08-24-98 agendaCITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
is MONDAY, AUGUST 24, 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 REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF AUGUST 10,
1998.
PRESENTATION
INDIVIDUALS WHO WISH TO ADDRESS THE COUNCIL ARE REQUESTED TO
PRINT THEIR NAME AND ADDRESS ON THE SPEAKER'S REGISTER FOR THE
RECORD.
1. OPPORTUNITY FOR CITIZENS TO ADDRESS THE COUNCIL ON ITEMS NOT
ON THE AGENDA
2. SWEARING IN OF FIVE NEW POLICE OFFICERS BY PUBLIC SAFETY
DIRECTOR DAN SCOTT
AGENDA APPROVAL
3. COUNCIL APPROVAL OF AGENDA
CONSENT CALENDAR
4. CONSENT CALENDAR CONTAINS SEVERAL SEPARATE ITEMS WHICH ARE
ACTED UPON BY THE CITY COUNCIL IN ONE MOTION. ONCE THE CONSENT
CALENDAR HAS BEEN APPROVED, THE INDIVIDUAL ITEMS AND
RECOMMENDED ACTIONS HAVE ALSO BEEN APPROVED. NO FURTHER
COUNCIL ACTION IS NECESSARY. HOWEVER, ANY COUNCIL MEMBER MAY
REQUEST THAT AN ITEM BE REMOVED FROM THE CONSENT CALENDAR
AND PLACED ON THE REGULAR AGENDA FOR COUNCIL DISCUSSION AND
ACTION. ALL ITEMS LISTED ON THE CONSENT CALENDAR ARE
RECOMMENDED FOR APPROVAL.
A. CONSIDERATION OF PURCHASE IN EXCESS OF $25,000 FOR ONE 34-
TON LIQUID CARBON DIOXIDE TANK FROM TOMC02 EQUIPMENT
COMPANY C.L. 195
B. CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF COMMUNITY CELEBRATION EVENT
LICENSE AND TEMPORARY SIGN WITH FEE WAIVERS FOR RICHFIELD
CATTAIL DAYS, SEPTEMBER 19, 1998 C.L. 196
C. CONSIDERATION OF A REQUEST FOR FEE WAIVER FOR RICHFIELD
is HISTORICAL SOCIETY FOR BUILDING PERMIT FEES FOR REMODELING,
6901 LYNDALE AVENUE C.L. 197
PUBLIC HEARINGS
5. PUBLIC HEARING AND SECOND READING OF AN ORDINANCE AMENDMENT
ALLOWING PROPERTIES FORMERLY ZONED AND USED AS INDUSTRIAL
PROPERTY TO APPLY FOR A TRANSITIONAL ACTIVITY PERMIT
COUNCIL LETTER NO. 198
6. PUBLIC HEARING AND SECOND READING OF AN ORDINANCE AMENDMENT
REZONING PROPERTY ALONG 1-494 CONTINUED FROM APRIL 13, 1998
COUNCIL LETTER NO. 199
7. PUBLIC HEARING AND SECOND READING OF AN ORDINANCE TO
AUTHORIZE CONSTRUCTION OF A SECOND ICE SHEET
COUNCIL LETTER NO. 200
8. CONSIDERATION OF SELECTION OF CONSTRUCTION MANAGER FOR
SECOND ICE SHEET PROJECT
COUNCIL LETTER NO. 201
PROPOSED ORDINANCES
9. FIRST READING OF A NEW ORDINANCE PERTAINING TO TOBACCO AND
TOBACCO PRODUCTS
COUNCIL LETTER NO. 202
RESOLUTIONS
10. CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF A RESOLUTION ADOPTING A FORMAL,
WRITTEN SNOW/ICE MAINTENANCE POLICY FOR THE CITY OF RICHFIELD
COUNCIL LETTER NO. 203
ADMINISTRATIVE REPORTS AND OTHER BUSINESS
11. CONSIDERATION OF RESOLUTION APPROVING SPECIAL LAW 1998,
CHAPTER 389, ARTICLE 3, SECTION 34, REGARDING ASSESSMENT
EXCLUSION OF CERTAIN IMPROVEMENTS TO APARTMENTS
COUNCIL LETTER NO. 204
12. CONSIDERATION OF SETTING A DATE FOR A SPECIAL COUNCIL MEETING
TO CANVASS PRIMARY ELECTION RETURNS
0 COUNCIL LETTER NO. 205
13. CONSIDERATION OF AN APPLICATION FOR A NEW RESIDENTIAL KENNEL
is LICENSE FOR GEORGE BROADSTON, 6325 GIRARD AVENUE
COUNCIL LETTER NO. 206
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.
E
0
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Council Letter No. 206
f Agenda August 24, 1998
Issue Statement:
Consideration of an application for a new residential kennel license for George Broadston,
6325 Girard Avenue.
Background:
On March 9, 1998, George Broadston submitted an application for a residential kennel
license. He owns one dog and his daughter, Lisa Duvall, owns five dogs. Mr. Broadston's
application contains the signatures of two contiguous property owners. One property
owner, Isabella LaRoche, 6331 Girard Avenue, was not willing to sign the application.
Staff received a letter from Ms. LaRoche dated April 1998, which states some of the
complaints she has with the applicant. Her concerns are odor, feces in the bushes,
barking and the destruction of her garden.
Both parties were contacted and asked to participate in the mediation process. It is
always strongly suggested that parties participate in mediation if there are any concerns
raised by anyone. Mr. Broadston agreed to participate in the mediation session. Ms.
LaRoche was initially hesitant, but after explanation of the process, she said she would be
willing to give it a try.
The parties were referred to the West Suburban Mediation Center on April 9, 1998. The
mediation center sent out written information regarding their services to both parties. Mr.
Broadston responded to the mediation service and said that he would be willing to
mediate. After several attempts to reach Ms. LaRoche, staff was unable to make contact
with her.
On April 30, staff received a letter from West Suburban Mediation Center indicating that
the case would be closed since Ms. LaRoche had not responded and their attempts to
reach her were unsuccessful. Several additional attempts were made to contact Ms.
LaRoche.
On June 3, 1998, Isabella's mother left a message for staff stating that Isabella would
participate in mediation. Staff contacted West Suburban Mediation to initiate another
request for mediation. Staff notified Mr. Broadston's daughter, Lisa Duvall, who is the
Broadston's representative due to the fact that the Broadstons live at the lake during the
summer.
On June 11, 1998, West Suburban Mediation staff called to inform staff that Isabella will
not mediate. After attempting to schedule two mediation sessions, staff made a decision
to forward the license request to the City Council.
An inspection of the property was conducted by a Community Service Officer on March
11, 1998. There were no apparent problems found at that time. The Community Service
Officer noted that the dogs are kept in immaculate conditions with insulated dog houses,
i?-- I
heated water dishes, etc., and they recommended approval. A second inspection was
conducted on July 20, 1998. As before, the kennel conditions were found to be
immaculate. Staff was unable to determine the number of dogs kept at the residence
because the dogs were currently out of town for a week at a dog show.
The City has adopted a policy that staff notifies neighbors surrounding the area of the
residential kennel license. Staff received no calls regarding this application; however, they
did receive the one letter from Ms. LaRoche which is attached.
Although this application is for six dogs, it does not exceed the maximum number of six
animals that was approved by the Council as policy on July 22, 1991. Due to the fact that
the animals were at a dog show the week of July 20, staff was unable to confirm that the
number of dogs they own is still six.
At the July 27, 1998 Council meeting, the City Council considered this kennel license
request. The motion to approve the kennel license failed on a 2-2 vote. The applicant has
requested that the City Council reconsider the action at a meeting of the full Council.
Recommended Motion:
Staff is not making a specific recommendation to either approve or deny the request for a
residential kennel license.
Basis of Recommendation:
• 1. Staff is unable to determine if Mr. Broadston has proven that the keeping of more
than two dogs does not have an adverse effect on the neighborhood.
2. It is City policy to recommend approval of a residential kennel license only if
adjoining property owners agree with the request.
3. Staff set up two mediation sessions; however, both of them were cancelled due to
the fact that one of the parties was not willing to participate in the mediation process.
Alternative Recommendation:
1. None.
Discussion/Decision Mode:
Staff is presenting the application for a residential kennel license for George Broadston,
6325 Girard Avenue, to the full City Council for their decision in this matter.
Respectfully submitted,
rosser
Jam Ynager
City JDP:ds
--7 A"-Q- Jol
63:3) 61b12?_rd k4z.-S
U?1? ? alit-} -0335
Prairie Village Pet Hospital
7815 Terrey Pine Court
Eden Prairie, MN 55347
To Whom it may concern:
•
•
RECEIVED AUG 1 9 1998
August 16,1998 13,3
I am writing this letter to you as officer manager of Prairie Village Pet
Hospital. It is in regards to the case of George Broadston, who is applying for a
temporary kennel permit for his daughter's dogs. His daughter Lisa is the
groomer at our clinic.
I may be out of line writing this letter, but I feel her case is not getting the
consideration it should. I would like you to hear Lisa's side of the story from our
hearts. I have never had a neighbor dispute before because I am blessed with a
very nice and sound neighbors, but it seems that Lisa is not so fortunate.
To get her temporary kennel permit she needs to get signatures from her
neighbors. She has done that except for one neighbor. How can her dogs be such
a problem to only one neighbor? Have any of the counsel members talked to any
of the other neighbors? Is it possible this neighbor just doesn't like her neighbors
and wants to cause trouble for them?
Their neighbor claims that they never pick up after the dogs and it stinks..
Why don't the other neighbors smell it? Her property was recently inspected by
Animal Control, who gave a favorable report. In my dealings with Animal Control
they don't take their job lightly. Lisa also requested that the council come out and
look at her property. She has nothing to hide. I'm sure she could give you a good
showing of how her dogs are handled. I have also seen her property and did not
find it offensive. As a groomer at our vet clinic, I have seen how Lisa goes over
and above the call of duty to make sure her area is kept clean and the pets that she
grooms are well cared for. She also helps out in the vet clinic to make our clients
our well taken care of. Lisa does as well at home with her own dogs. She use to
be a trainer of pointing breeds and trainers do not take sloppy care of their pets.
I only ask that you take sufficient time to look at the hard evidence before making
your final decision
I think that you should have some history on Lisa. Three years ago her
husband was diagnosed with cancer. Eight weeks later he was dead. At this same
time she miscarried their child. Their dogs are the only thing that Lisa has left of
her marriage. These are her children! As an office manager of a vet clinic I have
seen how many people feel their dogs are their children. They do all they can to
save their family member. Lisa is no different. She may become defensive, but
you are talking about taking "her children" from her. I would feel no differently
#n2@ fenn
about my own pets, and if any of you have pets of your own I would like you to
think about how much they mean to you.
Her parents (who have lived in Richfield for 47 years-unlike the neighbor
of 5 years) were good enough to let Lisa live with them until she could get back on
her feet. She is currently looking for property in the country so her dogs can have
more space. She doesn't want to stay where she is any longer than she has to.
This is for the good of her dogs and now her immediate concern is for their
safety.
Her neighbor claims that this situation has affected her pregnancy and that
she has lost 15 pounds due to the stress of this situation. As a mother of three, I
can sympathize with her during her pregnancy (they aren't fun). However, is
the "unhealthy" weight loss due to this stress or just part of the pregnancy
process? Is there a doctors note specifying this unhealthy weight loss and the
reasons behind it? Or is this again a tool to use to make problems for her
neighbor? Lisa also has become stressed with this whole situation (as anyone
would who has children that are being threatened). Her doctor has requested a
E.K.G stress test to determine her current health. I think it is safe to say that this
is a stressful situation for all involved.
Lisa's neighbor recently called the police on her dogs. How come there
were never any calls before this permit was requested? Or is she again, trying to
show complaint on file to further her case? How come none of the other
neighbors have called?
I was suprised to hear how many of our clients had seen the July council
meeting on TV They told us that they thought Lisa got the "raw deal".
I am not telling you how to vote but I do ask that you please consider
all of the facts. These are people's lives that you are handling. Please show the
people on TV that they are in good hands in Richfield. I want to thank the mayor
for giving Lisa a second chance to tell her story.
One of our vets at our vet clinic is a Councilman in Excelsior. He said
that the facts should be given and Lisa would be treated fairly. But the decision
does he in the Councils hands.
I implore to open up your hearts and give Lisa and her family the
temporary permit that she requires. I Just couldn't stand to sit back and watch
any longer. Thank you for taking the time to read my letter.
A concerned Citizen
Patti Van Arsdale
Office Manager
Prairie Village Pet Hospital
•
Richfield City Code
Section 905 - Animal control.
(Amended, Bill No. 1996-10)
905.01 (Rev. 1996)
l3_,?
905.01. Licensing of domestic animals. Subdivision 1. Definitions. For the
purposes of this section the terms defined in this subsection have the meanings
given them.
Subd. 2. "Owner" means any person owning, keeping, harboring or having
custody of an animal.
Subd. 3a. "Commercial kennel" means a place where more than two dogs or
two cats over six months of age are kept, and where the business of selling,
boarding, breeding, showing, or grooming dogs or cats is conducted.
Subd. 3b. "Veterinary kennel" means a kennel facility or clinic operated
and maintained by a licensed veterinarian, where treatment, care, diagnosis, and
veterinary procedures are performed..
Subd. 4. "Residential kennel" means a place where more than two dogs or
two cats over six months of age are kept on premises which are zoned and occupied
for residential purposes, and where the keeping of such dogs or cats is
incidental to the occupancy of the premises for residential purposes.
Subd. 5. A dog is "at large" when it is off the property of its owner and
not under restraint.
Subd. 6. A dog is "under restraint" if it is controlled by a leash not ex-
ceeding six feet in length, or at heel beside a competent person having custody
of it and obedient to that person's commands, or within a vehicle being driven
or parked on a public street or within the property limits of its owner's
premises. An unattended dog on the property of another, without the consent of
such property owner, is "at large" and not under restraint even though it is on
a leash.
Subd. 7. For purposes of subsections 905.03 - 905.33, "animal" shall refer
to domestic dogs and cats.
905.03. License. Subdivision 1. General rule. No person may own, harbor, keep
or have custody of an animal over six months of age within the city, unlass a
current license for the animal has been obtained as provided in this subsection.
Applications for animal licenses must be made when the animal attains six months
of age, (i) and not later than 30 days from the acquisition of an animal, (ii)
and not later than 30 days from the moving of an animal into the city, (iii) this
registration will expire on the date the animal's rabies vaccination expires, and
must be reinstated within 15 days of the expiration of the animal's rabies
vaccination. Owners whose animals have received rabies vaccinations which are
effective for more than one year may apply for a two or three year license,
depending on the type of rabies vaccination. When making application for a
multi-year license, the owner must submit all of the information required for an
annual license as well as documentation indicating that the animal has received
a rabies vaccination which is effective for the multi-year license being applied
for. The multi-year license may not exceed the period of effective rabies
vaccination stated on the vaccination certificate provided by the veterinary
clinic, or veterinarian, which vaccinated the animal. These multi-year licenses
may only be issued for animals which have been spayed or neutered.
2)-(,
Richfield City CoSe 905.03, Subd. 2
(Rev. 1996)
0
Subd. 2. License fees. The license fee for each animal license, and the
charge for a duplicate animal license is as provided in appendix D.
Subd. 3. Late penalty. If an animal license is obtained while the animal
is impounded by the city, or if the 15 day period allowed for reregistration of
the animal has expired there shall be added to the regular license fee a late
license penalty as provided in appendix D for each animal; provided that an owner
who newly acquires an animal, or an owner who has an animal at the time of
becoming a resident of the city, shall be allowed 30 days to secure a license,
without incurring the late license penalty provided in this subdivision.
Subd. 4. Contents of application. Application for an animal license shall
be made to the Public Safety Department. The application shall include such
descriptive information as is necessary to provide reasonable identification of
the animal and its owner. Applicants shall provide a certificate issued by a
licensed doctor of veterinary medicine showing that the animal has been
vaccinated against rabies, that such vaccination is effective on the date of the
application, and that the vaccination will be effective for the period of time
for which application for animal license is made.
Subd. 5. Identification of licensed animal. Upon the issuance of an
animal license by the city clerk or the city pound keeper, the licensee shall be
provided with a metallic tag bearing the license number and the word "Richfield."
Except where the animal for which the license is issued is indoors on the
?. premises of his owner, the animal shall have a collar or harness on which the
license tag, and current rabies tag is affixed. No person may counterfeit any
tag of this city or use a counterfeit tag.
Subd. 6. License nontransferable. A license tag is nontransferable to any
other animal or to a new owner of the animal for which it is issued.
Subd. 7. Replacement of lost tag. If any such tag is lost or stolen, the
owner may obtain a new tag by surrendering the receipt for the first tag and by
paying the charge for a duplicate license as provided in appendix D.
905.05. Dogs not to be at large. An owner may not permit a dag to be at large
in this city, but shall keep dog under restraint at all times.
905.06. Immediate disposal of animal feces. An animal owner, or person having
custody or control of an animal, shall immediately clean up and sanitarily
dispose of any feces of the animal, except that this provision does not apply to
blind persons with respect to their ownership and use of seeing eye dogs.
905.07. Confinement when necessary. A female animal in heat shall be confined
in a building, secure enclosure, veterinary hospital or boarding kennel, or shall
be controlled on a leash while being exercised, provided the animal does not
create a public nuisance.
905.09. Public nuisances. The keeping of an animal which annoys other persons
is a public nuisance and is unlawful. Upon the receipt of a written complaint
• of such annoyance by the occupants of two or more neighboring properties, the
city shall notify the owner of such an animal that the nuisance shall be abated
within 48 hours. Failure to obey a notice is a violation of this subsection.
Richfield City Code 905.11 (Rev. 1996)
905.11. City Pound. The council may provide for a city animal pound either
within or outside the limits of the city.
905.13. Pound keeper. If a city pound is established, the manager shall
designate the pound keeper who may appoint and deputize special officers to
enforce this section. The special officer shall have police powers to cite
owners of dogs or cats for violations of this section, to impound animals and to
enforce the provisions of this section.
905.15. Enforcement procedures. Such officers as the manager shall designate
to enforce this section may pick up and impound any animal found not to be kept,
confined or restrained, or licensed in the manner required by this section. The
officers may enter upon private property where there is reasonable cause to
believe that an animal is on the premises and is not licensed as required by this
section, or that there is an animal on the premises which is not being kept,
confined or restrained, as herein provided. An owner shall produce for
inspection an animal license receipt when requested to do so by the officer.
905.17. Quarantine. Any animal capable of carrying the rabies virus that has
bitten a person shall immediately be impounded for at least ten days and kept
apart from other living creatures, under the supervision of a veterinarian or the
Department of Public Safety, until it is determined whether the animal had or has
a disease which might have been transmitted by the bite. The impounding may be
done by the owner at owner's residence, or veterinary facility with the approval
of the Department of Public Safety, but if it is not at the city pound or
• designated pound, the owner shall notify the pound keeper or director of public
safety immediately and shall furnish proof in writing that the animal is being
impounded, and shall follow all policies and procedures relating to the
quarantine as directed by the Department of Public Safety. Upon the expiration
of ten days, if it is determined that the animal does not have a disease which
might have been transmitted by the bite, the animal may be released and the pound
keeper or director of public safety shall be notified immediately prior to the
release by the owner of the animal. If the animal is impounded at the city
pound, it may be reclaimed as hereinafter provided. Any animal which has been
bitten by a rabid creature shall be euthanated or impounded and kept in the same
manner for a period of six months; provided that if the animal which has been
bitten by a rabid creature has been vaccinated at least three weeks before the
bite and within one year of the bite and if it is again immediately vaccinated,
then such animal shall be confined or impounded for a period of 40 days before
it is released. The owner of an animal which has been bitten by a rabid creature
shall notify the city pound keeper or director of public safety immediately prior
to the release of the animal.
905.19. Dangerous animals. Adoption by reference. Minnesota Statutes 343.40,
346.57, 347.50, 347.51, 347.52, 347.53, 347.54, and 347.55 as they pertain to
domestic animals, are adopted by reference and are as much a part of this code
as if fully set forth herein. Any violation of the statutes herein adopted by
reference is a violation of this code. If an animal is diseased, vicious,
dangerous, rabid or exposed to rabies and the animal cannot be impounded after
a reasonable effort or cannot be impounded without serious risk to the persons
attempting to impound it, or if an animal has made more than one attack on a
• person or persons, the animal may be immediately killed by or under the direction
of an officer authorized to enforce the provisions of this section.
f3-
Ric ield City Code
905.21 (Rev. 1996)
905.21. Treatment during impounding. Any animal which is impounded in the city
pound or designated pound shall be kept, with kind treatment and sufficient food
and water, and sanitary conditions, for the animal's comfort. If the animal is
not known or suspected of being diseased and has not bitten a person or been
bitten by a rabid creature, it shall be kept in the pound for at least five days,
unless it is sooner reclaimed by its owner. If the animal is known to be or is
suspected of being diseased with a disease which might be transmitted to persons,
it shall be kept in the pound for at least ten days.
905.23. Redemption of animals. An animal may be redeemed from the pound by the
owner upon paying the following:
(a) the license fee for the animal, if the license has not previously
been obtained;
(b) the late license penalty, where a license has not been obtained
within the time provided in this section;
(c) the amount of the boarding fee which the city is required to pay to
the pound keeper; or
(d) an impounding penalty as fixed in appendix D.
905.25. Disposal of unredeemed animals. The city pound keeper or designated
pound keeper shall make an effort to contact the owner of any animal which has
been impounded and which has identification on it. If at the end of the
. impounding period the animal is not reclaimed by the owner, the animal shall be
deemed to have been abandoned and may be disposed of or sold to any person
following the procedures contained in Minnesota Statutes, section 514.93. If the
animal is to be kept in the city, a license shall be obtained before possession
of the animal is given to the purchaser,* if a license is required.
905.27. Limit of dogs on one premise. Not more than two dogs or cats over six
months of age shall be kept on any one premise, except at a licensed commercial
kennel, veterinary kennel, or a licensed residential kennel.
905.29. Abandonment. It is unlawful for any person to abandon any animal in this
city, or at the city pound, or designated city pound.
905.31. Kennel licenses. Subdivision 1. Definitions. The terms "commercial
kennel," "veterinary kennel," and "residential kennel" are defined in section
905.01.
Subd. 2. License required. No person may operate a veterinary, commercial
or residential kennel in this city without first obtaining a kennel license as
provided in this subsection. Application for the license shall be made to the
city clerk and must be accompanied by the license fee set by appendix D. The
clerk shall refer the application to the council, which may grant or deny the
license. Licenses issued for kennels shall be on an annual basis. The council
may impose conditions upon the granting of any residential, veterinary, or
commercial kennel license.
0
r Richfield City Code
0
905.31, Subd. 3
(Rev. 1996)
Subd. 3. Approval of contiguous property owners. The application for a
residential kennel license, or commercial kennel license in a residential area,
shall be accompanied by a petition showing the approval of the occupants of
privately owned real estate abutting the premises on which the kennel is to be
located. Whether or not all of the occupants of abutting property approve the
application, the council may grant or deny the license. The license may not be
granted unless the council finds that the use of the applicant's premises as a
residential kennel will not have, or will not be likely to have, any adverse
effect upon adjacent properties or the occupancy thereof, and will not constitute
a nuisance to the neighborhood.
Subd. 4. Revocation. Kennel licenses may be revoked by the council by
reason of any violation of this subsection or by reason of violation of any other
provisions of this code or any order, law or regulation.
Subd. 5. Notice and hearing. Before revoking a kennel license, the
licensee shall be given notice of the meeting at which such revocation will be
considered, and if the licensee is present at such meeting, the licensee must be
given an opportunity to be heard. Notice of the meeting shall be given to the
licensee in writing. Written notice shall be mailed to the address of the
licensee as set forth in the licensee's application for the kennel license, and
it shall be mailed at least five days before the date of the meeting at which the
revocation is to be considered by the council.
Subd. 6. License fees. The fee for a veterinary or commercial kennel
• license and the fee for a residential kennel license are as fixed in appendix D.
The residential kennel license fee is in addition to the usual animal license
fees provided in this section, if applicable.'
Subd. 7. Sanitation. Kennels shall be maintained in a clean and healthful
condition at all times, and shall be open to inspection by the director of public
safety, at all reasonable times.
Subd. 8. Reports to city. Each month that a kennel is operated, the owner
of the kennel shall report to the city manager, accurately stating in writing the
greatest number or animals kept on the kennel premises during the preceding
calendar month. Animals kept by a kennel in its capacity as the city pound need
not be so reported.
905.33. Reports by pound keeper. The city pound keeper or designated pound
keeper shall account for and pay over monthly to the city all monies received by
the pound keeper on behalf of the city as license fees or other charges. The
pound keeper shall also give an accurate written report each month to the city,
stating (i) licenses issued, (ii) fees or other charges collected, (iii) sales
made, (iv) dogs, cats and other animals impounded, (v) the duration of any such
impoundment, (vi) all animals destroyed, and (vii) other pertinent data relating
to animal control which may be requested by the city manager.
905.35. Miscellaneous prohibitions. Subdivision 1. General rule. The
existence of any of the conditions enumerated in this subsection are declared to
• be nuisances and may be proceeded against in the manner provided in section 925.
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA /C)-
Agenda Council Letter No. 205
August 24, 1998
Issue Statement:
Setting a date for a Special City Council Meeting to be held to consider a resolution
declaring the results of the Primary Election which will be held on Tuesday, September
15, 1998.
Background:
The Primary Election will be conducted on Tuesday, September 15, 1998. The City
office of Mayor will be on the Primary Election ballot.
The Richfield City Charter states that the Council shall meet and canvass the election
returns and shall make full declaration of the results as soon as possible, and file a
statement thereof with the City Clerk. Minnesota Statutes state that within two days
after an election, the governing body shall canvass the returns and declare the results
of the election.
Recommended Motion:
To approve the date of Thursday, September 17, 1998 at 5:30 p.m. for a Special City
Council Meeting to be held to consider a resolution declaring the election results of the
September 15, 1998 Primary Election.
Basis for Recommendation:
• 1. City Charter and State law requires that the city council declare the results of the
election.
2. A Special City Council Meeting is needed to canvass the election results.
Alternative Recommendation:
The City Council could choose a different time for the Special City Council Meeting.
Discussion/Decision Mode:
This matter has been scheduled for consideration at the August 24, 1998 City Council
Meeting.
Respectfull submitted,
Jame . Prosser
City Manager
JDP:ds
•
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Council Letter No. 204
Agenda August 24, 1998
Issue Statement:
Resolution approving Special Law 1998, Chapter 389, Article 3, Section 34, regarding
assessment exclusion of certain improvements to apartments.
Background:
In 1997, the Minnesota State Legislature enacted a Special Law designed to exclude
the assessing of market value increases resulting from improvements made to certain
qualifying apartment properties. This Special Law provides an incentive to certain
apartment property owners to improve the appearance and competitiveness of their
properties. The City Council approved the Special Law in September 1997.
For 1998, the Special Law was amended in order to extend the last qualifying date for
this law from January 1, 1999 to January 1, 2000 and to change the qualifying
improvement threshold from $5,000 per unit to $2,500 per unit. A complete copy of the
Special Law is attached.
If the property qualifies under this Special law, the assessor notes the qualifying value
40 of the improvements on the property's record and that amount would be subtracted
from the qualifying property's market value for the five assessment years immediately
following the years in which the improvements were completed. During the sixth to
tenth year, the value is incrementally added back.
State Statute requires that the City Council act on this 1998 Special Law before the end
of the year.
Recommended Motion:
Adopt the attached resolution approving the Special Law for the City of Richfield
regarding the exclusion for assessment purposes of certain improvements.
Basis of Recommendation:
1. The Special Law must be approved by the City in order for apartment owners to
benefit from the program contained in statute (also known as This Old Apartment).
2. The program is one way of facilitating improvements to the City's older apartment
stock, thereby improving the aesthetics and marketability of these properties.
3. The program compliments the HRA's Apartment Remodeling Program and the
receipt of a Livable Community Grant from the Metropolitan Council that funds
41 apartment remodeling.
I "-
Al ina ive Recommendation:
Do not adopt the attached resolution, thereby, ending the City's participation in the This
Old Apartment program at the end of 1998.
Discussion/Decision Mode:
Action on this matter must be taken before January 5, 1999 for the law to be effective.
The Secretary of State's office will be notified of the Council's action.
Respectfully submitted,
Jam . Prosser
Exec ive Director
JDP:ds
•
•
i/3
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION APPROVING SPECIAL LAW 1998, CHAPTER 389, ARTICLE 3,
SECTION 34, REGARDING THE EXCLUSION FOR ASSESSMENT PURPOSES OF
CERTAIN IMPROVEMENTS TO APARTMENTS
WHEREAS, the 1998 Minnesota Legislature enacted a special law, Laws of
Minnesota 1998, Chapter 389, Article 3 Section 34 (the "Special Law") providing that
the City of Richfield (the "City") may approve the Special Law and thereby exclude for
assessment purposes the increase in market value resulting for certain improvements
made to "Qualified Property" as defined in the Special Law; and
WHEREAS, the 1998 Special Law extends the term for requesting an exclusion
on the value of improvements and reduces the cost for qualifying improvements as first
established in Special Law 1997, Chapter 231, Article 2, Section 34 which was
approved by the City Council on September 8, 1997; and
WHEREAS, the 1998 Special Law, also known as This Old Apartment, continues
to be deemed by the City to be in and for the best interests of the residents and
property owners of the City; and
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Richfield must formally approve the
. Special Law in order for such law to become effective.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of Richfield as
follows:
1. The Laws of Minnesota, 1998, Chapter 389, Article 3, Section 34 is
approved by the City as required by Minnesota Statute.
2. The City Clerk is authorized and directed to file with the Secretary of State
a certificate stating the essential facts necessary for valid approval, including a copy of
the resolution of approval by the City Council. The form of this certificate shall be
consistent with that prescribed by the Attorney General for this purpose.
Adopted by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this 24th day of
August, 1998.
Martin J. Kirsch, Mayor
ATTEST:
Thomas P. Ferber, City Clerk
N-?
Sec. 34. Laws 1997, chapter 231, article 2, section 63, subdivision 1, is amended to
read: Subdivision 1. [IMPROVEMENTS MADE TO CERTAIN APARTMENTS.] (a)
Notwithstanding any other provisions to the contrary, the market value increase
resulting from improvements made after the effective date of this act and prior to
January 1, 1999 2000, to qualifying property located in the city of Brooklyn Center,
Richfield, or St. Louis Park shall be excluded for assessment purposes under the
conditions provided in this subdivision. (b) 'Qualifying property" means property that
meets all of the following criteria: (1) the building is at least 30 years old at the time of
the improvements; (2) the building is residential real estate of four or more units and is
classified under Minnesota Statutes, section 273.13, subdivision 25, as class 4a, 4c, or
4d property; and (3) the total cost of the qualifying improvements exceeds $6;999
$2,500 per unit. (c) A building permit must have been issued prior to the
commencement of the improvements. Only improvements to the residential structure
and garages qualify under this subdivision. The assessor shall require an application,
including, if unknown by the assessor, documentation of the age of the building from
the owner. The application may be filed subsequent to the date of the building permit
provided that the application is filed prior to the next assessment date. (d) If the
property qualifies under this subdivision, the assessor shall note the qualifying value of
the improvements on the property's record and that amount shall be subtracted from
the qualifying property's market value for the five assessment years immediately
following the year in which the improvements were completed, at which time the
assessor shall determine the property's estimated market value, and 20 percent of the
qualifying value shall be added back in each of the next five subsequent assessment
years. The assessor may require from the owner any documentation necessary to
verify that the cost of improvements exceed the X999 $2,500 per unit minimum. Sec.
35. Laws 1997, chapter 231, article 2, section 68, subdivision 1, is amended to read:
Subdivision 1. [APPLICATION.] To facilitate a review by the 49% legislature of the
property taxation of elderly assisted living facilities and the development of standards
and criteria for the taxation of these facilities, this section: (1) requires the
commissioner of revenue to conduct a survey of the tax status of these facilities under
subdivision 2; and (2) prohibits changes in assessment practices and policies
regarding these facilities under subdivision 3.
0
10
•
•
U
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Council Letter No. 203
Agenda August 24, 1998
Issue Statement:
Approval of a Resolution adopting a formal,
City of Richfield.
written snow/ice maintenance policy for the
Background:
The League of Minnesota Cities, of which Richfield is a member, recently
recommended that each municipality have a formal written policy showing an organized
system of snow/ice maintenance. Insurance companies and the courts are looking
more closely at seemingly haphazard methods of plowing snow, even though a verbal
policy may have been in effect for years.
As a result, staff has prepared the attached resolution regarding the City of Richfield's
snow/ice maintenance methods, following the League of Minnesota Cities example very
closely.
Recommended Motion:
Adopt the attached resolution as the written policy of the City of Richfield's snow/ice
maintenance program.
Basis of Recommendation:
1. The City of Richfield is in need of a snow/ice maintenance policy as recommended
by the League of Minnesota Cities.
2. The City Attorney has reviewed the policy and has given her approval.
3. A copy of the proposed policy is attached for Council review.
Alternative Recommendation:
Council could choose to reject the policy; however, staff feels adoption of the policy will
further protect the City's best interests.
Discussion/Decision Mode:
Staff is requesting approval at the August 24, 1998 regular Council Meeting.
Resp tfully submitted,
Jam Prosser
City nager
JDP:ds
Io-i
CITY OF RICHFIELD
SNOWPLOWING POLICY
1. Introduction
The City of Richfield believes that it is in the best interest of the residents for the City
to assume basic responsibility for control of snow and ice on city streets.
Reasonable ice and snow control is necessary for routine travel and emergency
services. The City will provide such control in a safe and cost effective manner,
keeping in mind safety, budget, personnel and environmental concerns. The City
will use City employees, equipment and/or private contractors to provide this
service.
2. When The City Will Start Snow or Ice Control Operations
The Street Supervisor will decide when to begin snow or ice control operations. The
criteria for that decision are:
• Snow accumulation of 2 inches or more;
• Drifting of snow that causes problems for travel;
• Icy conditions which seriously affect travel; and
• Time of snowfall in relationship to heavy use of streets.
Snow and ice control operations are expensive and involve the use of limited
personnel and equipment. Consequently, snowplowing operations will not generally
be conducted for a snowfall of less than 2 inches.
3. How The Snow Will Be Plowed
Snow will be plowed in a manner so as to minimize any traffic obstructions. The
center of the roadway will be plowed first. The snow shall then be pushed from left
to right. The discharge shall go onto the boulevard area of the street. When a plow
goes on a bridge, the driver shall slow down so that snow does not go over the
bridge if possible. In times of extreme snowfall, streets will not be able to be
completely cleared of snow immediately.
4. Snow Removal From Boulevards
The Street Supervisor will determine when snow will be removed by truck from the
area. Such snow removal will occur in areas where there is no room on the
boulevard for snow storage. Snow removal operations will not commence until other
snowplowing operations have been completed. Snow removal operations may also
be delayed depending on weather conditions, personnel and budget availability.
The snow will be removed and hauled to a snow storage area. The snow storage
area will be located so as to minimize environmental problems.
Lb -c-4'-
Snowplowing Policy
Page 2
5. Priorities and Schedule for Street Plowing
The City has classified city streets based on the street function, traffic volume, and
importance to the welfare of the community. Those streets classified as "Main
Arterial Roads" will be plowed first. These are high-volume routes which connect
major sections of the City and provide access for emergency fire, police and medical
services.
The second priority streets are those streets providing access to schools and
commercial businesses. The third priority streets are low-volume residential streets.
The fourth priority areas are alleys, City parking lots, sidewalks, and park paths.
6. Work Schedule for Snowplow Operators
Snowplow operators are expected to work eight-hour shifts. In severe snow
emergencies, operators sometimes have to work in excess of eight-hour shifts.
Operators are allowed a fifteen minute break every two hours with a half-hour meal
break after four hours. After a twelve-hour day, the operators will be replaced if
additional qualified personnel are available.
7. Weather Conditions
Snow and ice control operations will be conducted only when weather conditions do
not endanger the safety of city employees and equipment. Factors that may delay
snow and ice control operations include; severe cold, significant winds and limited
visibility.
8. Use of Sand, Salt and Other Chemicals
The City will use sand, salt, and other chemicals when there are hazardous ice or
slippery conditions. The City is concerned about the effect of such chemicals on the
environment and will limit its use for that reason.
9. Sidewalks
The City will maintain City-owned sidewalks in the City. A map of the sidewalks is
attached. As there is a limited number of personnel available, the City will only
maintain these sidewalks after the streets, alleys and city parking lots have been
plowed. Park paths and skating rinks are the lowest priority.
0
l0-3
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING SNOW/ICE MAINTENANCE POLICY
WHEREAS, a Snow/Ice Maintenance Policy has been developed and
recommended by City staff, and;
WHEREAS, adoption of said policy has been determined to be in the best
interest of the City of Richfield.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of
Richfield that said Snow/Ice Maintenance Policy is hereby approved and adopted.
Adopted by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this 24th day of
August, 1998.
Martin J. Kirsch, Mayor
0 ATTEST:
Thomas P. Ferber, City Clerk
0
n
0
?-3
d
.? CA D m m CA co
.P G C* 6 m ;i m to r U] to a 06
AVE.
MR AVE.
----- I .._.,?-. .- -; ---- WASHBURN
VASHHQNN --- -
VINCZ T ?' i YIIPCHPI
_.i
DPTON
--
II- -
UP1'ON - - - ,
THOliA13
I - ----
THOMAS ............. SEOCHKDAN
I J ??
------ -
tlt>r?a _
- --------------
o»M
l? - - - ,
QUEKK
H? PENN AVE.
'E. NAVE.
PEN
r? oLrFKR
Oixm
NEWTON 11-' - - - -- ....... x1;.TOx
I
1tOR&Ix lax
I I..
-, JI
ZKOT
KNOX 7r
7n
?.. - -
i--
GIRARD - ?:--.J' - GIRARD
FREMONT
} rn
ndesox
sltzRsox _- { ...
DUPONT
I1
DUPONT ?[ -- Rl
CMYAX
COLFAX
II ?_ta 3d Lf._.^ BRYANT
EWANT ,
ALDIIICH -----I L __ ?- ---- .-:
LYNDALE AVE.
AVE. ` --
IT- r- ---CARTIRLD
HAKIM
C!?
GRAND -- ? ? ---' - ? -- _ --? - GRAND
I J l --
_.. ?i . - - -- PLIASANT -
PLEASAIT -
PUJAHU&Y PlIZABUff
----
v
AVE. lL- NICOLLET AVE. rn
-? ?- C -{ --1-1 f -
1ff1.
9nd 2nd
r-- - -
3rd L. ...?.. ?....._._? . - ..1 - --9zd
Cdal'1'Dx
- -------- .. 4th
6h IL1 _ - f 1, r
l AVE. I-' PORTLAND AVE.
A 1-?, ---- _--? ?- oAIIA"
osuAxD
PAM PAM
caLOlo3u8 COLUMHU8
CHICAGO I 1 ... L? `! r cHIcuso
( ?7 1
llum . .. ]MOT cn
1Qth
10th
lith -'' ------- w<
-- - - 1
--
!I I 12th
----- - ---------- - ------
1 J -
19th t: ` ----- -- - 19th
14th -- - - --?`. ?- ------? - ___. - ?i 14th
16th
PON - - .-1 L-
lath ....... _.. - 16BLOOMINGTON
? - 1 ?
P l ?- ,am
4
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Council Letter No. 202
Agenda August 24, 1998
Issue Statement:
First reading of a new ordinance pertaining to tobacco and tobacco products which
contains a combination of State Statute mandates and items being proposed and
recommended by members of the Richfield Advisory Board of Health.
Background:
For approximately the last year, the Richfield Advisory Board of Health has been working
with the Tri-City Partners for Healthy Youth and Communities on Richfield's tobacco
ordinance. Tri-City Partners for Healthy Youth and Communities is a group composed of
City staff and citizen representatives from the communities of Richfield, Edina and
Bloomington working on efforts to reduce the accessibility of tobacco and alcohol to the
youth of their communities. The Board of Health's purpose in reviewing the current
tobacco ordinance was to ensure that Richfield's ordinance was in compliance with State
Statutes concerning tobacco and to establish an ordinance that made access to tobacco
and tobacco products more difficult for youth. It was determined that the only reference to
tobacco was in Section 1145.03, Subdivisions 2 through 6(b). The Board of Health
developed a draft of a new Section 1146, devoted entirely to tobacco, and felt that Section
1145.03 needs to be repealed. The new ordinance incorporates components of the old
ordinance but new language is used to conform to State guidelines.
The Board of Health and City staff sent letters to 45 currently licensed tobacco retailers in
Richfield, along with a copy of a draft ordinance, inviting them to a July 8, 1998 meeting
hosted by the Addictions Workgroup of the Board of Health. The purpose of the meeting
was to make the retailers aware of the Board's work on the ordinance, to encourage their
participation and to receive their input on the ordinance. Only two retailers attended the
meeting: One was a City liquor store manager representing the City's four liquor stores,
and the other was a representative for Superamerica representing their stores in the City.
The Superamerica representative asked for clarification on the use of a specific type of
tobacco display and also voiced opposition to a section of the ordinance that would
require that all clerks be 18 years of age or older. He stated that this would be a hardship
for retailers as many of their clerks are under 18 years of age, and he requested that this
portion be re-evaluated by the Board of Health. Board members thanked the two retailers
for their input and said they would take their comments under consideration.
At the Richfield Advisory Board of Health meeting on July 20, 1998, the Addictions
workgroup reviewed for the full Board what had taken place at the July 8 retailer meeting.
They discussed with the Board of Health the issues that were raised by the retailers
concerning a clerk's required age. The Board of Health, as representatives of the citizens
in the community and keeping in mind their goal of decreasing the accessibility of tobacco
products to youth, voted to present the new ordinance to the City Council and suggests
repealing Section 1145.03. It should be noted that the tobacco ordinance, Section
1145.03, is being incorporated in this new ordinance.
On August 3, 1998, members of the Richfield Advisory Board of Health met with the City
Council to discuss the ordinance. The City Council requested that staff review and clarify
some of the proposed ordinance provisions as discussed that evening. The City Council
is
acknowledged the work of the Advisory Board of Health in developing the proposed
ordinance and directed staff to schedule it for a first reading on August 24, 1998.
Recommended Motion:
Staff recommends Council approve the first reading of the new tobacco ordinance, Section
1146, and repeal Section 1145.03, Subd. 2-6(b), which would bring Richfield into
compliance with State Statutes concerning tobacco and to establish an ordinance that
makes access to tobacco and tobacco products more difficult for youth; and set a public
hearing and second reading for September 28, 1998.
Basis of Recommendation:
1. The Richfield Advisory Board of Health has been working with the Tri-City Partners for
Healthy Youth and Communities for approximately the last year.
2. The Board of Health determined that the current Richfield tobacco ordinance is not in
compliance with State Statutes concerning tobacco.
3. The Addictions Workgroup of the Advisory Board of Health presented the results of
their meeting with retailers to the Board and voted to present the ordinance to the City
Council.
is 4. Council had questions at their August 3 Study Session which had to be presented to
the City Attorney for answers. The response from the City Attorney's office in answer to
the questions is attached (two memos dated August 13 and August 18, 1998).
Alternative Recommendation:
1. The Council could decide not to adopt the new ordinance and allow the current
ordinance to remain in noncompliance with State Statutes on tobacco.
Discussion/Decision Mode:
The new ordinance Section 1146, Tobacco, which contains a combination of State Statute
mandates and items being proposed and recommended by members of the Richfield
Advisory Board of Health, along with a recommendation to set the second reading and
public hearing for September 28, is presented to the City Council for consideration at this
time.
Respectful submitted,
James . Prosser
City Manager
JDP:ds
1146 Tobacco 01-a
1146.01. Purpose. Subdivision 1. The Richfield City Council recognizes that many
persons under the age of 18 years purchase or otherwise obtain, possess, and use
tobacco, tobacco products, and tobacco related devices, and such sales, possession, and
use are violations of both State and Federal laws. Studies have shown that most smokers
begin smoking before they reach the age of 18 years and that those persons have been
shown to have several serious health problems which subsequently place a financial
burden on all levels of government. This ordinance shall be intended to regulate the sale,
possession, and use of tobacco, tobacco products, and tobacco related devices for the
purpose of enforcing and furthering existing laws, to protect minors against the serious
effects associated with the illegal use of tobacco, tobacco products, and tobacco related
devices, and to further the official public policy of the State of Minnesota in regard to
preventing young people from starting to smoke as stated in Minn. Stat. 144.391.
1146.03. Definitions. Subdivision 1. For the purposes of this section, the terms defined in
this subsection have the meanings given them:
Subd. 2. Tobacco or Tobacco Products. "Tobacco products" shall mean any
substance or items containing tobacco leaf, including but not limited to: cigarettes; cigars;
pipe tobacco, snuff; fine cut or other chewing tobacco; cheroots; stogies; perique;
granulated, plug cut, crimp cut, ready-rubbed, and other smoking tobacco; snuff flowers;
cavendish; shorts, plug and twist tobaccos; dipping tobaccos; refuse scraps, clippings,
cuttings, and sweepings of tobacco; and other kinds and forms of tobacco leaf prepared in
such manner as to be suitable for chewing, sniffing, or smoking.
Subd. 3. Tobacco Related Devices. "Tobacco related devices" shall mean any
tobacco product as well as a pipe, rolling papers, or other device intentionally designed or
intended to be used in a manner which enables the chewing, sniffing, or smoking of
tobacco or tobacco products.
Subd. 4. Self-Service Merchandising. "Self-Service merchandising" shall mean
open displays of tobacco, tobacco products, or tobacco related devices in any manner
where any person shall have access to the tobacco, tobacco products or tobacco related
devices, without the assistance or intervention of the licensee or the licensee's employee.
The assistance or intervention shall entail the actual physical exchange of the tobacco,
tobacco product, or tobacco related device between the customer and the licensee or
employee. Self-service merchandising shall not include vending machines.
Subd. 5. Vending Machine. "Vending Machine" shall mean any mechanical,
electric or electronic, or other type of device which dispenses tobacco, tobacco products,
or tobacco related devices upon the insertion of money, tokens, or other form of payment
directly into the machine by the person seeking to purchase the tobacco, tobacco product,
or tobacco related device.
Subd. 6. Loosies. "Loosies" shall mean the common term used to refer to a single
or individually packaged cigarette.
9-3
Subd. 7. Minor. "Minor" shall mean any natural person who has not yet reached
the age of eighteen (18) years.
Subd. 8. Retail Establishment. "Retail Establishment" shall mean any place of
business where tobacco, tobacco products or tobacco related devices are available for
sale to the general public. Retail establishments shall include, but not be limited to,
grocery stores, convenience stores, and restaurants.
Subd. 9. Moveable Place of Business. "Moveable Place of Business" shall mean
motorized vehicles, mobile sales kiosks, kiosks, trailers or other structure or equipment not
permanently attached to the ground operated in an establishment licensed to sell tobacco-
related products and conducted within a building and within the licensed premises.
Subd. 10. Sale. A "sale" shall mean any transfer of goods for money, trade, barter,
or other consideration.
Subd. 11. Compliance Checks. "Compliance Checks" shall mean the system the
City of Richfield uses to investigate and ensure that those authorized to sell tobacco,
tobacco products, and tobacco related devices are following and complying with the
requirements of this ordinance. Compliance checks shall involve the use of minors as
authorized by this ordinance to attempt to purchase tobacco, tobacco products, or tobacco
related devices for educational, research and training purposes as authorized by State
and Federal laws. Compliance checks may also be conducted by other units of
40 government for the purpose of enforcing appropriate Federal, State or local laws and
regulations relating to tobacco, tobacco products, and tobacco related devices.
1146.05. Sale and distribution of tobacco. Subdivision 1. License required. No person or
establishment shall sell or offer to sell any tobacco, tobacco products, or tobacco related
devices without first having obtained a license to do so from the City of Richfield. All
licenses issued under this ordinance shall be valid only on the premises for which the
license was issued and only for the person to whom the license was issued. No transfer
of any license to another location or person shall be valid.
Subd. 2. Application. An application for a license to sell tobacco, tobacco
products, or tobacco related devices shall be made on a form provided by the Public
Safety Director or the Public Safety Director's designee. The fee shall accompany the
application. The application shall be reviewed and action taken on it by either the Public
Safety Director or their designee.
Subd. 3. Action. The Public Safety Director or the Public Safety Director's
designee may either approve or deny the license, or may delay action for such reasonable
period of time as necessary to complete any investigation of the application or the
applicant it deems necessary. If the Public Safety Director or the Public Safety Director's
designee denies the license, notice of the denial shall be given to the applicant along with
notice of the applicant's right to appeal the decision.
Subd. 4. License Term. All licenses shall expire on December 31 of the year in
which the license is issued. The annual license fee will not be prorated.
9-4
• Subd. 5. Denial, Revocation or Suspension. 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 sale of
tobacco, tobacco products, or any tobacco related device.
(d) The applicant has committed fraud, misrepresentation or bribery in securing
or renewing a license.
(e) The owner of the premises licensed or to be licensed would not qualify for a
license under the terms of this section.
(f) The applicant is under the age of 18 years.
(g) The applicant has been convicted within the past five years of any violation
of a Federal, State, or local law ordinance provision, or other regulation
relating to tobacco products, or tobacco related devices.
(h) The applicant has had a license to sell tobacco, tobacco products, or
tobacco related devices revoked within the twelve months preceding the
date of application.
(i) The applicant is prohibited by Federal, State, or other local law, ordinance,
or other regulation, from holding such a license.
Subd. 6. _Moveable Place of Business. No license shall be issued to a moveable
place of business.
ordinance.
Only a fixed location business shall be eligible to be licensed under this
Subd. 7. Display. All licenses shall be posted and displayed in plain view of the
general public on the licensed premise.
Subd. 8. Renewals. The renewal of a license issued under this section shall be
handled in the same manner as the original application. The request for a renewal shall
be made at least thirty days but no more than sixty days before the expiration of the
current license.
Subd. 9. Employee Training. The applicant must provide proof that an employee
training program on tobacco sales has been implemented.
1146.07. License Fee. The annual license fee for a tobacco license is set by Appendix D.
The license fee must be paid at the time of application for the license.
1146.09. Prohibited Sales. It shall be a violation of this ordinance for any person to sell or
offer to sell any tobacco, tobacco product, or tobacco related device:
(a) To any person under the age, of eighteen (18) years.
(b) By anyone under the age of eighteen (18) years.
(c) By means of any type of vending machine.
(d) By means of self-service merchandising .
(e) By means of loosies.
(f) Containing opium, morphine, jimson weed, bella donna, strychnos, cocaine,
marijuana, or other deleterious, hallucinogenic, toxic, or controlled substances
except nicotine and other substances found naturally in tobacco or added as
part of an otherwise lawful manufacturing process
(g) By any other means prohibited by Federal, State, or other local law, ordinance
provision, or other regulation.
1146.11. Vending Machines. It shall be unlawful for any person licensed under this
ordinance to allow the sale of tobacco, tobacco products, or tobacco related devices by
the means of a vending machine.
1146.13. Self-Service Sales. Subdivision 1. It shall be unlawful for a licensee under this
ordinance to allow the sale of tobacco, tobacco products, or tobacco related devices by
any means whereby the customer may have access to such items without having to
request the item from the licensee or the licensee's employee and whereby there is not a
physical exchange of the tobacco, tobacco product, or the tobacco related device between
the licensee or his or her clerk and the customer. All tobacco, tobacco products, and
tobacco related devices shall either be stored behind a counter or other area not freely
accessible to customers. Any retailer selling tobacco, tobacco products, or tobacco
related devices at the time this ordinance is adopted shall comply with this subsection
within 30 days of the passage of this ordinance. A license holder who operates an
establishment or fully enclosed portion of an establishment that sells at least 90 percent of
its products in tobacco or tobacco-related products is exempt from the self-service
merchandising provision if the license holder prohibits anyone under eighteen (18) years
of age from entering the establishment or fully enclosed portion of an establishment and
the license holder conspicuously displays a notice prohibiting persons under eighteen (18)
years of age from entering the establishment.
1146.15. Responsibility. All licensees under this ordinance shall be responsible for the
actions of their employees in regard to the sale of tobacco, tobacco products, or tobacco
related devices on the licensed premises, and the sale of such an item by an employee
shall be considered a sale by the license holder. Nothing in this section shall be construed
as prohibiting the City from also subjecting the clerk to whatever penalties are appropriate
is under this ordinance, State or Federal law, or other applicable law or regulation.
1146.17. Compliance Checks and Inspections. All licensed premises shall be open to
inspection by Richfield law enforcement or other authorized City officials during regular
9-(0
business hours. From time to time, but at least once per year, the City shall conduct
compliance checks by engaging, with the written consent of their parents or guardians,
minors over the age of fifteen (15) years, to enter the licensed premise to attempt to
purchase tobacco, tobacco products, or tobacco related devices. Minors used for the
purpose of compliance checks shall be supervised by the Public Safety Director or the
Public Safety Director's designee. Minors used for compliance checks shall not be guilty
of the unlawful purchase or attempted purchase, nor the unlawful possession of tobacco,
tobacco products, or tobacco related devices when such items are obtained or attempted
to be obtained as a part of the compliance check. No minor used in compliance checks
shall attempt to use a false identification misrepresenting the minor's age and all minors
lawfully engaged in a compliance check shall answer all questions about the minor's age,
asked by the licensee or his or her employee and shall produce any identification, if any
exists, for which he or she is asked. Nothing in this subdivision shall prohibit compliance
checks authorized by State or Federal laws for educational, research, or training
purposes, or required for the enforcement of a particular State or Federal law.
1146.19. Other Illegal Acts. Subdivision 1. Unless otherwise provided, the following acts
shall be a violation of this ordinance.
Subd. 2. Illegal Sales. It shall be a violation of this ordinance for any person to sell
or otherwise provide any tobacco, tobacco products, or tobacco related devices to any
minor.
. Subd. 3. Illegal Possession. It shall be a violation of this ordinance for any minor to
have in his or her possession any tobacco, tobacco product, or tobacco related device.
This subdivision shall not apply to minors lawfully involved in a compliance check.
Subd. 4. Illegal Use. It shall be a violation of this ordinance for any minor to
smoke, chew, sniff, or otherwise use any tobacco, tobacco product, or tobacco related
device.
Subd. 5. Illegal Procurement. It shall be a violation of this ordinance for any minor
to purchase or attempt to purchase or otherwise obtain any tobacco, tobacco products, or
tobacco related devices, and it shall be a violation of this ordinance for any person to
purchase or otherwise obtain such items on behalf of a minor. It shall further be a
violation for any person to coerce or attempt to coerce a minor to illegally purchase or
otherwise obtain or use any tobacco, tobacco product, or tobacco related device. This
subdivision shall not apply to minors lawfully involved in a compliance check.
Subd. 6. Use of False Identification. It shall be a violation of this ordinance for any
minor to attempt to disguise his or her true age by the use of a false form of identification,
whether the identification is that of another person or one on which the age of the person
has been modified or tampered with to represent an age older than the actual age of the
person.
0
1146.21. Violations. Subdivision 1. Notice and Hearing. Upon discovery of a suspected
violation, the alleged violator shall be issued, either personally or by mail, a citation that
q-?
sets forth the alleged violation. The alleged violator shall have the opportunity for a
hearing before the Director of Public Safety before any penalty is imposed under this
section. A decision that a violation has occurred shall be in writing.
Subd. 2. Misdemeanor Prosecution. Nothing in this subsection shall prohibit the
City, from seeking prosecution as a misdemeanor for any alleged violation of this
ordinance.
Subd. 3. Continued Violation. Each violation, and every day on which a violation
occurs or continues, shall constitute a separate offense.
1146.23 Penalties. Subdivision 1. Licensees. Any licensee found to have violated this
ordinance, or whose employee shall have violated this ordinance, shall be charged an
administrative fee of $75 for a first violation of this ordinance; $200 for a second offense at
the same licensed premises within a twenty-four month period; and $250 for a third or
subsequent offense at the same location within a twenty-four month period. In addition,
after the third offense, the license shall be suspended for not less than seven days.
Subd. 2. Other Individuals. Individuals, other than licensees regulated by
subdivision 1 of this subsection, found to be in violation of this ordinance shall be charged
an administrative fee of $50.
Subd. 3. Minors. Minors found in unlawful possession of, or who unlawfully
• purchase or attempt to purchase, tobacco, tobacco products, or tobacco related devices,
shall be given the option of participating in a diversion program rather than paying the
violation fine.
Subd. 4. Misdemeanor. Nothing in this subsection shall prohibit the city from
seeking prosecution as a misdemeanor for any violation of this ordinance.
1146.25 Exceptions and Defenses. Subdivision 1. Nothing in this ordinance shall
prevent the provision of tobacco, tobacco products, or tobacco related devices to a minor
as part of a lawfully recognized religious, spiritual, or cultural ceremony.
Subd. 2. It shall be an affirmative defense to the violation of this ordinance for a
person to have reasonably relied on proof of age as described by State law.
Subd. 3. It shall be a defense to a violation of the ordinance that a licensee did not
intentionally aid, advise, hire, counsel or conspire with another to sell tobacco to minors or
otherwise procure the sale of tobacco to minors.
1146.27. Severability and Savings Clause. Subdivision 1. If any section or portion of this
ordinance shall be found unconstitutional or otherwise invalid or unenforceable by a court
of competent jurisdiction, that finding shall not serve as an invalidation or effect the validity
is and enforceability of any other section or provision of this ordinance.
1146.29. Effective Date. Subdivision 1. This ordinance shall take effect 30 days from the
date of publication in the official city designated newspaper.
Richfield City Code 1145.01 I?
(Rev.4-20-90)
Section 1145 - Soft drinks. tobacco
1145.01. Soft drinks. Subdivision. 1. Definitions. For purposes of this
subsection the term "soft drink" means any liquid or compound commonly known as
a soft drink, which has either no alcoholic content or which has an alcoholic
content not in excess of one-half of one percent by volume.
Subd. 2. License required. No person may sell, or offer for sale by means
of vending machines or otherwise, any soft drinks within the city without first
obtaining a license from the clerk. This subsection does not apply to the sale
of bottled and canned soft drinks by means of vending machines.
Subd. 3. License application. Applications for license shall contain the
applicants name, residence and the location at which the sales of soft drinks
are to be made.
Subd. 4. Fee. The license fee is fixed by appendix D.
i
Subd. 5. Containers for Disposal. Establishments selling, distributing or
making available soft drinks, as defined in this subsection, in bottles, cans or
other disposable containers shall provide suitable containers for the disposal
of such.
Subd. 6. Maintenance of grounds and premises. Establishments selling,
distributing or making soft drinks available to the public shall maintain their
premises in a clean and sanitary condition and additionally keep all adjoining
and adjacent property clean and free from bottles, cans and other containers.
1145.03. Sale and distribution of tobacco. Subdivision 1. License required.
No person shall keep for retail.sale, sell at retail or otherwise dispose of any
cigarette or any tobacco product or cigarette paper or cigarette wrapper at any
place in the City without a license. (Amended, Bill No. 1990-7)
Subd. 2. License application. Application for a license shall be made to
the Public Safety Director on a form provided for that purpose. The fee shall
accompany the application. (Amended, Bill No. 1990-7)
Subd. 3. License fees. The license fee is fixed by appendix D.
Subd. 4. Approval and issuance. The application shall be reviewed and
action taken on it by either the Public Safety Director or the council.
Applications may be disapproved only by the council. (Amended, Bill No. 1990-7)
Subd. 5. Licenses non-transferable. Licenses granted under this subsec-
tion are non-transferable.
Subd. 6. Cigarette and tobacco establishments: prohibited acts. The
following acts involving cigarettes and tobacco establishments are prohibited:
(a) the sale of tobacco in any form to a person under the age 'of 18 years;
and
•
•
Q-q
Richfield City Code
1145.03, Subd. 6(b)
(Rev.4-20-90)
(b) No person shall sell.- or give away any cigarette or any tobacco
product, cigarette paper or( cigarette wrapper to any person under the age of
eighteen (18) years. No person shall sell or dispense any cigarettes or tobacco
product, cigarette paper oi'.cigarette wrapper through' the use of a vending
machine. For the purposes of this subsection, the term "vending machine" shall
mean any type of mechanical device, whether or not equipped with an electronic
or other similar locking device, which operates by the insertion of a coin or
other token, and which is designed to deliver, or permit the removal of
cigarettes, tobacco product, cigarette paper or cigarette wrapper. (Amended,
Bill No. 1990-7)
is
•
0
•
M AND
DATE: August 13. 1998
TO: Corrine Thomson
FROM: Karen Carlson
RE: City Council questions re tobacco ordinance
9-10
Following are answers to the questions posed by the Richfield City Council regarding the
proposed tobacco ordinance. -
(1) I§ $ 1146.01 ("Purpose") necessary?
p N&WER: I have found no authority under which § 1146 e-01a is necessary.
section in the
however, as you stated. it may bolster enforceability to ha ordinance that defines the purpose of the ordinance. Moreover. the League of
Minnesota Cities' C LMC") model tobacco ordittanc s a purpose section,
council that this
which is substantially the same as § 1146.01. suggest telling the
section is not necessary per se, but that we recommend it because it enhances the
chances of enforceability and it complies with LMC recommendations.
(2) Are §§ 1146.09 and 1146.11 (re vending machines) duplicative?
ANSWER: No. Section 1146.09(c) prohibits "any person" from selling or
offering to sell tobacco. tobacco products, or tobacco related devices by means of
vending machines. Section 1146.11. on the other hand. prohibits "any person
licensed under this ordinance" to allow the sale of tobacco, tobacco p ncuttdn is in the tobacco related devices by means against. of vending prvb aarTi Thus, § 1146.09 is directed
whom the prohibition is directed
at "any person,- whereas the prohibition in § 1146.11 is directed at licensees.
(3) Are §§ 1146.03, 1146.09, and 1146.13 (re self-service sales) duplicative and/or
necessary?
&N R. Yes, the sections are necessary. However. §§ 1146.03, Subd. 4 and
1146.13 are somewhat duplicative in that they both define "self-service" sales of
tobacco. self
-ser All of the sections are necessary. Section rl t0.oa it Sub d. defines
of the 1e
merchandising.* The definition is necessary
ordinance's prohibitions of self-service sales. Section I I46.09(d) prohibits "any
C 3,RI;SK-1dRS31
RCt?.,
:t_ . 70/Z0 '- ?74-. IIIIEUE:Zl3
U:^y?° '8 ,la:hN:?I-mo:? '?d89?Z0 93-Bl-snd
or tobacco
person" from selling or offering to sell tofiacco, tobacco products,
related devices by means of self-service merchandising. Section 1146.13. on the
other hand. prohibits licensees from selling tobacco. tobacco products. or tobacco
related devices by means of self-service merchandising. and requires licensees to
comply with the section within 30 days of passage of the ordinance. Section
1146.13 also exempts licensees from the self-service provisions of the statute if
they prohibit persons under age 18 from entering their establishments and if they
conspicuously display a notice of that prohibition.
Sections 1146.03. Subd. 4 and 1146.13 are partially duplicative, because they
both define what constitutes `self-service sales." Both sections state that self-
service means that customers have access to tobacco and tobacco products
without having to request them from the sales
aclerk and without a nd the clerk. Sectiony1146.13
exchange of the product between the
goes a bit further by stating that tobacco, tobacco products. and tobacco-related
devices must be stored behind the counter or in another area not freely accessible
to customers-
I suggest telling the city council that § 1146.13 could be revise Ito rem ubdt he
definition of "self-servicMales ?b 13e extent duplicates
1.46.03, Subd?4 and
However, the remainder §
1146.09 are necessary and not duplicative.
(4) ?tegarding § 1146.21: is the city council required to give betng to lean g to ho
sell tobacco products to minors? The council is not opposed g
licensees but does not want to be burdened with providing hearings to individuals.
pu?3SWER: The city is required to provide hearings to both licensees and
individuals accused of selling tobacco to min46i 12 swever. ubds52 3hAn ngs need not
be before the city council. See, -M--nn- 5ta §
administrative penalty maynot c imposed a ?an individual f liuntil he or she has
received notice and an opportunity for
individual who sells tobacco to a person under the age of 18
Years must be charged an administrativ has o c530 No n rice.
penalty may be imposed until the indual served personally or by mail. of the alleged violation and an
opportunity for a hearing before a person authorized by the
licensing authority to conduct the hearing. A decision that a
violation has occurred must be in writing-
City employee entitled
Minn. Stat. § 461.12, subd.?3 (emphasis
e held before a designated individuals
to a hearing, but the hearing may b civil
liability (5) Should the ordinance provisions re°ro went tobaaco sales to m Hors. but his orlhero
state that if a licensee takes steps to
CARLSK 1,1¢531
RCi cicl-3
Ott-. WSO'd l9Z-1 O MIE£Zl° N3Ad.9 8 dO3NN??-wog, wa£g:ZO gg_£?_IIny
r w
r 1
0
•
employees sell tobacco to minors anyway. without the knowledge of the licensee. the
licensee cannot be prosecuted".
code proibits the sale of
ANSWER: Section 609.685 afh ?Minnesota r se lls tobacco to a person under the
tobacco to children, providing t C
age of 18 years is guilty of a gross misdemeanor." Sinn. Star. § 609.6$5. subd.
1 a(a). The only defense available under of Ottdant reasonably and in good faith by a
defendant
preponderance of the evidence that the
relied on proof of age as described in section 340A.503, subdivision 6." Minn.
S tat § 604.655. subd. 1 a(b). The ordinance already provides that the "good faith
reliance on proof of age" defense is available_ See, Ordinance § 1146.25, Subd. 2.
Nonetheless. one of the general principles in the criminal code is that -[a] person
is criminally liable for a crime committed by another if the person intentionally
aids, advises, hires, counsels, or conspires with or otherwise procures the other to
commit the crime." pn• Stat sold 09,0 minors. but a sales clerk sells h tobacco steps
to ensure that tobacco is not so
products to miners without the knowledge of the licensee, the licensee is not
criminally liable because he or she has not aided, advised. hired, counseled, or
conspired with the sales clerk for the sale of tobacco to minors or otherwise
procured the sale of tobacco to minors.
Therefore.1 suggest adding a subdivision to § 1146.25 C I?xceptions and
Defenses') providing that it shall be a defense to a violation of the ordinance that
a licensee did not intentionally aid. advise. hire, counsel. or conspire with another
to sell tobacco to minors or otherwise procure the sale of tobacco to minors.
CARLSK-1185? i
RC! 60-3
0th-; 70/70'd :9Z-! 0l£H!££Z13
qI-I1QL-
NBAn.n I d03NUN-woa4. wd7s;t0 s3-£!-Env
08/18/98 12:02 FAX 612 861 9749 CITY-RICHFIELD 10002
(?-13
r7
LJ
DATE:
TO:
FROM-
n.
August 1& 1999
MEMURA DVM
Corrine "Thomson
l<aren Carlson
city Council questions re tobacco ordinance
This is a follow ups to Iny Aupst 13. 1998 memo re°-arding the Ricbfield City
council's questions regarding the proposed tobacco ordinance Betsy Christet)sen
inquired about my response to the questioD regarding whether §§ 1146.03, t 1d6-09, and
1146.13 (tegarding self service sales) were duplicative- Specifically. she asked how
1146.13 Could be revised to remove language duplicating 11d6.03. Snbd. 4 (defining
self-seiti-ice sales). in light of the fact that § 1146-13 wras intended. in part. to prohibit
self-service sales of multi packs of ci gareties and other tobacco products. After re-
exatnining §4 1146.03. Subd. 4 and 1146.13. I am of the opinion that, although somewhat
duplicative- both sections should be left as they are currently written to ensure that the
prohibition of self-service sales of multi-packs retrains itl?
As I stated in my earlier memo. § 1146-03. Subd_ d defines `self-service
metchandisiit.e_
"Self-Service merchandising„ shall mean open displays of tobacco,
tobacco products. or tobacco related devices in any manner where any
person shall have access to the tobacco, tobacco products or tobacco
related, uevices, without the assistance or intervention of the licensee or the
licensee's employee. 'Me assistance or intervention shall entail the actual
physical exchange of the tobacco, tobacco product or tobacco related
device between tbz customer and the licensee or employee. Self service
merCh=dising shall: not iuclude --coding machines.
•
CARLSK-14SM
RCIM-3
568-1 EO/Z0'd 607-1 015HLUMS
NEAM f AUNUM-WOE i WdVV: Z t 85-81-anV
08/18/98 12:02 FAIL 612 861 9749 CITY-RICHFIELD 10003
that it repeats some of the languasc of $
Section 1146.13 is somewhat duplicative. in tha
i1d6.03, Subd. 4. Section 1146.13 provide& in part:
it sball be tml awfd for a. licensee, under this ordinance to allow the sale of
tobacco. tobacco products. or tobacco related such de ices bT akv hang to
whereby the customer MY have access without employee
where request the item from the licensee other iha coetobacco product, or the by
there is not a physical exchange of
tobacco related device between the licensee of his or ber clerk and thO
customer.
(Emphasis added.)
The purpose of § 1146.03. Subd_ 4 is tnerelY to define what constitutes self-
service sales, wberew the purpose of § 1146.13 is to prohibit licensees from allowing
self-service sales. The hig.'Ihghted language in § 1146.13. "by any means:- is intended to
prohibit self-service sales of m?-packs of tobacco products as well as sn? Perks.
p 461.1 S. subd.
Milinesota law allows cities to re„wlate tnulti-packs. See. ' v- tat §§
f service mean. "open displavs of
1(b). 461.19_ Althou 1146.03. Subd. A states that self
tobacco, tobacco prod's' or Tobacco related devices in 2nV- manner:' the phrase "in any
mamcr' appeats to refer to the display itself, not the items on the. display.
It would be diff icult to remooe the duplicative language 1V § l 1 d6.13 '%ithout also
removing an of the langna$e directed at prohibiting self-service sales of multi-packs.
htoreover. the League of Mitznesota Cities' model tobacco ordinance contains sections
with language identical to the language in Richfield's proposed tobacco ordinance 0
1146.03. Subd- A and 1 I46.13. Therefom 1 suggest that § 1146.13 be left as written in
order to ensure that the probibitinn against self-.Service sales of multi-packs remains
intact
to
2
568- 60/W d 609-1 QL£6L£6ZLS N3AVE ,la3NN3H-W??j wd99IZL 86-8L-911V
S
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Council Letter No. 201
Agenda August 24, 1998
Issue Statement:
Selection of a construction manager for Second Ice Sheet Project.
Background:
The construction of the second ice sheet will require careful coordination of all project
elements in order to ensure that the project is completed on schedule and well within
budget. To that end the staff interviewed several construction management firms
including:
Kraus Anderson
Adolphson-Peterson
Fulco
Shingobee
Bossart
Based upon the interviews, qualifications and fees, staff selected Kraus Anderson
Construction Management to serve as the project construction manager. Construction
management costs, including general conditions are estimated to cost $207,552. The
is actual cost will likely range between $200,000 to $220,000 of the total ice arena project
cost of $2.8 million. The construction manager will serve as the general contractor and
as such, the construction management fee replaces the general contractor costs in this
construction project.
The fees charged by the construction manager will be staged so that their services
could be terminated at various stages of the project if it does not progress to its
conclusion.
Recommended Motion:
Authorize the construction manager to execute a contract with Kraus Anderson
Construction Management for services in conjunction with the second ice sheet project.
Basis of Recommendation:
1. Kraus Anderson is extremely well qualified in the construction of ice arena projects.
2. Kraus Anderson has competitively, priced their services for this project.
3. Reference checks with other cities that have used Kraus Anderson Construction
Management for their ice arena projects reflect a very high level of satisfaction.
4. A construction manager could potentially save the City in construction costs
associated with this project.
Alternative Recommendation:
1. The City Council could direct the staff to solicit additional interviews for a
construction manager.
2. The City Council could direct staff to select a different construction manager.
Discussion/Decision Mode:
Selection of a construction manager should be made at the August 24, 1998 City
Council meeting in order to facilitate a timely start to the second ice sheet project.
Respectfully submitted,
Jam . Prosser
City anager
JDP:ds
LI
0
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Council Letter No. 200
Agenda August 24, 1998
Issue Statement:
Public hearing and second reading consideration of an ordinance to authorize
construction of a second ice sheet.
Background:
On July 27, 1998, the City Council gave first reading consideration of an ordinance to
authorize the construction of a second ice sheet. The proposed second sheet would be
located directly to the east of the current ice arena in Veterans Memorial Park. The
estimate of the project cost is approximately $2.8 million. This project total exceeds the
$500,000 threshold requirement for ordinance approval specified in the City Charter.
Project Costs
Since the first reading of the ordinance, staff in conjunction with Del Erickson Architects
and with assistance from Kraus Anderson Construction, has worked to carefully refine
the project concept and to establish closer cost estimates. In addition, a number of
alterations and repositioning of the second sheet were also explored for ways to reduce
costs and maximize facility operation efficiencies.
A final review of the project estimate with input from several sub-contractors will be
available on Monday, August 24. However, it is apparent as of this writing that the total
project costs will closely approximate $2.8 million. One of the most significant
components of the project is the extensive soil correction work needed which will cost
approximately $350,000. Alternative sites to the south and north of the current ice
arena were also analyzed. In both cases, either cost or operating considerations
rendered those options as inferior to the proposed east side positioning of the project.
The project, as it is currently envisioned features precast concrete walls. A brick veneer
could be added at a future date. The roof structure would be of rubber membrane to
provide cost savings. An entirely metal building could also be constructed instead of
the proposed configuration. The initial savings of constructing an all metal building
would be approximately $220,000. However, the structure would have a far shorter
expected life and would be much less desirable from operational and esthetic
perspectives.
Del Erickson will attend at the August 24 Council meeting to present the most updated
drawings of the project as it is currently proposed.
Project Financing
The financial consulting firm of Ehlers and Associates identified a number of potential
financing sources for a second ice sheet in their report dated March 13, 1998
(attached). the majority of the funding necessary for this project would have to be
provided by a bond issued under one of the scenarios identified by the Ehlers' report.
A number of other financial options can be used to reduce the bonded debt needed. A
one-time City contribution of $500,000 and a recently awarded Mighty Ducks Grant of
$125,000 could be used to offset project costs. The $500,000 would be provided
through an internal loan to be repaid through special revenues (liquor profits) over the
next three years. The Amateur Sports Commission has notified Richfield that a Mighty
Ducks Grant of $125,000 has been awarded to the City and the potential exists for an
additional $125,000 grant in 1999 if adequate funds are appropriated by the legislature
for the Mighty Ducks program.
In addition, the terms of the type of bond that the City would likely use would require a
reserve equal to one years debt service or about $206,000. If the City set aside this
amount out of another internal fund, the bond amount could be reduced by a like
amount.
If the City used all of the above options to minimize the debt issuance, Ehlers estimates
that the City's annual debt service obligation would be approximately $206,000 based
upon current interest rates (attached letter dated August 18, 1998). This is a reduction
of about $75,000 per year from the Ehlers projections in their March 13, 1998 report.
Operations Financial Analysis
If one is to assume an annual debt service payment of $206,000 instead of the
$282,000 used by Ehlers in their March 13 report and substitutes the new debt service
into Ehlers previous analysis, the annual operating loses for the second ice sheet could
vary from $77,645 to $120,550 depending upon the hours of usage predicted. Annual
cult to
estimate precise revenues until firm commitments for ice time are made. Further, many
such commitments can not be made until such time as there is certainly that the second
ice sheet will exist in order to secure the additional ice time. The ICE Group, in their
report, is much more optimistic about additional ice hours that may be rented at the
Richfield facility once the second sheet facility is a certainty.
could be $20,000 annually and any additional ice time sold to the figure facility, it is skating difficult club (80
hours/year), high schools (100 hours/year) or other potential users could also be used
.
revenWhileues there from may the be sale of additional hours advertising sold or space on events dasher booked boardsfor, the which conservatively
to reduce the annual operating deficit.
If shortfalls or operating deficits exist, they would have to be offset with other City funds
as the City Council may direct. However, the choices may be limited to the general
fund or special revenue funds (liquor profits).
Other Considerations
The total project cost of $2.8 million includes the costs for the architectural services,
construction management, construction costs, a $100,000 contingency and $90,000 for
equipment such as a second Zamboni ice resurfacer, scoreboard, etc. The ICE Group
and City staff will pursue corporate and private donations to assist in the purchase of
such equipment. Any savings for such items will, of course, reduce the need for
borrowed capital.
?-a
Schedule of critical events
If the City Council approves this ordinance on second reading, it would become
effective 30 days after publication in the official newspaper of the City. After that 30 day
period, the project would commence with the soil correction work being performed this
fall. The building construction would be sent out for bid in December 1998 and January
1999. This is the most desirable time to seek construction bids.
The building work would begin in the spring of 1999 and be targeted for completion on
or about September 1999. The bonds would likely be sold sometime in the winter of
1999.
Recommended Motion:
Conduct the public hearing and second reading consideration of an ordinance
authorizing the construction of a second ice sheet.
Basis of Recommendation:
1. A group of individuals in the community have alerted the City to the need for an
additional ice sheet.
2. A second ice sheet will provide capacity to meet community needs for ice arena
programming.
0 3. The City has received a Mighty Ducks Grant of $125,000 to assist with this project.
Alternative Recommendation:
1. The Council may decide not to approve this ordinance upon second reading.
2. The Council may decide to continue to public hearing to receive additional
information.
Discussion/Decision Mode:
This matter has been published in accordance with the new charter provision and is
scheduled for consideration on August 24, 1998.
Respectfully submitted,
Jam I Prosser
City Manager
JDP:ds
TRANSITORY ORDINANCE NO.
• AN ORDINANCE APPROVING A CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT
PROJECT FOR CONSTRUCTION OF AN ADDITION TO THE
ICE AREA, PURSUANT TO RICHFIELD CITY CHARTER
SECTION 8.04
THE CITY OF RICHFIELD DOES ORDAIN:
Section 1. Background: findings.
1.01. Section 8.04 of the Richfield City Charter requires that any capital improvement on City-
owned property that has an estimated cost exceeding $500,000.00 or expenditures for design or
engineering costs exceeding $75,000.00 must be approved by ordinance after a public hearing.
1.02. It is proposed that the City Council approve a capital improvement project at Veteran's
Memorial Park, 636 East 6e Street, which is City owned property.
1.03. The capital improvement project consists of the design, engineering and construction of an
addition to the existing ice arena, and the construction of a second ice sheet (the "Ice Arena
Project).
• 1.04. The estimated construction cost of the capital improvement, excluding design and
engineering costs, is in excess of $500,000. The preliminary estimates for total construction cost is
$2,450,000 to $2,850,000, which includes estimated costs for construction management services in
the amount of $199,000 to 230,000. On March 23, 1998, prior to the effective date of Section 8.04
of the Richfield City Charter, the City Council previously approved a contract for architectural
services, including design and engineering costs, in the amount of 6% to 6.5% of the total
construction costs.
1.05. A public hearing was held on August 24 , 1998 after due notice as required by Section
8.05 of the Richfield City Charter.
1.06. The Council finds and determines that it is in the best interests of the City and its inhabitants
that the Ice Arena Project be approved.
Sec. 2. Approval: effective date.
2.01. The Ice Arena Project is approved, and planning, design and construction of the Ice Arena
Project may proceed according to the procedures required by law.
2.02. The purpose of this Ordinance is to comply with the requirements of Section 8.04 of the
• CAH-146571
RC160-2
q-4
Richfield City Charter. This Ordinance shall not be construed to require that the City proceed with
the Ice Arena Project; nor does it vest any rights in the Ice Arena Project to any individual or entity.
The City Council reserves the right to abandon the Ice Arena Project or to modify elements of the
Ice Arena Project, if the Council deems abandonment or modification to be in the public interest.
2.03. This ordinance is effective on the day following its publication.
Adopted this day of , 1998.
Martin J. Kirsch, Mayor
ATTEST:
Thomas P. Ferber, City Clerk
0
• CAH-146571
RC160-2
0
•
')'5
EHLERS
& ASSOCIATES INC
August 18, 1998
RE: Updated Sources & Uses for Second Sheet of Ice
TO: Steve Devich, City of Richfield
FR: Mark Ruff
AUG 19 19GG
Based upon information provided as to the construction cost and City contribution to the second sheet of
ice, we have prepared a summary of the sources and uses of the project and a projected annual debt
service for the project.
The expected annual revenue and expenses for the two sheets of ice are found on our March 13, 1998,
letter to the City. Please let me know if follow-up information is necessary. It will also be important
over the next two to three months to decide whether a lease revenue bond or a gross revenue recreational
facility revenue bond will be the financing vehicle. The costs of each type of bond are similar, but have
minor differences as discussed in our March 13`t' letter.
Please note that the debt service amounts are subject to change based upon interest rate fluctuations over
the next several months until issuance of the bonds. We look forward to discussing these issues with you
further.
• Equal Opportunity Employer
LEA D E R S I N P U B L I C F I N A N C E
Charter Member of the National Association
of Independent Public Finance Advisors
3060 Centre Pointe Drive, Roseville, MN 55113-1105 651.697.8500 fax 651.697.8555 www.ehlers-inc.com
City of Richfield
Revenue Bond Financing
Ice Arena Project
Sources of Funds Uses of Funds
Tax Exempt Bond Proceeds 2,335,000 Construction
City Funds for Debt Service Reserve 206,000 Capitalized Interest
Mighty Ducks Grant 125,000 Underwriters Discount
City Equity 500,000 Costs of Issuance
Interest Earnings on Construction 20,000 Debt Service Reserve
Other 0 Contingency
Total 3,186,000 Total
Annual Debt Service: $206,000
Assumptions
1. Bonds are either lease revenue or gross revenue bonds issued in March, 1999.
2. Capitalized interest runs for 7 months (March, 1999, through September, 1999).
3. Bonds include 20 year term at 6.15% interest rate.
0
•
2,800,000
83,768
40,863
55,000
206,000
369
3,186,000
08/18/98 Prepared by Ehlers & Associates richice.123
Ehlers & Associates, Inc. 17-
LEADERS IN PUBLIC FINANCE
4046k March 13, 1998
Mr. James Prosser
City Manager
City of Richfield
6800 Portland Avenue South
Richfield, MN 55423
Dear Jim:
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.ehlers-inc.com
Affirmative Action/Equal Opportunity Employer
Charter Member of the National Association of Independent Public Finance Advisors
'7-8
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
9 2
-7-9
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
is
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 41( 0.070) 42( 6.473) 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) 8( 2,220) 9( 3,090)
Net Revenues (30,050) 56,444 46,811 36,555
less Debt Service 7( 0.500) 28( 2.000) 28( 2,000) (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)
is 3
Moderate Usage
Second Sheet Only
Gross Revenues
less Operating Costs (second sheet)
less net loss (first sheet)
Net Revenues
less Debt Service
Profit/(Loss) - Both Sheets
or
Profit/(Loss) without first sheet
operating expenses
1998
N/A
TABLE 5
1999
43,750
(22,388)
6( 2.139)
(40,777)
7( 0,500)
(111,277)
2000 2001
175,000 178,500
(89,550) (93,132)
7( 1.911) 8( 2,220)
13,539 3,148
28( 2,000) 28( 2,000)
(268,461) (278,852)
2002
182,070
(96,857)
9( 3,090)
(7,877)
28( 2,000)
(289,877)
(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
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
Actual Revised Budget
1996 1997 1998
1999 2000 2001 2002
0 0
0 0
0 0
0
EXHIBIT I
-?-I I
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 03/09/98
-7
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
EXHIBIT 3
CitV 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 34,712
083 35,406
445
18
High School/ Ice Show Gate Receipts & Regis 16,233 16,880 17,040 17,381 17,728
734
21 18,
169
22 ,
22
612
Open Skating/Patch 17,774
912
27 18,660
23
600 20,890
24,600 21,308
25,092 ,
25,594 ,
26,106 ,
26,628
Skating Lessons/Hockey School , ,
650 900
5 6,018 6,138 6,261 6,386
Building Rent ,
Advertising
Miscellaneous
192
400
800
816
832
849
866
Total Revenue 338,763 336,200 357,190 364,334 371,620 379,053 386,634
PENDITURES
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)
I-]
Prepared by Ehlers and Associates Draft for Discussion Only 03/11/98
j__1q
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 Hours Revenue
High Usage
Prime Rate Hours 120 1,567 188,040
Non-Prime Rate Hours 95 367 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
•
EXHIBIT 4
Prepared by Ehlers and Associates Draft for Discussion Only 03/11/98
`7-r5
•
MEMORANDUM
fDELANO ERICKSON ARCHITECTS
7415 WAYZATA BOULEVARD
MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55426
612-544-8370
DATE: August 19, 1998
TO: City of Richfield
ATTN: Steve Devich
FROM: Del Erickson AZA
RE: Ice Arena Addition - Update on Project
We have prepared a revised site plan for the arena location to the south with the following cost
and operation impacts:
• Removes approx. 100 cars' parking with replacement costs of approx. :
Site plan shows possible solution for 85 in island south of pump building
26,000
5,000
21,000
(200,000)
•
• Lift pump and main sewer line must be relocated at approximate cost of,
• Electrical power line revision:
• Pool drain line reroute around addition:
• Soil correction savings:
East - $300,000 - 26,000 yards
South - $100,000 -13,000 yards
• Route new drive - 200 ft. +:
Net Site Difference:
$100,000
20,000
($28,000)
The building cost of the south location would be similar to the east, however, an all-brick
exterior would be more desirable at a cost of approximately $150,000 vs. the east site of
approximately 40% or $60,000.
Given the above scenario, it appears the east site, while $28,000 more costly, would be preferred
for ease of operation from the central control point and less disruptive of the existing arena and
parking during construction.
We have prepared updated schematic plans for the east site with the lobby remodeling.
Schematic structural and mechanical and electrical plans have been prepared for cost estimating
by Kraus Anderson. This information and updated cost estimate will be available at the Council
meeting on Monday, August 24, 1998.
Based on the cost information that Kraus Anderson has to date, it appears that the budget should
remain at $2.8 million as outlined in my previous letter.
DEA/tlt
• • s
m
x
z
c?
D
r=
mc-
0
N
y
Z
® N
f
i
o
(4
t - -1 7
r? i
D i oc I I Q. O
rTl j
? 1 oc
O i
z !
I
G7 1
i i o
i ?
\
?
¢ \
\
'\
cl,
\
1 \
N
Z ?.
°o z L j
C _ NT
L
G
C)
m
co
i m
® ?
2 I \
r*7 O z . _ Z
O I m
1 • i
- - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
BtffT SITE PLAN DELANO EAICKSON ARGiiE M 1 ?++? ?Ih rw pn a nyw(o p'.a ASSOCIATE ARCHITECT
cT
A.
SCHEME a Cluts
O'Brien
RICHFIELD ICE ARENA ADDITION
DAM
1W. Strother MINNESOTA
N
IAM
RUIRELD
P
I l r4ewur?r??aaavao CHITECTS
A ,
,
NTH A
D
OM
9804 8/z0/98 wMM40M w W4= ogre (en ? R
(Ow 64 -sm 781 wM KAM WK, Em "Am a MW (Ilt)KI- =
m 0
m r r
m
m
Z i y 0
0 oz
/ - o 0
4
m
x
cf)
z
c?
r
a
i ,
D
? i
m i
? i
D
i
? i
m
o
z ?
i
D ?
? . i
z i
i
i
S
rr?
D
Z
0
oxto
0
-o
0
O
m
r_
? Z
m
BFffT PLAN. O?ANO EFACKSON AFKMECTS j r ? r r ? wT-+?a . wt + rww
'
???w ASSOCIATE ARCHITECT
_6
? SCHEMEC
w
E 4r? wd+r .+. r r ft 3W 40 rW.
.* O'Brciuu
ien
RICHFIELD ICE ARENA ADDITION
/
1 T
?. Strother I
MOULMAM 7?6
A
WAMT moan= WTH AM POMI AM, M WELD, AUESOTA
9804
8/5/98 O
WAK
X M SUM
?IeEwraa w mw
GATE " IBQ N0.
pal imp 7m wm iua r[. M r+c r sw Muw.M
?c-
*;K
m'
® N
• ? I
o
m m _
r
m
a m
o
m
o
z Z
5 o z
C)
/ m
r z
?' z
m
O
m
O
? i ?
O?
• CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Council Letter No. 199
Agenda August 24, 1998
Issue Statement:
Continued public hearing and second reading of an ordinance amendment rezoning
property along Interstate 494 that is inconsistent with the City's Comprehensive Plan.
Background:
On September 22, 1997, the City Council adopted a resolution establishing a
moratorium on development along 1-494, between Pleasant and Cedar Avenues and
77th and 78th Streets. Much of the property along 1-494 is zoned industrial, which
permits uses that would be inconsistent with the City's recently adopted Comprehensive
Plan. The Comprehensive Plan encourages more intensely developed, higher quality
regional commercial and office uses along the City's freeways.
The Planning Commission prepared a recommendation to the City Council to rezone all
property in the study area with inconsistent zoning to zoning districts that would be
consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. The City Council conducted a public hearing
on the rezonings on April 13, 1998. The hearing was continued to a future meeting,
and the Council directed staff to consider ways of lessening the impact of the rezonings
on industrial property owners.
An ordinance amendment has been developed that establishes a Transitional Activity
Permit (TAP) for these industrial properties. An owner wanting to expand an existing
industrial use could apply for a TAP until such time as the goals of the Comprehensive
Plan are realized. Second reading of the TAP ordinance amendment is scheduled for
the August 24, 1998 City Council meeting.
The development moratorium expires on September 5, 1998; however, the rezonings
would not be effective until October 3, 1998. The moratorium should be extended until
the rezonings are effective.
Recommended Motion:
Conduct a public hearing and approve second reading of an ordinance amendment
rezoning the properties identified in Attachment A that are inconsistent with the City's
Comprehensive Plan and extending the development moratorium until October 3, 1998.
Basis of Recommendation:
1. The Planning Commission has reviewed the zoning and Comprehensive Plan
designations of property in the study area and determined that it is appropriate to
rezone the inconsistent properties.
n
LJ
(0--1
2. The Comprehensive Plan provides a vision for the City to guide future land use
• decisions. When redevelopment occurs, it should be consistent with the goals
and objectives found in the City's Comprehensive Plan.
3. The City's zoning does not adequately address the development of property along
1-494 in a manner consistent with the goals of the Comprehensive Plan.
4. The Planning Commission hosted an open house on February 24 for owners of
property to be rezoned. The Commission received feedback and answered
questions about the rezoning.
5. On February 24, 1998, the Planning Commission voted unanimously to
recommend rezoning the properties.
6. On June 23, 1998, the Planning Commission voted 7-1 to recommend an
ordinance amendment establishing a Transitional Activity Permit for industrial
properties being rezoned.
7. The Transitional Activity Permit will lessen the impact of the rezonings on
properties that are zoned and used industrially.
8. While providing some flexibility to industrial property owners, the Transitional
Activity Permit still recognizes that the long term goals for the area are not for
Is industrial development.
9. Viking Paints requested an exception to the moratorium development limit on July
13, 1998 in order to make improvements to the building at 7721 Pillsbury Avenue
and to use it as industrial property. They are uncertain whether or not they will
complete the improvements before the rezoning becomes effective. They have
been informed in writing that, because the City gave them approval to make the
improvements, the City will not enforce the nonconforming use provision against
them for up to six months following the rezoning's effective date. If they don't
complete the improvements within six months, they would have the option of
applying for a Transitional Activity Permit.
10. The City Council held first reading of the rezoning on March 9, 1998.
11. Mailed notices about the continued public hearing were mailed to property owners
and occupants within 350 feet of the subject properties.
12. Notice of the continued public hearing was published in the Sun Current.
Alternative Recommendation:
1. Approve the rezonings with changes.
• 2. Deny the rezonings.
?'C'?_
Discussion/Decision Mode:
A public hearing was held on Monday, April 13, 1998 and was continued. The
continued public hearing is scheduled for 7:00 p.m., Monday, August 24, 1998 in the
Council Chambers, Richfield City Hall, 6700 Portland Avenue. A two-thirds majority
vote of the full Council membership is required to approve a rezoning.
Respectfully submitted,
JamJ Prosser
City ger
JDP:ds
0
BILL NO. ?j-
AMENDMENT TO APPENDIX 1
OF THE ORDINANCE CODE OF THE
CITY OF RICHFIELD
THE CITY OF RICHFIELD DOES ORDAIN:
A.
Appendix 1, which describes the boundaries of various zoning districts of the
City, is hereby amended in the following respect:
A. Section 1, Paragraph (6), is amended to read as follows:
(6) M 16 That aFea lying between n the oentarrcnr lines of 77th aC?nd 7QthVStr^^rrc?ctc, ^ncr
nr'
pc- a-,-rrTm-ar- a
between the r--ent-e.r Umi-z ef SeGei;d Avenue and the west Fight of way line of the S
Line Rai'. (Repealed, Bill No. ).
B. Section 1, Paragraph (10), is amended to read as follows:
r
(10) M-j:q (.S side of of De#-ta That erealyw???, n hot,?ieen the venter
77th, - VV - of -,-?+s?he??-?,??
aRd the east cavr limne of D^^ft,c edditinn (Repealed, Bill No. ).
rn-ra -n-r? -, --?ccraTCvrr
C. Section 3, Paragraph (27), is amended to read as follows:
27 M 16 That y °rea H}i negc ter lines of CesG^'
-r? betweep t??,-Rd ?-?-?P venue ?- a,^Q
?,
Streets.
(Repealed, Bill No. ).
D. Section 3, Paragraph (48), is amended to read as follows:
(48) M-16, 18 (S of 77th. Nicollet to Park)near PeFtlThat area lying
between the original center lines of 77th and-nth Streets and the center line of 78th
Street, and between the east lines of lots 4, 5, and 6, Block 7. R.C. Soen's Addition
anft's?Addot;en and the center line of ParkGhisage Avenue extended., eV^e^t the area
Oua of the-Sr?u wes--aFteFof Seaten35Township 29, Range 24, exGept the
west 254.97 feet theneof (Amended. Bill No. ).
E. Section 3, Paragraph (62), is amended to read as follows:
(62)
Southeast QuarteF of the Southwest QuaFter, aRd the West Half of t.he
•
F. Section 3, Paragraph (68), is added to read as follows:
(68) M-16 That area lying between the original centerline of 77th Street and the
centerline 78th Street and between the center line of Wentworth Avenue and the West
right-of-way line of the Soo Line Railway.
G. Section 3, Paragraph (69), is added to read as follows:
(69) M-16 (NE corner of 78th and Wentworth) Lot 4, Block 6, R.C. Soen's
Addition.
H. Section 13, Paragraph (7), is amended to read as follows:
(7) M-18 (S of 77th Street, Chicago to 12thSVV GGFRer, 7-7t" and raW That area
lying between the ^°"+°r';^°° ^f 77th and 78th Streets and between the ^°"+°r li^° of
1 Il+h yeR a exteR' ed7 ark Avenue extended and the °c* 'i^° ^f 12th Avenue except
the east 185 feet of the south 135 feet thereof.
1. Section 13, Paragraph (9), is amended to read as follows:
• (9)
Avenue °.,+°^de . (Repealed, Bill No. ).
J. Section 13, Paragraph (10), is amended to read as follows:
(10) M 19 (9 ?jdt= pf 77th nt=;;r PArk The north 132.5 feet ef the Southwest
QuaFteF of the Seuthwest QuaFteF of the Southwest QuaFteF of SeGtoen 35, Township ,
Range 24, eXGept the west 251.97 feet thWeef and eXGept Feads. (Added, Bill No.
4993-15)- (Repealed, Bill No. ).
K. Section 13, Paragraph (17), is added to read as follows:
(17) M-16 (SE corner of 77th and Wentworth) That area lying between 77th and
78th Streets and between Wentworth Avenue and the east lines of Lots 4 5 and 6
Block 7, R.C. Soen's Addition, and excluding Lot 4, Block 6, R.C. Soen's Addition.
This amendment constitutes a rezoning of the following properties: 7701 4th
Avenue, 7715 4th Avenue, 7720-40 4th Avenue, 7731 4th Avenue, 7701 5th Avenue,
7708 5th Avenue, 7714 5th Avenue, 7744 5th Avenue, 345 77th Street East, 415 77th
• Street East, 631 77th Street East, 701-735 77th Street East, 901-1001 77th Street
East, 710-734 78th Street East, 900-1000 78th Street East, 140 78th Street East, the
28, °„g; '^ °X^°^+ r^°^'s.-(Repealed, Bill No. ).
0'?5
east 70 feet of 305 East 77th Street, 500 78th Street East, 45-99 77th Street West, 30-
80 and 90 78th Street West, 84 78th Street West, 100 78th Street West, 200 78th
Street West, 7700 Nicollet Avenue, 7701 Nicollet Avenue, 7717 Nicollet Avenue, 7720
Nicollet Avenue, 7700 Pillsbury Avenue, 7701 Pillsbury Avenue, 7709 Pillsbury Avenue,
7715 Pillsbury Avenue, 7717 Pillsbury Avenue, 7721 Pillsbury Avenue, 7700 Wentworth
Avenue, 7720 Wentworth Avenue, 7727 Wentworth Avenue
B.
An Interim Ordinance Directing that a Study be Conducted and Restricting
Certain Activities within the Study Area, Bill No. 1997-16, is hereby extended until
October 3, 1998.
Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this 24th day of
August, 1998.
Martin J. Kirsch, Mayor
ATTEST:
Thomas P. Ferber, City Clerk
0
Proposed Rezonings --1-494 Properties //
ID4
1'^
L_
# Property Address Business/Apartment Name Existing New Comp Plan Current Proposed
Land Use Designation Zoning Zoning
1 7744 12th Ave S Phillips 66 COM RMH C-2 MR-3
2 7701 4th Ave S Premier Properties APT C-R/O I C-2
3 7715 4th Ave S Singie Family Residential RES C-R/O I C-2
4 7720 4th Ave S Crestwood Apts APT C-R/O I C-2
5 7731 4th Ave S Blaylock Plumbing Company IND C-R/O I C-2
6 7701 5th Ave S Parking Lot COM C-R/O I C-2
7 7708 5th Ave S Parking Lot COM C-R/O I C-2
8 7714 5th Ave S Bon Auto Works COM C-R/O I C-2
9 7744 5th Ave S Arby's COM C-R/O I C-2
10 345 77th St E Richfield-Bloom. Credit Union COM C-R/O I C-2
11 415 77th St E Richfield Wheel Alignment COM C-R/O I C-2
12 631 77th St E Boyum Properties APT C-R/O MR-3 C-2
13 , 701 77th St E Hampton Place Apts APT RMH C-2 MR-3
14 901 77th St E Hampton Place Apts APT RMH C-2 MR-3
15 710 78th St E Hampton Place Apartments APT RMH C-2 MR-3
16 1001 77th St E Heritage Square Apts APT RMH C-2 MR-3
17 140 78th St E Burger King COM C-R/O I C-2
18 500 78th St E Khan's Mongolian Restaurant COM C-R/O I C-2
19 45 77th St W New Orleans Court Apts APT RMH I MR-3
20 30 78th St W New Orleans Court Apts APT RMH I MR-3
21 84 78th St W Sherwin-Williams COM RMH I MR-3
22 100 78th St W Viking Paints IND C-R/O I C-2
23 200 78th St W Minnesota Mini-Storage COM C-R/O I C-2
24 7700 Nicollet Ave S Embers COM C-R/O I C-2
25 7701 Nicollet Ave S Chi Chi's COM C-R/O I C-2
26 7717 Nicollet Ave S Menards COM C-R/O I C-2
27 7720 Nicollet Ave S Super America COM C-R/O I C-2
28 7701 Pillsbury Ave S Carlson Construction IND C-R/O I C-2
Universal Power Conversion
McCann and Associates
Cool Stuff Brokerage
Press Parts
29 7709 Pillsbury Ave S Anchor Fence Co. of Minnesota IND C-R/O I C-2
30 7715 Pillsbury Ave S Williams Drywall IND C-R/O I C-2
31 7717 Pillsbury Ave S George Printing IND C-R/O I C-2
32 7721 Pillsbury Ave S Direct Line IND C-R/O I C-2
33 7700 Wentworth Ave S Hollenbeck and Nelson IND C-R/O I C-2
34 7720 Wentworth Ave S Hoveco Janitorial Supplies IND C-R/O I C-2
35 7727 Wentworth Ave S Multiple Family Residential APT RMH I MR-3
LAND USE KEY COMP PLAN KEY ZONING KEY
COM = commercial RMH = high density multiple housi ng I = industrial
APT = apartment C-R/O = regional commercial/office C-2 = general commercial
IND = industrial MR-3 = high density multiple housing
RES = residential
4
1?
co
o,
cr?
ca
_._ ......::: ems- ....?..
- O
c C
•" .Q
anuanv Ael? O
v E
?I ^ N E
a o
a m 8 ° o° =Ca a2 E E= - am
E E E
a?
U O 0 c0.) C W,O >+
'a mE
• S? c?0°-C
Cc ^
c
.2 0 cu C 4--
- == v t
CM M :3 R :5 N warn -_ b rn?a?
C
__ -- Q N C L) , c N
U
• ?_-- O co
?za? °-?
CL 'Do
U MINE N
t Q - anua?va E (n
Q ` - --- - c 5 (J N .u
Q o 15 C N X
•?1 ^?"'?. c ? N ? LlJ
ie C: O ca
-:c O
04
O U m C
c? 0
oV
ELZ 0-
®a
o
,...? _
t Y
'T n
C V Via'' c v
-: s
Le Q. anUOAV PI z -- --N m
b
'O E - C a c
d
.C N m o t
Y N3 0
O 0
W r 2 2 a
d N r_ 0
- rn m ?
L -- C M = > as
H fl. c ih
O ?.T«.:a W O >
5
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Council Letter No. 198
Agenda August 24, 1998
Issue Statement:
Continued public hearing and second reading of an ordinance amendment allowing
properties formerly zoned and used as industrial property to apply for a Transitional
Activity Permit.
Background:
On April 13, 1998, the City Council conducted a second reading of the rezoning of
property along 1-494. The Council tabled its discussion of the rezonings and asked staff
and the Planning Commission to reconsider the impact of the rezonings on existing uses
and properties.
The Planning Commission reviewed several options and decided to rework the existing
Transitional Activity Permit (TAP) process that exists in the C-3 (high density commercial)
zoning district. The TAP was developed in the C-3 district to allow for interim or
transitional uses in the ILN Redevelopment District until high density development occurs.
The proposed ordinance amendment would allow owners of industrial property to apply for
a TAP so that interim or transitional activities could take place in the C-2 district until the
goals of the Comprehensive Plan are realized. The TAP recognizes that it may be several
• years before the 1-494 area will develop in a manner consistent with the Comprehensive
Plan. In the meantime, nonconforming industrial uses can continue to exist and be
extended or expanded if certain standards are met.
The property would have to be used as industrial property prior to October 3, 1998, the
effective date of the rezoning. Several conditions would also need to be met for the City
Council to grant a TAP (Subd. 6 of the attachment). The conditions reinforce the fact that
an expansion be transitional in nature and not greatly increase the cost of any future
redevelopment efforts. Building additions would still have to meet setback requirements
and performance standards. The City Council would also have the ability to place
additional conditions on approval of a TAP (Subd. 8 of the attachment).
An application fee of $300 is charged for a TAP in the C-3 district. It would be appropriate
to apply this same application fee to the TAP proposed for the C-2 district. Zoning
application fees are charged to cover the cost of mailing and legal notices, and to pay for
a portion of administration costs.
A TAP does not run with the land like a conditional use permit or variance. A TAP is
issued to the property owner and expires upon sale of the property. State statute allows
cities to place a time limit on this type of permit. By definition, the TAP is intended to be
transitional or temporary, so having the ability to place a time limit on the permit is
appropriate. Without a time limit, the TAP would not serve the City's purpose of allowing
industrial uses only as interim uses in the freeway area. In addition, by requiring a new
owner to reapply for a TAP, the City has the opportunity to explain the long term goals and
plans for the area as well as the restrictions that accompany a TAP.
,5,1
Recommended Motion:
Conduct a public hearing and approve second reading of an ordinance amendment
establishing a Transitional Activity Permit in the C-2 zoning district.
Basis of Recommendation:
1. The City Council requested that additional flexibility be given to property owners to
allow them to use their property until the goals of the Comprehensive Plan can be
realized.
2. The Transitional Activity Permit allows industrial property owners to extend or expand
an existing industrial use until the goals of the Comprehensive Plan can be realized.
3. The Transitional Activity Permit establishes criteria that must be met for a
nonconforming industrial use to be allowed to expand or be extended.
4. Industrial users were invited to the Planning Commission meeting on June 23, 1998
when the proposal was discussed. Some owners attended and participated in the
discussions.
5. On June 23, 1998, the Planning Commission voted 7-1 to recommend approval of
the ordinance amendment. The vote against the amendment was because the
amendment places no time limit on a property owner's ability to apply for a TAP.
0 6. The City Council held first reading of the amendment on July 13, 1998.
7. The City Council continued second reading of the amendment from August 10, 1998
to August 24, 1998.
8. Notice of the public hearing was published in the Sun Current and mailed notices
were sent to owners of industrial property in the 1-494 area.
Alternative Recommendation:
1. Deny this amendment.
2. Approve the amendment with revisions.
Discussion/Decision Mode:
A public hearing is scheduled for 7:00 p.m., Monday, August 24, 1998 in the Council
Chambers, 6700 Portland Avenue. A two-thirds majority vote of the full City Council
membership is required to approve an ordinance amendment.
Respectfully submitted,
Jams Prosser
City nager
JDP:ds
51/a
0
BILL NO.
AMENDMENT TO SECTION 526
OF THE ORDINANCE CODE OF THE CITY OF RICHFIELD
THE CITY OF RICHFIELD DOES ORDAIN:
Section 1. Subsection 526 of Appendix B of the ordinance code of the City of Richfield
is amended by adding subsection 526.63 as follows:
526.63. Transitional activity permits. Subdivision 1. Purpose. A goal of the City's Comprehensive
Plan is to gradually phase out industrial zoning in the City. The Council recognizes that the transition
from industrial to commercial uses will occur over time and may require an extended period of transition
to be fully realized. The Council further recognizes that it may be appropriate and desirable to permit,
subject to the conditions and limitations of this subsection, the owners of lands within the C-2 District, that
were zoned and used industrially prior to October 3, 1998, to engage in certain interim activities with
respect to the land, the structures or the uses during the transition period which will both permit existing
industrial development within the C-2 District to remain viable but which will not have the effect of either
delaying the transition or increasing the public costs connected with such transition. This subsection is
intended to authorize the approval of certain transitional activities as interim uses in accordance with state
law, to establish the circumstances under which certain transitional activities may take place, and to set
forth the regulations, limitations and conditions applicable to such activities.
Subd. 2. Transitional activities. The extension or expansion of nonconforming industrial uses in the
C-2 district shall be referred to as transitional activities.
Subd. 3. Permit required. It shall be unlawful for the owner or occupier of any land within the C-2
District to engage in any transitional activity without having first obtained a pen-nit to do so. It
shall be unlawful for the owner or occupier of such land to engage in any transitional activity in
contradiction to the terms and conditions of any issued transitional activity permit.
Subd. 4. Application for a transitional activity permit shall be made to the Director on forms
provided by the City and shall contain or be accompanied by the following:
a) a site plan drawn to scale showing the dimensions of the parcel and the dimensions and
locations of all structures;
b) in instances where the site is to be utilized in connection with a use or structure located on a
contiguous parcel, the site plan shall contain the same detail for the contiguous parcel;
c) the proposed uses;
d) the proposed modifications, alterations, renovations or improvements to be made in
connection with the transitional activity, and the estimated cost of each;
e) the time for completion of all modifications, alterations, renovations or improvements;
0
f) evidence of ownership or interest in the property;
g) the fee specified in Appendix D of the City Code; and
h) estimated market value before and after, the change in taxes before and after, and change to
potential cost of public development.
Subd. 5. Public hearing. The provisions of subsection 526.43, Subd. 5 shall be applicable to public
hearings concerning the issuance of transitional activity permits.
Subd. 6. Criteria and standards. A transitional activity perniit shall not be granted unless the Council
makes the following findings:
a) the transitional activity is in connection with a property that was zoned and used as
industrial prior to October 3, 1998.
b) the transitional activity is in connection with an industrial use that was either permitted or
conditional in the I district;
c) the transitional activity will maintain the vitality and economic success of the applicant's
business during the transition period of the industrial property to commercial uses;
d) the transitional activity will not have an adverse impact upon development of land within the
C-2 District in the manner intended for the district under the City's land use regulations or
its Comprehensive Plan;
e) the transitional activity will not materially increase the potential public cost of development
within the C-2 District because of significant increases in the land and building value; and
f) the transitional activity will be compatible with surrounding uses, will have no adverse
impact upon surrounding properties, and will be in full compliance with all performance
standards and requirements contained in this code applicable to uses and structures in the I
District.
Subd. 7. Duration of permit. Any transitional activity permit granted by the Council shall state on its
face the date or event that shall result in the expiration of such pen-nit. Any transitional activity
may be terminated by a change in zoning regulations.
Subd. 8. Conditions. In approving a transitional activity permit the Council may place conditions
and limitations upon the permit which, in the Council's discretion, will assure:
a) that the transitional activity will be compatible with surrounding uses;
b) that the activity is merely of a transitional nature and will not impede the orderly transition
from industrial to commercial uses in the C-2 District; and
c) that the public costs occasioned by the ultunate development of former industrially zoned
property in the C-2 District will not be materially increased as a result of the transitional
activity.
Subd. 9. Revocation. The City may revoke any transitional activity permit granted under this
subsection upon violation of any condition of the permit, any law of the United States or the State
of Minnesota, or any ordinance of the City. The procedure to be followed in considering such
5-q
action shall be the same as the procedure described in Subsection 546.05, Subds. 12-13 of this
code.
Subd. 10. Permit not assignable. The right to engage in transitional activities shall be the personal
right of the person(s) named on the permit. Transitional activity permits may not be transferred
or assigned to another even though such other person or entity may succeed to permittee's interest
in the land. The permit shall terminate upon such transfer or assignment, and permittee's
successor in interest in the land shall not engage in any transitional activity until such successor
has obtained a new transitional activity permit.
Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this 24th day of August, 1998.
Martin J. Kirsch, Mayor
•
ATTEST:
Thomas P. Ferber, City Clerk
0
L4C
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Council Letter No. 197
Agenda August 24, 1998
Issue Statement:
Consideration of a request from the Richfield Historical Society for a waiver of the City's
portion of building permit fees for remodeling a building that will become their history
museum, 6901 Lyndale Avenue. Total fees for Richfield would be $575.09.
Background:
Richfield Historical Society submitted plans and a building permit application for
structural alterations and remodeling of a building that will be used as their history
museum. Plans have been approved and comply with the Minnesota State Building
Code and the Richfield City Code.
Recommended Motion:
Staff recommends the approval of waiving the City's portion of the building permit fees,
which would total $575.09.
Basis of Recommendation:
1. Richfield Historical Society has submitted plans and made application for a
building permit to the Inspections Division. Plans have been approved for building
permit issuance.
Alternative Recommendation:
1. Council could decide not to approve the waiving of fees and the Richfield
Historical Society would have to pay $575.09 before remodeling could commence.
Discussion/Decision Mode:
A request from the Richfield Historical Society to waive Richfield's portion of building
permit fees for remodeling of the building to be used as a history museum is presented
to the Council for consideration at this time.
Respectfu submitted,
Jams . Prosser
City nager
JDP:ds
.7
L!8
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Council Letter No. 196
Agenda August 24, 1998
Issue Statement:
Application for a community celebration event license, with a request for a fee waiver, for
the Richfield Cattails Days event scheduled to take place on September 19, 1998 in
Veterans Memorial Park. In addition, a request has been submitted for waiving the permit
fees, totaling $100, for a temporary sign in the park for four weeks.
Background:
This year, Richfield Visions, Inc., has applied for a celebration event license and requests
that the fee be waived for the activities that take place in Veterans Memorial Park on
September 19, 1998.
Richfield Visions, Inc., has also asked fora waiver of temporary sign permit fees for four
weeks so that they can display their banner at the park in the month of August and leading
up to the date of their event. The fees would amount to $100.
The committee has contacted food sanitarians from the City of Bloomington to ensure that
proper food handling practices are followed. They will work with Bloomington sanitarians
and follow their recommendations for safe and wholesome food handling.
Recommended Motion:
Staff recommends the approval of a community celebration event license with a fee waiver
for the Richfield Cattail Days to be held on September 19, 1998. Staff further recommends
approval of the request to waive City fees for the display of a temporary sign for four weeks.
Basis of Recommendation:
1. The applicant has complied with all of the provisions of the City application process
and meets requirements for the fees to be waived.
Alternative Recommendation:
1. The Council could decide not to grant the license. This would result in the applicant
not being able to conduct activities, especially those concerning food preparation, on
September 19, 1998.
2. Council could grant the event license but decide not to waive either the event fee or
temporary sign fee.
Discussion/Decision Mode:
Request for a community celebration event license with a request for waiver of event
license and temporary sign permit fees for Richfield Cattails Days, scheduled to take place
on September 19, 1998, in Veterans Memorial Park, is presented to City Council for
consideration at this time.
Resifflu submitted,
J amosser
City r
JDP:ds
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Council Letter No. 195
is Agenda August 24, 1998
Issue Statement:
Purchase in excess of $25,000 for one 34 ton liquid carbon dioxide tank.
Background:
The liquid carbon dioxide tank stores chemical under pressure and is used to lower the pH
of the water during the softening process. The 34 ton tank will replace a smaller tank that
is 20 years old. The present tank is too small to accommodate full loads of chemical from
the supplier and also has failing insulation.
Formal bids were received on August 12, 1998. A copy of the bid minutes/tabulation is
attached for Council review. The base bid called for one new 34 ton liquid carbon dioxide
tank. The alternate requested one new gas carbon dioxide fine bubble feed system with
controller. The trade-in is the existing 24 ton liquid carbon dioxide tank complete with
evaporator. This equipment is in the 1998 budget and replaces the equipment that failed
the week of August 12. The equipment failure led to the seltzer-like taste in the water.
Recommended Motion:
Accept the bid minutes/tabulation and authorize a purchase order to TomCo2 Equipment
Company in the amount of $73,650, the total of the base bid plus the alternate minus the
trade, for purchase of a 34 ton liquid carbon dioxide tank.
Basis of Recommendation:
1. The equipment bid is within range of the estimated cost of $75,000 - $80,000.
2. TomCo2 Equipment Company is a reliable equipment supplier and the equipment
meets the specifications.
3. There are sufficient funds in the 1998 water maintenance budget.
Alternative Recommendation:
Council may reject all bids and direct staff to readvertise. However, staff does not believe
a better price can be obtained from a reputable contractor.
Discussion/Decision Mode:
Staff is requesting approval at August 24, 1998 Council meeting.
Respectfully submitted,
Ja D. Prosser
City anager
JDP:ds
UA-)
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
fa- Bid Opening
August 12, 1998
11:15 a.m.
One 34 Ton Liquid Carbon Dioxide Tank
Bid No. 98-13
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 one 34 ton liquid carbon dioxide
tank, city bid no. 98-13, as advertised in the official newspaper on July 29, 1998.
Present: Thomas Ferber, City Clerk
John Thom, Utility Superintendent
Cheryl Krumholz, City Manager Representative
The following bids were submitted and read aloud:
The City Clerk announced that the bids would be tabulated and considered at the
August 24, 1998 City Council Meeting.
Thomas P. Ferber City Clerk