issuer and any holder from time
to time of the Bonds issued under the provisions of this resolution.
10. In case any one or more of the provisions of this resolution, or of the
aforementioned documents, or of the Bonds issued hereunder shall for any reason be
held to be illegal or invalid, such illegality or invalidity shall not affect any other provision
of this resolution, or of the aforementioned documents, or of the Bonds, but this
resolution, the aforementioned documents, and the Bonds shall be construed and
endorsed as if such illegal or invalid provision had not been contained therein.
11. The Bonds, when executed and delivered, shall contain a recital that they
are issued pursuant to the Act, and such recital shall be conclusive evidence of the
validity of the Bonds and the regularity of the issuance thereof and that all acts,
conditions, and things required by the laws of the State of Minnesota relating to the
adoption of this resolution, to the issuance of the Bonds, and to the execution of the
aforementioned documents to happen, exist, and be performed precedent to and in the
enactment of this resolution, and precedent to issuance of the Bonds, and precedent to
the execution of the aforementioned documents have happened, exist, and have been
performed as so required by law.
0
8, ?
12. The officers of the Issuer and its attorneys, agents and employees are
hereby authorized to do all acts and things required of them by or in connection with this
resolution, the aforementioned certificates, instruments, or documents, and the Bonds
for the full, punctual, and complete performance of all the terms, covenants, and
agreements contained in the Bonds, the aforementioned certificates, instruments, and
documents, and this resolution. In the event that for any reason the Mayor is unable to
carry out the execution of any of the documents or other acts provided herein, the
Acting Mayor shall be authorized to act in the capacity of the Mayor and undertake such
execution or acts on behalf of the Issuer with full force and effect, which executions or
acts shall be valid and binding on the Issuer. If for any reason the City Manager of the
Issuer is unable to execute and deliver the documents referred to in this resolution, such
documents may be executed by any other officer of the Issuer, with the same force and
effect as if such documents were executed and delivered by the City Manager. If the
person whose signature appears on any of the foregoing certificates, instruments, or
documents as the Mayor or City Manager shall cease to be the Mayor or City Manager,
respectively, before the date of issuance of the Bonds such signature shall,
nevertheless, be valid and sufficient for all purposes.
13. This resolution shall be in full force and effect from and after its passage.
Adopted by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this 13th day of
December, 1999.
Martin J. Kirsch, Mayor
ATTEST:
Thomas P. Ferber, City Clerk
E
`7B
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Council Letter No. 313
Agenda December 13, 1999
Issue Statement:
Renewal of a pawnbroker and secondhand goods dealer license for Plaza Pawn, 6414
Nicollet Avenue, for year 2000.
Background:
On November 24, 1999, the City received the application and other required documents
for the pawnbroker and secondhand goods dealer license for Plaza Pawn. The
applicant has paid the required license fees.
The Public Safety background investigation has been completed and reveals the
following:
• Dorothy Krieger is the owner of this establishment. She has no known criminal
record.
• Ms. Krieger no longer has a City firearms dealer's license.
• A copy of the Articles of Incorporation has been provided and is on file with the City.
• The $1,500 bond will be provided as soon as possible.
is There were four Public Safety contacts with Plaza Pawn from November 1998 through
October 1999. This compares with three contacts for the previous year. A breakdown
of these contacts is attached to this letter.
Environmental Health staff received one complaint in 1999 which involved graffiti.
Plaza Pawn was notified and no further complaints have been received.
The owner of the business continues to act in a cooperative manner with the Public
Safety Department on the recovery of stolen articles.
Recommended Motion:
Approve the renewal of a pawnbroker and secondhand goods dealer license for Plaza
Pawn for year 2000.
Basis of Recommendation:
1. The applicant has complied with all of the provisions of the City codes pertaining
to pawnbroker and secondhand goods dealer licensing.
2. Based upon the information supplied by the applicant and the investigation
conducted, there appears to be no reason to deny the issuance of the license
requested.
0
I e)- I
Alternative Recommendation:
1. The Council could decide to continue the hearing; however, if the hearing is
continued beyond January 1, 2000, the Council should consider the granting of
the temporary license to allow the applicant to continue their pawnbroker and
secondhand goods dealer business until the rescheduled hearing can be
conducted.
2. Their current license expires January 1, 2000; therefore, if the Council decides to
continue the hearing beyond December 13, 1999, any subsequent hearing should
be held before the license expires.
Discussion/Decision Mode:
Request for the renewal of Plaza Pawn's pawnbroker and secondhand goods dealer
license and the public hearing to consider the request is presented for Council approval
at this time.
Respectfully submitted,
Sa tha Orduno
City Manager
• SO:cak
0
1?48_2
PLAZA PAWN
PUBLIC SAFETY CONTACTS
November 1998 - October 1999
1998 1999
Total Contacts 3 4
Criminal Contacts 2 4
Incidents (Included in Criminal Contacts) (0) (3)
Alarm (2) (1)
Misc. Non-Criminal 1 0
Assists (1) (0)
Traffic (0) (0)
•
Inspections/Licensing (0) (0)
Medical/Fire (0) (0)
The criminal contacts from November 1998 to October 1999 were two threats, one
robbery alarm, and one property damage hit & run.
(Numbers in parenthesis are included in total contact figures)
PLAZA PAWN
Officers
1999
Dorothy Krieger Owner
Hal Krieger Manager
L?
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA -7)q
Council Letter No. 312
Agenda December 13, 1999
Issue Statement:
Issuance of a pawnbroker and secondhand goods dealer license for Metro Pawn and
Gun, Inc., 7529 Lyndale Avenue, for year 2000.
Background:
On December 1, 1999, the City received the application and other required documents
for the pawnbroker and secondhand goods dealer license for Metro Pawn and Gun, Inc.
The applicant has paid the required license fees.
The Public Safety background investigation has been completed and reveals the
following:
• Mr. Mark Nichols is the owner of this establishment, James Thomas Blanche is the
General Manager and John Alan Kunst is the acting Manager. None of these
individuals has any known criminal record.
• Mr. Nichols owns Nichols Electronics located at 1511 South Fourth Street in
Minneapolis, MN.
• Mr. Nichols also owns, with his wife, Metro Pawn and Jewelry, 8820 Lyndale
Avenue, Bloomington, MN.
• Mr. Nichols holds a Federal Firearms License, U.S. Treasury Bureau of Tobacco,
Alcohol and Firearms, and has a City firearms dealer's license.
• A copy of the Articles of Incorporation has been provided and is on file with the City.
• The $1,500 bond will be submitted no later than December 31, 1999.
There were 13 Public Safety contacts with Metro Pawn and Gun, Inc. from November
1998 through October of 1999. This compares to 14 contacts for the previous year. A
breakdown of these contacts is attached to this letter.
Environmental Health staff has not received any complaints in 1999.
The owner of the business continues to act in a cooperative manner with the Public
Safety Department on the recovery of stolen articles.
Recommended Motion:
Approve the renewal of a pawnbroker and secondhand goods dealer license for Metro
Pawn and Gun, Inc., 7529 Lyndale Avenue, with the following stipulation:
1. That the $1,500 bond information is submitted no later than December 31, 1999.
0
I A, I
Basis of Recommendation:
1. The applicant has complied with all of the provisions of the City codes pertaining
to pawnbroker and secondhand goods dealer licensing with the exception of the
submittal of their bond information.
2. Based upon the information supplied by the applicant and the investigation
conducted, there appears to be no reason to deny the issuance of the license
requested.
Alternative Recommendation:
1. The Council could decide to continue the hearing; however, if the hearing is
continued beyond December 13, 1999, the Council should consider the granting
of the temporary license to allow the applicant to continue their pawnbroker and
secondhand goods dealer business until the rescheduled hearing can be
conducted.
Discussion/Decision Mode:
The public hearing to consider the request for the renewal of Metro Pawn and Gun,
Inc.'s pawnbroker and secondhand goods dealer license has been scheduled for
December 13, 1999. Their current license expires January 1, 2000; however, if the
Council decides to continue the hearing beyond December 13, 1999, any subsequent
hearing should be held before the license expires.
Ily submitted,
rduno
SO:cak
0
METRO PAWN & GUN
PUBLIC SAFETY CONTACTS
November 1998 - October 1999
1998 1999
Total Contacts 14 13
Criminal Contacts 11 10
Incidents (Included in Criminal Contacts) (4) (6)
Alarm (7) (4)
Misc. Non-Criminal 3 3
Assists (1) (1)
Traffic (0) (0)
Inspections/Licensing (2) (2)
Medical/Fire (0) (0)
The criminal contacts from November 1998 to October 1999 were two burglary alarms,
two suspicious persons, two robbery alarms, three suspicious activity, and one
business burglary in progress.
(Numbers in parenthesis are included in total contact figures)
METRO PAWN & GUN
Officers
2000
Mark Nichols Owner
James Thomas Blanche General Manager
John Alan Kunst Store Manager
•
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Council Letter No. iii
0 Agenda December 13, 1999
Issue Statement:
Renewal of on-sale wine and 3.2 percent malt liquor license for Subeck Incorporated,
d/b/a Ketsana's Thai Restaurant, 7545 Lyndale Avenue, for year 2000.
Background:
On November 8, 1999, the City received the renewal applications and other required
documents for the on-sale wine and 3.2 percent malt liquor licenses for Ketsana's Thai
Restaurant. The applicant has paid the required license fees.
The Public Safety background investigation has been completed and reveals the
following:
• The corporate structure of the organization remains unchanged. Scott Bechtel and
Ketsana Bechtel are the owners of the establishment. Ketsana Bechtel continues to
serve as the General Manager. Neither of these individuals has any known criminal
history.
• The building and property continue to be owned by JSB Corporation, and the lease
between the applicant and the landlord continues to be in effect with all payments
current.
i • All general real estate taxes, State sales and withholding taxes have been paid and
are current.
• The required proof of liquor liability insurance coverage has been received showing
General Star Indemnity Insurance Company as affording the required coverage.
• An accountant's statement has been prepared and submitted. This statement
covers the period from November 1998 through October 1999 and indicates that
food sales accounted for 97% of the total sales, while 3.2 percent malt liquor and on-
sale wine sales accounted for 3% of the total sales.
• There were five Public Safety contacts with Ketsana's Thai Restaurant from
November 1998 through October 1999. This compares to two contacts for the
previous year. A breakdown of these contacts is attached to this letter.
• Environmental Health staff received no complaints in 1999 regarding Ketsana's Thai
Restaurant.
• On-sale wine and 3.2 percent malt liquor licenses require owners of these
establishments to comply with Resolution No. 8714, which outlines discipline they
can expect if any ongoing problems occur. A copy of this resolution has been given
to the owner of the establishment.
• There are no distance stipulations requiring notification of neighbors of issuance or
renewal of on-sale wine or 3.2 percent malt liquor licenses.
• The Notice of Public Hearing was published in the Richfield Sun Current on
December 1, 1999.
w__ I
• On March 4, 1999, Ketsana's Thai Restaurant was cited for the sale of alcohol to
• underage youth. They were fined $500 and received a two-day suspension. On
July 16, 1999, Ketsana's Thai Restaurant was cited for the second time for the sale
of alcohol to underage youth. They were fined $1500 and received a five-day
suspension of their license.
Recommended Motion:
Approve the renewal of the on-sale wine and 3.2 percent malt liquor license for Subeck
Inc., d/b/a Ketsana's Thai Restaurant for year 2000 with the following stipulation:
1. That the requirements in Resolution No. 8714 are met.
Basis of Recommendation:
1. The applicant has complied with all of the provisions of both the City code and
State Statute pertaining to on-sale wine and 3.2 percent malt liquor licensing.
2. Based upon the information supplied by the applicant and the investigation
conducted by the Public Safety Department, there appears to be no reason to
deny the issuance of the license requested.
Alternative Recommendation:
1. The Council could decide to continue the hearing; however, if the hearing is
continued beyond January 1, 2000, the Council should consider the granting of a
license extension to allow the applicant to continue to sell on-sale wine and 3.2
percent malt liquor until the rescheduled hearing can be conducted.
2. The Council could decide to suspend or revoke the licenses. Any suspension or
revocation, must, according to State Statute 340A.415, be based upon a finding
that the licensee has failed to comply with an applicable statute, rule or ordinance
relating to alcoholic beverages. The Council must also note that no revocation or
suspension takes effect until the licensee has been afforded an opportunity for a
hearing under Sections 14.57 to 14.70 of the Administrative Procedure Act.
3. Their current licenses expire January 1, 2000. Therefore, if the Council decides to
continue the hearing beyond December 13, any subsequent hearing should be
held before the licenses expire.
Discussion/Decision Mode:
for the Renewal of Subeck Incorporated, d/b/a Ketsana's Thai Restaurant's on-sale
wine and 3.2 percent malt liquor licenses and the public hearing to consider the
requests are presented to the Council for approval at this time.
Resp ully submitted,
3ha Orduno
City Manager
SO:ds
U-2-
KETSANA'S THAI RESTAURANT
PUBLIC SAFETY CONTACTS
November 1998 - October 1999
TOTAL CONTACTS
CRIMINAL CONTACTS
Incidents (see bottom of page for specifics)
0
Alarm
MISC. NON-CRIMINAL
Assists
Traffic
Inspections/Licensing
Medical/Fire
1
(0)
(0)
1
(0)
(0)
(0)
(1)
1999
5
2
(2)
(0)
3
(0)
(0)
(2)
(1)
The criminal contacts from November 1998 through October 1999 were one threat and
one follow-up investigation.
KETSANA'S THAI RESTAURANT
Directors and Officers
Ketsana Bechtel Owner and Manager
Scott Bechtel Owner
1998
2
•
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Council Letter N0.310
Agenda December 13, 1999
Issue Statement:
Renewal of an on-sale wine and 3.2 percent malt liquor licenses for Kiang's Red
Pepper Inc., d/b/a Red Pepper Chinese Restaurant, 2902 West 66th Street, for year
2000.
Background:
On December 1, 1999 the City received the renewal applications and other required
documents for the on-sale wine and 3.2 percent malt liquor licenses for Red Pepper
Chinese Restaurant. The applicant has paid the required license fees.
The Public Safety background investigation has been completed and reveals the
following:
• The corporate structure of the organization remains unchanged. Ricky Kiang is
serving as President, Vice President, Secretary and Treasurer. Mr. Kiang continues
to serve as the General Manager of the restaurant. He has no known criminal
record.
• All general real estate taxes, state sales and withholding taxes have been paid and
are current.
• The lease between the applicant and the property owner, Carlson Real Estate
Company, continues to be in effect with all payments current.
• The required proof of liquor liability insurance and workers compensation coverage
has been received showing Farmers Insurance Group as affording the required
coverage.
• An accountant's statement has been prepared and submitted. This statement
covers the period from October 1998 through September 1999 and indicates that
food sales accounted for 98.7% of the total sales, while 3.2 percent malt liquor and
on-sale wine sales accounted for 1.3% of the total sales.
• There were five Public Safety contacts with Red Pepper from November 1998
through October 1999. This compares to three contacts for the previous year. A
breakdown of these contacts is attached to this letter.
• Environmental Health staff received no complaints in 1999.
• On-sale wine and 3.2 percent malt liquor licenses require owners of these
establishments to comply with Resolution No. 8714, which outlines discipline they
can expect if any ongoing problems occur. A copy of this resolution has been given
to the owner of the establishment.
• There are no distance requirements in which to notify neighbors of issuance or
renewal of on-sale wine or 3.2 malt liquor license.
• The Notice of Public Hearing was published in the Richfield Sun Current on
December 1, 1999.
Recommended Motion:
Approve the renewal of the on-sale wine and 3.2 percent malt liquor licenses for
Kiang's Red Pepper, Inc., d/b/a Red Pepper Chinese Restaurant, for year 2000, with
the following stipulation:
1. That the requirements in Resolution No. 8714 are met.
Basis of Recommendation:
1. The applicant has complied with all of the provisions of both City Codes and State
Statutes pertaining to on-sale wine and 3.2 percent malt liquor licenses.
2. Based upon the information supplied by the applicant and the investigation
conducted, there appears to be no reason to deny the license requested.
3. It appears that the licensee has not committed any violation relating to alcoholic
beverages and, therefore, it is recommended that the license not be revoked or
suspended.
Alternative Recommendation:
1. The Council could decide to continue the hearing; however, if the hearing is
continued beyond January 1, 2000, the Council should consider the granting of a
license extension to allow the applicant to continue to sell on-sale wine and 3.2
percent malt liquor until the rescheduled hearing can be conducted.
2. The Council could decide to suspend or revoke the license. Any suspension or
revocation must, according to Minnesota State Statute 340A.415, be based upon
a finding that the licensee has failed to comply with an applicable statute, rule or
ordinance relating to alcoholic beverages. The Council must also note that no
revocation or suspension takes effect until the licensee has been afforded an
opportunity for a hearing under Section 14.57 to 14.70 of the Administrative
Procedure Act.
3. Their current license expires January 1, 2000. Therefore, if the Council decides to
continue the hearing beyond December 13, any subsequent hearing should be
held before the licenses expire.
Discussion/Decision Mode:
Renewal of Kiang's Red Pepper, Inc., d/b/a Red Pepper Chinese Restaurant's on-sale
wine and 3.2 percent malt liquor licenses and the public hearing to consider the request
is presented for Council approval at this time.
Respe Ily submitted,
Sa ha Orduno
City Manager
SO:ds
6x-7-
RED PEPPER CHINESE RESTAURANT
PUBLIC SAFETY CONTACTS
November 1998 - October 1999
1998 1999
TOTAL CONTACTS 3 5
CRIMINAL CONTACTS 2 5
Incidents (see below for specifics) (0) (0)
Alarm (2) (5)
MISC. NON-CRIMINAL 1 0
Assists (0) (0)
Traffic (1) (0)
Inspections/Licensing (0) (0)
Medical/Fire (0) (0)
The criminal contacts from November 1998 to October 1999 were five burglary alarms.
(Numbers in parenthesis are included in total contact figures)
KIANG'S RED PEPPER RESTAURANT
Officer and Directors
Ricky Kiang President, Vice President and Treasurer
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA ? J-
W
Council Letter No. 309
Agenda December 13, 1999
Issue Statement:
Renewal of on-sale wine and 3.2 percent malt liquor licenses for Gin Ng Inc. d/b/a
Silver Spoon Restaurant, 6700 Penn Avenue, for year 2000.
Background:
On November 5, 1999, the City received the renewal applications and other required
documents for the on-sale wine and 3.2 percent malt liquor licenses for Silver Spoon
Restaurant. The applicant has paid the required license fees.
The Public Safety background investigation has been completed and reveals the
following:
• The corporate. structure of the organization remains unchanged from last year. Gin
Ng continues to serve as the General Manager of the restaurant and Oi Chi Lau as
the treasurer. Neither of these individuals has any known criminal record.
• The building and property continue to be owned by Kenneth Youngberg, and the
lease between the applicant and the landlord continues to be in effect with all
payments current.
• All general real estate taxes, state sales and withholding taxes have been paid and
are current.
• The applicant has supplied proof of liquor liability insurance coverage showing
Mount Vernon Insurance Company as affording the required coverage. Proof of
workers' compensation insurance coverage has also been supplied.
• Due to a robbery in October 1999, accounting records are not available. However,
the applicant has reported the yearly food and alcohol sales to the best of his ability.
Food sales accounted for 98.5% of the total sales, while 3.2 percent malt liquor and
on-sale wine sales accounted for 1.5% of the total sales.
• There were 10 Public Safety contacts with Silver Spoon Restaurant from November
1998 through October 1999, as compared to 11 contacts for the previous year. A
breakdown of these contacts is attached to this letter.
• Environmental Health staff received two complaints in 1999 regarding Silver Spoon
Restaurant. They were related to long grass and graffiti. Both issues were resolved
and no further complaints have been received by staff.
• On-sale wine and 3.2 percent malt liquor licenses require owners of these
establishments to comply with Resolution No. 8714, which outlines discipline they
can expect if any ongoing problems occur. A copy of this resolution has been given
to the owner of the establishment.
• There are no distance requirements in which to notify neighbors of the issuance or
renewal of on-sale wine or 3.2 percent malt liquor license.
(P_ -1
• The Notice of Public Hearing was published in the Richfield Sun Current on
December 1, 1999.
• On April 13, 1999, Silver Spoon Restaurant was cited for sale of alcohol to
underage youth. This was their first violation. They were fined $500 and received a
two-day suspension of their license.
Recommended Motion:
Approve the renewal of the on-sale wine and 3.2 percent malt liquor licenses for Gin
Ng, Inc., d/b/a Silver Spoon Restaurant for the year 2000, with the following stipulation:
1. That the requirements in Resolution No. 8714 are met.
Basis of Recommendation:
1. The applicant has complied with all of the provisions of both City Codes and State
Statutes pertaining to on-sale wine and 3.2 percent malt liquor licenses.
2. Based upon the information supplied by the applicant and the investigation
conducted, there appears to be no reason to deny the license requested.
Alternative Recommendation:
1. The Council could decide to continue the hearing; however, if the hearing is
continued beyond January 1, 2000, the Council should consider the granting of a
license extension to allow the applicant to continue to sell on-sale wine and 3.2
percent malt liquor until the rescheduled hearing can be conducted.
2. The Council could decide to suspend or revoke the licenses. Any suspension or
revocation must, according to State Statute 340A.415, be based upon a finding
that the licensee has failed to comply with an applicable statute, rule or ordinance
relating to alcoholic beverages. The Council must also note that no revocation or
suspension takes effect until the licensee has been afforded an opportunity for a
hearing under Sections 14.57 to 14.70 of the Administrative Procedure Act.
3. Their current licenses expire January 1, 2000. Therefore, if the Council decides to
continue the hearing beyond December 13, any subsequent hearing should be
held before the licenses expire.
Discussion/Decision Mode:
Request for the renewal of Gin Ng Inc., d/b/a Silver Spoon Restaurant's on-sale wine
and 3.2 percent malt liquor licenses and the public hearing to consider the request are
presented for Council approval at this time.
Res 5aal ly submitted,
or uno
• City Manager
SO:ds
6J,2-
•
0
SILVER SPOON RESTAURANT
PUBLIC SAFETY CONTACTS
November 1998 - October 1999
TOTAL CONTACTS
CRIMINAL CONTACT
Incidents (see below for specifics)
Alarm
MISC. NON-CRIMINAL
Assists
Traffic
Inspections/Licensing
Medical/Fire
1998 1999
11 10
9 6
(7) (6)
(0) (0)
2 4
(0) (0)
(2) (2)
(0) (1)
(0) (1)
The criminal contacts from November 1998 to October 1999 were one vandalism, one
theft delayed, one robbery just occurred, one robbery in progress, one malicious
mischief and one open door/window.
(Numbers in parenthesis are included in total contact figures)
SILVER SPOON RESTAURANT
Directors and Officers
Gin Ny President and General Manager
Oi Chi Lau Treasurer
0
61
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Council Letter No.308
46 Agenda December 13, 1999
Issue Statement:
Renewal of on-sale wine and 3.2 percent malt liquor license for The Frenchman's, 1400
East 66th Street, for year 2000.
Background:
On November 18, 1999 the City received the renewal applications and other required
documents for the on-sale wine and 3.2 percent malt liquor licenses for The Frenchman's.
The applicant has paid the required license fees.
The Public Safety background investigation has been completed and reveals the following:
• The corporate structure of the organization remains unchanged from last year. Mary
Blake continues serving as President, and Dean Blake is serving as Vice-President,
Secretary and Treasurer. Mary Blake will also continue serving as the General
Manager of the restaurant. Neither of these individuals has any known criminal record.
• A 10-year contract for deed with William and Joan Snyder continues to be in effect with
all payments current.
• All general real estate taxes, state sales and withholding taxes have been paid and are
current.
• The required proof of liquor liability insurance coverage and workers' compensation
insurance will be submitted as soon as possible.
• An account's statement has been prepared and submitted. This statement covers the
period from November 1998 through September 1999 and indicates that food sales
accounted for 52% of the total sales, while 3.2 percent malt liquor and on-sale wine
sales accounted for 48% of the total sales.
• There were 17 Public Safety contacts with the Frenchman's from November 1998
through October 1999 as compared to three contacts for the previous year. A
breakdown of these contacts is attached to this letter.
• Environmental Health staff received no complaints in 1999 regarding The
Frenchman's.
• On-sale wine and 3.2 percent malt liquor licenses require owners of these
establishments to comply with Resolution No. 8714, which outlines the discipline the
establishment can expect if any ongoing problems occur. A copy of this resolution has
been given to the owner of the establishment.
• There are no distance requirements in which to notify neighbors of the issuance or
renewal of on-sale wine or 3.2 percent malt liquor license.
• The Notice of Public Hearing was published in the Richfield Sun Current on December
1, 1999.
(01-'
• On July 16, 1999, The Frenchman's was cited for the sale of alcohol to underage
youth. This was their first violation. They were fined $500 and received a two-day
suspension of their license.
Recommended Motion:
Approve the renewal of the on-sale wine and 3.2 percent malt liquor licenses for The
Frenchman's, for year 2000, with the following stipulations:
1 That the requirements in Resolution No. 8714 are met.
2. That their liquor liability and workers' compensation insurance information is submitted
as soon as possible.
Basis of Recommendation:
1. The applicant has complied with all of the provisions of both City Codes and State
Statutes pertaining to a on-sale wine and 3.2 percent malt liquor license with the
exception of the submittal of their liquor liability and workers' compensation
insurance information.
2. Based upon the information supplied by the applicant and the investigation
conducted, there appears to be no reason to deny the license requested.
Alternative Recommendation:
1. The Council could decide to continue the hearing; however, if the hearing is
continued beyond January 1, 2000, the Council should consider the granting of a
license extension to allow the applicant to continue to sell on-sale wine and 3.2
percent malt liquor until the rescheduled hearing can be conducted.
2. The Council could decide to suspend or revoke the licenses. Any suspension or
revocation must, according to Minnesota State Statute 340A.415, be based upon a
finding that the licensee has failed to comply with an applicable statute, rule or
ordinance relating to alcoholic beverages. The Council must also note that no
revocation or suspension takes effect until the licensee has been afforded an
opportunity for a hearing under Sections 14.57 to 14.70 of the Administrative
Procedure Act.
3. Their current licenses expire January 1, 2000. Therefore, if the Council decides to
continue the hearing beyond December 13, any subsequent hearing should be held
before the licenses expire.
Discussion/Decision Mode:
Renewal of The Frenchman's on-sale wine and 3.2 percent malt liquor licenses and the
public hearing to consider the requests are presented for Council approval at this time.
Ma lly submitted,
Orduno
City Manager
SO:ds
b1_2
THE FRENCHMAN'S
PUBLIC SAFETY CONTACTS
November 1998 - October 1999
1998 1999
TOTAL CONTACTS 3 17
CRIMINAL CONTACTS 3 14
Incidents (see below for specifics) (2) (11)
Alarm (1) (3)
MISC. NON-CRIMINAL 0 3
Assists (0) (2)
Traffic (0) (0)
Inspections/Licensing (0) (1)
Medical/Fire (0) (0)
The criminal contacts from November 1998 to October 1999 were three burglary alarms,
one miscellaneous state violation, one vehicle theft just occurred, two theft delayed, one
suspicious activity, one threat, one disturbance, one drunkenness, one assault delayed,
one miscellaneous city violation, and one property damage accident.
(Numbers in parenthesis are included in total contact figures.)
FRENCHMAN'S
Directors and Officers
Mary Blake President & General Manager
Dean Blake Vice-President
1.J
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA (oJ4
Council Letter No.307
Agenda December 13, 1999
Issue Statement:
Renewal of on-sale wine and 3.2 percent malt liquor licenses for Thompson's Fireside
Pizza, Inc., d/b/a Fireside Pizza, 6736 Penn Avenue, for year 2000.
Background:
On October 25, 1999, the City received the renewal application and other required
documents for the on-sale wine and 3.2 percent malt liquor licenses for Thompson's
Fireside Pizza, Inc. The applicant has paid the required license fees.
The Public Safety background investigation has been completed and reveals the following:
• The corporate structure has remained the same as last year. Richard Bruce
Thompson continues to serve as President, and Richard Orville Thompson serves as
Vice-President. Michelle Thompson serves as Secretary and Treasurer. Richard
Bruce Thompson continues to serve as general manager of the restaurant. None of
these individuals has any known criminal record.
• Proof of liquor liability insurance, and workers' compensation will be provided as soon
as possible.
• All general sales, real estate and withholding taxes have been paid and are current.
• An accountant's statement has been prepared and submitted. This statement covers
the period from October 1998 through September 30, 1999 and indicates that food
sales accounted for 92.16% of the total sales, while liquor sales accounted for 7.84%
of the total sales.
• There were three Public Safety contacts with Thompson's Fireside Pizza, Inc. from
November 1998 through October 1999. This compares with five contacts for the
previous year. A breakdown of these contacts is attached to this letter.
• Environmental Health staff received no complaints regarding Thompson's Fireside
Pizza in 1999.
• On-sale wine and 3.2 percent malt liquor licenses require owners of these
establishments to comply with Resolution No. 8714, which outlines discipline they can
expect if any ongoing problems occur. A copy of this resolution has been given to the
owner of the establishment.
• There are no distance requirements in which to notify neighbors of the issuance or
renewal of on-sale wine and 3.2 percent malt liquor.
• The Notice of Public Hearing was published in the Richfield Sun Current on December
1, 1999.
Recommended Motion:
Approve the renewal of the on-sale wine and 3.2 percent malt liquor license for
Thompson's Fireside Pizza, Inc., d/b/a Fireside Pizza, for year 2000 with the following
stipulation:
1. That the requirements in Resolution No. 8714 are met.
2. That proof of liquor liability and workers' compensation insurance are submitted as
soon as possible.
Basis of Recommendation:
1. The applicant has complied with all of the provisions of both City Codes and State
Statutes pertaining to on-sale wine and 3.2 percent malt liquor licensing.
2. Based upon the information supplied by the applicant and the investigation
conducted, there appears to be no reason to deny the license requested.
Alternative Recommendation:
1. The Council could decide to continue the hearing; however, if the hearing is
continued beyond January 1, 2000, the Council should consider the granting of a
license extension to allow the applicant to continue to sell on-sale wine and 3.2
percent malt liquor until the rescheduled hearing can be conducted.
2. The Council could decide to suspend or revoke the licenses. Any suspension or
revocation must, according to Minnesota State Statute 340A.415, be based upon a
finding that the licensee has failed to comply with an applicable statute, rule or
ordinance relating to alcoholic beverages. The Council must also note that no
revocation or suspension takes effect until the licensee has been afforded an
OR opportunity for a hearing under Section 14.57 to 14.70 of the Administrative
Procedure Act.
It appears that the licensee has not committed any violation relating to alcoholic
beverages and, therefore, it is recommended that the license not be revoked or
suspended.
Discussion/Decision Mode:
The public hearing to consider the request for the renewal of Thompson's Fireside Pizza,
Inc., d/b/a Fireside Pizza's on-sale wine and 3.2 percent malt liquor licenses has been
scheduled for December 13, 1999. These licenses expire January 1, 2000. Therefore, if
the Council decides to continue the hearing beyond December 13, any subsequent
hearing should be held before the licenses expire.
Respec ly submitted,
S n Orduno
City Manager
SO:ds
0
&N z
THOMPSON'S FIRESIDE PIZZA
PUBLIC SAFETY CONTACTS
November 1998 - October 1999
1998 1999
TOTAL CONTACTS 5 3
CRIMINAL CONTACTS 5 2
Incidents (see below for specifics) (5) (2)
Alarm (0) (0)
MISC. NON-CRIMINAL 0 1
Assists (0) (1)
Traffic (0) (0)
Inspections/Licensing (0) (0)
is Medical/Fire (0) (0)
The criminal contacts from November 1998 to October 1999 were one suspicious person
and one disturbance.
(Numbers in parenthesis are included in total contact figures)
THOMPSON'S FIRESIDE PIZZA
Officer and Directors
Richard B. Thompson President
Richard O. Thompson Vice-President
Michelle Thompson Secretary and Treasurer
? 0
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA lC/
Council Letter No.306
0 Agenda December 13, 1999
Issue Statement:
Renewal of club on-sale and Sunday liquor licenses for Minneapolis-Richfield American
Legion Post 435, 6501 Portland Avenue, for year 2000.
Background:
On October 21, 1999, the City received the renewal applications and other required
documents for the club on-sale and Sunday liquor licenses for Minneapolis-Richfield
American Legion Post 435. The applicant has paid the required license fees.
The Public Safety background investigation has been completed and reveals the following:
• Don Southerton was elected as a new post officer in 1999. He will be serving as Vice-
President. Billy Stone continues to serve as President. A copy of the list of officers is
attached to this letter. Janet Gallas now serves as the club manager. None of these
individuals has any known criminal record.
• All general real estate taxes, state sales and withholding taxes have been paid and are
current.
• The property and building continue to be owned by the American Legion.
• The $10,000 bond will be submitted as soon as possible.
• The required proof of liquor liability and workers' compensation insurance coverage
has been submitted and shows CGU Insurance affording the coverage.
• An accountant's statement has been prepared and submitted. This statement covers
the period from October 1998 through September 1999 and indicates that food sales
accounted for 31 % of the total sales while liquor sales accounted for 69% of the total
sales.
• There were 48 Public Safety contacts with the American Legion from November 1998
through October 1999. This compares with 44 contacts for the previous year. A
breakdown of these contacts is attached to this letter.
• There were no environmental health complaints received during this time period.
• Club on-sale and Sunday liquor licenses require owners of these establishments to
comply with Resolution No. 8714, which outlines discipline they can expect if any
ongoing problems occur. A copy of this resolution has been given to the owner of the
establishment.
• There are no distance requirements in which to notify neighbors of the issuance or
renewal of a club on-sale and Sunday liquor license.
• The Notice of Public Hearing was published in the Richfield Sun Current on December
1, 1999.
• On July 16, 1999, the Richfield American Legion was cited for the sale of alcohol to
underage youth. This was their first violation. They were fined $500 and received a
two-day suspension of their license.
Cr e -I
Recommended Motion:
Approve the renewal of the club on=sale and Sunday liquor licenses for Minneapolis-
Richfield American Legion Post 435 for year 2000, with the following stipulations:
1. That the requirements in Resolution No. 8714 are met.
2. That the $10,000 bond is submitted as soon as possible.
Basis of Recommendation:
1. The applicant has complied with all of the provisions of both City Codes and State
statutes pertaining to club on-sale and Sunday liquor licensing with the exception of
the submittal of their $10,000 bond.
2. Based upon the information supplied by the applicant and the investigation
conducted, there appears to be no reason to deny the licenses requested.
Alternative Recommendation:
1. The Council could decide to continue the hearing; however, if the hearing is
continued beyond January 1, 2000, the Council should consider the granting of a
license extension to allow the applicant to continue to sell liquor until the rescheduled
hearing can be conducted.
2. The Council could decide to suspend or revoke the licenses. Any suspension or
revocation must, according to Minnesota State Statute 340A.415, be based upon a
finding that the licensee has failed to comply with an applicable statute, rule or
ordinance relating to alcoholic beverages. The Council must also note that no
revocation or suspension takes effect until the licensee has been afforded an
opportunity for a hearing under Section 14.57 to 14.70 of the Administrative
Procedure Act.
3. These licenses expire January 1, 2000. Therefore, if Council decides to continue the
hearing beyond December 13, any subsequent hearing should be held before the
licenses expire.
Discussion/Decision Mode:
Renewal of Minneapolis-Richfield American Legion Post 435 club on-sale and Sunday
liquor licenses and the public hearing to consider the requests are presented to the
Council for approval at this time.
ly submitted,
ama a Orduno
Ci anager
. SO:ds
6&-4
MPLS. - RICHFIELD AMERICAN LEGION POST 435
PUBLIC SAFETY CONTACTS
November 1998 - October 1999
1998 1999
TOTAL CONTACTS 44 48
CRIMINAL CONTACTS 33 37
Incidents (See below for specifics) (29) (27)
Alarm (4) (10)
MISC. NON-CRIMINAL 11 11
Assists (2) (1)
Traffic (3) (1)
Inspections/Licensing (0) (3)
Medical/Fire (6) (6)
The criminal contacts for November 1998 to October 1999 were one DWI, three
disturbances, three drunkenness, one assault just occured, three thefts, one theft no
pay, nine burglary alarms, one robbery alarm, two suspicious persons, one detox, one
welfare check, two follow-up investigations, one miscellaneous state violations, four
property damage hit and run, two parking violations, one found property and one
disorderly conduct.
(Numbers in parenthesis are included in total contact figures)
AMERICAN LEGION
Directors and Officers
2000
Billy Stone
Don Southerton
William Brey
Mervyn Becker
Janet Gallas
President
Vice-President
Secretary
Treasurer
Club Manager
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA CQI
Council Letter No. 305
Agenda December 13, 1999
Issue Statement:
Renewal of club on-sale and Sunday liquor licenses for Fred Babcock V.F.W. Post No.
5555, 6401 Lyndale Avenue, for year 2000.
Background:
On November 8, 1999, the City received the renewal applications and other required
documents for the club on-sale and Sunday liquor licenses for Fred Babcock V.F.W.
Post No. 5555. The applicant has paid the required fees.
The Public Safety background investigation has been completed and reveals the
following:
• The corporate structure of the organization has changed from last year. Thomas
Martin now serves as Commander, Leonard Bailey serves as Sr. Vice Commander;
Boyd Tate serves as Jr. Vice Commander and Thomas Goalen now serves as
Quartermaster. The on-premises manager is Kenneth Westman. None of these
individuals has any known criminal record. A current list of officers is attached.
• All general sales, real estate and withholding taxes have been paid and are current.
• The property is owned by Woodlake Plaza Partnership, c/o Michael Development.
The lease between the applicant and the landlord continues to be in effect with all
payments current.
• The $10,000 bond issued by Old Republic Surety Company has been submitted.
• The required proof of liquor liability insurance coverage has been received showing
Commercial Union Insurance as affording the required coverage. Proof of workers'
compensation insurance coverage has also been supplied.
• An accountant's statement is currently being prepared and will be submitted as soon
as possible.
• There were four Public Safety contacts with Fred Babcock V.F.W. Post No. 5555
from November 1998 through October 1999. This compares with 17 contacts for the
previous year. A breakdown of these contacts is attached to this letter.
• Environmental Health staff received no complaints regarding the V.F.W. in 1999.
• Club on-sale and Sunday liquor licenses require owners of these establishments to
comply with Resolution No. 8714, which outlines discipline they can expect if any
ongoing problems occur. A copy of this resolution has been given to the owner of
the establishment.
• There are no distance requirements in which to notify neighbors of the issuance or
renewal of a club on-sale and Sunday liquor license.
• The Notice of Public Hearing was published in the Richfield Sun Current on
December 1, 1999.
? FA
• On July 15, 1999, Fred Babcock VFW Post No. 5555 was cited for the sale of
alcohol to underage youth. This was their first violation. They were fined $500 and
received a two day suspension of their license.
Recommended Motion:
Approve the renewal of the 2000 club on-sale and Sunday liquor license for Fred
Babcock V.F.W. Post No. 5555 with the following stipulation:
1. That the requirements in Resolution No. 8714 are met.
Basis of Recommendation:
1. The applicant has complied with all of the provisions of both City Codes and State
Statutes pertaining to club on-sale and Sunday liquor licensing.
2. Based upon the information supplied by the applicant and the investigation
conducted, there appears to be no reason to deny the renewal of the licenses
requested.
Alternative Recommendation:
1. The Council could decide to continue the hearing; however, if the hearing is
continued beyond January 1, 2000, the Council should consider the granting of a
license extension to allow the applicant to continue to sell liquor until the
rescheduled hearing can be conducted.
is 2. The Council could decide to suspend or revoke the licenses. Any suspension or
revocation must, according to Minnesota State Statute 340A.415, be based upon
a finding that the licensee has failed to comply with an applicable statute rule or
ordinance relating to alcoholic beverages. The Council must also note that no
revocation or suspension takes effect until the licensee has been afforded an
opportunity for a hearing under Section 14.57 to 14.70 of the Administrative
Procedure Act.
Discussion/Decision Mode:
The public hearing to consider the requests for the renewal of Fred Babcock V.F.W.
Post No. 5555 club on-sale and Sunday liquor licenses has been scheduled for
December 13, 1999. These licenses expire January 1, 2000. Therefore, if the Council
decides to continue the hearing beyond December 13, any subsequent hearing should
be held before the licenses expire.
Respectfully submitted,
Samantha Orduno
City Manager
SO:ds
6Fz
FRED BABCOCK V.F.W. POST 5555
PUBLIC SAFETY CONTACTS
November 1998 - October 1999
1998 1999
TOTAL CONTACTS 17 4
CRIMINAL CONTACTS 8 4
Incidents (see bottom of page for specifics) (6) (4)
Alarm (2) (0)
MISC. NON-CRIMINAL 9 0
Assists (2) (0)
Traffic (0) (0)
Inspections/Licensing (1) (0)
Medical/Fire (6) (0)
The criminal contacts from November 1998 to October 1999 were one disturbance, one
mental case commitment, one theft delayed, and one parking violation.
(Numbers in parenthesis are included in total contact figures)
V.F.W.
1998 Post Officers
Thomas G. Martin Commander
Leonard W. Bailey Sr. Vice Commander
Boyd A. Tate Jr. Vice Commander
Thomas E. Goalen Quartermaster
Kenneth R. Westman Club Manager
0
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Council Letter No.304
Agenda December 13, 1999
Issue Statement:
Renewal of on-sale intoxicating and Sunday liquor licenses for The Ground Round of
Minnesota, Inc., d/b/a The Ground Round, 1500 East 78th Street, for year 2000.
Background:
On October 18, 1999, staff received the renewal applications for the on-sale intoxicating
and Sunday liquor licenses for the Ground Round. There was a recent merger of the
Parent Company, Ground Round Restaurants, Inc. with American Hospitality Concepts,
Inc.; however, Ground Round of Minnesota, Inc. is still the operating entity for the
restaurant and no changes occurred within that Corporation. All required fees have been
paid.
Public Safety's investigation is complete and reveals the following:
• The corporate structure of the organization remains unchanged. Mark Joseph Lawless
continues to serve as President and Treasurer, and Russell Clark Savrann continues to
serve as Vice-President and Secretary. Salvatore Joseph Lamarca continues to serve
as General Manager. None of these individuals has any known criminal record.
• All general sales, real estate and withholding taxes have been paid and are current.
Is • The lease with A.G. Bogan (property owner) is in effect and all payments are current.
• The $10,000 bond issued by American Manufacturers Mutual Insurance Company has
been submitted.
• The required proof of liquor liability insurance coverage has been received showing
Royal Indemnity Insurance Co. of America as affording the required coverage. Proof of
workers' compensation has also been received.
• A financial statement has been prepared and submitted. This statement covers the
period from November 1998 through October 1999 and indicates that food sales
accounted for 67% of the total sales, while liquor sales accounted for 33%0 of the total
sales.
• There were 25 Public Safety contacts with The Ground Round from October 1998
through October 1999. This compares with 36 contacts for the previous year. A
breakdown of these contacts is attached to this letter.
• Environmental Health staff received one complaint in 1999 regarding The Ground
Round. The complaint was a food-related problem. The Bloomington Health
Department was notified and there have been no further complaints received by staff.
• On-sale intoxicating and Sunday liquor licenses require owners of these establishments
to comply with Resolution No. 8714, which outlines the discipline the establishment can
expect if any ongoing problems occur. A copy of this resolution has been given to the
owner of the establishment.
• There are no distance requirements in which to notify neighbors of the issuance or
renewal of on-sale intoxicating and Sunday liquor licenses.
?A
The Notice of Public Hearing was published in the Richfield Sun Current on December
1, 1999.
• • On March 4, 1999, the Ground Round was cited for the sale of alcohol to underage
youth. This was their first violation. They were fined $500 and received a two day
suspension of their license.
Recommended Motion:
Approve the renewal of the on-sale intoxicating and Sunday liquor licenses for The Ground
Round of Minn. Inc., for year 2000 with the following stipulations:
1. That the requirements in Resolution No. 8714 are met.
Basis of Recommendation:
1. The applicant has complied with all of the provisions of both City Codes and State
Statutes pertaining to on-sale intoxicating and Sunday liquor licenses.
2. Based upon the information supplied by the applicant and the investigation conducted,
there appears to be no reason to deny the renewal of the licenses requested.
Alternative Recommendation:
1. The Council could decide to continue the hearing; however, if the hearing is continued
beyond January 1, 2000, the Council should consider the granting of a license
extension to allow the applicant to continue to sell liquor until the rescheduled hearing
• can be conducted.
2. The Council could decide to suspend or revoke the licenses. Any suspension or
revocation must, according to Minnesota State Statute 340A.415, be based upon a
finding that the licensee has failed to comply with an applicable statute rule or
ordinance relating to alcoholic beverages. The Council must also note that no
revocation or suspension takes effect until the licensee has been afforded an
opportunity for a hearing under Section 14.57 to 14.70 of the Administrative Procedure
Act.
3. These licenses expire January 1, 2000. Therefore, if the Council decides to continue
the hearing beyond December 13, any subsequent hearing should be held before the
licenses expire.
Discussion/Decision Mode:
Renewal of The Ground Round of Minn. Inc. on-sale intoxicating and Sunday liquor licenses
and the public hearing to consider the requests are presented to the Council for approval at
this time.
:5tha ully submitted,
Orduno
City Manager
SO:ds
bE-?_
GROUND ROUND OF MINNESOTA, INC.
.
PUBLIC SAFETY CONTACTS
November 1998 - October 1999
1998 1999
TOTAL CONTACTS 36 25
CRIMINAL CONTACTS 20 22
Incidents (see below for specifics) (16) (19)
Alarm (4) (3)
MISC. NON-CRIMINAL 16 3
Assists (4) (0)
Traffic (5) (2)
Inspections/Licensing (5) (1)
Medical/Fire (2) (0)
The criminal contacts from November 1998 to October 1999 were two theft no pay, one
vehicle theft, two burglary alarms, four theft delayed, two suspicious persons, one theft
just occurred, one suspicious vehicle, two drunkenness, three disturbances, one property
damage hit and run, one miscellaneous City ordinance violation, one warrant arrest, and
one fire alarm.
(Numbers in parenthesis are included in total contact figures.)
THE GROUND ROUND
Officers and Directors
Mark Lawless President & Treasurer
Russell Savrann Vice-President & Secretary
Salvatore Lamarca General Manager
C7
(ab
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Council Letter No. 303
Agenda December 13, 1999
Issue Statement:
Renewal of on-sale and Sunday liquor licenses for Paisan Incorporated d/b/a Khan's
Mongolian Barbeque, 500 East 78th Street, for year 2000.
Background:
On October 25, 1999, the City received the renewal applications and other required
documents for the on-sale and Sunday liquor licenses for Khan's Mongolian Barbeque.
The applicant has paid the required license fees.
The Public Safety background investigation has been completed and reveals the
following:
• The corporate structure of the organization remains unchanged from last year.
Mitchell Law continues to serve as the General Manager of the restaurant. Mitchell
Law and Sherri (Paisan) Law are sole owners of the restaurant. Neither of these
individuals has any known criminal record.
• The lease between the applicant and the property owner, Roy A. Bogen, is in effect
with all payments current.
• All general sales, real estate and withholding taxes have been paid and are current.
• The $10,000 bond has been received showing Old Republic Surety Company
affording the coverage.
• The required proof of liquor liability insurance and proof of workers' compensation
has been supplied and shows Great American Insurance Company affording the
coverage.
• An accountant's statement has been prepared and submitted. This statement
covers the period from October 1998 through September 1999 and indicates that
food sales accounted for 92.5% of the total sales, while liquor sales accounted for
7.1% of the total sales. (Gift certificates accounted for .4% of the total sales.)
• There were 7 Public Safety contacts with Khan's from November 1998 through
October 1999. This compares with 12 contacts for the previous year. A breakdown
of these contacts is attached to this letter.
• Environmental Health staff received no complaints in 1999.
• On-sale and Sunday liquor licenses require owners of these establishments to
comply with Resolution No. 8714, which outlines discipline they can expect if any
ongoing problems occur. A copy of this resolution has been given to the owner of
the establishment.
?. • There are no distance requirements in which to notify neighbors of the issuance or
renewal of on-sale and Sunday liquor license.
('0 p°1
• The Notice of Public Hearing was published in the Richfield Sun Current on
December 1, 1999.
• On July 16, 1999, Khan's Mongolian Barbeque was cited for the sale of alcohol to
underage youth. This was their first violation. They were fined $500 and received a
two-day suspension of their license.
Recommended Motion:
Approve the renewal of the on-sale and Sunday liquor license for Paisan Incorporated,
d/b/a Khan's Mongolian Barbeque for year 2000 with the following stipulations:
That the requirements in Resolution No. 8714 are met.
Basis of Recommendation:
1. Based upon the information supplied by the applicant and the investigation
conducted, there appears to be no reason to deny the license requested.
Alternative Recommendation:
1. The Council could decide to continue the hearing; however, if the hearing is
continued beyond January 1, 2000, the Council should consider the granting of a
license extension to allow the applicant to continue to sell liquor until the
rescheduled hearing can be conducted.
2. The Council could decide to suspend or revoke the licenses. Any suspension or
revocation must, according to Minnesota State Statute 340A.415, be based upon
a finding that the licensee has failed to comply with an applicable statute, rule or
ordinance relating to alcoholic beverages. The Council must also note that no
revocation or suspension takes effect until the licensee has been afforded an
opportunity for a hearing under Section 14.57 to 14.70 of the Administrative
Procedure Act.
3. These licenses will expire January 1, 2000. Therefore, if the Council decides to
continue the hearing beyond December 13, any subsequent hearing should be
held before the licenses expire.
Discussion/Decision Mode:
Renewal of Paisan Incorporated, d/b/a Khan's Mongolian Barbeque on-sale and
Sunday liquor licenses and the public hearing to consider the requests are presented
for Council approval at this time.
Respec ffjjlly submitted,
ntha Orduno
City Manager
SO:ds
(?P 2
KHAN'S MONGOLIAN BARBEQUE
PUBLIC SAFETY CONTACTS
November 1998 - October 1999
1998 1999
TOTAL CONTACTS 12 7
CRIMINAL CONTACTS 10 5
Incidents (see below for specifics) (4) (3)
Alarm (6) (2)
MISC. NON-CRIMINAL 2 2
Assists (1) (1)
Traffic (0) (0)
Inspections/Licensing (0) (1) R
Medical/Fire (1) (0)
The criminal contacts from November 1998 to October 1999 were two theft delayed,
one warrant arrest, and two burglary alarms.
(Numbers in parenthesis are included in total contact figures.)
KHAN'S MONGOLIAN BARBEQUE
Officer and Directors
Mitchel Law President
Sherri (Paisan) Law Vice President
0
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA l0?
Council Letter No.302
Agenda December 13, 1999
Issue Statement:
Renewal of on-sale intoxicating and Sunday liquor licenses for Americana Dining
Corporation d/b/a Champps Sports Cafe, 790 West 66th Street, for year 2000.
Background:
On October 19, 1999, the City received the renewal applications and other required
documents for the on-sale intoxicating and Sunday liquor licenses for Champps Sports
Cafe. The applicant has paid the required license fees.
The Public Safety background investigation has been completed and reveals the following:
• The corporate structure of the organization has changed from last year. A copy of the
list of officers and directors is attached to this letter. None of these individuals has any
known criminal record.
• All general sales, real estate and withholding taxes have been paid and are current.
• The lease between the applicant and the property owner, Market Plaza Commercial
Ltd., is in effect with all payments current.
• The $10,000 bond issued by National Fire Insurance Company of Hartford has been
submitted.
• The required proof of liquor liability insurance coverage has been received showing
General Accident Insurance Company affording the required coverage. Proof of
workers' compensation insurance coverage has also been supplied.
• An accountant's statement has been prepared and submitted. This statement covers
the period from October 1998 through September 1999 and indicates that food sales
accounted for 67% of the total sales, while liquor sales accounted for 33% of the total
sales.
• There were 72 public Safety contacts with Champps Sports Cafe from November 1997
through October 1998. This compares with 44 contacts for the previous year. A
breakdown of these contacts is attached to this letter.
• Environmental Health staff received two complaints, in 1999 regarding Champps. One
complaint involved garbage pickup in the early morning hours. The garbage hauling
company and Champps were notified and no further complaints have been received by
staff. The other complaint was also a garbage and debris related problem. Champps
was notified and no further complaints have been received by staff.
• On-sale and Sunday liquor licenses require owners of these establishments to comply
with Resolution No. 8714, which outlines discipline the establishment can expect if any
ongoing problems occur. A copy?of this resolution has been given to the owner of the
establishment.
• There are no distance requirements in which to notify neighbors of the issuance or
renewal of on-sale and Sunday liquor licenses.
i1 • The Notice of Public Hearing was published in the Richfield Sun Current on December
1, 1999.
• On July 16, 1999, Champps Sports Cafe was cited for the sale of alcohol to underage
youth. This was their first violation. They were fined $500 and received a two-day
suspension of their license. On November 23, 1999, Champps Sports Cafe was cited
for the second time for the sale of alcohol to underage youth. They were fined $1500
and received a five-day suspension of their license.
Recommended Motion:
Approve the renewal of the on-sale and Sunday liquor licenses for Champps Sports Cafe,
for year 2000, with the following stipulation:
1. That the requirements in Resolution No. 8714 are met.
Basis of Recommendation:
1. The applicant has complied with all of the provisions of both City Codes and State
Statutes pertaining to on-sale and Sunday liquor licensing.
2. Based upon the information supplied by the applicant and the investigation
conducted, there appears to be no reason to deny the license requested.
Alternative Recommendation:
1. The Council could decide to continue the hearing; however, if the hearing is
continued beyond January 1, 2000, the Council should consider the granting of a
license extension to allow the applicant to continue to sell liquor until the rescheduled
hearing can be conducted.
2. The Council could decide to suspend or revoke the licenses. Any suspension or
revocation must, according to Minnesota State Statute 340A.415, be based upon a
finding that the licensee has failed to comply with an applicable statute, rule or
ordinance relating to alcoholic beverages. The Council must also note that no
revocation or suspension takes effect until licensee has been afforded an opportunity
for a hearing under Section 14.57 to 14.70 of the Administrative Procedure Act.
3. These licenses expire January 1, 2000. Therefore, if the Council decides to continue
the hearing beyond December 13, any subsequent hearing should be held before
the licenses expire.
Discussion/Decision Mode:
Renewal of American Dining Corporation d/b/a Champps Sports Cafe's on-sale
intoxicating and Sunday liquor licenses and public hearing to consider the requests are
presented for Council approval at this time.
Reesfully submitted,
(am tha ?Orduno
City Manager
SO:ds
(oC -2-
CHAMPPS SPORTS CAFE
PUBLIC SAFETY CONTACTS
November 1998 - October 1999
1998 1999
TOTAL CONTACTS 44 72
CRIMINAL CONTACTS 35 60
Incidents (see below for specifics) (31) (48)
Alarm (4) (12)
MISC. NON-CRIMINAL 9 12
Assists (2) (5)
Traffic (2) (1)
Inspections/Licensing (5) (6)
Medical/Fire (0) (0)
The criminal contacts from November 1998 to October 1999 were two suspicious
vehicles, ten theft delayed, three disturbances, eight drunkenness, one check forgery,
twelve burglary alarms, five suspicious persons, nine noise complaints, one suspicious
activity, two property damage hit and run, three vandalisms, one theft in progress, one
personal injury accident, one weapons violation, and one miscellaneous City ordinance
violation.
(Numbers in parenthesis are included in total contact figures.)
r
AMERICAN DINING CORP.
Officers and Directors
William Henry Baumhauer President & CEO
Donna L. Depoian Vice President, Secretary & General Counsel
Jeffrey Michael Kippels Restaurant Manager
•
11
•
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Council Letter No. 301
Agenda December 13, 1999
?s
Issue Statement:
Renewal of an on-sale intoxicating and Sunday liquor licenses for Don Pablo's Operating
Corp., d/b/a Don Pablo's, 980 West 78th Street, for year 2000.
Background:
On November 8, 1999, the City received the renewal application and all other required
documents for the on-sale intoxicating and Sunday liquor licenses for Don Pablo's. The
applicant has paid the required license fees.
The Public Safety background investigation has been completed and reveals the following:
• The corporate name and structure of the organization has changed from last year. Their
new corporate name is Don Pablo's Operating Corp., d/b/a Don Pablo's. Prentiss Hall
now serves as President; Louis Profumo is serving as Vice-President and Secretary;
Richard Michael Andrews serves as treasurer and Allan Edward Porter is serving as
General Manager. A copy of the list of officers and directors of the corporation is
attached to this letter. None of these individuals has any known criminal record.
• All general sales, real estate and withholding taxes have been paid and are current.
• The lease with CSM Investors, Inc. is in effect and all payments are current.
• The $10,000 bond issued by United Pacific Insurance Company has been submitted.
• The required proof of liquor liability insurance coverage has been received showing
American Manufacturers Mutual as affording the required coverage. Proof of workers'
compensation insurance coverage has also been supplied.
• A financial statement has been prepared and submitted. This statement covers the
period from October 1998 through September 1999 and indicates that food sales
accounted for 76% of the total sales, while liquor sales accounted for 24% of the total
sales.
• There were 33 Public Safety contacts with Don Pablo's from November 1998 through
October 1999. This compares with 27 contacts for the previous year. A breakdown of
these contacts is attached to this letter.
problems occur. A copy of this resolution has been given to the owner of the
establishment.
• Environmental Health staff received one complaint in 1999 regarding Don Pablo's. The
complaint involved graffiti. Don Pablo's was notified and no further complaints have
been received by staff.
• On-sale and Sunday liquor licenses require owners of these establishments to comply
with Resolution No. 8714, which outlines discipline they can expect if any ongoing
• There are no distance requirements in which to notify neighbors of the issuance or
renewal of an on-sale intoxicating and Sunday liquor license.
• The Notice of Public Hearing was published in the Richfield Sun Current on December
1, 1999.
• On July 16, 1999, Don Pablo's was cited for the sale of alcohol to underage youth. This
was their first violation. They were fined $500 and received a two-day suspension of
their license.
Recommended Motion:
Approve the renewal of the on-sale, intoxicating and Sunday liquor license for Don Pablo's
for the year 2000 with the following stipulation:
1. That the requirements in Resolution No. 8714 are meta
Basis of Recommendation:
1. The applicant has complied with all of the provisions of both City Codes and State
Statutes pertaining to on-sale intoxicating and Sunday liquor licensing.
2. Based upon the information supplied by the applicant and the investigation conducted,
there appears to be no reason to deny the license requested.
Alternative Recommendation:
1. The Council could decide to continue the hearing; however, if the hearing is continued
beyond January 1, 2000, the Council should consider the granting of a license
extension to allow the applicant to continue to sell liquor until the re-scheduled hearing
can be conducted.
2. The Council could decide to suspend or revoke the licenses. Any suspension or
revocation must, according to Minnesota State Statute 340A.415, be based upon a
finding that the licensee has failed to comply with an applicable statute, rule or
ordinance relating to alcoholic beverages. The Council must also note that no
revocation or suspension takes effect until the licensee has been afforded an
opportunity for a hearing under Section 14.57 to 14.70 of the Administrative Procedure
Act.
3. These licenses expire January 1, 2000. Therefore, if the Council decides to continue
the hearing beyond December 13, any subsequent hearing should be held before the
licenses expire.
Discussion/Decision Mode:
Requests for the renewal of Don Pablo's on-sale intoxicating and Sunday liquor licenses
and the public hearing to consider the requests are presented to the Council for approval at
this time.
Respec , Ily submitted,
Ctha Orduno
City Manager
SO:ds
68-2
DF&R OPERATING COMPANY, INC. DBA DON PABLO'S
PUBLIC SAFETY CONTACTS
November 1998 - October 1999
1998 1999
TOTAL CONTACTS 27 33
CRIMINAL CONTACTS 20 28
Incidents (see below for specifics) (8) (14)
Alarm (12) (14)
MISC. NON-CRIMINAL 7 5
Assists (0) (1)
Traffic (2) (0)
Inspections/Licensing (0) (2)
Medical/Fire (5) (2)
The criminal contacts from November 1998 to October 1999 were: one suspicious
person; one miscellaneous City ordinance violation; fourteen burglary alarms; one
drunkenness; three theft delayed; two property damage hit and run; one disturbance;
one theft just occurred; one vandalism; one assault just occurred; one narcotics; and
one theft, no pay.
(Numbers in parenthesis are included in total contact figures)
DON PABLO'S
Officers and Directors
Prentiss Hall President
Louis J. Profumo Vice President of Operations
Louis J. Profumo Secretary
Richard Michael Andrews Jr. Treasurer
Allan Edward Porter Manager
U
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Council Letter No. 300
Agenda December 13, 1999
10 Issue Statement:
Renewal of on-sale intoxicating, Sunday liquor and tavern licenses for Chi-Chi's, Inc.,
d/b/a Chi-Chi's Mexican Restaurante, 7717 Nicollet Avenue, for year 2000.
Background:
On October 25, 1999, the City received the renewal applications and other required
documents for the on-sale intoxicating, Sunday liquor and tavern licenses for Chi-Chi's
Mexican Restaurante. The applicant has paid the required license fees.
The Public Safety background investigation has been completed and reveals the following:
• The corporate structure of the organization has not changed from last year. None of
these individuals has any known criminal record.
• All general sales, real estate and withholding taxes have been paid and are current.
• The lease agreement between the applicant and the property owner, Maro-Max
Company, continues to be in effect with all lease payments being current.
• The $10,000 bond issued by National Union Fire Insurance Company'of Pittsburgh has
been submitted.
• The required proof of liquor liability insurance coverage has been received showing
Lumbermens Mutual Casualty Company as affording the required coverage. Proof of
workers' compensation insurance coverage has also been supplied.
• An accountant's statement has been prepared and submitted. This statement covers
the period from October 1998 through September 1999 and indicates that food sales
accounted for 61.5% of the total sales, while liquor sales accounted for 38.5% of the
total sales.
• There were 166 Public Safety contacts with Chi Chi's from November 1998 through
October 1999. This compares with 151 contacts for the previous year. A breakdown
of these contacts is attached to this letter.
• Environmental Health staff received one complaint regarding Chi-Chi's from November
1998 through October 1999. The complaint involved a food-related matter. Both
Champps and the Bloomington Health Department were notified and no further
complaints have been received.
• The tavern license would allow dancing to continue on the premises.
• On-sale and Sunday liquor licenses require owners of these establishments to comply
with Resolution No. 8714, which outlines discipline an establishment can expect if any
ongoing problems occur. A copy of this resolution has been given to the owner of the
establishment.
• There are no distance requirements in which to notify neighbors of the issuance or
renewal of an on-sale intoxicating, Sunday liquor license or tavern license.
• The Notice of Public Hearing was published in the Richfield Sun Current on December
1, 1999.
• On April 13, 1999, Chi-Chi's Mexican Restaurante was cited for the sale of alcohol to
underage youth. This was their first violation. They were fined $500 and received a
two-day suspension of their license. On July 15,1999, Chi-Chi's Mexican Restaurante
was cited for a second time for the sale of alcohol to underage youth. They were fined
$1500 and received a five-day suspension of their license.
Recommended Motion:
Approve the renewal of the on-sale intoxicating, Sunday liquor and tavern licenses for Chi-
Chi's Mexican Restaurante for year 2000 with the following stipulations:
That the requirements in Resolution No. 8714 are met.
Basis of Recommendation:
1. The applicant has complied with all of the provisions of both City Codes and State
Statutes pertaining to on-sale intoxicating, Sunday liquor and tavern licensing.
2. Based upon the information supplied by the applicant and the investigation
conducted, there appears to be no reason to deny the license requested.
Alternative Recommendation:
1. The Council could decide to continue the hearing; however, if the hearing is
continued beyond January 1, 2000, the Council should consider the granting of a
license extension to allow the applicant to continue to sell liquor until the rescheduled
hearing can be conducted.
• 2. The Council could decide to suspend or revoke the licenses. Any suspension or
revocation must, according to Minnesota State Statute 340A.415, be based upon a
finding that the licensee has failed to comply with an applicable statute, rule or
ordinance relating to alcoholic beverages. The Council must also note that no
revocation or suspension takes effect until the licensee has been afforded an
opportunity for a hearing under Section 14.57 to 14.70 of the Administrative
Procedure Act.
3. These licenses expire January 1, 2000. Therefore, if the Council decides to continue
the hearing beyond December 13, any subsequent hearing should be held before
the licenses expire.
Discussion/Decision Mode:
Renewal of Chi Chi's Mexican Restaurante on-sale intoxicating, Sunday liquor, and tavern
licenses and the public hearing to consider the requests are presented for Council
approval at this time.
Z Respe submtis City Manager
SO:ds
(Op-/?-
CHI-CHI'S MEXICAN RESTAURANTE
PUBLIC SAFETY CONTACTS
November 1998 - October 1999
1998 1999
TOTAL CONTACTS 151 166
CRIMINAL CONTACTS 59 80
Incidents (see below for specifics) (55) (78)
Alarm (4) (2)
MISC. NON-CRIMINAL 92 86
Assists (3) (12)
Traffic (9) (1)
Inspections/Licensing (75) (64)
Medical/Fire (5) (9)
r?
U
The criminal contacts from November 1998 to October 1999 were one disorderly
conduct, one theft just occurred, one personal injury, three assault delayed, seventeen
disturbances, ten theft delayed, three warrant arrests, five property damage accidents,
three vehicle theft delayed, four drunkeness, seven suspicious vehicles, five suspicious
persons, five property damage hit and run, one DWI, two assault just occurred, two
theft no pay, two miscellaneous City violations, two burglary alarms, one NSF check,
one trespassing, one residential burglary delayed, one sex crime delayed, one
domestic, and one narcotics violation.
(Numbers in parenthesis are included in total contact figures.)
CHI CHI'S MEXICAN RESTAURANTE
Partners/Officer and Titles
Roger Chamness President
Robert Trebing Vice President
. Todd Doyle Secretary
Robert Gonda Treasurer
Philipos Getachew General Manager
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Council Letter No. 299
Agenda December 13, 1999
Issue Statement:
Disciplinary hearing and civil enforcement for alcohol establishments in Richfield that
recently underwent alcohol compliance checks, conducted by Richfield Public Safety
staff, and. failed the checks by selling alcohol to underage youth.
Background:
On November 17, 1999, Richfield Public Safety staff conducted alcohol compliance
checks at 11 establishments, assisted by three underage youths between 18-20 years
of age. These compliance checks were a follow-up to compliance checks that were
conducted by Police in March/April 1999 and in July 1999.
On November 17, 1999, the police division made arrangements for the minors to enter
the establishment with undercover police officers. In four instances, the youths were
successful in being served alcohol.
The businesses that made sales to underage youth on November 17, 1999 are as
follows:
• B and D Convenience - 813 East 66th Street
• SuperAmerica - 7720 Nicollet Avenue
• Tom Thumb - 7600 Knox Avenue
• Mobil Station - 6744 Penn Avenue
This is a second offense violation for SuperAmerica, Tom Thumb and the Mobil Station.
They were previously fined $500 and received a two-day suspension of their license as
a result of selling alcohol to a minor. This is a first violation offense for B and D
Convenience.
On November 18, 1999, Richfield Public Safety staff conducted additional alcohol
compliance checks at 19 establishments, assisted by three underage youths between
the ages of 18-20 years of age. Again, on that date, the police division made
arrangements for the minors to enter the establishment with an undercover police
officer. In five instances, the youth were successful in being served alcohol.
The businesses that made sales to underage youth on November 18, 1999 are as
follows:
• Airport Bowl - 7711 14th Avenue
• SuperAmerica - 7500 Lyndale Avenue
• Hampton Inn - 7745 Lyndale Avenue
• Jalapeno Market - 1430 East 66th Street
0 SuperAmerica - 2913 West 66th Street
.6"1
This is a second offense violation for Hampton Inn. They were previously fined $500
• and received a two-day suspension of their license as a result of selling alcohol to a
minor.
This is a third offense violation for SuperAmerica at this location. They were previously
fined $500 and received a two-day suspension of their license for the first offense. They
were also previously fined $1500 and received a five-day suspension of their license for
the second offense.
This is a first violation offense for Airport Bowl , SuperAmerica (7500 Lyndale Avenue)
and Jalapeno Market.
On November 19, 1999, Richfield Public Safety staff conducted an additional round of
alcohol compliance checks at 8 establishments. They were assisted by three underage
youth, 18-20 years of age. Again, the police division made arrangements for the minor
to enter the establishments with an undercover police officer. In one instance, the youth
was successful in being served alcohol.
The business that made a sale to an underage youth on November 19, 1999, is as
follows:
• Champps - 790 West 66th Street
This is a second offense violation for Champps. They were previously fined $500 and
received a two-day suspension of their license as a result of selling alcohol to a minor.
At no time did any of the minors consume any of the alcohol. In some instances, the
alcohol establishment employee did not request any identification from the youth and, in
other cases, they were asked to produce identification. The youth presented their
personal valid ID's and at no time attempted to convince anyone that they were of legal
age. Many times the clerk looked at the I.D. but seemed to struggle with doing the math
to determine their age, despite the fact that all underage ID's now state that the person
pictured is under 21 years of age. Establishments were visited at a variety of times,
busy or not busy, in an effort to determine if busy times produced more successful buys.
It doesn't appear to have made a difference at either time.
After each attempt, successful or unsuccessful, the officers identified themselves to the
clerk and issued them a citation if they failed. If the underage youth was unsuccessful
in securing alcohol, the clerk was congratulated by officers for doing a good job. Those
employees that sold alcohol will be charged criminally in court. The action being taken
today is for civil enforcement and penalties against the businesses that hold a license to
sell alcohol within the City.
At an April 5, 1999 Study Session with the City Council, staff was directed to update
Resolution 8714, which specifies certain improper conduct of alcohol license holders
and delineates the progressive discipline that can be expected when violations occur.
In the past, this resolution has not included progressive discipline regarding the sale of
alcohol to minors. This is the resolution that is referenced each year at the time that
alcohol licenses are renewed. A copy of the resolution approved on April 26, 1999 has
previously been supplied to each establishment selling alcohol.
S,Z
The fines being recommended at this time are intended to recover 100% of the costs for
conducting the compliance checks and to penalize the businesses punitively. It is
recommended that fines also be used by Public Safety police personnel to conduct one
additional compliance check, within the next three month period, on all licensed
establishments. Any establishments found to be guilty of selling again on a second,
third or fourth check would receive progressive discipline in the way of license
suspension and fines as outlined in a revised version of Resolution 8714. Public Safety
staff is also recommending that 15% of the punitive fines be designated for future
alcohol and tobacco education efforts within the community.
Recommended Motion:
Staff recommends that the City Council suspend each of the first time violating
establishments' licenses to sell alcohol for two consecutive days and to levy a fine
against each establishment in the amount of $500 for the first violation. Staff is also
proposing that each first time violating establishment attend a mandatory meeting with
the Public Safety Director to present their individual establishment plans to ensure
eliminating any future actions of this kind. In addition, the establishments are to attend
an alcohol sales and awareness program presented by the Crime Prevention staff.
Staff recommends that the City Council suspend each of the second time violating
establishments' license to sell alcohol for five consecutive days and to levy a fine
against each establishment in the amount of $1500 for the second violation. Staff is
also proposing that the Public Safety Director will select the five consecutive days their
licenses will be suspended. It is further recommended that second time violating
establishments be required to meet a second time with the Public Safety Director and to
also conduct a mandatory alcohol and sales awareness training session with all of their
employees. This training will be provided by either a private firm approved by Public'
Safety officials, or by Public Safety staff, with all costs to be paid by the establishment.
Staff recommends that the City Council suspend each of the third time violating
establishments' license to sell alcohol for ten consecutive days and to levy a fine
against each establishment in the amount of $1750 for the third violation. Staff is also
proposing that the Public Safety Director will select the ten consecutive days their
licenses will be suspended.
Basis of Recommendation:
1. It is a violation of a Minnesota State Statute and City ordinance to sell alcohol to
underage youth.
2. Civil enforcement penalties taken in the past by the City Council against several
establishments have been severe. This was done to send a message to the
establishments and the community that the Council will not tolerate this type of
violation continuing in the community and that Richfield youth and their well-being
are highly valued.
• 3. Citizen representatives of the Richfield Advisory Board of Health support severe
actions against establishments in an effort to protect the youth of the community
and to send a message that youth and their well-being are a high priority in this
city.
?-3
Alternative Recommendation:
1. The Council may consider taking more or less severe action against the
establishments that sold alcohol to underage youth.
Discussion/Decision Mode:
The disciplinary hearing and staff recommendations for civil enforcement penalties for
alcohol establishments in Richfield that recently failed alcohol compliance checks
conducted by Richfield Public Safety staff are presented for Council action at this time.
aa lysubmitted,
I alj?
Orduno
City Manager
SO:ds
•
40
5-4
CITY OF RICHFIELD
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION SUSPENDING THE FOR
; AND IMPOSING A CIVIL PENALTY
WHEREAS,
("Licensee") holds an
license from the City of Richfield; and
WHEREAS, on , the City of Richfield public safety
department conducted a compliance check of the Licensee's establishment; and
WHEREAS, during the compliance check, an employee of the Licensee sold
alcohol to a minor with the civil penalty being imposed on ; and
WHEREAS, the Licensee appeared before the Richfield City Council on
December 13, 1999 and admitted the violation; and
WHEREAS, the Licensee has stipulated to the suspension and penalty imposed
by this resolution.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of
Richfield as follows:
1. The licensee's license is hereby
suspended for a period of two consecutive days, commencing on a date to be
determined by the Public Safety Director, but commencing no later than
January 13, 2000.
2. A civil penalty of $500 is hereby imposed. On or before January 13, 2000,
the Licensee shall deliver a check or money order payable to the City of
Richfield in the amount of $500.
3. Meet with the Director of Public Safety to present an action plan to ensure
future compliance by January 13, 2000; and attend an alcohol compliance
and sales awareness presentation conducted by Public Safety staff by
January 13, 2000.
Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield this 13th of December 1999.
Martin J. Kirsch, Mayor
ATTEST:
Thomas P. Ferber, City Clerk
S-5
CITY OF RICHFIELD
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION SUSPENDING THE FOR
AND IMPOSING A CIVIL PENALTY
WHEREAS,
("Licensee") holds an
license from the City of Richfield; and
WHEREAS, on , the City of Richfield public safety
department conducted a compliance check of the Licensee's establishment; and
WHEREAS, during the compliance check, an employee of the Licensee sold
alcohol to a minor with the civil penalty being imposed on ; and
WHEREAS, this is a second violation of the sale of alcohol to a minor with the
first civil penalty being imposed on ;
WHEREAS, the Licensee appeared before the Richfield City Council on
December 13, 1999 and admitted the violation; and
is WHEREAS, the Licensee has stipulated to the suspension and penalty imposed
by this resolution.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of
Richfield as follows:
1. The licensee's license is hereby suspended for a
period of five consecutive days, commencing on a date to be determined by
the Public Safety Director, but commencing no later than January 13, 2000.
2. A civil penalty of $1500 is hereby imposed. On or before January 13, 2000,
the Licensee shall deliver a check or money order payable to the City of
Richfield in the amount of $1500.
3. Licensee must schedule mandatory alcohol compliance and sales awareness
training for all employees who are responsible for the service of alcohol to
customers. This will include all servers, bartenders and all managers and
must be scheduled to occur no later than January 13, 2000. This training will
be provided at a location to be determined by Public Safety staff and all costs
associated with the training, to include staff time and materials, will be the
responsibility of the Licensee.
4. Meet with the Director of Public Safety to review why the Licensee's action
plan didn't work and discuss opportunities for change and improvement on or
before January 13, 2000.
Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield this 13th day of December
1999.
Martin J. Kirsch, Mayor
ATTEST:
Thomas P. Ferber, City Clerk
C7
5'7
CITY OF RICHFIELD
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION SUSPENDING THE FOR
; AND IMPOSING A CIVIL PENALTY
WHEREAS, ("Licensee") holds an
license from the City of Richfield; and
WHEREAS, on , the City of Richfield public safety
department conducted a compliance check of the Licensee's establishment; and
WHEREAS, during the compliance check, an employee of the Licensee sold
alcohol to a minor with the civil penalty being imposed on ; and
WHEREAS, this is a third violation of the sale of alcohol to a minor with the first
civil penalty being imposed on , and the second civil penalty being
imposed of ;
WHEREAS, the Licensee appeared before the Richfield City Council on
December 13, 1999 and admitted the violation; and
WHEREAS, the Licensee has stipulated to the suspension and penalty imposed
by this resolution.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of
Richfield as follows:
1. The licensee's license is hereby
suspended for a period of ten consecutive days, commencing on a date to be
determined by the Public Safety Director, but commencing no later than
January 13, 2000.
2. A civil penalty of $1,750 is hereby imposed. On or before January 13, 2000,
the Licensee shall deliver a check or money order payable to the City of
Richfield in the amount of $1,750.
Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield this 13th of December 1999.
Martin J. Kirsch, Mayor
0 ATTEST:
Thomas P. Ferber, City Clerk
54
CITY OF RICHFIELD
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION FOR CONTESTED CASE HEARING
WHEREAS, ("Licensee") holds an on-sale
liquor license from the City of Richfield; and
WHEREAS, on , 1999, the City of Richfield public safety
department conducted a compliance check of the Licensee's establishment; and
WHEREAS, during the compliance check, an employee of the Licensee sold
alcohol to a minor in violation of state law and city ordinances; and
WHEREAS, the Licensee appeared before the Richfield City Council on
December 13, 1999 denied the violation and requested a contest case hearing.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of
Richfield as follows:
The Public Safety Director is authorized and directed to retain an independent
hearing examiner to preside over a contested case hearing concerning the proposed
disciplinary action against.the Licensee's license.
1999.
1. The contested case hearing shall be conducted in accordance with Minnesota
Statutes, Sections 14.57 to 14.69.
2. The hearing examiner shall schedule a hearing date that is mutually
convenient to the Public Safety Department and the Licensee, to be held
within 60 days of the date of this resolution. The hearing examiner shall notify
the Public Safety Director and the Licensee of the scheduled hearing date.
Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield this 13th day of December
Martin J. Kirsch, Mayor
ATTEST:
0 Thomas Ferber, City Clerk
qf
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Council Letter No. 298
Agenda December 13, 1999
Issue Statement:
Consideration of a new taxi license for Metropolitan Taxi, 1932 Timberwolf Trail, Eagan,
for year 2000.
Background:
On November 15, 1999, the City received a new application for a taxi license for year
2000 from Metropolitan Taxi. The applicant has paid the required license fees.
The applicant is the sole owner and operator of the business. At the present time, only
one vehicle will be licensed.
The Public Safety background investigation has been completed and reveals the
following:
• Zerai Tesfai is the owner of the business. He has no known criminal record.
• The certificate of liability insurance has been submitted showing Mutual Service
Casualty Insurance Company affording the coverage.
• The applicant will supply a list including the make, body style and year of the vehicle
to be operated by the applicant and agrees to supply information for any added
vehicles in the future.
• At the present time, the number of vehicles to be operating in Richfield will not
exceed one; however, there is a possibility new vehicles will be added. Staff has
also received the taxi driver application along with the required fee.
Recommended Motion:
Approve the request for a new taxi license for Metropolitan Taxi, 1932 Timberwolf Trail,
for year 2000, with the following stipulation:
The list, including the vehicle's year, make, model and VIN numbers, must be
received by December 14, 1999.
Basis of Recommendation:
1. It appears the applicant meets the standards set forth in the ordinance. The
applicant has also indicated the desire to comply with all codes and expectations
of the City.
2. Based upon the information supplied by the applicant and the investigation
conducted, there appears to be no, reason to deny the license requested.
45-i
Alternative Recommendation:
1. The Council could decide not to grant the license. This would result in the
applicant not being able to operate a taxi company in Richfield.
Discussion/Decision Mode:
Recommendation to approve the application for a new taxi company license for
Metropolitan Taxi, 1932 Timberwolf Trail, for the year 2000 is presented for Council
consideration at this time.
Respectfully submitted,
ntha Orduno
City Manager
SO:ds
0
0
qj-
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Council Letter No. 297
Agenda December 13, 1999
Issue Statement:
Purchase in excess of $25,000 for Mobile Computing Devices (MCDs) and related
hardware for installation in police vehicles. This will support Public' Safety's network
connection to criminal justice data maintained by city, state, and federal agencies by
means of a wireless connection from mobile police units'to the Local Government
Information Systems Association (LOGIS) wide area network (WAN).
Background:
The City Charter provision regulating purchases over $25,000 requires the purchase to
be from competitive bid contracts and subject to City Council approval.
Through a joint-powers agreement, the City is a member agency of LOGIS. LOGIS
operates as a governmental entity and has in place a valid contract (Contract No.
MCD9801) awarded through a competitive bid process for all hardware and software
components related to this purchase. The proposed purchase would be made from this
LOGIS contract which has been awarded to FieldWorks, Inc., 7631 Anagram Drive,
Eden Prairie, MN 55344. The contract period has been extended through 1999.
• The Public Safety Department is the primary user of LOGIS services within the City.
The police records management system (RMS) and the computer aided dispatch
system (CAD) are provided by LOGIS to the Public Safety Department via a wide area
network (WAN) supported by LOGIS. Additionally, LOGIS provides equipment
procurement, network support and consulting services to the Public Safety Departmen
The purchase of four Mobile Computing Devices (MCDs) will be funded by a federal
Law Enforcement Block Grant (LEBG) of $31,717, awarded during 1997. The City is
required to contribute 10% matching funds. All funds to be expended are included in
the 1999 revised Public Safety budget, 101-20-315-490.40. Total cost for the MCDs
and related hardware is $33,492.72. This equipment will replace older, less functional
devices that are currently leased from Hennepin County.
t.
Recommended Motion:
Approve a purchase order to LOGIS for $33,492.72, for four Mobile Computing Devices
and related hardware items as listed on the attached LOGIS invoice.
Basis of Recommendation:
1. Purchase is from a LOGIS competitive bid contract.
2. Adequate funds are available in the1999 revised budget, 101-20-315-490.40.
qj- I
3. LEBG funds awarded to the City cover 90% of the expenditure.
4. This current MCD technology will provide greater access to data by a police officer
in the field that increases officer safety and enforcement efforts.
Alternative Recommendation:
1. Deny approval and continue to, use less functional equipment that is leased and
forfeit the $31,717.00 of LEGB funds.
Discussion/Decision Mode:
The purchase of four Mobile Computing Devices (MCDs) and related hardware in
excess of $25,000 is presented for Council consideration at this time.
Respec Ily submitted,
S a Orduno
City Manager
SO:cak
0
REQUISITION I PURCHASE ORDER DATE: 11 /16/ 99
*LL TO: DELIVERY INFORMATION: NOTICE TO VENDOR:
TY OF RICHFIELD DEPT./DIVISION: PUBLIC SAFETY THE CITY IS EXEMPT FROM ALL FEDERAL
(FEDERAL
TAXES
67 ADDRESS:
CERTIFICAT R CHF ELD PORTLAND
554 EN 599 ATTENTION: ?g7.4??? hnPPORKKTL gN??DnphhAeeVrrtt S 8385727) PAYMENTS ARE ISSUED PURISUANT TO
(612)861.970 MATERIAL DATA AFETY SH ET RE &RED? CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL
EACH MENTHE SECOND
AND FOURTH MONDAY
EACH
DEPARTMEN /?. C. FUNDS AVAILABLE: MANAGER:
I, M I DATE: iZ_ / `7..)4 I DATE:
T-' L I VJWITF . V[11JICHFR / CANARY -
VENDOR
ADDRESS LOG I S
5750 DULUTH STREET
GOLDEN VALLEY MN 55422-4036
UNIT PRICE
4
4
4
4
1
464
4
1
Invoice: 2620 - PER ATTACHED
233 MHz Pentium Systems
Floppy/CD ROM Module
MP 200 Sierra Wireless Mobile 3 Watt
CDPD Radios
High Gain CDPD Antenna
15' Serial Cable for Radio to Laptop
MN Sales TAX
INSTALLATION Labor per site
MCD Freight per site
ONE-TIME LOGIS ADMN SVC CHRG
(99R $76,000)
TOTAL
P.O. NO. 36169
24,440.00
715.00
3,980.00
236.00
40.00
1,911.72
2,000.00
120.00
50.00
33,492.72
101-20-315-490.40
•
RI POLICE
0002/002
4l=3
0
0
2620
INVOICE
LOG I S Invoice No.
5750 Duluth Street
Golden Valley, MN 55422-4036
(612) 543-2600 fax (612) 543-2699
Cousiomer
Name City of Richfield
Address 6700 Portland Avenue '-
City Richfield State MN ZIP 55423
Phone --
Date 11/16/99
REVISED
Q Description Unit Price TOTAL
4 233 MHz Pentium Systems --
$6,110.00 $24,440.00
1 Floppy/CD ROM Module $715.00 $715.00
4 MP 200 Sierra Wireless Mobile 3 Watt CDPD Radios $995.00 $3,980.00
4 High Gain CDPD Antenna $59.00 $236.00
4 15' Serial Cable for Radio to Laptop $10.00 $40.00
1 Minnesota State Sales Tax $1,911.72 $1,911.72
4 Installation Labor Per Site $500.00 $2,000.00
4 MCD Freight Per Site $30.00 - $120.00
1 One-Time LOG IS AdminisdtraWe Service Charge $50.00 $50.00
TOTAL $33,492.72
O
0
E
qP
. CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Council Letter No.296
Agenda December 13, 1999
Issue Statement:
Council consideration regarding conducting a City Council meeting on Monday,
December 27, 1999.
Background:
The City Council regularly meets the second and fourth Monday evening of each
month. However, items for the December 27, 1999 Council meeting can be carried
over to January 10, 2000. It is suggested that the regular Council meetings scheduled
for December 27, 1999 be canceled.
Recommended Motion:
Cancel the City Council meeting scheduled for December 27, 1999.
Basis of Recommendation:
1. The City Council business can be carried over to January 2000.
2. The December 27 meeting follows the Christmas holiday weekend.
0 Alternative Recommendation:
1. Do not cancel the December 27 City Council meeting.
2. Reschedule the Council meeting.
Discussion/Decision Mode:
This item has been.placed on the December 13, 1999 City Council agenda so proper
notification can be made if the December 27 meeting is canceled or rescheduled.
Resp ully submitted,
Sa antha ?Orduno
City Manager
SO:cak
l_.J
L4 e
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Council Letter No. 295
Agenda December 13, 1999
Issue Statement:
Resolution to approve City of Richfield's participation in the Joint Police and Fire
Training Facility.
Background:
In 1995, the cities of Bloomington, Eden Prairie, Edina and Richfield and the
Metropolitan Airport Commission entered into a partnership to explore the concept of a
joint training facility for police and fire. The lack of adequate training facilities has been
a growing concern. Local training facilities are disappearing and those that are still
open are steadily decreasing the training opportunities. Training is an important aspect
in the public safety disciplines of police and fire. Developing and maintaining skills are
vital in this area of municipal services. Whether it is provided for employee
development, to comply with state or federal mandates, or for lawsuit prevention,
training is an important time and money investment made by the cities and the
Metropolitan Airport Commission.
A committee with representatives of police, fire and each city manager's staff has
prepared a plan for a joint facility, conveniently located to meet the needs of the public
safety departments. The training facility would greatly enhance each department's
46 ability to train their members in the areas of firearms, defensive tactics,
emergency/pursuit driving, scenario/computer-based training and hands-on training for
firefighters. It would be made available to other agencies on a regional basis to
enhance their training needs and allow for ultimate efficiency of facility usage.
The training facility will be located in the northeast corner of 1-494 and Highway 169 on
land donated by the City of Edina. The committee has prepared and presented a
request for approval of a Governor's Bond in the amount of $3.1 million. The bond
request has been received and, after submitting additional information, a final review by
the State of Minnesota, Department of Finance will be done.
The financial commitment made by each city is based on the number of police and fire
personnel employed and/or trained by each. The financial commitment by the City of
Richfield is approximately $500,000 for the initial construction. The annual operating
costs are projected to be $300,000 annually, a portion of which the City of Richfield may
be responsible for dependent on usage. The annual cost of operation may be offset
somewhat through financial reimbursement from outside agencies using the facilities.
The Governor's Bond and the financial commitment by each governmental body would
allow for the construction and operation of the facility without additional state funds.
Recommended Motion:
Approve a resolution of support that will include Richfield in a partnership of cities
establishing the Joint Police and Fire Training Facility.
q • Basis of Recommendation:
1. The joint training facility will provide an economical delivery of training.
2. The facility will be available 24 hours a day.
3. Cost sharing expands the opportunities for training and state-of-the-art equipment.
4. Standardization of most training.
5. Cross jurisdictional responses enhanced along with strengthened relationships
and learning opportunities.
Alternative Recommendation:
1. Continue to support and provide training for the members of public safety as
needs and opportunities arise.
2. Explore alternative out-state locations for police and fire training opportunities as
current locations are closing and/or limiting the training opportunities available.
3. Allow the four governmental bodies to move forward without the City of Richfield's
support and, thereafter, buy training time for members at the new facility.
Discussion/Decision Mode:
The Joint Training Facility Committee is moving forward with this project. A resolution
of support is presented for Council approval of the City's participation in the Joint Police
and Fire Training Facility at this time, before Legislative hearings begin.
Respec ly submitted,
S a Orduno
City Manager
SO:cak
0
4& -)-
0 RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING SUPPORT OF AND INCLUSION OF THE CITY OF
RICHFIELD IN THE JOINT POLICE AND FIRE TRAINING FACILITY TO BE
LOCATED IN EDINA, MN
WHEREAS, the cities of Bloomington, Eden Prairie, Edina, Richfield and the
Metropolitan Airport Commission have provided for local, private and user financing for
the project to the maximum extent possible; and
WHEREAS, the project helps fulfill an important state mission; and
WHEREAS, the project is of regional or statewide significance; and
WHEREAS, the project will not require new or additional state operating
subsidies; and
WHEREAS, the project will not expand the state's role in new policy area; and
WHEREAS, the state funding for the project will not create significant inequities
among local jurisdictions; and
WHEREAS, the project will not compete with other facilities in such a manner
that they lose a significant number of users to the new project.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City of Richfield supports the
Police and Fire Training Facility.
Adopted by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this 13th day of
December, 1999.
Martin J. Kirsch, Mayor
ATTEST:
Thomas P. Ferber, City Clerk
0
qF
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
10 Council Letter No. 294
Agenda December 13, 1999
Issue Statement:
Consideration for approval of plans and specifications for raising selected areas of trail
at Wood Lake Nature Center, ordering the project, authorizing a notice of bid, and
authorizing execution of an agreement with the Minnesota Department of Transportation
(MnDOT) for funding purposes.
Background:
Improvements for the 1-35W roadway corridor will increase run-off of stormwater. This,
in turn, will have an impact on Wood Lake Nature Center which is a stormwater holding
area. Some of the paths at the Nature Center were raised as part of the dredging
project, also a stormwater improvement. MnDOT has agreed to fund $50,000 for
additional raising of trails at Wood Lake Nature Center. The balance of the funding
($10,000 to $30,000) for the project would be from the stormwater fund. WSB and
Associates, which also prepared the plans and specifications for the dredging project,
has prepared the plans and specifications for the additional trail work.
Recommended Motion:
Approve the plans and specifications, order City Project No. 503-30-589, authorize
advertisement for bid for the proposed trail improvements, and authorize the Mayor and
City Manager to execute the MnDOT funding agreement.
Basis of Recommendation:
1. Wood Lake Nature Center will experience additional stormwater runoff as a result of
improvements to 1-35W.
2. The MnDOT has agreed to fund $50,000 for additional raising of trails at Wood Lake
Nature Center as a result of increased stormwater runoff from 1-35W.
Alternative Recommendation:
1. Do not approve the plans and specifications, order the project or authorize the
advertisement for bid for trail improvements. However, for the Nature Center to
continue access to the public as is currently provided, selected trails must be raised.
2. Do not authorize execution of the MnDOT funding agreement. However, it will be
difficult for the City to afford the full cost of the proposed improvements and MnDOT
has agreed to provide a large portion of the funding.
Discussion/Decision Mode:
Council is asked to take action at the December 13, 1999 Council meeting so there is
sufficient time for bidding the work and affording time for the work as soon as weather
permits in the 2000 construction season thereby keeping the impact of the trail raising
as minimal as possible on the Nature Center operations.
Respec ully submitted,
aa Orduno
City Manager
SO:cak
?E-
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Council Letter No.293
Agenda December 13, 1999
Issue Statement:
Confirmation of LJR, Inc. contract with 1-494 Corridor Commission, 1999-2000.
Background:
Members of the 1-494 Corridor Commission include the cities of Bloomington, Edina,
Eden Prairie, Maple Grove, Minnetonka, Plymouth and Richfield. The City pays ten
cents per capita annually to the 1-494 Corridor Commission and the Commission
receives federal funding to do Travel Demand Management (TDM) and to promote
improvements to 1-494.
On October 13, 1999 the Corridor Commission approved the Agreement between the 1-
494 Corridor Commission and LJR, Inc. for the period of January 1, 1999 through
December 31, 2000 for an amount not to exceed $219,316.18. The purpose of the
Agreement is for LJR, Inc. to provide staff support to the Corridor Commission and to
perform planning and TDM work including, but not limited to, surveys, marketing,
communication, analysis and research.
The Agreement approved by the Corridor Commission is now circulating among
member cities of the Commission. Each City is asked to confirm the contractual
agreement and authorize signature of the Agreement on behalf of the City.
Recommended Motion:
Confirm the contractual agreement made in October 1999 between LJR, Inc. and the 1-
494 Corridor Commission and authorize the Mayor and City Manager to execute the
Agreement on behalf of the City of Richfield.
Basis of Recommendation:
1. The City of Richfield is a participating member of the 1-494 Corridor Commission
and is required by the Corridor Commission's bylaws to approve all contracts
entered into by the Commission.
2. The 1-494 Corridor Commission has approved the agreement with LJR, Inc.
Alternative Recommendation:
Do not confirm the Agreement. However, because the Commission has approved the
Agreement, the lack of confirmation from member cities would pose a problem for the
Commission and the other member cities.
Discussion/Decision Mode:
Council is asked to take action at the December 13, 1999 Council meeting to facilitate
the signing process in place for the document.
Respec ully submitted,
Sa a Orduno
City Manager
SO:cak
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA D
Council Letter No.292 `''
Agenda December 13, 1999
10 Issue Statement:
Resolution authorizing approval of an agreement with Hennepin County for participation
in the Federal-Aid Preservation Program for the purpose of replacing traffic signal
controllers and cabinets, replacing red incandescent traffic signal indications with red
light emitting diodes (LED) indications and signal painting.
Background:
On March 8, 1999, the City Council authorized application for participation in the
Federal-Aid Preservation Program. The City and the County, in conjunction with
various municipalities participating in the Federal-Aid Preservation Program and with
the Minnesota Department of Transportation (MnDOT), have developed plans and
specifications for improvements to existing traffic signal systems under three separate
contracts authorized by MnDOT and have prepared cost estimates for the proposed
work. The total estimated cost for the City of Richfield to participate in the program is
$54,130. This is 20% of the total cost for work in Richfield; the federal program pays
80% of the cost. As indicated when applying for participation in the program, the City
will use its Municipal State Aid street funds as its source for local matching funds.
Exhibit B of the Agreement, which identifies the location of signals included in the
Program, is attached. A complete copy of the Agreement is available upon request to
the Public Works Department.
Recommended Motion:
Adopt the attached resolution authorizing the Mayor and City Manager to execute
Hennepin County Agreement No. PW 59-19-99, County Project Nos. 9827, 9928 and
9929, City Project No. 401-30-511 for participation in the Federal-Aid Preservation
Program.
Basis of Recommendation:
1. The City of Richfield places a high priority on preserving existing infrastructure. The
Federal-Aid Preservation Program is directed toward preservation of transportation
systems and operations.
2. A formal agreement is needed for the City to participate in the Federal-Aid
Preservation Program, which has federal funds made available through MnDOT and
coordination of the work through Hennepin County.
Alternative Recommendation:
Do not participate in the Federal-Aid Preservation Program. However, it has been
determined the work needs to be done in the City. By participating in the Federal-Aid
Preservation Program, work may be done sooner and/or current funding sources may
be freed to finance other work.
Discussion/Decision Mode:
Staff requests approval of this agreement at the December 13, 1999 City Council
meeting.
Res ully submitted,
tha Orduno
City Manager
SO:cak
Attachments
RESOLUTION NO. 4b- I
RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING MAYOR AND CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE
HENNEPIN COUNTY AGREEMENT NO. PW 59-19-99
FOR PARTICIPATION IN FEDERAL-AID PRESERVATION PROGRAM
WHEREAS, the Minnesota Department of Transportation (MnDOT) has made
available certain federal funds for various maintenance aspects on local roadways
through a program commonly referred to as the "Federal-Aid Preservation Program";
and
WHEREAS, Hennepin County and the City of Richfield have both received
approval from MnDOT to proceed with contracts for the repainting of existing traffic
control signal systems, the replacement of traffic signal controllers and cabinets, and
the replacement of red incandescent traffic signal indications with red light emitting
diodes (LED) indications; and
WHEREAS, the necessary plans and specifications have been developed for
these improvements under contract for County Project Nos. 9927, 9928 and 9929 and
City Project No. 401-30-511; and
WHEREAS, the City has expressed willingness to participate in the costs of
these improvements to existing traffic signal systems using municipal state aid and/or
local funds for an estimated total cost to the City of $54,130; and
WHEREAS, the County has indicated its willingness to approve said plans and
specifications and participate in the construction costs of said project; and
WHEREAS, it is contemplated the said parties under the provisions of Minnesota
Statutes, Section 162.17, Subdivision 1 and Section 471.59 carry out that said work.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Mayor and City Manager are
hereby authorized to execute Agreement No. PW 59-19-99 for participation in the
Federal-Aid Preservation Program.
Adopted by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this 13th day of
December, 1999.
Martin J. Kirsch, Mayor
ATTEST:
Thomas P. Ferber, City Clerk
0
ql)-?2-
EXIMIT "B"
RED BALL & RED ARROW REPLACEMENT: Total = 35 INTERSECTIONS
CSAH 32 (Penn) at I-494, N. Ramp
CSAH 32 (Penn) at TH 62, S. Ramp
CSAH 32 (Penn) at 64th
CSAH 32 (Penn) at 69th
CSAH 32 (Penn) at 75th
CSAH 32 (Penn) at 76th
CSAH 32 (Penn) at 78th
CSAH 53 (66th) at Cedar Ave.
CSAH 53 (66th) at Bloomington
CSAH 53 (66'i') at CSAH 35 (Portland)
CSAH 53 (66th) at CSAH 52(Nicollet)
CSAH 53 (66th) at Pillsbury
CSAH 53 (66th) at Lyndale
CSAH 53 (66th) at Rae Dr
CSAH 53 (66th) at Logan
CSAH 53 (66th) at CSAH 32 (Penn)
CSAH 53 (66th) at Sheridan
CSAH 53 (66th) at Vincent
Lyndale at 65th
Lyndale at 67th
Lyndale at 70th
Lyndale at 73rd
Lyndale at 76th
Lyndale at 77th
Lyndale at I494, N. Ramp
CSAH 35 (Portland) at I-494 N. Ramp
CSAH 35 (Portland) at 70th
CSAH 35 (Portland) at 76th
CSAH 35 (Portland) at 77th
CSAH 53 (66th) at 12th
12th at 77th
76th at Upton
76th at I-35W, E. Ramp
77th at Meridian Xing
CSAH 52 (Nicollet) at 77th
HENNEPIN COUNTY AGREEMENT NO. PW 59-19-99
EXMIT "B" SHEET I OF 2 \i L
L4 D-3
CONTROLLER, CABINET & HARDWARE REPLACEMENT
Total = 5 INTERSECTIONS
Lyndale Ave at 65th Street
Lyndale Ave at 67t' Street
Lyndale Ave at 70t' Street
Lyndale Ave at 73rd Street
Lyndale Ave at 76th Street
SIGNAL PAINTING Total = 23 INTERSECTIONS
CSAH 32 (Penn) at TH 62 S. Ramp
CSAH 32 (Penn) at 64th
CSAH 32 (Penn) at CSAH 53 (66th)
CSAH 32 (Penn) at 69th
CSAH 32 (Penn) at 75th
CSAH 32 (Penn) at 76th
CSAH 32 (Penn) at 78th
CSAH 32 (Penn) at I-494, N. Ramp
76th at Upton
76th at I-35W, E. Ramp
76th at Lyndale
CSAH 35 (Portland) at 76t'
CSAH 35 (Portland) at I-494, N. Ramp
CSAH 35 (Portland) at 70th
CSAH 53 (66th) at Cedar Ave.
CSAH 53 (66th) at Bloomington
CSAH 53 (66th) at 12th
CSAH 35 (Portland) at CSAH 53 (66th)
CSAH 53 (66th) at Logan
CSAH 53 (66th) at Vincent
CSAH 53 (66th) at Sheridan
12th Ave at 77th Street
CSAH 35 (Portland) at 77th Street
HENNEPIN COUNTY AGREEMENT NO. PW 59-19-99
EXIBIT "B" SHEET 2 OF 2 ?pj L.
q(2,
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Council Letter N0.291
Agenda December 13, 1999
Issue Statement:
Consideration of resolution issuing a negative declaration of need for an Environmental
Impact Statement for the Richfield Lake Water Quality Project.
Background:
Richfield Lake is identified in Richfield's Comprehensive Surface Water Management
Plan as a natural wetland that is used for stormwater management. As part of the
review of the layout for the mainlines of 1-35W on March 24, 1997, the City Council
reviewed alternative locations for treating stromwater drainage from 1-35W. The Council
selected a perimeter system with a pond near/on Lyndale Garden Center. The
proposed project is to excavate approximately 4.88 acres to create a stormwater
treatment system around the perimeter of the lake and dredge several areas within the
lake to remove sediment deltas that have built up over time. The perimeter stormwater
treatment system to be created is a separate basin that would be used to resettle runoff
before it is discharged into Richfield Lake.
Agencies and their comments received as part of the Environmental Assessment
Worksheet (EAW) process include:
• • Minnesota Pollution Control Agency: fill material, disposal of dredged material, State
Disposal System Permit, re-vegetation plan, operation and maintenance plan,
specific water qualities hoping to achieve, relationship to Wood Lake outlet project
• Metropolitan Council: permits and approvals required, physical impact on water
resources, maintenance program
• Minnesota Historical Society: project has no historical effects
• Minnesota Department of Natural Resources: limiting potential habitat impacts
• Minnesota Department of Transportation: EAW acceptable
A summary of the responses to the comments received from these agencies is
attached. The negative declaration completes the environmental review of the project.
It has not been determined whether the City of Richfield or the Minnesota Department of
Transportation will be the lead agency or administrator for the improvement project. A
public hearing may be held prior to or in conjunction with review of plans and
specifications for the project.
Recommended Motion:
Accept the Findings of Fact and adopt the resolution issuing a negative declaration of
need for an Environmental Impact Statement for the Richfield Lake Water Quality
Project.
q L11
Basis of Recommendation:
1. The public comment period for the Richfield Lake Water Quality Project
Environmental Assessment Worksheet ended Wednesday, October 20, 1999.
Responses to comments and Findings of Fact have been prepared and are
attached to this Council Letter.
2. In accordance with Council policy on wetlands, activities that impact wetlands are
generally not promoted. However, because the City is fully developed and there are
no financially reasonable alternatives to providing a separate basin for resettlement,
the proposed project is preferable to a do-nothing alternative which would allow
continuation of the discharge of untreated stormwater and sediment deposition into
Richfield Lake.
Alternative Recommendation:
1. Do nothing to improve the water quality at Richfield Lake. However, if the City
leaves the site as it is, the area will eventually cease to function as a wetland.
2. Amend the Findings.of Fact and Responses to Comments as deemed appropriate.
3. Accept the Findings of Fact but determine a conclusion of negative impact. This
would require an Environmental Impact Statement for the project.
Discussion/Decision Mode:
Council may choose to delay action if additional time for consideration is needed. Final
design of the proposed improvements will not begin until the Environmental Quality
Board has been notified on the City's findings.
ly submitted,
Orduno
ager
SO:cak
Attachments
qc--Z
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION ISSUING A NEGATIVE DECLARATION OF NEED
FOR AN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
FOR THE RICHFIELD LAKE WATER QUALITY PROJECT
WHEREAS, the preparation of the Richfield Lake Water Quality Project
Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW) and comments received on the EAW
have generated information adequate to determine whether the proposed development
has the potential for significant environmental effects; and
WHEREAS, the EAW has identified areas where the potential for significant
environmental effects exist, but appropriate mitigative measures have or will be
incorporated into the project plan and/or permits to reasonably mitigate these impacts;
and
WHEREAS, the Richfield Lake Water Quality Project is expected to comply with
all the City of Richfield standards and review agency standards; and
WHEREAS, based on the criteria established in Minnesota R. 4410.1700, the
project does not have the potential for significant environmental effects; and
WHEREAS, based on the Findings of Fact and Conclusions, the project does not
have the potential for significant environmental impacts.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City of Richfield has
determined that an Environmental Impact Statement is not required.
Adopted by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this 13th day of
December, 1999.
Martin J. Kirsch, Mayor
ATTEST:
Thomas P. Ferber, City Clerk
0
A
WSA8
& -Associates, Inc.
350 Westwood Lake Office
8441 Wayzata Boulevard
Minneapolis, MN 55426
612-541-4800
FAX 541-1700
B.A. Mittelsteadt, P.E.
Bret A. Weiss, P.E.
Peter R. Willenbring, P.E.
Donald W. Sterna, P.E.
Ronald B. Bray, P.E.
q C-3
Memorandum
To: Lynn Kolze, Minnesota Pollution Control Agency
Helen Boyer, Metropolitan Council
Britta L. Bloomberg, Minnesota Historical Society
Thomas W. Balcom, Minnesota Department of Natural Resources
Sharon Anderson, MnDOT-Waters Edge
From: Peter R. Willenbring, P.E., WSB & Associates
Mike Eastling, City of Richfield
Date: November 15,1999
Re: Richfield Lake EAW
WSB Project No. 1000.08
Enclosed, please find responses to comments received as part of the EAW process Richfield Lake
Water Quality Project in Richfield, MN. Comments were received from the Minnesota Pollution
Control Agency (MPCA), Metropolitan Council (MC), the Minnesota Historical Society (MHS),
the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (DNR), and the Minnesota Department of
Transportation (MnDOT).
Comments from the MPCA
Comment.
MPCA. Item 6 - Project Description: The document discusses the filling of a portion of
Richfield Lake. What will this fill be comprised of?
Given the length of time it typically takes to obtain State Disposal System (SDS) Permit for
the disposal of dredged material, the time frame for construction may not be realistic.
Response.
Clean material will be used for the estimated 0.32 acres of fill. The time line outlined
in the EAW is an estimate. The project will not commence until all permits are
secured.
Comment.
MPCA. Item S - Permits and Approvals Needed: An SDS permit will be needed from the
MPCA that would address the disposal of dredged materials from Richfield Lake. The
person to contact to discuss the SDS permit is Ms. Judy Mader. She can be contacted at
I (651) 296-7315.
M i n n e a p o l i s - S t. C l o u d
Infrastructure Engineers Planners F'`wrwmn'ooo•osuozo??omm?? Wna
EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER
qc-q
EAW for Richfield Lake
November 15, 1999
Page 2
Response.
The City acknowledges that an SDS permit will be required prior to dredging activity.
Comment.
MPCA. Item 16 - Erosion and Sedimentation: A re-vegetation plan and an operation and
maintenance plan for the sedimentation basins are needed for this project.
Response.
A re-vegetation plan and an operation and maintenance plan will be prepared by the
City as part of the final design for this project. It is anticipated that the permit
application process will provide adequate review of these plans.
Comment.
MPCA. Item 17 - Water Quality - Surface Water Runoff. It appears that the proposed
sedimentation basins are being designed to remove sediment rather than nutrients. Has the
City evaluated retention times in the sediment basins? What kind of sediment removals can
be expected?
It appears that this project will result in some improvements in water quality in Richfield
Lake. However, it is not clear how significant those improvements will be. Has the City
developed a detailed hyrologic evaluation for the project? What specific water quality goals
is the City hoping to achieve?
Response.
The City has a detailed hydrologic model for this watershed and intends to incorporate
this project during the final design process. The City anticipates treatment of the 1 "-
1.5" rainfall event over the watershed for the Richfield Lake perimeter system. The
perimeter system is anticipated to improve the water quality of Richfield Lake and the
downstream basins. This system is being incorporated into the site taking into
consideration the physical constraints present at the site (i.e. little space is available
due to fully developed nature of the area). Therefore, the water will be treated to the
greatest extent feasible.
Comment.
MPCA. Item 29 - Cumulative Impacts: The document states that "there are no past,
present, or proposed projects that would interact with this project." Does the Wood Lake
project, completed several years ago, have any relationship to this project?
Response.
There have been past projects that have taken place within the area. These have
included the construction of the Richfield Lake outlet 4 years ago, the construction of
the outlet at Wood Lake, and dredging at Wood Lake completed last winter. Further, I-
le 35W is currently under reconstruction and additional stonnwater will be discharged to
Richfield Lake from this project. However, the Richfield Lake Water Quality project,
F:\WP WIN\ 1000.08\102099comments.wpd
qc-s-
EAW for Richfield Lake
November 15, 1999
Page 3
the Richfield and Wood Lake outlet construction, and the Wood Lake dredging have
been projects that have been completed to mitigate the effects of the stormwater that is
directed to these two basins from the fully developed City. Therefore, while the
outlets, Wood Lake dredging, and the water quality projects have occurred or will
occur within the area, these projects are not anticipated to have a collectively
significant negative impact.
Comments from the Met Council
Comment.
MC. Item 8 - Permits and Approvals Required: The EAW lists 6 different permits and
approvals for the proposed project. It is very important that all required permits and
approvals be finalized before the project begins.
Response.
The City acknowledges the need to obtain all of the permits prior to any construction
activities. Construction will not begin until all permits are secured.
0 Comment.
MC. Item 12 - Physical Impact on Water Resources: Council Action Step 4A of the
Regional Blueprint states that the Council will work to protect natural watercourses such as
lakes, wetlands, rivers, stream, natural drainage courses and the critical adjoining land areas
that affect them, to maintain and improve water quality and quantity, and to preserve their
ecological functions.
Richfield Lake is a natural wetland that is used for storm water management. The proposed
project is to excavate approximately 4.88 acres of the Richfield Lake. The proposed project
would create a storm water treatment system around the perimeter of the lake and dredge
several areas within the lake to remove sediment deltas that have built up over time.
In accordance with the Council's policy on wetlands, Council staff generally does not
promote activities that impact wetlands. However, in this case, the do nothing alternative
would allow continuation of the discharge of untreated storm water and sediment deposition
into Richfield Lake. If the City leaves the site as it is, the area will eventually cease to
function as a wetland.
Council staff would prefer that a separate basin be used to resettle the runoff before it is
discharged into Richfield Lake. Council staff is also aware that the city is fully developed
and that the acquisition of land to build a basin to retreat the runoff may be cost prohibitive.
If there are no alternatives to allow for a separate basin for resettlement, Council staff would
prefer the proposed design for resettlement than no action to improve the current situation of
the wetland.
F:\ W P W IN\ 1000.08\ 102099commeutswpd
L4 &-
EAW for Richfield Lake
November 15, 1999
Page 4
The EAW states that the spoils taken from the lake would be disposed of properly in a non-
wetland, non-floodplain site. Council staff concurs with this action. Council staff
encourages the City to have the spoils tested before disposing of them. It is very important
that contaminated spoils are not disposed at sites where children play such as public
playgrounds and parks.
Response.
The Met Council correctly recognizes the situation that the City is fully developed and
there is little to no opportunity to provide pretreatment for storm water prior to
discharge to the lake.
The City intends to test the sediment prior to excavation of the material to ensure they
comply with all rules and regulations.
Comment.
MC. Item 17 - Water Quality; Surface Water Runoff: The project proposes to improve
the quality of storm water runoff received by Richfield Lake through the construction of a
perimeter treatment system around the lake. The project proposer needs to develop a
maintenance program to maintain the pretreatment area. Without proper maintenance, the
perimeter treatment area will begin to fill and allow sediment to directly discharge into the
lake. A schedule needs to be developed for removing sediment from the pretreatment area.
The City may need to obtain easements as well to allow access to the site in order to perform
the required maintenance.
Response.
An operation and maintenance plan will be prepared by the City and easements will be
obtained as part of the final design for this project.
Comments from the Minnesota Historical Society
Comment.
MHS. There are no properties listed on the National or State Registers of Historic Places,
and no known or suspected archaeological properties in the area that will be affected by this
project. Therefore, in our opinion, the "no" response to question 25a is appropriate.
Please note that this comment letter does not address the requirements of Section 106 of the
National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 and 36CFR800, Procedures of the Advisory
Council on Historic Preservation for the protection of historic properties. If this project is
considered for federal assistance or requires a federal permit or license, it should be
submitted to our office with reference to the assisting federal agency.
Response.
No response is necessary.
F:\W P W IN\ 1000.08\ 102099comments.wpd
4C "-7
EAW for Richfield Lake
November 15, 1999
Page 5
Comments from the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources
Comment.
MDNR. Our comments pertain to measures that should be taken to limit potential habitat
impacts. Specifically:
• Dredging in the winter of 1999-2000 should be restricted to the period between
December and March to minimize construction-related conflicts with nesting waterfowl
or other species such as the yellowheaded blackbird. If construction is delayed,
construction should occur between October and March.
• Project-related dredging should avoid the river bulrush bed located at the northern end
of Richfield Lake. The area should be marked if possible and the dredge operator
should be informed of its location and need for impact avoidance.
• Disturbed upland area may be susceptible to the introduction of spread of the state-
listed noxious weed purple loosestrife. We request that contact occur with Luke
Skinner, DNR Purple Loosestrife Program Coordinator, for information on how to
avoid the spread of this invasive species to other lakes and wetlands. He can be
reached at (651) 297-3763.
• Disturbed aquatic areas should be re-vegetated with native species. Please contact
Jenny Winkelman, Aquatic Plant Restoration Specialist, at (651) 772-7945 for further
information.
• Project-related erosion control measures should be monitored during construction,
which includes repair for segments that may be damaged. Silt fences in particular must
be removed once the vegetation has recovered and the affected area has stabilized to
limit potential wildlife.
Response.
Dredging construction activities will be limited to the winter months.
The river bulrush will be minimally disturbed in order to remove sediment at the storm
sewer outfall. The City acknowledges the importance of impact avoidance to this species.
All disturbed upland and wetland soils will be re-vegetated using native plants and
measures will be taken to avoid the spread of purple loosestrife.
Further, erosion control measures will be implemented and monitored throughout the
construction activity.
•
F:\W P W [N\ 1000.08\ 102099comments.wpd
HC-8
EAW for Richfield Lake
November 15, 1999
Page 6
Comments from MnDOT
Comment.
MnDOT. The Metro Division of MnDOT has reviewed the Richfield Lake Water Quality
Project EAW. We apologize for the delay in responding. We find the EAW acceptable and
appreciate the opportunity to comment.
Response. The City appreciates the comments from MnDOT. No response is necessary.
This concludes the responses to comments generated by the Richfield Lake Water Quality Project
EAW. If you have questions, please contact me at (612)541-4800.
cc: Project File No. 1000.08
F:\W P W M 1000.08\ 102099comments.wpd
4c-9
0 CITY OF RICHFIELD
In the matter of the Decision on the FINDINGS OF FACT
Need for an Environmental Impact AND CONCLUSIONS
Statement (EIS) for the Proposed
Richfield Lake Water Quality
Project,
Richfield, MN.
The Richfield Lake Water Quality Project proposes to construct a perimeter stormwater treatment
system around Richfield Lake and to dredge sediment deltas within the lake. Pursuant to Minn. R.
4410.4300, subp. 27, the City of Richfield has prepared an Environmental Assessment Worksheet
(EAW) for this proposed project. As to the need for an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) on the
project and based on the record in this matter, including the EAW and comments received, the City
of Richfield makes the following Findings of Fact and Conclusions:
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. PROJECT DESCRIPTION
A. Project
. The Richfield Lake Water Quality Project proposes to dredge 4.88 acres of material
between 2-9-feet to create a storm water treatment system. An additional 0.32 acres
are anticipated to be filled for trail maintenance improvements. Also, 1.40 acres are
proposed to be created below the existing OHW of Richfield Lake.
B. Project Site
The proposed project is within the Richfield Lake public open space. The project is
located within the E %2 of the. NE 1/, Section 28, T28N, R24W.
II. PROJECT HISTORY
A. This project was subject to the mandatory preparation of an EAW under Minnesota R.
4410.4300, subp. 27.
B. An EAW was prepared on the proposed project and distributed to the Environmental
Quality Board (EQB) mailing list and other interested parries on September 13, 1999.
C. A press release containing the notice of availability of the EAW for public review
was provided to media serving the project area on September 10, 1999.
D. The EAW was noticed in the September 20,1999, EQB Monitor. The public comment
period ended on October 20, 1999. Comment letters were received from the
Minnesota Historical Society, the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, the
Metropolitan Council, the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, and the
Page I F:I"97M1000.081FOF.wpd
L4 C)
Minnesota Department of Transportation. Copies of the letters are hereby
incorporated by reference. Responses to the comments are also incorporated by
reference.
III. CRITERIA FOR DETERMINING THE POTENTIAL FOR SIGNIFICANT
ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS
Minnesota R.4410.1700, subp. I states that "an EIS shall be ordered for proj ects that have the
potential for significant environmental effects." In deciding whether the project has the
potential for significant environmental effects, the City of Richfield must consider the four
factors set out in Minnesota R.4410.1700, subp. 7. With respect to each of these factors, the
City finds as follows:
A. TYPE, EXTENT, AND REVERSIBILITY OF ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS
The first factor that the City of Richfield must consider is "type, extent and
reversibility of environmental effects," Minnesota R.4410.1700, subp. 7.A. The City
of Richfield findings with respect to each of these issues are set forth below.
The type of environmental impacts anticipated as part of this project includes:
a. removal of material from a public water
b. filling a small portion of the werland
Dredging impacts are proposed in order to improve the water quality of a
public water. Dredging activity has been minimized in order to reduce
impacts to a stand of sedges within the lake. Filling of a small wetland area
will be -mitigated through dredging to increase the acreage of the lake.
B. CUMULATIVE POTENTIAL EFFECTS OF RELATED OR ANTICIPATED
FUTURE PROJECTS
The second factor that the City of Richfield must consider is "the cumulative potential
effects of related or anticipated future projects", Minnesota R.4410.1700. supb. 7.B.
The City's findings with respect to this factor are set forth below.
1. There have been past projects that have taken place within the area. These
have included the construction of the Richfield Lake outlet 4 years ago, the
construction of the outlet at Wood Lake, and dredging at Wood Lake completed
last winter. Further, 1-3 5W is currently under reconstruction and additional
stormwater will be discharged to Richfield Lake from this project. However,
the Richfield Lake Water Quality project, the Richfield and Wood Lake outlet
construction, and the Wood Lake dredging have been projects that have been
completed to mitigate the effects of the stormwater that is directed to these two
basins from the fully developed City. Therefore, while the outlets, Wood Lake
dredging, and the water quality projects have occurred or will occur within the
area, these projects are not anticipated to have a collectively significant
negative impact.
Page 2 F.IWPW1M1000.081FOF.wpd
yc-r 1
C. THE EXTENT TO WHICH ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS ARE SUBJECT TO
MITIGATION BY ONGOING PUBLIC REGULATORY AUTHORITY
1. The following permits or approvals will be required for the project:
Unit of Government Permit or Approval Required
Federal:
US Corps of Engineers 4 Section 404 Permit
State:
DNR 4 Work in protected waters or wetlands
DNR 4 Water Appropriations Permit
MPCA NPDES Permit; General Storm Water
Permit
MPCA 4 SDS Permit
MPCA 4 401 Certification
Local:
f Ri
Ci
hfi
ld
4
ty o
c
e LGU Approval
2. The City of Richfield finds that the potential environmental effects of this
project are subject to mitigation by ongoing regulatory authorities such that an
EIS need not be prepared.
D. THE EXTENT TO WHICH ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS CAN BE
ANTICIPATED AND CONTROLLED AS A RESULT OF OTHER
ENVIRONMENTAL STUDIES UNDERTAKEN BY PUBLIC AGENCIES OR THE
PROJECT PROPOSER, OR OF EISs PREVIOUSLY PREPARED ON SIMILAR
PROJECTS.
The fourth factor that the City of Richfield must consider is "the extent to which
environmental effects can be anticipated and controlled as a result of other
environmental studies undertaken by public agencies or the project proposer, or of
EISs previously prepared on similar projects," Minnesota R.4700.1700, subp. 7.D.
The City's findings with respect to this factor are set forth below:
The environmental impacts of the proposed project have been addressed in the
following plans prepared by the City:
1. City of Richfield Comprehensive Plan
. 2. City of Richfield Comprehensive Water Resource Management Plan
The City finds that the environmental effects of the project can be anticipated and
controlled as a result of the environmental review, planning, and permitting processes.
Page 3 FAWPW1M1000.0ff0F.wpd
1-I c-Ia
U
•
•
CONCLUSIONS
1. The EAW, the permitting process, and comments received on the EAW have generated
information adequate to determine whether the proposed development has the potential for
significant environmental effects.
2. The EAW has identified areas where the potential for significant environmental effects exist,
but appropriate mitigative measures have or will be incorporated into the project plan and/or
permits to reasonably mitigate these impacts.
3. The Richfield Lake Water Quality Project is expected to comply with all the City of Richfield
standards and review agency standards.
4. Based on the criteria established in Minnesota R.4410.1700, this project does not have the
potential for significant environmental effects.
5. Based on the Findings of Fact, the project does not have the potential for significant
environmental effects.
6. An Environmental Impact Statement is not required.
Page 4
FAW PWIM I000.08\FOF.wpd
IrOV lu ul:-r-p
0
,??dNESOf'
a' Minnesota Department of Transportation q0 '/q
. Metropolitan Division
os M 111
Waters Edge
1500 West County Road B2
Roseville, MN 55113
Post-It,* Fax Nolp 7971 Waco ,i
November 3.1909
City of Richfield
Attn: Mike Eastling
6700 Portland Avenue, South
Richfield, Minnesota 55423
Dear Mike Easding:
SUBJECT: Richfield Lake Water Quality Project
Minnesota Department of Transportation Review #EAW99-022
Richfield, Hennepin County
C.S. 2782
Y(fr o- cal/
Oc ?c to
( r o, Iv+ " tP
The Metro Division of the Minnesota Department of Transportation (Ma/DOT) has reviewed the
Richfield Lake Water Quality Project Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW). We
apologize for the delay in responding. We find the LAW acucptable and appreciate the
opportunity to comment.
This letter represents the transportation concerns of Mn/DOT Metro Division. Other
environmental concerns raised by a wider Mn/DOT review may be forwarded to you in a
separate letter. Please contact me at (651) 5R2-1468 with any questions regarding this review.
0
Sincerely,
Sharon Anderson
Transportation Planner / Local Government Liaison
cc: Gciald Larson - Mn/DOT Environmental Services
Peter Willenbring, P.E. - WSB & Associates
N O V - a. 1909
An equal opportunity employer
qC-l4
Minnesota Pollution Control Agency
v-
October 19, 1999 RECEIVED
OCT 2 0 1999
Mr. Mike Eastling
City of Richfield WSB & ASS0' r
6700 Portland Avenue South
Richfield, Minnesota 55423
Re: Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW) for Richfield Lake
Dear Mr. Eastling:
The Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) staff has reviewed the above-referenced
EAW. The project involves constructing a perimeter storm water treatment system around
Richfield Lake and dredging sediment deltas within the lake. The following comments are
offered for your consideration.
Item 6 - Project Description
is The document discusses the filling of a portion of Richfield Lake. What will this fill be
comprised of?
Given the length of time it typically takes to obtain a State Disposal System (SDS) Permit for the
disposal of dredged material, the time-frame for construction may not be realistic.
Item 8 - Permits and Approvals Needed
A SDS permit will be needed from the MPCA that would address the disposal of dredged
materials from Richfield Lake. The person to contact to discuss the SDS permit is
Ms. Judy Mader. She can be contacted at (651) 296-7315.
Item 16 - Erosion and sedimentation
A revegetation plan and an operation and maintenance plan for the sedimentation basins are
needed for this project.
Item 17 - Water Quality - Surface Water Runoff
It appears that the proposed sedimentation basins are being designed to remove sediment rather
than nutrients. Has the City evaluated retention times in the sediment basins? What kind of
sediment removals can be expected?
520 Lafayette Rd. N.; St. Paul, MN 55155-4194; (651) 296-6300 (Voice); (651) 282-5332 (TTY)
Regional Offices: Duluth • Brainerd • Detroit Lakes + Marshall • Rochester
Equal Opportunity Employer • Printed on recycled paper containing at least 20% fibers from paper recycled by consumers.
L4 c- I 5
Mr. Mike Eastling
Page Two
It appears that this project will result in some improvements in water quality in Richfield Lake.
However, it is not clear how significant those improvements will be. Has the City developed a
detailed hydrologic evaluation for the project? What specific water quality goals is the City
hoping to achieve?
Item 29 - Cumulative impacts
The document states that "there are no past, present, or proposed projects that would interact
with this project." Does the Wood Lake project, completed several years ago, have any
relationship to this project?
Thank you for the opportunity to review this proposal. Please note that the City, as the
responsible governmental unit for the EAW, must provide specific responses to these comments
pursuant to Minn. R. Pt. 4410.1700, subp. 4. If you should have any questions, please feel free
to contact me at (651) 282-5992.
Sincerely,
Lynne Kolze
Planner Principal
Operations and Planning Section
Metro District
LK:sjs
Cc: Peter Willenbring, WSB & Associates
Mark Tomasek, MPCA, MD/CAP
Judy Mader, MPCA, ND/DL (0 floor)
Metropolitan Council
Working for the Region, Planning for the Future
0
14 C:-i
Environmental .Services
October 1, 1999
Mr. Michael Eastling
City of Richfield
6700 Portland Avenue South
Richfield, Minnesota 55423
RECEIVED
OCT 0 6 1999
WSB & ASSOCIATES
RE: Richfield Lake Water Quality Project - Environmental Assessment Worksheet
Metropolitan Council District 5
Referral File No. 18061-1
Dear Mr. Eastling:
Council staff has conducted a review of this environmental assessment worksheet (EAW) to
determine its adequacy and accuracy in addressing regional concerns. The staff review finds
that the EAW is complete and accurate with respect to regional concerns and raises no major
issues of consistency with Council policies. An Environmental Impact Statement is not
necessary for regional purposes. However, staff provides the following comments for your
consideration.
Item 8 - Permits and Approvals Required
The EAW lists 6 different permits and approvals required for the proposed project. It is very
important that all required permits and approvals be finalized before the project begins.
Item 12 - Physical Impact on Water Resources
Council Action Step 4A of the Regional Blueprint states that the Council will work to protect
natural watercourses such as lakes, wetlands, rivers, streams, natural drainage courses and the
critical adjoining land areas that affect them, to maintain and improve water quality and
quantity, and to preserve their ecological functions.
Richfield Lake is a natural wetland that is used for storm water management. The proposed
project is to excavate approximately 4.88 acres of the Richfield Lake. The proposed project
would create a storm water treatment system around the perimeter of the lake and dredge several
areas within the lake to remove sediment deltas that have built up over time.
230 East Fifth Street . St. Paul. Minnesota 55101-1626 (651) 602-1005 Fax 602-1183 TDD/TTY 229-3760
t4 C,-1 I
In accordance with the Council's policy on wetlands, Council staff generally does not promote
discharged into Richfield Lake. Council staff is also aware that the city is fully developed and
that the acquisition of land to build a basin to pretreat the runoff may be cost prohibitive. If
there are no alternatives to allow for a separate basin for presettlement, Council staff would
prefer the proposed design for presettlement than no action to improve the current situation of
the wetland.
allow continuation of the discharge of untreated storm water and sediment deposition into
Richfield Lake. If the city leaves the site as it is, the area will eventually cease to it is function as a
activities Council staff that would impact area prefer that a wetlands. separate However, basin in be this used to case, the do presettle the nothing runoff alternatibeforeve would
wetland.
The EAW states that the spoils taken from the lake would be disposed of properly in a non-
wetland, non-floodplain site. Council staff concurs with this action. Council staff encourages
the city to have the spoils tested before disposing of them. It is very important that
contaminated spoils are not disposed at sites where children play such as public playgrounds
and parks.
Item 17 - Water Quality, Surface Water Runoff
The project proposes to improve the quality of storm water runoff received by Richfield Lake
through the construction of a perimeter treatment system around the lake. The project proposer
needs to develop a maintenance program to maintain the pretreatment area. Without proper
maintenance, the perimeter treatment area will begin to fill in and allow sediment to directly
discharge into the lake. A schedule needs to be developed for removing sediment from the
pretreatment area. The city may need to obtain easements as well to allow access to the site in
order to perform the required maintenance.
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this EAW. The Council will take no formal
action on the EAW. If you have any questions or need further assistance, please contact Judy
Sventek, Senior Environmental Planner, at 651-602-1156.
Sincerely,
Helen Bo er
' 'V -'r?
rj--?
Y
Director, Environmental Services Division
cc: Phil Riveness, Metropolitan Council District 5
Keith Buttleman, Director, MCES Environmental Planning and Evaluation Dept.
Judy Sventek, Metropolitan Council Watershed Coordinator
Tom Caswell, Metropolitan Council Sector Representative
Jack Frost, Metropolitan Council Watershed Coordinator
October 6, 1999
Mr. Mike Eastling
City of Richfield
6700 Portland Avenue South
Richfield, MN 55423
444-- F qC-1 00
RECEIVED
MINNESOT-k 14IS'T01U(;A1.Soc.it,'n' OCT 12 1999
STATE HISTORIC PRESERVATION OFFICE
WSB & A55OCIA!
RE: EAW - Richfield Lake Water Quality Project
Richfield, Hennepin County
SHPO Number: 99-4167
Dear Mr. Eastling:
Thank you for providing this office with a copy of the Environmental Assessment Worksheet for the
above-referenced project. It has been reviewed pursuant to responsibilities given to the Minnesota
Historical Society by the Minnesota Historic Sites Act and the Minnesota Field Archaeology Act and
is through the process outlined in Minnesota Rules 4410.1600.
There are no properties listed on the National or State Registers of Historic Places, and no known or
suspected archaeological properties in the area that will be affected by this project. Therefore, in our
opinion, the "no" response to question 25a is appropriate.
Please note that this comment letter does not address the requirements of Section 106 of the
National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 and 36CFR800, Procedures of the Advisory Council on
Historic Preservation for the protection of historic properties. If this project is considered for federal
assistance, or requires a federal permit or license, it should be submitted to our office with reference
to the assisting federal agency.
Please contact Dennis Gimmestad at (651)296-5462 if you have any questions regarding our review
of this project.
Sincerely,
-b, d - t\
.wAJl?._
Britta L. Bloomberg U
Deputy State Historic Preservation Officer
tl I?I:I.I.?N:1:Itl?l \\SU\'I' I'\1 I.. III\?I:?1)-I'\:1.,102 1906/ I•ELI;I'lIf)\I. r,.-,I 'vi,6126
Oct 21 99 08:33a
Oct 20 1999 12:54
is
October 19. 1999
Minnesota Department of Natural Resources
5aULafayetteRoau 10
St. Paul. Minnesota 55113.40-
Michael Easding, Director of Public Works
City of Richfield
6700 Portland Avenue South
Richfield, MN 55423
RE:
Post-ir Fax Note
Richfield Lake Water Quality project --
Environmenta) Assessment Worksheet (EAW)
Dear Mr. Eastling
P. 01
`-l C-1 l
The Deparancnt of Natural Rcsourccs (DNR) has reviewed the EAW for the Richfield Lake Water
Quality Project. We appreciate the ongoing consultation with DNR and encourage its continuation as the
DNR protected waters permit process moves forward. We offer the following comments for your
consideration.
Our comments pertain to measures that should be taker to limit potential habitat impacts. Specifically:
• Dredging in the winter of 1999-2000 should be restricted to the period between December and
March to minimize construction-mlated conflicts with nesting waterfowl or other species such ac
the ycllowheaded blackbird. if construction is delayed, construction should not occur between
October and March.
Project-related dredging should avoid the river bulrush bod located at the northem end of
Richfield Lake. The area should be marked if possible and the dredge operator should be
informed of its location and need for impact avoidance.
• Disturbed upland areas may be susceptible to the introduction of spread of the state-listed
noxious weed purple loosestrife. We request that contact occur with Luke Skinner. DNR Purple
Lwwstrtre rrogran Coordinator. for information on how to avoid the cprced of this invaa;vc
species to other lakes and wetlands; he can be reached at (651) 297-3763.
• Disturbed aquatic areas should be revegetated with native species. Please contact Jenny
Winkelman, Aquatic Plant Restoration Specialist, at (651) 772-7945 for further information.
• Project-related erosion control measures should be monitored during construction, which
includes repair for segments that may be damaged. Silt fences in particular must be removed
once the vegetation has recovered and the affected area has stabilized to limit potential wildlife
impacts.
1
bNCi, Ynloemation: 651-296-6157 1-688-646.6369 - TTY: 651-2964484 )-800.657-3929
P.J
An Vgval Oppoaoauy Employa
Who Values Diweuty 0 Pernva on Aecytrad PparCorwaWng a
1ANaaee M c0% Pott.CoFW~ Wash
Oc.t 21 99 08:33a
q c-C),o
Michael Fettling, Director of Public Work.,
October 19. 1999
Oct 20 1999 12:54 P.02
Thank you for the opportunity to review this project. We do not recommend preparation of an
environmental impact statement (E1S) based upon natural resource considerations. We look forward to
receiving your record of decision and responses to comments. Minnesota Rules part 4410.1 700. subparts
4 do S. require you to send us your Record of Decision within five days of deciding this action. Please
contact Bill Johnson of my staff at (651) 296-9229 if you have questions regarding this letter.
Sincerely,
S'Y. t?Yi.C?
aromas W. Balcom, Superv isor /
Environmental Planning dt Review Section
Office of Mannecmcut and Budget Services
c: Kathleen Wallace
Con Christianson
Joe Oschwald
Luke Skinner, Ecological Services
Jc4tuy Winkelman, Section offisheries
Russ Peterson, USFWS
Jon Larsen, EQB
920000195.0001
R1CHFIELD.u'po
p.4
Oct 29 1999 1035 P.01
y c-a1
0 w State of Minnesota
Department of Natural Resources
Office of Management and Budget Services
500 Lafayette Rd, Box 10
n" St. Paul, MN 55155
FACSIMILE TRANSMITTAL COVER SHEET
Number of pages including cover sheet: ?-'
DATE:
TO: p ?S? ' `?JS
r? W
Qom- l? '
Telephone Number: Fax Number: 7k
FROM: A 47;X Ajp2 / ?d Y
Telephone Number: 6J-1 Fax Number:
-z9G ? ZZ.9
COMMENTS:
CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE
The document(s) accompanying this cover sheet may contain confidential information which is legally
protected. The information is intended only for the use of the intended recipient named above. If you
are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any disclosure, copying, distribution or the
taking of any action in reliance on the contents of this telecopied information by you is strictly prohibited
and may result in a criminal penalty. If you have received this fax in error, please notify us by telephone
to arrange for the return of the documents to us.
Oct 29 1999 10:36 F.U1
q C-aa
0.
DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES STATE OF MINNESOTA
OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT & BUDGET. SERVICES
Office Memorandum
Date: October 29, 1999
To: Andrea Moffet
WSB & Associates Consulting
From: Bill Johnson Phone: 651-296-9229
Environmental Planning & Review Section
Re: Richfield Lake Water Quality Project EAW
Correction to DNR Comments
Andrea, you have correctly identified an error in the comments DNR
provided to the City of Richfield on October 19, 1999 regarding this EAW.
Here is the corrected version of the recommendation:
• "Dredging in the winter of 1999-2000 should be restricted to the period between
December and March to minimize construction-related conflicts with nesting
waterfowl or other species such as the yellowheaded blackbird. If construction is
delayed, construction should occur between October and March."
Thank you for bringing this to my attention. I apologize for any inconvenience
this error has entailed. Please feel free to contact me with any other questions.
richc=r.wpd
*20000195-0001
0
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA q6
Council Letter No290
Agenda December 13, 1999
Issue Statement:
City Council resolution appointing representatives to the Richfield Tourism Promotion
Board, Inc.
Background:
On June 25, 1990 the City Council approved an ordinance to levy a 3% tax on gross
receipts of lodging from Richfield hotels and motels pursuant to Minnesota Statutes.
The establishment of the Richfield Tourism Promotion Board, Inc. and the appointment
of three directors was also a part of the resolution. The terms of the appointment are for
three years and are staggered to maintain Board continuity.
The current members of the Tourism Board and the ending dates of their current terms
are as follows:
1. Bill Brusman, Vice President of Realty Management services, Inc. representing the
Hampton Inn, term ending December 31, 2001.
2. Larry Zielke, Attorney representing the Richfield Chamber of Commerce, term
ending December 31, 1999.
3. Jeff Andrews, Americlnn, term ending December 31, 2000.
• Larry Zielke, the Richfield Chamber of Commerce representative whose term expires on
December 31, 1999 is not interested in seeking reappointment. Mr. Zielke is one of the
original appointees to the Tourism Board. As Mr. Zielke's replacement, the Chamber of
Commerce is recommending that Cathy Sulla be appointed as the Chamber
representative. Ms. Sulla is currently the Membership Director for the Richfield
Chamber and has been on the Chamber of Commerce Board of Directors for the past
two years. Beginning January 1, 2000, Ms. Sulla will become the Second Vice Chair of
the Chamber of Commerce Board. During her tenure with the Chamber of Commerce,
Ms. Sulla has also chaired the Gala and Ambassador Committees. Ms. Sulla would be
an excellent addition to the Tourism Board.
The third position on the Tourism Board is currently held by Jeff Andrews representing
the Americlnn. Mr. Andrews's term is set to expire December 31, 2000. However, the
Americlnn changed ownership during 1999 and Mr. Andrews is no longer associated
with the Americlnn property. Thus, the remaining portion of the third position should
also be filled. The current Tourism Board members have recommended Erika
Olmstead, the General Manager of Candlewood Suites, be appointed to complete the
term for the third Board position. Ms. Olmstead has been the General Manager of the
Candlewood facility since it opened in Richfield and has periodically attended Richfield
Tourism Board meetings. Ms. Olmstead would also be an excellent addition to the
Richfield Tourism Board.
Recommended Motion:
Adopt the attached resolution making the following appointments:
1. Appoint Cathy Sulla as the Richfield Chamber of Commerce representative for a
three-year term expiring on December 31, 2002.
2. Appoint Erika Olmstead, Manager of Candlewood Suites, to complete a three-year
term ending December 31, 2000.
Basis of Recommendation:
1. The City Council has the authority to make annual appointments to the Richfield
Tourism Board.
2. Ms. Sulla, the proposed representative for the Chamber of Commerce, has been
recommended by the Chamber and is willing to be appointed to the Tourism Board.
3. Ms. Olmstead, Manager of Candlewood Suites, is also interested in being appointed
to the Tourism Board and Tourism Board members recommend her appointment.
4. The Tourism Board has, -since its inception,-included representatives of hotel/motel
operations as well as the Chamber of Commerce.
5. Vacancies on the Board exist and need to be addressed through these
appointments.
Alternative Recommendation:
The City could seek alternative representatives for these Board appointments and/or
postpone the appointments to a future date.
Discussion/Decision Mode:
It is suggested that City Council make the appointments of Ms. Sulla and Ms. Olmstead
at the December 13, 1999 City Council Meeting so they may assume their respective
positions on January 1, 2000.
. Resp ully submitted,
Sh a Orduno
nager
SO:cak
q6-2-
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION APPOINTING REPRESENTATIVES
TO THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF
THE RICHFIELD TOURISM PROMOTION BOARD, INC.
WHEREAS, the City of Richfield has levied a 3% tax on the gross receipts of
lodging from hotels and motels in the City pursuant to Minnesota Statute Section
169.190; and
WHEREAS, Minnesota Statute Section 169.190 authorizes the proceeds of the
tax to fund a Tourism Promotion Board for the purpose of marketing and promoting the
City as a tourist or convention center; and
WHEREAS, the articles and bylaws of the Richfield Tourism Promotion Board,
Inc. provide the City Council of the City of Richfield appoint three directors to the Board
representing the Richfield hotel-motel properties and the Richfield Chamber of
Commerce; and
WHEREAS, each director shall serve as a director until his or her successor has
been appointed and has qualified, or until his or her earlier disqualification, death,
resignation, or removal; and
WHEREAS, the term of Larry Zielke, the representative for the Richfield
Chamber of Commerce, expires on December 31, 1999 and Mr. Zielke has indicated
that he does not wish to be re-appointed to the Board; and
WHEREAS, Cathy Sulla has been recommended by the Richfield Chamber of
Commerce to succeed Mr. Zielke as the Chamber representative, and
WHEREAS, Erika Olmstead, the representative of Candlewood Suites, has been
recommended by the Richfield Tourism Board to complete the final year of the three-
year term of Jeff Andrews ending December 31, 2000.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of
Richfield, Minnesota, that the Richfield Tourism Promotion Board directors be modified
as follows:
1. Appoint Cathy Sulla as the Richfield Chamber of Commerce representative to the
Richfield Tourism Promotion Board for a three-year term ending December 31,
2002.
2. Appoint Erika Olmstead, Candlewood Suites, to the Richfield Tourism Promotion
Board for the remainder of a three-year term ending December 31, 2000.
Adopted by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this 13th day of
December 1999.
Martin J. Kirsch, Mayor
40 ATTEST:
Thomas P. Ferber, City Clerk
i chfi e1 d RECEIVED
R CHAMBER OF COMMERCE DEC 0 3
'RV-
q3-3
December 2,1999
The Honorable
Martin J. Kirsch
Mayor City of Richfield
6700 Portland Avenue South
Richfield, MN 55423
Dear Mayor:
With the decision of Larry Zielke to not seek another term on the Richfield Tourism and
Promotion Board (RTPB), it is necessary to try to recommend a replacement for him.
The Richfield Chamber of Commerce Board of Directors on December 10th will
officially recommend Cathy Sulla for appointment to the RTPB Board.
Cathy is a member of the Richfield Chamber of Commerce Board of Directors and
beginning January 1, 2000 will assume the position of Vice Chair of the Board. As an
active community member in a number of positions including President of the
Richfield Fourth of July Committee, Cathy has distinguished herself in these leadership
capacities. Her involvement with the Miss Richfield Ambassador's program is without
equal.
I trust the Richfield City Council will look favorably upon this recommendation.
yam's,/
PRESIDENT
SL:cs
cc: Mr. Steve Devich
Ms. Cathy Sulla
Richfield Chamber Board of Directors
"Serving Richfield for 44 Years"
1401 WEST 76TH STREET, SUITE 130 • RICHFIELD, MN 55423 • TELEPHONE: (612) 866-5100
4A
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Council Letter No. 289
Agenda December 13, 1999
Issue Statement:
Consideration of a revised resolution which specifies certain improper conduct of on-
sale intoxicating liquor, wine and 3.2 malt liquor licensees and recommended discipline
action.
Background:
At the April 26, 1999, City Council meeting, the City Council approved Resolution No.
8714 that specifies certain improper conduct of alcohol license holders and delineates
the progressive discipline that can be expected when violations occur. This is the
resolution that is referenced each year at the time that alcohol licenses are renewed.
Staff was recently notified by the City Attorney's office that in two instances, the fines
identified in section II, paragraph "f' exceeded the maximum fines allowable under State
Statute. This section outlines the fines that can be expected if there is a sale,
consumption or service to a minor of intoxicating liquor, wine or 3.2 malt liquor. It will be
necessary to amend numbers 3 and 4 in section II, paragraph "f," by reducing the fines
for a third sale of alcohol to a minor offense from $2,500 to $1,750 and for a fourth
offense from $3,500 to $2,000. The State does not allow for fines to exceed $2,000 on
any one offense.
Although, there is currently a third time offense by an establishment in Richfield for
selling alcohol to a minor, they have not yet been fined. Staff's recommendation is that
they receive the amended fine of $1,750 for the third offense as recommended in the
updated alcohol resolution.
It is recommended that an additional section "g" be added to the resolution that
addresses the other requirements the Council may impose upon an establishment,
aside from a license suspension and a fine. This may include a meeting with the
Director of Public Safety, mandatory educational sessions with Crime Prevention staff
and other actions that the City Council deems appropriate. There is also language to
clarify the initial appearance process before the City Council when an offense has
occurred. This was added in an effort to provide to establishments more clarity as to
what the Council's expectations were in dealing with establishments. It outlines the
options that are available to them when appearing before the City Council in responding
to the Council's request for their attendance at the meeting.
A copy of the resolution is attached to this letter with the recommended new language
underlined.
qP_1
Recommended Motion:
Request for consideration and approval of a revised resolution which specifies certain
improper conduct of on-sale intoxicating liquor, wine and 3.2 malt liquor licensees and
recommended discipline action.
Basis of Recommendation:
1. The fines identified in the current Resolution No. 8714 exceed the State of
Minnesota maximum amount for service of alcohol to a minor violation.
2. The addition of paragraph "g" is an effort to clarify for establishments the
requirements that the City Council may impose on them in addition to a license
suspension and fine.
3. The addition of paragraph "g" will also clarify for establishments the initial
appearance process before the City Council. It should also identify what the
Council's expectations are in terms of dealing with establishments, as well as the
options available to offending establishments when appearing before the City
Council.
Alternative Recommendation:
1. The Council could decide to leave Resolution No. 8714 as it is, which would mean
that Richfield's fine structure would exceed the amount allowed by State Statute.
Discussion/Decision Mode:
The consideration and approval of a revised resolution which specifies certain improper
conduct of on-sale intoxicating liquor, wine and 3.2 malt liquor licensees and
recommended discipline action is presented for Council consideration at this time.
Respectfully submitted,
ha Orduno
City Manager
SO:ds
0
0-a
CITY OF RICHFIELD
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION SPECIFYING CERTAIN IMPROPER CONDUCT OF ON-SALE
INTOXICATING LIQUOR, WINE AND 3.2 MALT LIQUOR LICENSEES AND
STATING RECOMMENDED DISCIPLINE REPLACING RESOLUTION NO. 8714
BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Richfield as follows:
1. BACKGROUND STATEMENT
The City of Richfield annually issues a number of licenses permitting the sale of
on-sale intoxicating liquor, wine and 3.2 malt liquor within the City. The conduct
of the licensed activity is governed by the provisions of Section 1200 of the City
Code. Although, the provisions of that Section describe in a general way what is
expected of licensees in the proper conduct of the licensed activity, the City
Council is concerned that licensees should have a more specific understanding
of the types of conduct, generally described in the Code, which may subject their
licenses to discipline; and further that they have a clear understanding of the
scope and nature of the discipline which may be imposed for certain specific
conduct. The levels of discipline described in this resolution will be imposed only
in accordance with the applicable provisions of law. The list of activities and
conduct contained in this resolution is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather
concentrates on the types of conduct most frequently observed at licensed
establishments. Other activity or conduct which is detrimental to the public
safety, health, morals and welfare and which constitutes a violation of the
provisions of Section 1200 of the City Code may also subject liquor licenses to
discipline. The actions, which the City may take in accordance with this
resolution, are not intended to preclude such further actions such as actions in
law or in equity or criminal prosecution available to the City for the conduct
described in this resolution.
II. SPECIFIC PROHIBITED CONDUCT AND PROPOSED SANCTIONS.
A. Noise and Other Disturbing Conduct Within or Near the Licensed Premises.
Licensees are responsible for the conduct of their patrons while within the licensed
establishment; and of individuals within the immediate vicinity of the establishment
whom are either coming to or leaving the establishment. The City is unwilling to permit
the continued operation of a licensed alcohol establishment in circumstances where it is
evident that the licensed activity is having a detrimental impact upon the health, welfare,
safety and morals of the community and patrons of the establishment. The following
discipline may be imposed upon on-sale intoxicating liquor, wine and 3.2 malt liquor
40 licenses for verified reports of criminal misconduct occurring on or near the licensed
4A3
premises and attributable to patrons of the establishment (including persons entering or
leaving):
1) For five (5) such incidents occurring within less than a 31-day period
(beginning with the date of the first of such five incidents) - suspension of the
license for up to 10 days and a civil fine of $2,000 for each incident.
2) For ten (10) such incidents occurring within less than a 61-day period
(beginning with the date of the first of such incidents) - suspension of the
license for up to 30 days and a civil fine of $2,000 for each incident.
3) For fifteen (15) such incidents occurring within any 91-day period (beginning
with the date of the first of such incidents) - suspension of the license for up
to 60 days and a civil fine of $2,000 for each incident.
The discipline outlined above is intended to be cumulative in nature, and
incidents which give rise to discipline (or the right to discipline) during a shorter period
may be counted in determining whether discipline is appropriate during a longer period.
The term "verified reports of criminal misconduct" means a report made to the
Director of Public Safety by the licensee or a complaint made by others concerning an
incident constituting a crime under the City Code of the laws of the State of Minnesota,
which, in the opinion of the Director, is directly attributable to the licensed activity.
Verified reports of criminal misconduct do not of necessity mean requests
for service, and licensees shall not be required to make requests for services in
situations where the licensee is capable of resolving the incident without police
assistance. However, it is necessary for the City to have an accurate measure of the
level of criminal misconduct. The Department of Public Safety shall establish standards
and criteria for the making of such reports by the licensee. If the licensee fails to make
the required reports of criminal misconduct in accordance with such standards and
criteria, the following additional discipline may be imposed upon its on-sale intoxicating
liquor, wine or 3.2 malt liquor license:
1) For the first incident of failure to report criminal misconduct within any
license year- suspension of license for up to five days and a civil fine
of $2,000.
2) For the second such incident in any license year - suspension of
license for up to 10 days and a civil fine of $2,000.
3) For the third such incident in any license year - suspension of license
for up to 15 days and a civil fine of $2,000.
B. Serving Alcoholic Beverages Beyond the Interior of the Licensed Premises or
Permitting Patrons to Leave such Licensed Premises with Alcoholic
Beverages.
Licensees must assure that the service and consumption of alcoholic beverages will
be confined only to those areas permitted by the license. Failure to do so may have
4A ?l
an evident and adverse impact upon other activities lawfully occurring within the
area and creates a substantial risk of criminal behavior such as violation of the Open
Bottle Law. The following discipline may be imposed upon on-sale intoxicating
liquor, wine and 3.2 malt liquor licenses:
1) The first incident during the license year- up to a 10-day suspension and
$2,000 civil fine.
2) The second incident during the license year -- up to a 30-day suspension and
$2,000 civil fine.
3) The third incident during the license year - up to a 60-day suspension and
$2,000 civil fine.
4) The fourth incident during the license year- revocation of license.
C. Permitting Occupancy to Exceed the Limits Permitted Under the Uniform Fire
Code 25.114 (overcrowding)
Licensees are absolutely bound to prevent situations in which the licensed premises
become overcrowded. The City finds that the opportunity to serve alcoholic
beverages contributes to an environment wherein overcrowding, if not strictly
controlled by the licensee, may occur. Each liquor license issued shall state the
maximum occupancy limit for the licensed premises. The following discipline may
be imposed upon on-sale intoxicating liquor, wine or 3.2 malt liquor licenses for
incidents of overcrowding verified by the City's Public Safety Director or their
designee:
1) The first incident during the license year- up to a 10-day license suspension
and $2,000 civil fine.
2) The second incident during the license year - up.to a 30-day suspension and
$2,000 civil fine.
3) The third incident during the license year - up to a 60-day suspension and
$2,000 civil fine.
4) The fourth or subsequent incident during the license year - revocation of the
license.
D. Facilitating Gambling. Licensees must not permit or allow any condition to
occur on the licensed premises, which would facilitate gambling activity.
Licensees may not permit any device on the licensed premises, which could be
used, for gambling. Such devices include blackjack tables, video games of chance,
roulette wheels and any other amusement or gambling device as defined in
Minnesota Statutes, Chapters 349 and 609, and Richfield City code Subsections
1100.13 and 1100.01.
For any incident of facilitation of gambling, the on-sale intoxicating liquor, wine or 3.2
malt liquor license may be suspended for up to a period of days equal in number to
the period of days that such incident continued.
4A-5
0 E. Effect of Suspension or Revocation of Food License.
On-sale intoxicating liquor, wine or 3.2 malt liquor licenses which are issued to
establishments because they qualify as restaurants shall cease to be valid for any
period of time during which the establishment's food license is under suspension or
revocation as the result of actions taken by the City Manager, enforcement officer or
both pursuant to Subsection 615.05, subdivision 6 of the City Code.
The on-sale sale of intoxicating liquor, wine or 3.2 malt liquor during such period
shall constitute an unlicensed sale.
F. The Sale, Consumption or Service to a Minor of Intoxicating Liquor, Wine or
3.2 Malt Liquor.
Licensees must assure that the sale, consumption or service to a minor of any
alcoholic beverage is prohibited under any condition. Failure to do so will result in
swift and severe progressive civil penalties. The following discipline will be imposed
upon on-sale intoxicating, wine or 3.2 malt liquor licenses for verified reports or
compliance checks of misconduct occurring at the establishment:
1) For a first offense, the establishment's license will be suspended for 2 days and
a civil fine of $500 will be due and payable to the City.
2) For a second offense, (if within 2 years of the 1st offense), the establishment's
license will be suspended for 5 days and a civil fine of $1500 will be due and
payable to the City. If the offense occurs outside of 2 years of a 1st offense, it
will be considered a first offense.
3) For a third offense, (if within 3 years of the 2nd offense), the establishment's
license will be suspended for 10 days and a civil fine of 1750 will be due and
payable to the City. If the offense occurs outside of three years of a second
offense, it will be considered a 2nd offense.
4) For a fourth offense, (if within 4 years of the 3rd offense), the establishment's
license will be revoked and a civil fine of 2000 will be due and payable to the
City. If the offense occurs outside of four years of a third offense, it will be
considered a 3rd offense.
G. General provisions regarding sanctions.
In addition to the sanctions listed for specific offenses listed in paragraphs A through F
above, the City Council may impose other mandatory requirements upon the
establishment such as: meetings with the Public Safety Director to present a plan of
action to assure that the problem will not continue; mandatory educational sessions with
Crime Prevention staff; or other actions that the City Council deems appropriate.
The City Council retains the right to modify the provisions of this resolution from time to
time and to impose penalties greater than or less than those contained herein when in
T/7
the judgment of the Council it is appropriate to do so. The City Council may suspend all
or a portion of any penally or license suspension upon compliance with such conditions
as the Council deems appropriate.
Prior to imposing any monetary penalty or license suspension or revocation, the City
Council will set an initial appearance at which the licensed establishment must appear
before the City Council to admit or deny the violation. If the violation is admitted, the
licensed establishment will be allowed to explain any mitigating circumstances at the
time of the initial appearance. If the violation is denied, the licensed establishment may
request a hearing at or prior to the initial appearance. Licensed establishments may
explain mitigating circumstances or request a hearing in writing prior to the initial
appearance or may do so orally by appearing at the initial appearance. The City
Council strongly encourages licensed establishments to make a personal appearance at
the initial appearance. A licensed establishment that does not request a hearing at or
prior to the initial appearance will be deemed to have waived its right to a hearing, and
the City Council may deem the violation admitted and impose sanctions as provided in
this resolution.
Where a hearing is requested, the City Council may conduct the hearing or refer the
hearing to an independent hearing examiner. All hearings involving possible
suspension or revocation of a license will be conducted in accordance with Minnesota
Statutes, chapter 14.
1999.
Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield this 13th day of December
ATTEST:
Thomas Ferber, City Clerk
Martin J. Kirsch, Mayor