03-23-98 agenda (2)CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
. . MONDAY, MARCH 23, 1998
REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING
7:00 P.M.
COUNCIL CHAMBERS
AGENDA
INTRODUCTORY PROCEEDINGS
CALL TO ORDER
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
ROLL CALL
APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF THE (1) REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF
MARCH 9,1998; (2) JOINT CITY COUNCIURICHFIELD SCHOOL BOARD MEETING
OF MARCH 16,1998; AND (3) SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL STUDY SESSION OF
MARCH 16, 1998
PRESENTATIONS
1. INTRODUCTION OF STATE CHAMPION, GIRLS 12 AND UNDER, B HOCKEY
TEAM
2. PRESENTATION OF CERTIFICATE OF APPRECIATION TO RICHFIELD
OPTIMISTS FOR DONATION TO WOOD LAKE NATURE CENTER'S 1997 HALF-
HAUNTED HALLOWEEN PROGRAM
3. PRESENTATION OF CERTIFICATES TO GIRL SCOUTS, ALONG WITH FAMILY
AND FRIENDS, FOR THEIR ASSISTANCE AS HYDRANT MARSHALS FOR
WINTER SEASON
COUNCIL LETTER NO. 62
INDIVIDUALS WHO WISH TO ADDRESS THE COUNCIL ARE REQUESTED TO
PRINT THEIR NAME AND ADDRESS ON THE SPEAKER'S REGISTER FOR THE
RECORD.
4. OPPORTUNITY FOR CITIZENS TO ADDRESS THE COUNCIL ON ITEMS NOT
ON THE AGENDA
AGENDA APPROV.
0 5. COUNCIL APPROVAL OF AGENDA
CONSENT CALENDAR
6. CONSENT CALENDAR CONTAINS SEVERAL SEPARATE ITEMS WHICH ARE
ACTED UPON BY THE CITY COUNCIL IN ONE MOTION. ONCE THE CONSENT
CALENDAR HAS BEEN APPROVED, THE INDIVIDUAL ITEMS AND
RECOMMENDED ACTIONS HAVE ALSO BEEN APPROVED. NO FURTHER
COUNCIL ACTION IS NECESSARY. HOWEVER, ANY COUNCIL MEMBER MAY
REQUEST THAT AN ITEM BE REMOVED FROM THE CONSENT CALENDAR
AND PLACED ON THE REGULAR AGENDA FOR COUNCIL DISCUSSION AND
ACTION. ALL ITEMS LISTED ON THE CONSENT CALENDAR ARE
RECOMMENDED FOR APPROVAL.
.-A. CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THREE
YEAR CONTRACT WITH FORTIS INSURANCE COMPANY FOR LONG-TERM
DISABILITY INSURANCE BENEFITS FOR CERTAIN FULL-TIME
EMPLOYEES C.L. 63
B. CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF RESOLUTION REQUESTING
MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION TO PREPARE
OFFICIAL RIGHT-OF-WAY MAP FOR 1-494 C.L. 64
C. CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF AWARD OF CONTRACT TO
ASPLUNDH TREE EXPERT COMPANY FOR 1998 REMOVAL OF DISEASED
TREES ON PRIVATE PROPERTY IN TOTAL ESTIMATED AMOUNT OF
$54,574 C.L. 65
D. CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF SETTING APRIL 13, 1998 FOR
PUBLIC HEARING FOR ISSUANCE OF NEW SECONDHAND GOODS
DEALER LICENSE FOR GROW BIZ INTERNATIONAL, INC., D/B/A
COMPUTER RENAISSANCE, 720 WEST 78TH STREET C.L. 66
E. CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF REQUEST FOR ITINERANT PLACE
OF AMUSEMENT LICENSE WITH FEE WAIVER FOR RICHFIELD WOMEN
OF TODAY TWELFTH ANNUAL RICHFIELD COMMUNITY EASTER EGG
HUNT AT AUGSBURG PARK ON APRIL 5, 1998 C.L. 67
PUBLIC HEARINGS
7. PUBLIC HEARING REGARDING SECOND INDOOR ICE SHEET REQUEST AND
SELECTION OF ARCHITECT TO PREPARE PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS FOR
ADVERTISEMENT FOR BIDS FOR CONSTRUCTION .
COUNCIL LETTER NO. 68
8. PUBLIC HEARING AND CONSIDERATION OF RESOLUTION AMENDING 1998
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT BUDGET
COUNCIL LETTER NO. 69
9. PUBLIC HEARING AND CONSIDERATION OF RESOLUTION APPROVING
LAYOUT FOR 66TH STREET BETWEEN LYNWOOD BOULEVARD AND
• HUMBOLDT AVENUE AS PART OF 1-35W PROJECT TO EXTEND HIGH
OCCUPANCY VEHICLE LANE
COUNCIL LETTER NO. 70
10. PUBLIC HEARING AND SECOND READING OF NEW ORDINANCE SECTION
1187 REGULATING AND LICENSING PAWNBROKER BUSINESSES WITHIN
CITY OF RICHFIELD
COUNCIL LETTER NO. 71
PROPOSED ORDINANCES
11. FIRST READING OF ORDINANCE AMENDMENT TO RICHFIELD CITY CODE
RELATED TO PARKING LOT STANDARDS
COUNCIL LETTER NO. 72
12. FIRST READING OF ORDINANCE AMENDMENT TO SECTION 1181 WHICH
REGULATES AND LICENSES TRANSIENT MERCHANTS, PEDDLERS, WAGON
PEDDLERS AND SOLICITORS WITHIN CITY OF RICHFIELD
COUNCIL LETTER NO. 73
ADMINISTRATIVE REPORTS AND OTHER BUSINESS
13. CONSIDERATION OF REPLANTING SALVAGED TREES FROM RICH
ACRES/NEW FORD TOWN AT VETERANS MEMORIAL PARK OF RICHFIELD
ALONG PORTLAND AVENUE
COUNCIL LETTER NO. 74
AIRPORT BUSINESS
14. AIRPORT STATUS REPORT
CORRESPONDENCE
15. LEGISLATIVE REPORT
COUNCIL CHOICE
16. COUNCIL DISCUSSION ITEMS
17. CLAIMS AND PAYROLLS
18. 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 861-9702.
/3
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Council Letter No. 74
Agenda March 23, 1998
Issue Statement:
Consideration of tree replacement at Veterans Memorial Park of Richfield.
Background:
As part of the street vacation process for New Ford Town, the City Council stipulated
that the Metropolitan Airports Commission (MAC) would reimburse the City for costs
incurred removing street lights and signs. Staff is planning to arrange for
reimbursement of the street light and sign removal by trading for trees which the City
will move to parks.
If the City were to purchase 5" to 6" diameter trees, the cost would be about $450/tree
including delivery and planting. The cost to the City to move existing trees of this size
from Rich Acres/New Ford Town will be $100/tree. Assuming 20 trees can be moved
(more than 20 have been identified but utilities or other problems sometimes prohibit
moving trees), staff would be able to relocate $9,000 worth of trees for $2,000. The
estimated cost to remove lights and signs from Rich Acres/New Ford Town is $6,000.
These figures indicate that MAC's proposal to exchange trees as reimbursement to the
City for the expenses incurred to remove street lights and signs would be an equitable
exchange. Staff has talked with the City Attorney, and this exchange would be in
compliance with the ordinance vacating the streets in Rich Acres/New Ford Town
areas.
Staff has been advised to proceed with the salvaging and relocation of the trees as
soon as possible this spring because many of the trees are in the way of construction
proposed in the very near future by the Minnesota Department of Transportation
(MnDOT) and MAC. In fact, some of the trees marked by the City for salvage and
transplant have been lost already.
The Community Services Commission discussed at their March 17, 1998 meeting using
some of these trees at the abandoned Veterans Memorial Park of Richfield
maintenance facility site and recommended that the Council allow some of these trees
to be used on the site. The Commission's main concerns were that the trees be
planted along Portland Avenue only if they would not interfere with any future
landscape plan for the area and that the trees not be planted in a straight line but be
planted in groups. Staff believes this is a good use for these trees. The trees would be
planted far enough behind the curb so they will not interfere with the power line along
Portland Avenue.
n
/3-/
Recommended Motion:
Authorize replanting of appropriate salvaged trees along Portland Avenue as
recommended by the Community Services Commission.
Basis of Recommendation:
1. Trees are available now. The community is concerned about the open space and
trees planted now would alleviate some of this concern while not jeopardizing the
longer range planting plan now under consideration.
2. Trees salvaged from the New Ford Town/Rich Acres site are an extremely
inexpensive cost for the size and variety of tree available.
3. The use of salvaged trees as outlined above is acceptable to Don Brauer, the
landscape consultant, who is working with the various interested groups regarding
a restoration process for Veterans Memorial Park of Richfield, and is in keeping
with the recommendation of the Community Services Commission.
Alternative Recommendation:
1. Await the landscape plan for Veterans Memorial Park of Richfield before doing any
replanting in the abandoned maintenance facility area and use the salvaged trees
in other areas of the park or the City.
2. Plant the salvaged trees in an area or areas of Veterans Memorial Park of Richfield
other than at the abandoned maintenance facility site along Portland Avenue. For
example, trees could be planted on the east side of the park near 66th Street.
3. Plant the salvaged trees in other park areas or on other City owned properties in
the City.
Discussion/Decision Mode:
This item is on the March 23, 1998 Council agenda. Council is asked to take action at
this time so replanting may take place of the remaining trees marked for salvage.
Respectfully submitted,
Ja e fanager osser
City JDP
:cak
0
%a-
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Council Letter No. 73
Agenda March 23, 1998
Issue Statement:
First reading of an ordinance amendment to Section 1181 which regulates and licenses
transient merchants, peddlers, wagon peddlers and solicitors within the City of
Richfield.
Background:
In May 1997, staff received letters from the following people expressing their continuing
concern over transient merchants being able to sell flowers from various locations in the
City:
1. Pat Harris of Richfield Floral & Gardens, Inc. - 811 East 66th Street
2. Greg Mjoes of Richfield Flowers & Events - 6515 Nicollet Avenue
3. Lorrie Olson, Property Manager for Midwest Management, Inc., which manages
Richfield Shoppes (Richfield Flowers & Events is a tenant in that complex)
On July 7, 1997, a Study Session was held with the City Council. Pat Harris spoke on
behalf of the other merchants of how they thought it was unfair that flower vendors are
allowed to sell their products from transient locations in the City. She said that those
vendors don't pay yearly rent, taxes or have any other overhead as the merchants do
She said they are not against competition but said that they are unable to compete
n
fairly with these vendors and believe they should not be allowed to sell as they curre
do. At this Study Session, staff was directed to consult with the City Attorney's office
and answer the following questions:
• Can the City prohibit transient merchants from operating in the City?
• Can the City restrict transient merchant sales to the Farmers Markets?
• What, if anything, can the City do to further restrict transient merchant activities?
tly
At the October 6, 1997, Study Session, the above questions were answered:
• No, the City cannot prohibit transient merchants from operating in the City. Such a
prohibition could be challenged on grounds of denial of equal protection, violation of
the Minnesota constitutional protections for home grown products, and possibly on
Commerce Clause grounds. Other cities may have done so, but it is the City
Attorney's opinion that those cities have not yet been sued.
• No, the City cannot restrict transient merchant sales to the Farmers Markets. If a
transient merchant can meet the zoning and parking requirements to conduct their
activity in a C-2 zone and does not pose a traffic hazard or other public nuisance,
there would seem to be no rational basis for treating that transient merchant
differently from other retail merchants that sell the same products.
/C_I
• There were a number of suggestions made at this time for further restricting
transient merchant activities. These suggestions ranged from requiring registration
of exempt transient merchants (home grown food products), a minimum period of
time to apply for a license prior to the activity beginning, zoning conditions, etc.
At this Study Session, staff was directed by the City Council to explore the possibilities
listed above and to amend the current ordinance and schedule it for a first reading in
the future.
Staff and the City Attorney have completed their review and are suggesting the
following amendments to the current transient merchant ordinance:
• All registration and license applications must be submitted to Public Safety staff a
minimum of 14 days prior to the beginning of the activity.
• All persons with sales or products of the farm or garden occupied and cultivated by
the person making such sales must complete and sign an affidavit attesting that
the products are home grown and must supply the Public Safety Department with
the location from which these products were grown. Staff will visit these sites to
assure that the affidavit is accurate.
• Individuals currently exempt from licensing will be required to register with the
Public Safety Department so that staff will be aware of who is selling what
products in the community.
• A license application for a Class I license or registration of a transient merchant
activity must be accompanied by the written consent of the owner of the property
on which the transient merchant business will be conducted. The owner of the
property on which a transient merchant business is conducted is required to
undertake due and diligent efforts to ensure that the business complies with the
ordinance requirements.
• Off-street parking must be adequate as required by off-street parking standards on
file with the Community Development Department.
• A transient business may only be conducted between the hours of sunrise to
sunset.
• A list of C-2 locations has been identified by the Community Development
Department as the only acceptable locations for this type of activity. This will be
available for applicants to review at the time of the submittal of their
application/registration.
Recommended Motion:
Approve first reading of an ordinance amendment regulating the licensing and
registration of transient merchants, peddlers, wagon peddlers and solicitors within the
City of Richfield and set a public hearing and second reading for April 27, 1998.
0
Basis of Recommendation:
1. The ordinance amendments will provide staff with the opportunity to be more
aware of which transient merchants are in the community and what products they
are selling and where they are selling.
2. The ordinance amendments will also provide staff with more lead-time in
processing licensing and registration requests. This has been a concern in the
past.
Alternative Recommendation:
The Council could decide not to approve the ordinance amendment. This would mean
that transient merchant activity in the City would remain as it currently is. For those
exempted from licensing requirements, it would mean that they would not have to
register with the City. It would also mean that staff would not have as much time to
process requests.
Discussion/Decision Mode:
First reading of an ordinance amendment regulating the licensing and registration of
transient merchants, peddlers, wagon peddlers and solicitors within the City of Richfield
is presented for Council consideration at this time.
Respectfully submitted,
Jame I Prosser
City Manager
JDP:ds
11
is-3
• ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE RELATING TO TRANSIENT MERCHANT ACTIVITIES;
AMENDING SECTION 1181 OF THE RICHFIELD CITY CODE
THE CITY OF RICHFIELD DOES ORDAIN:
Section 1. The title to Section 1181 of the Richfield City Code is amended to read
as follows: "Transient merchants, peddlers and wagon peddlers, hawkeFs, Ganyassem
and solicitors."
Sec. 2. Subsection 1181.01, subdivision 4 of the Richfield City Code is amended
to read as follows:
Subd. 4. "Peddler" OF means a person who goes from
house-to-house, from store-to-store or from place-to-place conveying or
transporting goods, wares or merchandise, offering and exposing the same
for sale.
. Sec. 3. Subsection 1181.01, subdivision 6 of the Richfield City Code is amended
to read as follows:
Subd. 6. "Solicitor" " means a person who goes from or "n-aanv-as place-to-place or from street-to-street soliciting or taking or attempting to
take orders for the sale of goods, wares, merchandise or personal services
of any nature whatsoever for future delivery or future performance whether
or not such person carries or exposes for sale a sample of the subject of
any such order or whether or not the person is collecting advance payments
for such orders.
Sec. 4. Subsection 1181.03 of the Richfield City Code is amended to read as
follows:
1181.03. License. Subdivision 1. License required. No transient
merchant, wagon peddler, peddler, eanvasse? or solicitor can sell or offer
for sale any goods, wares or merchandise without having first obtained the
appropriate class of itinerant activity license for such activity from the Ginty
meager public safety department
Subd. 2. Classes of licenses. The following are the classes of
• itinerant activity licenses:
(a) Class I transient merchant
(b) Class II wagon peddler
(c) Class III peddler elEer
(d) Class IV GanvasseF solicitor
Subd. 3. Exception to license requirement. No itinerant activity
license will be required for the following:
(a) sales made to dealers by commercial travelers or selling
agents in the usual course of business;
(b) sales made by sheriffs, constables or other public officials
selling goods, wares or merchandise according to law;
(c) sales made by bona-fide assignees or receivers appointed in
this state to make such sales for the benefit of creditors;
(d) sales of products of the farm or garden occupied and
cultivated by the person making such sales, except as
required pursuant to subsection 615.19 of this code;
(e) sales or offers for sale by peddlers or solicitors who appear at
• the customer's home or place of business by an appointment
which was made prior to such appearance;
(f) the soliciting of money, donations, financial
assistance or information for the purposes of any charitable,
religious, political or educational organization; or selling or
distributing literature or merchandise for which a fee is
charged or solicited on behalf of any such organization; this
exception does not include activity which has its primary
purpose profit for the individuals who are engaged in such
activity.
Subd. 3a. Registration required. No person or entity shall engage in
an itinerant activity listed in subsection 1181.03, subdivision 3 without first
registering with the department of public safety. For transient merchant
activities that will be conducted on property owned by someone other than
the merchant, the registration must be accompanied by a written consent
that meets the requirements of subsection 1181.04. Persons claiming an
exemption under subsection 1181.03, subdivision 3, paragraph (d) must
complete and sign an affidavit, on a form to be provided by the public safety
department, attesting that the products being sold are products of the farm
• or garden occupied and cultivated by the applicant or the applicant's
principal and attesting to the location of the farm or garden on which the
products were grown.
/?
Subd. 4. Proof of state license. In addition to the required license,
persons desiring to obtain an itinerant activity license must, at the time of
application file proof of the state license required by Minnesota Statutes,
sections 329.099 to 329.17.
Subd. 5. Application. Application for an itinerant activity license will
be made on forms supplied by the city. Separate applications must be
made for the individual or entity on whose behalf the business is being
conducted and for each individual who will actually conduct the activity for
which a license is required. All registration and license applications must be
submitted to public safety staff a minimum of fourteen (14) days prior to the
beginning of the activity. No licenses will be issued for any activity that
does not adhere to this requirement The application must contain:
(a) The applicant's name, age date of birth, address or residence.
If the applicant is a partnership, the names of all partners
must be verified by one such partner. If the applicant is a
corporation, the names of all officers must be verified by one
such officer.
• (b) The applicant's (i) business and residence addresses for a
period of five years prior to the application date, (ii) a
statement as to whether the applicant is the sole owner of the
business, and (iii) a statement to the effect that no persons
other than those named in the application have any interest in
the management and control of the business.
(c) The class of itinerant activity license which is being requested
and a brief description of the activity.
(d) For applications for class I licenses, the location of the
roe where the activity is to be conducted and YWFFften
nGGRG9121+ of the ownei: thr-nol iQ?? acethe
tFansment business, the name, address(es) and telephone
number(s) of the owner(s) of the property: and a written
consent that meets the requirements of subsection 1181.04.
(e). The length of time (including the beginning and ending dates)
for which the license is desired.
(f) A photograph of the applicant taken within sixty days of the
date of application. The photograph shall be two inches by
1C? -(
0 two inches, showing the head and shoulders of the applicant
in a clear and distinguishable manner.
(g) Information relating to any conviction of any crime by the
applicant; felony, misdemeanor or city ordinance violation
(other than traffic); the nature of the offense and conviction
date.
Subd. 6. Fee. The license fee for the various classes of itinerant
activity licenses is fixed in Appendix D of this code. The fee must be paid in
full at the time the application is presented. The fee will not be prorated or
refunded.
Subd. 7. Duration of license. Upon approval of any license
application the Gity manager public safety director or designee shall specify
the period for which the license is valid. The period may not exceed six
months or the period remaining in the calendar year in which the license is,
issued, whichever is less.
Subd. 8. Issuance of license. If after review by the public safety
department, the Gity public safety director or designee is satisfied
that the application and all other required submittals are complete, that the
applicant is of good character and standing and that the activity as
described in the application meets the requirements of this section, the city
der public safety director or designee will issue to applicant an
itinerant activity license for the designated class described in the
application. If the public safety director or designee
disapproves the issuance of the license, the applicant will be notified in
writing of such disapproval and the reasons for the decision. The
notification will also inform the applicant of its right to appeal the disapproval
to the city council. The notification will include a refund of the license fee.
Falsification or an incomplete application is immediate grounds for denial.
Subd. 9. Exhibition of license. Upon approval, the city will issue a
license certificate to the licensee. The license certificate will contain the
applicant's photograph and such other information as will appropriately
describe all the conditions upon which the license is valid. The licensee
must have the license in his physical possession at all times during which
the licensed activity is being conducted, and must visibly display the same
for inspection on their person in the case of an individual, or conspicuous
place in the case of a business.
Sec. 5. Section 1181 of the Richfield City Code is amended by adding a
subsection as follows:
/C ??' - / ?
1181.04. Transient merchant business; property owner responsibility.
Subdivision 1. Owner responsible. The owner of property on which a
transient merchant business is conducted is required to undertake due and
diligent efforts to ensure that the business complies with the requirements
of subsection 1181.05, subd. 2.
Subd. 2. Owner consent. A license application for a class I license
or a registration of a transient merchant activity must be accompanied by
the written consent of the owner of property on which the transient
merchant business will be conducted. The consent must be on a form
provided by the city, must expressly acknowledge the property owner's
knowledge of and acceptance of the responsibilities imposed by this
subsection, and must be signed by the property owner.
Subd. 3. Penalty. Violation of this subsection is a misdemeanor.
Subd. 4. Merchant responsibility. Nothing in this subsection is
intended to relieve or diminish the obligation of the merchant holding the
class I license to comply with the requirements of this section.
Sec. 6. Subsection 1181.05, subdivision 2 of the Richfield City Code is amended
to read as follows:
Subd. 2. Transient business.
(a) the site of the transient business shall abut and have access
to an arterial roadway;
(b) no part of any transient business may be located upon a
public right-of-way or within 150 feet of a street intersection;
(c) the business must not cause undue traffic congestion on
surrounding streets;
(d) off-street parking must be adequate for both the transient
business and other uses conducted on the parcel, as required
by off-street parking standards on file with the community
development department
(e) the business must not generate noise, light, dust or odors
which reasonably would tend to disturb or annoy occupants of
adjacent residential properties;
• (f) the transient business license must keep the parcel free of
trash, litter and debris;
(g) a transient business eat may be conducted only between
the hourr-, of 8.-QQ a.Fn. and 7-09 . sunrise and sunset of
any licensed day;
(h) no transient business must be conducted by a person who
has previously had an itinerant activity license revoked by the
city or any other political subdivision;
(i) no more than one transient business may operate from a
single parcel at one time;
Q) all tents, canopies, awnings or similar items and all water,
electrical and lighting facilities must be in compliance with
applicable codes and regulations;
(k) transient businesses may be conducted only in C-2 districts of
the city;
(1) no outside storage of vehicles or merchandise is permitted
unless specifically authorized by the meager public
safety director or designee;
(m) no transient business activity may be conducted in the city for
more than eight days during any 60-day period; and on no
more than three consecutive days;
(n) signs used to advertise the transient business must not have
a total aggregate sign face of more than six square feet; and
the licensee must obtain the necessary temporary sign permit
before utilizing any such sign; and
(o) the transient merchant must have in possession written
evidence of consent of the owner or leasee (whichever is
required) of the parcel to conduct the transient business
thereon.
Sec. 7. Subsection 1181.05, subdivision 3 of the Richfield City Code is amended
to read as follows:
Subd. 3. Other classes.
• (a) the activity must be conducted in such a manner as not to
reasonably annoy or disturb residents of the community;
/C? -9
(b) the activity must be conducted only between the heuFs of 9*00
a.Fn. and 5.00 . sunrise and sunset of any licensed day;
and
(c) the activity must not be conducted on any premises which
have been conspicuously posted by the owner for no peddling
or soliciting.
Sec. 8. Subsection 1181.09, subdivision 1 of the Richfield City Code is amended
to read as follows:
1181.09. Suspension or revocation. Subdivision 1. Action by si aflaEOW
public safety director. If the public safety director or designee
determines that the licenseehas violated any of the provisions of this
section, the public safety director will proceed as follows:
(a) If the licensee has been convicted in a court of competent
jurisdiction for a violation of the provisions of this section
which relate to the current term of the license or permit or if
the consent described in subsection 1181.03, subd. 5(d) has
been withdrawn, the citymanagef eublic safety director or
designee will forthwith suspend the license for a period of time
not to exceed the date of the next regularly scheduled city
council meeting which is at least 14 days from the first day of
the suspension. Notice of the suspension shall be mailed to
the licensee at the address shown in the application.
(b) If the licensee has been charged with, but has not been
convicted of, a violation of the provisions of this section which
relate to the current term of such license, the meager
public safety director or designee shall notify the licensee in
writing at the address contained in the application of the
determination and in the notification shall also notify the
licensee that unless a cash deposit (deposit) is made to the
city within 7 days of the notification, the license will be
automatically suspended for the term described in subsection
1181.09, subd. 1(a). The deposit shall be $500 for each
charged violation,and shall serve to ensure the faithful
performance by licensee of the provisions of this section
between the date of notification and the date on which the city
council meets to consider the matter.
(c) If no charge has been brought against the licensee, the city
eager public safety director or designee shall notify the
a-io
licensee or permittee that the city council will consider
suspension or revocation of the license at its next regularly
scheduled council meeting at least 14 days of the date on
which the notice is mailed.
Sec. 9. Subsection 1181.09, subdivision 2 of the Richfield City Code is amended
to read as follows:
Subd. 2. Hearing. At the hearing the licensee or their representative
will have an opportunity to rebut any of the information contained in the city
manaffeFS public safety director's notice and to offer evidence in mitigation
thereof.
Adopted this day of ,1998.
Martin J. Kirsch, Mayor
ATTEST:
•
Thomas P. Ferber, City Clerk
11
/ a //
Temporary Vendors -- Permitted Locations
r?
•
Property Address Street Name Excess Parking
811 66th St E Y
1115 66th St E Y
1201 66th St E Y
1208 66th St E Y
1208 66th St E Y
1415 66th St E Y
1430 66th St E Y
1504 66th St E Y
1520 66th St E Y
1820 66th St E Y
220 66th St W Y
300 66th St W Y
2409 66th St W Y
2800 66th St W Y
2900 66th St W Y
3020 66th St W Y
305 77th St E Y
6200 Cedar Ave S Y
6244 Cedar Ave S Y
6511 Cedar Ave S Y
6521 Cedar Ave S Y
6700 Cedar Ave S Y
7034 Cedar Ave S Y
7226 Cedar Ave S Y
7400 Cedar Ave S Y
6436 Lyndale Ave S Y
6438 Lyndale Ave S Y
6444 Lyndale Ave S Y
6444 Lyndale Ave S Y
6620 Lyndale Ave S Y
6724 Lyndale Ave S Y
7412 Lyndale Ave S Y
7512 Lyndale Ave S Y
7529 Lyndale Ave S Y
7529 Lyndale Ave S Y
7700 Lyndale Ave S Y
6440 Nicollet Ave S Y
March 18, 1998
/ P-- /a
•
•
Property Address Street Name Excess Parking
6445 Nicollet Ave S Y
6300 Penn Ave S Y
6319 Penn Ave S Y
6325 Penn Ave S Y
6500 Penn Ave S Y
6528 Penn Ave S Y
6613 Penn Ave S Y
6645 Penn Ave S Y
6800 Penn Ave S Y
6800 Penn Ave S Y
6527 Portland Ave S Y
7701 Portland Ave S Y
7733 Portland Ave S Y
March 18, 1998
U
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Council Letter No. 72
Agenda March 23, 1998
Issue Statement:
First reading of an ordinance amendment to the Richfield City Code related to parking
lot standards.
Background:
Section 800 of the City Code establishes regulations for off-street parking areas. Staff
members from the Public Works Department, Community Development Department
and Inspections Division have reviewed the off-street parking ordinance and
recommend that some changes be made in order to clarify the requirements, update
standards, and strengthen the ability of the City to enforce the requirements.
The recommended changes are explained in Attachment A.
Recommended Motion:
Approve first reading of an amendment to Section 800 of the Richfield City Code
related to parking lot standards.
Basis of Recommendation:
1. The off-street parking ordinance has not been changed for many years. It is
appropriate to review and update ordinances on a regular basis.
2. It is important to establish clear standards for the construction of commercial and
multiple family parking lots in the City.
3. The ordinance changes have been reviewed by Inspections, Engineering and
Planning staff.
4. Legal counsel has reviewed the proposed ordinance.
Alternative Recommendation:
1. Approve first reading of the amendment with modifications.
2. Deny this amendment at first reading.
Discussion/Decision Mode:
The first reading is set for March 23, 1998. If approved, a public hearing and second
reading will be scheduled on April 27, 1998.
Respe Ily submitted,
James . Prosser
City Manager
JDP:ds
ATTACHMENT A
Changes to Section 800 f
Off-Street Parking Regulations
PROPOSED CHANGE BASIS
• Remove references to residential • This topic was added to the Zoning
driveways. Ordinance in 1993 but was never removed
from Section 800.
•
• Change language listing approved Clarifies the acceptable materials.
surfaces for commercial driveways and
parking lots.
• Clarify which department director is • The Public Works Director is responsible
responsible for the different parts of the for establishing standards for parking lots
ordinance. and the Community Development Director
is responsible for processing off-street
parking permit applications.
• Add references to the City's Stormwater
Management Plan.
• The Stormwater Management Plan
provides the rules for stormwater
management in the City. Referencing it in
the ordinance makes it clear that its
policies have to be followed in parking lot
construction.
• Add language relating to the need for an Staff currently looks for this type of
application to address access, bicycle information when reviewing site plans. It
parking facilities, transit stops, sediment is appropriate to mention in City Code the
and erosion control. information that the City looks for in an off-
street parking permit application.
• Clarify the land uses that are required to
meet the off-street parking standards.
The current language is confusing
because it refers to zoning districts instead
of land uses. By using land uses instead
of zoning districts, it is clear that the
parking standards apply to uses such as
churches and schools in the R district.
Add language regarding shared parking
areas.
• It is important that a formal shared use
agreement be established when property
owners propose to share parking facilities.
• Clarify the standards used when reviewing The ordinance should clearly state what
a proposed parking lot. standards the City uses in order to
approve an off-street parking permit.
• Clarify language relating to parking lot
screening.
• The current language is confusing as to
what types of uses are required to screen
parking lots. Also, adding language
regarding maintenance may help with
•
n
fL_J
I ! --01 ATTACHMENT A
Changes to Section 800
Off-Street Parking Regulations
• Specify permitted pavement types, curb
and gutter requirements, aisle and stall
markings, sign installation.
• Clarify boulevard restrictions.
• Add language to require that a parking lot
be nearly completed before a building can
be occupied.
code enforcement in cases where
screening fences are not maintained.
• Adds specificity to the requirements so it is
clear to applicants what is required.
• It is sometimes unclear to applicants that
the boulevard cannot be used for private
parking; adding boulevard references
makes the restrictions clearer.
In the past, the Inspections Division has
received requests for an occupancy permit
before the parking lot has been completed.
The language provides a legal basis for
not allowing occupancy without a parking
lot.
1 ?-3
to BILL NO.
AMENDMENT TO SECTION 800
OF THE ORDINANCE CODE OF THE
CITY OF RICHFIELD
THE CITY OF RICHFIELD DOES ORDAIN:
A. Section 800 of the ordinance code of the City of Richfield entitled "Streets,
Alleys, and Public Grounds" is hereby amended by amending subsection 800.13 as
follows:
800.13. Driveways: special regulations. Subdivision 1. VV Qth: Feetdent+al. Ne
S u"Width: commercial,--ef industrial or multi-family. No driveway from
private property serving a commercial, multifamily or industrial use entering a public
street may be less than 26 feet nor more than 32 feet in width. Upon a showing of
• necessity and public convenience, the Public Works Director Gity may
authorize a greater or lesser width.
Subd. 23. Over sidewalk. Where a driveway is constructed over a public
sidewalk, that portion of the driveway falling between the building side of the sidewalk
and the street curbwith"' tho PUbliG street must be paved with concrete in accordance
with city specifications for sidewalk construction.
Subd. 34. Curb cut. Where an existing curb is cut for driveway construction, the
curb must be returned to the sidewalk line in accordance with city specifications for curb
construction.
Subd. 45. Surfacing: commercial. Driveways on private property within the city
serving a commercial, multifamily, or industrial use must be surfaced with op rtland
cemente hec-concrete1 asphaltic cement concrete or paver
block.
Subd. 56. SurfaR-on Rfesidential Drivewavs. All residential drivewavs must
meet the requirements for residential driveways of Section 521 of the Zoning
Ordinance.
11-q
B. Section 800 of the ordinance code of the City of Richfield entitled "Streets,
Alleys, and Public Grounds" is hereby amended by amending subsection 800.15 as
follows:
800.15. Duties of Public Works Ddirector. Subdivision 1. Specifications. The Public
Works director shall prepare and have available for inspection standard specifications
for the construction, removal and repair of driveways, curbs, and curb and gutter. Work
must be performed in accordance with these specifications.
Subd. 2. Inspection. The Public Works director may reg&PpFevide f9F periodic
inspection of any work being performed under this section to insure compliance.
C. Section 800 of the ordinance code of the City of Richfield entitled "Streets,
Alleys, and Public Grounds" is hereby amended by amending subsection 800.17 as
follows:
800.17. Parking areas. Subdivision 1. Parking area: permits. No person may
establish or make available any lot, tract, or parcel of land or portion thereof as a
parking area in any zoneing district-='_# as defined in the
zoning code or permit land to be so used for other than single family or two family
residence parking in any zone without first having obtained a permit as provided in
subdivision 2. No building permit may be issued pursuant to the zoning code for the
construction of any industrial, commercial, business, trade, institutional, multiple
residence, or similar building or structure unless adequate provision has been made for
off-street parking, unloading and for the safe accommodation of vehicular and
pedestrian traffic and until the permit required by this subsection has been issued.
Subd. 2. Application for permits. Application for an off-street parking permit
shall be made in writing to the Community Development director. The application must
be accompanied by a plan of the property proposed to be used showing the following
information:
(d) the location of driveways or other vehicular access points connecting the
area with any public street as consistent with the city's access management standards;
(e) the location or proposed location for bafHeF urbs and gutter and sidewalks;
(i) location of bicycle parking facilities;
0 (m) location of transit stops and benches (if applicable);
&) location and size of any proposed lights;
//-5
0 (4) type of surfacing to be used;
(Mk) stormwater management plan in compliance with the city's stormwater
management requirements for new or redeveloped construction;
faGilitiesi iaRd-
,avrrr,v ? eR,a
(nf) sediment and erosion control plan; and
(o:g)other information reasonably required by the Community Development
director to insure that the proposed parking area will comply with all applicable
provisions of this code and all standard specifications prepared under subsection
800.23.
Subd. 4. Adjoining areas: joint application. Owners of two adjoining areas may
join in an application for a single parking area provided that a cross-use agreement is
recorded against the property.
Subd. 5. Issuance of permit: council action. Upon submission of the application
and payment of the required fee, the City Mananager shall submit the application to the
• council with recommendations. If the council finds that the proposed parking area will
adequately serve the purpose for which it is proposed and will not have an adverse
effect upon the public safety or general welfare, the council may issue the permit
requested.
D. Section 800 of the ordinance code of the City of Richfield entitled "Streets,
Alleys, and Public Grounds" is hereby amended by amending subsection 800.19 as
follows:
800.19. Conditions -governing issuance. The council may condition the issuance of a
permit upon the prompt execution of contracts for construction of the parking area and
the providing of such security as it deems necessary to insure establishment of the
parking area in accordance with the plan approved. In determining whether or not to
grant the application, the council shall take into account the following factors ^^-ar
FeleyaR+ faGt9FG:
(d) the adequacy of the provisions made for pedestrian, bicycle, and mass
transit traffic in and around the area;
(e) the adequacy, from the standpoint of channeling traffic, of the distance
between driveways and intersections and other driveways-f, Fn the staRdpeaRt 9f
r?-6
0 (h) compliance with the requirements of subsections 800.17 and 800.23.
E. Section 800 of the ordinance code of the City of Richfield entitled "Streets,
Alleys, and Public Grounds" is hereby amended by amending subsection 800.23 as
follows:
800.23. Parking areas: special regulations. Subdivision 1. General. A parking area
adjoining or adjacent to any singled or multiple family residencet shall be
effectively screened from the residential usedistriAt by a fence, wall, or compact hedge,
or a combination thereof. The screening shall be kept in good condition and free from
advertising matter. The area shall have a side yard on the side on. which a multiple
residence or residential district is located, at least 15 feet wide, which shall be
maintained free of parking, be landscaped, and be kept in a dust, mud and refuse-free
conditiona4 at all times. Lighting on the area shall be so placed as to reflect light away
from any adjoining residence or multiple residence as defined in the zoning code.
Subd. 2. Surface. Parking areas and all driveways and approaches thereto
shall be surfaced with concrete, blacktop, or paver blocke-"+" +,--e?^r r;^?
payemeet. Sidewalks shall be of concrete. Areas not used for driving, parking or
pedestrian traffic shall be landscaped and kept free of mud, dust and refuse.
Subd. 3. Barrier curb. A full concrete bade curb shall be constructed on the
perimeter of each such area. Concrete perimeter curb shall be of MnDOT Type B-612.
Subd. 4. Curbing. Concrete curb and gutter, with curb returns, shall be
constructed at all intersections and approach entrances. Sidewalks shall e
Subd. 5. Aisle and Stalls width. Parking stalls shall be clearly marked and
distinguished from driving lanes, aRd °"^" have ^i+h^r a E;en^r^+^ ^„rh ^r a sidpwgan, at
th8 fF9Rt 9F side. Parking stalls and aisles shall be designed, installed and maintained
according to the standards on file with the Public Works Department.
Subd. 6. Signs. Traffic signs and devices shall be installed, directing traffic
within the area and traffic entering or leaving the area per the Minnesota Manual on
Uniform Traffic Control Devices.
Subd. 7. Drainage. The area shall be so graded and drained as to dispose of all
surface water. Wh nesee, iy.Parcels greater than 1/2 acre shall be required to
provide proper on-site stormwater collection,-PF9peF 6ter s s"°" be installed +°
saFFY °wav storm water fr^m +h° .,r°° s,,dare per the Citv's stormwater management
plan except where it is determined by the Public Works Director that on-site collection
is impractical or creates an undue hardship.
Subd. 8. Boulevards. --BewlevaFds--shall ^^+ be O^^ aRY S Gh a
Parking shall be on private property only. Boulevards shall be crossed by driveways or
approaches only at approved points. Where necessary to prevent traffic from crossing
at other than such approved points, barriers or barricades of an approved type shall be
erected on or near the boulevard area. A curb opening permit must be obtained for
work in the boulevard area, per subsection 800.11.
Subd. 9. Completion. Certificates of Occupancy shall not be issued for any
building until all perimeter curb and gutter and at least one lift of blacktop has been
installed.
F. Section 800 of the ordinance code of the City of Richfield entitled "Streets,
Alleys, and Public Grounds" is hereby amended by amending subsection 800.25 as
follows:
800.25. Duties of director. The Public Works director shall prepare standard speci-
fications for the construction, marking and equipping of parking areas. In the
preparation of specifications relating to traffic flow and traffic control signs and devices
the director shall consult with the director of public safety. The specifications prepared
under this subsection shall be available for use by applicants.
is Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this day of
, 1998.
Martin J. Kirsch, Mayor
ATTEST:
Thomas P. Ferber, City Clerk
0
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Council Letter No. 71 /
Agenda March 23, 1998
Issue Statement:
Public hearing and second reading consideration of a new ordinance section 1187
regulating and licensing pawnbroker businesses within the City of Richfield.
Background:
Public Safety has found that pawn businesses have the ability to receive and transfer
property easily and criminals often attempt to use pawn services to conceal their crimes
and to dispose of stolen property. Public Safety further finds that the pawn industry has
outgrown the City's current ability to effectively or efficiently identify criminal activity related
to pawn shops. The proposed ordinance will increase the City's ability to identify criminal
activity in a more timely and expedient manner.
Staff has researched other methods that might be useful and has found that the
Automated Pawn System (APS) developed by and currently being used by the City of
Minneapolis is the most effective system available. There is also a growing trend for other
metropolitan Police Departments to utilize this system as well and for a high level of
consistency to exist in information sharing between suburban departments.
This system will require pawnbroker businesses to electronically transfer all necessary
pawn information to Public Safety staff on a daily basis. Staff will then be able to more
easily and readily identify issues or problems that may be occurring in the City in this type
of business.
Staff has developed the ordinance and has met with the owners of the two pawnbroker
establishments in the City of Richfield. They provided input on the ordinance and final
changes were made. One of the pawnbrokers in the City requested that the age for a
person to pawn an item be left at 21 rather than at 18. It is his experience that someone
who is 18 and is pawning an item creates more significant problems than someone who is
21 pawning an item.
With the proposed new ordinance, staff is recommending the following changes in the
license fee structure:
Current Proposed
Annual license fee $1,750 $2,500
Owner investigation fee $1,200 $1,500
Manager investigation fee None $500
Employee investigation fee None $50 per employee
Transaction fee None $1.50 per transaction
is Staff is recommending the addition of manager and employee investigation fees to the
new ordinance, as it is imperative that background investigation checks are performed on
all individuals employed in a pawnbroker establishment. This type of check on employees
I0
has not been conducted in the past. This would provide staff with the ability to determine
if any of those employees have a criminal history record.
Staff is also recommending a per transaction fee of $1.50 as Richfield will be charged a
$1.00 fee by Minneapolis on a per transaction basis for the use of the Automated Pawn
System. The additional $.50 is to cover staff administrative costs and increased
monitoring.
The City's current pawnbroker ordinance, City Code Section 1186, would be superseded
by the ordinance being recommended. Staff will also be undertaking a review and revision
of the City's current second hand goods dealer ordinance within one year. Any references
in City Code Section 1186 to second hand goods dealers will remain as they currently are
until this review and revision are completed.
An ordinance has been completed and was presented to the City Council for a first
reading on February 23, 1998.
Attached to this Council Letter is a resolution authorizing publication of the ordinance by
title and summary rather than in its entirety. The publication of the complete text of the
ordinance is not cost effective. The City Council would need to have unanimous approval
of the resolution. Without unanimous approval, the full text of the ordinance will have to
be published. It is not necessary to have unanimous approval of the ordinance.
• Recommended Motion:
Public hearing and second reading of an ordinance regulating and licensing pawnbroker
businesses within the City of Richfield.
Basis of Recommendation:
1. The ordinance will provide Public Safety staff with the opportunity to more easily and
more quickly identify criminal activity related to pawn shops.
Alternative Recommendation:
1. The Council could decide not to approve the public hearing and second reading of
City Code Section 1187 which would mean that while pawnbrokers would continue to
be licensed and regulated by the City, criminal activity related to pawn shops would
not be identified as easily or as quickly.
Discussion/Decision Mode:
Second reading and public hearing of an ordinance regulating and licensing pawnbroker
businesses within the City of Richfield is being presented for Council consideration at this
time.
Respec Ily submitted,
• Jam D. Prosser
City anager
JDP:ds
1o-a-
CITY OF RICHFIELD
BILL NO.
AN ORDINANCE REGULATING PAWNBROKER ESTABLISHMENTS; REQUIRING
A LICENSE; ESTABLISHING REPORTING REQUIREMENTS; AMENDING THE CITY
CODE BY ADDING A NEW SECTION 1187; SUPERSEDING PAWNBROKER
REGULATIONS IN SECTION 1186
THE CITY OF RICHFIELD DOES ORDAIN:
Section 1. The Richfield City Code is amended by adding a new section
as follows:
Section 1187 - Pawnbrokers
Purpose. The city council finds that because pawn businesses have the ability to
receive and transfer property easily and quickly, criminals often attempt to use pawn
services to conceal their crimes and to dispose of stolen property. The city council
further finds that the pawn industry has outgrown the city's current ability to effectively
0 or efficiently identify criminal activity related to pawn shops. The city council also finds
that consumer protection regulation is warranted in transactions involving pawnbrokers.
The purpose of this chapter is to prevent pawn businesses from being used as facilities
for the commission of crimes and to assure that such businesses comply with basic
consumer protection standards, thereby protecting the public health, safety, and
general welfare of the citizens of the city.
To help the public safety department better regulate current and future pawn
businesses, decrease and stabilize costs associated with the regulation of the pawn
industry, and increase identification of criminal activities in the pawn industry through
the timely collection and sharing of pawn transaction information, this chapter also
implements and establishes the required use of the automated pawn system.
1187.03. Definitions. Subdivision 1. For purposes of this section, the terms defined in
this subsection have the meanings given them.
Subd. 2. Pawnbroker. The term "pawnbroker" means:
(a) Except as provided in paragraph (b), "pawnbroker" means a person
engaged in whole or in part in the business of lending money on the
security of pledged goods left in pawn, or in the business of purchasing
tangible personal property to be left in pawn on the condition that it may
be redeemed or repurchased by the seller for a fixed price within a fixed
period of time.
0 lo-3
(b) The following are exempt from the term "pawnbroker": any bank
regulated by the state of Minnesota, the comptroller of the currency of
the United States, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, the
board of governors of the Federal Reserve System, or any other federal
or state authority and their affiliates; any bank or savings association
whose deposits or accounts are eligible for insurance by the Federal
Deposit Insurance Corporation or any successor to it and all affiliates of
those banks and savings associations; any state or federally chartered
credit union; and any industrial loan and thrift company or regulated
lender subject to licensing and regulation by the Minnesota department
of commerce. To the extent that a pawnbroker's business includes
buying personal property previously used, rented or leased, or selling it
on consignment, the provisions of this section shall be applicable.
Subd. 3. Pawn transaction. "Pawn transaction" means any loan on the
security of pledged goods or any purchase of pledged goods on the condition that the
pledged goods are left with the pawnbroker and may be redeemed or repurchased by
the seller for a fixed price within a fixed period of time. The term "pawn transaction"
includes the renewal, extension or redemption of a pawn transaction previously made.
Subd. 4. Person. "Person" means an individual, partnership, corporation,
limited liability company, joint venture, trust, association, or any other legal entity,
however organized.
Subd. 5. Pledged goods. "Pledged goods" means tangible personal property
other than choses in action, securities, bank drafts, or printed evidence of
indebtedness, that are purchased by, deposited with, or otherwise actually delivered
into the possession of a pawnbroker in connection with a pawn transaction.
Subd. 6. Reportable transaction. "Reportable transaction" means every
pawn transaction, except:
(a) the bulk purchase or consignment of new or used merchandise from a
merchant, manufacturer or wholesaler having an established
permanent place of business, and the retail sale of said merchandise,
provided the pawnbroker must maintain a record of such purchase or
consignment which describes each item, and must mark each item in a
manner which relates it to that transaction record; and
(b) retail and wholesale sales of merchandise originally received by pawn
or purchase, and for which all applicable hold and/or redemption
periods have expired.
ID4
Subd. 7. Billable transaction. "Billable transaction" means every reportable
transaction except renewals, redemptions or extensions of existing pawns on items
previously reported and continuously in the pawnbroker's possession.
1187.05. License required. Subdivision 1. License required. No person shall engage
in the business of pawnbroker at any location without a pawnbroker license for that
location. No pawnbroker license may be transferred to a different location or a different
person. Issuance of a license under this subsection shall not relieve the licensee from
obtaining any other licenses required to conduct business at the same or any other
locations.
Subd. 2. Existing businesses. Existing pawnbroker establishments must
apply fora license and pay the required fee within six months of adoption of this
ordinance. In such cases, the annual license fee established by this ordinance will be
prorated from the first day of the month in which application is made, and credit will be
given for the unused portion of any pawnbroker license fee previously paid and
covering the same time period.
1187.07. License fee. The annual license fee for a pawnbroker license is set by
appendix D. The license fee must be paid at the time of application for the license.
1187.09. License term. All licenses shall expire on December 31st of the year in which
the license is issued. Except as provided in 1187.05, subdivision 2, the annual license
fee will not be prorated.
1187.11. Application. Subdivision 1. Application required. An application form
provided by the department of public safety must be completed by every applicant for a
new license or for renewal of an existing license. Every applicant must provide the
information required by this subsection.
Subd. 2. Individual applicants. If the applicant is an individual, the applicant
must provide the following information:
(a) The name, place and date of birth, street resident address, and phone
number of the applicant;
(b) Whether the applicant is a citizen of the United States or resident alien;
(c) Whether the applicant has ever used or has been known by a name
other than the applicant's name, and if so, the name or names used
and information concerning dates and places used;
(d) The name 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 as required by Minnesota Statutes, Section 333.01;
(e) The street address at which the applicant has lived during the
preceding five (5) years;
•
•
•
(f) The type, name and location of every business or occupation in which
the applicant has been engaged during the preceding five (5) years and
the name(s) and address(es) of the applicant's employer(s) and
partner(s), if any, for the preceding five (5) years;
(g) Whether the applicant has ever been convicted of a felony, crime, or
violation of any ordinance other than a traffic ordinance; if so, the
applicant must furnish information as to the time, place and offense of
all such convictions;
(h) The physical description of the applicant;
(i) If the applicant does not manage the business, the name of the
manager(s) or other person(s) in charge of the business and all
information concerning each of them required in paragraphs (a) through
(h) of this subdivision.
Subd. 3. Partnership applicant. If the applicant is a partnership, the
applicant must provide the following information:
(a) The name(s) and address(es) of all general and limited partners and all
information concerning each general partner required in subdivision 2,
paragraphs (a) through (h) of this subsection;
(b) The name(s) of the managing partner(s) and the interest of each
partner in the licensed business;
(c) A true copy of the partnership agreement shall be submitted with the
application; if the partnership is required to file a certificate as to a trade
name pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Section 333.01, a certified copy
of such certificate must be attached to the application;
(d) A true copy of the federal and state tax returns for the partnership for
the two (2) years prior to application;
(e) If the applicant does not manage the business, the name of the
manager(s) or other person(s) in charge of the business and all
information concerning each of them required in subdivision 2,
paragraphs (a) through (h) of this subsection;
Subd. 4. Corporate applicant. If the applicant is a corporation or other
organization, the applicant must provide the following information:
(a) The name of the corporation or business form, and if incorporated, the
state of incorporation;
(b) A true copy of the Certificate of Incorporation, Articles of Incorporation
or Association Agreement, and By-laws shall be attached to the
application; if the applicant is a foreign corporation, a Certificate of
Authority as required by Minnesota Statutes, Section 303.06, must be
attached;
(c) The name of the manager(s) or other person(s) in charge of the
business and all information concerning each manager, proprietor, or
/o-(
agent required in subdivision 2, paragraphs (a) through (h) of this
subsection;
(d) A list of all persons who control or own an interest in excess of five (5)
percent in such organization or business form or who are officers of the
corporation or business form and all information concerning said
persons required in subdivision 2, paragraphs (a) through (h) above.
This paragraph (d) shall not apply to a corporation whose stock is
publicly traded on a stock exchange and is applying for a license to be
owned and operated by it.
Subd. 5. All applicants. All applicants shall provide the following information:
(a) Whether the applicant holds a current pawnbroker, precious metal
dealer or secondhand goods dealer license from any other
governmental unit;
(b) Whether the applicant has previously been denied, or had revoked or
suspended, a pawnbroker, precious metal dealer, or secondhand
goods dealer license from any other governmental unit;
(c) The location of the business premises;
(d) If the applicant does not own the business premises, a true and
complete copy of the executed lease;
(e) The legal description of the premises to be licensed;
(f) 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 paid,
the years and amounts that are unpaid;
(g) Whenever the application is for premises either planned or under
construction or undergoing substantial alteration, the application must
be accompanied by a set of preliminary plans showing the design of the
proposed premises to be licensed;
(h) Such other information as the city may require.
Subd. 6. Application execution. All applications for a license under this
subsection must be signed and sworn to under oath or affirmation by the applicant. If
the application is that of a natural person, it must be signed and sworn to by such
person; if that of a corporation, by an officer thereof; if that of a partnership, by one of
the general partners; and if that of an unincorporated association, by the manager or
managing officer thereof.
Subd. 7. Fee. The license application must be accompanied by the
license and investigation fees required by subsections 1187.07 and 1187.13 of this
code.
1187.13. License investigation. Subdivision 1. Background investigation. The public
10 safety director of designee must investigate into the truthfulness of the statements set
forth in the application and shall endorse the findings thereon. The applicant must
/O,9
furnish to the public safety director or their designee such evidence as the public safety
director or their designee may reasonably require in support of the statements set forth
in the application.
Subd. 2. Investigation fee. An applicant must reimburse the city for its
actual investigation, subject to the limitations in this subdivision. An applicant for a new
license under this chapter, or for the renewal of an existing license that is more than six
(6) months past due, shall deposit with the public safety department at the time an
original application is submitted, an amount sufficient to cover the costs involved in
verifying the license application and to cover the expense of any investigation needed
to assure compliance with this subsection. The amount of the deposit shall be one
thousand five hundred dollars ($1,500) for each person to be investigated. Upon
completion of the investigation, the public safety department must either refund any
remaining balance on deposit or submit an invoice for the actual costs incurred in
excess of the deposit. The licensee shall pay any invoice for investigation fees within
thirty (30) days. Failure to do so is a violation of this subsection.
1187.15. Employee Background Checks. Subdivision 1. New Manager. When a
licensee places a manager in charge of a business, or if the named manager(s) in
charge of a licensed business changes, the licensee must complete and submit the
appropriate application, on forms provided by the department of public safety, within
fourteen (14) days. The application must include all appropriate information required in
section 1187.11 concerning the new manager(s).
Subd. 2. Other Employees. When a licensee hires an employee other
than a manager, the licensee must complete and submit the appropriate application, on
forms provided by the department of public safety, within fourteen (14) days after the
employee is hired. The application must include all appropriate information required in
section 1187.11, subdivision 2, paragraphs (a)-(c), (e), (g), and (h).
Subd. 3. Investigation fee. The new manager application must be
accompanied by a deposit equal to five hundred dollars ($500.00) for each new
manager named in the application. The application for new employees other than
managers must be accompanied by a deposit equal to fifty dollars ($50.00) for each
new employee named in the application. The public safety director or designee shall
conduct an investigation into the truthfulness of the application. Upon completion of the
investigation, the public safety department must either refund any remaining balance on
deposit or submit an invoice for the actual costs incurred in excess of the deposit. The
licensee shall pay any invoice for investigation fees within thirty (30) days. Failure to do
so is a violation of this subsection.
1187.17. Public hearing. A pawnbroker license will not be issued or renewed without a
public hearing. Any person having an interest in or who will be affected by the
proposed license will be permitted to testify at the hearing. The public hearing must be
/D_3
4 preceded by at least ten days' published notice specifying the location of the proposed
licensed business premises.
1187.19. Persons ineligible for a license. No licenses under this section will be issued
to an applicant who is a natural person, a partnership if such applicant has any general
partner or managing partner, a corporation or other organization if such applicant has
any manager, proprietor or agent in charge of the business to be licensed, if the
applicant:
(a) Is a minor at the time that the application is filed;
(b) Has been convicted of any crime directly related to the occupation
license as prescribed by Minnesota Statutes, Section 364.03, Subd. 2,
and has not shown competent evidence of sufficient rehabilitation and
present fitness to perform the duties of a licensee under this section as
prescribed by Minnesota Statutes, Section 364.03, Subd. 3;
(c) A person whom the city council determines not to be of sufficient good
moral character and repute;
(d) A person not a citizen of the United States or a resident alien;
(e) A person who within five years of the license application date had a
pawnbroker license revoked;
(f) A pawnbroker license will not be issued to any partnership or
corporation if such applicant has a partner, managing partner,
manager, proprietor, or agent who does not meet the standards set
forth in paragraphs (a) through (e) of this subsection.
1187.21. Bond required. Before a license will be issued, every applicant must submit a
five thousand dollar ($5,000.00) bond on forms provided by the department of public
safety. All bonds must be conditioned that the principal will observe all laws in relation
to pawnbrokers, and will conduct business in conformity thereto, and that the principal
will account for and deliver to any person legally entitled any goods which have come
into the principal's hand through the principal's business as a pawnbroker, or in lieu
thereof, will pay the reasonable value in money to the person. The bond shall contain a
provision that no bond may be canceled except upon thirty (30) days written notice to
the city, which shall be served upon the department of public safety.
1187.23. Denial, suspension or revocation. A license under this section may be
denied, suspended or revoked by the council, after an investigation and public hearing
where the licensee is granted the opportunity to be heard, for one or more of the
following reasons:
(a) The operation of the business is in conflict with any provision of this
code;
(b) The operation of the business is in conflict with any health, fire,
building, building maintenance, zoning, or any other applicable codes
or laws;
(c) The applicant or licensee has failed to comply with one or more
provisions of this section or any statute, rule or ordinance pertaining to
the business of pawnbroker;
(d) The applicant is not a citizen of the United States or a resident alien, or
upon whom it is impractical or impossible to conduct a background or
financial investigation due to the unavailability of information;
(e) The applicant has committed fraud, misrepresentation or bribery in
securing or renewing a license;
(f) The applicant has committed fraud, misrepresentation or false
statements made in the application and investigation for, or in the
course of, the applicant's business;
(g) The applicant or licensee has been convicted of any state or federal
law relating to receiving stolen property, sale of stolen property or
controlled substance, burglary, robbery, theft, damage or trespass to
property, operation of a business, or any law or ordinance regulating
the business of pawnbroker;
(h) Issuance or renewal of the license would adversely affect public health,
safety or welfare;
(i) The owner of the premises licensed or to be licensed would not qualify
for a license under the terms of this section.
1187.25. Records required. Subdivision 1. Records of transactions. At the time of
any reportable transaction other than renewals, extensions or redemptions, every
licensee must immediately record in English the following information in a computerized
record approved by the public safety director or designee:
(a) A complete and accurate description of each item including, but not
limited to, any trademark, identification number, serial number, model
number, brand name, or other identifying mark on such an item;
(b) The purchase price, amount of money loaned upon, or pledged
therefor;
(c) The maturity date of the transaction;
(d) The amount due, including monthly and annual interest rates and all
pawn fees and charges;
(e) Date, time and place the item of property was received by the licensee,
and the unique alpha and/or numeric transaction identifier that
distinguishes it from all other transactions in the licensee's records;
(f) Full name, residence address, residence telephone number, date of
birth and accurate description of the person from whom the item of the
property was received, including: sex, height, weight, race, color of
eyes and color of hair;
(g) The identification number and state of issue from any of the following
forms of identification of the seller or pledger: (i) current valid
Minnesota driver's license; (ii) current valid Minnesota identification
/0-/D
49 card; or (iii) current valid photo identification card issued by another
state or a province of Canada,
(h) The signature of the person identified in the transaction.
Subd. 2. Photographic records. The licensee must also take a color
photograph or color video recording which meets acceptable video standards as
established by the public safety director or designee of:
(a) Each customer involved in a billable transaction; and,
(b) Every item pawned or sold that does not have a unique serial or
identification number permanently engraved or affixed.
If a photograph is taken, it must be at least two (2) inches in length by two (2) inches in
width and must be maintained in such a manner that the photograph can be readily
matched and correlated with all other records of the transaction to which they relate.
Such photographs must be available to the public safety director, or the director's
designee, upon request. The major portion of the photograph must include an
identifiable front facial close-up of the person who pawned or sold the item. Items
photographed must be accurately depicted. The licensee must inform the person that
he or she is being photographed by displaying a sign of sufficient size in a conspicuous
place in the premises. The licensee must keep the photographs on the premises
0 available for inspection for ninety (90) days.
If a video photograph is taken, the video camera must zoom in on the person pawning
or selling the item so as to include an identifiable close-up of that person's face. Items
photographed by video must be accurately depicted. Video photographs must be
electronically referenced by time and date so they can be readily matched and
correlated with all other records of the transaction to which they relate. The licensee
must inform the person that he or she is being videotaped by displaying a sign of
sufficient size in a conspicuous place on the premises. The licensee must keep the
exposed videotape on the premises available for inspection for ninety (90) days.
Subd. 3. Digital images. Licensees may fulfill the color photograph
requirements in subdivision 2 of this subsection by generating them as digital images, in
a format specified by the public safety department, electronically cross-referenced to
the reportable transaction the images are associated with. The licensee must keep the
digital images on the premises available for inspection for ninety (90) days.
Notwithstanding that digital images may be captured from video recordings, this
provision does not alter or amend the requirements in subdivision 2 of this subsection.
Subd. 4. Records for renewals. extensions and redemptions. For
renewals, extensions and redemptions, the licensee shall provide the original
transaction identifier, the date of the current transaction, and the type of transaction.
ICS ? 1 ?
Subd. 5. Inspection of records. The records must at all reasonable times
be on the premises and available for inspection by the department of public safety.
Data entries shall be retained for at least three (3) years from the date of transaction.
Required photographs, video recordings, and digital images shall be retained a
minimum of ninety (90) days.
1187.27. Daily reports to police. Subdivision 1. Modem reporting. Effective sixty (60)
days from the date of notification by the public safety director or designee, licensees
must submit every reportable transaction to the public safety department daily by
-transferring it from their computer to the public safety department via modem. All
required records must be transmitted completely and accurately after the close of
business each day in accordance with standards and procedures established by the
public safety department using a dial-callback protocol or other procedures that address
security concerns of the licensees and the public safety department.
Subd. 2. Electronic reporting problems. Licensees are required to report
transactions by modem, except as otherwise allowed in this subdivision:
(a) If a licensee is unable to successfully transfer the required reports by
modem, the licensee must have on the premises and available for
inspection by the public safety department printed copies of all
reportable transactions that have not been reported by modem.
(b) If the problem is determined to be in the licensee's system and is not
corrected by the close of the first business day following the failure, the
licensee must provide the required reports as detailed in section
1187.25, in a paper format approved by the director of public safety.
(c) If a licensee is unable to capture, digitize or video record the
photographs required in section 1187.25, the licensee must
immediately take all required photographs with a still camera,
immediately develop the pictures, cross-reference the photographs to
the correct transaction.
(d) If the problem is determined to be in the licensee's system, the licensee
shall take all reasonable steps to include the replacement of system
components such as modems and other computer hardware and
software, in order to return the electronic reporting system to
operational condition as soon as possible.
(e) Failure to report transactions electronically for a period of seven (7) or
more consecutive days, due to a problem in the licensee's system
is constitutes grounds for license suspension or revocation.
1o-/a-
Subd. 3. Signage required. The licensee must display a sign of sufficient
size, in a conspicuous place in the premises, which informs all patrons that all
transactions are reported to the public safety department daily.
1187.29. Billable transaction license fees. Subdivision 1. Required fees. Every
licensee shall pay a billable transaction license fee for each billable transaction handled
by the licensee. The amount of the fee is set by appendix D and reflects the cost of
processing transactions and other related regulatory expenses. The city council will
review and adjust the fee amount, if necessary, at least every twelve (12) months.
Licensees shall be notified in writing at least thirty (30) days before any adjustment is
implemented.
Subd. 2. Fee classification. The billable transaction license fee is
classified according to the medium by which daily reports are submitted to the public
safety department. These classifications are: modem and manual, and the fee for each
classification is set by appendix D. Licensees will be charged for billable transactions at
the current rate for the medium by which the transactions reported to the public safety
department.
Subd. 3. Monthly payment. Billable transaction license fees shall be
billed monthly and are due and payable within thirty (30) days. Failure to do so is a
violation of this subsection.
1187.31. Receipt required. Subdivision 1. Requirement. Every licensee must provide
a receipt to the party identified in every reportable transaction and must maintain a
duplicate of that receipt for three (3) years.
Subd. 2. Contents of receipt. The receipt must include at least the
following information:
(a) The name, address and telephone number of the licensed business;
(b) The date and time the item was received by the licensee;
(c) Whether the item was pawned or sold, or the nature of the transaction;
(d) An accurate description of each item received including, but not limited
to, any trademark, identification number, serial number, model number,
brand name, or other identifying mark on such an item;
(e) The signature or unique identifier of the licensee or employee that
conducted the transaction;
(f) The amount advanced or paid;
(g) The monthly and annual interest rates, including all pawn fees and
charges;
(h) The last regular day of business by which the item must be redeemed
by the pledger without risk that the item will be sold;
(i) The amount necessary to redeem the pawned item on the maturity
date;
Q) The full name, residence address, residence telephone number, and
date of birth of the pledger or seller;
(k) The identification number and state or province of issue from any of the
following forms of identification of the seller: (i) current valid Minnesota
driver's license; (ii) current valid Minnesota identification card; or (iii)
current valid photo driver's license or identification card issued by
another state or a province of Canada.
(1) Description of the pledger or seller including approximate height,
weight, race, sex, color of eyes and color of hair;
(m) The signature of the pledger or seller;
(n) All printed statements as required by Minnesota Statute 325J.04
subdivision 2, or any other applicable statutes.
1187.33. Redemption period. Any person pledging, pawning or depositing an item for
security must have a minimum of sixty (60) days from the date of that transaction to
redeem the item before it may be forfeited and sold. During the sixty (60) day holding
period, items may not be removed from the licensed location except as provided in
section 1187.45. Licensees are prohibited from redeeming any item to anyone other
than the person to whom the receipt was issued or, to any person identified in a written
notarized authorization to redeem the property identified in the receipt, or to a person
identified in writing by the pledger at the time of the initial transaction and signed by the
pledger, or with approval of the Public Safety Director or their designee. Written
authorization for release of property to persons other than original pledger must be
maintained along with original transaction records in accordance with subsection
1187.25.
1187.35. Holding period. Any item purchased by a licensee must not be sold or
otherwise transferred for thirty (30) days from the date of the transaction. An individual
may redeem an item seventy-two (72) hours after the item was received on deposit,
excluding Sundays and legal holidays.
1187.37. Police order to hold property. Subdivision 1. Investigative hold. Whenever a
law enforcement official from any agency notifies a licensee not to sell an item, the item
must not be sold or removed from the premises. The investigative hold shall be
confirmed in writing by the originating agency within seventy-two (72) hours and will
remain in effect for fifteen (15) days from the date of initial notification, or until the
investigative order is canceled, or until an order to hold/confiscate is issued, pursuant to
subsection 1187.31 (b) whichever comes first.
Subd. 2. Order to hold. Whenever the public safety director, or the
director's designee, notifies a licensee not to sell an item, the item must not be sold or
removed from the licensed premises until authorized to be released by the director or
the director's designee. The order to hold shall expire ninety (90) days from the date it
is placed unless the public safety director or the director's designee determines the hold
is still necessary and notifies the licensee in writing.
0 1 /D_4
Subd. 3. Order to confiscate. If an item is identified as stolen or evidence
in a criminal case, the director or director's designee may:
(a) Physically confiscate and remove it from the pawnshop, pursuant to a
written order from the director or the director's designee, or
(b) Place the item on hold or extend the hold as provided in subdivision 2
of this subsection and leave the item in the pawnshop.
When an item is confiscated, the person doing so shall provide identification upon
request of the licensee, and shall provide the licensee the name and phone number of
the confiscating agency and investigator, and the case number related to the
confiscation.
Subd. 4. Release of order to hold/confiscate. When an order to
hold/confiscate is no longer necessary, the director of public safety, or the director's
designee shall so notify the licensee.
1187.39. Inspection of items. At all times during the terms of the license, the licensee
must allow the public safety director or designee(s) to enter the premises where the
licensed business is located, including all off-site storage facilities as authorized in
section 1187.45 during normal business hours, except in an emergency, for the
purpose of inspecting such premises and inspecting the items, ware and merchandise
and records therein to verify compliance with this chapter or other applicable laws.
1187.41. Label required. Licensees must attach a label to every item at the time it is
pawned, purchased or received in inventory from any reportable transaction.
Permanently recorded on this label must be the number or name that identifies the
transaction in the pawnshop's records, the transaction date, the name of the item and
the description or the model and serial number of the item as reported to the public
safety department, whichever is applicable, and the date the item is out of pawn or can
be sold, if applicable. Labels shall not be re-used.
1187.43. Prohibited acts. The following acts are prohibited:
(a) No person under the age of twenty-one (21) years may pawn or sell or
attempt to pawn or sell goods with any licensee, nor may any licensee
receive any goods from a person under the age of twenty-one (21)
years.
(b) No licensee may receive any goods from a person of unsound mind or
an intoxicated person.
(c) No licensee may receive any goods, unless the seller presents
identification in the form of a current valid Minnesota driver's license or
identification card, or a current valid photo drivers license or
identification card issued by the state or province of residency of the
person from whom the item was received.
(d) No licensee may receive any item of property that possesses an altered
or obliterated serial number or operation identification number or any
item of property that has had its serial number removed.
1187.45. Business at only one place. A license under this section authorizes the
licensee to carry on its business only at the permanent place of business designated in
the license. However, upon written request, the public safety director or designee may
approve an off-site locked and secured storage facility. The licensee shall permit
inspection of the facility in accordance with section 1187.39. All provisions of this
section regarding record keeping and reporting apply to the facility and its contents.
Property shall be stored in compliance with all provisions of the city code. The licensee
must either own the building in which the business is conducted, and any approved off-
site storage facility, or have a lease on the business premises which extends for more
than six (6) months.
1187.47. Separability. Should any subsection, subdivision, paragraph, clause or other
provision of this section be declared by a court of competent jurisdiction to be invalid
such decision shall not affect the validity of the ordinance as a whole or any part other
than the part so declared invalid.
Relation to other ordinances. This ordinance supersedes those provisions of section
1186 of the Richfield City Code that pertain to pawnbrokers.
Sec. 2. This ordinance shall be effective as provided in Richfield City
Code subsection 110.11.
Adopted this 23rd day of March, 1998.
Martin J. Kirsch, Mayor
ATTEST:
Thomas P. Ferber, City Clerk
/C --i
•
CITY OF RICHFIELD
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING PUBLICATION OF
BILL NO. BY TITLE AND SUMMARY
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Richfield has adopted an ordinance, Bill
No. , which adds a new Section 1187 to the Richfield City Code; and
WHEREAS, Section 3.12 of the Richfield City Charter provides for the publication
of ordinances by title and summary in certain circumstances.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of
Richfield, as follows:
1. The City Council hereby determines that publication of the complete text of
Bill No. is not cost effective.
2. The City Council determines that the following summary would clearly
inform the public of the intent and effect of the ordinance and hereby approves the same:
3. The City Clerk shall cause the following summary of Bill No. to be
published in the official newspaper in lieu of the entire ordinance:
Public Notice
The City Council of the City of Richfield has adopted Bill No. , "AN
ORDINANCE REGULATING PAWNBROKER ESTABLISHMENTS; REQUIRING
A LICENSE; ESTABLISHING REPORTING REQUIREMENTS; AMENDING THE
CITY CODE BY ADDING A NEW SECTION 1187; SUPERSEDING
PAWNBROKER REGULATIONS IN SECTION 1186." The ordinance adds a new
section 1187 to the Richfield City Code, which supersedes existing pawnbroker
regulations found in section 1186.
License Procedures
The ordinance requires persons to obtain an annual license to engage in the
business of pawnbroker, establishes licensing procedures, and provides for a
license fee. The ordinance requires background investigations to be conducted
regarding any pawnbroker business, manager or employee; establishes
investigation fees; and requires a bond for all licensees. The ordinance makes
certain persons ineligible for licenses and establishes grounds and procedures for
licenses to be denied, suspended or revoked.
Recordkeeping Regulations
The ordinance requires pawnbroker businesses to maintain records of transactions
and to keep photographic records or digital images of customers and certain
pawned items. Pawnbrokers are required to report certain transactions daily to the
public safety department by modem, subject to limited exceptions. Licensees
must pay a fee for every transaction reported.
Consumer Protection Regulations
Pawnbrokers are required to provide detailed receipts to persons who pawn items.
Persons pawning items must be given at least 60 days to redeem an item before
the item may be forfeited and sold. The ordinance establishes a 30-day holding
period for purchased items.
Other Regulations
The ordinance permits the public safety department to order property to be held
pending investigation and to inspect records and pawned items. The ordinance
prohibits persons under age 21 from pawning goods; prohibits licensees from
receiving goods from intoxicated persons or those of unsound mind; requires
identification to be presented by any person pawning goods; and prohibits
licensees from accepting goods with altered, obliterated, or removed serial
numbers.
The full text of Bill No. is available at Richfield City Hall, 6700 Portland
Avenue, Richfield, during regular business hours.
Thomas P. Ferber, City Clerk
4. The City Clerk is directed to keep a copy of the ordinance at city hall for
public inspection and to provide a copy to the Augsburg branch of the Hennepin County
Public Library.
Adopted this 23rd day of March, 1998.
Martin J. Kirsch, Mayor
ATTEST:
40 Thomas Ferber, City Clerk
/0-19
0 AMENDMENT TO APPENDIX D
•
SECTION 8. COMMERCIAL BUSINESS AND TRADE LICENSES AND PERMITS
TYPE OF SECTION DESCRIPTION FEE
PERMIT OR REQUIRING
LICENSE
(17) Pawnbroker 1187 (a) Pawnbroker 1 year $2.500.00
(b) Owner 1 year $1,500
investigation fee
(nonrefundable)
(c) Manager 1 year $500.00
investigation fee
(nonrefundable)
(d) Employee 1 year $50 per
investigation employee
fee
(nonrefundable)
(e) Transaction $1.50 per
fee transaction
to
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Council Letter No. 70
Agenda March 23, 1998
Issue Statement:
Public hearing regarding approval of layout for 66th Street between Lynwood Boulevard
and Humboldt Avenue as part of the 1-35W Project to extend the High Occupancy
Vehicle Lane.
Background:
Council approved the layout for the mainlines of 1-35W on March 24, 1997. However,
the details of improvements needed at the 66th Street interchange were not addressed
at that time. The 1-35W plan calls for the reconstruction of the 1-35W bridge over 66th
Street. Council discussed the 66th Street design issues at its Study Session on
February 2, 1998. A map is attached showing the proposed layout.
Council is being asked by the Minnesota Department of Transportation (MnDOT) to
approve the proposed layout of the 66th Street interchange so that design work may
proceed and construction of the project can begin early next year. The project to
extend High Occupancy Vehicles on 1-35W will cost an estimated $75 million. An
Aesthetic Design Review Committee, including representatives of Richfield, is
• responsible for evaluating the appearance of the project's design. Issues of the
project's appearance will be submitted for Council approval at a later date.
City and County staff are recommending widening 66th Street which will produce the
following impacts:
• alignment shift to the south;
• drop in elevation;
• extension of left turn lanes;
• transit stop, bikeways and sidewalks;
• alley modifications;
• right of way acquisition; and,
• construction staging.
Design Issues:
Alignment shift to the south - Sixty-sixth Street must be shifted to the south to
accommodate the street widening. The southbound exit ramp is too short and too
steep to shift 66th Street to the north. Also, a shift to the north would require changes
in the design of the 62 Crosstown Highway that exceed the boundaries of the approved
project layout for 1-35W.
Elevation - Sixty-sixth Street must be lowered about 2.8 feet for several reasons. The
profile of the freeway needs to be changed to correct a substandard vertical curve to
10 provide safe stopping sight distances. 1-35W will be raised 1.3 feet, as high as possible
without requiring additional right of way. A thicker beam is needed to support the
9-I
proposed two-span bridge over 66th Street, currently it's a three-span bridge. The
clearance for trucks passing under the 1-35W bridge is only 15.3' now, and should be
16.3' as proposed.
Left-tum lanes - The proposed layout provides for a protected left turn lane for motorists
desiring to enter the freeway. Currently, only a short left-turn lane is provided in each
direction that causes left turning vehicles to block one of the through lanes on 66th
Street. A proposed 300' long left turn storage lane will reduce the chance of left turning
vehicles from blocking through lanes during rush hour periods.
A transit stop, bikeways and sidewalks are included in the proposed design of 66th
Street in the vicinity of 1-35W to correct existing deficiencies. Transit service operating
on 66th Street will connect to express bus service using 1-35W. The location of bus
pullouts and bus shelters has not been finalized awaiting further analysis of traffic
operations. Bicyclists will ride on widened shoulders and sidewalks will be widened to
improve safety for pedestrians.
Alley Modifications - City staff is recommending relocating an alley in the northwest
corner of the interchange to redirect its access to Girard Avenue and remove its current
access to 66th Street. This will require acquiring one duplex. This is recommended as
a safety improvement and a potential location for a bus shelter and bus pullout.
0 However, Council can choose as an option to not relocate the alley and avoid the
acquisition of the duplex.
There is an existing alley on the west side of the 6600 block of Emerson Avenue that is
used by several property owners to store vehicles. However, all parcels are served by
driveways off of Emerson Avenue. City staff is recommending that owner ship of the
alley be clarified based on public comments received and a meeting with affected
property owners be held before a decision is made about relocating or vacating the
alley.
Right of Way:
The proposed layout will require the total acquisition of three parcels: 1314-1316-66th
Street (duplex); 1315-1317-66th Street (duplex); and, 6600 Emerson Avenue (single-
family home being used as a group home). Six partial acquisitions are likely as part of
the proposed layout. They are: 1415 West 66th Street (single-family home); 6600-04
Girard Avenue (duplex); 6601 Emerson Avenue (single-family home); 6606 and 6609
Girard Avenue (two single-family homes); and, 1107-09 West 66th Street (duplex).
Construction Staging:
The proposed layout will realign 66th Street to the south and a bridge pier will be built in
what is now the eastbound left turn lane. This pier will reduce the number of lanes on
66th Street to one through lane in each direction during construction. MnDOT staff will
explore removing a sidewalk from the south side of the street to maintain a left turn lane
in the eastbound direction. The 66th Street ramps to and from 1-35W will be closed
9-a
intermittently during construction. Also, new underground utilities will have to be
installed under 66th Street that will cause serious disruption to traffic. Construction will
last for approximately 18 months. Details of staging have not been finalized.
Citizen Involvement Process:
A letter was sent to 3,000 residents and businesses from Nicollet Avenue to Penn
Avenue notifying them of a public information meeting that was held on February 26,
1998. Approximately 150 people attended the meeting. Their written comments are
attached for Council review. City staff also visited with most residents of properties
affected by possible right of way acquisition. Notices of the meeting were also placed
in the Sun Current Newspaper, the City Web Site and on Cable TV.
Project Schedule:
The following schedule is proposed for Council consideration:
Action Date
• Council Decision on Proposed Layout March 23, 1998
• Right of Way Acquisition Fall 1998
• Construction Spring 1999 to Fall 2000
Recommended Motion:
. Conduct the public hearing and approve the attached resolution related to the proposed
layout for 66th Street between Lynwood Boulevard and Humboldt Avenue as part of the
extension of High Occupancy Vehicle land on 1-35W from 1-494 to 42nd Street in
Minneapolis, Minnesota.
Basis of Recommendation:
1. Details of improvements needed at the 66th Street interchange were not addressed
at the time of the 1-35W layout approval.
2. The proposed layout addresses the issues raised by Council in its March 24, 1997
approval of the layout for the project to extend the High Occupancy Vehicle Lane on
1-35W.
3. The community has been given an opportunity to express their views on proposed
improvements along 66th Street.
Alternative Recommendations:
1. Continue the public hearing until additional information is obtained to address issues
of the location of bus pullouts and bus shelters, and any issues raised by residents.
The proposed layout will not change significantly due to alternative locations being
considered for bus pullouts and bus shelters that will cause a delay in completing
the design work for 1-35W.
9-3
2. Rebuild the 1-35W bridge without changing the existing design. This avoids the
acquisition of any right of way and the disruption during construction caused by
realigning the road. However, the existing design of 66th Street is deficient in
providing adequate storage for left turning vehicles and this causes through traffic to
use only one lane during peak traffic periods. The existing design does not provide
for safe movement of pedestrians, bicyclists and for transit riders. Consequently,
City staff does not recommend rebuilding the interchange using the current design.
3. The home at 1314-1316 West 66th Street is proposed for total acquisition to
relocate the alley east of Girard Avenue that currently fronts onto 66th Street. It is
also a possible alternative site for a bus pullout and bus shelter. The alley poses a
safety issue because it is adjacent to the southbound exit ramp of I-35W. Council
may choose to leave the alley in place. The result would be a partial acquisition of
the property along 66th Street but the home would remain.
Discussion/Decision Mode:
A decision by Council on the proposed layout is needed within one month to keep the
project on schedule for construction next spring. Council approval of the proposed
layout for 66th Street is required before the Minnesota Department of Transportation
can complete the final design for the 1-35W Project.
Respectfully submitted,
Jam . Prosser
City Manager
JDP:ds
Attachments
0
RESOLUTION NO.
q,q
is RESOLUTION APPROVING THE LAYOUT FOR 66TH STREET
BETWEEN LYNWOOD BOULEVARD AND HUMBOLDT AVENUE
AS PART OF THE EXTENSION OF HIGH OCCUPANCY VEHICLE LANE ON 1-36W
FROM 1-494 TO 42ND STREET IN MINNEAPOLIS, MINNESOTA
WHEREAS, the Commissioner of the Department of Transportation has prepared a
preliminary layout for the improvement of a part of 66th Street between Lynwood
Boulevard and Humboldt Avenue as part of Highway Number 394 renumbered as Trunk
Highway No. 35W within the corporate limits of the City of Richfield, from the junction of 1-
494 to the east junction of Trunk Highway No. 62; and seeks the approval thereof; and
WHEREAS, said preliminary; layout for 66th Street is on file in the Office of the
Minnesota Department of Transportation, St. Paul, Minnesota, being marked, labeled, and
identified as Layout No. 1, dated February 1998.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that said preliminary layout for the
improvement of 66th Street as part of said Trunk Highway within the corporate limits be
and hereby are approved by the City Council of the City of Richfield subject to the
following conditions that:
1. The Aesthetic Design Review Committee still be given the opportunity to review
the aesthetic design elements of the proposed 66th Street project including lighting, bus
shelters, bridge design, landscaping and noise walls.
2. The location of bus pullouts and bus shelters must await a traffic analysis of
operational characteristics to be resolved to the City's satisfaction.
3. The administration of all land acquisition and relocation of parcels identified for
acquisition should be delegated to the City to improve the City's ability to coordinate the
relocation of residents with the City's other housing programs.
4. City staff should clarify ownership of an alley serving the 6600 block of Emerson
Avenue and hold a meeting with affected property owners before Council decides on
vacating or relocating the alley access.
5. The design must take into account drainage problems identified by residents at
the intersection of Humboldt Avenue and 66th Street.
Adopted by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this 23rd day of
March, 1998.
Martin J. Kirsch, Mayor
ATTEST:
Thomas P. Ferber, City Clerk
0
0
•
u
I
1
I
1
I i
I I
e-s-z I
znt
1
1
? r_J I
I ! I _ I
?I 11
11 II
15 I I i
b99 I I I 1
II II
z I pI I
rst
MSS-I.TS
rst •e•s ".4
II
?-$-t
YY59
Y N
?pp
N
,
1 6°g9
I
r
!
I
s
I c
I r.-
I _
I J?_?
I
I
1
1
I i_s_t
I T099
?I I I
3AV NOS83" 3
VI
i
I
1
I
I ?
1 r
I !
a I r
r r
I r
1 r
I r
I !
I r
i r
I ?
v GUMS
15-S-I
Y099
0099
I I
1 I -
j-S-t i
I I U
5659
r
•3AV moewnN
o ?
[? S 0099
<o
?o
W
W
F--
N
S
co
F-t0 m
Q0 N,
0 N
W
N H
o
^
1.L
O a
IZ
9-S
9-6
Comments Received at the Public Meeting on Proposed Widening of 66th Street
between Lynwood Boulevard and Humboldt Avenue as part of the
1-36W Reconstruction Project
Thursday, February 26, 1998
Wood Lake Nature Center
735 Lake Shore Drive, Richfield, MN
•
•
NAME COMMENT
Kelly Artz The widening design looks great. I would love to see bus shelters
1512 W. 66th Street match bridge design. Don't install ugly glass huts next to nice new
798-0631/941-8950 bridge! Consider re-paving 66th all the way to Penn or just fix my
driveway!
R. Mattern At present time when it rains, it floods on 66th from Humboldt to
6532 Girard Avenue 35W. If street is lowered two feet, adequate water drainage will be
869-9393 needed. Accident rate on west ramp is high because people make
right turns on red when it says "No Turn on Red," and someone is
coming out of the alley.
Steve Klug Make a bike path extend to Lakewood Drive.
6608 Lynwood Blvd.
861-3035
Kim Hill Would a possible option to the Girard Avenue alley be to not have it
6529 Girard Avenue go through but rather cut it off and put a turnaround at the 66th
861-5714/348-9024 Street end? Most residents do not go out the south side and I do not
believe that would change.
J. C. Hardy Put in STOP signs so we can get onto 66th Street. It's too crowded
6513 Humboldt now.
Avenue
869-1930
Lenny Schultz Place a STOP sign at Humboldt to let all the residents north of 66th
6510 Humboldt Street out onto 66th Street and also those south of 66th Street.
869-1105
Bonnie Kittell Would it be possible to put a light at Humboldt and 66th? Left
6630 Logan Avenue turning traffic off 66th during rush hour is a problem.
869-3826
Judi Simons I agree this area needs to be improved. I don't have strong feelings
6532 Third Avenue about which design is chosen. I do, however, have strong feelings
861-7473 about where the water drainage grates are placed. Be sure they are
at the lowest point of the roadways and corners. Why is it that most
often they are not!?
Judi Simons I have to take this opportunity to comment on the Crosstown/35W
6532 Third Avenue Project especially after reading today's Mpls. Star Tribune.
861-7473 Specifically traveling east on Crosstown to go north on 35W... you
must be crazy to think the public will go along with your plan to still
provide only one lane for this purpose. Don't waste money on this
project if you aren't changing that aspect of the Crosstown
Commons!
•
0
•
q, r)
John Gamoke Thank you for the informative hearing! The information is very clear!
6645 Humboldt Thank you for advertising the hearing so well!
869-5291
Kristine Hawkinson Express bus access on 66th Street for downtown commuters!!!
1112 West 66th
861-3928
Richard E. Evans I am not happy to have a median blocking access to my home on
6624 Girard Avenue Girard. I am also not happy seeing part of people's property taken
866-9609 and then left with less. It lowers the value of the property and makes
it more difficult to sell.
Steve Kirchner When making the sidewalks under the bridge I would encourage the
Richfield Bank City to NOT separate them by a separate wall. Leave it wide open
798-3342 so you don't create security concerns. If you create a wall, we need
to put lights under the bridge.
Doris Rubenstein NO parking lots on acquired properties on 66th Street. What a way
6515 Emerson to say "Welcome to Richfield" than an ugly parking lot!!
861-7429/624-4716
Bill and Jeri Scott 1. Noise during construction of bridge (or buy our property too).
6608 Emerson 2. Condition of our home after bridge construction.
Avenue 3. Landscaping of corner next to our home.
861-2182/866-0713 4. Put us in a short term apartment during bridge construction.
5. Would like to be in on the design choice for corner.
Barbara Uphoff I think it is INSANE to not put in two lanes from east 62 to 35M
6540 Emerson Don't bother doing it if you don't change it!!! Whatever happened to
Avenue a possible transit station? Will an additional bus stop at 66th and
869-0947 35W require more space?
Kenneth D. Snider I would like to see the house at the corner of 66th Street and Girard
6537 Girard Avenue Avenue removed and the alley to come out to Girard on the south
895-9595/937-8496 side of property 6537-6539. It would make the intersection safer and
more practicable. The house at 6537-6539 Girard Avenue is the
duplex I am buying. I am previously living at 7744 Carnelian Lane,
Eden Prairie, MN 55346, 937-8496. Please call me at your
convenience on any questions you may have.
Charles S. Dean II 1 think this is a very good idea. We need a wider sidewalk and four
1012 West 66th lane roads.
866-2344/288-1007-P
Bill Scott 1. Concern about parking on street for bus stop.
6608 Emerson 2. Would like to be present at meeting for buffer zone on 66th St.
861-2182/866-0713 and Emerson.
3. Access to alley behind property.
Steve Quam I'd be very interested in seeing the aesthetic design proposed before
6421 James Avenue approval. This is a very big element in the structural environment of
861.2026/861-2601 the community so please stress appearance. Also, if you can make
it possible to see the metered ramp south on 35W from eastbound
66th, you can help drivers choose whether to go on a congested
freeway.
C7
0
9-8
Tracey Dixon The most important part of this project to me is how the bridge will
6638 Morgan Avenue look. It would be nice to have some plantings like those at
932-9582/798-1631 Centennial Lakes if they do not obstruct the view. A nice "Welcome
to Richfield" sign would be good as you exit 35W.
Lawrence Wozniczka Wider sidewalks and commuter bicycle lane additions are
6744 Wentworth improvements. (Thanks!) Crossing exit and entry ramps will be
869-1236 difficult for pedestrians. Can we consider a separate crossing of
35W (perhaps an underpass in area of 68th Street) to enable linking
neighborhoods and reducing residents need to cross 35W at 66th
Street. Perhaps this would be a future project.
Darrell Pipo My concern is about the noise levels and sound barriers that will be
6620 Emerson installed to improve this problem. The existing wall is not high
Avenue enough to take care of this problem. I can see the tops of trucks
861-3248 going by through my kitchen window
Daryl Ship My concerns are that of the noise levels from 135W. On Lynwood it
6629 Lynwood Blvd. is actually louder than on Emerson because I believe that the wall is
881-2224/869-7912 not high enough to handle the noise levels.
Judith Staker While I understand the need to widen 66th Street at the 35W
7308 Logan Avenue interchange when doing the 35W162 reconstruction project, I am
861-7344 very concerned about two things: (1) the safety of pedestrians and
bicyclists at the intersection and (2) the speed of traffic along 66th
Street. I do not wish to see 66th Street become a major
thoroughfare. Reducing the speed limit to 25 mph would at least
keep drivers under 35 mph. By making the interchange wider and
longer, it will be even more difficult for pedestrians and bicyclists to
cross 35W. Drivers currently do not respect the intersection or the
"No Turn On Red" signs. They almost always encroach over the
current pedestrian and sidewalk route and frequently turn on and off
the ramps in front of pedestrians and bicyclists. Making more
concrete for cars to drive on will only encourage the "car first-right of
way" attitude.
Any design should: keep cars and people separated; have wide
crosswalks with long walk lights; enforce "No Turn On Red" at the
ramps and have more signs to this effect.
Thanks for hard work on planning. Buffers seem to look nice. The
least amount of road widening is preferable.
Remember, Richfield is a small community. I hope 35W doesn't
continue to divide it.
0
S
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Council Letter No. 69
Agenda March 23, 1998
Issue Statement:
Public hearing and consideration of resolution amending the 1998 Capital Improvement
Budget.
Background:
During the fall of 1997, the Capital Improvement Budget (CIB) was adopted as part of
the 1997 Revised and Adopted Budget. Since the adoption of the budget, a number of .
projects have come to the attention of the City which merit consideration for inclusion
into the 1998 CIB. In order to give City Council consideration to these proposed
projects, a public hearing has been scheduled to briefly describe the projects and
receive public comment. A copy of the current 1998 CIB is attached to this Council
Letter.
In addition to the projects included in the 1998 CIB the following projects should also be
considered:
Project
Second Indoor Ice Sheet (Veterans Park) Bond
Expansion of City Hall Parking Lot Fund
1-494 Integrated Corridor Traffic Mgmt.
66th Street Reconstruction at 1-35W
Traffic Signal @ 77th St. (Shops At Lyndale)
69th & Penn Avenue Stormwater Improvements
Second Indoor Ice Sheet
Proiect Expenditure Source
$2,700,000 Rev. Bond
212,000 General
25,000 MSA
600,000 MSA/Federal
135,000 MSA
300,000 User Fees
This project was brought to the attention of the City Council and staff by a group of
interested citizens who strongly felt there was a need for an additional sheet to meet
the growing demands of all ice skating related activities, especially with the introduction
of girls' hockey programs. The current single sheet cannot meet the demands for ice
time in the community with two high school girls' and boys' hockey programs, a youth
hockey program and other ice related needs.
Expansion of City Hall Parking Lot
This project includes the acquisition of the property at 6734 Portland Avenue and the
construction costs to incorporate this property into the parking lot at City Hall.
1-494 Integrated Traffic Mgmt. System
This proposal will provide the City with two video hook-ups to the MnDOT Traffic
Management Center to allow staff to visually monitor the 1-494 corridor.
66th Street Improvements at 1-35W
As part of the widening of 1-35W by MnDOT, the bridge over 66th Street will be
replaced. This project will acquire two or three residences and parts of other parcels to
9-1
widen 66th to provide wider sidewalks and shoulders, bus pullouts under the bridge and
longer left turn lanes under the bridge.
Traffic Signal on 77th Street at Shops at Lyndale
This proposal is to install a traffic signal at the entrance to the Shops at Lyndale on 77th
Street.
69th & Penn Avenue Stormwater Improvements
This project involves the acquisition of two residences to provide flood protection for the
Penn Avenue area between 69th and 70th Streets. It would also provide a stormwater
storage area for the 70th and Russell Avenue project, which is planned for the following
year.
Recommended Motion:
Conduct a public hearing and adopt a resolution adjusting the 1998 CIB by adding the
projects selected by the City Council.
Basis of Recommendation:
1. The projects listed in this letter are those which should be considered for 1998. As
such, the projects should be added to the 1998 CIB.
2. Placing the projects in the 1998 CIB does not authorize the project. Instead, it
includes the project in the current year capital budget. Separate City Council action
is needed to proceed with each project.
3. The public hearing notice has been published and posted.
Alternate Recommendation:
1. Action on this matter could be postponed to a future date.
2. The City Council could select any or all of the projects listed here for inclusion in the
1998 CIB.
3. The City Council could decide not to add any of these projects to the 1998 CIB.
However, in the case of at least one project, the parking lot enlargement at City Hall,
the City Council acted in 1997 to authorize this action.
Discussion/Decision Mode:
If the City Council wants to proceed with projects such as the second ice sheet at this
time, it would be necessary to amend the 1998 CIB as soon as possible.
Respectf Ily submitted,
James . Prosser
City Ma ager
JDP:ds
5-a
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION AMENDING THE 1998 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT BUDGET
WHEREAS, the City Council approved a 1998 Capital Improvement Budget in
December 1997 as part of the 1998 budget process; and
WHEREAS, a number of projects which merit consideration in 1998 have come
to the attention of the City staff; and
WHEREAS, the City Council held a public hearing to consider the additional
projects; and
WHEREAS, the City Council determined that certain additional projects should
be included in the 1998 Capital Improvement Budget.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the following projects with the
accompanying estimated casts be added to the 1998 Capital Improvement Budget.
Project Project Expenditure Source
Second Indoor Ice Sheet (Veterans Park) Bond $2,700,000 Rev. Bond
Expansion of City Hall Parking Lot Fund 212,000 General
1-494 Integrated Corridor Traffic Mgmt. 25,000 MSA
66th Street Reconstruction at 1-35W 600,000 MSA/Federal
Traffic Signal @ 77th St. (Shops At Lyndale) 135,000 MSA
69th & Penn Avenue Stormwater Improvements 300,000 User Fees
Adopted by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this 23rd day of
March, 1998.
Martin J. Kirsch, Mayor
ATTEST:
Thomas P. Ferber, City Clerk
0
• CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
C6uncil Letter No. 68
Agenda March 23, 1998
Issue Statement:
Public hearing regarding second indoor ice sheet request and selection of architect to
prepare plans and specification for advertisement for bids for construction.
Background:
At the January 26, 1998 regular City Council meeting a group of interested citizens (the
ICE Group) asked that the City explore the idea of constructing a second indoor ice
sheet at the ice arena at Veterans Memorial Park of Richfield. The City Council listened
to the request and asked staff to prepare a feasibility study on the matter of the second
ice sheet.
Staff has worked with the Cluts, O'Brien, Strother Architects and Delano Erickson
Architects to prepare concept drawings, project cost estimates and estimated
construction schedules for the construction of a second ice sheet. In addition, the City
also asked Mark Ruff of Ehlers and Associates to prepare background information
regarding the financing alternatives involved, potential debt service schedules,
revenues and operating cost information. Information regarding the revenues and
• operating costs was provided to Ehlers and Associates by City staff. In addition to that
information, Mr. Ruff has worked on a number of financial feasibility studies for other
metropolitan ice arena projects and has a solid knowledge of the subject matter.
The information from the architect and Ehlers and Associates was presented and
discussed with the City Council at the special March 16 Study Session. The information
was also presented to the Community Services Commission on March 12, 1998 at a
Special meeting.
If the City is to proceed with this project on a schedule to attempt to provide an
additional ice sheet which could be usable in January 1999, action should be taken by
the City Council on March 23 to authorize the selection of an architect to begin work on
the plans and specifications.
In arriving at a decision on this matter several issues must be considered. Each issue
identified in this Council Letter is presented in some detail for Council analysis.
Need for More Ice
The arena hosts a Youth Hockey program for boys and girls ages four to fifteen. The
youth program is the largest single consumer of ice time, purchasing about 720 hours
annually. The arena also provides open skating, Adult Hockey League programs and
• host various skating clinics
?-,l
• Currently, two high schools, Richfield High School and The Academy of the Holy
Angels, use the Ice Arena for their hockey programs. Both schools have Girls and
Boys Varsity programs, as well as Boys Junior Varsity. In addition, Richfield High
School will add a Junior Varsity Girls program during the next hockey season and Holy
Angels is expected to add a Girls Junior Varsity and a Bantam team the following
season.
The Ice Arena currently cannot provide all of the ice hours needed by the users of the
arena. With the addition of a Girls Junior Varsity team for the upcoming season
beginning in 1998, the shortage of ice hours will become more critical.
During the 1998-99 season, 27 teams will need to use the hockey arena (that includes
the Hockey Association and the high schools). For the following season, 1999-2000,
29 teams will be requesting use of ice time at the Richfield facility. Thus, it's apparent
that there is a need for more ice time at the Richfield facility.
Consequences of Not Providing More Ice
There are several potential consequences or issues to be considered which would be
associated with the decision to not provide an additional sheet of ice. There is a direct
responsibility for the schools to provide gender equity in athletic programs which, of
course, would include girls' and boys' varsity and junior varsity hockey. That also
• provides an indirect impact on the current Ice Arena as the City works with all of the
groups to balance the requests of all of the organizations in light of their legal
responsibility to provide gender equity. Obviously, the more demand on one ice sheet,
the more difficult it will be to satisfy all of the needs presented to the arena for ice.
Another direct effect of not providing a second sheet of ice is that it is almost certain
that either some group or a portion of every group's hours will likely be displaced from
the Richfield Ice Arena. That is because of the demand versus the availability of prime
ice time. To that end, there will be an immediate need if there is no second ice sheet to
adopt a policy which would govern how and what priority order the request for ice time
would be granted or conversely, denied. Whichever group is left out of the Richfield Ice
Arena because of the shortage of ice time may find it very difficult to buy or schedule
ice anywhere in the near vicinity because of demand and the short notice for buying
such ice time.
Project Costs
As the feasibility study concluded, the project that was conceptionalized by the ICE
Group and by the project architect was one that basically met the needs of most users
of the facility but was projected to be a total cost of about $2.7 million. The estimated
cost of the $2.7 million project does not include dedicated locker rooms for the high
schools. Those locker rooms could cost anywhere between $325,000 and $400,000. It
is staff's recommendation that if such locker rooms were to be added to the project that
40 the high schools provide either the up-front funding or the debt service payment stream
to pay for the locker rooms.
q_d,
With the $2.7 million cost and the accompanying financing necessary to fund the
project, another consideration would be to scale the project back. There are a number
of possibilities that could be used. One option would be to locate the building as
designed to the north of the current ice arena rather than to the east. The savings
would be approximately $250,000. The north location provides some advantages to
linking up with the existing mechanical system. However, there is a disadvantage in
terms of the flow of the public through the building and of the ability of staff to monitor
the two ice sheets. Another option is the use of a pre-engineered steel building were
used in place of the concrete structure, the savings would be approximate $650,000.
That, however, would require a variance as the City Ordinance does not allow such
metal buildings. -
Another major consideration in downsizing the project might be the use of an air
supported bubble which would reduce the cost by approximately $950,000. It is the
architect's advice that the air supported bubble would have a useful life of 10 to 15
years and utility costs would increase due to inflating the bubble.
Some other smaller reductions might be the use of a pre-engineered metal roof which
would save about $100,000. Reducing the building size by approximately 2,000 square
feet would save approximately $100,000 and the use of a sand rink floor rather than the
better concrete floor would save approximately $80,000.
In considering some of the potential cost reductions, the building appearance and
community standards of what would be expected of a public park recreation facility
should also be considered. It should also be noted that depending upon the down-
grading of the facility, certain down-grades would have an impact on projected
revenues. For example, it is unlikely that tournaments such as Team Minnesota, which
would be a sizable tournament in the spring-summer time of the year, would be
interested in using the facility for such a tournament with a bubble ice sheet. It is
impossible to accurately predict exactly what types of revenue reductions would be
seen by each major downgrade of the building. However, it is likely that while the metal
building would not have the same appearance quality as the masonry building depicted
in the concept drawing, it would still be likely to draw tournament events.
Financial Issues
The public finance firm of Ehlers and Associates identified a number of potential
financing sources for a second ice sheet if it were to be approved (see attached report).
The source of funding would undoubtedly end up being a bond issue under one of the
four scenarios identified by Ehlers. Assuming a twenty-year debt service schedule, it is
likely that the annual debt service payments could be approximately $282,000 a year.
Thus, the important comparison is how close do anticipated revenues and expenditures
associated with the second rink come to meeting the debt service obligations. A
conservative estimation of hours rented for the second sheet was prepared by staff.
That estimate included rental of approximately 1925 additional hours per year. The
Ehlers report incorporates the data provided by staff and also provides a less optimistic
estimate of additional hours sold somewhere in the range of 1500 hours per year.
Using those two numbers, Ehlers prepared a comparison of revenues and expenditures
versus debt service. Under the more optimistic assumption of 1925 additional hours
per year, the analysis reveals approximately a $150,000 annual shortfall while under
the less optimistic assumption, the deficit at roughly $196,00 per year.
If those figures were to hold true, the shortfall or annual deficit would have to be made
up with other funds. Those funds would have to be identified at a future date by the
City Council. However, it should be noted that one limiting factor in making up those
___deficits is the current restrictions under levy limits which under certain bond scenarios
would preclude any additional tax levies for the deficit over and above the levy limits set
for the City of Richfield.
The ICE Group contends that the estimates of additional hours sold are far too
conservative and that other groups could be brought into the arena to take hours other
than those identified by staff or the Ehlers report. Furthermore, there are other
revenues which were not considered in the Ehlers estimate. For example, there may
be additional revenue to be gained from providing advertisements on the dasherboards
in the main arena. There may also be more revenues provided through a revamped
and more aggressive concessions program, similar to what has been used in other
communities such as Bloomington. Obviously, if there were other revenues to be
gained through such sources and additional hours sold, coupled with a reduced project
cost, the annual deficit projection could be significantly reduced.
Another potential option that will be pursued if the project is approved is a Mighty Ducks
grant. In the past, Might Ducks grants have been available for second ice sheets in an
amount up to $250,000. As of this writing, it is uncertain whether money for the Mighty
Ducks program will be appropriated for another cycle. In any event, applications for any
Mighty Ducks money provided would not be until the end of May 1998. So, at this time
it is difficult to say whether or not the City would be in a position to obtain the $250,000.
Site Locations
One major issue with siting the additional ice sheet is location. The current concept
plan would provide for the new ice sheet to be located to the southeast of the current
Ice Arena. That plan has been submitted to the DNR and has been approved by them.
Moreover, it is the City's intention to restore any pathways that are disturbed in the park
area by placement of the second ice sheet, whether it would ultimately end up to the
east or to the north of the present Ice Arena site.
Community Services Commission
The Community Services Commission has heard a number of presentations concerning
the second ice sheet proposal. At its regular meeting in February, the Commission
indicated that it recognized a need for additional ice time and requested a feasibility
study. A feasibility report was presented to the Community Services Commission on
,-)-v
March 12. At its March 17 meeting, the Commission voted not to recommend either for
or against the project, but instead recommended that a series of two or three
community meetings be scheduled throughout the community as soon as possible to
obtain public input concerning the proposed second ice sheet. This is a
recommendation they have forwarded to the City Council.
Selection of Architect
City staff invited proposals and interviews from four architectural firms: Bonestroo,
Rosene, Anderlik & Associates; Ankeny Kell Architects, P.A.; Delano Erickson
Architects and RSP Architects, Ltd. These four architectural firms are well know and
noted for their work on municipal projects, especially ice arenas. The interviews,
including fee proposals, were conducted and analyzed. Based on that analysis, it is
staff's recommendation that if the City Council decides to proceed with the construction
of a second ice sheet, that the design team of Delano Erickson Architects be selected
to provide architectural services in conjunction with the second ice sheet.
Delano Erickson Architects, under the leadership of Del Erickson, has proposed to
provide this service for a fee ranging from 5.8 to 6.5% of project costs, depending upon
the scope of the project. In addition, the proposal also provides a staged fee for service
which would allow the City to proceed with the architectural work one section at a time,
beginning with the schematic design and followed by design development and bid
• documents. If the City authorizes staff to engage Del Erickson's firm and proceed with
the work on the ice arena, Mr. Erickson is very familiar with the project since he
prepared the feasibility report and, in essence, already has a piece of the work
completed.
Recommended Motion:
1. Conduct a public hearing regarding the construction of a second ice sheet.
2. If the City Council decides to proceed with the project at this time, a motion should
be made to select Delano Erickson Architects as the architect for the second ice
sheet and to direct the City Manager and Mayor to execute a contract for services
upon the following conditions:
a) Project fees shall range between 5.8% - 6.5% of total project cost depending
upon the scope of the project (excluding civil engineering services, if needed.)
b) Services and Fees will be phased in accordance with the following:
• Schematic Design - 20% = 1.2%
(credit for study - .20%)
• Design Development - 15% =.9%
• Contract Documents - 35% = 2.1 %
• Bidding - 5% =.3%
• Construction Administration - 25% = 1.5%
c) Final form of contract is approved by the City Manager and City Attorney.
1-5
0 Basis of Recommendation:
1. The feasibility data has been compiled and presented.
2. The DNR has provided a letter indicating that the addition of a second ice sheet in
Veterans Memorial Park of Richfield would be allowable, provided that the portion of
trails that would be disturbed would be rerouted and repaired.
3. In order to proceed in a timely fashion for potential construction in 1998, official City
Council action to amend the 1998 Capital Improvement Budget and hire an
architect to prepare plans, specifications and advertisements for bids would need to
be considered by the City Council on March 23, 1998.
4. A public hearing to amend the 1998 Capital Improvement Budget has been
published and scheduled for March 23, 1998.
5. Although it is not required, a public hearing has been noticed and scheduled for
March 23, 1998 to consider the selection of an architect for the second ice sheet
project.
6. Architectural proposals have been received and firms interviewed.
Alternative Recommendation:
1. The City Council could postpone this discussion to a future date.
2. The City Council could request additional information or public input.
Discussion/Decision Mode:
If the City intends to proceed with the construction of this project in 1998 for use during
any portion of the 1998-99 hockey season, official Council.action would likely be
necessary in March to initiate the project in a timely manner.
Respectfully submitted,
Jam D. Prosser
City Manager
JDP:cak
E
Ehlers & Associates, Inc.
LEADERS IN PUBLIC FINANCE
March 13, 1998
Mr. James Prosser
City Manager
City of Richfield
6800 Portland Avenue South
Richfield, MN 55423
Dear Jim:
"?_6
As requested, our firm has prepared a brief outline of the financing options available for the construction of
a second sheet of ice adjacent to the City's existing ice arena. We have also begun to outline the potential
revenues and expenses for the facility upon completion, based upon City staff projections.
The three options for financing the arena, based upon discussions with the City's bond counsel, Kennedy &
Graven, include general obligation bonds (voted bonds or tax increment bonds), lease revenue bonds issued
by the HRA, and gross revenue recreational facility bonds. A brief description of each is listed below:
Voted General Obligation Bonds
The City can issue a general obligation bond to finance the arena after holding a referendum on the issue.
Usually the ballot assumes that the entire debt service will be paid by the property taxes, even though in reality
some of the debt service may be paid by arena revenues. The main issue to consider in a voted G.O. bond is
that debt service spread upon the property tax base will be calculated according to market value rather than
• tax capacity. This means that a $100,000 house will pay the same amount of taxes as a $100,000 commercial
property. Most property taxes are based upon tax capacity, which includes a higher ratio of taxes per dollar
of market value for commercial and rental property. The interest rates on general obligation bonds are usually
lower due to the full faith and credit of the taxpayers behind the issue and the City's current bond rating from
Moody's, which is a "AaY for general obligation debt.
G.O. Tax Increment Bonds
The City could issue G.O. Tax Increment Bonds to construct the new sheet of ice if at least 20% of the debt
service were paid with tax increment. The remaining 80% of the debt service could be paid with other
revenues or property taxes, which would be spread on the basis of tax capacity in this case.
Lease Revenue Bonds
Cities and counties often issue lease revenue bonds for public facilities. Under this transaction, a HRA or EDA
can issue bonds to construct and own a municipal facility and then lease it to the City. The City makes annual
appropriations for lease payments to the HRA or EDA, but is not bound to continue lease payments in future
years. The City is usually able to purchase the facility at the end of the term of the lease for $1.
Under current Department of Revenue interpretation, the City's lease payments would not be subject to levy
limits because they are pledged to another governmental body. Other key factors of a lease revenue bond are:
? Lease revenue bonds issued in excess of $1,000,000 count against the city's net debt limit (currently
the available limit is $24,500,000)
? Lease revenue bonds carry a .25% to .75% higher interest rate than G.O. bonds due to the potential
risk of non-appropriation by future city councils.
• Lease revenue bonds require slightly higher costs of issuance.
? Lease revenue bonds can be rated, but usually carry a lower bond rating than the City's general
obligation debt. We would expect an "A" rating or better on these bonds.
3060 Centre Pointe Drive • Roseville, Minnesota 55113-1105
(612) 697-8500 • FAX (612) 697-8555 • www.ehiers-inc.com
Affirmative Action/Equal Opportunity Employer
Charter Member of the National Association of Independent Public Finance Advisors
I'l
Gross Revenue Recreational Facility Bonds
Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 471 allows municipalities to issue gross revenue debt for recreational facilities.
Under a gross revenue structure, the revenues are first pledged to debt service. If there is not sufficient revenue
after debt service to pay all operating costs, the operating costs are required to be paid by the municipality.
The property tax levy, if necessary, for operating costs would not be a special debt levy according to the
Department of Revenue and would be, therefore, subject to levy limits. The City could pledge revenue from
both the original and new ice sheet plus additional City revenues to the debt.
Gross revenue bonds do result in interest rates which are slightly higher than lease revenue bonds because the
ultimate source of payment is revenues rather than property taxes. We would hope that a rating of at least
"Baa" could be secured from Moody's, but ratings on these types of facilities are rare.
Sources and Uses
The expected sources and uses of the second sheet of ice include the following:
TABLE 1
Sources of Funds Uses of Funds
Tax-Exempt Bond Proceeds 3,315,000 Construction 2,700,000
Capitalized Interest 182,500
Underwriters Discount 58,000
Costs of Issuance 55,000
Debt Service Reserve 303,000
Contingency 11,500
Total 3,315,000 Total 3,315,000
The cost of a general obligation bond would be approximately $25,000 less in principal du e to lower costs of
issuance. Capitalized interest is assumed to include the issuance date of August, 1998, through October, 1999.
The debt service reserve, equal to one year of debt service, would likely be required for any non-general
obligation bond, but would not affect the cashflow of the arena because the interest earnings on the reserve
would cover 95% of the higher debt service resulting from the need for the reserve. In some cases, rating
agencies are also requiring debt service reserves for general obligation bonds which rely heavily upon revenues
for meeting debt service. For purposes of comparison, we have included the reserve for all types of debt.
The sources of funds may include other grants or funds such as a State of Minnesota Mighty Ducks grant. For
each $100,000 of additional funds available, the annual debt service should be reduced by approximately
$9,000. The reverse would also be true: if costs increased by $100,000, the debt service would increase by
approximately $9,000.
The different types of bond structures listed above would require the following net debt service assuming a
15 year bond term and a 20 year bond term. We have also assumed that the revenue bonds would be enhanced
by a pledge of revenues from the municipal liquor operations.
TABLE 2
G.O. Bonds Lease Rev. Gross Revenue
15 Years 322,000 335,000 337,000
20 Years 265,000 279,000 282,000
2
-7-8
0 Revenues and Expenses of the Facility
•
We have received data from the City staff regarding historical operational revenues and costs of the existing
sheet of ice. The City of Richfield has shown a high number of hours rented historically, averaging slightly
over 2,000 hours. The operating shortfalls over time have varied depending upon the capital outlay
requirements and depreciation requirements.
The City staff also prepared a projection for hours to be rented in the new facility and additional operating
costs, which we have split into two levels including a high usage estimate and a moderate usage estimate. We
have assigned a hourly rate to use the facilities for peak and non-peak hours based upon our experience with
new ice sheets in Anoka County, Champlin, West St. Paul, and South St. Paul and comparisons to other dual
sheet cities.
The following issues are important assumptions for the analysis:
? The new facility will open in the fall of 1999 at the projected level of usage reached immediately
? Planned capital improvements on the first sheet will be included in the second sheet financing
? The 20 year amortization is utilized for the revenue bonds.
? Advertising revenues and increased concessions revenues will be to be evaluated.
The chart below demonstrates the results of adding the additional debt against the revenues of the second sheet
of ice and identifies the operating revenues from the first and second sheet
TABLE 3
First Sheet Only 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002
Gross Revenues 357,190 364,334 371,620 379,053 386,634
less Debt Service 0 0 0 0 0
Net Revenues 357,190 364,334 371,620 379,053 386,634
less Operating Costs (410,070) (426,473) 44( 3,532) 46( 1,273) (479,724)
Profit/(Loss) (52,880) (62,139) (71,911) (82,220) (93,090)
TABLE 4
•
High Usage
Second Sheet Only 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002
Gross Revenues 55,726 222,905 227,363 231,910
less Operating Costs (second sheet) (23,638) (94,550) (98,332) (102,265)
less net loss (first sheet) 6( 2,139) 7( 1,911) (82,220) 9( 3,090)
Net Revenues (30,050) 56,444 46,811 36,555
less Debt Service (70,500) 28( 2,000) (282,000) (282,000)
Profit/(Loss) - Both sheets (100,550) (225,556) (235,189) (245,445)
or
Profit/(Loss) without first sheet
operating expenses N/A (38,412) (153,645) (152,969) (152,355)
3
-7-9
TABLE 5
Moderate Usage
Second Sheet Only
Gross Revenues
less Operating Costs (second sheet)
less net loss (first sheet)
Net Revenues
1998 1999
43,750
(22,388)
6( 2,139)
(40,777)
7( 0,500)
(111,277)
2000 2001 2002
175,000 178,500 182,070
(89,550) (93,132) (96,857)
7( 1,911) 8( 2,220) 9( 3,090)
13,539 3,148 (7,877)
less Debt Service
Profit/(Loss) - Both Sheets
or
Profit/(Loss) without first sheet
operating expenses
(282,000) (282,000) 28( 2,000)
(268,461) (278,852) (289,877)
N/A (49,138) (196,550) (196,632) (196,787)
We appreciate the opportunity to work with the City on this project. If you require further information, please
contact us as soon as possible.
Sincerely,
EHLERS & ASSOCIATES, INC.
Mark Ruff
Vice President
0
4
/"-l D
EXHIBIT I
lie
City of Richfield
Potential Second Sheet of Ice
Statement of Revenues and Expenditures
Moderate Usage
SECOND SHEET ONLY
REVENUES
Second Sheet Revenues
Total Revenue
EXPENDITURES
Labor& Overhead
Utilities
General Supplies
Other Operating
Depreciation
Capital Outlay
Total Expenditures
TOTAL INCOME AVAILABLE FOR
DEBT SERVICE
DEBT SERVICE
1998 Revenue Bond ($3,315,000 paid over 20 years at 6.15%)
TOTAL DEBT SERVICE
INCOME AFTER DEBT SERVICE - Second Sheet Only
I9
Actual Revised
1996 1997
0 0
0 0
0 0
0
Budget
1998 1999 2000 2001 2002
43,750 175,000 178,500 182,070
0 43,750 175,000 178,500 182,070
11,513 46,050 47,892 49,808
7,500 30,000 31,200 32,448
500 2,000 2,080 2,163
2,875 11,500 11,960 12,438
0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0
0 22,388 89,550 93,132 96,857
0 21,363 85,450 85,368 85,213
70,500 282,000 282,000 282,000
0 70,500 282,000 282,000 282,000
0 (49,138) (196,550) (196,632) (196,787)
Prepared by Ehlers and Associates Draft for Discussion Only
•
City of Richfield
Potential Second Sheet of Ice
Statement of Revenues and Expenditures
High Usage
SECOND SHEET ONLY
REVENUES
Second Sheet Revenues
Total Revenue
EXPENDITURES
Labor & Overhead
Utilities
General Supplies
Other Operating
Depreciation
Capital Outlay
Total Expenditures
TOTAL INCOME AVAILABLE FOR
DEBT SERVICE
DEBT SERVICE
1998 Revenue Bond ($3,315,000 paid over 20 years at 6.15%)
TOTAL DEBT SERVICE
INCOME AFTER DEBT SERVICE - Second Sheet Only
EXHIBIT 2
Actual Revised Budget
1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002
55,726 222,905 227,363 231,910
0 0 0 55,726 222,905 227,363 231,910
12,763 51,050 53,092 55,216
7,500 30,000 31,200 32,448
500 2,000 2,080 2,163
2,875 11,500 11,960 12,438
0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0
0 0 0 23,638 94,550 98,332 102,265
0 0 0 32,089 128,355 129,031 129,645
70,500 282,000 282,000 282,000
0 70,500 282,000 282,000 282,000
0 0 (38,411) (153,645) (152,969) (152,355)
Prepared by Ehlers and Associates Draft for Discussion Only 03/09/98
-7- /C'?.-
EXHIBIT 3
r_?
City of Richfield
FIRST SHEET ONLY Actual
1996 Revised
1997 ' Budget
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
REVENUES
Ice Rental - Original Sheet
222,890
223,750
235,350
240,057
244,858
249,755
254,750
Adult Hockey League 20,231 19,280 19,900 20,298 20,704 21,118 21,540
Concessions, Skate Rental/Sharp, Vending, Equip 33,531 32,980 32,710 33,364 34,031
728
17 34,712
083
18 35,406
18
445
High School/ Ice Show Gate Receipts & Regis 16,233 16,880 17,040 17,381
21
308 ,
734
21 ,
169
22 ,
22
612
Open Skating/Patch 17,774
912
27 18,660
600
23 20,890
24,600 ,
25,092 ,
25,594 ,
26,106 ,
26,628
Skating Lessons/Hockey School , ,
650 5
900 6,018 6,138 6,261 6,386
Building Rent ,
Advertising
192
400
800
816
832
849
866
Miscellaneous
Total Revenue 338,763 336,200 357,190 364,334 371,620 379,053 386,634
EXPENDITURES
Labor & Overhead
199,126
191,450
203,070
211,193
219,641
228,426
237,563
Utilities 59,310 67,800 68,400 71,136 73,981 76,941 80,018
General Supplies 15,001 10,590 11,570 12,033 12,514 13,015 13,535
Other Operating 88,987 90,960 93,030 96,751 100,621 104,646 108,832
Depreciation 18,259 34,000 34,000 35,360 36,774 38,245 39,775
Total Expenditures 380,683 394,800 410,070 426,473 443,532 461,273 479,724
REMAINING INCOME - First Sheet Only (41,920) (58,600) (52,880) (62,139) (71,911) (82,220) (93,090)
0
Prepared by Ehlers and Associates Draft for Discussion Only 03/11/98
• I?I?
City of Richfield
Potential Second Sheet of Ice
Statement of Revenues and Expenditures
ASSUMPTIONS
Inflation - Revenues 2.00%
Inflation - Expenses 4.00%
Second Sheet of Ice
Rate 1=I9SdLs Revenue
High Usage
Prime Rate Hours 120 1,567 188,040
Non-Prime Rate Hours 95 M 34.865
1,934 222,905
Moderate Usage
Prime Rate Hours 120 1,300 156,000
Non-Prime Rate Hours 95 244 19.000
1,500 175,000
r
EXHIBIT 4
Prepared by Ehlers and Associates Draft for Discussion Only 03/11/98
6E
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Council Letter No. 67
Agenda March 23, 1998
Issue Statement:
Consideration of a request for an itinerant place of amusement license for Richfield
Women of Today, 6527-17th Avenue, Richfield, MN 55423, for their Twelfth Annual
Richfield Community Easter Egg Hunt to be held April 5, 1998.
Background:
In February, Richfield Women of Today submitted a request for an itinerant place of
amusement license for April 5, 1998 for their "Twelfth Annual Richfield Community
Easter Egg Hunt" event. The event will take place at the Community Center at
Augsburg Park. They are requesting that the fee be waived as they are a non-profit
organization. They will be serving food items like popcorn, hot dogs, and mini donuts
and have contacted health inspectors for food serving requirements. Their hours of
operation will be 11 a.m. - 5 p.m.
Recommended Motion:
Approve the itinerant place of amusement license and fee waiver request for April 5,
1998 for Richfield Women of Today, 6527-17th Avenue, Richfield, MN 55423.
Basis of Recommendation:
1. The applicant has complied with the City Code pertaining to this license.
Alternative Recommendation:
1. The Council could decide to deny the request. This would mean that they would
be unable to hold the event. The Public Safety Department has not found any
basis for a denial.
Discussion/Decision Mode:
Consideration of the request for the issuance and fee waiver of an itinerant place of
amusement license for Richfield Women of Today, 6527-17th Avenue, for their Twelfth
Annual Richfield Community Easter Egg Hunt to be held April 5, 1998, is presented at
this time.
Respectfully submitted,
James D Prosser
City Manager
JDP:cak
&o
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Council Letter No. 66
Agenda March 23, 1998
Issue Statement:
Setting date of hearing for the issuance of a new secondhand goods dealer license for
Grow Biz International, Inc., d/b/a Computer Renaissance located at 720 West 78th
Street, Richfield, MN.
Background:
City ordinance provides that the City Council conducts a public hearing to consider all
secondhand goods dealer licenses.
Recommended Motion:
Schedule April 13, 1998 as the date to hold a public hearing on the issuance of a new
secondhand goods dealer license for Grow Biz International, Inc., d/b/a Computer
Renaissance located at 720 West 78th Street, Richfield, MN.
Basis of Recommendation:
Hearings must be scheduled and held before issuance of a new license may be
considered.
Alternative Recommendation:
Schedule the hearing for another date; however, this may delay the licensing process.
Discussion/Decision Mode:
Action to schedule the public hearing on April 13, 1998 will provide sufficient time for
legal publication of the hearing.
Respectfully submitted,
James . Prosser
City Manager
JDP:ds
9
&c
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Council Letter No. 65
Agenda March 23, 1998
Issue Statement:
Award of contract for 1998 removal of diseased trees from private property.
Background:
In the early 1970's, the City of Richfield began a shade tree disease program to assist
homeowners in the removal of diseased elm and oak trees on private property. When
the City's Tree Inspector marks a diseased tree on private property for removal, the
homeowner has three options:
• Removal of the tree by the homeowner.
• Homeowner hires a contractor to perform the work.
• Homeowner authorizes the City's contractor to perform the work.
If the City's contractor performs the tree removal, the homeowner has the option to pay
the removal costs immediately or have the cost assessed to the property taxes over a
three-year period.
In an effort to attract more bidders, since 1994, staff divided the City into two districts.
Staff also allowed bidders to give separate prices for front yard and back yard trees,
realizing accessibility is a primary factor in cost.
A formal bid opening for this work was held on March 2, 1998, and five bids were
submitted. The companies were asked to bid a per-inch cost, based on the average
number and size of trees removed in the past five years. Bids were as follows:
East District West District Total
Asplundh Tree Expert Company $24,692.00 $29,882.00 $54,574.00
Ryan's Tree Service, Inc. $28,295.00 $32,135.00 $60,430.00
Hugo's Tree Care $40,804.00 $43,524.00 $84,328.00
Precision Landscape & Tree, Inc. $41,211.33 $46,935.72 $88,147.05
Ceres Environmental Services, Inc. $45,575.00 $51,800.00 $97,375.00
Contract amounts for the past three years are listed below:
1995 $ 80,188.00
1996 $ 76,678.00
1997 $ 85,630.00
Recommended Motion:
Accept the bid minutes/tabulation and award a contract for 1998 removal of diseased
trees on private property to Asplundh Tree Expert Company in the total estimated
amount of $54,574.
Basis of Recommendation:
1. Asplundh Tree Expert Company submitted the lowest acceptable bid for this work.
2. Past experience with this company has proven them to be a responsible contractor.
3. Staff believes the per-tree prices are low enough to provide Richfield homeowners
with a reasonable removal cost should they decide to have the City coordinate the
removal of their diseased tree(s).
Alternative Recommendation:
Council may choose to reject this bid and direct staff to readvertise in an attempt to
receive a lower bid. However, staff does not believe lower prices could be obtained
from a responsible contractor.
Discussion/Decision Mode:
Staff is requesting approval at the March 23, 1998 Council meeting in order to assure
sufficient time to process necessary paperwork before the first trees are marked for
removal.
Respectfully submitted,
Jame . Prosser
City M ager
JDP:ds
Attachment
0
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Bid Opening
March 2, 1998
11:00 a.m.
Removal and Disposal of Diseased Trees on Private Property
East District and/or West District
Bid No. 98-3
Pursuant to requirements of Resolution No. 1015, a meeting of the Administrative Staff
was called by Thomas P. Ferber, City Clerk, who announced that the purpose of the
meeting was to receive, open and read aloud, bids for removal and disposal of
diseased trees on private property, bid no. 98-3, as advertised in the official newspaper
on February 18, 1998.
Present: Thomas Ferber, City Clerk
Mike Eastling, Public Works Director
Cheryl Krumholz, City Manager Representative
Ray Wroblewski, Sr. Clerk Typist
•
The following bids were submitted and read aloud:
Vendor Bid Security Bid Amount Bid Amount
EAST WEST
Hugo's Tree Care Cashier's
Hugo, MN Check * $40,804.00 $43,524.00
Asplundh Tree Expert Co.
Spring Lake Park, MN 5% Bid Bond $24,692.00 $29,882.00
Ceres Environmental
Services Inc. 5% Bid Bond * $45,575.00 $51,800.00
Brooklyn Park, MN
Precision Landscape &
Tree, Inc. 5% Bid Bond $41,211.33 * $46,935.72
Little Canada, MN
Ryan's Tree Service, Inc.
Bloomington, MN 5% Bid Bond $28;295.00 * $32,135.00
* Corrected bid amount reflecting correction of bidders arithmatic extension errors.
The City Clerk announced that the bids would be tabulated and considered at the
March 23, 1998 City Council Meeting.
Thomas P. Ferber City Clerk
bB
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Council Letter No. 64
Agenda March 23, 1998
Issue Statement:
Resolution requesting the Minnesota Department of Transportation (MnDOT) to prepare
an official right-of-way map for 1-494.
Background:
Discussion has been underway for over ten years related to improvement of 1-494. An
Environmental Impact Statement was completed in 1992 but a final record of decision
has not been issued by the Federal Highway Administration. There is great interest in
development along 1-494 in the City of Richfield and in other communities bordering the
roadway. The delay in obtaining federal approval for the Environmental Impact
Statement has hampered the ability of the Minnesota Department of Transportation and
cities in the 1-494 corridor to protect the proposed right of way needed to build the
widened freeway. Communities along 1-494 believe it is important to use the official
map process as a way to protect the right-of-way needed for the expansion of 1-494.
Cities located along 1-494 have approached the Minnesota Department of
Transportation about the possibility of preparing an official right of way map that
identifies the construction limits for the preferred alternative for highway alignment. Mr.
Richard Stehr, Metro District Engineer of the Minnesota Department of Transportation,
agreed to perform the survey work this year if the cities along 1-494 requested the
official right of way map.
An official right of way map will enable cities, including Richfield, to work with
developers to avoid encroaching on the proposed right of way needs for the new
freeway and, more importantly, avoid costly land acquisition when the freeway is
eventually rebuilt. An official map also will qualify cities for the use of the Right of Way
Loan Fund (RALF), administered by the Metropolitan Council, to buy land that is
threatened by development and reserve it for future highway purposes.
Another advantage is the official map can assist cities in guiding development close to
1-494. The construction limits shown on an official map can be used as boundary lines
to determine setbacks in the review of development and redevelopment proposals.
A public hearing must be held and all affected property owners must be notified before
Council can adopt the official map. Council is under no obligation to adopt the Official
map. However, if Council chooses to adopt the 1-494 official map, it becomes a part of
the City's Comprehensive Plan and can be used to review development proposals.
0
?6-1
An official map may not be able to prevent encroachment by developments without the
City or Minnesota Department of Transportation buying the land. Property owners may
view the official map as an infringement on their right to develop their land. However,
Richfield has had a good experience using the official map process in the 77th Street
Reconstruction Project.
If cities approve the request for an official map, the work could begin this year and finish
in less than a year.
Recommended Motion:
Adopt the attached resolution which requests the Minnesota Department of
Transportation to prepare an official right-of-way map for 1-494.
Basis of Recommendation:
1. The widening of 1-494 has been stalled for several years due to financial constraints
even though development along 1-494 has proceeded at a rapid pace.
2. An official map is a development tool that can help cities preserve the right of way
needed to widen 1-494 and control future right of way costs.
3. An official map can guide redevelopment in the 1-494 corridor and reconcile the
spatial needs of future development with those for the freeway.
Alternative Recommendation:
1. Do not request the preparation of an official map. However, the Council is under no
obligation to adopt the official right-of-way map for 1-494 after it is prepared. Failure
to make the request will not jeopardize the ability of other cities to obtain an official
right of way map for 1-494.
2. Amend the resolution as the Council deems appropriate.
Discussion/Decision Mode:
This item is on the March 23, 1998 Council agenda. Council may take action now or at
a later time. It should be noted that other communities in the 1-494 corridor are
considering similar resolutions within the next month.
Respectfully submitted,
James . rosser
City Manager
• JDP:ds
Attachment
(06-a
0 RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION REQUESTING
THE MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
TO PREPARE AN OFFICIAL RIGHT-OF-WAY MAP FOR 1-494
WHEREAS, 1-494 is under the jurisdiction of the Minnesota Department of
Transportation (MnDOT); and
WHEREAS, extensive time, effort, involvement, and funds went into the
preparation of the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for that portion of 1-494
between 1-394 and the Minnesota River; and
WHEREAS, a preferred alternative was selected in accordance with said EIS
which sets forth proposed right-of-way needs along its route; and
WHEREAS, limitations on funding have resulted in the delay of the adoption and
final approval as well as implementation of the EIS; and
WHEREAS, the provision of an adequate transportation system is vital to the
state, the metropolitan area, and particularly the communities along its route; and
WHEREAS, the lack of an official right-of-way map potentially jeopardizes the
future ability of this vital transportation link being implemented due to encroachment of
development; and
WHEREAS, the establishment of an official right-of-way map would clearly
define the public needs and significantly aid all levels of government in protecting said
needs for the public.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that to properly protect the public
transportation needs along 1-494 between 1-394 and the Minnesota River that an official
right-of-way map along this corridor is extremely important; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Minnesota Department of Transportation
is hereby requested to prepare and establish said official right-of-way map as soon as
possible.
Adopted by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this 23rd day of
March, 1998.
Martin J. Kirsch, Mayor
0 ATTEST:
Thomas P. Ferber, City Clerk
(OP
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Council Letter No. 63
Agenda March 23, 1998
Issue Statement:
Selection of a long-term disability insurance carrier to continue the LTD benefit for
certain full-time employees.
Background:
Since 1982, the City has offered a long-term disability (LTD) insurance benefit to certain
full-time employees. The City currently offers this benefit to all Management, General
Services, Local 49 Labor and Trades, Police Officers and Agents, Dispatchers and
Police Supervisory employees. Schools Insurance Fund has been the City's provider
since the City initiated this benefit. The current contract expires at the end of March
1998. The City's current premium cost is $.42 per $100 of covered payroll for all
groups except Police Officers and Agents and $.64 per $100 of covered payroll salary
for that group. The Police Officer group was added in 1997.
Minnesota Statutes provide that group insurance contracts for LTD must be let out for
bid at least every five years. Therefore, the City requested long-term disability
insurance proposals to be submitted by February 19, 1998. Eight providers submitted
proposals for the City coverage including the City's current provider. The proposals
were summarized along with an in-depth analysis of coverage by the City's insurance
agent, J & H Marsh & McLennan. The bid analysis was presented to the City by J & H
Marsh & McLennan on March 2.
Bid Analysis
Benefit Level/Plan Design
The benefit level included in the specification mirrors the coverage the City currently
provides to eligible employees. Moreover, this benefit level and plan design was
one that was implemented and fitted into the City of Richfield's unique Personal
Leave/Short-term Disability/LTD benefit program. All bidders provided coverage
that met the requirements of the specifications. Some carriers provided benefit
levels that were slightly better than the current proposal.
• Premium Rate
The premium rates submitted by the various providers are listed as follows:
School's Insurance Fund: $356 per $110 of covered payroll
CIGNA $.44 per $100 of covered payroll
CNA $36 per $100 of covered payroll
Fortis $.24 per $100 of covered payroll
Guarantee Life $.26 per $100 of covered payroll
Reliance Standard $.42 per $100 of covered payroll
Standard Insurance $34 per $100 of covered payroll
UNUM $34 per $100 of covered payroll
The City's relatively favorable experience with LTD claims as well as the current market
conditions were both important factors for the rates the City received. The
specifications called for a two year rate guarantee. However, several companies
provided rate guarantees in excess of the two years.
Based upon the proposal submitted by the various insurance providers and the
premium rates quoted, it is the recommendation of City staff and of J & H Marsh &
McLennan that the City accept the bid proposal from Fortis. Fortis has an LTD claims
office in Minneapolis as well as a sales and service office in Minneapolis. In addition,
Fortis has agreed to provide the City with a three-year rate guarantee. With respect to
benefits, while all the bidders were substantially equal, the benefits outlined in the Fortis
proposal slightly exceeded some the benefit level provided by the City's current
provider, Schools Insurance Fund.
At the March 9, 1998 City Council meeting, Council Member Stokes alerted the City
Manager and City Attorney to the potential for a conflict of interest in this matter.
Council Member Stokes is employed by Fortis Insurance in their dental insurance area.
City Attorney Corrine Thomson thoroughly reviewed this matter with Fortis Insurance
and applicable state statutes. As a result of that review, Ms. Thomson indicated that
any direct financial benefit that Ms. Stokes might receive is insignificant and that the
City is authorized to enter into the LTD contract with Fortis. Council Member Stokes
should not participate in discussion or voting on the contract.
Recommended Motion:
Adopt the attached resolution authorizing the City Manager to execute an agreement
with Fortis for a long-term disability insurance contract for a three year period beginning
April 1, 1998.
Basis of Recommendation:
1. The City complied with the State Statute requiring bids for long-term disability
coverage and Fortis provided the City with the most favorable bid as a result of that
process.
2. The Fortis rate of $.24 per $100 of salary for all employee groups will realize a
savings of nearly $18,000 annually over current premiums paid by the City for the
same coverage.
3. Fortis is a very reputable company providing benefits such as long-term disability
coverage for a number of cities in the metro area.
4. The three-year rate guarantee is also very favorable and means that for at least
three years the City will not have to seek additional proposals for this coverage and
can enjoy the substantial savings in LTD rates.
V-3
Alternative Recommendation:
1. The City Council could authorize the City Manager to request other proposals from
other insurance carriers. However, the current process is a valid one and has
yielded excellent results
2. The City Council could award the bid to another provider that submitted a proposal
to the City. However, staff does not recommend that action.
Discussion/Decision Mode:
It is suggested that action on this item be taken at the March 23, 1998 City Council
meeting so that the insurance coverage may be switched and all necessary paperwork
can be completed by March 31, 1998 when the current coverage expires.
Respectfully submitted,
James D fsser
City Manager
JDP:ds
•
r.
?
(Ofi - 4
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER
TO EXECUTE AN AGREEMENT WITH
FORTIS INSURANCE COMPANY FOR
LONG-TERM DISABILITY INSURANCE BENEFITS
WHEREAS, the City is required by Minnesota statutes to request proposals
for group insurance coverage at least once every five years; and
WHEREAS, the City requested proposals for long-term disability insurance
coverage for benefit years beginning in 1998; and
WHEREAS, the City made benefit and cost comparisons evaluating all the
proposals, using written criteria; and
WHEREAS, Fortis provided the lowest premium cost and met all of the City's
criteria; and
• WHEREAS, the proposed premium rate will be a substantial annual savings
for the City.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED the City Manager is authorized to
execute an agreement with Fortis Insurance Company for long-term disability insurance
benefits for the three-year period beginning April 1, 1998.
Adopted by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this 23th day of
March, 1998.
Martin J. Kirsch, Mayor
ATTEST:
Thomas P. Ferber, City Clerk
0
3
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Council Letter No. 62
Agenda March 23, 1998
Issue Statement:
Presentation of certificates to Girl Scouts, along with family and friends, for their
assistance as Hydrant Marshals for the winter season.
Background:
During the past winter, the recipients of these certificates assisted their neighborhoods
with shoveling out the fire hydrants to enable the Richfield Fire Division clear access in
case of an emergency.
Recommended Motion:
Present certificates to Tamra Bernier, Diana Bernier, Terry Bernier, Bill Johnson, Sean
Bernier, Elizabeth Goschey and Kris Johnson.
Basis of Recommendation:
1. The presentation of these certificates will serve to increase public awareness of
the importance of access to City hydrants in case of an emergency.
0 2. The recipients are deserving of recognition and may then provide future
assistance to the community as a whole.
Alternative Recommendation:
None.
Discussion/Decision Mode:
The Mayor, City Council, Fire Marshal and Public Safety Director will present the
certificates.
Respectfully submitted,
James . Prosser
City Manager
JDP:ds
40