3-24-97 agendaCITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
MONDAY, MARCH 24, 1997
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 (1) THE SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF
MARCH 10, 1997 AND (2) SPECIAL JOINT CITY COUNCIL/HRA/PLANNING
COMMISSION/COMMUNITY SERVICES COMMISSION MEETING OF MARCH 17,
1997.
• PRESENTATIONS
INDIVIDUALS WHO WISH TO ADDRESS THE COUNCIL ARE REQUESTED TO
PRINT THEIR NAME AND ADDRESS ON THE SPEAKER'S REGISTER FOR THE
RECORD.
1. OPPORTUNITY FOR CITIZENS TO ADDRESS THE COUNCIL ON ITEMS NOT
ON THE AGENDA
AGENDA APPROVAL
2. COUNCIL APPROVAL OF AGENDA
CONSENT CALENDAR
3. CONSENT CALENDAR CONTAINS SEVERAL SEPARATE ITEMS WHICH ARE
ACTED UPON BY THE CITY COUNCIL IN ONE MOTION. ONCE THE CONSENT
CALENDAR HAS BEEN APPROVED, THE INDIVIDUAL ITEMS AND
RECOMMENDED ACTIONS HAVE ALSO BEEN APPROVED. NO FURTHER
COUNCIL ACTION IS NECESSARY. HOWEVER, ANY COUNCIL MEMBER MAY
REQUEST THAT AN ITEM BE REMOVED FROM THE CONSENT CALENDAR
AND PLACED ON THE REGULAR AGENDA FOR COUNCIL DISCUSSION AND
ACTION. ALL ITEMS LISTED ON THE CONSENT CALENDAR ARE
RECOMMENDED FOR APPROVAL.
A. CONSIDERATION OF A REQUEST FOR OFF-STREET PARKING PERMIT,
6724 PENN AVENUE C.L. 73
B. APPROVAL OF AN AGREEMENT FOR ASSESSMENT SERVICES WITH
HENNEPIN COUNTY C.L. 74
C. CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF PLANS FOR SHERIDAN PARK
IMPROVEMENTS, CITY PROJECT NO. 420-40752 C.L. 75
PUBLIC HEARINGS
4. PUBLIC HEARING AND CONSIDERATION OF A RESOLUTION REGARDING A
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO ALLOW CONSTRUCTION OF AN ACCESSORY
CAR WASH, 6601 PENN AVENUE
COUNCIL LETTER NO. 76
5. PUBLIC HEARING REGARDING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO ALLOW
CONSTRUCTION OF A 150-FOOT TELECOMMUNICATIONS TOWER, 200
WEST 78TH STREET
COUNCIL LETTER NO. 77
6. PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER THE RENEWAL OF LIQUOR LICENSE FOR
THE REMAINDER OF 1997 FOR CHI CHI'S, INC., D/B/A CHI CHI'S MEXICAN
RESTAURANTE, 7717 NICOLLET AVENUE
COUNCIL LETTER NO. 78
7. CONTINUATION OF A PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER APPLICATION FOR A
NEW TAVERN (DANCE) LICENSE FOR CHI CHI'S INC., D/B/A CHI CHI'S
MEXICAN RESTAURANTE, 7717 NICOLLET AVENUE (CONTINUED FROM
FEBRUARY 10, 1997)
COUNCIL LETTER NO. 79
RESOLUTIONS
8. CONSIDERATION OF A RESOLUTION REGARDING AN AGREEMENT
BETWEEN THE OFFICE OF TRAFFIC SAFETY IN THE MINNESOTA
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY AND THE PUBLIC SAFETY DEPARTMENT
PERTAINING TO SAFE & SOBER COMMUNITIES PROGRAM
COUNCIL LETTER NO. 80
9. CONSIDERATION OF RESOLUTION APPROVING FINAL LAYOUT FOR THE
EXTENSION OF 1-35W HOV LANE FROM 1-494 TO 42ND STREET
COUNCIL LETTER NO. 81
10. CONSIDERATION OF RESOLUTION AMENDING THE ALLOCATION OF THE
1996 GENERAL FUND BUDGET
COUNCIL LETTER NO. 82
PROPOSED ORDINANCE
11. CONSIDERATION OF FIRST READING OF RICHFIELD CITY CODE SECTION
400 AMENDMENT UPDATING THE CITY'S BUILDING REGULATIONS
COUNCIL LETTER NO. 83
12. CONSIDERATION OF FIRST READING OF RICHFIELD CITY CODE SECTION
400 AMENDMENT UPDATING THE CITY'S FIRE CODE
COUNCIL LETTER NO. 84
ADMINISTRATIVE REPORTS AND OTHER BUSINESS
13. COUNCIL RECEIPT OF THE UNAUDITED 1996 FINANCIAL REPORT
COUNCIL LETTER NO. 85
• 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.
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Council Letter No. 85
Agenda March 24, 1997
Issue Statement:
Council receipt of the unaudited 1996 Financial Report.
Background:
The annual Financial Report for the period ended December 31, 1996, has been completed
by the Administrative Services Department. The audited Financial Report is not available at
this time, due to the audit provision which requires Richfield's financial reports to be audited
by Deloitte and Touche subsequent to April 15. As Council Members may be aware, the City
receives a reduced audit fee in turn for approval for the Auditors to delay their audit work
until after April 15. The audit is scheduled to begin April 21, 1997.
The Richfield City Charter requires the Financial Report to be submitted to the City Council
for fiscal year-end information by April 10 of each year. The report is submitted for official
receipt at the March 24, 1997 City Council meeting.
The attached summary report reflects the performance of the General Fund, Municipal
Liquor Fund, Utility Funds, Recreation Fund and Street Light Fund.
Recommended Motion:
Receive the unaudited 1996 Financial Report of the City.
. Basis of Recommendation:
1. City Charter provides that the Financial Report of the City be submitted to the City
Council by April 10 of each year.
2. Audited financial reports for 1996 will not be available for several weeks.
City Manager
JDP
3. The Administrative Services Department has just completed their financial
reporting for 1996.
Alternative Recommendation:
1. The City Council could request the staff to make a more detailed presentation of the
unaudited 1996 Financial Report at this time or at a future Council Study Session.
However, a detailed presentation of the audited report will be presented in the
month of June 1997.
Discussion/Decision Mode:
The Financial Report be formally accepted at the March 24, 1997 City Council meeting.
Respectf y submitted,
Jame .Prosser
/3-/
•
•
FINANCIAL REPORT SUMMARY
FOR YEAR ENDED DECEMBER 31,1996
The following is a summary of fund highlights for the General Fund, Municipal Liquor Fund, Water and
Sanitary Sewer Fund, Storm Sewer Utility Fund, and the Recreation Fund. A more detailed, audited
report will be presented to the City Council after the audit has been completed in June 1997.
General Fund
$ 13,234,766
12,814,162
88,500
509,104
$ 3,562,305
$ 12,528,714
12,490,327
244,171
282,558
$ 3,053,201
1996 Actual
1996 Budget 1995 Actual
Revenues
Expenditures
Net Transfers
Increase to Fund Balance
Fund Balance, 12/31/96
As of December 31, 1996, the City General Fund has a fund balance of $3,562,305, an increase
of $509,104 from December 31, 1995 The year-end fund balance is designated for working capital
and is necessary to meet expenditures until property taxes are collected in July 1997.
In 1996, General Fund revenue exceeded budget by approximately $269,000. This was primarily due
to revenues exceeding budget in most General Fund revenue catagories. In addition expenditures in
General Fund were under budget by approximately $240,000. This can be attributed to departments
generally keeping spending within budget levels.
$ 12,965,460
13,054,110
323,310
234,660
$ 3,287,860
In 1996, the General Fund transferred $331,670. Of this amount $111,670 was to pay for the City's
Street Lighting Reconstruction Project. 1996 was the second year of a scheduled four year project.
The remaining $220,000 transferred to fund a refurbishment to the Ctiy Hall HVAC system.
Municipal Liguor Stores
$ 7,426,187
6,691,492
(545,670)
189,025
$ 2,405,922
$ 6,910,600
6,248,956
(673,610)
(11,966)
$ 2,216,897
1996 Actual
1996 Budget 1995 Actual
Revenues
Expense
Net Transfers
Net Income (Loss)
Retained Earnings, 12/31/96
$ 7,669,150
7,063,860
(557,580)
47,710
$ 2,264,607
In 1996, the three municipal liquor stores reached $7,344,500 in gross sales, an increase of $532,000
in comparison to 1995. Operating expenses in 1996 increased slightly over 1995, with increases
of $41,000 in personal services and $18,000 in other services and charges.
Transfers in 1996 include $400,000 to the Special Revenue Fund for park capital improvements, and
$145,670 to the General Fund for administrative costs, public safety services, and payments in lieu
of taxes.
40
1 9_ C),
Water & Sanitary Sewer Utility Fund
Revenues
Expense
Net Transfers
Net Income
Retained Earnings, 12/31/96
1996 Actual
$ 4,038,180
4,236,203
60,702
(137,321)
$ 7,519,988
1996 Budget 1995 Actual
$ 4,106,992
4,081,730
25,262
$ 7,682,571
$ 3,980,284
3,929,506
12,000
62,778
$ 7,657,309
In 1996, the Water Utility portion of operating revenues increased approximately $81,000 over
1995 revenues. For 1996, water rates remained the same as in 1995. A rate increase was
implemented in 1997. Operating expenses showed an increase of approximately $106,000, of which
purchases of chemicals to treat water quality comprised the largest part of the increase.
The Sanitary Sewer Utility portion of operating revenues in 1996 decreased approximately $7,000
from 1995. Sewer rates were increased in 1996, however, increases in operating expenses and
specifially Metropolitan Council-Wastewater Services outgained the rate increase. Operating expenses
increased by approximately $200,000 over 1996. Of this $200,000 increase, $114,500 can be
attributed to Metropolitan Council-Wastewater service charges.
Storm Sewer Utility Fund
Revenues
Expense
Net Transfers
Net Income
Retained Earnings, 12/31/96
1996 Actual
$ 1,170,704
515,228
655,476
$ 2,384,080
1996 Budget
$ 795,000
586,420
208,580
$ 1,937,184
1995 Actual
$ 799,231
558,539
101,907
342,599
$ 1,728,604
Revenues for the Storm Sewer Utility Fund increased $375,700 in 1996 over 1995. The Large
increase is due to reimbursement received from the State of Minnesota for a storm sewer project in
the Richfield Lake outlet area. Operating revenue for 1996 decreased by $16,000 as compared to
1995. This can be attributed to rates not being increased for 1996. An offset to the decrease in
operating revenue was also a decrease in operating expenses of $38,000 in 1996 compared to 1995.
Recreation Fund
Revenues
Expense
Net Transfers
Net Income
Retained Earnings, 12/31/96
1996 Actual
$ 2,148,207
1,776,347
(201,330)
170,530
$ 1,311,987
1996 Budget 1995 Actual
$ 2;186,010
1,853,680
(149,050)
183,280
$ 1,324,737
$ 1,944,224
1,767,846
(150,875)
25,503
$ 1,141,457
The Recreation Fund includes the golf course, ice arena, swimming pool, and special facilities
(miniature golf, concessions, farmers market) operations. An increase in operating revenues from 1995
to 1996 was due to the golf course operations, which ended the year with income before transfers
of $330,850, an increase of approximately $80,700 over 1995. The ice arena, swimming pool, and
special facilities operations all ended the year with losses of $50,802, $5,165 and $24,435
respectively. Despite the operating losses the swimming pool and special facilities operations each
made transfers out of $25,000 to repay prior year loans from the Permanent Improvement
Revolving Fund.
•
•
•
/3-3
Street Light Fund
Revenues
1996 Actual
1996 Budget
1995 Actual
$ 79,900 $ 72,607
Expense
79,473
Net Transfers (72,000) (72,000) (71,840)
Net Income (Loss) 7,473 7,900 767
Retained Earnings, 12/31/96 $ 8,240 $ 8,667 $ 767
This fund was established in 1995 to account for Street Light fee revenues collected from residents
as part of the Street Light reconstruction project. 1995 was the first year of a scheduled four year
project. Revenues received in 1996 were slightly less than budgeted, however, enough revenue was
realized to transfer out funds to cover th second year reconstruciton costs.
Summary
This financial summary includes the highlights of the overall financial results for the City of Richfield
for the year ended December 31, 1996. Financial reports for each fund are attached to this letter.
A comprehensive review of the 1996 financial operations will be presented to the City Council
after the completion of the annual audit by the City's independent auditors.
In 1996, the General Fund had a very strong year due to actual revenues exceeding budget and
the efforts of departments to closely monitor expenditures. This resulted in a net increase to fund
balance of $509,104. The Municipal Liquor, Storm Sewer Utility and Golf Course Funds continued
to perform well. The Water and Sanitary Sewer Utility showed a net operating loss of $137,321. This
can be attributed to higher operating costs from the Metropolitan Council - Wastewater Services and
the fact that the water rates have not been increased in 3 years. A rate increase for water was
implemented for 1997. The Street Llight Fund performed as expected with the fund transferring out
funds to cover reconstruction costs. The ice arena, swimming pool and special facilities operations will
continue to be carefully monitored in 1997 to market the facilities and control costs.
•
0
9
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
GENERALFUND
COMPARATIVE BALANCE SHEET
December 31, 1996 and 1995
ASSETS
Cash and investments
Receivables:
Taxes
Special assessments
Accounts
Prepaid items
Due from component unit
Due from other governments
Total Assets
u
LIABILITIES AND FUND BALANCE
Liabilities:
Accounts payable
Accrued salaries and employee benefits payable
Due to other governments
Deferred revenue
Total Liabilities
Fund Balance -
Unreserved:
Designated for state aid reductions
Designated for working capital
Total Fund Balance
Total Liabilities and Fund Balance
1996
$ 4,648,226
56,794
2,262
116,827
1,754
85,846
64,505
$ 4,976,214
$ 154,896
1,200,845
1,336
56,832
1,413,909
304,351
3,257,954
3,562,305
$ 4,976,214
13-q
FORM F
1995
$ 4,279,794
103,993
2:706
56,490
846
117,129
$ 4,560,958
$ 153,857
1,153,464
136,388
64,048
1,507,757
288,980
2,764,221
3,053,201
$ 4,560,958
13-6"
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
GENERALFUND
STATEMENT OF REVENUES, EXPENDITURES, AND CHANGES
IN FUND BALANCE - BUDGET AND ACTUAL
DECEMBER 31, 1996
With Comparative Actual Amounts for the Year Ended December 31, 1995
1996
Revenues:
Taxes
Licenses and permits
Intergovernmental revenue
Charges for services
Fines and forfeits
Miscellaneous revenues
Total Revenues
Expenditures:
General government
Administrative services
Public safety
Community Development
Utilities & Engineering
Maintenance Services
Recreation Service
Total Expenditures
Excess (Deficiency) of Revenues
over Expenditures
Other Financing Sources (Uses):
Operating transfers in:
Debt Service Fund
Enterprise Funds
Internal Service Funds
Operating Transfers Out:
Special Revenue Funds
Capital Project Funds
Net Other Financing
Sources (Uses)
Excess of Revenues and Other
Financing Sources over
Expenditures and other
Financing Uses
Fund Balance - January 1
Fund Balance - December 31
Over
Final (Under)
Budget Actual Budget
FORM F-1
1995
Actual
$ 5,710,660 $ 5,836,618 $ 125,958 $ 5,538,872
482,000 540,570 58,570 520,859
5,770,330 5,790,234 19,904 5,465,070
763,820 804,407 40,587 755,347
130,600 150,635 20,035 134,255
108,050 112,302 4,252 114,311
12,965,460 13,234,766 269,306 12,528,714
641,770 591,303 (50,467)
967,130 937,125 (30,005)
7,014,520 6,866,165 (148,355)
222,190 225,121 2,931
308,630 289,100 (19,530)
2,621,360 2,675,233 53,873
1,278,510 1,230,115 (48,395)
552,206
873,860
6,787,867
217,680
•
4,058,714 0
13,054,110 12,814,162 (239,948) 12,490,327
(88,650) 420,604 509,254 38,387
202,500 202,500 120,000
232,480 217,670 (14,810) 225,450
10,000
(111,670) (331,670)
(2,939)
(108,340)
323,310 88,500 (14,810) 244,171
234,660 509,104 274,444 282,558
3,053,201 3,053,201 2,770,643
$ 3,287,861 $ 3,562,305 $ 274,444 $ 3,053,201
3--6
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA FORM F-2
GENERAL FUND
SCHEDULE OF REVENUES COMPARED TO BUDGET(Continued)
For the Year Ended December 31, 1996
With Comparative Actual Amounts for the Year Ended De cember 31, 1995
1996
Over
Final (Under) 1995
Budget Actual Budget Actual
Taxes:
Current ad valorem $ 4,613,400 $ 4,744,338 $ 130,938 $ 4,572,566
Fiscal disparities 1,097,260 1,092,280 (4,980) 966,306
Total Taxes 5,710,660 5,836,618 125,958 5,538,872
Licenses and Permits:
Business licenses 162,000 182,289 20,289 162,333
Nonbusiness licenses and permits 320,000 358,281 38,281 358,526
Total Licenses and Permits 482,000 540,570 58,570 520,859
Intergovernmental Revenues:
Federal -
Civil defense reimbursement 5,000 5,000 - 4
764
COPS FAST 25,000 25,000 - ,
25,000
State: -
Local government aid 3,271,730 3,271,731 1 3,181,800
Homestead credit 1,810,000 1,812,457 2,457 1,884,911
Police State Aid 295,000 295,484 484
Law officer training 13,600 13,542 (58) 13,634
State-aid street maintenance 225,000 243,199 18,199 228,377
County -
Community health services 125,000 123,821 (1,179) 126,584
Total Intergovernmental
Revenue 5,770,330 5,790,234 19,904 5,465,070
Charges for Services:
General Government 66,500 90,797 24,297 63,569
Deputy Registrar 282,000 296,539 14,539 292,273
Public Safety 126,200 139,773 13,573 139,128
Park and Recreation 138,990 138,442 (548) 122,280
Nature Center 48,830 41,050 (7,780) 39,597
Community Center 101,300 97,806 (3,494) 98,500
Total Charges for Services $ 763,820 $ 804,407 $ 40,587 $ 755,347
0
13-11?
Fines and Forfeits:
Municipal court fines
Forfeited bail
Highway patrol fines
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
GENERALFUND
SCHEDULE OF REVENUES COMPARED TO BUDGET (Concluded)
For the Year Ended December 31, 1996
With Comparative Actual Amounts for the Year Ended December 31, 1995
Total Fines and Forfeits
Miscellaneous Revenues:
Interest
Rent
Contributions
Recovery - damage to City property
Other
Total Miscellaneous Revenues
Total Revenues
FORM F-2
1996
Over
Final (Under) 1995
Budget Actual Budget Actual
E
$ 125,100 $ 139,839 $ 14,739 $ 128,176
3,000 6,879 3,879 2,692
2,500 3,917 1,417 3,387
130,600 150,635 20,035 134,255
80,000 79,647 (353) 76,323
11,050 16,283 5,233 16,205
1,000 727 (273) 1,391
12,500 9,738 (2,762) 11,440
3,500 5,907 2,407 8,952
108,050 112,302 4,252 114,311
$ 12,965,460 $ 13,234,766 $ 269,306 $ 12,528,714
0
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
GENERALFUND
• SCHEDULE OF EXPENDITURES COMPARED TO BUDGET (Continued)
For the Year Ended December 31, 1996
With Comparative Actual Amounts for the Year Ended December 31, 1995
1996
Final
Budget
is
GENERAL GOVERNMENT:
Mayor - Council:
Personal services
Other services and charges
Capital outlay
Total
Other Agencies:
Share a Home
Senior Outreach Services
Cornerstone Advocacy
Storefront/Youth Action
Senior Inform & Referral
Shared Transportation
South Hennepin Regional
Total
Human Services:
Personal services
Other services and charges
Total
City Manager:
Personal services
Other services and charges
Capital outlay
Total
Legal
Other services and charges
Total
111,300 115,654
28,700 30,660
Actual
$ 35,140 $ 35,370 $ 230 $ 38,529
60,250 62,006 1,756 48,174
266
95,390 97,376 1,986 86,969
1,000 1,000 890
7,000 7,000 7,000
12,390 12,390 12,500
60,570 60,570 58,810
800 800 800
4,000 4,000 4,000
17,870 18,240 370 17,400
103,630 104,000 370 101,400
46,510 48,078 1,568 42,395
8,460 7,677 (783) 6,398
54,970 55,755 785 48,793
Total General Government
/3 --oQ
FORM F-3
Over
(Under) 1995
Budget Actual
4,354 117,596
1,960 26,389
266
140,000 146,314 6,314 144,251
247,780 187,858 (59,922) 170,793
247,780 187,858 (59,922) 170,793
$ 641,770 $ 591,303 $ (50,467) $ 552,206
•
13-9
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA FORM F-3
GENERALFUND
SCHEDULE OF EXPENDITURES COMPARED TO BUDGET (Continued)
For the Year Ended December 31, 1996
With Comparative Actual Amounts for the Year Ended December 31, 1995
ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES:
Administration:
Personal services
Other services and charges
Capital outlay
Total
Finance:
Personal services
Other services and charges
Capital outlay
Total
Personnel:
Personal services
Other services and charges
Total
Youth Employment - Counseling:
Personal Services
Other services and charges
Total
City Clerk:
Personal services
Other services and charges
Capital Outlay
Total
Election:
Personal services
Other services and charges
Total
1996
Over 1995
Final (Under)
Budget Actual Budget Actual
$ 83,320 $ 86,645 $ 3,325 $ 81,294
46,850 45,948 (902) 45,028
- 532
130,170 132,593 2,423 126,854
134,070 136,120 2,050 143,844
49,750 50,268 518 37,411
- 7,182
183,820 186,388 2,568 188,437
39,100 41,624 2,524 40,5280
39,050 21,978 (17,072) 24,305
78,150 63,602 (14,548) 64,833
150
150
334 184
334 184
665
980
1,645
222,550 206,908 (15,642) 216,781
30,180 30,116 (64) 25,986
500 (500) 3,887
253,230 237,024 (16,206) 246,654
64,220 65,744 1,524 15,518
15,450 11,985 (3,465) 5,007
79,670 77,729 (1,941) 20,525
•
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
GENERALFUND
SCHEDULE OF EXPENDITURES COMPARED TO BUDGET (Continued)
For the Year Ended December 31, 1996
With Comparative Actual Amounts for the Year Ended December 31, 1995
Final
Budget
FORM F-3
/ 5-/ D
1996
Over
(Under) 1995
Actual Budget Actual
ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES:(Continued)
Assessing:
Personal services $ 55,420
Other services and charges 186,520
Total 241,940
Total Administrative Services
PUBLIC SAFETY:
Administrative Support Services:
Personal services
Other services and charges
Capital outlay
Total
Police Protection:
Personal services
Other services and charges
Capital outlay
Total
Fire Protection:
Personal services
Other services and charges
Capital outlay
Total
Police Ancillary Services:
Personal services
Other services and charges
Capital outlay
Total
$ 52,142 $ (3,278) $ 52,388
187,313 793 172,524
239,455 (2,485) 224,912
$ 967,130 $ 937,125 $ (30,005) $ 873,860
254,010
281,810
500
536,320
2,503,610
425,790
18,500
2,947,900
1,747,910
148,550
13,530
1,909,990
834,170
440,140
1,274,310
260,495
283,958
544,453
2,455,544
413,793
12,500
2,881,837
1,745,706
124,505
4,739
1,874,950
820,945
396,152
13,172
1,230,269
6,485
2,148
(500)
8,133
(48,066)
(11,997)
(6,000)
(66,063)
(2,204)
(24,045)
(8,791)
(35,040)
(13,225)
(43,988)
13,172
(44,041)
269,853
267,821
537,674
2,430,269
391,083
12,265
2,833,617
1,697,415
139,875
13,010
1,850,300
782,095
389,061
72,241
1,243,397
0
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA FORM F-3
GENERALFUND
SCHEDULE OF EXPENDITURES COMPARED TO BUDGET (Continued)
For the Year Ended December 31, 1996
With Comparative Actual Amounts lor the Year Ended December 31, 1995
1996
Over
Final (Under) 1995
Budget Actual Budget Actual
PUBLIC SAFETY: (Continued)
Inspection:
Personal services $ 286,690 $ 288,901 $ 2,211 $ 254,355
Other services and charges 14,640 11,346 (3,294) 16,371
Capital outlay 2,400 1,093 (1,307) 797
Total 303,730 301,340 (2,390) 271,523
Emergency Services:
Personal services 12,800 10,993 (1,807) 10,450
Other services and charges 27,570 22,323 (5,247) 26,744
Capital outlay 1,900 (1,900) 14,162
Total 42,270 33,316 (8,954) 51,356
Total Public Safety $ 7,014,520 $ 6,866,165 $ (148,355) $ 6,787,867
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT:
Administration:
Personal services 111,580 100,613 (10,967) 83,118
Other services and charges 106,610 120,587 13,977 76,746
Capital outlay 4,000 3,921 (79) 3,300
Total 222,190 225,121 2,931 163,164
Planning and Zoning:
Personal services 30,058
Other services and charges 10,679
Total - - - 40,737
Housing Authority:
Personal services
Other services and charges
Capital outlay
Total
3,402
8,341
2,036
13,779
Total Community Development $ 222,190 $ 225,121 $ 2,931 $ 217,680
(9
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
GENERAL FUND
SCHEDULE OF EXPENDITURES COMPARED TO BUDGET (Continued)
For the Year Ended December 31, 1996
With Comparative Actual Amounts for the Year Ended December 31, 1995
1996
Over
Final (Under)
Budget Actual Budget
UTILITIES & ENGINEERING:
Administration:
Personal services
Other services and charges
Capital outlay
Total
$ 138,190 $ 139,677 $ 1,487
24,240 19,269 (4,971)
4,950 4,584 (366)
167,380 163,530 (3,850)
Engineering:
Personal services
Other services and charges
Capital outlay
Total
59,340
77,810
4,100
141,250
13-1a
FORM F-3
1995
Actual
$ 272,292
61,363
333,655
66,426 7,086 62,855
59,144 (18,666) . 67,197
(4,100)
125,570 (15,680) 130,052
Total Utility & Engineering $ 308,630 $ 289,100 $ (19,530) $ 463,707
MAINTENANCE SERVICES:
Streets:
Personal Services 353,160 404,665 51,505 329,112
Other services and charges 1,062,560 1,045,208 (17,352) 998,514
Capital outlay 23,015 23,015 9,936
Total 1,415,720 1,472,888 57,168 1,337,562
Government Buildings:
Personal services
Other services and charges
Total
Park Maintenance:
Personal services
Other services and charges
Capital outlay
Total
Lyndale/Nicollet Maintenance:
Personal services
Other services and charges
is Total
$ 190,780 $ 210,197 $ 19,417 $ 201,976
25,430 39,312 13,882 16,402
216,210 249,509 33,299 218,378
455,450 419,537 (35,913) 396,974
287,610 306,810 19,200 292,596
56,833
743,060 726,347 (16,713) 746,403
570 (1,620) (2,190)
3,790 4,532 742 2,253
4,360 2,912 (1,448) 2,253
l3-/3 CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA FORM F-3
GENERAL FUND
SCHEDULE OF EXPENDI TURES COMPARE D TO BUDG ET (Concluded)
For the Year Ended December 31, 1996
With Comparative Actual Amounts for the Year Ended Dec ember 31, 1995
1996
Over
Final (Under) 1995
Budget Actual Budget Actual
MAINTENANCE SERVICES:(Continued)
Forestry:
Personal services 121,450 108,676 (12,774) 108,749
Other services and charges 110,560 105,725 (4,835) 95,928
Capital outlay 10,000 9,176 (824) 7,768
Total 242,010 223,577 (18,433) 212,445
Total Maintenance Services $ 2,621,360 $ 2,675,233 $ 53,873 $ 2,517,041
RECREATION SERVICES:
Nature Center:
Personal services 245,900 243,462 (2,438) 259,829
Other services and charges 67,190 63,890 (3,300) 57,874
Capital Outlay 2,150 2,900 750
Total 315,240 310,252 (4,988) 317,703
Recreation:
Personal services 355,620 327,043 (28,577) 239,301
Other services and charges 173,180 154,726 (18,454) 115,147
Capital outlay 3,000 (3,000)
Total 531,800 481,769 (50,031) 354,448
Community Center:
Personal services 309,080 317,115 8,035 292,826
Other services and charges 121,540 120,979 (561) 112,411
Capital outlay 850 (850) 578
Total 431,470 438,094 6,624 405,815
Total Recreation Services $ 1,278,510 $ 1,230,115 $ (48,395) $ 1,077,966
Total Expenditures
$ 13,054,110 $ 12,814,162 $ (239,948) $ 12,490,327
0
W R W N W a e n v N N co v O. W M
M O IV O V h rn to h v N N co co O N W
V' CO W C %i V Ot M W tO O CC) CA N O r W W
F tO
Of O) t17 Ot LO M lp N Q O r N m v W O
O 0) Q w O N r N N N tO
Ln r \ r w 7 r
r r r
W ? 69
m
N- CA O t- 0 r-- o
N W
W
d
W N N 0 O CA v
co v v W W
1- rn h ? .rn co ty CA W M In O N M Y) N r` N
O W M M W wM csi N W ^ f` N
O
r i
O
O O
r W
r
W co
K O
I
N
?"
r
r N O
N r r
69 64
r W N O In W co e co 00) to N O O v M v
O W rn p- rn O to v v O N O to W co O
W P, r W CA CA to W P- N v W v CO rS N rl
IO
O CA O t- N v N CA of co W N C') v M CA
co
R W N
r CA W
O M
r v
43 <
to O
M Cl) N
N O
N N r M M
N
N N r N r
69 69
m
d W W co co co M o W N W f` W CO r tT O
U W
Q? 0 M
O I!) O
tl co
CO
CO M
M N N
t N
O h O
N N W CO r
CA W IO W W
tl
O
R
co
O C P, W ]
M t0 W W N
N ?
N CO W r-- th O N U ?
W M
O C O W Cl N N N r r N N
r W N I
o
N N N N
fA 69
co CA 1, 0 O to O O W 'T CA W co co r N n N t-
M
N r o)
r N t`
M a
O M W
fl7 r-
P r W
r a
N N Of N N CA
W W r r W M
W f`
O
to
O N N v co N 't N O O co N r N M M W r
0 ' N
A r- N _ CO r N N v N
?f W
r O
r W N M N
0 N r r
y Vi FA
N
m
r
O A
N
O
co
M
o
M
O
O
co N W W
M
N
C N Cl)
O
f`
N
co
co
W
M I
W
N M M r w
f`
J
CO t? M h r r CA I M CA W W N Of N M r W r M
N N CA N CO IP) CO N V W
V W n Ip N tv O LO
CA ? O N
r 01 W M N N r N
N r N r
CA FA
i
N t` co M In P- a CA W O W h-v N M O W V
W W W R C O W U7 co W M N f? N M W W W IT
tO r Q O W r a f` N Cn h Cn P't < CA O C l r CO t0
O N O) C6 N N O N CA co N tO N
O S r UC)
O _ co N C W co M O N W N r
co N co
W
r W M N W M C N! CA W W W
W W IO N tO
y
to
O
Cl) CA
} -
Q co
M M P,
C co O
M R W N o CA M N co co M W M sf•
m
W
r- r
M CA
n co
to O
O O
6 W
C l! M M
W O
r rl Cl) M N'r
h W N N co W
tO W
W
N W
W 0) W
N N W 00 (D W N CO W W M O t?: V co 4
U) Cn
r K
M W co
M CO R
O O
M LO
W W W
CA N N
P, W LO N W Cl)
Z `-
W If) W In r
Fa- X ccc bi
O W co
M O O rn
Z Q
Z U.
Q' to
M
?
d
Q
Z
E
J W
W J > U
W 4)
y
S Q tr
0 (D
?
UatL V a) y '
SUO? aci c
c to n m
« O W F
y
?
Y
O m a? y m w d o
H W N a U N
m
U S Y m
' ? d c y
U ? r
M
o n y >
a
y >
Q y y
O CL
X at
m
W
> O r N a ` N N v co
U. E CL (D -C) E
O
C
O
Q O C O y
d y CL d1 O
C `y
m
m
Q c L (D m o x
w m p > E c o
p c m
'
y
N O En O c v c > C O y O O
0 _ O W C d m C C
U Z C
O m m C sr N !T
•2 C
l
C L N
> m
!n O CA p, m y d y r c
m d
`
O
c
a
«
O
c
O y
a`> 'D
E m U
p
0
Z
° ca y o H c
m m o
d E yv ttii
N ` y N y _
O m m
C C) 2 m U
U) U J 0 0 d J 0 J Z
/ 3-4
1 3-I S_
Current Assets:
Cash and cash equivalents
Receivables:
Accounts
Service Charges
Due From Other Governments
Inventory
Prepaid Items
Total Current Assets
Restricted Assets -
Revenue bond debt services:
Cash equivalents
Long-tens Assets -
Due from Metropolitan Council
Wastewater Services
Property and Equipment:
Land
Buildings
Office Equipment
Machinery and equipment
Other improvements
Construction in Progress
Less accumulated depreciation
Net Property and Equipment
Total Assets
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA FORM J
ENTERPRISE FUNDS
COMBINING BALANCE SHEET
December 31, 1996
Water and
Municipal Sewer Utility Storm Sewer Recreation Street Light Total
Liquor Fund Fund Utility Fund Fund Fund 1996 1995
$ 997,839 S 1,839,229 $ 338.070 S 466.922 S 8,240 $ 3,650.300 S 4,297,328
1,860 466,947 468.807 11,257
710.640 116,785 827,425
2,504 8,695 54,996 66,195 1.260,409
391,795 7,170 71,149 470,114 447,495
10,401 185 10.586
1,401,895 3,026.490 463.550 593.252 8.240. 5,493,427 6.016.489
216.112 216.112 216,612
205,127
273,188 53,550 179,135 505,873 505,873
1,058,396 3,886,307 2,296,716 7,241,419 7,222,965
17,629 28,188 6,840 10,782 63,439 61,071
318,040 5,602,078 77,630 680,991 6,678,739 6,646,277
86,581 7,907,335 4,440,964 2,537,080 14,971,960 13,467,743
519,359 519,359
2,273,193 17,477,458 4,525,434 5,704,704 29,980,789 27,903,929
873,809 6,782.666 906,394 3,543,302 12,106,171 11,366,177
1,399,384 10,694,792 3,619,040 2,161,402 17,874,618 16,537,752
$ 2.801,279 S 13,926,409 $ 4.298,702 $ 2,754,654 $ 8,240 $ 23,789,284 $ 23,140,161
205,127 369,308
Water and
Municipal Sewer Utility Storm Sewer Recreation Street Light TOTAL
Liquor Fund Fund Utility Fund Fund Fund 1996 1995
LIABILITIES AND EQUITY
Current Liabilities (Payable from
Current Assets):
Accounts payable $ 274,153 $ 190,310 $ 17,900 $ 482,363 $ 277,222
Loan payable $ 8,704 2,900 11,604 2,900
Contracts payable 60,310 60,310 44,892
Accrued salaries and
employee benefits payable 77,424 94,212 51,758 223,394 206,886
Due to other governments 71,806 30,277 11,263 662 114,008 126,688
Total Current Liabilities 423.383 375.109 19.967 73.220 891,679 658,588
Current Liabilities (Payable from
Restricted Assets):
Accrued interest payable 39,655 39,655 41,807
Bonds payable 125,000 125,000 115,000
Total 164,655 164,655 156,807
Total Current Liabilities 423,383 375,109 184,622 73,220 1,056,334 815,395
Deferred revenue 1,636 1,636 371073
Loan payable 17,883 17,883 20,783
Bonds payable 1,730.000 1,730,000 1,855,000
Total Liabilities 425.019 375.109 1,914,622 91,103 2,805,853 3,062,251
Equity:
Contributed capital 6,031,312 1,301,564 7,332,876 7,332,876
Retained earnings:
Reserved for capital improvements 330,000 330,000 330,000
Unreserved 2,046,260 7.519.988 2,384,080 1,361,987 $ 8,240 13,320,555 12,415,034
Total Equity 2,376.260 13,551,300 2,384,080 2,663,551 8,240 20.983,431 20,077,910
Total Liabilities and Equity $ 2,801,279 $ 13.926.409 L4.298 7022 $ 2,754.654 $ 8,2400 $ 23,789,284, $ 23,140,161
•
•
I3-Ib
co
Mel n
O co P.- NCD
MCC) O
U) CV
e! `:. CV U)?
0 Nn n
M 0
O O10 0700
10n000 00
?
m M
O 7
co
M? OCDNfp h ? 7NC0C D I":c OOO R c0 Ch q
O
C Nn to r- h Mao (C) CD nC7m m N MO Ch 0 N N 0 U) U'7
0 D 0 U)
MM M
O 0 (D M M
CDn0(D M
O 0
CD n ?' N O
N A O
N O
N N N N n
Nr-W
v v v CO
n
er
N
M
n
_M U) co '- N n N N_
J fA
CA
Q
O
CD U7 ? tD of M N M tD O CD ID M aI 00 N O R 0
EN O
LO Lo O
N
CD
f, w.U)r-
n
M
nMO
0
N
M
M
Mef CD co
M CD O (O N CDO of CD tO OD CDMn Cl
O
M
- co
C) N O M O B CD R N t0 0 M n O CO M U) O
N n
?n 0
M w o er
On On w
M o
O tDM M0
N N
w
CD O ?-
Nu7 O
n O
0 a
n 0
CD
er C0 co N N n v v N
.- M
4'1 to
CD CD O n n M O O M n O
C
C 0 O 0 If If er O O er co N
LL n n n .-- .- 0 N N n co
tnt n n n n ? n
J CA V)
C On co co erco CD Cro CD w N O O O O O n n
O 0 m 10 a) a) 4 an 10 co M O M M 10 co
Pt N 10 N CD er /D N -L M O M I er 0
j C4 ? 0 M LO to COD N n 0100 M N CD
?U. N 0)
0 010.- co
cO N ? M v N C'!
69
3 N N 0 0 er N 0 R co CD CD co CD O
C CD co O CD n U) CD O n n O co
O N N M IT CD C CO w n C0 tD er er CD O
y U. N N O 44 0 N Ca 0 10 N M Cn CD e!
co w
n U) O r
?e-? r
et <
M N n 0
M .-
M 10
tD U)
CD N co
i C_ N
. 10 10 (o to o0)MCp to a) to .•.
O
C co
n CO
n CO CO
(p
p
C 0
N
D OO
Cl O N O O N O co
O R
t ? M O n n M M 0
O ?
O .- CD U) cn n co O O n n 0
p?LL 0 0 _
0000 , C'0
? v N 0 CD CD M O
LO M
M M r n n
=
zQ 3 d'
to
ww
co rn
Z co CD O 0 0 0 0 CO CD M M 0 0 O M P- O
W C
n 7 co M
In - U)
M - OM O In n nCD CO M n0 n CD 0 (D
O v
Q
LL
a 1
0
O 0 M CD D er n N O 10 C CD O CD M CD N
X U m
~ W Z_
O U
C O .
0
M CD
M
CD n M co
nCDIn
CD N 0
?
O N
M
CD r) n M
in N? CD
CD M
0
n LO 0
er0
r to
v
10
0
w
e
CO
N
(D
n
M
Cn yZa-,
w
X 7 7 nUf r V
` N N
N
CO W J E9
Z Z Z W
M
O w O
W w ? m
Q E
LU U)
W U. F a
O
= a. y
U w Z Z'D y-0
tr?w- d
U)
LLz2M c
W C C
0 w ?
C7w - ?aF
a
0 X
H )
- a
i
Q W m j
Cl)
U
C
m
O
M
0
U d
L
y
d N
N y 7 d
C C
Z
0 (D th
4) U) CL
x
Cc (D
.0
Z IL CA p UJ C) O
.6 Z O y C d W E
fn
j
t X `-'
y N ? O CD
O C Cn y C C
C
N p) U W O m
7 tC L .-6 C O C C CL O
U f/1
CI y N y C a, EE cc y U C co LL 7 E F
(D
U
N C
4) u 1 N fO C
C) O y N 16 N
C - LL 0 cm
0
N 7 _y 00.5
C
V
CV
0
C
CT
C
f0
> N CC a
? V
C
E E C
_
Q. O d
a W Z N U O a C
-O C p 0 0 0:=
om
a T C> O Z
F-?? °a v E
co m
IM U) 00 ?
0ylC 41 ?- ??
-
C` ZE tmLLm0. O C w w
C
lC y
0
fC O N O a
a N d d C.
S 2 16 -6 y V C d
d
C
C
y
Z FO (D 2
Z
Z
Z
a
n
°i ava
0
c
c ?
Z
?mU
a
c
_ 0 O
- U
?
' m a?
0 0 Z
H
0
ASSETS
Current Assets:
Cash and cash equivalents
Accounts receivable
Inventory
Prepaid Items
Total Current Assets
CITY OF. RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
MUNICIPAL LIQUOR FUND
COMPARATIVE BALANCE SHEET
December 31, 1996 and 1995
Property and Equipment:
Land
Buildings
Office Equipment
Machinery and equipment
Other improvements
Construciton in Progress
Less accumulated depreciation
Net Property and Equipment
Total Assets
LIABILITIES AND EQUITY
1996
$ 997,839
1,860
391,795
10,401
1,401,895
FORM J-4
1995
$ 1,062,924
10,770
362,143
1,435,837
273,188
1,058,396
17,629
318,040
86,581
519,359
2,273,193
873,809
1,399,384
Current Liabilities:
Accounts payable
Accrued salaries and employee benefits payable
Due to other governments
Deferred Revenue
Total Current Liabilities
Equity -
Retained earnings:
Reserved for capital improvements
Unreserved
Total Retained Earnings
Total Liabilities and Equity
273,188
1,058,396
16,886
313,928
82,048
1,744,446
815,178
929,268
$ 2,801,279 $ 2,365,105
$ 274,153
77,424
71,806
1,636
425,019
$ 6,655
70,518
71,035
148,208
330,000 330,000
2,046,260 1,886,897
2,376,260 2,216,897
$ 2,801,279 $ 2,365,105
is
C]
l 3-I 8
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA FORM J-5
MUNICIPAL LIQUOR FUND
COMPARATIVE STATEMENT OF REVENUES, EXPENSES, AND
CHANGES IN RETAINED EARNINGS
For the Years Ended December 31, 1996 and 1995
1996 1995
Operating Revenues:
Sales
Less cost of sales
Net Operating Revenues
$ 7,344,538
(5,686,188)
1,658,350
$ 6,812,162
(5,280,405)
1,531,757
Operating Expenses:
Personal services
Other services and charges
Depreciation
Total Operating Expenses
Operating Income
Nonoperating Revenues (Expenses):
Interest
Other revenues
Other expenses
Net Nonoperating Revenues
Income Before Operating Transfers
Operating Transfers Out:
General Fund
Contributions - Liquor Fund
Total Operating Transfers Out
Net Income (Loss)
Retained Earnings - January 1
Retained Earnings - December 31
677,919
283,350
58,631
1,019,900
638,450
53,778
27,871
(15,066)
66,583
705,033
(145,670)
(400,000)
(545,670)
159,363
636,748
265,241
56,990
958,979
572,778
65,477
32,961
(9,572)
88,866
661,644
(153,610)
(520,000)
(673,610)
(11,966)
2,216,897 2,228,863
$ 2,376,260
$ 2,216,897
0
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA FORM J-6
WATER AND SEWER UTILITY FUND
COMPARATIVE BALANCE SHEET
December 31, 1996 and 1995
ASSETS 1996 1995
Current Assets:
Cash and cash equivalents $ 1,839,229 $ 2,056,989
Receivables:
Service charges:
Billed 466,947 499,075
Certified to County Auditor 134,245
Unbilled services 713,144 517,450
Inventory 7,170 11,557
Total Current Assets 3,026,490 3,219,316
Long-Term Assets -
Due from other governments -
Metropolitan Council Wastewater Services:
Operating cost adjustment (1996 and 1995) (113,615)
Reserve capacity
Interceptor acquisition contract 205,127 482,923
Total Long-Term Assets 205,127 369,308
Property and Equipment:
Land 53,550 53,550
Buildings 3,886,307 3,886,307
Office equipment 28,188 26,043
Machinery and equipment 5,602,078 5,596,733
Other improvements 7,907,335 7,119,033
17,477,458 16,681,666
Less accumulated depreciation 6,782,666 6,370,676
Net Property and Equipment 10,694,792 10,310,990
Total Assets $ 13,926,409 $ 13,899,614
LIABILITIES AND EQUITY
Current Liabilities:
Accounts payable $ 190,310 $ 46,060
Contracts payable 60,310 44,892
Accrued salaries and employee benefits payable 94,212 76,332
Due to other governments:
Metropolitan Council Wastewater Services:
Interceptor acquisition - current (109,351)
Operating cost adjustment (1995 and 1994) 119,088
Reserve capacity (2,863)
Other 30,277. 36,835
Total Current Liabilities 375,109 210,993
Equity:
Contributed capital:
Property owners 533,584 533,584
Special assessments 3,196,500 3,196,500
City aid for construction 2,271,228 2,271,228
Federal grant 30,000 30,000
Total Contributed Capital 6,031,312 6,031,312
Retained earnings -
Unreserved 7,519,988 7,657,309
Total Equity 13,551,300 13,688,621
Total Liabilities and Equity $ 13,926,409 $ 13,899,614
/3rav
CITY Of RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA FORM J-7
WATER AND SEWER UTILITY FUND
COMPARATIVE STATEMENT OF REVENUES, EXPENSES, AND
CHANGES IN RETAINED EARNINGS
For the Years Ended December 31, 1996 and 1995
1996 1995
.7
Operating Revenues:
Sales and user fees
Water availability charges
Reserve capacity charges
Certification fees
Customer service charges
Sales of materials and supplies
Penalty charges
Total Operating Revenues
Operating Expenses:
Metropolitan Council Wastewater Services -
Sewer service charges
Personal services
Other services and charges
Depreciation
Total Operating Expenses
Operating Loss
Nonoperating Revenues -
Interest:
Deferred current value credit
Reserve capacity
Gain on Sale of Fixed assets
Other Revenue
Interest
Total Nonoperating Revenues
Income (Loss) Before Operating Transfers
Operating Transfers In (Out) -
Capital Projects Funds
Transfers from Component Unit
Net Operating Transfers In (Out)
Net Income
Retained Earnings - January 1
$ 3,685,313
1,074
9,000
13,626
129,988
6,077
65,707
3,910,785
1,811,616
990,818
1,021,780
411,989
4,236,203
(325,418)
23,691
4,189
99,515
127,395
$ 3,586,559
1,506
40,800
14,300
133,425
3,827
55,933
3,836,350
1,697,038
975,044
948,751
308,673
3,929,506
(93,156)
27,897
2,470
113,567
143,934
(198,023) 50,778
60,702
60,702
. 12,000
12,000
(137,321)
62,778
7,657,309 7,594,531
fe Retained Earnings - December 31 $ 7,519,988 $ 7,657,309
1 3-0 /
ASSETS
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
STORM SEWER UTILITY FUND
COMPARATIVE BALANCE SHEET
December 31, 1996 and 1995
Current Assets:
Cash and cash equivalents
Receivables -
Service charges -
Due from other governments
Unbilled services
Total Current Assets
Restricted Assets -
Cash and cash equivalents for debt service
Property and Equipment:
Office equipment
Machinery and equipment
Other improvements
Less accumulated depreciation
Net Property and Equipment
Total Assets
LIABILITIES AND EQUITY
Current Liabilities (Payable from Current Assets):
Accounts payable
Due to other governments
Total Current Liabilities (Payable from Current Assets)
FORM J-8
1996 1995
$ 338,070
$ 697,459
8,695
116,785
463,550
109,639
807,098
216,112 216,612
6,840
77,630
4,440,964
4,525,434
906,394
3,619,040
$ 4,298,702
5,768
66,346
4,041,679
4,113,793
791,710
3,322,083
$ 4,345,793
$ 8,704
11,263
19,967
Current Liabilities (Payable from Restricted Assets):
Accrued interest payable 39,655
Bonds payable 125,000
Total Current Liabilities (Payable from Restricted Assets) 164,655
Deferred Revenue
Bonds payable
Total Liabilities
Equity -
Retained earnings -
Unreserved
Total Liabilities and Equity
1,730,000
1,914,622
2,384,080
$ 4,298,702
$ 222,996
11,313
234,309
41,807
115,000
156,807
371,073
1,855,000
2,617,189
1,728,604
$ 4,345,793
0
•
0
/ 3 -a a
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA FORM J-9
STORM SEWER UTILITY FUND
w COMPARATIVE STATEMENT OF REVENUES, EXPENSES, AND
CHANGES IN RETAINED EARNINGS
For the Years Ended December 31, 1996 and 1995
1996
Operating Revenues:
Charges for services
Customer service charges
Penalty charges
Total Operating Revenues
Operating Expenses:
Personal services
Other services and charges
Depreciation
Total Operating Expenses
•
Nonoperating Revenues (Expenses):
Interest income
Sale of assets
Other Revnue
Interest and fiscal charges
Operating Income (Loss)
Net Nonoperating Revenues (Expenses)
Income Before Operating Transfers
Operating Transfers In (Out):
Internal Service Fund
Capital Project Fund
Total Operating Transfers
Net Income
Retained Earnings - January 1
0 Retained Earnings - December 31
$ 736,935
16,387
8,960
1995
$ 754,314
16,671
7,626
762,282 778,611
150,319
154,409
114,684
419,412
151,992
192,827
112,749
457,568
342,870
28,654
379,768
(95,816)
312,606
655,476
655,476
1,728,604
$ 2,384,080
321,043
19,470
1,150
(100,971)
(80,351)
240,692
125,000
(23,093)
101,907
342,599
1,386,005
$ 1,728,604
/ 3-a 3
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA FORM J-10
STORM SEWER UTILITY FUND
SCHEDULE OF CHANGES IN ASSETS RESTRICTED
FOR REVENUE BOND DEBT SERVICE
For the Years Ended December 31, 1996 and 1995
1996 1995
Cash and cash equivalents at beginning of year
Cash receipts -
Transfer from operating cash
Cash disbursements:
Principal payments
Interest payments
Total cash disbursements
Cash and cash equivalents at end of year
$ 216,612
212,468
115,000 110,000
97,968 100,972
212,968 210,972
$ 216,112 $ 243,612
$ 241,030
213,554
0
•
9
13-34
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA FORM J-11
RECREATION FUND
COMPARATIVE BALANCE SHEET
December 31, 1996 and 1995
ASSETS
0
Current Assets:
Cash and cash equivalents
Accounts receivable
Inventory
Prepaid items
Total Current Assets
Property and Equipment:
Land
Buildings
Office Equipment
Machinery and equipment
Other improvements
Less accumulated depreciation
Net Property and Equipment
1996 1995
$ 466,922
54,996
71,149
185
593,252
$ 479,189
487
73,795
553,471
179,135
2,296,716
10,782
680,991
2,537,080
5,704,704
3,543,302
2,161,402
$ 2,754,654
179,135
2,278,262
12,374
669,270
2,224,983
5,364,024
3,388,613
1,975,411
$ 2,528,882
Total Assets
•
LIABILITIES AND EQUITY
Current Liabilities:
Accounts payable
Loan Payable
Accrued salaries and employee benefits payable
Due to other governments
Total Current Liabilities
$ 17,900
2,900
51,758
662
$ 1,511
2,900
60,036
631
65,078
Loan payable
Equity:
Contributed capital -
City
Retained earnings -
Unreserved
Total Equity
Total Liabilities and Equity
73,220
17,883
1,301,564
1,361,987
2,663,551
$ 2,754,654
20,783
1,301,564
1,141,457
2,443,021
$ 2,528,882
/ 3-- a?
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA FORM J-12
RECREATION FUND
COMPARATIVE STATEMENT OF REVENUES, EXPENSES, AND
CHANGES IN R5TAINED EARNINGS
For the Years Ended December 31, 1996 and 1995
1996
Operating Revenues:
User fees
Sales of merchandise and concessions
Less cost of sales
Total Operating Revenues
Operating Expenses:
Personal services
Other services and charges
Depreciation
Total Operating Expenses
Operating Income
Nonoperating Revenues (Expenses):
Interest income
Other
Total Nonoperating Revenues
Income Before Operating Transfers
Operating Transfers In (Out):
Special Revenue - Cable Television Fund
Internal Service -
Permanent Improvement Revolving Fund
Net Operating Transfers In (Out)
Net Income
Retained Earnings - January 1
Retained Earnings - December 31
$ 1,822,729
204,066
(85,237)
1,941,558
944,298
591,114
155,698
1,691,110
250,448
54,656
66,756
121,412
1995
$ 1,711,081
183,229
(76,736)
1,817,574
1,003,903
526,393
160,406
1,690,702
126,872
49,378
128
49,506
•
371,860 176,378
(101,330) (100,875)
(50,000) (50,000)
(1519330) (150,875)
220,530 25,503
1,141,457 1,115,954
$ 1,361,987
$ 1,141,457
0
f3-a b
•
•
•
m
0
LL
0
Z
Q
N 0)
W O
z
W to c
Q d 0 m
x co
0 W ? 0)
Z Q W Q 0)
? Z D W M
LL W
i a`)
z W Z E
W Ir F U
LL Q o W N
2 Wd'?
H
V U Z ? a
EE W W Co ?O
O w W
z w
U ? V }
C7 m
z_
z `O
m LL
0
0
F
to (O Q M M (0 N N O aD t0 co co
ON M I O O O O f.- I.- m r` n O h O LO M)
O N T O O) M Q I- CO M y to to M O O O cA O) eT
LO co n M co O O t0 rn 0) t0 O O O to to
O m Y? O N (0 O N Q Q t` O to tt7
N Q
m f` .- a0 O to (O ?
to 64
la
O
H
O) co f• co co Q OD O co co co N O O O O O f` r`
N (O M to 0) O r Q to LO co M O M M to co
fl -L C l! N r O Q (0 f` Q a0 M O Cl O 't to
(O N Q in Q W) O 7
10
O
r
O
O)
p N O a0 Q Q
W M O 127 to (0 N r` O en M N Q tD
N N m 0) N CO N r M N M
60
Q M M co N to O A O O O O f? to
y M^
_ n N
0 0
c0 tU '? O q) Q t
0 O O Q C
7 O N N 0 0 N M t?
U=
' C M Y` co O aD t0) Q Q W) tT to to Q C) M
U
G to `- to Q N .- f` N N N Q N P
cL
EA a?
Q to N P co O M f- O LO N th fl O O f-- (0 M
N to f, co Q R h f• W to O n co M M co M N
CL 7 l0 (0 tT C l! O) O M aD N N to M M O act to
0 O) co co O t0 a7 M co O IT M f.- co
r-
co
m
•C r-- Q to tD n Q 7 M co O O (0 O O 00 M N
O` N r M <n M .- O M M v N to Oct
O
CD
O NOtD to X00 0 N N E O O ? to N
C to aD O (0 a0 co 0) M c0 to to O O w O
E O O co M O N '- N N Q 0 0 Q O) Q
E 0 N to N
O N O
0) co to co
! (D O to to co
N to
N O co to
? N v N
U) V3?
m 0 M Q a0 co to 0) O N O O co co r` rn
C O r
r, r co
h N
O)
o r-
o O co co f, t- (D co
t t co co co O O O 0)
(5 C co
- O) v aO
rn N C 00 00 00 OD 1? 00
U M ? ? to W) LO
O
r`
N
N
(D 0
o
L F c
LL
_
x of c
N H W C O 7
C C y
a > O M
O
0 U) N_
N ) 7(D
x
,
S?
O C
LL N
IT
"
d
C c o
Q w ayi > 0
d c rnw
IS, to E
m ) v to (D
to r- 0 m
a E>
c O
C N
U
>
a)
a N
c Q
.. U O)
N
O O
m
N x
C m m
>
U 0
y
m
M N
0
i
y O d
O c N rn U) L O E
w ti r c 0 C
C
N
4?
N
F
`
a.
' O) O
C L C
C V m ? C m
d y N U) j C
N ?_
y
O
O)
0)
> N% N rn
a L d
m I O N O
E
o C
O C
m m T (D C
E C
°? a' o a?
R 0
x m o a c m
v
rn o c
> L
o
E E E
H E- d W V) O C C H d p d )
F to a
06
N V W W
C
O
O m d
C C N U C 2 Z O O
C- C 9
V
U.
m
a?
r
y
O
2
_ la l0
ucaZ
z
c
c
?;,a)yz
ta n
a
O
x° o
wroZc m
o
E m
tntom
? v» . 0 0
o a o o 0 0 ,
a cn
0 O
I3-Q--7
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
STREET LIGHTING FUND
BALANCE SHEET
December 31, 1996
ASSETS
Cash and cash equivalents
Total Assets
LIABILITIES AND EQUITY
Equity -
Retained earnings -
Unreserved
Total Liabilities and Equity
1996
$ 8,240
8,240
$ 8,240
8,240
1995
$ 767
$ 767
$ 767
$ 767
FORM J-14
•
•
0
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
STREET LIGHTING FUND
STATEMENT OF REVENUES, EXPENSES, AND
CHANGES IN RETAINED EARNINGS
For the Years Ended December 31, 1996
FORM J-15
1996 1995
•
Operating Revenues:
Charges for services
Total Operating Income
Nonoperating Revenues:
Interest income
Total Nonoperating Revenues
Income Before Operating Transfers
Operating Transfers (Out):
General Fund
Net Income
Retained Earnings - January 1
Retained Earnings - December 31
$ 77,916
77,916
1,557
1,557
79,473
(72,000)
7,473
767
$ 70,905
70,905
1,702
1,702
72,607
$ 8,240 $ 767
(71,840)
767
0
/ P-
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Council Letter No. 84
Agenda March 24, 1997
Issue Statement:
First reading consideration of changes in the Richfield City Code Section 400 to update
the City fire prevention regulations to the latest version of the State Fire Code.
Background:
The Minnesota State Fire Code is in the late stages of adoption as a uniform fire code
applicable throughout the State. The public hearing process may take three to six
months before final resolution of perhaps two items.
It is staffs preference to adopt both the Fire and Building codes simultaneously, since
they are companion tools for the provision and preservation of safe buildings.
Recommended Motion:
Approve first reading of the amendments to the City Code Section 400 to adopt the
latest version of the Uniform Fire Code (1994) and stated references as the fire
prevention code of the City and schedule the public hearing and second reading for
April 14, 1997.
Basis of Recommendation:
1. The previous code was substantially reformatted to make the Uniform Fire and
Building Codes more user friendly -- common chapters are used for common topics,
common numbering format, etc. Although the substance of the code evolves
somewhat, the ease of comparing the UBC and the UFC is more efficient for all,
(designers, builders, inspectors), if using the same versions of each.
2. The issue of contention delaying the State adoption pertains to pedestrian walkways
(skyways). This issue has no immediate impact on existing or planned
developments in Richfield.
3. State law does allow a city to adopt measures that are more restrictive than the State
Fire Code. This adoption is appropriate for a local jurisdiction to undertake prior to
completion of the State code adoption process.
Alternative Recommendation:
Continue using the 1991 UFC and 1994 UBC and adopt the 1994 UFC at a later date,
after the State formally adopts it.
Discussion/Decision Mode:
Staff requests first reading at the March 24, 1997 Council meeting, and the public
hearing and second reading on April 14, 1997.
Respectfully submitted,
James f.Prosser
• City Manager
JDP:ds
BILL NO. /C9
AMENDMENT TO SECTION 400
• OF THE ORDINANCE CODE OF THE
CITY OF RICHFIELD
THE CITY OF RICHFIELD DOES ORDAIN:
Section 400 of the ordinance code of the City of Richfield entitled "Building Code" is
hereby amended to read as follows:
400.15. Screening mechanical equipment. Mechanical equipment and ductwork located
on the roof, exterior wall or grounds adjacent to a structure, other than a single family
residence or to its accessory buildings, shall be enclosed in a screening enclosure. The
enclosure shall be designed to provide a safety shield around such equipment and
ductwork and shall conceal it from public view and from view from nearby premises. The
enclosure shall be architecturally harmonious with the structure involved. Plans for the
enclosure shall be shown on construction plans. The requirements of this subsection shall
not be applicable to window air conditioners or to stacks.
400.17. Permit fees: other provisions. Subdivision 1. General rule. It is the intent of this
section that the fees provided in appendix D are to supplant and supersede corresponding
fee requirements in any code or ordinance adopted by reference in this section as well as
any fee schedules provided in the state building code.
400.21. Fire prevention code. SubdivisieR-4. Adoption of fire prevention code. €xGepts
. pFevid°?'nSubd-z, !the Minnesota Uniform Fire Code, including the 4982 1994 Uniform
Fire Code, as amended, and the 13 40 volume national codes, volumes 1-13 40 of the
National Fire Protection Association (1996 49? edition) (herein referred to as the "fire
prevention code") are hereby adopted by reference as though fully set out in this
subsection. Subsections 400.21 to 400.35 are the fire prevention code of the city.
(a) 21VIG R 1.5113
(b) 21VIrnR reI I
i..? ?nnreQ ? ti??a
(d) 21VIGAR 1.5149.
400.25. Prohibition of storage of flammable liquids outside above ground tanks, bulk
storage of liquified petroleum gases, and storage of explosives and blasting agents. The
storage of the substances defined in sections 7901 79.504 and 8204 92.105(e) of the fire
prevention code in the manner described therein, is prohibited within the city.
Adopted by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this 14th day of April,
1997.
• Martin J. Kirsch, Mayor
ATTEST:
Thomas P. Ferber, City Clerk
0 CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Council Letter No. 83
Agenda March 24, 1997
Issue Statement:
First reading consideration of changes in the Richfield City Code Section 400 to update
the City building regulations to the latest version of the State Building Code. The
proposed deletions and amendments to Section 700 are to remove provisions in the
City Code that are in conflict with the State Plumbing Code.
Background:
The Minnesota State Building Code has been adopted by Minnesota Statutes Section
16.851 as a uniform building code applicable throughout the State. From time to time,
the codes, appendices, standards and supplemental materials adopted as references
are revised.
Recommended Motion:
Approve first reading of the amendments to the City Code stating the latest version of
the State Building Code, approve the deletions and amendments that are in conflict with
the State Plumbing Code and schedule the public hearing and second reading for April
14, 1997.
. Basis of Recommendation:
1. The Uniform State Building code has been adopted and is to be enforced throughout
the State.
2. Formal adoption in this manner with clearly stated references avoids conflict and
confusion.
Alternative Recommendation:
None.
Discussion/Decision Mode:
Staff requests first reading at the Council meeting on March 24, 1997, and the public
hearing and second reading on April 14, 1997.
Respectfully submitted,
James 'D. Prosser
City Manager
0 JDP:ds
BILL NO. 1997- /- l
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER IV OF THE CITY CODE
0 BY AMENDING SUBSECTIONS 400.01, 400.03, 400.11,
AND CHAPTER VII BY AMENDING SUBSECTIONS 700.05, 710.03, 710.17, AND 710.19
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RICHFIELD DOES ORDAIN:
A. Section 1. Subsection 400.01 of the Richfield City Code, Chapter IV entitled Building, Housing
and Construction Regulations, is hereby amended to read as follows:
400.01. Scope of chapter. The purpose of this chapter is to provide minimum standards to
safeguard life and limb, property and public welfare by regulating and controlling the design,
construction, quality of materials, location and maintenance of all buildings and structures within
in the city and certain equipment specifically regulated herein.
Section 2. Subsection 400.03, subd. 2 is hereby amended to read as follows:
400.03. Adoption of Minnesota State Building Code and uniform housing code. Subdivision 1.
Building Code. The Minnesota State Building Code, one copy of which is on file in the office of
the city clerk, has been adopted by Minnesota Statutes, section 469.59 16.851 as a uniform
building code #eF applicable throughout the state. The state ht tildino Such code is hereby
confirmed as the building code of the City of Richfield and is incorporated in this chapter as
• completely as if set out in full.
Subd. 2. Adoption by reference. The 19815 1995 edition of the Minnesota State Building Code
state ridiRg cede, as amended, adopts by reference certain codes, appendices, standards and
supplemental materials. The following codes, appendices, standards and supplemental materials
are adopted by reference and incorporated into this code as if fully set out at this point:
/"1 1992 edition of the Uniform g tildinn Geast identified_ac 10W6C'",
(b) 4984 ediRO of the Natienal-€lestr•+6 Gede,e?t?f+ed-as "NE?G
t
and- h4eyinn \A/alkst ddeeRtified a° AAICI A.17.1 1-991 and -Supplement, ANSI A17.1a 1992;
(dd) MO""e6eta Rlttmhinn Gods, Minneseta Rttlest Ghanter 4715.0100 3160 and
4:715.5000 .6000;
1 "Cloud Rreoof??9 Requlla???e" jURe 1977t Offins of the Ghief of Gnivineer? I I.C. AFFRy:,
`"' ?y `"'` e J t
1f\ 1976 MORRe eta 1 eatinn VeRtilstinn Air G()Rditioninn and Rsfrinsrstinn_God
nAinnecota Rule t Ghanter 1345--,
/n1 Rule for F=Rerryv ( 9R6ewation Alternatives in GGR6trunti9n AAinneg-eta Roles Ghanter
4219 adept6 by efeFeRGe the 1922 (`A.R-Q Model Cner-gy Gedo,
t
t
t i
•
• F=Rer? Needs of B tildinne 1X77 Cditiont identified as Minnesota Rules, Ghantsr 1325;
t
6) Minnesota State gualding t TeGhl;'Gal Requirements for Fallout Shelters,
hinnesota Rules, Ghaster 133n,
(k) MORReseta State BUildiRg ^???++G.. , t MiMeseta t Chapte
,
•
1\AORRe eta R„le6 1300.1150;
(e) Rules FelatuRg tO PUbliG 9W"MFniRq PGOIS, MiRR86eta Rules 47-17.0100 te 4717-.3900--,
c Fga ;izatieR MiMeseta Rules 1399.200n•,
(q) Fleed PFeefing Regulations, SeGtOOR 201.2 208.2, MORReseta Rule6 Ghapter 1335.0300-
and
(a) 1300 Minnesota State Building Code
(b) 1301 Building Official Certification
(c) 1302 State Building Construction Approvals
(d) 1305 Adoption of the 1994 Uniform Building Code including Appendix Chapters:
a. 3. Division 1 Detention and Correctional Facilities
b. 11. Div. I & II
C. 12, Division II Sound Transmission Control
d 29, Minimum Plumbing Fixtures
e Appendix Chapter 31, Division II - Membrane Structures
ina
f Appendix Chapter 33, Excavating and Grad
(e) MN Rule 1306 Special Fire Protection Systems with Option 8
(f) 1307 Elevators and Related Devices
(a) 1315 Adoption of the 1996 National Electrical Code
• (h) 1325 Solar Energy Systems
(i) 1330 Fallout Shelters
,(j) 1335 Floodproofing Regulations
(k) 1340 Facilities for the Handicapped
(l) 1346 Adoption of the 1991 Uniform Mechanical Code
(m) 1350 Manufactured Homes
(n) 1360 Prefabricated Buildings
(o) 1365 Snow Loads
(p) 1370 Storm Shelters
(q) 4715 Minnesota Plumbing Code
(r) 7670 Minnesota Energy Code
Section 3. Subsection 400.11 is hereby amended to read as follows:
400.11. Building and construction permits: issuance and procedure. Subdivision 1. Procedure
upon-application. The procedure for issuance of building permits shall be as provided in U.B.C.
chapter 3 1, as amended in MN Rules 2 MG AR 1.10111 1305.0106.
B. Section 1. Subsection 700.05 of the Richfield City Code, Chapter Vll entitled Public Utilities, is
hereby amended to read as follows:
700.05
peFFnit Gard shall be displayed until the weFk 08 GGFAPle
//-3
Subd. 9 7. Indemnification by Owner. All costs and expenses incident to the installation and
connection of the building sewer shall be borne by the owner. The owner shall indemnify the city
for any loss or damage that may directly or indirectly be occasioned by the installation of the
building sewer. The city engineer shall establish rules and regulations for the proper
implementation of this part which, when approved by the council by resolution, shall govern the
installation of building sewers and connections.
d
n
i
ll d
dFive
t wa
the build M
selAxtQr
be
the #GRt buildin
ma
in
m
ey, Ge
je
R
ng a
a , yaF
OF
uF y, -
.
g
y
g
-
Old b m
ildi be used iR aFe
wheR the
S GRI
G9RReGtiGR with Rew buffildiR
u
pwFpeses. ng seweF6
a y y
Y
g
.
h
ll be G
1
B
ildi Ga6t OFOR
i
e
asbe
dUt
f extra heav StGS G8 Rq8Rt PiP8 G
a
ng sewem s
(
)
u
l
i
i
i
o
il
i p
p
,
y
y
ll b
f
f
t
f
ll
h
i
i
hi t d
t
Gast
h
a
ng seweF
v
tr
f
ed day p
pe. Bu
d e e
be
o
-aRy we
s
a
d w
t
n ten ex
ra
i U
y
eavy
p
pe,
o
d
ifi
l
d 6"
it
t
i sew
R ef buildiR
e 1R direGtie
e
Ghai; eF shall he Made by use
p
G
ay p
e
pe an
v
F
GemeR
p g
.
-
g,
(2) Type of joiRts shall GGMPIY With the fGlIGWiRq speGifiGatiORS. Cast OFOR shall hav
paGked Oakum; jeiRt with a het peuFed least FiRg appFeximately 34' deep and r-A, ilked. Arsbester,
,
eXGept WheR GGRReGt*l;g to the house dFail; Gast iFeR pope wheFe a paGked Oakum joiRt with a het
poured lead Fii;g, appFeximately 34' deep shall be used. Vitrified Glay tile jGiRtS shall GGRGiSt ef a
he re
uired by the_
!Q\ G
t iron nine with leaded ieir't° ma iReer where the
Git
eR
y
q
a y
g
i
o
i
i
i
i i
all
hp
A
t that R 9R metal!
e
eXGe
Gf Gast
reR se
l
b
ld
h al M
be aGGe
G Ma;te
ted
r
a
a
-.
p
p
p
,
-
u
Rg se
s
Feyed by the pity en
it
ble eennrete her! er GFadle as a
l
d
n p
-
.-
y
nineeF.
pp
a
a su
ai
-e
5
Wh at aR elevatioR
the bluild
iR
seweF shall be brou
ht te
ible
the buildin
(
)
eneveF g
-
-
g
g
,
poss
ll
b
wa
,
e
aFi
R
?
?
?
h ?? rliGGhareed to the b„ilrlinn hewer
//- Lf
Subd. 44 8. Excavations. Excavations required for the installation of a building sewer shall
be open trench work unless otherwise approved by the director of community services. Tunneling
may be permitted but no tunnel shall exceed six feet in length and the pipe shall be installed so as
to permit inspection of all joints. No backfill shall be placed until work has been inspected.
Excavations for building sewer installation shall be adequately guarded with barricades and lights
so as to protect the public from hazard. Streets, sidewalks, parkways and other public property
disturbed in the course of the work shall be restored in a manner satisfactory to the director of
community services.
(b) Lead shall be PauFing and Gaulked tight. No paiRt, varnish, 9F etheF GGa#pg
i i
l
t
il
ght wit
sauled t
--ctrrrmr ?±
cr
ar approved .ma
h jute, hemp sirvm
r... "r ............
Subd. 4-3 9. Connection to public sewer. The connection of the building sewer into the public
sewer shall be made at the "Y" branch, if such branch is available at a suitable location. If the
public sewer is 12 inches in diameter or less, and not properly located "Y" branch is available, the
owner shall at his expense install a "Y" branch in the public sewer at the location specified by the
director of community services. Where the public sewer is greater than 12 inches in diameter,
and no properly located "Y" branch is available, a neat hole may be cut into the public sewer to
receive the building sewer, with entry in the downstream direction at an angle of approximately 45
degrees. A 45 degree ell may be used to make such connection, with the spigot end cut so as
not to extend past the inner surface of the public sewer. The invert of the building sewer at the
point of connection shall be at the same or at a higher elevation than the invest of the public
sewer. AA smooth, neat joint shall be made, and the connection made secure and watertight by
engagement in concrete. Special fittings may be used for the connection only when approved by
the director of community services.
Subd. 44 10. Prior approval. Building sewers and house sewers shall be provided for each
separate structure and all connections to the public sanitary sewer shall be made where building
sewers and house sewers have been installed. Connection with the public sanitary sewer at any
other location must be approved by the directory of community services prior to commencement
of any construction. In the event the building sewer or house sewer which has been installed
cannot be used, then the property owner shall pay the full cost of making the connection
elsewhere. The applicant for the building sewer permit shall notify the building official when the
building sewer is ready for inspection and connection to the public sewer. The connection shall
be made under the supervision of the building official.
m r»rnol size No b iild'Rg seweF__or G9RR8GtiGR to the pity SaRita Fy sewer
18 system may be peFFnitted 9F made ftem aRy buildiRg OF GtFUGtUFe len-ated e- m a let, pieGe 9F paFGel
eflaRd OFseyeFal lots, Pamels of laRd haviRg a tetal width of less thaR5O feet.
Section 2. Subsection 710.03 is hereby amended to read as follows:
710.03 Application for service: city water system. Subdivision 1. Procedure. Applications for
service installations and for water service shall be made at the ^"mmURity seWiGe depaFtM8Rt
Inspections Division on printed forms furnished by the City. The application shall contain the
name of the owner, , the
name of the street upon which the property fronts, the official street number assigned to the
premises as shown by the records of the city and the signature of the applicant agreeing to
conform to the rules and regulations that may be established by the city as conditions for the use
of water.
Section 3. Subsection 710.17 is hereby amended to read as follows:
710.17 Service pipes.
. The service pipe
must be placed not less than seven and one-half feet below the surface and in all cases so
arranged as to prevent rupture by freezing. Service pipes must extend from the curb box to the
inside of the building; or if not taken into building then to the hydrant or other fixtures which it is
intended to supply. A sl:RA off 9F etheF step GGGk with waste full way valve, of the size and
• strength required, shall be placed close to the inside wall of the building, well protected from
freezing. Geeye Copper tubing shall be used up to and including two inch services. Joints on
copper tubing shall be kept to a minimum, with not more than one joint used for a service up to 70
feet in length. Joints shall be left uncovered until inspected. All services over two inch shall be
cast iron. Connections with the mains for domestic supply shall be at least 3/4 of an inch.
Section 4. Subsection 710.19 subd. 3 is hereby amended to read as follows:
710.19 Subd. 3. Valves. Meter installations shall have a full way valve on the
street side of the meter. In no case shall there be more than 12 inches of pipe exposed between
the point of entrance through the basement floor and the step °Ad waste full way valve. A srtep
aRd waste full way valve shall also be installed on the house side of the meter.
Adopted by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this 14th day of April, 1997.
Martin J. Kirsch, Mayor
ATTEST:
OD Thomas P. Ferber, City Clerk
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Council Letter No. 82
Agenda March 24, 1997
Issue Statement:
Consideration of approval of a resolution amending the allocation of the 1996 General Fund
budget.
Back around:
The City Charter provides that the City Council must appropriate monies for operations of the
City on a departmental level basis. After the compilation of the 1996 Revised Budget, the
expenditures of the Administration Division of the Community Development Department and
the Streets Division and Government Buildings Division of the Maintenance Services
Department have exceeded the appropriation contained in the 1996 Revised Budget,
resulting in each department's total 1996 expenditures to exceed appropriations. However,
the total General Fund budget was under expended.
The breakdown by department and division exceeding budget are listed below:
Community Development
Administration $ 2,932
Maintenance Services
Streets $57,168
Government Buildings $33,299
The cause of the budget overruns for the Community Development Department resulted from
more expenditures incurred for work on the Comprehensive Plan than budgeted and
additional costs incurred for the Academy of Holy Angels project.
During the 1996 Revised Budget process, the Adopted 1996 Community Services
Department was reorganized into three new departments. If the Council were to examine the
Adopted 1996 Community Services budget as a whole at December 31, 1996, it would be
within budget. However, with the reorganization, one of the new departments, Maintenance
Services, is over budget. More specifically, the Streets and Government Buildings Divisions
are over budget. The Streets Division is overbudget due to the extreme winter and the
additional costs that resulted from it. The primary cause of Government Buildings exceeding
budget was due to unforeseen repairs made to the City Hall HVAC system and a subsequent
study made on the system to find ways to improve it.
Therefore, City staff is recommending that the 1996 Revised Budget be reallocated among
the old Community Services divisions to address this situation.
For 1996, the Legal Division expenditures, Recreation Division expenditures and Engineering
Division expenditures are all under the 1996 Revised Budget. The City incurred less than
anticipated costs in these divisions.
City staff is recommending that the Revised Budget be reallocated between the following
departments and divisions in order to balance all City departments:
10-1
SUMMARY
INCREASE BUDGETED EXPENDITURES
Community Development:
Administration $ 3,000
Maintenance Services
Streets 58,000
Total $61,000
DECREASE BUDGETED EXPENDITURES
General Government
Legal $ 3,000
Utilities and Engineering
Engineering 13,000
Recreation Services
Recreation 45,000
Total $61,000
Net Change to General Fund Budget -0-
Recommended Motion:
It is recommended that the City Council approve the resolution amending the 1996 General
Fund Budget by authorization of a transfer of appropriations from the General Government
(Legislative/Executive) Department, Utility and Engineering Department and the Recreation
Services Department to the Community Development and Maintenance Services
Departments.
Basis of Recommendation:
1. City Charter provides that the City Council must appropriate funds at the department
level of spending.
Alternative Recommendation:
1. The transfer does not affect the annual General Fund Budget. Instead it provides that
no department end the fiscal year overspent.
Discussion/Decision Mode:
In order to allow the City's Finance Division to finalize the 1996 Comprehensive Annual
Financial Report, it is recommended that the City Council act on March 24, 1997, to adopt
the attached resolution authorizing revision of the 1996 General Fund Budget.
Respectfully submitted, 1Jam D. Prosser
City Manager
JDP:ds
/0-a
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING REVISION OF 1996
BUDGETS OF VARIOUS DEPARTMENTS
WHEREAS, Resolution No. 8280 appropriated funds for personal services, other
services and charges, supplies and capital outlays for each department of the City for the
year 1996; and
WHEREAS, Resolution No. 8415 authorized revision of the 1996 budget of various
departments; and
WHEREAS, the City Manager has requested a revision of the 1996 budget
appropriations in accordance with Charter provisions.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Richfield,
Minnesota as follows:
SUMMARY
INCREASE BUDGETED EXPENDITURES
Community Development:
Administration $ 3,000
. Maintenance Services:
Streets 58,000
Total $61,000
DECREASE BUDGETED EXPENDITURES
General Government:
Legal $ 3,000
Utilities and Engineering
Engineering 13,000
Recreation Services
Recreation 45,000
Total $61,000
NET CHANGE TO GENERAL FUND BUDGET $ 0
Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this 24th day of
March, 1997.
Martin J. Kirsch, Mayor
ATTEST:
?_ J
Thomas P. Ferber, City Clerk
9
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Council Letter No. 81
Agenda March 24, 1997
Issue Statement:
Consideration of a resolution approving the layout adding a third lane for high
occupancy vehicles on 1-35W from 1-494 to 42nd Street in Minneapolis.
Background:
The Minnesota Department of Transportation (MnDOT) has requested the City Councils
of Minneapolis and Richfield approve the proposed layout to extend the high occupancy
vehicle lane on 1-35W from 1-494 to 42nd Street in Minneapolis. The City Council can
choose to approve the layout, approve it with conditions, or reject the layout. If the
layout is rejected by either city, MnDOT would have to ask the Metropolitan Council to
arbitrate on the city's objections before the project could be built.
A record of comments received on the proposal are attached for Council review. An
invitation was mailed to 1,800 property owners to attend the March 13 Open House.
Sixty people attended and provided generally favorable comments. A summary of all
public,concerns received on the current proposal is listed below:
• the need for new noise walls including resident input on the decision
• the proximity of noise walls and retaining walls to homes
• drainage for unpaved alley along 6400 and 6500 blocks of Emerson Avenue
• acquisition of land needed for storm water ponding
• loss of housing and one business for project
• a transit station on the freeway
• aesthetic design of the project
• gateways for 66th Street and Lyndale Avenue
• westbound access to 62 Crosstown
• traffic impacts on local streets
• bikeway/pedestrian crossings of the freeway
• reuse of surplus land for bikeways/pedestrian trails
• the potential for redevelopment
• a walkway near 62 Crosstown between Fifth Avenue and Portland Avenue
• mitigation for disruption caused by highway construction
• impact of project on property values/desire for buy out of homes
• opposition to the proposed improvement
The attached resolution grants MnDOT approval with conditions. The conditions
respond to most issues raised by Richfield residents and businesses. The Council can
choose to add, subtract or modify the conditions as it wishes. The resolution
recognizes that certain issues will be addressed at a later date. They include:
0
?-1
• Aesthetic design elements (including bridge structures, grading, retaining and noise
walls, lighting and signing: landscaping and fencing): Council will be asked to
appoint residents and staff to serve on an Aesthetic Design Review Committee to
oversee design elements of the project. MnDOT will need the Council's
appointments to this committee for an organizational meeting to occur in April.
• New noise walls: A series of neighborhood meetings will be held for residents to
express their wishes about whether or not to build new noise walls where none exist
today. A mediator may be hired to assist in this process.
• Storm treatment pond: The location of a storm water treatment pond will be
addressed at the March 25 Planning Commission meeting and the April 14 Council
meeting.
• Transit facilities: Design concepts and the location of a transit station are still being
considered at this time.
• Gateway entrances at 66th Street and Lyndale Avenue: Additional improvements
affecting the gateway entrances to Richfield will require further review by Council.
If the project is approved, work from the 66th Street bridge south could begin as soon
as 1999.
Recommended Motion:
Adopt the resolution approving the 1-35W design with the recommended conditions.
Basis of Recommendation:
1. Although the MnDOT proposal doesn't correct all 1-35W deficiencies, it is generally
consistent with the City's position on 1-35W:
• by keeping regional trips on the regional highway network;
• by providing an HOV lane rather than light rail transit; and
• by promoting high speed bus service and carpooling.
2. The proposal can be built under existing budgetary limits.
3. Refinements in the design are possible to lessen negative effects on Richfield.
Alternative Recommendations:
1. Consider approving the design without conditions. This would indicate no further
refinements are needed in the design. However, residents have expressed concern
about making refinements to the MnDOT proposal designed to reduce negative
impacts on Richfield.
2. Consider rejecting the design; however, this is inconsistent with the Council's
January 27 comment on the addendum to the Final Environmental Impact
9-a
Statement. It would also require MnDOT to ask the Metropolitan Council to arbitrate
the City's objections to the design with MnDOT.
3. Recognize that the Council still will have several additional opportunities to comment
on certain unresolved topics such. as the aesthetic design of the project, new noise
walls, transit facilities, a storm treatment pond, and construction staging.
4. Reject the design because of concerns relating to the impact on Don Cedarholm's
property. Mr. Cedarholm has requested that the City reject the design because it will
require moving the curb line to one inch of his property line and eight feet of his
house. Staff will review these issues with Mr. Cedarholm before the March 24
Council meeting and will be prepared to discuss with the City Council
Discussion/Decision Mode:
MnDOT has asked that a decision be made soon in order to keep the project on
schedule. Also, the Council's decision may assist the City of Minneapolis in making its
own decision on the project on April 11. However, the Council does not have to decide
at this time. The Council can choose to ask for additional information or for
modifications to the conditions contained in the attached resolution. Should Council
elect to delay action at this time, the Council should consider taking action as soon as
additional information is available. Layout approval is a critical step in the design of a
highway project. The Council has approval authority over projects like this one. If
MnDOT complies with any conditions to Council approval, no further City approval will
be needed.
Respectfully submitted,
Ja s D. Prosser
City anager
Attachments
JDP:ds
0
REVISED 9-3
0 RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION APPROVING THE LAYOUT
FOR THE EXTENSION OF HIGH OCCUPANCY VEHICLE LANE ON 1-35W
FROM 1-494 TO 42ND STREET IN MINNEAPOLIS, MINNESOTA
WHEREAS, the Commissioner of the Department of Transportation has
prepared a preliminary layout for the improvement of a part of Trunk Highway Number
394 renumbered as Trunk Highway No. 35W within the corporate limits of the City of
Richfield, from the junction of 1-494 to the east junction of Trunk Highway No. 62; and
seeks the approval thereof; and
WHEREAS, said preliminary layouts are on file in the Office of the Minnesota
Department of Transportation, St. Paul, Minnesota, being marked, labeled, and
identified as Layout No. 1, S.P. 2782-265, 2782-266, 2782-267 and 2782-268, from 1-
494 to 42nd Street.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that said preliminary layouts for the
improvement of said Trunk Highway with the corporate limits be and hereby are
approved by the City Council of the City of Richfield subject to the following conditions
that:
1. An Aesthetic Design Review Committee containing representatives of
Minneapolis, Richfield and the Minnesota Department of Transportation must be formed
and must review all aesthetic design elements of the proposed project.
2. Residents in Richfield neighborhoods where a noise analysis has indicated
new noise walls be located must be given an opportunity to advise the Richfield City
Council on the desirability of adding new noise walls.
3. The location and financing of a storm water treatment pond in the area of
Richfield Lake for highway runoff must be resolved to the City's satisfaction.
4. The administration of land acquisition and relocation for the storm water pond
should be delegated to the City to improve the City's ability to coordinate possible
redevelopment.
5. The freeway design must take into account drainage problems identified by
residents served by the alley serving 6400 and 6500 blocks of Emerson Avenue.
6. The provision of transit facilities along 1-35W between 66th Street and Nicollet
Avenue must be resolved to the mutual satisfaction of the cities of Minneapolis and
Richfield.
0
REVISED 9-4
. 7. Improvements to local streets that serve as gateway entrances at 66th Street
and Lyndale Avenue must be submitted for approval to the City Council.
8. Adequate space should be provided for a possible pedestrian/bikeway bridge
at 68th Street crossing over I-35W.
9. 'The Soo Line tunnel should be designed to allow for its future use as a
pedestrian/bikeway trail.
10. The freeway underpasses for 66th Street, Lyndale Avenue, and Nicollet
Avenue must be designed to provide adequate width for bicyclists and pedestrians to
travel safely.
11. The problem of inadequate sidewalks on the 76th Street bridge over 1-35W
should be corrected as part of any major structural improvements to the bridge.
12. The extension of the third lane from 1-494 will reintroduce operational
problems at the 1-494/1-35W interchange that should add great urgency to
reconstructing the interchange.
13. Provide Don Cederholm of 6214 Fifth Avenue additional time to review the
• impact of the design on his property.
Adopted by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this 24th day of
March, 1997.
Martin J. Kirsch, Mayor
ATTEST:
Thomas P. Ferber, City Clerk
0
?-5
Memorandum
DATE: March 17, 1997
TO: FILE
FROM: Thomas Foley, Transportation Engineer
SUBJECT: Citizens' Log on 1-3 5W HOV Lane
GENERAL COMMENTS
•
•
Stephen. Wickham 4/25/96 Favors his home being bought for 62
6226 Garfield Ave. Crosstown expansion. Supports bike path along
Richfield, MN 55423 freeway plus adding bridge width for bikes to
Phone 869-8026 travel over major streets like Lyndale and
Nicollet to connect to city parks. 6/3/96 The
homeless camp on grass across from his home.
This land could be used for bikeway to protect
children from having to cross busy streets to
get to parks. Will send Adam Josephson a
letter.
Mrs. Gwen Lichty 5/21/96 Opposes a walking path around Mud
6108 Loren Drive Lake (north of Legion Lake) because of
Minneapolis, MN 55417 security to residents. Prefers to see Mud Lake
Phone 798-4067 left in natural setting. Accepts additional runoff
to Mud Lake as part of 35W improvement.
Other residents also are opposed to walking
path.
Mr. Orv Philbrandt 3/27/96 Wanted to know the impact of HOV
6220 Pillsbury Avenue extension on his property and the property to
Richfield, MN 55423 the north.
Phone H 887-1218, Cellular 751-2943
Mrs. Doris Rubenstein 7/1/96 Very concerned about the impact of
Wood Lake Court Condominiums 35W on property values. Also concerned about
Phone (W) 624-4716 the impact on water quality of Richfield Lake.
Caroline Thompson 7/31/96 Wants improved noise attenuation
6221 Girard Avenue measures taken. Trucks brake while turning
Richfield, MN 55423 corner from eastbound 62 to southbound 35W.
Phone 798-5125 Noise levels have gotten much worse since 62
March 17, 1997
Page 2
•
•
•
was improved recently.
Joan Siedler 8/12/96 Wanted to know if the widening of I-
Lake Shore Drive 35W would eliminate Lake Shore Drive.
866-3070
Rich Mezaros 8/29/96 Is concerned that 62 Crosstown is very
6214 Logan Avenue dangerous especially for eastbound traffic as
Richfield, MN 55423 they can not see over hill by Penn Av. in time
to stop for queue backing up. I explained the
proposed improvement to him.
Elaine Raciborski 9/3/96 Concerned that the Wood Lake Apts.
Wood Lake Apts. not be acquired as part of the widening of
Richfield, MN 55423 35W.
866-4602
John Hawkins 9/4/96 Wanted to see the location of the
6225 Blaisdell Avenue retaining wall next to his home.
Richfield, MN 55423
869-7169
Denise Lash 9/26/96 Wanted to know why her property
6227 Aldrich Ave. isn't being taken while a neighbor's home at
Richfield, MN 55423 6228 Aldrich would be purchased. I explained
861-8830 that an exit ramp may be at a lower grade by
her house and a retaining wall is needed by her
neighbor's house. She thought that a cul de sac
should work so the loop street would not be
needed. I explained that a circle may take just
as much land as a loop street.
Don Abbott 1/21/97 Wants to remodel his home. Wants
6305 Colfax Ave. direction from City if his house is taken as part
of Richfield Lake redevelopment plan.
Carl Palmquist 1 /21 /97 Adam Josephson called to say he had
6215 5th Avenue spoken to Mr. Palmquist about residents at the
Open House asking for a path to Portland
Avenue that would require acquiring a partial
take from his property. 3/7/97 Called to
complain that City did not talk to him before
proposing to extend walkway by his home.
William Bowe 2/12/97 Wants to know who gets to vote on a
noisewall, not just those living closest to road.
He wants a noisewall. He sits in back yard and
can see the road and Wood Lake.
Judy Taylor 2/21/97 Doesn't want the noisewall closer to
6220 2nd Avenue her home. She also wants to make home
improvements.
George Holter 2/24/97 Doesn't want the noisewall moved
•
•
C,
March 17, 1997
Page 3
9-7
6424 Emerson Avenue closer to his house. If done, he wants MnDOT
to buy his house. Also, is opposed to buying
the Lyndale Garden Center for stormwater
treatment. He believes the lake is big enough to
provide storage and treatment especially since
an outlet to Wood Lake was built. Thinks the
walking path around Richfield Lake should be
higher so it doesn't flood out at high water
levels.
Joe Kapetz 2/25/97 New to City as of 9/96. Was not aware
6227 Wentworth Avenue of widening of Crosstown. Wanted to know the
impact of the improvement on his property
value.
Ron Anderson 3/7/97 Residents need to be aware that noise
7308 James Avenue walls increase noise several houses away from
noisewall. This happened to their house back in
1964 when the current noisewall was built.
Suggests adding sidewalk on parkside of
Humboldt Avenue from 73rd Street pedestrian
bridge to 75th Street for children going to
school. Also, wants an ordinance requiring
pedestrians to use sidewalk when they are
available: Bikers force cars to avoid them since
new state law passed that requires cars to give
3' clearance when passing a bicyclist.
Ted Farrington 3/7/97 Wanted to know other options to
6839 Humboldt Avenue acquiring Lyndale Garden Center for a storm
pond. I explained two other options. Wanted to
know if City could condemn the property. I
answered yes. Wanted to know if property
owner could appeal if he didn't like the price
offered by the City. I answered yes.
Kurt Raaen 3/10/97 Opposes moving noisewall closer to
6408 Emerson Avenue his home. Wants to be bought out if wall
creates a shadow on his property causing snow
and ice build up problems on his alley. Would
be willing to sell to City if Richfield Lake plan
calls for redeveloping his property. Through
traffic on Emerson Avenue is a problem, too.
Bob Piculell 3/12/97 Concerned that 35W not affect Milner
342 Apple Lane Pond. I said it wouldn't. He asked that City
plan to excavate Milner Pond in the near future
to remove sand and silt build up.
Thor Nelvin 3/12/97 Wants to know what is" being
March 17, 1997
Page 4
r?
U
Nelvin's Auto Body
6232 Lyndale Avenue proposed. Wants to be placed on mailing list.
Tom And Barbara Elliott 3/17/97 Wants to receive a description of the
6741 Harriet Avenue options for a storm water pond near Richfield
Lake. Favors an alternative that increases the
City's tax base. Supportive of new businesses
along Lyndale Avenue. Does not want to lose
housing to widen the freeway. I sent her
information on the storm water pond options.
Mr. and Mrs. Ralph Lott 3/17/97 Want to know how close I-35W will
6224 Nicollet Avenue be to their house. Concerned that Nicollet
Avenue is adequately lit under I-35W to make
it safe for pedestrians. Think a street light is
needed at the corner of Nicollet and Blaisdell
Avenues. Want additional lighting in Nicollet
Park.
COMMENTS ON NOISE WALLS
0
Caroline Thompson 7/31/96 Wants improved noise attenuation
6221 Girard Avenue measures taken. Trucks brake while turning
Richfield, MN 55423 corner from eastbound 62 to southbound 35W.
Phone 798-5125 Noise levels have gotten much worse since 62
was improved recently.
John Hawkins 9/4/96 Wanted to see the location of the
6225 Blaisdell Avenue retaining wall next to his home.
Richfield, MN 55423
869-7169
Carl Palmquist 1/21/97 Adam Josephson called to say he had
6215 5th Avenue spoken to Mr. Palmquist about residents at the
Open House asking for a path to Portland
Avenue that would require acquiring a partial
take from his property.
William Bowe 2/12/97 Wants to know who gets to vote on a
noisewall, not just those living closest to road.
He wants a noisewall. He sits in back yard and
can see the road and Wood Lake.
Judy Taylor 2/21/97 Doesn't want the noisewall closer to
6220 2nd Avenue her home. She also wants to make home
improvements.
George Holter 2/24/97 Doesn't want the noisewall moved
6424 Emerson Avenue closer to his house. If I-35W widened, he
wants MnDOT to buy his house. Also, is
opposed to buying the Lyndale Garden Center
March 17, 1997
Page 5
9-9
for stormwater treatment. He believes the lake
is big enough to provide storage and treatment
especially since an outlet to Wood Lake was
built. Thinks the walking path around Richfield
Lake should be higher so it doesn't flood out at
high water levels.
Ron Anderson 3/7/97 Residents need to be aware that
7308 James Avenue noisewalls increase noise several houses away
from noisewall. This happened to their house
back in 1964 when the current noisewall was
built.
Ted Farrington 3/7/97 Wants to know options for noisewalls
6839 Humboldt Avenue such as changing the height, and commenting
on the design.
Annette Silverberg 3/7/97 Wants to know noisewall impact on her
6215 Humboldt Avenue property. I answered that the noisewall would
not be extended to the north and west of its
present location. I sent a map of the noisewall
locations. She returned a call on 3/12/97 saying
she was disappointed that the noisewall would
not be extended to the west along 62
Crosstown.
Kurt Raaen 3/10/97 Does not want noisewall moved closer
6408 Emerson Avenue to his property. If it is as close as the wall on
the 6500 block of Emerson Ave., it will cast a
shadow all the time. It also will add to the ice
and snow build up on the alley. He had other
comments, too.
Dorothy Peterson 3/10/97 Opposes extending the noisewall past
7120 Lake Shore Drive her house. Claims the Mayor sent a survey out
about 18 months ago on the same topic. The
City sent a follow up letter indicating that the
results of the survey showed residents didn't
want a new noisewall. I told her I would check
on the survey.
Barbara Bailey 3/17/97 Wants to retain view of Wood Lake
7044 Lake Shore Drive area. Prefers a low noise wall, a little higher
than the 6' high chain link fence that is already
out there.
0
March 17, 1997 ? I
Page 6
COMMENTS RECEIVED AT MARCH 13, 1997 OPEN HOUSE
•
NAME COMMENT
Robert D. Nelson Visual Appearance. Consider areas that can be landscaped - such as curve north of 66th -
7410 Girard Avenue so the freeway can be as attractive as 35E from 7th Street to downtown St. Paul.
798-6051 Sound Abatement. When building sound walls, consider the materials and angles of wall
surface which will not reflect sound - (recall the ceiling of Orchestra Hall) as well as
thickness and density of walls to restrict pass through of sound. Also you may recall some
public phone booths that have some sort of sound panels that work well. When you put
your head inside that area, it is quiet! What can that tell highway sound engineers of how
to provide sound absorption on a large scale?!
Jim & Pat Matczynski We would like to be able to give input for a sound wall on the west side of 35W. Irving
6911 Irving Avenue Avenue is affected by noise from 35W and residents should be able to vote for or against a
861-1282 sound wall. If a sound wall is constructed, could it be built to absorb noise rather than
bounce sounds?
Gary Ness I support the commercial option for the water treatment pond. Build a sound wall along
1611 W. 72nd Street 35W between 73rd and 68th Street.
866-3596
Barb & Steve Uphoff We have studied the proposed expansion of 35W/Hwy 62. We just want you to know that
6540 Emerson Avenue we are considering relocating as we feel we are outgrowing our home.
869-0947/861-4303-w
Lonnie Birhanzel Install a noise wall on Richfield side of freeway to extend all the way to Portland Avenue.
6227 Fifth Avenue Wall should be kept as low as practical. Suggest 10' above present street level. Install
861-5085 sidewalk/bike path to connect Fifth Street to Portland Avenue, thereby creating a pathway
all the way from Nicollet to Portland.
0
0
r
March 17, 1997
Page 7
9-)/
NAME COMMENT
Joseph & Wendy Capetz We're absolutely 100% disappointed and opposed to the construction and we are
6227 Wentworth concerned about the de-valuation of our property in our neighborhood. I view this as a
866-1166 two-three year construction nightmare that will have a negative impact on our day to day
860-4060/509-2820 lives. I'm not sold on the idea of a "beautified end result." We're losing distance from the
freeway and these plans were just recently revealed to us. (We just purchased our home in
September and we had no disclosure of this proposal at the time of our purchase.)
Ultimately, it will be difficult to sell the house during the course of construction and there
is no guarantee that the end result will "improve" our property value. In fact, we're
concerned it will de-value our home instead. Are there going to be any considerations for
reparations for those who will be directly impacted by the reconstruction? I would propose
that the City of Richfield delay the construction to re-evaluate what this will do to the
values of the homes directly affected and have some considerations for those of us who
will have to live with the noise, dust and negative situation during the re-build process.
The wall is moving too close to the homes... period. Also ...is there a noise wall provided
during the construction?
John Walstrom We need a noise wall - west side of freeway. It doesn't need to be as high as others.
7200 James Avenue
866-3851
Dorothy & Arnold Peterson We live at 7120 Lake Shore Drive overlooking Wood Lake where there is no wall. We
7120 Lake Shore Drive strongly disagree with building a wall where we overlook Wood Lake. Our home is
869-1809 elevated from the street so the wall would need to be grotesquely high and unsightly.
Ken Janes I would like for you to take my house. The fence is moving too close.
6216 Third Avenue
861-6180 932-8607
Steven O. Lindgren These comments do not reflect the official Chamber of Commerce position; however, the
Suite 130, 1401 West 76th loss of any business in Richfield should be of concern to the City Council. The
Street employment opportunities which have been provided over the years by Lyndale Garden
866-5100 Center are significant. An economic analysis of the 3 options for a storm water treatment
should include a detailed review of all aspects pertaining to any loss here. Thanks for the
Open House!
Russell Kennedy The potential loss of housing stock is of great concern to me. Five homes have been
6241 Grand Avenue identified for acquisition; however a number of others may be taken eventually is a loss we
869-4851 can ill afford. Not only an encroachment on the neighborhoods, but it will surely
depreciate property. I also am concerned about the possibility of a noisewall for entry on
35W on the west side. This surely will depreciate property values and disrupt the real
estate market in the neighborhood. Another concern is the possible acquisition of Lyndale
Gardens. We cannot afford the loss of tax and payroll revenue that this business generates.
I can't think of any area in Richfield where they could relocate. Much of the proposal has
merit and will hopefully relieve a serious traffic problem in the Commons. ,
Peter Suek. With the reconstruction of the 35/62 Commons, some south family homes may be more
7241 Emerson Avenue open to moving to provide space for the storm water basin. Lyndale Gardens is a good
866-7185 business to have on a gateway to Richfield such as Lyndale Avenue. If we have a good
plan for the Lyndale Gardens area, then I would approve.
Randy Johnson Please raise and lengthen the noise wall for the impact of the new bridge connecting 35W
6314 Humboldt Avenue north with Hwy 121 and Hwy 62. Noise wall from 66th and 35W along Girard up to Hwy
861-1215 62. From my kitchen window I can already see and hear traffic on 35W.
Larry Wozniczka I would like to see: 1) West bound access to TH 62 compensating for increased local
6744 Wentworth Avenue traffic when Lyndale access to north 35W is lost. 2) Pedestrian path from Fifth to Portland
869-1236 south side of TH62. 3) Economic tradeoffs of 3 ponding options. Seems single family
option is least expensive to Richfield tax base.
March 17, 1997
Page 8
•
Linda Saathoff I live at 6420 Emerson. I am not looking forward to the noise barrier wall coming so close
6420 Emerson Avenue to our back yard, and would appreciate it being built as far to the west as possible.
861-2651
Jim Saathoff I have concern that moving the retaining wall next to the alley on the 6400 block of
6420 Emerson Emerson will create a drainage problem if the alley is not improved as part of the
861-2651 456-4511 wall/freeway construction project.
Regina Saleck We cannot be left so close to the road - Crosstown. Noise and pollution are horrible now
6211 Clinton Avenue and not healthy for us. Walls are cracking and so is our driveway.
866-8000
Brad Olson & Lyn Froiland Want to know if widening 66th Street will acquire their home. They are interested in
1317 W. 66th Street selling. Need to do roof repair and want direction soon from city.
Lorri Olson Wanted to know impact of project on her property.
Manager of Richfield Shops
at 66th/Nicollet
Edward Saleck Please include at least one storm drain in front of 6211 Clinton. There now are three
6211 Clinton Avenue drains for the vacant lots across the street.
866-8000
•
8
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Council Letter No. 80
Agenda March 24, 1997
Issue Statement:
Consideration of a resolution regarding an agreement between the Office of Traffic
Safety in the Minnesota Department of Public Safety and the City of Richfield Public
Safety Department pertaining to the Safe & Sober Communities program.
Background:
The Public Safety Department, Police Division, submitted an application for the Safe &
Sober Communities for the purpose of payment to officers for overtime. This overtime
would be used by the officers only on specific enforcement activities which the
Department outlined in the application.
Richfield has some of the highest traffic volumes in the State due to it being bounded
on three sides by major highways, and being bisected by 1-35W. Additionally, Penn,
Lyndale, Nicollet and Portland Avenues carry large amounts of traffic going in and out
of Minneapolis. Because of frequent traffic congestion on these routes, motorists
routinely use residential streets in an attempt to bypass congested areas. This results
in a myriad of traffic violations and, occasionally, accidents. Safe & Soberfunds will be
used for overtime identification and enforcement of these traffic concerns in addition to
D.U.1 enforcement, underage alcohol usage and safety restraint usage.
Recommended Motion:
Approve the attached resolution authorizing the acceptance of grant funds to be used
for the payment of overtime for officers involved in the Safe & Sober Communities
project and authoirze the City Manager to execute the agreement.
Basis of Recommendation:
1. Approval of the resolution would allow interested officers to be paid overtime for
work on the project.
2. Traffic enforcement and accident reduction is a primary focus of the Public Safety
Department. Due to routine call loads, regularly scheduled officers frequently are
unable to devote adequate time to these areas. Approval of the resolution makes
available needed funds to cover costs associated with focusing on these areas.
Alternative Recommendation:
Do not approve the resolution which would void said agreement.
Discussion/Decision Mode:
This item is scheduled for the March 24, 1997.
RespectfyAy submitted,
Jam s . Prosser
City nager
0 JDP:ds
g-)
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING ACCEPTANCE OF GRANT FUNDS
WHEREAS, the Governor has designated the State of Minnesota, Office of
Traffic Safety in the Minnesota Department of Public Safety (hereinafter called the
STATE) as the agency responsible for administration of a project entitled Safe & Sober
Communities; and
WHEREAS, the STATE is authorized to make contracts from state funds to
qualified applicants; and
WHEREAS, the City of Richfield, Public Safety Department (hereinafter called
the GRANTEE), is authorized to accept state funds for overtime for traffic enforcement
programs; and
WHEREAS, GRANTEE represents that it is duly qualified and willing to carry out
the tasks described above.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City of Richfield enter into a
cooperative agreement with the Office of Traffic Safety in the Minnesota Department of
Public Safety for the project entitled Safe & Sober Communities. James D. Prosser,
City Manager, is hereby authorized to execute such agreements as are necessary to
implement the project on behalf of the City of Richfield, Department of Public Safety.
Adopted by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this 24 day of
March, 1997.
Martin J. Kirsch, Mayor
ATTEST:
Thomas P. Ferber, City Clerk
I?
i.?J
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Council Letter No. 79
Agenda March 24, 1997
Issue Statement:
Continuation of a public hearing to consider application for a new 1997 tavern (dance)
license for Chi Chi's Inc., d/b/a Chi Chi's Mexican Restaurante, 7717 Nicollet Avenue
(continued from February 10, 1997).
Background:
On December 11, 1996 the City received the application for a new Tavern (dance)
license for Chi Chi's Mexican Restaurant. The applicant has paid the required license
fees.
On December 9, 1996, a public hearing was held to consider 1997 on-sale and Sunday
liquor licenses for Chi Chi's Mexican Restaurante. At that time, it was decided that the
license would be granted only for the time period of January 1, 1997 to March 31, 1997
with a thorough statistical review of Public Safety contacts to be conducted to
determine if Chi Chi's action plan has been successful in reducing problems at the site.
Chi Chi's has put an action plan into effect that proposes the following actions:
• Chi Chi's will continue its in-house training program on alcohol awareness. They
hired an outside provider to provide an in-depth seminar that was mandatory for all
wait and bar staff. This seminar was held on Sunday, December 22, 1996 and was
provided by the Minnesota Restaurant Association. Officer Bill Nikituk attended this
session.
• Hired security personnel have been equipped with voice communications devices in
order to stay in touch with management at all points of the premises.
• A cover charge has been put in place on weekends in an attempt to control the
crowd size.
• A mandatory coat check policy on weekends has been put in place in an effort to
reduce the likelihood of concealed weapons being introduced to the premises.
• Chi Chi's is considering the redesigning of the dance area in an effort to alleviate
crowded conditions and to update the facility in general. This is assuming that a
tavern license for dancing will be approved. The dance floor will be downsized by
one half and relocated to a game room area.
On February 10, 1997 Chi-Chi's and their attorney requested that the City Council
0 consider a 1997 tavern license for the establishment. The City Council unanimously
`7 -1
voted to defer any action on their request until March 24, 1997, as they thought it was
too early to determine if their Public Safety contacts has decreased.
Public Safety staff has completed a statistical analysis for the time period of January 1,
1997 through March 14, 1997.
The findings of that analysis are as follows:
1997 Disturbances Drunkenness Threat Warrant Other
January 2 0 1 1 3
February 0 0 0 0 2
March (Thru 14th) 0 0 0 0 0
These statistics, when compared to 1996 statistics, appear to indicate that Chi-Chi's
efforts in reducing their Public Safety calls has been successful.
Recommended Motion:
Conduct the public hearing to approve the request for a new 1997 tavern (dance)
license for Chi Chi's Mexican Restaurante for the remainder of 1997.
Basis of Recommendation:
1. There does appear to be a reduction in the number of Public Safety contacts for
Chi-Chi's during the first quarter of 1997.
Alternative Recommendation:
1. The Council could decide not to grant the license at this time which would mean
that dancing would not be approved.
Discussion/Decision Mode:
The request for a new 1997 tavern (dance) license for Chi Chi's Mexican Restaurante,
7717 Nicollet Avenue, is being submitted for consideration at this time.
Respectfully submitted,
Jame Prosser
City Manager
JDP:ds
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Council Letter No. 78
Agenda March 24, 1997
Issue Statement:
Public hearing to consider the renewal of a 1997 on-sale and Sunday liquor license for
Chi-Chi's, Inc., d/b/a Chi Chi's Mexican Restaurante, 7717 Nicollet Avenue for the
remainder of 1997.
Background:
On October 25, 1996 the City received the renewal applications and other required
documents for the on-sale and Sunday liquor licenses for Chi-Chi's Mexican
Restaurante. The applicant has paid the required license fees.
The Public Safety background investigation has been completed and reveals the
following:
• The corporate structure of the organization has changed from last year. A copy of
the list of officers and directors of the corporation is attached to this letter. Philipos
Getachew is now serving as the General Manager of the restaurant. None of these
individuals has any known liquor related criminal records.
• All general sales, real estate and withholding taxes have been paid and are current.
• The lease agreement between the applicant and the property owner, Maro-Max
Company, continues to be in effect with all lease payments being current.
• The $10,000 bond issued by National Union Fire Insurance Company of Pittsburgh
has been submitted.
• The required proof of liquor liability insurance coverage has been received showing
National Union Fire Insurance as affording the required coverage. Proof of workers'
compensation insurance coverage was also supplied.
• An accountant's statement has been prepared and submitted. This statement
covers the period from November 1995 through September 1996 and indicates that
food sales accounted for 56% of the total sales, while liquor sales accounted for
44% of the total sales.
From November 1995 through October 1996, there were 122 Public Safety contacts
with Chi Chi's. This compares with 66 contacts for the previous year. A breakdown of
these contacts is attached to this letter.
As a result of the Public Safety contacts being significantly higher, staff invited the
General Manager and District Manager of Chi Chi's to a meeting with Public Safety staff
t `I
. on November 19, 1996. At that time, statistical information relating to Public Safety
contacts was reviewed in detail. There was a significant increase in the number of calls
that were alcohol related. Staff also notified Chi Chi's at that meeting that they did not
currently possess a tavern license which allows for dancing on the premises. They
were told that all dancing must stop until a tavern license has been approved by the
City Council. Staff also requested an action plan from Chi Chi's staff which should
outline the ways in which they would deal with the increased alcohol related incidents.
On November 22, 1996 staff received a call from Attorney Cornell L. Moore, Dorsey and
Whitney, who had been asked to represent Chi Chi's in this matter. Mr. Moore
requested a meeting with Public Safety staff to better understand the issues. Public
Safety staff met with Mr. Moore on November 26, 1996 and reviewed the statistical
information. He was also advised about the lack of a tavern license for dancing and the
need for dancing to be discontinued. City staff requested an action plan be developed
by Chi Chi's by December 1, 1996 to address the steps that will be taken.
On December 1, 1996, Public Safety staff received an action plan from Cornell L.
Moore. The plan proposes the following actions:
1. Chi Chi's will continue its in-house training program on alcohol awareness. They will
also hire an outside provider to provide an in-depth seminar that will be mandatory
• for all wait and bar staff. This seminar will be provided by the Minnesota Restaurant
Association and the first session will take place on December 15, 1996. Training will
also occur every six months thereafter. Public Safety has been invited to attend
these sessions and to assist if appropriate.
2. Hired security personnel have been equipped with voice communication devices in
order to stay in touch with management at all points of the premises. Security
coverage is varied, depending on the night of the week, but ranges from one to six
staff. Security is required to address the outside of the premises as well as the
inside.
3. A cover charge has been put in place on weekends in an attempt to control the
crowd size.
4. A mandatory coat check policy on weekends has been put in place in an effort to
reduce the likelihood of concealed weapons being introduced to the premises.
5. Chi Chi's is considering the redesigning of the dance area in an effort to alleviate
crowded conditions and to update the facility in general. This is assuming that a
tavern license for dancing will be approved. The dance floor will be downsized by
one half and relocated to a game room area. This redesigning will also add a
complete new bar and include a comprehensive redecorating package.
&,(I
Environmental Health staff received one complaint in 1996 regarding Chi-Chi's. The
complaint involved alleged food poisoning. The Bloomington Health Department was
notified and no further complaints have been received by staff.
On-sale and Sunday liquor licenses require owners of these establishments to comply
with Resolution No. 7380, which outlines discipline they can expect if any ongoing
problems occur. A copy of this resolution has been given to the owner of the
establishment and a copy is also attached to this letter.
On December 9, 1996, the City Council approved Chi-Chi's on-sale and Sunday liquor
licenses for the time period of January 1, 1997 to March 31, 1997, at which time a
through statistical review of Public Safety contacts will be conducted to determine if Chi-
Chi's action plan has been successful in reducing problems at the site.
Public Safety staff has completed a statistical analysis for the time period of January 1,
1997 through March 14, 1997.
The findings of that analysis are as follows:
1997 Disturbances Drunkenness Threat Warrant Other
January 2 0 1 1 3
February 0 0 0 0 2
• March (Thru 14th) 0 0 0 0 0
These statistics, when compared to 1996 statistics, appear to indicate that Chi-Chi's
efforts in reducing their Public Safety calls have been successful.
Recommended Motion:
Conduct a public hearing to approve the renewal of the 1997 on-sale and Sunday liquor
licenses for Chi-Chi's Mexican Restaurante for the remainder of 1997, with the following
stipulation:
1. That the requirements are met in Resolution No. 7380.
Basis of Recommendation:
1. The applicant has complied with all of the provisions of both City Codes and State
Statutes pertaining to On-sale and Sunday liquor licensing.
2. Staff has closely monitored Chi-Chi's efforts in dealing with a significant increase
in alcohol related calls during 1996. Their efforts do appear to reflect a reduction
in the number of Public Safety contacts for Chi-Chi's during the first quarter of
1997.
n
?J
• Alternative Recommendation:
1. The Council could decide to continue to monitor statistical information for the
second quarter of 1997 which would mean they would have to approve an On-
sale and Sunday liquor licenses for Chi-Chi's for the second quarter of 1997.
2. The Council could decide to suspend or revoke the licenses. Any suspension or
revocation must, according to Minnesota State Statute 340A.415, be based upon
a finding that the licensee has failed to comply with an applicable statute, rule or
ordinance relating to alcoholic beverages. The Council must also note that no
revocation or suspension takes effect until the licensee has been afforded an
opportunity for a hearing under Section 14.57 to 14.70 of the Administrative
Procedure Act.
It appears that the licensee has not committed any violation relating to alcoholic
beverages and, therefore, it is recommended that the licenses not be revoked or
suspended.
Discussion/Decision Mode:
A continuation of a public hearing to consider the request for the renewal of Chi Chi's
Mexican Restaurante On-sale and Sunday liquor licenses has been scheduled for
March 24, 1997. Their current licenses expire March 31, 1997.
. Respectfully submitted,
Ja #eD. Prosser
City Manager
JDP:ds
is
to 4
•
9
Roger Chamness
Robert Trebing
Todd Doyle
Kathleen Sorenson
Robert Gonda
Lawrence Ramaekers
CHI CHI'S MEXICAN RESTAURANTE
Partners/Officer and Titles
President
Vice President
Secretary
Assistant Secretary
Treasurer
Chief Executive Officer
is
_5
PUBLIC SAFETY CONTACTS
NOVEMBER 1995 OCTOBER 1996
CHI-CHI'S MEXICAN RESTAURANTE
1995 1996
Total Contacts 66 122
Criminal Contacts 50 113
"Bar Type" (Included in Criminal Contacts) (22) (45)
Alarm (2) (2)
Misc. Non-Criminal 16 9
Assists (7) (3)
Traffic (3) (2)
Inspections/Licensing (0) (0)
Medical/Fire (6) (4)
The criminal contacts for 1996 were: 21 thefts, 6 vandalisms, 2 burglary alarms, 13
drunkenesses, 3 forgeries, 1 DWI, 6 assaults, 6 suspicious vehicles, 3 suspicious
persons, 5 domestics, 1 no-pay, 2 miscellaneous ordinance violations, 1 warrant, 8
property damages, 5 vehicle thefts, 1 possess property, 10 disturbances, 9 disorderly
conducts, 1 sex crime, 1 personal injury, 5 follow-up investigations, 1 recovery, 1 detox
commitment, and 1 statute violation.
(Numbers in parenthesis are included in total contact figures.)
•
(0- to
CITY OF RICHFIELD
RESOLUTION NO. 7380
RESOLUTION SPECIFYING CERTAIN IMPROPER
CONDUCT OF ON-SALE INTOXICATING LIQUOR
LICENSEES AND STATING RECOMMENDED
DISCIPLINE THEREFOR
BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Richfield as follows:
BACKGROUND STATEMENT
The City of Richfield annually issues a number of licenses permitting the On-Sale sale of
intoxicating liquor within the City. The conduct of the licensed activity is governed by the
provisions of Section 1200 of City Code. Although, the provisions of that Section describe in a
general way what is expected of licensees in the proper conduct of the licensed activity, the City
Council is concerned that licensees should have a more specific understanding of the types of
conduct, generally described in the Code, which may subject their licenses to discipline; and
further that they have a clear understanding of the scope and nature of the discipline which may
be imposed for certain specific conduct. The levels of discipline described in this resolution will
be imposed only in accordance with the applicable provisions of law. The list of activities and
conduct contained in this resolution is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather concentrates on
the types of conduct most frequently observed at licenses establishments. Other activity or
conduct which is detrimental to the public safety, health, morals and welfare and which
constitutes a violation of the provisions of Section 1200 of the City Code may also subject liquor
licenses to discipline. The actions which the City may take in accordance with this resolution are
not intended to preclude such further actions in law or in equity or criminal prosecution available
to the city for the conduct described in this resolution.
II. SPECIFIC PROHIBITED CONDUCT AND PROPOSED SANCTIONS.
A. Noise and Other Disturbing Conduct Within or Near the Licensed Premises.
Licensees are responsible for the conduct of their patrons while within the licensed
establishment; and of individuals within the immediate vicinity of the establishment who are
either coming to or leaving the establishment. The City is unwilling to permit the continued
operation of a licensed liquor establishment in circumstances where it is evident that the licensed
activity is having a detrimental impact upon the health, welfare, safety and morals of the
community and patrons of the establishment. The following discipline may be imposed upon
On-Sale intoxicating liquor licenses for verified reports of criminal misconduct occurring on or
near the licensed premises and attributable to patrons of the establishment (including persons
entering or leaving):
(o_I
a) For five (5) such incidents occurring within less than a 31-day period (beginning with
the date of the first of such five incidents) - suspension of the license for up to 10 days
and a civil fine of $2,000 for each incident.
b) For ten (10) such incidents occurring within less than a 61-day period (beginning with
the date of the first of such incidents) - suspension of the license for up to 30 days and
a civil fine of $2,000 for each incident.
c) For fifteen (15) such incidents occurring within any 91 day period (beginning with the
date of the first of such incidents) - suspension of the license for up to 60 days and a
civil fine of $2,000 for each incident.
The discipline outline above is intended to be cumulative in nature, and incidents which
give rise to discipline (or the right to discipline) during a shorter period may be counted in
determining whether discipline is appropriate during a longer period.
The term "verified reports of criminal misconduct" means a report made to the director of
public safety by the licensee or a complaint made by others concerning an incident constituting a
crime under the City Code or the laws of the State of Minnesota, which, in the opinion of the
director, is directly attributable to the licensed activity.
Verified reports of criminal misconduct do not of necessity mean requests for service, and
licensees shall not be required to make requests for service in situations where the licensee is
capable of resolving the incident without police assistance. However, it is necessary for the City
to have an accurate measure of the level of criminal misconduct. The department of public safety
shall establish standards and criteria for the making of such reports by the licensee. If the
licensee fails to make the required reports of criminal misconduct in accordance with such
standards and criteria, the following additional discipline may be imposed upon its On-Sale
Intoxicating Liquor license:
a) For the first incident of failure to report criminal misconduct within any license year -
suspension of license for up to five days and a civil fine of $2,000.
b) For the second such incident in any license year - suspension of license for up to 10
days and a civil fine of $2,000.
c) For the third such incident in any license year - suspension of license for up to 15
days and a civil fine of $2,000.
B. Serviniz Alcoholic Beverages Bevond the Interior of the Licensed Premises or Permitting
Patrons to Leave such Licensed Premises with Alcoholic Beverages. Licensees must assure that
the service and consumption of alcoholic beverages will be confined only to those areas
permitted by the license. Failure to do so may have an evident and adverse impact upon other
activities lawfully occurring within the area and creates a substantial risk of criminal behavior
such as violation of the Open bottle Law. The following discipline may be imposed upon On-
Sale intoxicating beverage licenses:
a) The first incident during the license year -up to a 10 day suspension and $2,000 civil
fine.
b) The second incident during the license year - up to a 30 day suspension and $2,000
civil fine.
0?
c) The third incident during the license year - up to a 60 day suspension and $2,000 civil
fine.
d) The fourth incident during the license year - revocation of license.
C. Permitting Occupancy to Exceed the Limits Permitted Under the Uniform Fire Code
25.114 (Overcrowding)
Licensees are absolutely bound to prevent situations in which the licensed premises
become overcrowded. The City finds that the opportunity to serve alcoholic beverages
contributes to an environmental wherein overcrowding, if not strictly controlled by the licensee,
may occur. Each liquor license issued shall state the maximum occupancy limit for the licensed
premises. The following discipline may be imposed upon On-Sale Intoxicating Liquor licenses
for incident of overcrowding verified by the City's public safety director:
a) The first incident during the license year - up to a 10 day license suspension and
$2,000 civil fine.
b) The second incident during the license year - up to a 30 day suspension and $2,000
civil fine
c) The third incident during the license year - up to a 60 day suspension and $2,000 civil
fine.
d) The fourth or subsequent incident during the license year - revocation of the license.
D. Facilitating Gambling. Licensees must not permit or allow- any condition to occur
on the licensed premises which would facilitate gambling activity. Licensees may not permit any
device on the licensed premises which could be used for gambling. Such devices include
blackjack tables, video games of chance, roulette wheels and any other amusement or gambling
device as defined in Minnesota Statutes, Chapters 349 and 609, and Richfield City Code
Subsections 1100.13 and 1100.01.
For any incident of facilitation of gambling the On-Sale Intoxicating Liquor may be
suspended for up to a period of days equal in number to the period of days that such incident
continued.
E. Effect of Suspension or Revocation of Food License. On-Sale intoxicating Liquor
licenses which are issued to establishments because they qualify as restaurants shall cease to be
valid for any period of time during which the establishment's food license is under suspension or
revocation as the result of actions taken by the City Manager, enforcement officer, or both
pursuant to Subsection 615.05, subdivision 6 of the City Code. The On-Sale sale of intoxicating
liquor during such period shall constitute an unlicensed sale.
The City Council retains the right to modify the provisions of this resolution from time
and to impose penalties in excess of those contained herein when, in the judgment of the council
it is appropriate to do so.
0 Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield this 14th day of December 1987.
•
•
b-g
ATTEST:
Thomas Ferber, City Clerk
John N. Hamilton, Mayor
5
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Council Letter No. 77
Agenda March 24, 1997
Issue Statement:
Public hearing on a conditional use permit for 200 West 78th Street to allow
construction of a 150-foot telecommunications tower.
Background:
U.S. Tower Providers is proposing to construct a 150-foot telecommunications tower on
the Minnesota Mini-Storage property. Related equipment would be located in an
existing storage building. According to the applicant, the tower would be constructed to
accommodate antennas for up to four providers.
The applicant is a private company planning to build and manage the tower and lease
space to interested wireless telecommunication firms.
Recommended Motion:
Conduct a public hearing and deny a conditional use permit for construction of a 150-
foot telecommunications tower at 200 West 78th Street; direct staff to prepare a
resolution as a findings of fact for denial of the conditional use permit.
Basis of Recommendation:
1. The proposed location does not meet the ordinance requirement that the tower be
located in a rear or interior side yard.
2. Federal law prevents cities from prohibiting the provision of personal wireless
services. It does, however, give cities the authority to establish local regulations
involving placement, screening or height of antennas. The City established these
.regulations in 1996, and providers are required to comply with them.
3. The tower ordinance became effective in November, 1997. It is appropriate to
allow time to use the ordinance and review it in its entirety before recommending
amendments.
4. Construction of the tower is speculative at this point; the applicant has submitted
no evidence that any providers are willing to locate on the tower.
5. The applicant has submitted no technical data to verify the viability of this location
relative to the networks of the various providers.
6. The applicant has provided no evidence to support the need for a 150-foot tall
tower.
0 7. Although the applicant indicates that the tower will be constructed to
accommodate four users, no engineering data is available to verify that the
appearance of the tower and size of the base shown in the submitted plans will
accommodate four users. On the submitted plans, there is adequate space to
drive around the tower. If the base needs to be larger to accommodate four
users, traffic circulation may be impacted.
8. The tower would be located in the center of the property, among the four buildings
on the site. The proposed location does not meet the requirement of the City's
ordinance that towers be located in a rear or interior side yard. The rear and side
yards of this property are defined as the areas to the north and west of all
buildings on the site. In 1981, the property owner received setback variances to
construct the buildings where they are located, with limited rear and side yards.
9. The applicant was informed of this issue and advised that the appropriate action
for them to take was to petition for a change in the ordinance. They were told that
they also have the option of applying for a variance, although in staff's opinion, the
tower may not meet the requirements needed to obtain a variance. The applicant
decided to proceed with the conditional use permit application on the grounds that
staff have misinterpreted the ordinance.
10. The Planning Commission affirmed staff's recommendation and determined that
they would prefer to review the tower ordinance as a whole at some time in the
future once City staff and policymakers have had an opportunity to use it. The
Commission would recommend any necessary changes to the City Council at that
time. The Commission has scheduled a review of the tower ordinance for their
July study session.
11. Notice of the hearing was published in the Sun-Current and mailed to property
owners within 350 feet of the subject property.
12. On February 25, 1997 the Planning Commission voted unanimously to
recommend denial of the conditional use permit.
Alternative Recommendation:
1. Approve the request for a conditional use permit to construct a 150-foot
telecommunications tower at 200 West 78th Street with the following stipulations:
• that the applicant apply for and receive a variance;
• that the applicant submit a plan for planting trees along the street frontage of the
site and replacing the existing chain link fencing (which is in poor condition) and
that the plan be approved by the Community Development Director;
• that the applicant submit technical evidence of the tower's ability to
accommodate multiple users;
• that the applicant submit evidence that a minimum of two users are planning to
locate on the tower before construction begins; and
i
5-a
• that the applicant submit technical evidence that the proposed tower is in a
viable location to fit into the networks of the proposed users.
2. Request that the Planning Commission review the tower ordinance at their next
available meeting and recommend for or against changing the rear and interior side
yard provision.
Discussion/Decision Mode:
A public hearing is scheduled for 7:00 p.m. on Monday, March 24, 1997. The hearing
will be held in the City Council Chambers of Richfield City Hall, 6700 Portland Avenue.
A decision must be made before the 60-day review period expires on April 5, 1997 or
the applicant must be notified in writing of the need for an extension.
Respectfully submitted,
Jame . Prosser
City Manager
JDP:ds
•
0
573
I
cn
EMERSON AVE
r£
D p
7C p
m ty
ALDRICH AVE
1,D
ti < PILLSBURY AVE
z v D rU
? V
co V
J ?I
0I D C
700 O?
co
Z 2 2 C S
H
NIC?LLET AVE
J
O
-4
-i
CEDAR AVE
gZ?
? ® iz rsacs rm tonic n
i r eat s??
5-q
1
_ iv
N
m ?
II ? II m
II ?II
LL
mCD
Z
m
m
? D
v
m
N
m
m
m
-ti
0
z
z
m
m
N
D
ID
I
N
O
n o
O FTI FTI
C) O
v
p 00
Q0 _
V
I
0
T1 Q ,?
N M
M
a
v
INTERIOR SIDE YARD
cn
PILLSBURY AVENUE
mm
cx
? N
O
~
_
Zz
O
N
O
+
.0-
1°n o
u+ 6'-0' A c m
8
l?
m I
/ TYP SPACING
o
o 40
O
v V
o
m
Z
7
N ?
? O
2 z
r
w
O
O n
I
II I
, I
I
r°o?I I I
I , co
?
I ,
I
I , ,
I
I Leo JI
r
v I , I
I, II om II , I
I ,
I II CO I I
I
Zo II I I
I mx
°"
i -
II II I
I I I C)o
I i I I
,
I, ,
--- J ,
1 ,
my
I
I
I ,
I ,
II co
CO ,
400
,
O I
I
I
I
N I, , I
' 0
?!1 I? g
?
i
?
? ? ? m +n alm ra n.c v
¦+O N
V?
PROPOSED TAPERED
STEEL MONOPOLE
(BASE o = 6'-0')
.!.
22'
PROPOSED EOUIPMENT `EXISTING ASPHALT
8'X8' METAL ROLL-UP PROPOSED BOLLARDS (INSIDE BUILDING) PAVEMENT
DOORS (TYP)
MONOPOLE FOUNDATION
WEST ELEVATION
z-s
0 S' 10' 20' 40'
e
_? i?
4
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Council Letter No. 76
Agenda March 24, 1997
Issue Statement:
Public hearing and consideration of resolution regarding a conditional use permit for
6601 Penn Avenue to allow construction of an accessory car wash.
Background:
The Amoco gas station at 6601 Penn Avenue is proposing to add an accessory car
wash onto the existing gas station. The pumps and canopy on the east side of the
building would be removed and a 902 square foot car wash added onto the existing
building.
In 1987, Amoco proposed adding an accessory car wash on the east side of the
property. The conditional use permit for the addition was denied because the City
Council found that issues with noise, traffic flow, trash storage and icing on the streets
and sidewalk were not adequately addressed.
Amoco's proposal contains several items to address the concerns that were raised by
the City Council in 1987.
I* Noise Bufferin
• The car wash hours of operation would be restricted to 7 a.m. to 10 p.m.
• A 10-foot long stub wall would be constructed at the north end of the car wash,
extending out from the building, for noise deflection.
• The doors to the car wash would be closed when the car wash is in operation.
• The east wall of the car wash would be insulated.
• The existing fence along the east property line would be replaced with a new six-
foot wood fence designed to provide greater sound insulation than the existing fence
with a basketweave design.
• A portion of the area along the east property line would be landscaped with
evergreen trees to provide additional buffering for the adjacent residences.
Traffic Flow
• Unlike the 1987 proposal, the proposed accessory wash would be attached to the
existing gas station building allowing for sufficient traffic flow throughout the site.
• Queuing space that does not conflict with traffic flow or parking spaces would be
provided for six cars (105 feet), in accordance with the Zoning Ordinance.
• Five parking spaces, in addition to the parking available next to the gas pumps,
would be provided.
Trash Storage
S • A new trash enclosure, to match the existing building, would be built to
accommodate both the trash and recycling dumpsters.
•
•
q-1
Icina on the Streets and Sidewalks
• The car wash doors would be setback 40 feet from the street right-of-way, as
required by the Zoning Ordinance.
• Amoco is proposing to install a heated slab and trench drain to catch water that runs
off of cars exiting the wash. The location and installation of this drain would be
subject to approval by the Public Works Director.
• Washes would be required to include drying when the temperature falls below 32
degrees.
• A mechanism would be installed to delay the doors from opening for 15 seconds
after a wash cycle.
• Use of the car wash would be prohibited below zero degrees, which is standard
operating procedure for all Amoco stations.
Some concerns were raised by the owner of a nearby gas station and car wash that
City staff misapplied the requirements of the Zoning Ordinance and City Code to the car
wash proposal. The Assistant City Attorney's response to the concerns is attached.
The City Council is being asked to adopt a resolution that lists the conditions of the
conditional use permit. The purpose of this resolution is to allow the applicant to record
the conditional use permit on the property title. In the future, it will be standard
procedure for the City Council to adopt a resolution when approving a conditional use
permit.
Recommended Motion:
Conduct a public hearing and adopt a resolution approving a conditional use permit to
allow construction of an accessory car wash at 6601 Penn Avenue with the following
stipulations:
That a stormwater management plan be approved by the Public Works Director.
•
2. That a sediment and erosion control plan be approved by the Public Works
Director.
3. That installation of a trench drain be approved by the Public Works Director
4. That the final landscape and fencing plan be approved by the Community
Development Director and a cash escrow submitted.
5. That the hours of the car wash operation be limited to between 7 a.m. and 10 p.m.
6. That operation of the car wash require drying when the temperature is below 32
degrees.
7. That a mechanism be installed to delay the doors from opening for 15 seconds
after a wash cycle.
4-a-
8. 0 That the conditional use permit resolution be recorded with the County, pursuant
to Minnesota statutes section 462.36, subdivision 1.
Basis of Recommendation:
1. Parking provided on the site meets City standards.
2. The queuing space provided for cars waiting to be washed meets City standards.
3. Amoco is proposing several measures to address the potential for the car wash to
cause ice to form on City streets and sidewalks.
4. Amoco is proposing several measures to mitigate the noise impact of the car wash
on the adjacent residential properties.
5. The proposed car wash would eliminate the existing gas pumps and canopy on
the east side of the property, which currently have a negative impact on the
residential properties.
6. Notice of the hearing was published in the Sun-Current and mailed to property
owners within 350 feet of the subject property.
7. On February 25, 1997 the Planning Commission voted unanimously to
recommend approval of the conditional use permit.
• Alternative Recommendation:
Deny the request with a finding that the proposal would have an adverse impact on
adjacent properties or the City as a whole.
Discussion/Decision Mode:
A public hearing is scheduled for 7:00 p.m. on Monday, March 24, 1997. The hearing
will be held in the City Council Chambers of Richfield City Hall, 6700 Portland Avenue.
A decision must be made before the 60-day review period expires on April 5, 1997 or
the applicant must be notified in writing of the need for an extension.
Respe ully submitted,
Jams . Prosser
City Manager
JDP:ds
RESOLUTION NO. q_3
RESOLUTION FOR APPROVING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR
0 6601 PENN AVENUE
WHEREAS, an application has been filed with the City of Richfield. which requests
approval of a conditional use permit for an accessory car wash on land generally located at
6601 Penn Avenue, legally described as:
Lot 10, Block 6, Fairwood Park Addition and the north 10 feet of Lot 9, except roads
WHEREAS, the City has fully considered the request for approval of the conditional
use permit.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Richfield,
Minnesota, as follows:
1. A conditional use permit is issued for an accessory car wash as described in City
Council Letter No. , on the Subject Property legally described above.
2. The conditional use permit is subject to completing the following conditions, in
addition to those conditions stipulated in Section 526.27, Subd. 15 of the Zoning
Ordinance:
• That a stormwater management plan be approved by the Public Works
Director.
• That a sediment and erosion control plan be approved by the Public Works
Director.
• That installation of a trench drain be approved by the Public Works Director.
• That the final landscape and fencing plan be approved by the Community
Development Director and a cash escrow submitted.
• That the hours of the car wash operation be limited to between 7 a.m. and 10
p.m.
• That operation of the car wash require drying when the temperature is below 32
degrees.
• That the conditional use permit resolution be recorded with the County,
pursuant to Minnesota statutes section 462.36, subdivision 1.
Adopted by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this 24th day of March,
1997.
Martin J. Kirsch, Mayor
0 ATTEST:
Thomas P. Ferber, City Clerk
0
J 1Q)R?
I
N
D
0
PENN AVENUE SOUTH
uumommommams=
C?cm
p011?1m6
?? y W
STOF]'I WATE¢FLOLI 4
L
L (1 L ?
O
I
? I
m
O
?
O I?
1
H Q
I?\
r _-
I
? mg
m ?
0
0
m
Q £
X
1F??
W
I
- 1
I
E?
E
Ua
?
MY
~Nm
?um,T
mm N
3 ~
m 1
n<v?
ge a9
w
'^ imp., aN??
n m?? vg.??mP v?N?.
09 ^'
s
N ? ?Pm
Nor
v Tm?'i
?mU
L
p h
T? •y
m
0
I
21' £
?i?
acs
?ro
4-S
LARUASH ADDITION
6601 PENN AVENUE
PROPOSED CAR WASH
NORTH
ME ELEVATION
SOUTH
SIDE ELEVATION
E:XISTW PuLz YJL 4404ASH ADDrnON
ELEVATIONS
DATE: 2-19-97
Summary of Issues Raised by Peter Orlins and Responses L. _
Issues ..
The applicable code section is the section with
licensing provisions for car washes (Section 1125),
not the section of the Zoning Ordinance used by staff
that contains conditional use permit requirements for
an accessory car wash in the C-2 district (526.27,
Subd. 15).
Eddie'Z was required to comply with the licensing
provisions (Section 1125) and provide stacking space
for 40 cars; Amoco is only being required to provide
105 feet (approximately 6 cars) of stacking space .
Customers waiting for the Amoco car wash could
stack up onto Penn Avenue
The Amoco Car Wash is not an accessory use; it does
not appear to be allowed under C-2 zoning as the
definition of an accessory use falls under the C-1
zoning district (Section 526.04, subd. 2)
0
• A business is required to meet both
licensing and zoning requirements, when
applicable.
The Amoco car wash is not required to
have a license because accessory car
washes "at service stations where such
washing of autos is secondary and
incidental to the sale of gasoline" are
exempt from licensing (Section 1125.01,
subd. 3)
• Eddie'Z services more than one car at a
time, consequently they were not
exempted from the licensing provisions in
1989 (Section 1125.01, subd. 3).
• Eddie' Z was allowed to meet the 40 car
requirement by showing that 40 cars
would fit on the property; 40 cars would
not be able to stack up behind Eddie'Z car
wash doors without interfering with
parking or traffic circulation.
• Amoco would be able to fit 40 cars on the
property and meet this same definition of
stacking space; the Zoning Ordinance
(adopted in 1995) requires 105 feet of
queuing space that does not interfere with
parking or traffic circulation
• Stacking onto Penn Avenue would not be
allowed under normal traffic rules and
would be subject to police enforcement.
• When the Zoning Ordinance was revised,
research was done of other communities'
requirements to determine an appropriate
queuing space requirement for an
accessory car wash. Amoco meets the
City's requirement of 105 feet.
• The accessory building definition in the
C-1 district refers to separate accessory
structures (e.g. a garage or shed) and does
not apply to an accessory use in the C-2
district.
q , ? Summary of Issues Raised by Peter Orlins and Responses
•
0
• The definition for an accessory car wash
is found in the definitions section of the
Zoning Ordinance: "An accessory
building or accessory portion of a
principal building containing facilities for
the washing of no more than one motor
vehicle at a time, and which is accessory
to a service station or service
station/convenience store (Section 506.27,
subd. 10).
0
ORLINS LAW OFFICE
PETER I.ORLINS ATTORNEYS AT LAW
MICHAEL J. LONDON 604 RICHFIELD BANK BUILDING TELEPHONE
of counsel: 6625 LYNDALE AVENUE SOUTH (612) 861-3331
RICHARD A. MOSMAN, Ltd. RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA 55423-2390 FAX: (612) 861-1302
March 4, 1997
Mayor Martin J. Kirsch Council Member Michael Sandahl
6725 Penn Avenue #103 7601 Bryant Avenue South
Richfield, MN 55423 Richfield, MN 55423
Council Member Susan Rosenberg Council Member Kristal Stokes
6633 Thomas Avenue 6733 -17th Avenue
Richfield, MN 55423 Richfield, MN 55423
Council Member Russ Susag Office of City Planner
7305 First Avenue City of Richfield
. Richfield, MN 55423 6700 Portland Avenue
Richfield, MN, 55423
RE: Conditional Use Permit
Amoco - 6601 Penn Avenue South
Dear Mayor Kirsch, Council Members and City Staff.
We represent Eddie'Z Car Wash and Service Station located at 2816 West 66th Street,
in regard to the Amoco Company's petition for Conditional Use Permit to construct a car
wash on their site at 6601 Penn Avenue South. This matter was heard by the City
Planning Commission on February 25th and a recommendation to grant the CUP was
issued.
We believe that the City Staff and Planning Commission erred in recommending this
permit as we do not believe Amoco complies with the necessary Richfield City Code
requirements. We do not believe that the proposed Amoco construction constitutes an
"accessory car wash" and we believe that the appropriate code section to be
considered is Section 1125.03, rather than the code section concerning accessory car
washes, 526.27 Subd. 15.
q-9
March 4, 1997
Page - 2 -
In 1989 Eddie'Z was required to obtain a Conditional Use Permit for an addition to its
wash facilities and pumps. The code section applicable at that time was 1125.03 and
Eddie'Z was required to provide space for the stacking of 40 vehicles and the off street
parking of seven additional cars for retail and employees. The building structure and
operation of the Amoco plan is very similar to Eddie'Z with the exception that the
Amoco wash is self serve. The sites are very similar and the traffic patterns would
seem to be similar as well. During a busy wash day, one can certainly envision
customers at the Amoco Station stacking up onto Penn Avenue waiting to use the
wash.
The Amoco Car Wash is not an accessory use as defined by the code, which in any
event does not appear to be allowed under C-2 Zoning such as is applicable to the
Amoco site. The definition of accessory use falls under a C-1 Zoning district under
which definition a building must be 750 square feet or less to be considered an
accessory use. The proposed Amoco Car Wash is 902 square feet.
Obviously, we understand that we cannot stop competition, however, it is important that
their be a level playing field for all businesses operating in the City of Richfield. The
Amoco Car Wash and Eddie'Z will have likely the same ratio of gas and retail sales to
car wash revenue. Eddie'Z gross car wash revenue is less than 25% of the total gross
revenue of the operation. It is quite likely that Amoco ratios will be the same.
Eddie'Z Car Wash has been a long time business citizen of this community and we
greatly appreciate your careful consideration of the Amoco application.
If you are in need of any further information or wish to discuss, do not hesitate to
contact me.
Very truly#ours,
=rirn'e Orlins
y at Law
PIO/bm
is cc: Ned Zarecky
•
CHARTERED
March 12, 1997
470 Pillsbury Center
200 South Sixth Street
Minneapolis MN\55402
(612) 337-9300 telephone
(612) 337-9310 fax
e-mail: atrys@kennedy-graven.com
Julie Urban
City of Richfield
6700 Portland Avenue South
Richfield, MN 55423
RE: Amoco Car Wash
Dear Julie:
q-1D
CORRINE H. THOMSON
Attorney at law
Direct Dial (612) 337-9217
This is in response to your letter of March 6, regarding the conditional use permit for an
accessory car wash at 66th and Penn. In our subsequent telephone conversation, you indicated
that the Amoco site is located in a C-2 zoning district, that the proposed car wash would not be
located in a separate building but would be located in a portion of the principal building on the
lot, and that the car wash would accommodate only one car at a time.
Under these circumstances, it is my opinion that the car wash is an accessory car wash within
the meaning of Richfield City Code § 506.07, subd. 10. The applicant must comply with the
requirements of § 526.27, subd. 15 for accessory car washes in a C-2 zone. The car wash will
not be required to have a license under § 1125, because accessory car washes are exempt from
the licensing requirement under § 1125.01, subd. 3.
In his letter, Mr. Peter Orlins raised several issues that require response or clarification. First,
generally, licensing and zoning provisions are not mutually exclusive. That is, the requirements
of both §§ 1125 and 526 must be met. In this case, accessory car washes that accommodate only
one vehicle at a time are excepted from § 1125; however, a car wash that is not exempt from §
1125 would otherwise be required to meet the requirements of both sections. My recollection
of the Eddie'z site is that the car wash accommodates more than one vehicle and could not
qualify for the exemption under § 1125.01, subd. 3.
Second, the provisions of § 526.05, subd. 2 are not applicable to this property, for a couple of
reasons. Subsection 526.05 is applicable to C-1 property, and the Amoco property is zoned C-2.
In addition, § 526.05, subd. 2 relates to accessory buildings, and the proposed car wash will not
be located in a separate, accessory building but will be located in a portion of the principal
building on the lot.
CAH119158
RC160-5
LO I
Julie Urban
March 12, 1997
Page 2
Please let me know if you have further questions concerning this matter.
Sincerely,
Corrine H. Thomson
cc: Peter Orlins
John Dean
•
•
CAH119158
RC160-5
?c
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Council Letter No. 75
Agenda March 24,1997
Issue Statement:
Consideration of City Project No. 420-40752, approval of plans and specifications and
authorization of advertisement for Sheridan Park improvements.
Background:
The Council has authorized $400,000 in special revenues for the funding of the 1997
park improvements at Sheridan Park. Sheridan Park is approximately 6.8 acres located
in the vicinity of 65th Street and Thomas Avenue.
Invitations announcing two neighborhood meetings were mailed to all residents
between Xerxes and Penn and 62 Crosstown to 66th Street. Included in the invitations
were the attached resident survey sheet. Forty surveys were completed and returned.
Posters were placed in apartment communities. At the first meeting, held Saturday,
February 1, 1997 at Sheridan Hills Elementary School, neighbors provided individual
and group comments and designs which were used by professional site and building
consultants.in preparation of the park plans and specifications. The neighbors at the
second meeting, held Saturday, February 22, 1997 were in agreement with the park
plans with minor modifications to be included in detail drawings. Neighbors indicated
• they were pleased with the process and outcome. At the regular meeting of the
Community Services Commission, held Tuesday, March 11, 1997 the same plans
presented to the neighbors were reviewed by Commission members. The Community
Services Commission is in unanimous agreement with the concept plan for Sheridan
Park.
The plan includes the following:
• improvements to the existing ballfield to provide adequate drainage and turf;
• additional trails around and through the park;
• replacing the two tennis courts in a more southerly location;
• adding half-court basketball adjacent the tennis courts;
• reconstructing the sand volleyball court;
• installing a sidewalk along 65th Street on the north side of the park;
• installing pedestrian scale lighting along 65th Street and through the central
pathway;
• constructing a picnic shelter with adjacent office storage building and walkway/dock
extension over looking the marsh area;
• well-marked pedestrian crossings will be painted on 65th Street to improve
pedestrian safety between the park and Sheridan Hills Elementary; and
• additional trees will be planted and scrub trees will be removed to enhance the
aesthetics of the park.
Operations Coordinator Randy Hughes and the architects, Barry Warner of Strgar-
Roscoe-Fausch, Inc. and Duane Thorbeck of Thorbeck Architects, will be in attendance
at the Monday, March 24, 1997 City Council meeting to answer questions.
Recommended Motion:
Order City Project No. 420-40752, approve the plans and specifications, and authorize
advertisement for bids for the Sheridan Park redevelopment project.
Basis of Recommendation:
1. The Council has determined Sheridan Park is to be improved as a project in the
adopted 1997 Capital Budget.
2. The neighborhood was invited to participate in the design of the park
improvements and those attending the meetings are in agreement with the plan.
3. Members of the Community Services Commission attended the neighborhood
meetings. The Commission has reviewed and is in agreement with the plans for
the park.
4. The plan has been reviewed and approved by Public Safety.
Alternative Recommendation:
. 1. Do not do any Sheridan Park neighborhood park redevelopment at this time.
2. Amend the plans for the Sheridan Park project.
Discussion/Decision Mode:
This item is scheduled for the March 24, 1997 Council meeting. Action to advertise for
bids is requested at this time to allow construction during 1997.
Respectfully submitted,
Ja D. Prosser
City Manager
JDP:ds
is
•
3 c-a
I.I.1..1.1..1..1..1.1..11.1.1..1..1 ? 1.1.....11.1..11
RESIDENT SURVEY
Dear Resident,
Citizen input is an important component to the Richfield Park master planing process. This survey
form is intended to assist City staff and the City's consultant in arriving upon a design consistent with
the neighborhood's needs and desires. Please fill out the form and sketch any design ideas that you
may have on the park map (reverse side). Mail back the survey at your earliest convenience or
return it at the upcoming neighborhood meeting. Thank you for your comments.
1. What do you like about Sheridan Park currently
2. How can Sheridan Park be improved?
3. Check (?) the facilities that should be provided in Sheridan Park in the future. Indicate your top
three priorities by labeling them 1, 2 and 3.
Parking (or proof of) Sliding Hill
Volleyball Paved Trails with neighborhood connections
Basketball/multi-use hard court Play structure
Horseshoe courts Flower gardens
Tennis courts Memorials
Pleasure skating Soccer/softball playfield
Recreation activities shelter building
Other
4. Please indicate how many of your household members fall into each category.
Adult (62+) Junior High School Age
Adult
High School Age
Elementary School Age
Pre-School Age
5. Please list any specific questions or thoughts that you would like addressed at the neighborhood
meeting.
Optional Name
Address
THANK YOU FOR YOUR PARTICIPATION
VINCENT AVE
3 ?-3
A
Z
ro
$3€
iE
% ?v
a,
• vt
THOMAS AVE.
1 ;
SHERIDAN AVF-
9
•
•
+? Res
UPT'ON AVE
ou
• CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Council Letter No. 74
Agenda March 24, 1997
Issue Statement:
Approval of an agreement for assessment services with Hennepin County.
Background:
In 1981, the City of Richfield entered into the first of a series of four year contracts with
Hennepin County for assessment services. Prior to that time, assessment services
were performed by City assessing staff consisting of a City Assessor and three Property
Appraisers. The current four year contract with Hennepin County will expire on July 31,
1997. The City must take action to renew a contractual agreement with Hennepin
County for the next four year period or hire a City Assessor and property appraising
staff.
In determining the most appropriate course of action in this matter, several issues must
be considered:
1. Service. It is the conclusion of both the Administrative Services Director and the City
Manager that the service to the public provided by Hennepin County staff is extremely
responsive and professional. Hennepin County Principal Property Appraiser Larry
Miller has been assigned to supervise the Richfield assessment for the past 14 years.
He has been very cooperative with both City staff and residents and has a genuine
commitment to quality customer service. In addition to Mr. Miller, two additional
residential property appraisers as well as periodic commemrcial appraisers have been
assigned to Richfield.
The day to day requests for information for items such as processing homestead
applications are handled by City assessment clerk staff. The Hennepin County staff
and the City assessment clerk personnel have an excellent working relationship and
have blended into a well coordinated staff.
2. Local Control. Minnesota Statute 273.061 states that the County Assessor has the
authority to override evaluations established by any local assessor and finalize
evaluations. Thus, the City has no less local control under the assessment contract
with Hennepin County than it would have if the assessment was done by City staff.
Richfield's assessment ratio for the past several years has been within the 92.5% to
93% range, which is precisely on target when compared county-wide. If a local
assessor were to set an assessment ratio considerably less than the 92.5% target, the
County Assessor could make an aggregate adjustment to the assessed values of an
entire class of property in a community.
•
38-I
3. Costs. A number of cities in Hennepin County continue to operate with an in-house
assessing staff. However, several cities such as Golden Valley, New Hope, St.
Anthony and Crystal contract with Hennepin County.
For Richfield, a cost estimate of providing an in-house City Assessor and property
appraising staff would be as follows:
Position Salarv* Benefits** Total Cost
City Assessor $ 60,046 $ 19,815 $ 79,861
Senior Property Appraiser $ 45,656 $ 15,066 $ 60,722
Property Appraiser $ 39,208 $ 12,939 $52,147
TOTAL COSTS $192,730
*Average salaries based on Stanton Group V Salary Data.
**Benefit cost calculation based on 33% of salary base.
The cost estimate above is based upon a staff level that is one appraiser less than the
pre-1980 local staff. In addition, the Assessing Division in Richfield employed two full-
time assessment clerks when the City did its own assessment. Currently, the City
employs one full-time assessment clerk, one part-time clerk at approximately 18 hours
per week, and some shared help from the City Clerk Division.
. The cost of the 1998 assessment services from Hennepin County is $170,266. Of that
total, roughly $3,500 is reimbursement to the County for time processing tax court
petitions, and $34,528 is paid for assessment of new construction. Either of those
categories may vary from year to year and may change in the next assessment year.
This is especially true of the costs of tax court appeals. The cost of the base
assessment services from the County has increased by 2.6% from the previous year.
In all, it is very unlikely that the City could duplicate the service provided by Hennepin
County for $170,000. Instead the cost would likely be 15% more than the current cost.
4. Consolidated Services. During the past few years, there has been considerable
discussion regarding the consolidation of services by various levels of government to
provide a savings to the taxpayer. Well ahead of its time, the shared service by
Hennepin County and the City of Richfield generates the type of savings that
proponents of consolidated services advocate.
Recommended Motion:
It is recommended that the City Council authorize the City Manager to execute a
renewal contract between the City of Richfield and Hennepin County for assessment
services for the period August 1, 1997 to July 31, 2001.
0
Basis for Recommendation:
1. The new contract provides only minor language amendments to the agreement
that has been in place since 1981.
2. The service provided by Hennepin County for the past 16 years has been very
effective and customer oriented. Hennepin County staff responds to Richfield
staff requests very promptly and treats Richfield residents with the same
consideration.
3. The cost of continuing to contract a service with Hennepin County is cost effective
for the City as compared to reestablishing an in-house assessing staff.
4. While the City contracts the service with Hennepin County, Richfield still maintains
excellent local control and effective interaction with its residents.
Alternative Recommendation:
1. The City Council could request further information and defer this item to a future
City Council meeting.
2. The City Council could decide to terminate the agreement with Hennepin County
and restructure an in-house City Assessor/Property Appraiser staff. The process
• would be very challenging and require more funding than is currently projected in
the Assessing budget.
Discussion/Decision Mode:
It is recommended that the City Council take action on this item on March 24, 1997 in
order to execute the contract prior to the July 31, 1997 expiration date on the current
agreement.
Respec ly submitted,
James D. Prosser
City Manager
JDP:ds
-15 in
or-T
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Council Letter No. 73
Agenda March 24, 1997
Issue Statement:
Consideration of a request for an off-street parking permit to allow construction of a
dental office at 6724 Penn Avenue.
Background:
The applicant, 2010 Dentistry, is requesting an off-street parking permit to allow
construction of a 5,740 square foot dental office at 6724 Penn Avenue. The footprint,
or first floor, of the building would encompass 2,735 square feet. Additional useable
space would be provided in the basement.
Nineteen parking spaces would be provided on site. This number exceeds City
standards for a dental clinic but was determined by the dentists as the minimum
number of stalls needed to accommodate the dental practice. A variance is needed to
allow the proposed parking lot setback of 10 feet where 15 feet is required adjacent to
residential property. Vehicular access to the alley is restricted to compensate for the
smaller buffer yard.
This portion of Penn Avenue is part of the PASSS design district. Design guidelines
were developed to encourage better quality design and more visual uniformity
throughout the commercial area. The design of the building should be consistent with
these design guidelines. The original design of the building proposed for 6724 Penn
Avenue was residential in nature, not consistent with the commercial context of the site.
The primary feature of the original building design was a 16-foot high pitched roof. The
building design was more suitable for a residential area with front and side yards. In
the PASSS commercial district, flat roofs predominate and there are limited or no
setbacks between the buildings themselves and between the buildings and the street.
The applicant is seeking a variance for a front setback of 20 feet where 30 feet would
be required. Most of the existing commercial buildings in this block have a front
setback of 20 to 25 feet.
Recommended Motion:
Approve the request for an off-street parking permit to allow construction of a dental
office at 6724 Penn Avenue with the following stipulations:
1. That the final landscape plan be approved by the Community Development
Director and a cash escrow submitted.
2. That the final design for the building be consistent with the PASSS design
guidelines, as approved by the Community Development Director.
3A-1
3. That a sediment and erosion control plan be approved by the City Engineer.
4. That a stormwater management plan be approved by the City Engineer.
5. That the Hearing Examiner grant front yard and parking lot setback variances to
the proposed project.
Basis of Recommendation:
1. The proposed parking exceeds City parking standards.
2. Landscaping would be provided in accordance with City landscape standards.
3. A landscaped buffer would be provided along the west property line to provide
screening for the residential neighborhood.
4. The proposed development would utilize a small site which has been vacant for
several years.
Alternative Recommendation:
Deny the request with a finding that the proposal would have an adverse impact on
adjacent properties or the City as a whole.
Discussion/Decision Mode:
Consideration of this item is scheduled on the Consent Calendar of the City Council
meeting on March 24, 1997.
Respectf Ily submitted,
Ja D. Prosser
City Manager
JDP:ds
0
Z: \ride\RIDEA123 Tue Feb 25 10:29:49 1997
I
9
S
V
z
•
CITY APPROVAL
Ilr- -- -
1
lip
,3fi_ v-
z
C
C.
9
"C
b
z
•
aN
I?
I?
r
•
O
E
a -
wz
F rl
t"i
V
r
z
z
L,
M
D
`V O T U APPR® VAP
v a.€
3 aa?
Fe
ka=
:;g
t
4
Y
ji
I
J29
..ttF'BTi?W.t t16LMlmF L
maam.usiosma??e.oxuasw
?. 41@.S}YO'M*i W.q.t
Y
I
y 3!
3
s
s i? 1 'Ot ?
V 1 n, ho t
1?
I 1?
? a ??YOIR
VI!!X4/YOOX
sao r.?. 1 = m O1
rm ?
AI I.
r I
CI
Z: \ride\RIDEA45 Tue Feb 25 10:37:36 1997
10
v,
? o
e
' y
x
r
e
S
z
0
y
x
r
a
0
z
9
tr+1
a
z Ii
?E
r
t?
a
a
0
z
S,q-q
Z: \ride\RIDEA45 Tue Feb 25 10:35:42 1997
5 1q-T
•
b
x
•
Z: \ride\RIDEA45 Tue Feb 25 10:41:27 1997
?o
z
0
CITY APPROVAL