09-13-99 agendaCITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
MONDAY, SEPTEMBER 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) SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF AUGUST 19,
1999; (2) SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF AUGUST 23,1999; (3) REGULAR
CITY COUNCIL STUDY MEETING OF AUGUST 23,1999; (4) CONTINUATION OF
REGULAR AUGUST 23, 1999 CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF AUGUST 25,1999; (5)
SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL BUDGET MEETING OF AUGUST 25,1999; AND (6) CITY
COUNCIL AND SPECIAL HRA MEETING OF SEPTEMBER 2, 1999
PRESENTATION
INDIVIDUALS WHO WISH TO ADDRESS THE COUNCIL ARE REQUESTED TO PRINT
THEIR NAME AND ADDRESS ON THE SPEAKER'S REGISTER FOR THE RECORD.
1. OPPORTUNITY FOR CITIZENS TO ADDRESS THE COUNCIL ON ITEMS NOT ON
THE AGENDA
AGENDA APPROVAL
2. COUNCIL APPROVAL OF AGENDA
CONSENT CALENDAR
3. 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
A. CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF RESOLUTION LEVYING SPECIAL
ASSESSMENT FOR WEED DESTRUCTION C.L. 198
B. CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF RESOLUTION LEVYING SPECIAL
ASSESSMENT FOR NUISANCE ABATEMENT FEES C.L. 199
C. CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF TECHNICAL AMENDMENT TO
TRANSITORY ORDINANCE APPROVING VACATION OF RIGHT -OF -WAY
ALONG LAKE SHORE DRIVE C.L. 200
D. CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING
AGREEMENT WITH MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION FOR
PAYMENT BY CITY TO STATE OF CITY'S SHARE OF COSTS OF WATERMAIN
CONSTRUCTION ACROSS TRUNK HIGHWAY 35W NEAR 73RD STREET AND
WITHIN CORPORATE CITY LIMITS C.L. 201
E. CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF AUTHORIZATION FOR CITY OF
RICHFIELD TO SUBMIT FOUR APPLICATIONS FOR PARTICIPATION IN
FEDERAL TRANSPORTATION FUNDING UNDER TRANSPORTATION EQUITY
ACT FOR 21ST CENTURY PROGRAM AND ACCEPTING INTERCHANGE
WEST TRAFFIC STUDY AND 35W1494 INTERCHANGE STUDY C.L. 202
F. CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF ITINERANT FOOD LICENSE WITH FEE
WAIVER FOR RICHFIELD HOCKEY ASSOCIATION'S SECOND ANNUAL FUN
FEST AT GALYAN'S, 1700 WEST 78TH STREET, ON SEPTEMBER 18, 1999
C.L. 203
G. CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF ITINERANT PLACE OF AMUSEMENT
LICENSE WITH FEE WAIVER .- FOR _CH URCH OF ST. PZT -E.R °S 1999-FALL
FESTIVAL ON OCTOBER 3, 1999 C.L. 204
H. CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF COMMUNITY CELEBRATION EVENT
LICENSE WITH FEE WAIVER FOR RICHFIELD CATTAIL DAYS EVENTS AT
VETERANS MEMORIAL PARK ON SEPTEMBER 18, 1999 C.L. 205
I. CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF ITINERANT FOOD LICENSE WITH FEE
WAIVER FOR ANIMAL RELIEF FUND AUTUMN WALK FOR HOMELESS
ANIMALS AT VETERANS MEMORIAL PARK ON SEPTEMBER 19, 1999 C.L.
206
PUBLIC HEARINGS
4. PUBLIC HEARING ON PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR MIXED USE
DEVELOPMENT AND SECOND READING OF ORDINANCE AMENDMENT
REZONING LAND TO PLANNED GENERAL COMMERCIAL IN LYNDALE
GATEWAY AREA
COUNCIL LETTER NO. 207
5. PUBLIC HEARING AND CONSIDERATION OF RESOLUTION APPROVING
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND FINAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR PHASE I OF
LYNDALE GATEWAY REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT
COUNCIL LETTER NO. 208
6. PUBLIC HEARING AND CONSIDERATION OF RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING
ISSUANCE OF TAX EXEMPT GENERAL OBLIGATION TAX INCREMENT BONDS
FOR USE IN LYNDALE GATEWAY REDEVELOPMENT AREA
COUNCIL LETTER NO. 209
7. PUBLIC HEARING AND CONSIDERATION OF 1999 REVISED /2000 PROPOSED
BUDGET RESOLUTIONS ADOPTING 1999 PRELIMINARY PROPERTY TAX LEVY,
LEVY CERTIFICATION TAX RATE INCREASE, REVISION OF 1999 BUDGET OF
VARIOUS DEPARTMENTS, SETTING TRUTH IN TAXATION HEARING DATES AND
CANCELING 1999 AD VALOREM LEVY FOR CURRENT SPECIAL ASSESSMENT
BONDS
COUNCIL LETTER NO. 210
8. PUBLIC HEARING AND SECOND READING OF ORDINANCE LICENSING AND
REGULATING PRACTICE OF THERAPEUTIC MASSAGE IN RICHFIELD AND
CONSIDERATION OF RESOLUTION AMENDING APPENDIX D OF CITY CODE
ESTABLISHING 1999 LICENSE, PERMIT AND MISCELLANEOUS FEES
A
COUNCIL LETTER NO. 211
PROPOSED ORDINANCE
9. CONSIDERATION OF FIRST READING OF ORDINANCE AUTHORIZING CAPITAL
IMPROVEMENT TO CONSTRUCT RECREATION AND COMMUNITY CENTER,
PURSUANT TO RICHFIELD CITY CHARTER SECTION 8.04
COUNCIL LETTER NO. 212
ADMINISTRATIVE REPORTS AND OTHER BUSINESS
10. CONSIDERATION OF ASSEMBLY OF CITIZEN TASK FORCE OF INTERESTED
...RICHFIELD RESIDENTS TO CONSID.ER_FUUTU:RE..OF..OUTD.0 R:.P.00L
COUNCIL LETTER NO. 213
11. CONSIDERATION OF AMENDMENT TO RICHFIELD CITY CHARTER, AS
PROPOSED BY RICHFIELD CHARTER COMMISSION
COUNCIL LETTER NO. 214
12. CONSIDERATION OF CITY COUNCIL MEMBER'S ATTENDANCE AT NATIONAL
LEAGUE OF CITIES ANNUAL BUSINESS MEETING ON DECEMBER 4, 1999 IN
LOS ANGELES, CA
COUNCIL LETTER NO. 215
AIRPORT BUSINESS
13. CONSIDERATION OF AUTHORIZATION TO DISMISS RUNWAY 4 -22 LITIGATION
WITH PREJUDICE
COUNCIL LETTER NO. 216
14. CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF SETTLEMENT OF PENDING
CONDEMNATION LITIGATION FOR 6412 -23RD AVENUE SOUTH
COUNCIL LETTER NO. 217
15. AIRPORT STATUS REPORT
16. LEGISLATIVE REPORT
CORRESPONDENCE
COUNCIL CHOICE
17. COUNCIL DISCUSSION ITEMS
18. CLAIMS AND PAYROLLS
19. ADJOURNMENT
Auxiliary aids for individuals with disabilities are available upon request. Requests
must be made at least 96 hours in advance to the Administrative Services Director
at 612- 861 -9702.
Iq
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Council Letter No. 217
Agenda September 13, 1999
Issue Statement:
City Council approval of settlement of pending condemnation litigation for 6412 -23rd
Avenue South.
Background:
The City of Richfield is currently in condemnation litigation with the Metropolitan Airports
Commission (MAC) regarding properties owned by the City of Richfield in the New Ford
Town and Rich Acres areas. Those properties include parklands and a vacant
residential lot owned by the City at 6412 -23rd Avenue South.
The MAC's appraisers originally concluded that the value of the vacant lot was $16,100.
Later, that opinion of value was raised to $17,730. The City's appraiser, C. E. LaSalle,
originally appraised the value of the lot to be $31,500. However, in the course of
hearings in this matter, the MAC asserted that the lot did not have access to a public
street. Mr. LaSalle then investigated the access in greater detail with City staff and
confirmed that the public street adjacent to the lot was open but not improved. Mr.
LaSalle estimated that the cost of providing access to the lot and extensions of utilities
to serve the property would be approximately $9,500. Therefore, he revised his opinion
of value downward to $22,000.
• In order to minimize the issues to be p resented to the Condemnation Commissioners
and to focus their attention upon the much greater dispute relating to the values of New
Ford Town and Rich Acres parks, City of Richfield and MAC attorneys have agreed to a
proposed settlement of the value of the vacant lot at $19,750. In order to complete this
settlement the City Council and the MAC must both approve this settlement stipulation.
Recommended Motion:
Approve the proposed settlement of the value of the vacant lot at $19,750 and give
authorization to the attorneys representing the City of Richfield to settle this portion of
the condemnation matter at the stipulated amount.
Basis of Recommendation:
1. Both the MAC and City appraisers have reviewed this matter in great detail and
have arrived at what is thought to be a fair, just compromise value.
2. It is important for the Commissioners deciding this matter to see that the parties
were able to resolve this lesser matter on their own without further debate.
3. It would be desirable from the perspective of the City and MAC that the
Commissioners focus their attention on the much greater issue regarding the value
of New Ford Town and Rich Acres parks.
•
jq-1
• Alternative Recommendation:
1. The City Council could fail to give approval of the stipulated settlement and require
the City to seek a different stipulated settlement value.
2. The City Council could refuse to settle this matter through agreed upon settlement
and force the issue to go through to the Condemnation Commissioners.
Discussion /Decision Mode:
This item is being brought to the City Council at the September 13 meeting in order to
bring up possible resolution to this portion of the litigation in a timely manner prior to the
Commissioners having to act on the condemnation litigation.
rtes c ny supmi ,
n . evich
Acting City Manager
SLD:caK
r�
/3
• CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Council Letter No. 216
Agenda September 13, 1999
Issue Statement:
Authorization to dismiss the Runway 4 -22 litigation with prejudice.
Background:
In August 1998 the Eighth Circuit Court dismissed Richfield's lawsuit challenging the
Metropolitan Airports Commission's (MAC) Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) on
Runway 4 -22. At that time, Steve Pflaum, legal counsel from McDermott, Will & Emery,
stated that the City of Richfield might consider reactivating its lawsuit in the Fourth
District Court in Hennepin Country if the MAC proceeds with its plan to use Runway 4-
22 to redistribute aircraft noise.
During the week of June 21, 1999 the judge presiding over this case in Minnesota
District Court contacted Richfield Attorney Chuck Dayton, Leonard Street & Deinard, to
inquire about the status of the litigation. At its June 28, 1999 meeting, the City Council
authorized Richfield's attorney to dismiss litigation without prejudice. The matter was
filed in Minnesota State Court.
Since that time, MAC has indicated that it would prefer that Richfield dismiss the case
with prejudice. Dismissal of the pending litigation with prejudice would preclude
Richfield from refiling that litigation if MAC ever revived its plans for the queuing
taxiway. However, dismissal would not preclude Richfield from asserting legal claims
that were not, and could not have been, asserted in the dismissed lawsuit. Additional
environmental review would be required if MAC decided to pursue the use of Runway 4-
22 for noise - shifting purposes. Dismissal of the pending litigation with prejudice would
not preclude Richfield from challenging the adequacy of that subsequent environmental
review.
Richfield has two options: (1) agree to dismiss the litigation with prejudice; or (2) file a
motion to dismiss the litigation without prejudice. Dismissal with prejudice has the
disadvantage of impairing Richfield's ability to challenge the use of Runway 22 for
noise - shifting purposes if MAC ever decides to pursue that project. The likelihood that
MAC will do so appears low, and even if that occurred Richfield would not be deprived
of all grounds for challenging any such action by MAC.
There are two potential disadvantages to seeking to dismiss the case without prejudice.
First, in light of the settlement between Richfield and MAC, Richfield's insistence on
preserving the right to litigate against MAC may foster continuing mistrust between the
parties that is not conducive to the kind of cooperative relationship needed to make the
settlement work. Second, MAC's attorney advised Steve Pflaum that MAC would
oppose any motion to dismiss by, at a minimum, seeking an order requiring Richfield to
pay its costs, including costs for the preparation of the administrative record. It is not
clear to Mr. Pflaum that MAC prepared an administration record; the lead agency on the
EIS, in this case MnDOT, would normally have that responsibility. Even if MAC
prepared the administrative record, it is questionable whether it devoted much effort to
that task before the lawsuit was stayed.
On balance, Mr. Pflaum recommends that the City Council authorize its legal counsel to
dismiss the litigation with prejudice on the condition that MAC represent that it has no
present intention of constructing the queuing taxiway or using the extended runway to
shift departures to Runway 22. This approach minimizes damage to the relationship
/3-1
• with MAC while providing further assurance that relinquishment of Richfield's claims
would be unimportant due to MAC's abandonment of its plan to use the extended
Runway 4 -22 for noise - shifting purposes.
Recommended Motion:
Authorize Richfield legal counsel to dismiss Runway 4 -22 litigation filed in Minnesota
State Court with prejudice on the condition that MAC represents that it has no present
intention of constructing the queuing taxiway or using the extended runway to shift
departures to Runway 4 -22.
Basis of Recommendation:
1. With the construction of Runway 17/35 moving ahead it will not be feasible for MAC
to implement the Runway 4 -22 plans for noise redistribution. The use of the
Runway 4 -22 for noise "spreading" is not feasible with the operation of a new
North /South Runway.
2. Since it has been over three years since MAC's original noise environmental
assessment of the noise spreading procedure, MAC would now be required to
complete a new EIS before noise redistribution would proceed forth. To date, MAC
has not shown an interest in using Runway 4 -22 noise spreading procedures and
has not initiated any efforts to complete additional environmental work.
3. Although not a part of the December agreement, between the City and the MAC,
Richfield's willingness to dismiss this lawsuit would be a further indication of good
faith efforts to work out differences with MAC.
40
4. Attorney Steve Pflaum recommends that the City dismiss this litigation with
prejudice.
Alternative Recommendation:
1. Continue to authorize dismissal without prejudice.
2. Continue this discussion to a future meeting.
Discussion /Decision Mode:
This matter is before the City Council on September 13, 1999 in order to have this
matter resolved as soon as possible.
Res c ully submitted,
n revic ich
Acting City Manager
SLD:cak
4�k
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Council Letter No. 215 0�
Agenda September 13, 1999
. Issue Statement:
Consideration of City Council Member's attendance at National League of Cities annual
business meeting on December 4, 1999.
Background:
The National League of Cities (NLC) annual Congress of Cities conference is November
30 through December 4, 1999 in Los Angeles, CA. The annual business meeting will
be held on December 4, 1999. Under the bylaws of the NLC, each direct member city is
entitled to cast from one to 20 votes, depending upon the city's population, through its
designated voting delegate at the annual business meeting.
Richfield is eligible to cast one vote. To be eligible to cast the City's vote, each voting
delegate and alternate voting delegate must be designated by the City. NLC's bylaws
expressly prohibit voting by proxy. Thus, the designated voting delegate must be
present at the annual business meeting to cast the City's vote.
In early November, NLC will send a special edition of the Policy /nformersummarizing
proposed National Municipal Policy amendments and proposed resolutions.
Council Member Russ Susag attended last year's annual meeting and was the
designated voting delegate.
To establish Richfield's credentials and facilitate voting delegate preparation for the
Congress of Cities, a voting delegate must be provided to the NLC on or before October
11.
Recommended Motion:
Discussion of a City Council Member's attendance at the National League of Cities
annual business meeting on December 4, 1999.
Basis of Recommendation:
1. Richfield is a member of the National League of Cities.
2. Richfield is eligible to cast one vote at the annual business meeting.
3. A designated voting delegate must be present at the business meeting to cast the
City's vote.
4. Council Member Susag attended last year's meeting and was the designated voting
delegate.
Alternative Recommendation:
1. Do not have a Council Member attend the business meeting. Therefore, the City
would not be eligible to vote on policy amendments and proposed resolutions.
Discussion /Decision Mode:
This matter is presented for Council discussion at the September 13, 1999 meeting.
pe
R tfully submitted,
4 <7
e *City ic
Actanager
SLD:cak
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Council Letter No. 214
Agenda September 13, 1999
Issue Statement:
Consideration of amendment to the Richfield City Charter, as proposed by the Richfield
Charter Commission.
Background:
The Richfield Charter Commission has proposed that the City Council amend Section
8.04 of the City Charter by ordinance. Correspondence dated September 2, 1999 from
the Chair of the Charter Commission is attached to this letter. Also attached is a copy
of Sections 8.04 and 8.05 of the City Charter, as those sections presently read.
City staff asked the City Attorney to provide advice regarding the effect of the proposed
amendment. The City Attorney's response is attached to this letter.
According to the City Attorney, the City Charter can be amended by four different
processes. The process proposed by the Charter Commission is described in
Minnesota Statutes, Section 410.12, subdivision 7. The City Council has the following
options available to it:
• The Council may direct staff to ro proposed
re are an ordinance to adopt the
p p p p p
amendment, without any changes, and set a date for first reading of the ordinance.
Unanimous approval of the ordinance is required in order for it to become effective
without a public vote. After adoption of the ordinance, however, voters could
petition for a referendum on the amendment.
• The Council may request the Charter Commission to consider changes to the
proposed amendment. If the Charter Commission accepts and recommends the
changes, the Council could unanimously adopt the revised recommendation, under
the same process as set forth in the preceding paragraph.
• The Council may request information or clarification from the Charter Commission
before taking further action.
• The Council may table consideration or refuse to consider the proposed ordinance
amendment. The proposed ordinance could not take effect unless the Charter
Commission or voters used one of the alternative means of amending the Charter
under Section 410.12. Those alternative means would require an election by the
voters.
Recommended Action:
Discuss the proposed Charter amendment and select one of the above courses of
action.
40
T H
• Basis of Recommendation:
The Charter Commission has requested that the City Council consider amending the
City Charter by ordinance.
Alternative Recommendation:
None.
Discussion /Decision Mode:
This matter is submitted to the City Council for discussion and decision. The Council is
not under a specific time deadline to make a decision.
Acting City Manager
SLD:ds
U
•
7
•1101
MEMORANDUM 6661 C 0 d3S
P
DATE: Se tember 2, 1999 �111����
TO: Cheryl Krumholz
FROM: Amy Krauss
RE: Proposed Charter Amendment
Enclosed is a letter to the city council describing a proposed amendment to the Richfield
City Charter. I would like to have this proposal added to the City Council's agenda as
soon as possible. Also, please distribute the letter and attachment to all members of the
Charter Commission. Thank you for your help.
•
Amy S. Krauss
6635 11`" Avenue South
Richfield, MN 55423 11-3
612- 861 -5908
September 2, 1999
Richfield City Council
6700 Portland Avenue South
Richfield, MN 55423
Recently, the Richfield Charter Commission has been revisiting the addition of Section
8.04 of the Richfield City Charter made over a year ago. In so doing, the Charter
Commission has decided the original Section 8.04 of the Charter was too vague to give
the Richfield City Council appropriate guidelines regarding timeliness of public hearings.
On Wednesday, September 1, 1999, the Richfield Charter Commission approved a
replacement to the existing Section 8.04. The Charter Commission recommends the
Richfield City Council adopt the following amendment to the Richfield City Charter
Section 8.04. Exhibit A is enclosed showing the proposed replacement of Section 8.04 of
the Charter.
It is the Richfield Charter Commission's hope the proposed new Section 8.04 will aid
The Council in determining the timeline of public hearings on capital improvements.
Please feel free to give me a call with any questions regarding this proposed amendment.
R spectfully
Amy S. `. uss
President, Richfield Charter Commission
•
R
EXHIBIT A
11-q
Proposed Amendment to the Richfield City Charter
Replacement of Section 8.04
Section 8.04. Approval by Ordinance. Prior to spending or contracting to spend
any City funds for design and/or engineering services related to any City capital
improvement, the Council shall make a good faith estimate as to the total expenses for
such design and/or engineering services. If the good faith estimate exceeds $75,000.00,
then the Council shall hold a public hearing prior to approving the expenditure for the
design and/or engineering services.
Prior to spending or contracting to spend any City funds, other than funds for design or
engineering services, on any City capital improvement, the Council shall make a good
faith estimate as to the total expense for such capital improvement. If the good faith
estimate exceeds $500,000.00, then the Council shall hold a public hearing prior to
approving the expenditure for the capital improvement, or in the case where a referendum
will be held to determine whether or not to expend funds on the capital improvement or
to approve financing for the capital improvement, the Council shall hold the public
hearing prior to the referendum.
•
•
is
CHAPTER 8
PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS AND SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS
Section 8.01. Power to Make Improvements and Levy Assessments. The City shall have
the power to make any and every type of public improvement not forbidden by the laws of this
state and to levy special assessments for all or any part of the cost of such improvements as are of
a local character, pursuant to the laws of the State of Minnesota.
Section 8.02. Assessments for Services. The Council may provide by ordinance that the
cost of sprinkling, snow or rubbish removal, or of any other service to streets, sidewalks, or other
public property, or the cost of any service to other property undertaken by the City may be
assessed against the property benefited and collected in like manner as are special assessments.
Section 8.03. Public Works: How Performed. Public works, including all local
improvements, may be constructed, extended, repaired and maintained either directly by day labor
or by contract. The City shall require contractors to give bonds for the protection of the City and all
persons furnishing labor and materials pursuant to the laws of the state.
Section 8.04. Approval by Ordinance. Any capital improvement on City owned property
which 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.
(Added, Bill No. 1998 -5)
Section 8.05. Notice of Public Hearings. Notice of public hearings required by Section 8.04
shall be published at least twice in the official newspaper within fourteen (14) days prior to the date
of the hearing. Additional notice of such public hearings may be given in such manner as the
Council may determine. This notice must contain the estimated costs of the capital improvement.
(Added, Bill No. 1998 -5)
RICHFIELD CITY CHARTER A. 23 7/21/98
•
•
•
09 -09 -99 18:11 Prom— KENNEDY & GRAVEN +6123378310 1 —rdu r.UZIU4 r —cZo
470 PdlsLury Ccnrcr
20U Suurh S,xrh Snc.r
Minneapolis MN 554U2
(G12) 337 -9300 tatplruut
(L 12) 1-11.931 U f.,,
C n A R T E R E D httl3. .l.oL,c�ly- graven cum ? h
f I r
CORR(NE H. Ttiomsov
AItOmOy at Law
Mica Mal (612)337 -9217
ema,1: crhomsunQkcnncdy- graven com
September 9, 1999
Steven L. Devieh
City of Richfield
6700 Portland Avenue South
Richfield, MN 55423
RE: Proposed Amendment to City Charter
Dear Steve:
You asked for advice concerning the proposed amendment to Section 8.04 of the City Charter.
The Charter Commission has requested that the City Council amt ard the charter by ordinance,
which is permitted under Minnesota Statutes, Section 410.12, ,.abdivision 7, provided that
speel is notice requirements are followed and the ordinance is adopt:d by unanimous vote.
The proposed ordinance would result in the following changes:
Cqr,- 1osoO5
RC l ou• 1
Section 8.04 currently applies only to capital improvements o , City owned property. The
proposed amendment extends the scope of Section 8.04 t(• include "any City capital
improvement." This arguably would include all street, uti ity and other infrastructure
projects, all of which could be classified as capital improve dents_ Many public works
improvement projects are financed by special assessments, which require public hearings
before any contract can be issued, but which also require that c .-aain design expenditures be
incurred before the public hearing (e.g., the preparation of a ie:tsibility report). Many other
projects are financed in significant part by state or federal fur t is that require adherence to
state and federal regulations and administrative processes. If the charter is expanded to apply
to all capital projects, it will add another administrative Jaye and further complicate the
process for public works projects. I recommend that you : onsult with Mike Fastling
regarding the impact of this change on his department. In additic:n, the Council may want to
consult with the Charter Commission about adding a sentence inch as, "For the purpose of
Sections 8.04 and 8.05, the term 'capital improvement' means .)risen definition of term)." I
always understood the Charter Commission to be concerned abt .tt the construction of public
buildings, such as the public works garage or the community c : nter, but not ordinary street
projects.
08 -00 -00 16:12 From-KENNEDY & GRAVEN +6123378310 T-760 F.03/04 F -ZZ5
Steven L. Devich
September 9, 1999 �) — 7
Page 2 of 3 / /
The proposed amendment would prohibit the City from "spen J ing or contracting to spend
any City funds" for design or engineering on a capital improvement until the Council has
made a good faith estimate as to the total expenses for such se t vices and has held a public
hearing. If the use of city staff constitutes "spending" city fund; (as opposed to "contracting
to spend "), the amendment would seem to prohibit the Counci' from incurring any internal
expenses before the required public hearing. I question whether it is possible for the City
Council to arrive at a good faith estimate of an expense without ncurring some expense, yet
the amendment seems to prohibit it. I would suggest that the oily reasonable interpretation
of this provision is that the Council could incur only those expe ises as necessary to arrive at
a good faith estimate of the expense.
■ The amendment requires the Council to make a good faith esti state of the expense. Under
the existing chatter, the staff could determine the estimated expe ire_
■ The amendment eliminates the requirement that the Council &1,3pt an ordinance approving
the proposed capital improvement. The amendment allows the _'ouncil to simply "approve
the expenditure." The net result of this change and the change i t, the preceding paragraph is
that the number of Council meetings to consider the issu.: remains the same. The
determination of the good faith estimate would occur at one met t ing (like the first reading of
the ordinance) and the approval of the expenditure would occur at a meeting one month later
(because of publication requirements, the decisions could not b,: made at successive council
meetings). However, Council approval could be effective immn :3iately, whereas ordinances
are not effective until 30 days after publication. The ultimate eft t: et of these changes is that it
shortens the total timeline.
The amendment would require the Council to hold a public heari: g prior to any "referendum"
that would "determine whether or not to expend funds on tht: capital improvement or to
approve financing for the capital improvement." I had understood that the Charter
Commission wanted the Council to hold the public hearing befo the Council authorized the
use of an election on a bond issue. This provision does not say !hat. In addition, the use of
the term "referendum" is not accurate in reference to an eleclian on a bond issue, and it
creates the opporrunity for confusion, because the term "refs i endure" has a precise and
distinctly different meaning under Section 5.11 of the Charter. if the Council agrees to the
proposal in concept, the preferred wording would be "... or in th : case where an election will
be held to approve financing for the capital improvement, the C.)uneil must hold the public
hearing prior to the adoption of a resolution setting the date of th : election."
• The word "shall' creates an issue as to whether the language is iatended to be mandatory or
directory. In this case, I presume the intent is that the langua_e is mandatory. The word
"must" is preferable in those situations.
• In both the first and second paragraphs of the amendment, t Le amendment requires the
Council to hold a public hearing prior to approving "thc expenditure" for design and
GAtt- toxbus
R('to0 -t
09 -09 -99 18:12 From- KENNEDY & GRAVEN +6123379310 T -760 P.04/04 F -225
Steven L. Aevieh
September 9, 1999 —
Page 3 of 3
engineering or for the capital improvement. The word "an" is preferable to "the," because
most projects of this type do not involve a single expenditure for the entire project.
Sincerely,
Corrine H. Thomson
CA }I16860S
0 RC160 -i
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Council Letter No. 213
Agenda September 13, 1999
Issue Statement:
Consideration of the assembly of a citizen task force of interested Richfield residents to
consider the future of the outdoor pool.
Background:
At the August 23 Council meeting, the Richfield Community and Recreational Center
Task Force delivered their formal recommendation to the Council, which proposed a
new recreational facility in Veterans Park, funded by general obligation bonds and
decided by a referendum vote on November 2. Preliminary plans for the new facility
include an indoor pool and while this proposal did not directly address the future of the
existing outdoor pool, some residents voiced their concern over the fate of the existing
outdoor pool. Staff and the Council have considered the need to address concern over
the outdoor pool as an issue separate from the proposed recreational facility.
Since the August 23 Council meeting, at least one Council Member suggested that the
City consider the formation of a citizen task force, which would study and assess the
need for an outdoor pool. This group could make a recommendation to the City Council
about the future of the outdoor pool. Staff also suggests that the issue could be studied
by a subcommittee of the Community Services Commission.
Some background work assessing the outdoor pool has been done: the outdoor pool
was evaluated by Water Technology, Inc. in April 1997. The study concluded that the
pool was in need of refurbishment (report attached). The study recommended a range
of possible remedies, from a minimal refinishing of the pool structure at a cost of
$172;000 to a major renovation of the facility, including zero -depth entry, new
recirculation system, decks and bathrooms, costing more than $2,000,000.
Recommended Motion:
Consideration of the formation of a citizen task force to address future planning of the
outdoor pool.
Basis of Recommendation:
1. It has been concluded that the existing outdoor pool is in need of refurbishing.
2. Several Richfield residents have expressed a desire to investigate the needs of the
outdoor pool in greater detail and to make a final recommendation.
3. At least one Council Member has asked that the City consider the formation of an
outdoor pool task force to address the concerns that several residents have voiced
regarding the pool.
•
Alternative Recommendation:
Do not authorize staff to form a citizen task force to investigate the outdoor pool.
Rather, assign the task of addressing future plans of the outdoor pool to staff or the
Community Services Commission.
Discussion /Decision Mode:
In order to respond quickly to those who have expressed concern about the outdoor
pool, staff asks that the Council consider and discuss the formation of an outdoor pool
task force at the September 13 meeting.
11
d
L'
Acti g City
SLD:ds
41
•
s u ' tt
M
A
FACILITY EVALUATION
CONCLUSIONS
Section S /C).-
• CgL-
The swimming pool is 35 years old and in very good condition for a facility of
its age. however, as with any facility this old, it will require continual
maintenance. This is evident by the recent repairs required of the
underground supply piping.
• The pool structure itself is in good condition. No major deterioration or hollow
spots were found in the concrete. However, the concrete pool structure does
require patching and repainting or refinishing due to the extensive spalling
that has occurred.
• The life expectancy of the facility is difficult to estimate_ it is mainly
dependent on the condition of the underground piping, which already has
required replacement. The rust particles from the inlet supply, found in the
wading pool is evidence of progressive deterioration. There really could be a
catastrophic failure at any time, so estimating the life expectancy would not
be accurate.
• The vacuum sand filter is presently operating adequately, as it was designed.
However, the condition of the fitter cell headers and laterals is difficult to
assess without further inspection. it will require replacement in the near
future.
s The bath house does not meet ADA accessibility compliance. As stated
• earlier, a solution to the ADA requirements would be to create a family bath
house, adjacent to the current bath house, containing a dressing area, toilet,
lavatory and shower that are handicap accessible.
• The comments regarding Minnesota Department of health Public Swimming
Pool rules indicate potential problems to the City of Richfield and are not to
be construed as code violations that could cause a closure of the pool by the
Health Department. In order to strive to meet current Health Department
compliance, immediate corrections should include installation of depth
markers on the pool walls at water level and repainting of_the deck depth
markers per state code.
0 11
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Council, Letter No. 212
Agenda September 13, 1999
Issue Statement:
First reading consideration of an ordinance to authorize a capital improvement to
construct a recreation and community center and set public hearing and second reading
for October 11, 1999.
Background:
During the past several months, a gro-up`of citizens organized into a task force have
explored the potential of creating a recreation and community center. In the course of
that investigation a series of public meetings were conducted wherein input from the
general public was invited and received. The work of the task force has culminated with
a drawing and cost - estimates of a proposed facility which would meet the needs of a
community recreation and community center complex.
On August 23, 1999 the City Council authorized staff to conduct a bond referendum
election in conjunction with the November 2 school board election. The referendum
was for potential authorization to issue General Obligation Bonds for a new community
and recreation center facility. The Richfield Community and Recreational Task Force
formally recommended that the proposed facility be funded with General Obligation
Bonds at the conclusion of their year -long study.
During the course of the planning process, the City worked with architectural
consultants Short Elliot Hendrickson (SEH) to assist with the proposal development.
When this feasibility study was approved by the City Council in August 1998, staff and
the City Council acknowledged that the planning process would be held to a budget of
less than $75,000 to remain in compliance with the Richfield City Charter, Section 8.04.
SEH has provided information regarding the likely cost of the project which is now
estimated to be approximately $9.5 million, which includes engineering and design
costs. The engineering and design work for the facility, if the funding mechanism of the
General Obligation Bonds is approved, will require additional costs in the future which
would exceed the $75,000 threshold.
The attached transitory ordinance reflects the City Charter requirement pursuant to
Section 8.04 and includes an estimate of the project costs as well as estimated design
and engineering costs.
Staff has completed a preliminary draft of an operating budget for the new community
center (attached) and has sent this information to Ehlers and Associates for further
review.
Recommended Motion:
Consider first reading of an ordinance to authorize expenditures for the planning and
40 construction of a recreation and community center pursuant to Richfield Charter,
Section 8.04, and set the public hearing and second reading of the ordinance on
October 11, 1999.
q-
. Basis of Recommendation:
1. A task force comprised of community residents has recommended the City Council
consider the construction of a community and recreation center.
2. The City Council has considered a request to seek public approval of General
Obligation Bond financing for the construction of a community and recreation center
to be determined by the voters on November 2, 1999.
3. City Charter, Section 8.04 requires that a project in excess of $500,000 and $75,000
worth of planning and engineering services must be considered by City ordinance
pursuant to Charter Section 8.04.
4. Consideration of first reading of this ordinance meets the City's obligation under the
Charter with respect to this project.
Alternative Recommendation:
1. Do not pass the ordinance on first reading thus eliminating the need for a public
hearing and second reading.
2. Schedule the public hearing and second reading for a date other than October 11.
Discussion /Decision Mode:
Staff is requesting that the City Council consider the first reading at the September 13
meeting in order to proceed in a timely fashion with a public hearing on October 11, well
in advance of the referendum vote.
R pe tfully sub 'tted,
en L. Devich
Acting City Manager
SLD:ds
is
TRANSITORY ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE APPROVING A CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT TO
CONSTRUCT A RECREATION AND COMMUNITY CENTER, 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 City
owned property located at Veteran's Memorial Park, 6401 Portland Avenue, in the city of
Richfield.
1..03. The capital improvement project consists of a multi - purpose recreation and
community center (the "Recreation and Community Center Project ").
1.04. The estimated construction cost of the capital improvement, including design and
it engineering costs, is $9,500,000. The estimated design and engineering portion is
$600,000.
1.05. A public hearing was held on October 11, 1999 after due notice as required by
Section 8.05 of the Richfield City Charter. A public hearing approving the bond
referendum election for the project was held on August 23, 1999, with due notice
published in the City's official newspaper.
1.06. The Council finds and determines that it is in the best interests of the City and its
inhabitants that the Recreation and Community Center Project be approved. On August
23, 1999, the Richfield Community and Recreational Center Task Force reported their
findings after a year of study and dialogue with the citizens of Richfield.
Sec. 2. Approval: effective date.
2.01. The Recreation and Community Center 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
is the Project, if the Council deems abandonment or modification to be in the public interest.
2.03. This ordinance is effective on the day following its publication.
Q--3
Adopted by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this 11th day of October,
1999.
ATTEST:
Thomas P. Ferber, City Clerk
0
•
Martin J. Kirsch, Mayor
is
0
0
Preliminary Draft n
Proposed Community and Recreational Center "/
396,975
389,415
30,000
2,750
15,000
10,750
184,125
24,000
8,100
2,000
17,000
4,000
3,000
20,925
3,375
15,000
15,000
17,500
2,000
36,650
22,500
6,500
10,650
375
60,000
6,000
311,625
553,845
120,000
20,000
18,000
11 9,700
15,000
36,900
35,100
9,100
8,800
9,000
36,000
10,520
Page 1
C]
•
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Council Letter No. 211
Agenda September 13, 1999
Issue Statement:
Public hearing and second reading of an ordinance that would license and regulate the
practice of therapeutic massage in the City and approve the resolution that amends
Appendix D of the City Code establishing 1999 license, permit and miscellaneous fees.
Background:
The practice of therapeutic massage has increased in popularity in recent years and
staff continues to receive calls from individuals who are interested in providing the
service of massage therapy in our City. Massage therapy is administered to individuals
for the purposes of maintaining, restoring and enhancing health; relaxing musculature;
increasing range of motion, reducing stress; relieving pain; and improving circulation or
lymphatic flow, or both. It has been found to be very beneficial to those individuals who
may be injured or ill, or as a means of relieving stress and providing relaxation.
Massage therapy has become widely accepted as a legitimate form of massage and
can be obtained through stand -alone salons or in conjunction with hair care
establishments.
Currently, individuals practicing legitimate massage therapy must comply with the City's
commercial adult oriented services ordinance which has been in place for some time
and, when originally drafted years ago, was intended to regulate the saunas in the City
that often consisted of illegal massage based activity. These businesses were often a
"front" for prostitution and other illegal activity.
The license fees for commercial adult oriented services are currently $1500 for the adult
oriented business license, with a $1500 background investigation fee. Individual
employees at those establishments would also be required to be licensed at $50 per
year, with a background investigation fee of $124 per individual. The requirements and
fees of this ordinance are prohibitive for those individuals wanting to practice legitimate
massage therapy and who have requested that the City update their ordinance relative
to the practice of massage therapy and its growing field.
The draft of the therapeutic massage ordinance includes provisions that contain
educational requirements for all massage therapists, as well as zoning, sanitation and
health requirements. Staff from zoning, fire, inspections, health, police and legal have
all reviewed the draft and provided their input and recommendations. It is
recommended that each business be individually licensed at a fee of $500 annually,
with an initial background investigation fee of $500. Individual massage therapist
license fees would be $50, with a one -time background investigation fee of $50.
Therapists must be associated with a business that is licensed in order to practice
massage therapy and must be licensed by the City.
40
S-(
Community Development and Public Safety staffs have also met with a business owner
in the City who has expressed an interest in incorporating massage therapy into his
existing full service hair salon. He has reviewed the draft ordinance and provided staff
with feedback, recommendations and comments relative to the contents of the draft
ordinance.
On August 2, 1999, staff was directed by the City Council at a study session to proceed
with scheduling a first reading of a therapeutic massage ordinance. On August 23,
1999, City Council approved first reading of the ordinance and directed staff to schedule
second reading and public hearing of the ordinance on September 13, 1999.
Recommended Motion:
Conduct the public hearing and approve second reading and of an ordinance that would
license and regulate the practice of therapeutic massage in the City and approve the
resolution that amends Appendix D of the City Code establishing 1999 license, permit
and miscellaneous fees.
Basis of Recommendation:
1. Therapeutic massage is a growing field that provides legitimate massage therapy
services to individuals for a wide range of health, stress reduction and relaxation
services.
2. Due to the high level of education and insurance requirements for a therapeutic
massage license, it is unlikely this will provide for any illegal prostitution related
activities.
3. There is a comprehensive, restrictive adult oriented ordinance that will remain in
place that will effectively address any illegal prostitution related activities, should
they occur.
Alternative Recommendation:
The Council could decide to not approve the therapeutic massage ordinance. This
would mean that businesses and individuals wanting to provide legitimate massage
therapy would need to comply with the contents of the current commercial adult -
oriented service ordinance.
Discussion /Decision Mode:
Council is asked to conduct the public hearing and approve second reading and of an
ordinance that would license and regulate the practice of therapeutic massage in the
City and approve the resolution that amends Appendix D.
(fully subm' ed,
r
L. Devi
Acting City Manager
SLD:ds
•
•
11
BILL NO.
M_
AMENDMENT TO SECTION XI OF THE ORDINANCE CODE OF THE CITY OF
RICHFIELD BY ADDING A NEW SECTION 1188 ENTITLED THERAPEUTIC
MASSAGE
THE CITY OF RICHFIELD DOES ORDAIN:
Chapter XI of the ordinance code of the City of Richfield entitled, "Business and
Trade Regulations" is hereby amended by adding the following new Section 1188
entitled Therapeutic Massage:
Section 1188: Therapeutic Massage
1188.01 Findings. It is found and determined that:
a. persons who have recognized and standardized training in therapeutic
massage, health and hygiene provide a legitimate and necessary service
to the general public;
b. health and sanitation regulations governing therapeutic massage
enterprises and massage therapists will minimize the risk of the spread of
communicable diseases and promote health and sanitation;
C. license qualifications for therapeutic massage enterprises and massage
therapists will minimize the risk that such businesses and persons may
facilitate prostitution and other criminal activity in the city; and
d. massage services provided by persons without recognized and
standardized training in massage can endanger citizens by facilitating the
spread of communicable diseases, by exposing citizens to unhealthy and
unsanitary conditions, and by increasing the risk of personal injury.
1188.03 Definitions. The terms defined in this section have the meanings given to
them.
Subd. 1. "Clean" means the absence of dirt, grease, rubbish, garbage and
other offensive, unsightly or extraneous matter.
Subd. 2. "In good repair" means free of corrosion, breaks, cracks, chips,
pitting, excessive wear and tear, leaks, obstructions and similar defects.
Subd. 3 "Massage" means the rubbing, stroking, kneading, tapping or rolling
of the body of another person with the hands for the purpose of physical fitness,
health -care referral, relaxation and for no other purpose.
�-3
• Subd. 4. "Operate" means to own, manage or conduct, or to have control,
charge or custody over.
Subd. 5. "Therapeutic massage enterprises" means a place of business
providing massage services to the public for consideration: the term does not
include a hospital, sanitarium, rest home, nursing home, boarding home or other
institution for the hospitalization or care of other human beings duly licensed
under the provisions of Minnesota Statutes, Sections 144.50 through 144.69.
Subd. 6. "Therapeutic massage therapist" means a person who practices or
administers massage to the public for consideration.
Subd. 7. "in the city" means physical presence, as well as telephone
referrals such as phone -a- massage operations in which the business premises,
although not physically located within the city, serves as a point of assignment of
employees who respond to requests for services from within the city.
1188.05 License required.
Subd. 1. Therapeutic massage enterprises. It is unlawful to operate, offer,
engage in or carry on massage services in the city without a therapeutic
massage enterprise license.
• Subd. 2. Therapeutic massage therapist license. It is unlawful to practice,
administer or provide massage services in the city without a therapeutic massage
therapist license.
1188.07 Exemptions. A therapeutic massage enterprises license or therapeutic
massage therapist license is not required for the following persons and
places:
a. persons licensed by the state to practice medicine, surgery, osteopathy,
chiropractic, physical therapy or podiatry, provided that the massage is
administered in the regular course of the medical treatment and not provided
as part of a separate and distinct massage business;
b. persons licensed by the state as beauty culturists or barbers, provided the
persons do not hold themselves out as giving massage treatments and
provided that massage by beauty culturists is limited to the head, hand, neck
and feet and the massage by barbers is limited to the head and neck;
c. persons employed by and working solely under the direction and control of a
person duly licensed by the state to practice medicine, surgery, osteopathy,
chiropractic, physical therapy or podiatry; this does not include therapeutic
massage therapists employed as an independent contractor;
d. places licensed or operating as a hospital, nursing home, hospice, sanitarium
or group home established for hospitalization or medical care; and
• e. athletic coaches, directors and trainers employed by public or private schools.
�1- q
1188.09 General rule. The owner or operator of a licensed therapeutic massage
enterprise may employ only licensed therapeutic massage therapists to
provide massage services. The owner or operator of a licensed therapeutic
massage enterprise need not be licensed as a therapeutic massage therapist
unless that owner or operator personally provides massage services.
1188.11.1 License application.
Subd. 1. Therapeutic massage enterprise. The application for a therapeutic
massage enterprise license must contain the following information.
a. For all applicants:
(1) whether the applicant is an individual, corporation, partnership or other
form of organization;
(2) the legal description of the premises to be licensed together with a plan of
the area showing dimensions, location of buildings, street access and
parking facilities;
(3) the floor number, street number and rooms where the massage services
are to be conducted;
(4) whether all real estate and personal property taxes that are due and
payable for the premises to be licensed have been paid, and if not, the
. years and amounts that are unpaid;
(5) If the application is for premises either planned or under construction or
undergoing substantial alteration, the application must be accompanied by
preliminary plans showing the design of the proposed premises; if the
plans for design are on file with the building inspection, no plans need be
submitted.
(6) The name and street address of the business if it is to be conducted under
a designation, name or style other than the name of the applicant, and a
certified copy of the certificate required by Minnesota Statutes, section
333.02.
(7) Other information that the city council may require.
b. For applicants who are individuals:
(1) the name and date of birth of the applicant and the applicant's residence
address;
(2) if the applicant has ever used or been known by a name other than the
applicant's name, and if so, the name or names and information
concerning the dates and places where used;
(3) whether the applicant is a citizen of the United States or a resident alien
or has the legal authority to work in the United States;
(4) residence addresses of the applicant during five years preceding the date
40 of application;
�-5
• (5) the type, name and location of every business or occupation the applicant
has been engaged in during the preceding five years;
(6) names and addresses of the applicant's employers for the preceding five
years;
(7) if the applicant has ever been convicted of a felony, crime or violation of
an ordinance other than a minor traffic offense; if so, the applicant must
furnish information as to the time, place and offense involved in the
convictions;
(8) if the applicant has ever been engaged in the operation of massage
services; if so the applicant must furnish information as to the name,
place and length of time of the involvement is such activity.
c. For applicants that are partnerships:
(1) the names and addresses of general and limited partners and the
information concerning each general partner described in subd. 1.b. of this
section;
(2) the managing partners must be designated, and the interest of each
general and limited partner in the business must be disclosed;
(3) a true copy of the partnership agreement must be submitted with the
application, and if the partnership is required to file a certificate as to a'`
trade name under Minnesota Statutes, section 333.02, a certified copy of
that certificate must be submitted.
The license, if issued, will be in the name of the partnership.
d For applicants that are corporations:
(1) the name of the organization, and if incorporated, the state of
incorporation;
(2) a true copy of the certificate of incorporation, and, if a foreign corporation,
a certificate of authority as described in Minnesota Statutes, section
303.02 and information of the nature described in subd 1.b. regarding
such persons;
(3) the name of the general manager, corporate officers, proprietor, and other
person in charge of the premises to be licensed, and the information about
those persons described in subd. 1.b.;
(4) a list of the persons who own or have a controlling interest in the
corporation or organization or who are officers of the corporation or
organization, together with their addresses and the information regarding
such persons described in subd. 1.b. of this section.
Subd. 2. Therapeutic massage therapist. An application for a therapeutic massage
therapist license must contain the following information:
• a. the applicant's name and address;
j. Other information that the city council may require.
1188.13 Application and investigation fees. The fees for a massage enterprise and
massage therapist licenses are as provided in Appendix D. A background
investigation fee will be charged for all new therapeutic massage enterprise
licenses and therapeutic massage therapist licenses and are as provided in
Appendix D. An application for either license must be accompanied by
payment in full of the required license and investigation fee.
1188.15 Application verification and consideration.
Subd. 1. Therapeutic massage enterprise license. The public safety director
must verify the information supplied on the license application and investigate the
background, including the criminal background, of the applicant to assure
reraWarp:.ajvi1th this ar inn 14rWn ?4 rtaua of rp-cpint nf-2 rmmnIQf I ri
ti
U JW
0 b.
c.
the applicant's current employer;
the applicant's employers for the previous five years, including employer's
name, address and dates of employment;
d.
the applicant's residence address for the previous five years;
e.
the applicant's date of birth, home telephone number, weight, height, color of
eyes and color of hair;
f.
if the applicant has ever been convicted of a felony, crime or violation of an
ordinance other than a minor traffic offense, and if so, the time, place and
offense involved in the convictions;
g.
whether the applicant is a citizen of the United States or a resident alien or
has the legal authority to work in the United States;
h.
if the applicant has every used or been known by a name other than the
applicant's name, and if so, the name or names and information concerning
dates and places where used;
i.
evidence that the applicant:
(1) is a member in good standing of the American Massage Therapy
Association, the Associated Bodywork and Massage Professionals or
other organizations of therapeutic massage professionals which has a
similar written and enforceable code of ethics, and has been currently
approved by the public safety director;
(2) has current insurance coverage over $1,000,000 for professional liability in
the practice of massage;
(3) is affiliated with, employed by or owns a therapeutic massage enterprise
licensed by the city;
(4) has completed 400 hours of certified therapeutic massage training from a
recognized school accredited by one of the national organizations
described in paragraph (1);
(5) has at least two years of experience practicing massage therapy.
j. Other information that the city council may require.
1188.13 Application and investigation fees. The fees for a massage enterprise and
massage therapist licenses are as provided in Appendix D. A background
investigation fee will be charged for all new therapeutic massage enterprise
licenses and therapeutic massage therapist licenses and are as provided in
Appendix D. An application for either license must be accompanied by
payment in full of the required license and investigation fee.
1188.15 Application verification and consideration.
Subd. 1. Therapeutic massage enterprise license. The public safety director
must verify the information supplied on the license application and investigate the
background, including the criminal background, of the applicant to assure
reraWarp:.ajvi1th this ar inn 14rWn ?4 rtaua of rp-cpint nf-2 rmmnIQf I ri
ti
34
safety director must make a written recommendation to the city council as to
issuance or non - issuance of the license. The city council may order additional
investigation if it deems it necessary.
Subd. 2 Therapeutic massage therapist license. The public safety director must
verify the information supplied on the license application and investigate the
background, including the criminal background, of the applicant to assure
compliance with this section. Within 21 days of receipt of a complete application
and fee for a therapeutic massage therapist license, the public safety director
must grant or deny the application. Notice will be sent to the applicant upon a
denial informing the applicant of the right to appeal to the city council within 14
days. If an appeal is properly made, the matter will be placed on the next
available council agenda.
1188.17 Persons ineligible for license.
Subd. 1. Therapeutic massage enterprise license. A therapeutic massage
enterprise license may not be issued to an individual who:
a.
is a minor at the time the application is filed;
b.
has been convicted of any crime directly related to the occupation licensed
as prescribed by Minnesota Statutes, section 364.03, subdivision 2, and
who has not shown competent evidence of sufficient rehabilitation and
present fitness to perform the duties and responsibilities of a licensee as
prescribed by Minnesota Statutes, section 364.03, subdivision 3;
C.
is not a citizen of the United States or a resident alien or has the legal
authority to work in the United States;
d.
is not of good moral character or repute;
e.
is not the real party in interest of the enterprises;
f.
has misrepresented or falsified information on the license application;
g.
owes taxes or assessments to the State, county, school district or city that
are due and delinquent.
Subd. 2. Therapeutic massage therapist license. A therapeutic massage
therapist license may not be issued to a person who cannot meet the
requirements in 1188.17 subd. 1, paragraphs a — g or who is not (1) affiliated
with, (2) employed by or (3) does not hold, a therapeutic massage enterprise
license by the city or cannot meet the definition of a therapeutic massage
therapist in section 1188.03 or in 1188.11 subd. 2. (paragraph 1).
1188.19 Locations ineligible for therapeutic massage enterprise license.
Subd. 1. A therapeutic massage enterprise may not be licensed if the enterprise
is located on property on which taxes, assessments or other financial claims to
the state, county, school district or city are due and delinquent. In the event a
suit has been commenced under Minnesota Statutes, sections 278.01— 278.13,
9 -9
questioning the amount of validity of taxes, the city council may on application
waive strict compliance with this provision; no waiver may be granted, however,
for taxes or any portion thereof, which remain unpaid for a period exceeding one
year after becoming due.
Subd. 2. Zoning compliance. A therapeutic massage enterprise may not be
licensed if the location of such enterprise is not located in one of the general
commercial districts of the city and does not meet all zoning requirements.
1188.21 General license restrictions.
Subd. 1. Posting. A therapeutic massage enterprise license must be posted in a
conspicuous place on the premises for which it is used. A person licensed as a
therapeutic massage therapist must have in their possession a copy of the
license when therapeutic massage services are being rendered.
Subd. 2. Area. A therapeutic massage enterprise license is effective only for the
compact and contiguous space specified in the approved license application. If
the licensed premises are enlarged, altered or extended, the licensee must
inform the public safety director. A licensed therapeutic massage therapist may
perform on -site massage at a business, public gathering, private home or other
site not on the therapeutic massage enterprise premises.
Subd. 3. Affiliation with enterprise required. A massage therapist must be
employed by, affiliated with or hold a therapeutic massage enterprise business
license issued by the City unless a person or place is specifically exempted from
obtaining a therapeutic massage enterprise license in section 1188.07 of this
code.
Subd. 4. Transfer. The license issued is for the person or the premises named
on the approved license application. Transfer of a license from place to place or
from person to person is not permitted.
Subd. 5. Employment of unlicensed massage therapists prohibited. No
therapeutic massage enterprise shall employ or use any person to perform
therapeutic massage who is not licensed as a therapeutic massage therapist
under this code, unless the person is specifically exempted from obtaining a
therapist license in Section 1188.07 of this Code.
Subd. 6. Coverings. The massage therapist must require that the person who is
receiving the massage will at all times have that person's breasts, buttocks, anus
and genitals covered with non - transparent material or clothing. A massage
therapist performing therapeutic massage must have the therapist's breasts,
buttocks, anus and genitals covered with a non - transparent material or clothing
at all times.
•
9_ q
Subd. 7. Prohibited massage. A massage therapist may not intentionally
massage or offer to massage the penis, scrotum, mons veneris, vulva or vaginal
area of a person.
1188.23 Restrictions regarding sanitation and health.
Subd. 1. A therapeutic massage enterprise must be equipped with adequate and
conveniently located toilet rooms for the accommodation of its employees and
patrons. The toilet room must be well ventilated by natural or mechanical
methods and be enclosed with a door. The toilet room must be kept clean and in
good repair and be fully and adequately illuminated.
Subd. 2. A therapeutic massage enterprise must provide single - service disposal
paper or clean linens to cover the table, chair, furniture or area on which the
patron receives the massage. If the table, chair or furniture on which a patron
receives the massage is made of material impervious to moisture, such table,
chair or furniture must be sanitized after each massage.
Subd. 3. The therapeutic massage therapist must wash their hands and arms
with water and soap, anti - bacterial scrubs, alcohol and other disinfectants prior to
and following each massage service performed.
Subd. 4. Massage tables, chairs or furniture on which the patron receives the
massage must have surfaces that can be readily disinfected after each massage.
Subd. 5. Rooms in a therapeutic massage enterprise must be fully and
adequately illuminated.
Subd. 6. A therapeutic massage enterprise must have a janitor's closet that
provides for the storage of cleaning supplies.
Subd. 7. Therapeutic massage enterprises must provide adequate refuse
receptacles that must be emptied as required by this code.
Subd. 8. Therapeutic massage enterprises must be maintained in good repair
and sanitary condition.
Subd. 9. Therapeutic massage enterprises must comply with the requirements of
the Minnesota Indoor Clean Air Act.
Subd. 10. A therapeutic massage enterprises must take reasonable steps to
prevent the spread of infections and communicable diseases on the licensed
premises.
Subd. 11. Therapeutic massage therapists must wear clean clothing when
performing massage services.
3F,_ /C)
1188.25 License term: renewals. Licenses expire annually on December 31St of
each year. The license fee will be prorated in 30 day increments for
licenses issued after June 30. The public safety director must prepare an
application form for the renewal of a license requiring information that the
public safety director determines necessary for consideration of the
renewal. The renewal application must be made no later than November
30. Within a reasonable period after the completion of the renewal license
verification process, the public safety director shall accept or deny the
license application in accordance with this division. If the application is
denied, the public safety director shall notify the applicant of the
determination in writing and by regular and certified mail to the address
provided on the application form. The notice shall inform the applicant of
their right, within fourteen (14) days after receipt of the notice by the
applicant, to request an appeal of the public safety director's denial to the
City Council.
1188.27.1 Suspension: revocation. A license granted under this section may be
suspended or revoked by the city council by resolution upon notice and public
hearing for any violation of this Chapter, conviction of any crime or
misdemeanor or any fraud, misrepresentations or incorrect statements in the
license application or in the course of operating or conducting business. A
revocation or suspension by the City Council shall be preceded by written
notice to the licensee and a hearing. The notice shall give at least fourteen (14)
days notice of the time and place of the hearing and shall state the nature of the
charges against the licensee. The notice shall be mailed by regular and
certified mail to the licensee at the most recent address listed on the license
application.
1188.29 Temporary therapist license.
Subd. 1. The public safety director may issue a temporary therapeutic massage
therapist license as provided in this subsection.
Subd. 2. A temporary therapeutic massage therapist license may be issued to a
person who:
a. is qualified to hold a massage therapist license under this code;
b. has completed the required application and paid the license fee at least 14
days prior to the effective date of the license.
Subd. 3. A temporary license is effective for four consecutive days. A person
may not be issued more than three temporary licenses during a 12 month period.
The fee for a temporary massage therapist license is provided in appendix D. An
investigation fee will be charged for temporary therapeutic massage therapist
solicenses and is also provided in appendix D.
9 -I1
1188.30 Hours of operation. A licensed therapeutic massage enterprise may not
operate for business between the hours of 10 p.m. and 8 a.m. of any day.
1188.33 Inspections. A peace officer or any properly designated employee of the
City or the State of Minnesota may enter, inspect and search the business
premises of any therapeutic massage establishment, during business
hours without a warrant.
Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this day of ,
19
ATTEST:
Thomas P. Ferber, City Clerk
•
Martin J. Kirsch, Mayor
E.
0
B -1 cg -
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION AMENDING ESTABLISHED 1999 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:
1. License, permit and miscellaneous fees required under the ordinances of the City
of Richfield shall be stated in Appendix D of the Ordinance Code of the City of
Richfield.
2. The following shall be added to Section 5. Amusement and Recreation Licenses
and Permits:
Type of Permit Section
Or License Reguiring Description
(15) Massage 1188
Therapy Enterprise
License (Business license)
Massage Therapist
License (Individual license)
Fee
Annual license 1 year $500.00
Investigation fee (new license) $500.00
Annual license 1 year $ 50.00
Investigation fee (new license) $ 50.00
Temporary Massage Per temporary location $100.00
Therapist License
Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this 13th day of
September, 1999.
ATTEST:
Thomas P. Ferber, City Clerk
Martin J. Kirsch, Mayor
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Council Letter No. 210
Agenda September 13, 1999
Issue Statement:
Public hearing and consideration of 1999 Revised /2000 Proposed budget resolutions
adopting 1999 preliminary property tax levy, levy certification tax rate increase, revision
of 1999 budget of various departments, setting Truth in Taxation hearing dates and
canceling 1999 ad valorem levy for current special assessment bonds.
Background:
As required by the Truth in Taxation legislation (MS 275.065) each "taxing authority"
must certify its proposed property tax levy for payable year 2000 to the County Auditor
on or before September 15, 1999. "Taxing authority" includes all counties, all school
districts, all cities regardless of population, all towns and all special taxing districts. No
local units of government are exempted from this requirement.
In addition, each "taxing authority" must certify to their County Auditor the dates that
have been selected for the Truth in Taxation hearings by September 15, 1999. The
date for this hearing must not conflict with the hearing dates of the county or of the
school district in which the "taxing authority" is located. This Truth in Taxation public
hearing must be held between November 30 and December 20, 1999.
A new requirement enacted as part of the 1999 Omnibus Tax Bill, requires counties and
cities to hold a public hearing and adopt a resolution before a "levy certification tax rate"
increase maybe allowed. This resolution must be submitted to the County prior to
October 20. The public hearing and accompanying resolution are scheduled for
September 13, 1999.
Before the City Council takes action on these issues, a presentation and discussion of
the 1999 Revised /2000 Proposed budget and 2000 preliminary property tax levy occurs
at a Special City Council meeting. To that end, a special, televised City Council
meeting was held, pursuant to the City Charter, for this purpose. City staff presented
the budget and proposed tax levy to the City Council in a discussion format. This was
similar to the budget presentation format that has been used in the past.
Along with the 1999 Revised /2000 Proposed budget and preliminary property tax levy,
City staff is also recommending dates for this year's Truth in Taxation public hearings. It
is recommended that this year's hearings be set for 7 p.m. Monday, December 6, 1999
with a continuation date of 6 p.m. Monday, December 13, 1999. As Council Members
are aware, at these public hearings, the tax levy may be reduced from the preliminary
tax levy, but not increased.
All official action concerning the preliminary tax levy and setting dates for the Truth in
Taxation hearings must be concluded before September 15, 1999.
In addition to the proposed tax levy and Truth in Taxation public hearing dates, the
County requests that the series of resolutions which cancel a portion of the ad valorem
tax levy for current special assessment bonds be adopted with the preliminary levy
instead of with the final levy at the end of the Truth in Taxation hearings. This assists
the County in updating its records in a more timely manner. The City is canceling the
1999 ad valorem tax levy for current special assessment bonds; and therefore has no
1999 tax levy for special assessment debt.
A final resolution for consideration authorizes the revision of the 1999 Budget to
conform with the most recent 1999 revenue and expenditure projections.
Recommended Motion:
Conduct a public hearing and adopt the resolutions establishing the 2000 preliminary
property tax levy and proposed dates for the Truth in Taxation hearings, 2000 levy
certification tax rate increase, revision of 1999 budget of various departments and
canceling 1999 ad valorem levy for current special assessment bonds.
Basis of Recommendation:
1. The City Charter establishes September 1, 1999 as the last day for City staff to
present a 1999 Revised /2000 Proposed budget to the City Council. While the Truth
in Taxation statute has overridden the Charter process for budget adoption, City staff
still follows the Charter provisions which are not in conflict with the Truth in Taxation
statute.
2. Truth in Taxation timelines establish the process that must be followed to adopt a
preliminary property tax levy. September 15 is the deadline for cities to submit a'
2000 proposed property tax levy and Truth in Taxation hearing dates to the County
Auditor.
3. The August 25 Special Council meeting provided an informal setting to discuss the
proposed budget and tax levy prior to the deadline for official City Council action.
Alternative Recommendation:
1. The City Council could adopt either a greater or lesser 2000 preliminary property tax
levy, 1999 Revised /2000 Proposed budget or select other allowable Truth in
Taxation hearing dates.
Discussion /Decision Mode:
The September 13, 1999 City Council meeting is the last regular City Council meeting at
which the 1999 proposed property tax levy and dates for the Truth in Taxation hearings
may be adapted before the September 15, 1999 deadline.
ly subm
ActiAg City Manager`
SLD:ds
•
0
?-(;L
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
1 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.
. 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
September, 1999.
ATTEST:
Thomas P. Ferber, City Clerk
Martin J. Kirsch, Mayor
�'--q
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
September, 1999.
ATTEST:
Thomas P. Ferber, City Clerk
•
Martin J. Kirsch, Mayor
0
•
RESOLUTION NO.
7-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
September, 1999.
ATTEST:
Thomas P. Ferber, City Clerk
Martin J. Kirsch, Mayor
1--6
0 RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING A LEVY CERTIFICATION TAX RATE INCREASE
FOR THE 1999 TAX LEVY, PAYABLE IN 2000
WHEREAS, the County Auditor is required to provide information to affected
cities and the county board that will allow the local government to calculate what its levy
certification tax rate would be in the coming year if the levy was held constant; and
WHEREAS, the City Council must adopt a resolution at a public hearing if its levy
will result in an increase in the levy certification tax rate over the baseline tax rate; and
WHEREAS, the resolution must be filed with the County Auditor by October 20 of
each year.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of Richfield,
County of Hennepin, Minnesota, as follows:
1. That the County Auditor is authorized to fix a property tax rate for taxes
payable in the year 2000 that is higher than the levy certification tax rate
calculated pursuant to Minnesota Statutes 20413.135 for the City of Richfield
for taxes levied in 1998, payable in 1999.
2. Adoption of this resolution does not prohibit the City from certifying a final levy
that will result in no levy certification tax rate increase or a tax rate decrease.
3. The City Clerk is hereby instructed to transmit a certified copy of this
resolution to the county auditor of Hennepin County, Minnesota.
Adopted by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this 13th day of
September, 1999.
Martin J. Kirsch, Mayor
ATTEST:
Thomas P. Ferber, City Clerk
CG
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Council Letter No. 209
Agenda September 13, 1999
Issue Statement:
Public hearing for consideration of the issuance of tax exempt general obligation tax
increment bonds for use in the Lyndale Gateway redevelopment area.
Background:
On January 19, 1999, the Richfield Housing and Redevelopment Authority (HRA)
entered into a Contract for Private Redevelopment with CSM Properties, Inc. (CSM) for
the redevelopment of the Lyndale Gateway Area.
The Lyndale Gateway development area is located between 76th Street and 77th Street
and includes both sides of Lyndale Avenue extending back to Aldrich Avenue on the
west and eastward to include properties on both sides of Garfield Avenue. The
development concept proposed by CSM includes a free standing drug store and a
second 31,000 sq. ft. commercial structure on the west side of Lyndale Avenue, a 160 -
unit senior apartment building with additional attached office space on the east side of
Lyndale Avenue and 40 condominium units on the east side of Garfield Avenue.
On August 16, 1999 the HRA considered the type and amount of public assistance to
provide to the developer for reimbursement of eligible redevelopment costs. The HRA
concluded that this development could not occur but for the use of tax increment
financing and other public financing. The tax increment generated by the development
was identified as the primary source of public funding. The HRA determined, however,
that additional sources of funding beyond the tax increment would be necessary for the
development to proceed.
The HRA identified the tax increment being generated at the Candlewood Hotel site as
the preferred source for the additional funding. The HRA concluded that the
Candlewood increment should be provided in the form of bond proceeds in order to
provide the "up- front" financing which the development requires. At their August 16
meeting the HRA approved a motion to request that the City Council issue general
obligation tax increment bonds in the approximate amount of $1,250,000 based on the
Candlewood tax increment.
Sid Inman of Ehlers Publicorp, Inc. (Ehlers) has re- evaluated this funding mechanism
and has estimated that the tax increment to be generated at the Candlewood Hotel site
could provide the debt service coverage necessary to support a bond yeilding
approximately $1,580,000 plus issuance costs of $70,000. The funding mechanism
which is being considered at the September 13 special HRA meeting provides potential
means of covering any shortfall. In the event that the Candlewood Hotel site does not
generate enough tax increment to pay the debt service, then any excess debt coverage
or excess increment generated in the Lyndale Gateway area would be applied to cover
such a shortfall. As a tax increment general obligation bond, however, any debt service
which could not be paid from the Candlewood Hotel site or from the aforementioned
shortfall coverages would be pledged against the general obligation of the City.
6-I
Recommended Motion:
Adopt a motion approving the attached resolution which authorizes the sale of tax
exempt general obligation tax increment bonds in an amount not to exceed $1,650,000
to provide funding for eligible redevelopment costs associated with the Lyndale
Gateway development.
Basis of Recommendation:
1. Lyndale Gateway has long been identified as an area in need of redevelopment
activities.
2. The HRA approved a Contract for Private Redevelopment with CSM on January 19,
1999 for the redevelopment of the Lyndale Gateway Area.
3. A tax increment financing district and plan was established on June 14, 1999 to
include the Lyndale Gateway area.
4. The HRA and staff have been aware since its initial proposal that the development
did not generate a sufficient amount of increment to offset all of the site assembly
costs and that additional forms of public assistance were probably necessary for
this or any other development to occur in the Lyndale Gateway area.
5. The HRA adopted a motion on August 16, 1999 to request that the City Council
consider the issuance of a general obligation tax increment bond in order to provide
the additional public funding necessary for the development to occur.
6. A public hearing on this matter was requested and was properly noticed.
Alternative Recommendation:
1. Do not approve the attached resolution which authorizes the sale of general
obligation tax increment revenue bonds.
2. Defer action, continuing to evaluate alternative funding sources.
Discussion /Decision Mode:
Sid Inman of Ehlers, as well as the developer, will be present to answer questions
regarding the financing of the Lyndale Gateway development.
ly
w
Acting City Manager
it SLD:ds
,p
RESOLUTION NO.
0 RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE SALE OF THE TAX EXEMPT GENERAL
OBLIGATION VARIABLE RATE DEMAND TAX INCREMENT BONDS, SERIES 1999
IN AN AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED $1,650,000
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota, has heretofore
determined that it is necessary and expedient to issue the City's Tax Exempt General
Obligation Variable Rate Demand Tax Increment Bonds, Series 1999, in an amount not
to exceed $1,650,000; and
WHEREAS, the City has retained Ehlers and Associates, Inc., in Roseville,
Minnesota ( "Ehlers "), as its independent financial advisor for the Bonds and is therefore
authorized to solicit proposals in accordance with Minnesota Statutes, Section 475.60,
Subdivision 2(9).
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of Richfield,
Minnesota, as follows:
1. Authorization: Findings. The City Council hereby authorizes Ehlers to solicit
proposals for the sale of the Bonds.
2. Official Statement. In connection with said sale, the officers or employees of
the City are hereby authorized to cooperate with Ehlers and participate in the
preparation of an official statement for the Bonds and to execute and deliver it
on behalf of the City upon its completion.
Adopted by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this 13th day of
September, 1999.
ATTEST:
Thomas P. Ferber, City Clerk
it
Martin J. Kirsch, Mayor
5
• CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Council Letter No. 208
Agenda September 13, 1999
Issue Statement:
Public hearing on a conditional use permit and final development plan for Phased of the
Lyndale Gateway redevelopment project.
Background:
Twin City Christian Homes is proposing to construct a four -story building that includes
160 units of senior housing and 38,000 sq. ft. of office space in Phase I of the Lyndale
Gateway planned unit development (PUD). Phase I of the Lyndale Gateway planned
unit development plan includes the area bound by 76th Street on the north, 77th Street
on the south, Lyndale Avenue on the west and Garfield Avenue on the east.
The proposed building is designed to distinguish between the office and senior housing
portions of the building. A commercial appearance is provided on the 77th Street side
where the commercial offices would be located. The senior housing portion of the
building is designed with a residential appearance. The main entrances for both
components are on the Garfield Avenue side; however, additional entrances /exits are
provided on the Lyndale Avenue side so the building does not appear to have its back
to Lyndale Avenue. A community deck area and individual balconies are also provided
on the Lyndale Avenue side to provide an area of activity on the streetside. The
building is set close to the street on Lyndale Avenue, consistent with the more urban
design envisioned for the area.
One hundred forty -two underground parking spaces would be provided along with 120
surface stalls behind the building for a total of 262 parking spaces. This provides a
parking ratio of .74 parking spaces per housing unit, an appropriate amount for senior
housing of this type. The office portion of the development would have approximately
3.7 stalls per 1,000 sq. ft. of office space. City standards recommend four stalls per
1,000 sq. ft.; however, shared parking and use of other transportation modes are
appropriate for this type of development. Access to the parking would be from a single
entrance on Garfield Avenue.
The landscaping plan will be consistent throughout the PUD area. The dense
development will likely require removal of most of the existing trees. A few boulevard
trees along Garfield Avenue may be able to be saved. If that is possible, they would be
protected during construction.
The senior housing meets a housing need in Richfield which is currently unsatisfied.
Sixty -nine of the units will be two bedroom and 61 will be one bedroom. An additional
30 units will be assisted living units. The facility will meet the needs of many seniors
who fall below specified income levels; up to 40 percent of the units will be offered at a
reduced rent. The senior housing provides a variety of services for residents to allow
• them to age in place.
5 -I
The Planning Commission expressed concern that the senior housing portion of the
PUD could proceed with no guarantee that the housing proposed on the east side
Garfield (Phase III) — proposed specifically to buffer this development from the single
family neighborhood proceed. The Planning Commission recommended that a
condition of final development plan (FDP) and conditional use permit (CUP) approval for
Phase I be that a FDP and CUP be approved for Phase III of the PUD. Conditions of an
FDP and CUP need to be satisfied before a final occupancy certificate is issued.
Recommended Motion:
Recommend that the City Council approve the request for a FDP and CUP for Phase I
of
the Lyndale Gateway development with the following stipulations:
1.
That a final landscape plan be submitted, including a tree protection plan, and
approved by the Community Development Director.
2.
That a sediment and erosion control plan be approved by the Public Works Director.
3.
That a stormwater management plan be approved by the Public Works Director.
4.
That the property be replatted.
5.
That a signage plan be submitted and approved by the Community Development
Director.
6.
That details of the noise wall removal and planting replacement be approved by the
Public Works Director.
7.
That design of the air conditioning unit covers be approved by the Community
Development Director.
8.
That a FDP and CUP be approved for Phase III of the development.
Basis of Recommendation:
1.
The proposed PUD concept is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan designation
for the area of Community Commercial - Office.
2.
The Community Commercial - Office designation encourages mixed use
developments with commercial uses and multiple family housing.
3.
Commercial and multi - family housing are allowable uses in the underlying C -2
zoning district.
4.
The proposed housing types fill two missing market niches in Richfield of affordable
senior rental housing and non - detached single family housing.
• 5.
The PUD Plan is consistent with The Lyndale Gateway. A Redevelopment Plan and
Strategy.
5---9-
6. The development will not create an excessive burden on parks, schools, streets, or
other public facilities and utilities which serve or are proposed to serve the
development.
7. The development will not have undue adverse impacts on neighboring properties. A
landscape buffer is provided from the single family neighborhood to the west and no
access from the commercial development onto Aldrich Avenue is planned. The
condominiums on the east side of Garfield provide a buffer for the single family
neighborhood to the senior housing.
8. The changes in land use will result in portions of the 77th Street noise wall and
landscaping being removed to Aldrich and Garfield Avenues. The Public Works
Department will review the specific plan for this proposed change. .
9. On August 24, 1999, the Planning Commission recommended unanimous approval
of the FDP and CUP.
10. Notice of the public hearing was published in the Sun- Cun-ent and mailed to owners
and occupants within 350 feet of the subject property. In addition, property owners
on Lyndale Avenue, from 74th to 76th Streets, were notified.
Alternative Recommendation:
1. Approve the FDP and CUP with modifications.
. 2. Deny the FDP and CUP.
Discussion /Decision Mode:
A public hearing is scheduled for 7 p.m., Monday, September 13, 1999 in the Council
Chambers, Richfield City Hall, 6700 Portland Avenue. An affirmative vote of four City
Council Members is required to approve this item.
Res ec ully submitt ,
e ich
Acting City Manager
Attachments
SLD:ds
•
5 -3
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION FOR APPROVING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
7601 LYNDALE AVENUE SOUTH
WHEREAS, an application has been filed with the City of Richfield which
requests approval of a conditional use permit for a 160 units of senior housing and
office space on land generally located between 76th and 77th Streets and Lyndale and
Garfield Avenues.
WHEREAS, the City has fully considered the request for approval of the
conditional use permit.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of
Richfield, Minnesota, as follows:
A conditional use permit is issued for 160 units of senior housing and
office space, as described in City Council Letter No. , on the Subject
Property legally described above.
2. The conditional use permit is subject to completing the following
conditions:
• That a final landscape plan be submitted, including a tree protection
plan, and approved by the Community Development Director.
• That a sediment and erosion control plan be approved by the Public
Works Director.
• That a stormwater management plan be approved by the Public Works
Director.
• That the property be replatted.
• That a signage plan be submitted and approved by the Community
Development Director.
• That details of the noise wall removal and planting replacement be
approved by the Public Works Director.
• That design of the air conditioning unit covers be approved by the
Community Development Director.
• That a final development plan and conditional use permit be approved
for Phase III of the development.
• That this resolution be recorded with the County, pursuant to
Minnesota Statutes Section 462.36, Subdivision 1.
3. The conditional use permit shall remain in effect for so long as conditions
regulating it are observed, and the conditional use permit shall expire if
normal operation of the use has been discontinued for 12 or more months,
as required by the Zoning Ordinance, Section 546.05, Subd. 9.
5-q
Adopted by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this 13th day of
September, 1999.
ATTEST:
Thomas P. Ferber, City Clerk
•
•
Martin J. Kirsch, Mayor
�I
t
a
i►
s
i
i
i
i
r
1
SOON
tWAMMMMRGII
i
j.
V /
Qn
iQ
i
L. _
W
uj
5—Y
210"k,
Q
w
4
w k
jiz
n L
71
J
W
z>
9
Q�
�Z
OW
Ewa
zo
?J
�w
Qw
JQ
W Q�
�
=0w��
N �
d
N
d
U
L
d
v
u
L
H
c
m
E
•
•
•
Y
0
0
�i
0
„ �ara�.a�. Q'131 jH�ta
y�osaNNtw' aolgr�
'a-dysjAid A
yy �
t
1 1 M
1�
1 1 �
1 1
� 1 1
ty�,
1 �
1 t
t
1 � �
1 t
C
1 �
� 1
t 1 1
1
, y
M� 1
' 1
1
•
t
1
1 <
1�
I 1
1
1
1
t
V10S3NN1R'C131JH31d
aDVIIIA HOINSS
J131981SNIVw
5_1�L
•
•
'[Hg
ail
fi 11y'lg
aye
I
z
CL
•
•
----- --------------
Mi
mi
<4"
-
--- ----- - --
'[Hg
ail
fi 11y'lg
I
----- --------------
Mi
mi
<4"
-
--- ----- - --
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Council Letter No. 207
Agenda September 13, 1999
Issue Statement:
Public hearing on a planned unit development plan for a mixed use development and
second reading of an ordinance amendment rezoning land to planned general
commercial in the Lyndale Gateway Area.
Background:
CSM Corporation, Twin City Christian Homes and Ron Clark Construction are
proposing to construct a mixed use, planned unit development (PUD) in the Lyndale
Gateway area. The development area would range from 76th to 77th Street and Aldrich
Avenue to one -half block east of Garfield Avenue. Property in the area is currently
zoned R (single family residential), C -1 (neighborhood commercial), and C -2 (general
commercial). Under the proposed development, the area would be rezoned to planned
general commercial (PC -2), planned general commercial.
There are three phases to the PUD plan:
Phase 1: On the east side of Lyndale Avenue, Twin City Christian Homes is proposing
to construct a four -story building with 160 units of senior rental housing and 38,000 sq.
ft. of office area. One hundred forty -two underground parking spaces would be
provided along with 120 surface stalls behind the building. Access to the parking would
be from a single access on Garfield Avenue. A conditional use permit and final
development plan for this phase of the development are also scheduled for the
September 13, 1999 City Council meeting.
Phase 11: On the west side of Lyndale Avenue, CSM is proposing to construct two
structures of 30,461 sq. ft. and 15,120 sq. ft. The space would be occupied by retail
and office uses with several small, neighborhood retail uses on the south end of the
larger building. Two hundred thirty surface parking stalls would be provided behind and
between the buildings and in front of the smaller retail building. Access would be
provided from 76th Street, Lyndale Avenue (no northbound turns from the
development), and 77th Street (partial no eastbound turns to and from the
development).
Phase III: Ron Clark Construction is proposing to construct 40 residential units on the
east side of Garfield Avenue, serving as a transitional land use between the four -story
multi - family building on Lyndale Avenue and the single family neighborhood on Harriet
Avenue. A neighborhood open house is planned to solicit feedback on the design and
landscaping details and additional staff review would also occur before a final
development plan is submitted.
Construction on Phase I would begin first. Construction time for this building is
I* approximately one year. The construction time for Phase 11 and III is approximately six
4-1
r4onths, so construction of these phases would likely start after Phase I. The rezonings
would not be effective in each phase until the developer holds title to all property within
the phase. In addition, the rezoning of Phase III, the residential development east of
Garfield Avenue, would not be effective until the rezoning of Phase I, the senior
housing, is effective.
Streetscape improvements are planned for Lyndale Avenue. Improvements on Lyndale
are designed to coordinate with the reconstruction of the bridge over 1-494; however,
completion of this segment would be scheduled to coincide with completion of the
development.
Recommended Motion:
Conduct a public hearing and approve a PUD for the Lyndale Gateway project and hold
second reading on an ordinance amendment rezoning land between 76th and 77th
Streets and Aldrich Avenue to 165 feet east of the center line of Garfield Avenue from
R, C -1 and C -2 to PC -2 with the following stipulations:
1. That the rezoning shall not be effective for Phase I until the developer holds title to
. all properties within phase I.
2. That the rezoning shall not be effective for Phase II until the developer holds title to
all properties within Phase IL
3. That the rezoning shall not be effective for Phase III until the developer holds title to
all properties within Phase III and until the rezoning of Phase I has become effective
Basis of Recommendation:
1. The proposed PUD concept is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan designation
for the area of Community Commercial-Office.
2. The Community Commercial- Office designation encourages mixed -use
developments with commercial uses and multiple family housing.
3. Commercial and multi - family housing are allowable uses in the underlying C -2
zoning district.
4. The proposed housing types fill two missing market niches in Richfield of affordable
senior rental housing and non - detached single family ownership opportunities.
5. The PUD Plan is consistent with The Lyndale Gateway. A Redevelopment Plan and
Strategy.
6. The development will not create an excessive burden on parks, schools, streets, or
other public facilities and utilities which serve or are proposed to serve the
development.
•
Ol 7. The development will not have undue adverse impacts on neighboring properties. A
landscape buffer is provided from the single family neighborhood to the west and no
access from the commercial development onto Aldrich Avenue is planned. The
housing on the east side of Garfield provides a buffer for the single family
neighborhood to the senior housing.
8. Setbacks in the PUD plan vary from those normally required in the C -2 district in an
attempt to encourage a strong building presence on Lyndale Avenue.
9. This area has been identified for redevelopment since 1985.
10. The Housing and Redevelopment Authority approved a Contract for Private
Development with CSM for redevelopment of this area.
11. The rezoning would not be effective for each phase until the developer holds title to
all property within the phase. Phase III (east side of Garfield Avenue) rezoning
would not be effective until Phase I (senior housing) is effective.
12. The Planning Commission recommended unanimous approval of the PUD and
rezoning on August 24, 1999.
13. First reading of the rezoning was held on August 23, 1999.
14. Notice of the public hearing was published in the Sun - Current and mailed to owners
and occupants within 350 feet of the subject property. Notification was also sent to
all property owners on Lyndale Avenue from 74th to 76th Streets.
Alternative Recommendation:
1. Approve the PUD plan and rezoning with modifications.
2. Deny the PUD plan and rezoning.
Discussion /Decision Mode:
A public hearing is scheduled for 7 p.m. on Monday, September 13, 1999 in the Council
Chambers, Richfield City Hall, 6700 Portland Avenue. An affirmative vote of four City
Council Members is required to approve this item.
r, WDe d,
�•
City Manag er
Attachments
SLD:ds
•
BILL NO.
q-3
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 (3) is amended to read as follows:
B. Section 3, Paragraph (25) is amended to read as follows:
(25) M -14 (W of Lyndale between 75th and 7677th) That area lying between the
center lines of Lyndale Avenue and the alley of block 25, Irwin Shores Addition
end the alley in QeRn' ndditien, and between the .centerlines of 75th and 7677th
Streets.
C. Section 3, Paragraph (31) is amended to read as follows:
(31) M -16 (E of Lyndale near 76th) That area lying between the center lines of
Lyndale Avenue and BlockeW-a+d -8 of Sunset Terrace Addition, and between
the center line of 7674th Street and the north line of Sunset Terrace Addition.
D. Section 7, Paragraph (9) is added to read as follows:
(9) M -14. 16 (E and W sides of Lyndale Avenue between 76th and 77th) That area
lying between the center line of Aldrich and 164.5 feet east of the center line of
Garfield Avenue and between the centerlines of 76th and 77th Streets.
2.01 This amendment constitutes a rezoning of the following property: 7600-
7645 Lyndale Avenue; 7600 -7639 Garfield Avenue; and 7601, 7609, 7615, 7621,
7627, 7633 and 7639 Aldrich Avenue.
3.01 This ordinance shall become effective according to the following sub -area
basis or 30 days following publication, whichever is later: Sub -area one is
between Lyndale and Garfield Avenues, sub -area two is west of Lyndale Avenue,
sub -area three is east of Garfield Avenue. When the developer holds title to all
properties in a sub -area, the rezoning shall become effective in that sub -area,
except in sub -area three, the rezoning shall become effective when the
•
+14
developer holds title to all the property in the sub -area and the rezoning of sub-
area one has become effective.
Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this 13th day of
September, 1999.
ATTEST:
Thomas P. Ferber, City Clerk
0
•
Martin J. Kirsch, Mayor
0 Rezoning q-57
Ddsfina Lyndale Gateway
•
U-07
(D 41
:2
T7
42
L
2
77W St
Zoning -
Neighborhood, Commercial
General Commercial
n Single Family.. Residential
M Planned Commercial
A
N
100- 0- 100 Feet
August 10, 1999
Iv
AV
9 0.0 A
------- --------
V1OS3NN1V4'0131JH018
SOV111A HOINSS
ps
ell
jai
- --------------------------- -------
--- ---------
"t I
-10
Iii
II --
----------- LL
L--
Zc—1 ------ -------- -
TT
T
- --- --- ----- -'r----- ---
�iS
ell
jai
4.11
lipSMI
------
a —a
1
A
"t I
-10
Iii
II --
----------- LL
L--
Zc—1 ------ -------- -
TT
T
- --- --- ----- -'r----- ---
�iS
•
•
W
W'
F
rr y
r
J
w
a
O
w
w
Q
w
0
w�
N
tV �
U
w
1�
fO
V L
b
r
- c
a4'
- 4
il
III
1
D
as
i
X
e
b
r
�t
i�
a4'
- 4
il
III
1
�t
nn,
jr
4" c
-Iff
77k
ll
- df�
g
t
41-
:.7 7
wr
COP
�_-m
w IFNI
� �� � � \
4
Y -S Y
o
l � y
t
K� �H
t
S �1
� rT1
`cr
Y �
C� 1
C
_
r
-
v �
4
Y -S Y
o
l � y
t
K� �H
t
S �1
� rT1
`cr
Y �
C� 1
C
_
r
4
Y -S Y
o
l � y
t
K� �H
t
S �1
� rT1
`cr
Y �
C� 1
C
s � ;
r�" r J'
ml
5 � I
d
tis pesuu
`i"' -i ir t x4.aY•
MTV
ittg
F�
dam" I
i
, d
• .a Jza Jz',,�,�_ C,�,'.m f' N'r'�y. 11. R� ,� •,1�.� €� a4� ?
+ ' It
. r •S b '
e ,
c
�1�f � �r.. l � o-�• , r S�ER°
r � r
It r
tea:•.. - •b..`r:s
4m,
; I
m
dp
41�
3T
. CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Council Letter No. 206
Agenda September 13, 1999
Issue Statement:
Request by the Animal Relief Fund for an itinerant food license for their Autumn Walk for
Homeless Animals to be held September 19, 1999 at Veterans Memorial Park, 6400
Portland Avenue.
Background:
On September 7, 1999, the Animal Relief Fund submitted a request for an itinerant food
license for September 19, 1999. They are requesting that the fee be waived.
They are proposing to serve food items such as veggie burgers, hot dogs, packaged chips
and cookies, apples, coffee and canned soda.
The Animal Relief Fund has contacted food sanitarians from the City of Bloomington to
ensure that proper food handling practices are followed. They will work with Bloomington
sanitarians and follow their recommendations for safe and wholesome food handling.
Recommended Motion:
Approve the itinerant food license with fee waiver for the Animal Relief Fund's Autumn
Walk for Homeless Animals, scheduled for September 19, 1999.
Basis of Recommendation:
1. The applicant has complied with the City codes pertaining to this license.
2. The Public Safety Department has found no basis for denial of the license requested.
Alternative Recommendation:
The Council could decide to deny the request. This would result in the applicant not being
able to conduct activities, especially those concerning food preparation, on September 19,
1999.
Discussion /Decision Mode:
The request by the Animal Relief Fund for an itinerant food license for their Autumn Walk
for Homeless Animals to be held September 19, 1999 at Veterans Memorial Park, 6400
Portland Avenue, is presented for Council consideration at this time.
Res ec lly submi ed, fk
e Devich
• Acting City Manager
SLD:ds
3H
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Council Letter No. 205
Agenda September 13, 1999
Issue Statement:
Approval of an application for a community celebration event license, with a request for
a fee waiver, for Richfield Cattail Days events scheduled to take place on September
18, 1999 at Veterans Memorial Park.
Background:
Richfield Visions, Inc. has applied for a celebration event license and requests that the
fee be waived for the activities that take place in Veterans Memorial Park on September
18, 1999.
Richfield Visions, Inc. has also asked for a waiver of the City sign ordinance for their
event so that a banner can be displayed at the park beginning in the month of August
and leading up to the date of the event on September 18, 1999. The City's Chief
Building Official has approved the issuance of a temporary sign permit.
The committee has contacted food sanitarians from the City of Bloomington to ensure
that proper food handling practices are followed. They will work with Bloomington
sanitarians and follow their recommendations for safe and wholesome food handling.
Recommended Motion:
Staff recommends the approval of a community celebration event license with a fee
waiver for the Richfield Cattail Days to be held on September 18, 1999 in Veterans
• Memorial Park.
Basis of Recommendation:
1. The applicant has complied with all of the provisions of the City application
process and meets requirements for the fee to be waived.
2. Application has been approved in previous years and the event has been held
without incident.
Alternative Recommendation:
1. The Council could decide not to grant the license. This would result in the
applicant not being able to conduct activities, especially those concerning food
preparation, on September 18, 1999.
Discussion /Decision Mode:
Request for the issuance of a community celebration event license, with a request for
fee waiver, for Richfield Cattail Days events scheduled to take place on September 18,
19994s presented for Council consideration at this time.
R c ully submi ed,
ev
Actin City Manager
is SLD:cak
3&
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Council Letter No. 204
Agenda September 13, 1999
Issue Statement:
Request by the Church of St. Peter for an itinerant place of amusement license for the
1999 Fall Festival to be held October 3, 1999.
Background:
On August 23, 1999, the Church of St. Peter submitted a request for an itinerant place
of amusement license for October 3, 1999. They are requesting that the fee be waived.
The event will take place from 9 a.m. until 4 p.m. They plan to have a pig roast and to
serve other food items such as pizza and hot dogs.
The Church of St. Peter has contacted food sanitarians from the City of Bloomington to
ensure that proper food handling practices are followed. They will work with
Bloomington sanitarians and follow their recommendations for safe and wholesome
food handling.
Recommended Motion:
Staff recommends that Council approve the application for an itinerant place of
. amusement license, with fee waived, for St. Peter's 1999 Fall Festival, October 3, 1999.
Basis of Recommendation:
1. The applicant has complied with the City codes pertaining to this license.
2. The City has previously issued this license in conjunction with the St. Peter Fall
Festival.
Alternative Recommendation:
1. The Council could decide to deny the request; however, the Public Safety
Department has not found any basis for a denial.
Discussion /Decision Mode:
Request by the Church of St. Peter for an itinerant place of amusement license, fee
waived for the 1999 Fall Festival to be held October 3, 1999 is presented for Council
consideration at this time.
R s e ully submitted,
. L. e
Acti g City Manager
SLD:cak
0
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Council Letter No. 203
Agenda September 13, 1999
Issue Statement:
Request by the Richfield Hockey Association for an itinerant food license, with fee
waived, for their second Annual Fun Fest to be held September 18,1999 at Galyan's,
1700 West 78th Street.
Background:
On August 20, 1999, the Richfield Hockey Association submitted a request for an
itinerant food license for September 18, 1999. They are requesting that the fee be
waived.
They are proposing to have kids games such as the "football toss ", "minnow race" and
"puck walk ". They also will be serving food items such as hot dogs, brats, popcorn and
canned soda.
The Richfield Hockey Association has contacted food sanitarians from the City of
Bloomington to ensure that proper food handling practices are followed. They will work
with Bloomington sanitarians and follow their recommendations for safe and wholesome
food handling.
Recommended Motion:
Staff recommends approval of the application for an itinerant food license and fee
waiver for the Richfield Hockey Association's second Annual Fun Fest, September 18,
1999.
Basis of Recommendation:
1. The applicant has complied with the City codes pertaining to this license.
2. The Public Safety Department has found no basis for denial of the license
requested.
Alternative Recommendation:
1. The Council could decide to deny the request. This would result in the applicant
not being able to conduct activities, especially those concerning food preparation,
for this event.
Discussion /Decision Mode:
The request by the Richfield Hockey Association for an itinerant food license for their
second Annual Fun Fest to be held September 18, 1999 at Galyan's, 1700 West 78th
Street, is presented for Council consideration at this time.
Ily
Acting City Manager
• SLD:cak
3E-
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Council Letter No. 202
Agenda September 13, 1999
Issue Statement:
Authorization for the City of Richfield to submit four applications for participation in the
federal transportation funding under the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century
(TEA -21) Program and consideration of accepting the Interchange West Traffic Study
and the 35W/494 Interchange Study.
Background:
The City of Richfield is in the process of preparing applications for Federal TEA -21
funding for:
(1) the reconstruction of the Penn Avenue bridge;
(2) the reconstruction of 76th Street between 1 -35W and Penn Avenue;
(3) the reconstruction of 66th Street and Portland Avenue; and
(4) 76th Street pedestrian bridge over I -35W.
A separate application will be made for each proposal. Letters have been sent to staff
at Hennepin County and Minnesota Department of Transportation (MnDOT) requesting
written support for these applications. The location of each project is identified on the
attached map. All of the projects were identified in the 2001 -2005 Capital Improvement
or the Capital Improvement Budget for 1999 or 2000. Following is a brief description of
each project.
• Reconstruction of the Penn Avenue Bridge over 1-494
The existing bridge has been modified to the extent possible to accommodate higher
traffic volumes; however, major congestion is still experienced through the peak
periods, into the midday and evenings and on weekends. The new bridge will be
designed to accommodate the existing and future traffic volumes by providing two
left turn lanes for northbound and southbound Penn Avenue to 1-494, improving the
north and south approaches to the bridge, and providing full sidewalks on each side
of the bridge. The preliminary cost estimate to reconstruct Penn Avenue bridge is
$10,000,000. Richfield will apply for the maximum $5,900,000 in TEA -21 funding.
The required 20 percent local funding match, $1,475,000, will be provided by
Richfield, Bloomington, MnDOT and Hennepin County. The remaining funds will
come from MnDOT or special assessments of benefiting commercial property.
The need for the project has been identified in the 494 Corridor Study completed in
1988, the City's Comprehensive Plan that was revised in 1999, the City's 2000
Capital Improvement Budget and 2001 -2005 Capital Improvement Program, the
Interchange West Traffic Study in 1999 and the recently completed 35W/494
Interchange Study.
• Reconstruction of 761th Street between 1 -35W and Penn Avenue
This project involves widening 76th Street from 1 -35W to west of the Penn Avenue
intersection to accommodate redevelopment in the Interchange West area. The new
road would add protected left turn lanes and a new traffic signal at Logan Avenue
and make additional improvements to the 76th Street and Penn Avenue intersection.
The preliminary cost estimate to reconstruct 76th Street and the 76th Street/Penn
Avenue intersection is $2.0 million. Richfield will apply for $1.6 million in TEA -21
funding and the required 20 percent local funding, $400,000, will be provided by
Richfield using gas tax revenues. The City will also request that Hennepin County
provide a portion of the local match.
The need for the project has been identified in the City's Comprehensive Plan that
was revised in 1999, the City's 2000 Capital Improvement Budget and 2001 -2005
Capital Improvement Program, the Interchange West Traffic Study in 1999 and the
recently completed 35W/494 Interchange Study.
• Reconstruction of 66th Street and Portland Avenue Intersection
This project would require land acquisition to reconstruct the intersection of Portland
Avenue at 66th Street by adding protected left turn lanes and consider possible
redevelopment on adjacent property affected by the project. Work would extend
from 68th Street to 64th Street on Portland Avenue and from Clinton Avenue to
Columbus Avenue on 66th Street. The intersection of Portland Avenue and 66th
Street has experienced a high accident rate for over ten years, and traffic congestion
occurs during peak periods in the morning and the evening. A high percentage of
vehicles make left turns and are involved in most of the accidents occurring at this
intersection. The preliminary cost estimate to reconstruct the 66th Street and
Portland Avenue intersection is $2.5 million excluding right of way costs. Richfield
will apply for $2.0 million in TEA -21 funds including $400,000 in Livable
Communities funds to assist in converting some existing residential uses near the
intersection. The project is included in the adopted 1999 Capital Budget and the
required 20 percent local funding match, $500,000, will be provided by Richfield
using gas tax revenues. The City will also request that Hennepin County provide a
portion of the local match.
• Pedestrian /Bicycle Bridge over 1 -35W at 76th Street
This project involves building a pedestrian /bikeway bridge over 1 -35W just north of
the existing 76th Street bridge. The proposed bridge will provide a safe, high quality
route for bicycle and pedestrian traffic connecting neighborhoods on both sides of I-
35W. The total project is estimated to cost $810,000. The request for funds for this
project is $648,000. The City of Richfield is proposing to use its Municipal State Aid
funds as its local share ($162,000) for this project. No other agency is being asked
to contribute part of the local share. The project is included in the adopted 1999
Capital Improvement Budget.
3k--oz
Recommended Motions:
It is recommended that the Council take the following actions:
(1) Accept the findings of the Interchange West Traffic Study and the 35W/494
Interchange Study that document the need for improvements to the Penn Avenue
Bridge over 494 and the reconstruction of 76th Street from 35W to Penn Avenue.
(2) Authorize City staff to submit applications for Federal TEA -21 funds for the
reconstruction of the Penn Avenue bridge, the reconstruction of 76th Street between
1 -35W and Penn Avenue, the reconstruction of 66th Street and Portland Avenue
intersection, and the pedestrian /bicycle bridge over 1 -35W at 76th Street.
Basis of Recommendation:
1. All four proposed projects have been identified in the City's Comprehensive Plan
and either the 1999 or 2000 Capital Improvement Budget, or the 2001 -2005 Capital
Improvement Program. The City of Richfield places a high priority on improving and
keeping its infrastructure up -to -date.
2. The request for federal funds is consistent with the City's strategy to maximize the
use of its own financial resources by trying to obtain state and federal funding for
needed capital improvements.
! 3. All four proposals will enhance safety and reduce traffic congestion.
Alternative Recommendation:
Do not authorize the submission of one or more applications to participate in the
Federal TEA 21 Program. However, local funding is limited for work that needs to be
performed in the City. If TEA -21 funding is secured, work may be performed sooner
and /or local funding sources may be freed to finance other work.
Discussion /Decision Mode:
The City Council is requested to take action at the September 13, 1999 Council meeting
as applications for participation in the Federal TEA 21 funding are due on September
20, 1999.
SLD:ds
Attachments
0
21
i ~ ,.: ~~
m ,`
0o z
® ~ Z
v ~ ~~
m Z ~r/%~
-~ m / ~~
,`
' ~
`~
(,,
;~
,-~,,
`~
\~ I
1 ,--~ \~
,~
/~~ ~ ~
;-- .- . --
__ _
---
-- __
~~ _~ Z ~
__ rn z
~m
~ ~
~O
--- O r_
~~
r'~,~
_ -v
~ D
~c
- O r
70
-~
~-
~~.
\~ ,'
~~ ~
~\, ~\
_ ~\
~\
3l�
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Council Letter No. 201
Agenda September 13, 1999
Issue Statement:
Resolution authorizing approval of an agreement with the Minnesota Department of
Transportation (MnDOT) for the payment by the City to the State of the City's share of
the costs of the watermain construction across Trunk Highway 35W near 73rd Street
and within the corporate City limits.
Background:
The State will do the grading, surfacing, noise walls, retaining walls, traffic signals,
lighting and bridge construction and other associated construction along and adjacent to
Trunk Highway 35W from 76th Street to 198.7 meters north of 66th Street. An existing
watermain, which crosses 35W at 73rd Street, needs to be rerouted to accommodate a
new storm sewer main. MnDOT originally proposed to offset the pipe in a very limited
area in the middle of 35W. This approach would leave no choice but to stop traffic and
tear up 35W if the main needs to be serviced in the future. Staff desired an entirely new
main, which can be serviced from outside the freeway. The costs of the watermain
construction and associated construction engineering affiliated with this agreement
would be $54,519.20. While this work is being accomplished, some additional minor
system revisions will be accomplished to improve Richfield's water distribution system.
An additional Supplemental Agreement will be forthcoming to cover that work which is
. estimated to cost around $8,000. Funding for both agreements is available in the City's
Water Utility Fund.
Recommended Motion:
Adopt the attached resolution authorizing the Mayor and Acting City Manager to
execute Minnesota Department of Transportation Cooperative Construction Agreement
No. 79355 -R for watermain construction adjacent to and under Trunk Highway 35W
within the corporate City limits.
Basis of Recommendation:
1. Funds are available in the water utility fund.
2. The Minnesota Department of Transportation requires a formal agreement for
receiving the City of Richfield's payment for share of costs incurred for the
watermain construction.
3. The agreement is consistent with MnDOT's policy on reconstruction.
4. This work not only allows 35W construction to continue but provides a more reliable
water system that is more easily and more economically repaired.
Alternative Recommendation:
Decline to have repairs performed at this time. However, should this water line rupture
in the future it would be costly to repair and disruptive to traffic on 35W.
3E)q
Discussion /Decision Mode:
Staff requests approval of this agreement at the September 13, 1999 City Council
meeting.
Acting City Manager
SLD:ds
Attachment
•
•
. RESOLUTION NO.
M-0,
RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING MAYOR AND ACTING CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE
MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION (MnDOT)
COOPERATIVE CONSTRUCTION AGREEMENT NO. 79355 -R
WHEREAS, The Minnesota Department of Transportation (MnDOT) is
performing grading, surfacing, noise walls, retaining walls, traffic signals, lighting and
bridge construction and other associated construction upon, along and adjacent to
Trunk Highway No. 35W from 21.9 meters north of 76th Street to 198.7 meters north of
County State Aid Highway No. 53 (66th Street) within the corporate City limits in
accordance with State plans; and
WHEREAS, the City has requested that the State include in its contract
watermain construction under Trunk Highway No. 35W, near 73rd Street, within the
corporate City limits under Supplemental Agreement No. 1 to State Project No. 2782-
268; and
WHEREAS, the City has expressed its willingness to participate in the costs of
the watermain construction and associated construction engineering as hereinafter set
forth.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City of Richfield enter into
MnDOT Agreement No. 79355 -R with the State of Minnesota, Department of
Transportation for the following purposes:
To provide payment by the City to the State of the City's share of the costs of the
watermain construction performed underneath Trunk Highway No. 35W between 76th
Street to County State Aid Highway No. 53 (66th Street) within the corporate City limits
under Supplemental Agreement No. 1 to State Project No. 2782 -268 (T.H. 35W =394)
and No. 157- 02 -16.
IT IS FURTHER RESOLVED that the Mayor and the Acting City Manager are
authorized to execute the Agreement
Adopted by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this13th day of
September 1999.
ATTEST:
Thomas P. Ferber, City Clerk
Martin J. Kirsch, Mayor
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Council Letter No. 200
Agenda September 13, 1999
• Issue Statement:
Consideration of a technical amendment to a transitory ordinance approving a vacation
of right -of -way along Lake Shore Drive.
Background:
On September 28, 1998 the City Council approved a vacation of right -of -way along
Lake Shore Drive for the Gramercy development. Hennepin County has requested
changes to the language of the transitory ordinance before it will record the vacation.
The changes are as follows:
• Eliminate the requirement that Gramercy own 6724 Lyndale Avenue before the
vacation is effective.
• Eliminate the requirement that a utility easement be recorded.
Both of these items have been addressed since the original ordinance was approved,
so they are no longer necessary conditions.
Recommended Motion:
Adopt an amended transitory ordinance vacating right -of -way along Lake Shore Drive,
adjacent to the Gramercy Park Cooperative.
Basis of Recommendation:
1. Hennepin County has requested the changes in order to record the document.
2. Gramercy now holds title to 6724 Lyndale Avenue so this requirement is no longer
necessary.
3. The final plat includes the necessary utility easement so a separate easement is no
longer required. The Council has approved the final plat and it can be recorded
once the vacation has been recorded.
Alternative Recommendation:
Do not approve an amended transitory ordinance.
Discussion /Decision Mode:
This item is scheduled for the Consent Calendar on September 13, 1999. A public
hearing was held on this item before the original transitory ordinance was adopted. The
City Attorney determined that these language changes are technical amendments and
do not require a second public hearing.
Acting City Manager
SLD:ds
Attachments
ORIGINAL ORDINANCE SHOWING CHANGES
5e-/
BILL NO. 1998 -21
TRANSITORY ORDINANCE NO. 17.85
AN ORDINANCE VACATING STREET RIGHT -OF -WAY
THE CITY OF RICHFIELD DOES ORDAIN:
Section 1. The following described land is subject to an easement for public
right -of -way purposes:
That part of Lake Shore Drive adjoining and lying southerly of Lots 19, 20, 21 and
22, Block 3, Fairwood Shores, according to the recorded plat thereof on file in the office
of the Registrar of Titles, Hennepin County, Minnesota, described as follows:
Beginning at the most westerly corner of said lot 19; thence southwesterly, along
the extension of the northwesterly Line of said Lot 19, a distance of 24.42 feet;
thence southeasterly to the most southerly corner of said Lot 22; thence
northwesterly, along the southwesterly lines of said Lots 22, 21, 20 and 19, to the
aforedescribed point of beginning, and there terminating.
That part of Lake Shore Drive adjoining and lying southerly of Lot 23, Block 3,
Fairwood Shores, according to the recorded plat thereof on file in the office of the
Registrar of Titles, Hennepin County, Minnesota, described as follows:
Commencing at the most westerly corner of Lot 19, said Block 3; thence
southwesterly along the extension of the northwesterly line of said Lot 19, a
distance of 24.42 feet; thence southeasterly to the most southerly corner of Lot
22, said Block 3, said point being the point of beginning of the parcel to be
described; thence easterly along a tangential curve, concave to the north, radius
210.00 feet, central angle 32 degrees 51 minutes 09 seconds a distance of
120.41 feet to the intersection with the southwesterly production of the easterly
line of said Lot 23; thence northeasterly 32.63 feet to the southeast corner of said
Lot 23; thence westerly along the south line of said Lot 23, to the point of
beginning and there terminating.
(refer to herein as the "Vacated Area ")
Sec. 2. The City of Richfield has initiated the vacation of the Vacated Area.
Sec. 3. The Vacated Area is occupied by a water main. The City needs to
continue to utilize the Vacated Area for the continued operation and maintenance of the
water main. The proposed vacation of the Vacated Area therefore will not adversely
affect the ability of the City to maintain, repair or replace any utility facilities that may be
located within the Vacated Area.
0 Bill No. 1998 -21 -2-
easement,
theFe Wall RG lengeF be a pub"G Reed feF a Fight ef way easement oveF the VaGated AFea.
Sec. 5. The easement over the Vacated Area, as described in Section 1 of this
ordinance, is hereby vacated,- FeseWinn however, a utility easemeR
Sec. 6. The vacation will be effective 30 days following publication OF at suGh
time as GrameFGY GE)FPGFatOGn helds title te pFepeFties at 7-10 Lake SheFe DFive and
6724 I yRdale Avenue that are aGgaGent to the Vacated Ares whinheyeF date is latnF
Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this 28th day of
September, 1998.
ATTEST:
•
Thomas P. Ferber, City Clerk
•
Martin J. Kirsch, Mayor
AMENDED ORDINANCE
3c -3
BILL NO.
TRANSITORY ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE VACATING STREET RIGHT -OF -WAY
THE CITY OF RICHFIELD DOES ORDAIN:
Section 1. The following described land is subject to an easement for public
right -of -way purposes:
That part of Lake Shore Drive adjoining and lying southerly of Lots 19, 20, 21 and
22, Block 3, Fairwood Shores, according to the recorded plat thereof on file in the office
of the Registrar of Titles, Hennepin County, Minnesota, described as follows:
Beginning at the most westerly corner of said lot 19; thence southwesterly, along
the extension of the northwesterly line of said Lot 19, a distance of 24.42 feet;
thence southeasterly to the most southerly corner of said Lot 22; thence
northwesterly, along the southwesterly lines of said Lots 22, 21, 20 and 19, to the
aforedescribed point of beginning, and there terminating.
That part of Lake Shore Drive adjoining and lying southerly of Lot 23, Block 3,
Fairwood Shores, according to the recorded plat thereof on file in the office of the
Registrar of Titles, Hennepin County, Minnesota, described as follows:
Commencing at the most westerly corner of Lot 19, said Block 3; thence
southwesterly along the extension of the northwesterly line of said Lot 19, a
distance of 24.42 feet; thence southeasterly to the most southerly corner of Lot
22, said Block 3, said point being the point of beginning of the parcel to be
described; thence easterly along a tangential curve, concave to the north, radius
210.00 feet, central angle 32 degrees 51 minutes 09 seconds a distance of
120.41 feet to the intersection with the southwesterly production of the easterly
line of said Lot 23; thence northeasterly 32.63 feet to the southeast corner of said
Lot 23; thence westerly along the south line of said Lot 23, to the point of
beginning and there terminating.
(refer to herein as the "Vacated Area ")
Sec. 2. The City of Richfield has initiated the vacation of the Vacated Area.
Sec. 3. The Vacated Area is occupied by a water main. The City needs to
continue to utilize the Vacated Area for the continued operation and maintenance of the
water main. The proposed vacation of the Vacated Area therefore will not adversely
affect the ability of the City to maintain, repair or replace any utility facilities that may be
located within the Vacated Area.
•
5C-4
Sec. 4. The easement over the Vacated Area, as described in Section 1 of this
iordinance, is hereby vacated.
Sec. 5. The vacation will be effective 30 days following publication.
Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this 13th day of
September, 1999.
ATTEST:
Thomas P. Ferber, City Clerk
•
Martin J. Kirsch, Mayor
C
W
V
Ii
Q
t
t
�i
p
i,
■
LLLLLLLLLL LLLL
A Q
W 07 O!
_ kn V.
��yy '° m
Z mNNN
0
CD
N
Q
Z
m
W W
r ..r
U z
U.
LU � Q x
W
/O ZW�W .N..1JZdJ
= J jyW= W
000 o=UO
� aZ4 > >- W+�OvO
QN2¢ cr
cc O =09—C& o
y;IL ��►Y.1LL 1L-
F NO7001WWW
� 1►
O 0
A �v 8
OWIO'f_O
Z.
�NN�N•A
^
p
ir
►-
A N
_ �x�pp WxaciK
no NMU-
x
N
W
NN f O
2
W
a
N_
NNNs /- q
1
t
2 -.
L
S �
A
k
i
i
A
r
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
410 Council Letter No. 199
Agenda September 13, 1999
Issue Statement:
Resolution levying a special assessment for nuisance abatement fees.
Background:
There is a resolution on the September 13, 1999 City Council agenda certifying a
special assessment for nuisance abatement fees to Hennepin County. This
assessment is for costs incurred by the City in connection with abatement for
nuisances on certain properties in the City which are not properly maintained by their
owners.
For nuisance abatement fees, the fees were billed to the property owners on a
monthly basis. In all cases, the property owners were notified that any unpaid
charges may be assessed against the property for 1999.
The attached resolution provides for these assessments against one property in the
total amount of $1,046.27.
Recommended Motion:
Adopt the attached resolution levying a special assessment for nuisance abatement
so fees against the listed property owner in the total amount of $1,046.27.
Basis for Recommendation:
1. Minnesota State Statutes provide that the City may levy a special one year
assessment for these costs.
Alternative Recommendation:
Do not approve the resolution and have the costs absorbed by the City.
Discussion /Decision Mode:
This item has been placed on the September 13, 1999 agenda so that this
assessment may be filed with Hennepin County along with the other special
assessments.
j e ctf Ily sub ' d,
. Devich
Acting City Manager
SLD:cak
3 &-j
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION LEVYING SPECIAL ASSESSMENT
FOR NUISANCE ABATEMENT
BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota as follows:
1. The following described properties are hereby specially assessed in the following
amounts for expense incurred by the City in connection with abatement of a nuisance
health hazard and a safety hazard pursuant to provisions of Minnesota Statutes,
Section 429.101, to wit:
PROPERTY ID ADDITION ADDRESS AMOUNT
NUISANCE ABATEMENT:
34- 02824 -31 -0116 49713 7532 Nicollet Ave. So. $248.80
27- 02824 -42 -0018 49724 6705 Nicollet Ave. So. $747.47
26- 02824 -43 -0043 49725 6811 13th Ave. So. $50.00
2. The above special assessments are to be spread over one year at no interest.
3. That the City Clerk is hereby authorized and directed to certify a copy of this
resolution to the County Auditor of Hennepin County, Minnesota.
Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this 13th day of
September, 1999.
Martin J. Kirsch, Mayor
ATTEST:
Thomas P. Ferber, City Clerk
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Council Letter No. 198 A
Agenda September 13, 1999
Issue Statement:
Resolution levying a special assessment for weed destruction.
Background:
Each year the City of Richfield hires contractors to cut weeds on certain properties in
the City not properly maintained by the owners. If the owner fails to cut the weeds in a
timely manner after notification by the City, the City undertakes the weed destruction
and bills the property owner for the service. If the cost of the weed destruction is not
paid by the property owner it may be assessed against the property for a one year
period. The attached resolution provides for this assessment against properties in the
amount of $792.90. In addition, the resolution provides for an 8% penalty.
Recommended Motion:
Adopt the attached resolution levying a special assessment for weed destruction
against the property owners in the amount of $792.90.
Basis for Recommendation:
1. The properties were not maintained by the owner and the City incurred costs to
abate the weed nuisance.
2. Minnesota State Statutes provide that the City may levy a special one year
assessment for these costs.
Alternative Recommendation:
1. Do not approve the resolution and have the costs absorbed by the City.
Discussion /Decision Mode:
This item has been placed on the September 13, 1999 agenda so that this assessment
may be filed with Hennepin County along with the other special assessments.
Res a tfully submitt ,
e evic
Acting City Manager
SLD:cak
3P-1
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION LEVYING SPECIAL
ASSESSMENT FOR WEED DESTRUCTION
BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota as follows:
1. The described properties are hereby specially assessed in the amount for the
expense incurred by the City in connection with abatement of a nuisance health
hazard pursuant to provisions of Minnesota Statutes, Section 429.101, to wit:
PROPERTY ID
ADDITION
ADDRESS
AMOUNT
34- 02824 -22 -0055
49604
7133 Lyndale Ave. So.
$ 63.90
29- 02824 -13 -0022
49712
6441 Xerxes Ave. So.
$537.30
26- 02824 -12 -0153
49717
6215 12th Ave. So.
$ 63.90
34- 02824 -23 -0130
49721
7300 Grand Ave. So.
$ 63.90
28- 02824 -22 -0126
49723
6337 Penn Ave. So.
$ 63.90
2. The above listed assessment be spread over a period of one year at the rate of 8%
interest per annum.
3. That the City Clerk is hereby authorized and directed to certify a copy of this
resolution to the County Auditor of Hennepin County, Minnesota.
Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this 13th day of
September, 1999.
Martin J. Kirsch, Mayor
ATTEST:
Thomas P. Ferber, City Clerk