12-9-96 agenda•
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
MONDAY, DECEMBER 9, 1996
REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING
7:00 P.M.
COUNCIL CHAMBERS
AGENDA
INTRODUCTORY PROCEEDINGS
•
CALL TO ORDER
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
ROLL CALL
APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF THE (1) REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF
NOVEMBER 25,1996; (2) REGULAR CITY COUNCIL STUDY SESSION MEETING
OF DECEMBER 2,1996; (3) SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING CLOSED
EXECUTIVE SESSION OF DECEMBER 3,1996; AND (4) SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL
BUDGET MEETING OF DECEMBER 4, 1996
PRESENTATIONS
1. OPPORTUNITY FOR CITIZENS TO ADDRESS THE COUNCIL ON ITEMS NOT
ON THE AGENDA
2. PRESENTATION OF PLAQUE TO DON PRIEBE IN RECOGNITION OF HIS
YEARS OF SERVICE AS AN ELECTED OFFICIAL FOR THE CITY OF
RICHFIELD
3. PRESENTATION OF CERTIFICATE OF APPRECIATION TO OPTIMISTS FOR
THEIR DONATION OF $800 FOR CHRISTIAN PARK SPIRAL SLIDE
COUNCIL LETTER NO. 351
4. PRESENTATION OF BACKSTROM/HANSEN AWARD TO RICH ACRES GOLF
COURSE FROM ADAPTIVE RECREATION/LEARNING EXCHANGE
COUNCIL LETTER NO. 352
5. PRESENTATION OF CERTIFICATE OF APPRECIATION TO SANDY
ROSENOW FOR 24 YEARS OF SERVICE TO THE COMMUNITY SERVICES
COMMISSION AND PARKS AND RECREATION IN CITY OF RICHFIELD
COUNCIL LETTER NO. 353
0 AGENDA APPROVAL
6. COUNCIL APPROVAL OF AGENDA
CONSENT CALENDAR
7. CONSENT CALENDAR CONTAINS SEVERAL SEPARATE ITEMS WHICH ARE
ACTED UPON BY THE CITY COUNCIL IN ONE MOTION. ONCE THE
CONSENT CALENDAR HAS BEEN APPROVED, THE INDIVIDUAL ITEMS AND
RECOMMENDED ACTIONS HAVE ALSO BEEN APPROVED. NO FURTHER
COUNCIL ACTION IS NECESSARY. HOWEVER, ANY COUNCIL MEMBER
MAY REQUEST THAT AN ITEM BE REMOVED FROM THE CONSENT
CALENDAR AND PLACED ON THE REGULAR AGENDA FOR COUNCIL
DISCUSSION AND ACTION. ALL ITEMS LISTED ON THE CONSENT
CALENDAR ARE RECOMMENDED FOR APPROVAL.
A. CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF REAPPOINTMENT OF CONNIE
MURRAY TO TWO YEAR TERM AS HEARING EXAMINER C.L. 354
B. CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING
PERMIT FEE OF $75 FOR INITIAL INSTALLATION OF COMMERCIAL
WIRELESS TELECOMMUNICATION SERVICE ANTENNAS AND FEE OF
$25 WHEN ADDITIONAL ANTENNA ARE TO BE ADDED TO EXISTING
ANTENNA FACILITY C.L. 355
C. CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF CONTINUATION OF AGREEMENT
WITH CITY OF BLOOMINGTON FOR PROVISION OF PUBLIC HEALTH
SERVICES FOR CITY OF RICHFIELD FOR 1997 C.L. 356
D. CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF CONSULTING CONTRACT WITH
BRAUER & ASSOCIATES FOR SERVICES RELATED TO REPLACEMENT
OF RECREATION ASSETS AT MAC IN AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED
$20,000 C.L. 357
E. CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF EXPENDITURE OF UP TO $7,000
FROM 1996 REVISED BUDGET FOR WALL COVERING, REPLACEMENT
CEILING, LIGHTING FIXTURES AND OFFICE CHAIRS FOR CITY HALL
CONFERENCE ROOM AND CITY MANAGER OFFICE AREAS C.L. 358
F. CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF AWARD OF CONTRACT TO
SUNRAM CONSTRUCTION INC. FOR CONSTRUCTION AND
INSTALLATION OF FLOATING BRIDGE AT WOOD LAKE NATURE
CENTER IN AMOUNT OF $80,000 C.L. 359
G. CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF AWARD OF CONTRACT TO VIET
CONSTRUCTION FOR EXCAVATION AND STORAGE ON SITE FOR
WOOD LAKE DREDGING AND WETLAND ENHANCEMENT PROJECT
AND RESOLUTION REGARDING NEGATIVE DECLARATION OF NEED
FOR ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT C.L. 360
H. CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF REQUEST FOR PUBLIC DANCE
LICENSE FOR EL PULSO DE LA VIDA AT ST. PETER'S CATHOLIC
CHURCH, 6730 NICOLLET AVENUE, FOR DECEMBER 14 THROUGH
DECEMBER 21, 1996 C.L. 361
PUBLIC HEARINGS
8. THE FOLLOWING ARE PUBLIC HEARINGS TO CONSIDER 1997 LIQUOR
LICENSE RENEWALS:
A. ON-SALE AND SUNDAY LIQUOR LICENSES FOR CHI CHI'S, INC. D/B/A
CHI CHI'S MEXICAN RESTAURANTE, 7717 NICOLLET AVENUE C.L. 362
B. ON-SALE AND SUNDAY LIQUOR LICENSES FOR GROUND ROUND OF
MINN. INC. D/B/A THE GROUND ROUND, 1500 EAST 78TH STREET C.L.
363
C. ON-SALE AND SUNDAY LIQUOR LICENSES FOR PAISAN
INCORPORATED D/B/A KHAN'S MONGOLIAN BARBEQUE, 500 EAST
78TH STREET C.L. 364
D. CLUB ON-SALE AND SUNDAY LIQUOR LICENSES FOR MINNEAPOLIS-
RICHFIELD AMERICAN LEGION POST 435, 6501 PORTLAND AVENUE
C.L. 365
E. CLUB ON-SALE AND SUNDAY LIQUOR LICENSES FOR FRED BABCOCK
V.F.W. POST NO. 5555, 710 LAKESHORE DRIVE C.L. 366
F. ON-SALE AND SUNDAY LIQUOR LICENSES FOR DF&R OPERATING
COMPANY, INC. D/B/A DON PABLO'S, 980 WEST 78TH STREET C.L. 367
G. ON-SALE AND SUNDAY LIQUOR LICENSES FOR AMERICANA DINING
• CORPORATION D/B/A CHAMPPS SPORTS CAFE, 790 WEST 66TH
STREET C.L. 368
H. ON-SALE WINE AND NON-INTOXICATING MALT LIQUOR LICENSES FOR
GIN NG INC. D/B/A SILVER SPOON RESTAURANT, 6700 PENN AVENUE
C.L. 369
1. ON-SALE WINE AND NON-INTOXICATING MALT LIQUOR LICENSES FOR
KIANG'S RED PEPPER, INC. D/B/A RED PEPPER CHINESE
RESTAURANT, 2902 WEST 66TH STREET C.L. 370
J. ON-SALE WINE AND NON-INTOXICATING MALT LIQUOR LICENSES FOR
THE FRENCHMAN'S, 1400 EAST 66TH STREET C.L. 371
9. PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER NEW 1997 ON-SALE WINE AND NON-
INTOXICATING MALT LIQUOR LICENSES FOR THOMPSONS FIRESIDE
PIZZA, INC., 6736 PENN AVENUE, PREVIOUSLY LICENSED AS MILLER'S
FIRESIDE PIZZA
COUNCIL LETTER NO. 372
10. PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER NEW 1997 ON-SALE NON-INTOXICATING
MALT LIQUOR LICENSE FOR LAN'S VIETNAMESE RESTAURANT, 7545
LYNDALE AVENUE
0 COUNCIL LETTER NO. 373
0 11. PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER 1997 PAWNBROKER AND SECONDHAND
GOODS DEALER LICENSE FOR FIREARM SYSTEMS AND DESIGN D/B/A THE
GUN SHOP AND PAWNBROKER, 7529 LYNDALE AVENUE
COUNCIL LETTER NO. 374
12. PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER 1997 PAWNBROKER AND SECONDHAND
GOODS DEALER LICENSE FOR PLAZA PAWN, 6414 NICOLLET AVENUE
COUNCIL LETTER NO. 375
RESOLUTIONS
13. CONSIDERATION OF RESOLUTION AWARDING SALE OF $5,075,000
GENERAL OBLIGATION TAXABLE TAX INCREMENT BONDS, SERIES 1996;
FIXING FORM AND SPECIFICATIONS; DIRECTING EXECUTION AND
DELIVERY; AND PROVIDING FOR PAYMENT
COUNCIL LETTER NO. 376
14. CONSIDERATION OF RESOLUTION TO AMEND LETTER OF
UNDERSTANDING BETWEEN CITY OF RICHFIELD AND CITY MANAGER,
ADJUSTING COMPENSATION
COUNCIL LETTER NO. 377
15. CONSIDERATION OF RESOLUTION INCREASING 1996 GENERAL SERVICES,
SPECIALIZED AND MANAGEMENT PAY PLANS BY.5% FOR LAST PAY
PERIOD OF 1996 TO MAINTAIN COMPARABLE WORTH COMPLIANCE
COUNCIL LETTER NO. 378
16. CONSIDERATION OF ADOPTION OF 1996 REVISED/1997 PROPOSED
BUDGET AND FINAL TAX LEVY AND RELATED RESOLUTIONS
COUNCIL LETTER NO. 379
PROPOSED ORDINANCE
17. CONSIDERATION OF FIRST READING OF ORDINANCE AMENDMENT
REZONING 6938-40 AND 6944-46 CEDAR AVENUE FROM TWO FAMILY
RESIDENCE TO GENERAL COMMERCIAL
0 COUNCIL LETTER NO. 380
0 ADMINISTRATIVE REPORTS AND OTHER BUSINESS
18. CONSIDERATION OF IMPROVEMENT PLAN FOR 76TH STREET BETWEEN
SHERIDAN AVENUE AND XERXES AVENUE
COUNCIL LETTER NO. 381
19. CONSIDERATION OF RECOMMENDATION TO REVOKE CONDITIONAL USE
PERMIT THAT ALLOWS MOTOR VEHICLE REPAIR AT 7608 KNOX AVENUE
(CONTINUED FROM OCTOBER 14, 1996)
COUNCIL LETTER NO. 382
20. CONSIDERATION OF PROGRESS REPORT AND DEVELOPMENT CONCEPT
FOR JOINTLY USED VFW AND AMERICAN LEGION FACILITY WITH
BANQUET SPACE
COUNCIL LETTER NO. 383
AIRPORT BUSINESS
21. AIRPORT STATUS REPORT
CORRESPONDENCE
22. LEGISLATIVE REPORT
COUNCIL CHOICE
23. COUNCIL DISCUSSION ITEMS
24. CLAIMS AND PAYROLLS
25. 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.
0
C? D
. CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Council Letter No. 383
Agenda December 9, 1996
Issue Statement:
Consideration of a progress report and development concept for a jointly used VFW
and American Legion facility with banquet space.
Background:
Staff has been working cooperatively with the VFW and American Legion to assist in
consolidating and improving the service club facilities. The intended outcomes are: a
new jointly used facility with banquet space, the redevelopment of the American Legion
site for housing, and the redevelopment of the VFW site for mixed use retail and
housing. The following information outlines the current status of key aspects of the new
joint facility.
Service Clubs
In September and October, both the VFW and American Legion decided to continue
with the planning process. Each organization has selected two representatives to work
with the architect Gary Tushie and the restaurant banquet consultant, Jim Domoracki,
retained by the HRA. This design team has two focuses: the preliminary building
footprint and the interior design layouts and the suitability of the former Lampert Lumber
site.
Property Acquisition and Disposition
BCL Appraisals is evaluating the VFW, American Legion and Lampert Lumber site.
The appraisal of the property and fixtures will be completed during December. City
garage facilities must be relocated to utilize the Lampert site. Gleason Mortuary has
indicated an interest in discussing the sale of their property. The purchase would
accomodate short-term space needs for the garage while alternative permanent
locations are being studied. The City presently leases a 66 foot strip of property
adjacent to the Soo Line railway. Staff is evaluating the purchase of this property.
Although the new service club could be developed without the Soo Line parcel, it would
be difficult to develop such a narrow parcel at some future time. As part of the
acquisition of the Lampert site, the City and Richfield-Bloomington Honda entered into
an agreement which among other items said that the City would notify Richfield-
Bloomington Honda when it (the City) was considering sale of the property.
Roles of the City and HRA
There are several different forms of ownership of a new facility which are being
evaluated. The VFW and American Legion could own the facility. The HRA could own
the facility with the service clubs as tenants. A third option is also possible. An investor
group could develop and own the facility with the service clubs as tenants. Legal and
• financial aspects of the project will lead to a preferred option for ownership.
Financial Considerations
The VFW and American Legion will rely on equity from their present locations and cash
reserves. However, for this type of project, lenders usually require larger amounts of
equity and lend for a shorter period of time than for other commercial ventures making
the financing of this facility difficult.
It appears that tax increment financing will be needed to assist with the site acquisition
for a new facility. And, the availability of tax increment financing for the redevelopment
of the existing VFW and American Legion sites would improve the likelihood that the
service clubs would be able to maximize the equity available from their present land
and buildings to contribute to a new facility.
Recommended Motion:
Authorize staff to continue planning the facility and present to the Council items for
consideration as needed.
Basis of Recommendation:
1. The VFW and American Legion support the concept of a joint facility and it would
provide them with an opportunity to continue to make valuable contributions to the
community.
2. A new joint facility would provide an opportunity to develop a significant number of
. additional housing units at the two current sites.
3. These developments provide an opportunity for the City Council and HRA to work
together in the achievement of significant benefits for the community.
Alternative Recommendation:
1. Defer this report.
2. Modify the development concept.
Discussion/Decision Mode:
An estimated time and events schedule is attached.
Respec Ily submitted,
Jam D. Prosser
City Manager
JDP:ds
•
• TIME AND EVENT SUMMARY
VFW-AMERICAN LEGION DEVELOPMENT CONCEPT
Below is a listing of key events for the VFW/American Legion proposal and the general
time frame in which they are anticipated to occur.
KEY EVENTS TIME FRAME
Prepare preliminary floor plans and elevations Dec. 1996
Receive appraisals of existing clubs and proposed site Dec. 1996
Identify relocation sites for public works functions at Lampert Dec. 1996
Negotiate purchase of railroad right of way Jan. 1997
Refine preliminary capital cost estimates Jan. 1997
Finalize financing package Jan. 1997
City approval of sale of Lampert site Feb. 1997
Final membership vote: approve or reject project Feb. 1997
HRA authorizes purchase/sale of existing VFW/American Legion
sites according to a development agreement Feb. 1997
Purchase relocation site for public works functions Feb. 1997
Final City approval of sale of Lampert site Mar. 1997
Planning Commission approval (CUP) Feb./Mar. 1997
City Council approval (CUP) Feb./Mar. 1997
Obtain title to railroad right of way March 1997
Relocate public works functions from Lampert to new site March 1997
Clear Lampert site Apr./May 1997
Start construction May/Jun. 1997
Complete construction Jan. 1998
12/9/96
c:
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Council Letter No. 382
Agenda December 9, 1996
Issue Statement:
Consideration of a recommendation to revoke a conditional use permit that allows
motor vehicle repair at 7608 Knox Avenue (continued from October 14, 1996).
Background:
On October 14, 1996 the City Council held a public hearing to consider whether or not
to revoke a conditional use permit for 7608 Knox Avenue (Council Letter attached).
The City Council continued discussion of the item until December 9, 1996 to allow the
owner of the taxi business to demonstrate his ability to comply with the terms of the
conditional use permit.
The conditional use permit was issued on November 13, 1995 to Minnesota Taxi to
conduct automotive repairs. The business repeatedly violated the terms of the
conditional use permit by over-parking cars in the front lot (two spaces are available in
front with additional spaces behind the building), parking in front of the third service bay
(this bay must remain open to access the rear parking), parking taxis in the street,
parking on the boulevard and leaving the trash dumpster outside.
• Since the City Council meeting, staff have driven by the property on a regular basis and
recorded the following number of cars in the lot and on the street:
Cars in the Front Lot Cars (taxis) in the Street Cars in Front
of Third Bay
October 18, 1996 2 2 0
October 30, 1996 2 1 0
(plus 1 in Tom Thumb lot)
November 8, 1996 2 1 0
November 22, 1996 5 0 1
November 27, 1996 5 0 1
Although the number of cars observed in the front lot is less than in the past, Minnesota
Taxi continues to over-park cars in the front lot and to block the third service bay.
Minnesota Taxi has a contract with a business in Burnsville to store taxis on a separate
property; however, this is apparently not an adequate solution to the lack of parking on
this site.
Recommended Motion:
Revoke the conditional use permit that allows use of 7608 Knox Avenue for automotive
repairs.
0
19-I
• Basis of Recommendation:
1. Minnesota Taxi has not complied with the terms of the conditional use permit.
2. In response to three notices of non-compliance, Minnesota Taxi would correct the
items identified for a short period of time but would be out of compliance again
after a couple of weeks.
3. Since the City Council considered the revocation of the conditional use permit on
October 14, 1996, staff have twice observed Minnesota Taxi out of compliance
with the conditional use permit.
4. Past behavior indicates that the City will need to regularly commit staff time to
monitor the property.
5. The parking demand for the repair portion of the business exceeds the parking
that is available on the property.
Alternative Recommendation:
1. Do not revoke the conditional use permit.
2. Do not revoke the conditional use permit but direct staff to continue monitoring the
property and provide a status report to the City Council in 6 months.
Discussion/Decision Mode:
A public hearing was held on October 14, 1996 and closed. Discussion of the item was
continued to the City Council meeting on December 9, 1996.
Respectfully submitted,
Ja D. Prosser
City Manager
JDP:cak
•
'L
if J
3nN3Ad XONN
?z
_ 9N11 LVBddbid
edno
Q
3owdS g
"low
dMa1G1iVH
t
a
_ z 1
o !
5 !
xooo oyw Boa !
r
t ?
W
'I / I - -6 +,a v
Is
41.
rx
,? ca
L? Zn
a
o
.
CA
W ui
D
F-
N W
W
U) x
O 0
Q. Z
0, ?e
m
CL iX?
O
o
N ?
s)
w
J
V
N
a Z z
o?
- IW6 N
S
u?
Z
Oz
?S
u a.
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA 19-3
Council Letter No. 310
Agenda October 14, 1996
Issue Statement:
Public hearing regarding a recommendation to revoke a conditional use permit that
allows motor vehicle repair at 7608 Knox Avenue.
Background:
The City Council issued a conditional use permit to Minnesota Taxi on November 13,
1995 to conduct automotive repairs for the company's taxis at 7608 Knox Avenue.
Since that time, the business has repeatedly violated the terms of the conditional use
permit.
Staff have sent three letters to the owner of Minnesota Taxi, Gholam Shahrokhi,
notifying him that he is required to comply with this conditional use permit. The items at
issue are as follows:
• multiple cars parked in the lot where two regular parking spaces and one
handicapped space exist (up to 12 cars observed);
• taxis regularly parked along Knox Avenue;
• cars parked in the boulevard; and
• the trash dumpster left outside.
Staff have not observed cars parked on the boulevard or the trash dumpster left outside
since June; however, the business has continued to park several taxis on the street and
to over-park on the lot. The conditional use permit also requires that the property
owner resurface, curb and stripe the parking lot and install a handicapped parking sign.
He has been unable to do so because of the number of cars stored on the lot.
Mr. Shahrokhi has once again promised to comply with the conditional use permit. He
informed staff that he has arranged to store his taxis at a separate location. Mr.
Shahrokhi has promised to comply several times in the past and not done so.
Mr. Shahrokhi received an off-street parking permit on October 9, 1995 to allow him to
begin the dispatch portion of his business, which is a permitted use. He could continue
to operate this portion of the business if he limits the number of cars using the lot to
those dispatch employees. This portion of the business is a lower traffic generator.
The City Council could revoke the off-street parking permit if adequate parking does not
exist for the dispatch business.
Recommended Motion:
Revoke the conditional use permit that allows use of 7608 Knox Avenue for automotive
repairs.
W f 9-4
Basis of Recommendation:
1. Minnesota Taxi has not complied with the terms of the conditional use permit.
2. In response to three notices of non-compliance, Minnesota Taxi would correct the
items identified for a short period of time but would be out of compliance again
after a couple of weeks.
3. The parking demand for the repair portion of the business exceeds the parking
that is available on the property.
4. Notice of the hearing was mailed to property owners within 350 feet of the subject
property.
Alternative Recommendation:
Do not revoke the conditional use permit at this time.
Discussion/Decision Mode:
A public hearing is scheduled for 7:00 p.m. on Monday, October 14, 1996. The hearing
will be held in the City Council Chambers of Richfield City Hall, 6700 Portland Avenue.
Respectfully submitted,
Jan7e . Prosser
city nager
JDP:cak
3nNSAd xONN
zz
9 2
f d
H
i.
a w
a
a
Q
3*VdS O
dVZIGNdH
Z
Y
Q
a
a
d
U
Z
a
= 2
J
m
a
W
Z
W
'A'GE c
r
10 FA W
.s z vds ?
3Wl "613 0kid
Vts
?Lr)
r?
lr ??
T
LL
l9-
Z
Q
O
J
CL
Cl)
W W
D
W
w Q
Cl) x
O O
IL z
O d
m
a co
O
o
N co
s
r
YJ
J
V
H
a Z z
?O
&6 N
uV
°C z
166
O Z
?. S
ud
b
e
•
w
C.
1.3
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Council Letter No. 381
Agenda December 9, 1996
Issue Statement:
Consideration of improvement of 76th Street between Sheridan Avenue and Xerxes
Avenue.
Background:
Discussion of improvements for 76th Street west of 1-35W began shortly after the
initiation of 77th Street improvements. The City completed a study of traffic and
environmental issues along 76th Street west of 1-35W in 1994. On June 12, 1995 the
Council selected alternative one, which was to widen 76th Street three or four feet to
the south of the existing curb on the south side of the street and to remove the existing
sidewalk. At the March 4, 1996 Study Session the Council reviewed reducing the
scope of the proposed improvements to:
• limiting reconstruction to the segment between Sheridan Avenue and Xerxes
Avenue;
• considering the possible placement of private utilities underground;
• considering traffic signals at Sheridan Avenue and 76th Street, and at Vincent or
Upton Avenue and 76th Street; and
• eliminating two bus turnouts from the design.
A consultant was authorized to work with staff and the residents. An Open House was
held July 30, 1996. Staff and the consultant visited with residents in August and
September 1996. A second Open House was held November 20, 1996 with
approximately 25 people in attendance. A copy of the written comments from this Open
House as well as other comments since the first Open House and a cross section of the
two alternatives proposed are attached.
Discussions with residents focused on:
• Resurfacing the roadway at the current width and widening the roadway by two feet
on both sides of the road.
• Replacing the four way stop signs at Sheridan Avenue and Vincent Avenue with one
traffic signal at Upton Avenue.
Council has been kept current on these activities and discussions through Council
memoranda, study sessions, and project status reports.
Recommended Motion:
Approve a plan to resurface the 76th Street roadway between Sheridan Avenue and
Xerxes Avenue at its present width, remove the four way stop signs at Sheridan
Avenue and Vincent Avenue, and install a traffic signal at Upton Avenue and 76th
Street.
18-I
Basis of Recommendation:
1. Improvement of 76th Street between Sheridan Avenue and Xerxes Avenue will be
a benefit to the neighborhood, the community and the traveling public.
2. Residents have had an opportunity to share their concerns and suggestions on
the proposed improvements. While there is not complete accord, the majority
favors the plan as recommended in this letter. For example, one resident has
mentioned a possible lawsuit opposed to the improvement, claiming it may violate
state environmental laws.
3. The proposed improvement will be fairly straightforward and does not involve right
of way acquisition or major disruption of utilities.
4. The project is small in scope with construction costs ranging between $320,000
for resurfacing and $650,000 for widening the road.
Alternative Recommendation:
1. Council may elect to authorize improvements which would widen the street by two
feet on both sides of the roadway and replace the two four-way stop signs with a
traffic signal at Upton Avenue and 76th Street. However, the resurfacing
alternative discussed in this letter is favored by staff and the majority of the
residents in the area of 76th Street west of Penn Avenue.
2. Council may chose to do nothing. However, there has been a strong desire
expressed by the Council and the residents to provide some type of improvement
to 76th Street west of I-35W.
3. Council may elect to provide major improvements to 76th Street west of I-35W.
However, the Council did express interest in early 1996 for reducing the scope of
the improvements that were originally authorized in 1995.
Discussion/Decision Mode:
This item is on the Council agenda for the December 9, 1996 meeting. Action may be
delayed until shortly after the New Year but it is recommended a plan be in place to
provide sufficient time to prepare construction plans for 1997 construction.
Respectfully submitted,
Jame Prosser
City Manager
JDP:cak
COMMENT SUMMARY
OPEN HOUSE MEETING
IMPROVEMENT OF 76TH STREET
SHERIDAN AVENUE TO XERXES AVENUE
CITY OF RICHFIELD
CITY PROJECT 9200
Name & Address Phone
Buzz & Joyce Heinecke
Karen Koehler
Kerry Quarn
Lynn Quarn
•
Comment/Quesdions
866-5859 Prefer Option 2 - but only l foot on each side
(3-a
798-4237 Both Options are a cast improvement on earlier, more extensive
plans, Although my first impulse is "leave it as it is" I think in the
long run Option 2 is the better choice. 1 am satisfied with the
process and will be content with either choice.
Thanks for considering the opinions of the neighborhood
861-4331 Option #2 is the plan to go with. Why not make a decision and
change that will last 20 years. With Plan #1. the resident will be
put through the inconvenience of construction 3 times versus just
one; time on Option #2. 1 believe that it is more economical to go
with Plan 02. With inflation, the cost to resurface will definitely
cost the City more in the long run. Plan #2 will also improve the
`curb appeal" for 76th Street.
It. is obvious that Plan #2 is the economical and civically
responsible alternative.
861.4331 1 believe Option 2 - Reconstruct and widen is the best
improvement plan. Aesthetically, it removes power poles and
retaining walls, cracked sidewalks to give a more dramatic
improvement. There are landscaping butters providing a noise
reduction for the residents of 76th Street living on an arterial route
that has seen an increase in traffic due to 76th & Lyndale shops.
Less maintenance with the Option 2 plan and we do not have to
revisit this widen/resurface issue again in 5 years. Construction
costs, materials increase in costs with inflation 1 done 2 times
would still be a more expensive 20 year plan with more
inconvenience to City leaders and residents.
Page 1
!? ''rr!'wfNgno:'. J (?t'UMA?71ih%'?. qJ j
COMMENT SUMMARY
/3-3 OPEN HOUSE MEETING
IMPROVEMENT OF 76TH STRF,ET
SHERIDAN AVENUE TO XERXES AVENUE
C'IT'Y OF RICHFIELD
CITY PROJECT 9200
Name & Address P/line
Theadora E. C:oenen CummentlQuestiutrs
866-6905 Pic;ase do not widen 76th at all. I would like 76th not to
accommodate traffic to the detriment of our residential area, it is
not too late to maintain a residential area in that area - part of
Richfield.
I would like more traffic lights to discourage through traffic. Stats
say so.
Please remember that area is important to the City we do not need to be an arm of Mn/DOT in I e sm othht affic
patterns.
Richfield needs decent housing that generates taxes-not low
income-type that pay little to no taxes and is a cancer to the City.
I would like Option # I - resurface only,
Ken Kawaiecki
861-1249 I finally saw 2 plans that meet the need of the eo le wive
in
west Richficicl. Option 1 is preferred. Which P what I ha e
proposed for years. Option 2 is acceptable. Thanks for listening
to my concerns. Ralph Stein
866-9296 Option 2 with on denimW stop ....-
signs is the only viable ui n in ny mind acing 'the present stop
Trying to time the light at Upton is crazy, it does no good.
Option 2 should delay any other work for about 20 years,
Joanne Mathison ? 866-9404 Option 1 should be the only option want to make Richfield a pas thru commc ni y consideration Ian'tninia ine
the damage Option 2 would do to that whole area w of Perin
surrounding 76th St. We are only a convenience who wish to
avoid 494 on their way to Industrial Pak w of Prance,
Helen Stewart y ' `-
_ 866-7996 Definitely do n
Audrev J. Bunce _ y of widen 76th St.
- 866-6418 n
o not want 76th Street widened.
David White 861-2616 I I
saw two good fair plans tonight. I would like to see plan #1
passed!
The road works the way it is,
•
P [qe
1•: i wl•w/h! I nuu, (? i U y4nowTIC Rli
.-(
COMMENT SUMMARY OPEN HOUSE MEETING /8-4
IMPROVEMENT OF 76TH STREET
SHERIDAN AVENUE TO XERXES AVENUE
. CITY OF RICHFIELD
CITY PR0.TF.CT 9200
Name & Acldress Pl:one CommentlQuestions
L.T. McNiece 866-8338 No stop signal at 76th & Upton. Option #1 (only!) Easthound
traffic has trouble now stopping for traffic waiting for Penn
Avenue signal - uphill. Put signal at Vincent lower slope for
westbound and flat block for eastbound. Bettor yet leave stop
signs at Sheridan & Vincent and =1y repave 76th St. Pave with
concrete strip that is now bituminous between no. side sidewalk
and curb also pave with concrete space between existing no. side
sidewalk & retaining wall on your property between Upton &
Vincent and quit harassing elderly lady resident on NW corner of
76th & Upton for not taking care of weeds and trees growing on
your-property.
•
Page 3
P' ?i?T•WfNU+xxi o+v Y 7A41flCN1:5' uN
t7" - -i -1 ,C! : ?? or-- - -? -.7 ^"n.
1
OPEN HOUSE MEETING
76TH STREET
CITY OF RfCHrirIE.LD
NOVEMBER 20, 1996
7:00 PH
NAME
It P kL S?'
a ?C? a a
ct
13-57
PHONE
KOO
ow 441_ Cor,'oi t+P kmtde
rcwt? a. Lt set ??b ?-le ??O -Ma 4w4L
eel,X33
F: ?MI'M7MlvUU.ul?//li96.ATT
ADDRESS
... s-3 ?. i? 1? T'w
7sr3 R
s0' d *i7? : 70 qF;-77-nonr
18-(0
r-A
0
Memorandum
DATE: December 3, 1996
TO: File
FROM: Thomas Foley, Transportation Engineer
SUBJECT: 76th Street West- Citizen Log Since July 30, 1996 Open House
Evelyn Runke 8/5/96 Concerned about decision on 76th
7732 Thomas Avenue Street. If traffic is jammed on 76th Street
traffic shifts to 78th Street frontage road. She
has a difficult time getting onto 76th and 78th
Street now.
Betty Alexander 8/2/96 Concerned that road be widened 2 feet
7544 Sheridan Avenue to the north. She has a fence that is difficult to
Phone 866-2566 see on-coming traffic from her driveway now.
Must check this out. She wants City to arrange
visit. Recommends doing nothing now to
evaluate the impact of proposed new
development in Edina and Richfield.
Harlen Skjefte 8/6/96 Supports using asphalt, not concrete, for
7335 Penn Avenue road surface on 76th Street. He lives on Penn
Phone 869-2388 Avenue. Buses hit seams in concrete panels
and manhole covers creating vibration and
noise similar to the problem on 76th Street.
Move manhole covers out of driving lanes on
busy streets. Thinks widening 76th Street 2 feet
on both sides is fair to residents.
John McNab 8/20/96 If you widen street, buy houses that are
7544 Vincent Avenue too close to road.
John Glennon 8/26/96 Wants something done. to improve
2000 West 76th Street pedestrian safety for school children crossing
76th Street between Penn Avenue and I-35W.
Oliver Avenue with a median island is not
acceptable for children wanting cross between
Newton Avenue and Knox Avenue.
T??
ecember 3, 1996
Page 2
r?
•
Donald Walls 10/23/96 Difficult to cross 76th Street at
6833 Thomas Ave. Upton. Supports installing a traffic signal at
this location.
Mr. Jasper Fowler 10/30/96 Motorists don't see stop signs on 76th
6916 Penn Ave. Street. He has a difficult time crossing 76th
Street at Upton Ave. Favors a traffic signal at
Upton.
Marie Nelson 11 /7/96 Just received notice of the Open
74th Street House. Very pleased that a signal will be
installed at 76th/Upton Avenue. People don't
stop for the stop signs on 76th St. It's very
difficult to cross 76th St. at Upton.
Buzz Heinecke 11/19/96 Visited to review plans. Said resident
on NE corner of 76th/Upton Av. was not happy
about a signal being placed at the intersection.
Also, the owner may be interested in moving
his driveway to the side street. Suggested
painting 30 MPH on the pavement to alert
motorists not to speed.
:7
/3--Y
0 76th STREET WEST HOME VISIT COMMENTS
August 27-28 & September 9, 1996
•
R i n Comments
1. Marge LeGault Not concerned with noise. House oriented away from 76th.
3009 - 76th Street Phone post - 18" behind sidewalk - 1'-2' retaining wall must
be moved back. Opposed to removing sidewalk - need
electric wheelchair.
2. M.B. Anderson Concerned about weeds behind sidewalk - pave behind
7544 Upton Avenue sidewalk. Concerned w/grade for traffic signal. According
to Ron Bray - Vincent Avenue is worse.
3. Teresa Kramer Leave it as is for width. Signals - no preference.
2517-76th
4. Gregory Kern Favors underground utilities. Put signal at Sheridan
7545 Upton Avenue Avenue. Wants new curb and gutter and 2' widening to
correct vibration. Opposed to signal at Upton. Favors
moving garage or installing new garage door for access to
side street..
5. Mrs. Stewart Opposes signal at Sheridan Avenue.
7600 Sheridan
6. Michael J. Bartelme Resident did not want a visit but if we raise the grade at
7545 Washburn Avenue Washburn Av., we should place a catch basin behind the
sidewalk near his driveway to protect his property.
7. Howard Bunce Prefers overlay. Opposes 2' widening. Prefers 2' south
7608 Sheridan Avenue over 4' south. Concerned about house resale if road
closer. Prefers signal at Upton Av. and possibly move bus
stop to new signal. Ask MCTO to move bus stop.
8. Ellen & Carlton Hoff No major conflicts.
7544 Thomas
9. Lud & Mary Kovach Favors sidewalk and no widening if possible. Check steps
7601 Xerxes Avenue along wall - likes hedge as air purifier - maintenance - drop
profile - line of sight from west of Xerxes or lift - widen
driveway.
10. Vera Kaneps-Winge Supports resurfacing or 2' wide on C - supports signal at
7545 Vincent Upton - OK to put retaining wall and flatten slope. Retain
shrubs and add shrubs along retaining wall. OK to trim
shrubs back. Wants streetlight retained by garage.
11. Jerry & Marlys Guritz Favors 2' wider C. Fence unaffected. Utility box at back of
7545 Thomas Avenue property - need to move. Favors Upton signal. Wants
hedge or other - remove lilac bush - supports putting
utilities.
11
/S-17
•
76th STREET WEST HOME VISIT COMMENTS
August 27-28 & September 9, 1996
•
Re i en Comments
12. Tom & Glynda Ballinger Look at moving garage - rotate 900 to access off
7601 Upton Avenue of Upton - via north side - leave 20' to park boat.
Want fence or berm or retaining wall. Snow
storage. Not interested in saving hedge. Low
spot in road by driveway - eroding driveway now.
13. Mark Wegmiller Phone box must be moved - favors signal and 2'
2921 W. 76th Street C wider. Move fire hydrant 2' back. Retaining
(Opposite Washburn Ave.) wall and save junipers.
14. George Gelecinsky Improve hill on Xerxes Ave. for line of sight - new
3001 W. 76th Street signal won't help. Check vertical sight distance
for 30 mph design - wants feedback - major
concern. Put in new wood retaining wall. NE
corner has small light on wall. Let owner select
landscaper.
15. Pauley Kuttikadal and Doesn't want trucks. Reduce noise in road
Molly Mathew design. Put in shrubs as partial screening.
2909 W. 76th Street Phone pedestal. Raise the street to avoid
retaining wall.
16. Roger Parks Favors 2' wider on C. Remove 2 trees (Russian
7601 Thomas Avenue Olive) close to sidewalk and remove flower bed.
Moving garage in Alt., #3. Favors Upton signal.
Likes utilities underground - poses a hazard.
Utilities are on north side and do this first. Bid -
set time limit to complete work. Likes shrubs.
Keep fence if possible
17. Linda Durst Favors Upton signal. Move fence back to confine
7545 Xerxes Avenue dogs - possible shrubs.
E
l 3- fD
76th STREET WEST HOME VISIT COMMENTS
August 27-28 & September 9, 1996
•
•
R i n Comments
18. Wayne & Louise Hershey Driveway is off of 76th Street. A phone pedestal
7600 Vincent Avenue next to driveway needs to be moved. Favors
Upton Av. signals. Favors gradual slope to lawn.
1. Pave the road! Widened and last paved in '73.
2. For future, after 15 years re-evaluate the road
surface each year & pave when needed. Does
City have a plan like this? 3. Can we work with
the pavers on driveway pitch and doing the whole
driveway? Yes. 4. Can we add a driveway apron
on Vincent? Not as a project cost. Use
contractors? 5. Sidewalk concerns. 6. Oppose
placing barriers or shrubs on their property. 7.
Remove stop signs! they cause noise and gas
pollution! If signs stay, put pedestrian lines and
"STOP" printed on road because buses block
"Stop Ahead" sign and "Stop" sign from view of
drivers. 8. Is stake the lot line? Is the silver maple
too close? No. 9. What is City's policy on what's
needed for 76th as a minor arterial street? 10.
Lawn slope.
19. Sandy Renner & John They still favor Alt. 3 as a long-term solution.
McNab Prefer resurfacing. Cost of connecting to
7544 Vincent Avenue underground utilities is vehemently opposed.
They believe City should pay for this cost.
Opposed to 2' widening. Check if fence needs to
be moved. Possible need to install retain wall.
This area gets lots of runoff - check this in
redesign. Sun in eyes - blind people of stop sign
in both directions - check this out for traffic
signals.
20. Betty Alexander Opposes widening - too close now. Needs space
7544 Sheridan Avenue to back out of driveway - fence - reroute trucks &
buses. Fence is 4' behind sidewalk - blocks
view. Favors Alt 3 - is real solution not 2'
widening. Opposed to signal at Sheridan - cars
queued at Sheridan. Educate public on signal
timing. Favors moving fence to improve sightline
for backing out of driveway. Keep 30 mph limit.
Utility cabinet 4' behind sidewalk at back of lot.
76th STREET WEST HOME VISIT COMMENTS
August 27-28 & September 9, 1996
•
R i n Comments
21. Joyce Bennett Check on corner setbacks for screening property.
7545 Sheridan Avenue She is interested in a fence or plantings. She will
wait to do anything until after stop signs are
removed. The stop signs create noise.
22.Kerry and Lynn Quam They want to add a 20' wide driveway on 76th St.
7601 Vincent Avenue Eliminate steps on side of house to sidewalk on
76th Street. A retaining wall is needed and we
will need a construction easement to build it.
There is a need for snow storage behind the new
sidewalk. The Quams want a privacy fence
(batten board style) at an effective height of six
feet including the height of the retaining wall.
They want us to check on the setback needed for
the fence at the corner of their property. They
think that widening 2' on both sides is fair. We
witnessed 3 cars pass through the stop signs at
Vincent Av. Motorists were blinded by the sun.
23. Maxine Rieck She wants her fence moved in line with her
7544 Washburn Avenue neighbor's at 7545 Xerxes Av. As we raise the
grade, we may need to raise her side yard by 1 ft.
but drainage will still be towards Washburn Av.
She suggested adding a left-turn arrow and
protected lane for eastbound traffic at 76th Street
and York Avenue signal. Traffic backs up there.
It's especially bad in the afternoon rush hour. Ms.
Rieck favors a signal at Upton Avenue. She
thinks it's fair to widen 2' on both sides. Her
house is a safe distance from 76th Street. Their
is a phone pedestal that will need to be moved
on the back of 7545 Xerxes Av. If utilities are
placed underground, it does not appear that Ms.
Rieck will have to pay to be reconnected. Her
service is provided off of a second pole away
from 76th Street. Service from this pole is also
provided to 7545 Xerxes Avenue.
0
•
•
a
A
_L1
U
O
C
Mn
r
F.
C.1
M
r,
M
I-
V
3 ?
w =
a ?
o U
U to
W N ?
J
c5 U
.a
C4
a
W
N
N
1 °a
a
O
U W
CIO
N
W
ti
n?
V)
C7
U
V
N
? v
U U (-
oA ?
3 G
? U
U ~
o ••a a
d N ?
.s v ? c°3
N c?V ? Q
ILI
?-•? .Ni N 0.
.!:I :4
o. ?
W 41
> U
o c
a o
Eji 7!?
CC3
C/1
N
N
U
O
1m1
"ol
0
0
C?
CD
?CD
V J
O
C
CD
Q+ CD
r?
CD
}.i
CL
C-D?
CD
C
CL
?CD
w Con
0 0
?o
o r?74^
CD CD
O
r-I
rA
CD
o r
A
W ?
00
00
o r
A
M3 0.
tw
N
N
?.i
N
.A.
N
`i
W
W
W
w
T1w
V
O
O
N
n
O
Rp?•
CL
q/-g/
O
CD
CD
I I
0
•
F---l
L-A
•
n?
O
??I
U
U
• r?
3
C:?
U
U
N
• O
C
;..i
? T- -
M
M
in
M
? O
60
N
co
v
N
?D
Cc
Q
4 2 O
q ? CS,
`..a Q
O
?o
O?
Op
? M
Cd
373
4J
3 U
rO
W
#l; il
?
m,.
ct
0
n?
h
l?LJ
T
.U
4-?
O
OW
?S
IE
O
? I
V
V
CD
0
o ??
o a
R°
L/? W
n
a?
f4
I ?
Al "O
T ti
N
- rr
b W py N
uj 'L7
y.
0
^a ?-• o
A < y
?. c o
G7 co
Cl.
c? ,'t7
ct
CD
M
bd
5
G.
N
N
M
OrQ
G•
H
0
CD
CI
1
'
tA
'CC+
EV
QG
n
0
w
7
w
1
C
0
O
r
C? w
? Crf
? K
S
y. ?• O
A
? • CAD
y
?
r T
l V
,
C r W ?
fD
J
00
i
w
r?
V 1
C?
?u
r i
O
MCDCD
•
•
•
•
J
u
4J
ry
d?
C
v
3
U
a
0
U
N
A
O
a
0
v
U
ti
v
a
0
n,
0
v
?U
A ^
? ? U U
v o Cj a l ,U° •° o
a 3w-o U ?U
U a?
5p04. cv.?
? o a..,o v)v"O
c•~ +' a pa'''
Ci,
mv,
v o, C1? cd a? U 3' a o a? v •?
O U O ,? ;? O o? ?j •ao N b
En = =
>
cat O U Q A"'
a U
.24
o d U C!) .
Q 23)
4u U o N3?
z 04 C4 Z U Q C4 C!1 Q; o,' Z 4 ??
Vi
U 'U
z v H
U '
Q
rn
a
c?
cd ?
a' . Q~
? a
0
'O
O
O
U
U
c3
v
"O
CA
?1.
c?
U
9
0.4
O
'C7
U
w
ct
O
.U
O
a\
O
N
t..
0
z
111
IFL
0
c?
O
r
l 1
14
O
0 0
Q•
n
d
`O
J
- o
J J
0
l 1
C7
l 1
d
& ??
n
CCD
D
CD
C
D
C
INC
INC
CD
CD
0
CD
4
•
0
•
•
a?
O
`o ? ? ?
o%N
au
U
U
U tj) _
U a V r U
• • • • • •
R
-Al
ct
+,
O
4J
U
O
lEll
z
O
cD
(D
It
N
O
Q1
0
n?+
V
CD
0
r+
i? fCli
• • • •
CL
w CD•
o
p
^r?
? N
O
O
0
' p CD
rCD.
(DD
N
. o,
O
CD
? n
O CL
w O
f ?D
o C
D
a a
a ~ ~
V) Ln
I'd t:d
? C
G o 6.
BCD
(? CD
w Q.cy
ow
(-D O C
c
C)
p
CD
•
a
0.
cD
b
0
cD
p
O
p
O
ora
p
w
0
p
b
0
t
CD
Ln
• • •
o
?
CD CD
U
o c
, r V)
CD
?doo? ? z
d cn p --? ? v? tC
CL ,?.? '+ [D n
z
' CD
CJ? .
p' ? ? ? O
p
C1Q'
p ? C/? ?"? r
Q' n O
cv -d
CD
CD
M. p UQ '-' O C (D
C ' rn ::r C?J G
GQ CD
G CD ='
(CLD CD
p . -r R.
CD
0
O'
p
C
n
CD
0
b
O'
p
N
0
p
C
R°
CL
p
o?
O
C
c?
CD
0
•
•
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Council Letter No. 380
Agenda December 9, 1996
Issue Statement:
First reading of an ordinance amendment rezoning 6938-40 and 6944-46 Cedar
Avenue from MR-1 (two family residence) to. C-2 (general commercial).
Background:
The applicant is requesting City approval to rezone property at 6938-40 and 6944-46
Cedar Avenue from MR-1 to C-2. The applicant owns these two properties as well as
the adjacent property to the south, 6958 Cedar Avenue, which is zoned C-2.
The rezoning would enable the applicant to demolish the two duplexes currently located
on the properties and construct an 8,594 square foot addition onto the existing
automotive repair building at 6958 Cedar. The addition would add 6 service bays,
4,750 square feet of warehouse space and 500 square feet of office space to the
building. The addition would result in a 13,622 square foot building with 12 service
bays, office and warehouse space.
The proposed addition to the automotive service business requires a conditional use
permit (CUP). Buffering between this business and the single family houses to the west
and the duplex to the north will be required for a CUP. The application for a conditional
use permit will come before the City Council on January 13, 1997.
Staff have recently discovered an error in the applicant's site plan as to the location of
the property line along Cedar Avenue. The site plan submitted to the City showed a 33
foot right-of-way from the center line of Cedar Avenue. The right-of-way is actually 50
feet from the center line adjacent to these properties. Staff recommends that the City
Council direct staff to explore the vacation of this portion of right-of-way. A 50 foot
right-of-way is consistent with other major roads in the City; however, since the
construction of Trunk Highway 77, Cedar Avenue has not functioned at a level requiring
this amount of right-of-way. The rezoning would be contingent on a resolution of this
issue.
Recommended Motion:
1. Approve first reading of an ordinance rezoning land at 6938-40 and 6944-46 Cedar
Avenue from MR-1 to C-2.
2. Set a second reading and public hearing for January 13, 1997.
3. Direct staff to explore the vacation of 17 feet of right-of-way along Cedar Avenue
and order an appraisal of the property for a potential sale to the applicant.
0
0-I
• Basis of Recommendation:
1. The proposed rezoning is consistent with the current Comprehensive Plan and the
proposed update of the Comprehensive Plan which recommend non-residential
uses along Cedar Avenue.
is
2. Landscaping and fencing will serve as a buffer between the proposed commercial
use and the adjacent residential uses and will be required for a conditional use
permit. The Planning Commission has directed staff and the applicant to work
with the adjacent property owner to the north to develop the details of the northern
buffer.
3. There is excess right-of-way along Cedar Avenue; with the construction of Trunk
Highway. 77, this right-of-way is no longer needed by the City.
4. The City Council has, in the past, approved the vacation of 17 feet of right-of-way
for some parcels along Cedar Avenue.
5. The 17 feet of right-of-way is necessary for the site to function adequately with the
proposed addition.
6. On November 26, 1996 the Planning Commission voted unanimously to
recommend approval of the rezoning.
Alternative Recommendation:
Deny this rezoning at first reading and do not direct staff to explore vacation of the right-
of-way.
Discussion/Decision Mode:
First reading is set for December 9, 1996
reading will be scheduled on January 13,
If approved, a public hearing and second
1997.
Respectfully submitted,
Ja D. Prosser
City Manager
JDP:cak
n
U
7-
Bill No. 1996-
AMENDMENT TO APPENDIX 1
OF THE CITY CODE
OF THE CITY OF RICHFIELD
(6938-40 and 6944-46 Cedar Avenue)
THE CITY OF RICHFIELD DOES ORDAIN:
Appendix I which describes the boundaries of various zoning districts of the City
is hereby amended in the following respect:
A. Section 3, Paragraph (17) is amended to read as follows:
(17) M-4 17 (W side of Cedar near Diagonal Boulevard) That area lying
between the center line of Cedar Avenue and a line distant 173 feet westerly and
parallel thereto, and betty from the northerly line of Lot 7, Block 1 Cedar Sunrise
Third Addition to the center lines of^*, o "tea 73rd Streets. (See Reference #3 of
attached Boundary Conflicts).
B. Section 11, Paragraph (37) is amended to read as follows:
• (37) M-4 (Cedar Ave near 70th) Lots 5 through 69, Block 1, Cedar Sunrise Third
Addition.
This amendment constitutes a rezoning of 6938-40 and 6944-46 from MR-1
to C-2.
Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this day of
. 1997.
Martin J. Kirsch, Mayor
ATTEST:
Thomas P. Ferber, City Clerk
is
EXISTING ZONING
MANNING
NORTH ® MR-1
ZONING
Community Dc?relopment WQartrrwnt SCALE: V= 40' DATE: 12-2-96 R
6958 CEDAR AVENUE
a PROPOSED ADDITION
- - N 122.88'
- - 17'
- -
139.88'
i
I c
a
ItJ
ti
REO f
SETB
15' 35'
20
SETBACK
I' W
w ?
- - J
? W
QI
1 a ?
X V
EXISTING i
N BUILDING
I
IL
1
?. 14Vt
L BLVD'
r1A
D?AG tp
• ' . PLANNING
ZONING NORTH
Camnun ty De+rlopmerrt t)opartr?wnt SCALE: V= 40' DATE: 12-2-96
SITE PLAN
RIGHT OF WAY
l60
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Council Letter No. 379
Agenda December 9, 1996
Issue Statement:
Adoption of the 1996 Revised/1997 Proposed budget and final tax levy and related
resolutions.
Background:
The City of Richfield has conducted and closed its 1996 truth-in-taxation hearing on
December 4, 1996. During the course of the public hearing, there was an opportunity
for testimony from the general public. Information was also presented by staff
regarding the proposed levy and budget. No official City Council action to act on the
levy was permissible on the day of the public hearing.
The City Council must now take final action on the City's budget and tax levy. State
Statute requires that municipalities conduct public hearings no later than December 20
of each year. Cities then have five working days after December 20 or no later than
December 30 to prepare all the documentation necessary to certify a final levy to the
County Auditor and State Department of Revenue.
In addition to the resolutions authorizing the revised 1996 budget and adopting a 1997
budget and tax levy, several other resolutions included within the total budget document
need to be considered. Resolutions pertaining to water and sewer utility rates, capital
improvement and program budget, compensation plans and license/permit fees should
also be considered.
In September 1996 the City approved and certified a preliminary tax levy of $7,787,090
to Hennepin County. The final tax levy must now be considered and approved by the
City Council. The final levy may be less but cannot be greater than the preliminary levy
amount. Taxpayers have received individual parcel specific tax notices in anticipation
of the truth-in-taxation public hearing.
Recommended Motion:
Adopt the resolutions approving the 1996 Revised/1997 Proposed budget and tax levy
and related resolutions.
Basis of Recommendation:
1. A revised 1996 budget and final 1997 budget and tax levy must be adopted on or
before December 20, 1995.
2. A proposed 1997 tax levy has been submitted to the City Council for
consideration.
3. The gross proposed tax levy for 1997 reflects a 1.96% over the previous year.
/?-1
4. A truth-in-taxation public hearing for the 1997 proposed budget and tax levy has
10 been conducted in accordance with state law.
Alternative Recommendation:
The City Council could adopt a final 1997 budget and a tax levy in any amount which
does not exceed the preliminary levy of $7,787,090.
Discussion/Decision Mode:
It is suggested that the City Council take action on these items at the December 9,
1996 regular City Council meeting to ensure ample time to prepare final documents for
submission to the County Auditor. Action on this item cannot be taken on the same
night as public testimony on the budget and tax levy are taken, according to state law.
Respectfully submitted,
Jame . Prosser
City Manager
JDP:cak
•
C7
0 RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING REVISION OF 1996 BUDGET OF VARIOUS
DEPARTMENTS
WHEREAS, Resolution No. 8204 appropriated funds for personal services, other
expenses and capital outlays for each department of the City for the year of 1996; and
WHEREAS, The City Charter, Chapter 7, Section 7.09, gives the Council
authority to transfer unencumbered appropriation balances from one department to
another within the same fund at the request of the City Manager; and
WHEREAS, The City Manager has requested a revision of the 1996 budget
appropriations in accordance with Charter provisions and as detailed in the Proposed
1997 budget document.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of
Richfield, Minnesota as follows:
1. That the 1996 appropriations for each department of the General Fund be
amended to establish the following totals:
General Fund
Legislative
$ 199,020
Executive 442,750
Administrative Services 967,120
Community Development 222,190
Public Safety 7,014,520
Utilities & Engineering 308,630
Maintenance Services 2,621,370
Recreations Services 1,278,510
Transfers 111,670
TOTAL GENERAL FUND $13,165,780
INCREASE $ 50,510
2. Estimated 1996 gross revenue of the City of Richfield from all sources, as the
same are more fully detailed in the City Manager's official copy of the
proposed 1997 budget, are hereby revised as follows:
INCREASE
$ 285,170
l? 3
3. That the City Manager and the Finance Manager bring into effect the
provisions of this resolution.
Adopted by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this 9th day of
December, 1996.
Martin J. Kirsch, Mayor
ATTEST:
Thomas P. Ferber, City Clerk
0
11
/(0 --q
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION ADOPTING A BUDGET AND TAX LEVY
FOR THE YEAR 1997
WHEREAS, The Minnesota Truth in Taxation law provides for a proposed tax
levy to be certified to the County Auditor by September 15, 1996, and then recertified
before December 31, 1996.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of
Richfield, Minnesota as follows:
1. The budget for the City of Richfield for the year 1997 is hereby approved and
adopted with appropriations for each of the departments to be as follows:
General Fund
•
Legislative
Executive
Administrative Services
Community Development
Public Safety
Utility & Engineering
Maintenance Services
Recreation Services
Transfers
TOTAL GENERAL FUND
$ 199,500
448,040
945,690
228,860
7,363,070
276,190
2,700,120
1,336,400
111,670
$13,609,540
2. The estimated gross revenue of the City of Richfield from all sources,
including general ad valorem tax levies as hereinafter set forth for the year
1997 which are more fully detailed in the City Manager's official copy of the
1997 budget, are hereby found and determined to be as follows:
TOTAL GENERAL FUND $13,609,540
3. There is hereby levied upon all taxable property in the City of Richfield a
direct ad valorem tax in the year 1996, payable in 1997 for the following
purposes and in the following amounts:
PURPOSE AMOUNT
GENERAL FUND' $ 7,787,0902
' Provision has been made in the General Fund for the payment of the City's
contributory share to Public Employees' Retirement Association and the Fire
1 b -,
Relief Association. All authorized levies for debt service will be canceled as
there are sufficient funds available to pay 1997 principal and interest. See
separate resolutions for the cancellation of the tax levies for debt service.
General Fund Levy included all fiscal disparities distribution and HACA
amounts.
4. The budget for the Housing and Redevelopment Authority of Richfield for the
year 1997 is hereby ratified and approved. There is hereby levied upon all
taxable property in the City of Richfield a direct ad valorem tax in the year
1996, payable in 1997 for the following purposes:
PURPOSE AMOUNT
Housing and Redevelopment
Authority $153,900
Relocation Information
Services and Assistance $ 15,300
5. A certified copy of this resolution shall be transmitted to the County Auditor.
Adopted by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this 9th day.of
December, 1996.
0
Martin J. Kirsch, Mayor
ATTEST:
Thomas P. Ferber, City Clerk
0
((-(®
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING SANITARY SEWER SERVICE RATES AND
CHARGES, WATER RATES AND CHARGES, SPECIAL WATER SERVICE
CHARGES, STORM SEWER RATES AND CHARGES, AND 6.5% PENALTY ON
PAST DUE ACCOUNTS
BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota, as
follows:
SANITARY SEWER SERVICE RATES AND CHARGES FOR 1997
1. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 7.05 of the Ordinance Code of the City of
Richfield, the rates and charges for use and service of the sanitary sewer system
are hereby established to be those set forth in the following paragraphs of this
resolution which rescinds Resolution No. 8205:
2. Where the rate is not based upon the metered use of water, the following quarterly
flat charges are established effective January 1, 1997 for each billing district as
defined in paragraph 3 of this resolution.
1997
A) Residential per unit $ 26.30
B) Commercial -
For the equivalent of 10 or less persons $ 26.30
More than 10, less than 16 59.80
More than 15, less than 21 89.50
More than 20, less than 26 119.60
C) Institutional -
For each public or private school the quarterly flat charge shall
be charged whether the school is in session or not (rates being
charged upon average yearly use); shall be based upon the
number of students enrolled at the beginning of the quarterly
billing period or the preceding period if school is not then in
session; and shall be as follows:
1997
For each 100 grade school students or fraction
in excess thereof $ 47.60
For each 100 junior high school students or high
school students or fraction thereof 119.60
D) In addition to the above flat rates there shall be a customer
charge on each invoice as determined in paragraph 4 of this
resolution and a certification charge as determined in Section
J (,- I
7.05 of the City Ordinance Code.
3. Where the rate for sanitary sewer service is based upon the metered use of water
on the premises, such rates shall be as follows:
A) For all residential premises the rate shall be based on
the actual use, or less of water for the preceding
winter quarter, per thousand gallons with a minimum 1997
of 7,000 gallons, effective January 1, 1996, for each
customer billing district and shall be as follows: $ 1.79
For the purpose of this paragraph A), the winter
quarter shall be the winter quarter as specified in
Subdivision 3 of said section 7.05.
B) For all commercial, institutional, industrial, and other
premises, the rate per thousand gallons of water
effective January 1, 1997, shall be as follows: $ 1.79
C) A customer charge shall be made for each invoice
rendered effective January 1, 1997, as follows: $ 3.00
If the invoice is for water service, as well as sanitary
sewer service, the customer charge, when collected,
shall be allocated proportionally between the City's
water fund, sewer fund, and its storm sewer fund
based on the user fees billed for by each fund.
D) Where the metered use of water on the premises for the
preceding winter quarter was not normal, the rate may be
adjusted as provided in Subdivision 3 of said Section 7.05.
4. The foregoing rates and charges are in addition to, and not in lieu of, other rates and
charges established by ordinance or resolution.
WATER RATES AND CHARGES FOR 1997
1. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 7.15 of the Ordinance Code of the City of
Richfield, the rates and charges for City water and water service are hereby
established to be those set forth in the following paragraphs of this resolution:
2. The charge due and payable to the City by each water customer of the City, during
any quarter shall be $1.42 per 1,000 gallons. Water charges shall be payable
quarterly, and all bills issued after January 1, 1997 shall be at this rate. These
/(0-3
charges will cover, in some instances, water used during the months of October,
November, and December 1996.
SPECIAL WATER SERVICE CHARGES FOR 1997
1. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 7.15 of the Ordinance Code of the City of
Richfield, the rates and charges for special customer services are hereby
established to be those set forth in the following paragraphs of this resolution:
2. The charge for establishing a new customer account shall be $13.50 per account.
3. The charge for installation of meters or outside meter readers shall be $19.00 per
installation.
4. The charge to flush and maintain fire hydrants located on privately owned property
within the City shall be $39.00 per hydrant per year plus any required parts.
5. The charge to thaw and service water pipes on customer property shall be actual
cost to the City plus thirty percent.
6. The charge for any other services not covered by the above shall be based on
actual hourly cost to the City plus thirty percent.
0 STORM SEWER RATES AND CHARGES FOR 1997
1. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 7.20 of the Ordinance Code of the City of
Richfield, the rates and charges for City storm sewer service are hereby established
to be those set forth in the following paragraphs of this resolution:
2. The rates and charges for the use and availability of the system are determined
through the use of a "Residential Equivalent Factor" (REF). One REF is defined as
the ratio of the average volume of surface runoff coming from one acre of land and
subjected to a particular use, to the average volume of runoff coming from one acre
of land subjected to typical single-family residential use within the City during a
standard one year rainfall event. The REF's for the following land uses within the
City and the billing classifications for such land uses are as follows:
LAND USES REF CLASSIFICATION
Cemeteries .25 1
Parks and railroads .75 2
Two-family residential 1.00 3
Single-family residential 1.00 4
Public and private schools
and institutional uses 1.25 5
Multiple-family residential
uses and churches 3.00 6
Commercial, industrial, and
warehouse uses 5.00 7
3. The basic system quarterly rate for storm sewer service is $42.75 per acre of land.
8.55 is the quarterly rate for a single family residence which is considered to have
an acreage of one-fifth acre. The charge made against each parcel of land is then
determined by multiplying the REF for the parcel's land use classification times the
parcel's acreage times the basic system rate.
6.5% PENALTY ON PAST DUE ACCOUNTS
1. Customers will have thirty (30) days to pay their water, sanitary sewer, and storm
sewer quarterly bills from the date of the mailing by the City. Any unpaid amount will
be added to the next quarterly bill along with a 6.5% penalty on the delinquent
amount.
2. The penalty charge when billed on past due accounts shall be allocated
proportionally between the City's water fund, sewer fund, and storm sewer fund
based on the user fees billed for each fund.
Adopted by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this 9th day of
December, 1996.
Martin J. Kirsch, Mayor
ATTEST:
Thomas P. Ferber, City Clerk
0
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION NO.,
RESOLUTION DESIGNATING CITY'S CONTRIBUTION TOWARD
HEALTH INSURANCE PREMIUM FOR PART-TIME
REGULAR, GENERAL SERVICES EMPLOYEES
WHEREAS, the hospital-medical/surgical group health insurance plan is
available from the LOGIS Health Insurance Program for benefit-eligible part-time
regular, General Services, City employees; and
WHEREAS, the City desires to extend this health insurance benefit to benefit-
eligible, part-time regular, General Services, City employees; and
WHEREAS, for purposes of determining who qualifies for this health insurance
plan, benefit-eligible, part-time regular General Services, City employees are
employees who are scheduled to work at least forty and less than eighty hours per bi-
weekly payroll period, on a regularly scheduled basis throughout the year; and
WHEREAS, part-time regular, General Services employees may opt out of
health insurance all together; and
WHEREAS, funds for the City's contribution toward premium have been included
in the 1997 proposed budget; and
WHEREAS, the City Council is required to determine by resolution the City's
contribution toward the premium for employee group insurance coverages.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City shall contribute a
maximum of $182.50 per month for family health insurance, and for employees electing
single coverage, the City shall contribute the following amounts per month:
Health Partners Classic (Group Health, Inc.) $114.64
Health Partners Health Plan (Med Centers) $113.85
Medica .$140.37
Such Contributions shall be for coverage effective January 1, 1997.
BE IF FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Council shall determine the City's
contribution toward insurance premiums for all organized employee groups by the
adoption of the appropriate resolutions concerning labor contracts with the respective
organized employee groups.
0
((0 -! )
•
Adopted by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this 9th day of ,
December, 1996.
Martin J. Kirsch, Mayor
ATTEST:
Thomas P. Ferber, City Clerk
•
0
RESOLUTION NO. I r??lo?
RESOLUTION RELATING TO THE 1997 MANAGEMENT
SALARY COMPENSATION PLAN
WHEREAS, the municipal code of the City of Richfield provides for the adoption
of a pay plan for Management employees from time-to-time; and
WHEREAS, the City administration has prepared a 1997 pay plan for positions
classifications for Management employees. The City Manager is authorized to add or
reclassify positions as necessary. Examples of positions in each pay grade are
attached.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council do and hereby
does establish for the year 1997 the following pay plan, which is to be effective January
5, 1997, the first full pay period in 1997 and subject to all applicable provisions of the
City Code:
MANAGEMENT COMPENSATION PLAN
PAY GRADE MINIMUM MID-RANGE MAXIMUM
M-NE YR 33,612.80 40,185.60 47,049.60
MO 2,801.07 3,348.80 3,920.80
BW 1,292.80 1,545.60 1,809.60
HR 16.16 19.32 22.62
M-1 YR 36.296.00 43,451.20 50,793.60
MO 3.024.67 3,620.93 4,232.80
BW 1.396.00 1,671.20 1,953.60
HR 17.45 20.89 24.42
M-2 YR 40,996.80 49,046.40 57,408.00
MO 3.416.40 4,087.20 4,784.00
BW 1,576.80 1,886.40 2,208.00
HR 19.71 23.58 27.60
M-3 YR 46.758.40 55,972.80 65,644.80
MO 3.896.53 4,664.40 5,470.40
BW 1.798.40 2,152.80 2,524.80
HR 22.48 26.91 31.56
M-4 YR 52.145.60 62,337.60 72,966.40
MO 4.345.47 5,194.80 6,080.53
BW 2.005.60 2,397.60 2,806.40
HR 25.07 29.97 35.08
M-5 YR 60.486.40 72,321.60 84,635.20
MO 5.040.53 6,026.80 7,052.93
BW 2,326.40 2,781.60 3,255.20
HR 29.08 34.77 40.69
1(o- G
H
z
ca ? _
po ??
a '1? ) o
1-: cyi
cl) C O O
N
?.? LL r r (Q
p? Or
c co + I f
m
+ -4-4
O _ -0
U ?
(? T Q Q Q Q
a) cu
W
p LL LL LL LL.
d a) c W
c ccu o Z
O t.C)
N O Q- Zc)r
p T
Q QCL 00 o
. O N JOCflr r
0 N Q 9 r O O
U U
a? U. t +
., =
E co Z p .
zo <<<<
E aD ? p ? 0 0 w w >
>
fu m p (n I.L N I..L I..L •-E
a
S C CU
E U
c
O _
t cv
~ \ \ E
L ` zLO 0LO
o
Q Qom} cMr
H (B cn p. O O O Q
o L)
cM r O
C
i c? LO
m
0
? I
o QQQQ a
w
4. t
0 O N O N U
rn rn 0) rn c
c c c c c
? Of o
E 0
O "O c
z
c
vi O
Q
c a
i
c ? w
U
E N Q CD CD
a
z O E
vOi c v F- U O ?,
(0 >
0<
p?
c rnN O O
c CO L-
>o w ?°E,?
o a
N>n
M c On ms a c
cn c? .
0<U)zD
T
a?
U
a)
O
ca
t
rn
cn
0
co
a)
c
U
?
Y
?
. c
t
U
O
U
N
t
O
•U
c
O
U
U
m
L
_
N
c?
d
Y
U
U
N
.Q
N
U-
n:
w E
O
Q H
/(0- 4
MANAGEMENT POSITION CLASSIFICATION STRUCTURE
RANGE POSITION TITLES CLASS
M-NE Foreman/Supervisor Non-Exempt
Turf Supervisor Non-Exempt
M-1 City Clerk Exempt
Community Services Manager Exempt
Health Administrator Exempt
Liquor Store Manager Exempt
M-2 Asst. Fire Chief/Fire Marshal Exempt
Chief Building Official Exempt
Data Processing Manager Exempt
Engineering Supervisor Exempt
Housing & Redevelopment Manager Exempt
Superintendent Exempt
Transportation Engineer Exempt
•
(Rev. 9-96)
M-3 City Engineer Exempt
Community Development Manager
Finance Manager Exempt
Human resources Manager Exempt
Operations Coordinator Exempt
Recreation Services Coordinator Exempt
M-4 Liquor Operations Director Exempt
M-5 Department Director Exempt
0
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION RELATING TO THE 1997 GENERAL SERVICES
SALARY COMPENSATION PLAN
WHEREAS, the municipal code of the City of Richfield provides for the adoption of a pay plan for General Services
employees from time-to-time, and
WHEREAS, the City administration has prepared a 1997 pay plan for position classifications for General Services
employees. The City Manager is authorized to add or reclassify positions as necessary. Examples of positions in each
pay grade are attached.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council do and hereby does establish for the year 1997 the
following pay plan, which is to be effective January 5, 1997, the first full pay period in 1997 and subject to all applicable
provisions of the City Code:
GENERAL SERVICES COMPENSATION PLAN
STEP 1 2 3 4 5 MERIT RANGE
RANGE
GS1 YR 20,696.00 21,923.20 23,129.60 24,398.40 25,646.40 26,416.00
MO 1,724.67 1,826.93 1,927.47 2,033.20 2,137.20 2,201.33
BW 796.00 843.20 889.60 938.40 986.40 1,016.00
HR 9.95 10.54 11.12 11.73 12.33 12.70
GS2 YR 22,796.80 23,961.60 25,147.20 26,416.00 29,140.80
MO 1,899.73 1,996.80 2,095.60 2,201.33 2,428.40
BW 876.80 921.60 967.20 1,016.00 1,120.80
HR 10.96 11.52 12.09 12.70 14.01
GS3 YR 25,147.20 26,416.00 27,768.00 29,140.80 32,156.80
MO
BW 2,095.60
967.20 2.201.33
1,016.00 2,314.00
1.068.00 2,428.40
1,120.80 2,679.73
1,236.80
HR 12.09 12.70 13.35 14.01 15.46
GS4 YR 27,768.00 29,140.80 30.638.40 32,156.80 35,526.40
MO 2,314.00 2,428.40 2.553.20 2,679.73 2,960.53
BW 1,068.00 1,120.80 1,178.40 1,236.80 1,366.40
HR 13.35 14.01 14.73 15.46 17.08
GS4E YR 29,848.00 31,304.00 32.926.40 34,590.40 38,188.80
MO 2,487.33 2,608.67 2,743.87 2,882.53 3,182.40
BW 1,148.00 1,204.00 1.266.40 1,330.40 1,468.80
HR 14.35 15.05 15.83 16.63 18.36
GS5 YR 30,638.40 32.156.80 33.779.20 35,526.40 39,187.20
MO 2,553.20 2.679.73 2.814.93 2,960.53 3,265.60
BW 1,178.40 1,236.80 1,29920 1,366.40 1,507.20
HR 14.73 15.46 16 24 17.08 18.84
GS5E YR 32,926.40 34,590.40 36.296.00 38,188.80 42,099.20
MO 2,743.87 2,882.53 3.02467 3,182.40 3,508.27
BW 1,266.40 1,330.40 1.396.00 1,468.80 1,619.20
HR 15.83 16.63 17.45 18.36 20.24
GS6 YR 33,779.20 35,526.40 37,315.20 39,187.20 45,406.40
MO 2,814.93 2,960.53 3,109.60 3,265.60 3,783.87
BW 1,299.20 1,366.40 1,435.20 1,507.20 1,746.40
HR 16.24 17.08 17.94 18.84 21.83
GS6E YR 36,296.00 38.188.80 40,102.40 42,099.20 48,796.80
MO 3,024.67 3,182.40 3,341.87 3,508.27 4,066.40
BW 1,396.00 1.468.80 1,542.40 1,619.20 1,876.80
HR 17.45 18.36 19.28 20.24 23.46
Normal Progression Through General Services Compensation Plan
a. Step 1 - Start
b. Step 2 - One year from anniversary date
c. Step 3 - One year since last increase
If an employee is rated Needs Improvement, the employee may not advance to Step
3 until performance is rated Satisfactory or higher.
d. Step 4 - One year since last increase
If an employee is rated Needs Improvement, the employee may not advance to Step
4 until performance is rated Satisfactory or higher.
e. Merit Range - One year since last increase for those rated Above Satisfactory or Outstanding.
Satisfactory and Needs Improvement performers may not advance to or within the Merit
Range. Salary increases in the Merit Range will be determined by the supervisor and may
range between 2% - 5%.
An employee within the Merit Range who is performing at least at an Above Satisfactory level
will receive a percentage salary adjustment equal to the percentage of the overall range
adjustment. An employee within the Merit Range who is performing at a Satisfactory level will
received a percentage salary increase equal to one-half ('/z) of the overall percentage
adjustment.
An employee within the Merit Range who is performing at a Needs Improvement level will not
received a salary adjustment, provided however that such employee's salary would not remain
at an amount less than the new rate for Step 4 of such employee's current salary grade.
f. Employees whose competency level and/or performance are rated Unsatisfactory may not
advance to the next step until their performance improves.
Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this 9th day of December, 1996.
Martin J. Kirsch Mayor
ATTEST:
Thomas P. Ferber
City Clerk
0
/(,-
GRADE POSITION TITLES
1 Clerk Typist
Data Entry Operator
Switchboard-Receptionist
•
GENERAL SERVICES POSITION CLASSIFICATION STRUCTURE
2 Community Development Technician
Community Service Officer
Custodian
Finance Clerk
Lead Liquor Clerk
Licensing Clerk
Police Cadet
Senior Clerk Typist
Transportation Specialist
3 Accounting Clerk
Arena Operations Assistant
Code Compliance Officer
Dispatcher
Health/Licensing Specialist
Leased Housing Assistant
Secretary
4 Assessment Clerk
Assistant Turf Supervisor
Central Services Technician
Data Processing Technician
Communications/Special Projects Assistant
Housing Inspector I
4E Administrative Aide
Payroll Accountant
Project Assistant
Records Supervisor
Zoning Administrator
5 Assistant Building Superintendent
Engineering Technician
Housing Inspector II
CLASS
Non-Exempt
Non-Exempt
Non-Exempt
Non-Exempt
Non-Exempt
Non-Exempt
Non-Exempt
Non-Exempt
Non-Exempt
Non-Exempt
Non-Exempt
Non-Exempt
Non-Exempt,
Non-Exempt
Non-Exempt
Non-Exempt
Non-Exempt
Non-Exempt
Non-Exempt
Non-Exempt
Non-Exempt
Non-Exempt
Non-Exempt
Non-Exempt
Non-Exempt
Exempt
Exempt
Exempt
Exempt
Exempt
Non-Exempt
Non-.Exempt
Non-Exempt
0
0..
O(Rev. 9-96)
GRADE POSITION TITLES CLASS
5E Administrative Assistant Exempt
Assistant Golf Course Manager Exempt
Assistant Liquor Store Manager Exempt
Civilian Crime Prevention Specialist Exempt
Community Center Programmer Exempt
Human Services Planner/Coordinator Exempt
Leased Housing Specialist Exempt
Motor Vehicle' Licensing Supervisor Exempt
Naturalist Exempt
Planning and Research Specialist Exempt
Recreation Supervisor Exempt
Redevelopment Specialist Exempt
Rehabilitation Specialist Exempt
Youth Resource Specialist Exempt
6 Electrical/Building Inspector Non-Exempt
Programmer/Analyst Non-Exempt
6E Accountant Exempt
e-
0..
•
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION RELATING TO THE 1997 SPECIALIZED PAY PLAN
WHEREAS, Section 310.17 of the Ordinance Code of the City of Richfield provides that the pay
grades, the number of steps or range of each pay grade, the compensation rates in each pay grade, and
the method of normal progression through the pay grade be established by Council resolution; and
WHEREAS, the City administration has prepared a 1997 pay plan for the positions for which there
are no essentially similar position classification in other regular pay plans. The City Manager is authorized
to add or reclassify positions as necessary. Examples of positions in each pay grade are attached.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council do and hereby does establish for
the year 1997 the following pay plan which is to be effective on January 5, 1997, the first full pay period in
1997 and subject to the provisions of the personnel rules and regulations ordinance:
SPECIALIZED PAY PLAN
INTERMITTENT AND SEASONAL
Pay Grade Step 1 Step 2 Step 3 Step 4 Step 5
SP1-E/NE HR 4.75 4.95 5.23 5.46 5.75
SP2-E/NE HR 5.26 5.50 5.78 6.06 6.36
SP3-E/NE HR 5.68 5.94 6.25 6.55 6.88
SP4-E/NE HR 6.13 6.42 6.75 7.07 7.44
S P5-E/N E HR 6.60 6.91 7.28 7.63 8.03
SP6-E/NE HR 7.13 7.51 7.87 8.25 8.67
SP7-E/NE HR 7.73 8.08 8.48 8.91 9.35
SP8-E/NE HR 8.34 8.74 9.16 9.63 10.10
SP9-E/NE HR 8.97 9.41 9.91 10.39 10.91
SP10-E/NE HR 9.71 10.21 10.71 11.24 11.81
SP11-E/NE HR 10.48 10.98 11.55 12.13 12.72
SP12-E/NE HR 11.29 11.88 12.45 13.08 13.75
SP13-E/NE HR 12.12 12.74 13.42 14.11 14.85
Instructor's Range: $5.15 - $50.00
Election Judge: $5.50
Election Co-Chair: $5.75
Election Chairperson: $6.25
iI ? y()'o
0 Normal Progression Through the Specialized Pax Plan
Individual employees will be eligible to received increases to the next higher grade step based on
individual performance and the following progression:
a. Step 1 - Start
b. Step 2 - One year from anniversary date
c. Step 3 - One year from last increase
d. Step 4 - One year from last increase
e. Step 5 - One year from last increase
Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this 9th day of December, 1996.
Martin J. Kirsch Mayor
ATTEST:
Thomas P. Ferber City Clerk
E
I E Driving Range I
E Pool Attendant
2 NONE
3 NE Bike Patrol Officer
NE Concession I (all sites EXCEPT Pool,
Vet's & Taft)
NE Range Picker
NE Scorer/Timer
NE Recreation Attendant I
E Concession I (Pool, Vet's & Taft only)
E Facility Rental Attendant
E Mini-Golf Attendant
E Pool Day Watch
4 NE Arena Attendant
NE Dance Coordinator & Skate
Coordinator
NE Recreation Attendant II (Men's Open
Gym & Sports Attendant)
NE Video Production Assistant
E Concession II (Pool, Vet's & Taft only)
E Facility Cashier
E Pool Night Watch
E Ranger
E Recreation Attendant II (Parks Water
Slide Attendant)
5 NE Adaptive Assistant
NE Custodian
NE Intern
NE Liquor Cashier
NE Liquor Clerk
NE Substitute Van Driver
NE Survey Crew Person
NE Winter Sports Attendant
E Driving Range II
E Par-3/Driving Range Attendant
E Starter
E Warming House Attendant
6 NE Adaptive Leader/Specialist
NE Concession III (all sites EXCEPT Pool)
NE Pro Shop Attendant
NE Receptionist
NE Substitute Naturalist
E Concession III (Pool only)
E Golf Course Laborer
E Lifeguard
E Outdoor Skating Supervisor
E Playground Leader
E Warming House Supervisor
E Mini Golf Coordinator
7 NE Accounting Clerk
NE Adaptive Program Supervisor
NE Concession Supervisor (all sites
EXCEPT Pool)
NE Construction Specialist
NE Maintenance Laborer
NE Naturalist I
8
9
10
11
12
E
E
E
NE
NE
NE
NE
NE
NE
NE
E
E
E
E
NE
E
E
NE
NE
E
E
NE
13 NE
NE
NE
NE
NE
NE
NE
E
E
E
E
E
Zamboni Operator -?
Concession Supervisor - Pool
Miniature Golf Supervisor
Adaptive Coordinator
Administrative Services Clerk
Clerk Typist - Int. & Substitute
Construction Inspector
Farmers Market Coordinator
Naturalist Coordinator
Publication Supervisor
Golf Course Technician I
Playground Coordinator
Tennis Coordinator
Winter Golf Course Technician
Community Development Tech.
Golf Course Technician II
Special Facilities Coordinator
Athletic Coordinator
Engineering Aide
Clubhouse Coordinator
Playground Coordinator
Community Relations Coordinator
NONE
911 Dispatcher
Instructors
Building Inspector
Figure Skating
Hockey (Arena)
Housing & Redevelopment Tech.
Sports Official
Dance
Cross Country Ski
Golf Professional
Hockey (outside)
Tennis
WSI
OTHER
Election Judge $5.50
Election Co-Chair $5.75
Election Chairperson $6.25
NE=Non-Exempt, may work up to 40 hours per
week without overtime pay.
E-Exempt, may work up to 48 hours per week
without overtime pay.
All Pool positions are exempt from overtime, even Concessions.
All Golf positions, except Concessions/Pro Shop positions, are exempt.
All Playground and outdoor Rink positions are exempt.
All Community Center, Woodlake Nature Center, Ice Arena and
Maintenance positions are non-exempt.
(revised 9-96)
169- ?), 91
•
•
•
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING POLICIES, PROCEDURES, AND FEES FOR
THE ASSESSING DIVISION
WHEREAS, the City Assessing Division provides a variety of services to the
public, to title companies and to realtors, relating to information necessary for sale and
purchase of property; and
WHEREAS, special assessment searches are requested when closing on
purchased properties; and
WHEREAS, listing information is requested when there is an interest in property
sales or purchases; and
WHEREAS, residential property records are requested when comparing
properties for market values; and
WHEREAS, certain specific information, such as special assessment searches,
property listing information, comparable residential property records and homestead
information are regularly sought by realtors, title companies and homeowners in the
sale and transfer of property within the City; and
WHEREAS, the above list of requests for information constitutes a large portion
of the work load of the City Assessing Division; and
WHEREAS, said policies, procedures and fees must be reviewed and modified
as needed.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council hereby establishes
the following policies, procedures and fees for dissemination of certain information in
the City's Assessing Division.
1.
SPECIAL ASSESSMENT . PROCEDURES
SEARCHES
Provided, upon receipt or
written request for multiple
searches or phone request for
same day pickup of a single
search, by City Assessing
Division identifying levied and
pending assessments
Provide written request and
$12.00 fee per Property
Identification Number (PID).
Searches are normally in the
mail 24 hours after receipt.
Provide verbal update by
phone of previously
requested certified City
special assessment
searches.
Provided the same day if a
single certified or
non-certified search is
requested and if picked up
at the City.
FEES
$12.00 per Property
Identification Number (PID).
The search is a billing
statement.
Provided free of charge if
a certified City search is
not requested.
•
E
G
l (0 `c)_Do not provide additional
billing statements for
assessments.
Provide, upon written
request, a report (or run) of
all properties affected by a
levied or pending special
assessment.
II.
LISTING INFORMATION
Provide, upon multiple
written or a single phone
request printouts.
Printouts include:
PID number
Estimated Market Value
Tax information
Owner/taxpayer
Legal Description
Special assessments
(levied and pending)II
Provided the following work
day for multiple certified or
non-certified search
requests and will be
available for pickup after
3:00 p.m.
Verbal verification (update)
of City certified levied and
pending assessments
before closing. After
identifying self, caller will
provide property address,
PID number, date and
receipt number of search.
Provided within a minimum
of 48 hours if there is an
existing program, additional
hours if more than one
report is requested. A non-
existing program would
require additional time. A
program would be created
on a priority basis and then
printed. Requesting party
would be notified as to fee
and date. Report(s) can be
picked up at the Assessing
office prior to printing.
PROCEDURES
A phone or written request
and receipt of $3.00.
Allow 1/2 hour before pickup
for a single property request
to prevent waiting for
information.
Allow 24 hours from receipt
of request for pickup of
listing information on
multiple properties.
Homeowner may request
a $12.00 search for
closing. An initiation fee
of $30.00 for each
requested report. Plus,
$.05 for each Property
Identification (PID)
Number.
A requested new program
would require a minimum
fee of $25.00. Fees
would be based on time
and materials to create
and print the program.
FEES
$3.00 per PID number or
per printed sheet.
Homeowners may request
a free printout.
Provided free of charge if
printout is not requested.
/ & - C-? ?
•
•
•
II .
LISTING INFORMATION
Lot size
Year built
Square footage
PROCEDURES
Give name, firm, address of
property and PID number (if
available for requests).
Provide verbal updates by Three listing inquiries on the
phone of previously following accessible
requested City printouts. information will be provided
by phone by the City:
PID number
Year built
Lot size
School district
Legal description
Taxes
Square footage
Mill rate for Richfield
Estimated difference
between homestead and
non-homestead tax
amounts.
Fee owner/taxpayer
Market value
Homestead status
Inquiries by phone for
square footage of buildings
will be limited to two
properties. Additional
properties will require
obtaining information in
person at the City
Assessor's office. Net
rentable areas for income
properties are protected
under the Data Privacy Act;
and therefore, will not be
given as listing information.
Special assessments will
not be given by phone.
However, they will be given
the City office when
requested.
FEES
6- a ?>
•
II
LISTING INFORMATION PROCEDURES
FEES
Exception: Homeowners will
be given special
assessments by phone if
they provide their social
security numbers.
Otherwise, the owner can
request a free complete
listing printout. Give name,
firm, property address, PID
number, date of printout and
receipt number when
updating printouts.
0
Requested complete listing
information, without a
requested printout, will be
partially supplied verbally by
the Assessing Division. The
Division will orally supply
special assessments, next
year's market value (when
available), and homestead
status. Requesting party
will be allowed to use the
County's terminal screen for
additional information (only
screens 101, 103, 105, 108,
109, 120, 275 and 282).
Interruptions will occur for
City use. Time limits on the
County's terminal will be set
based on City's immediate
needs.
0
%6-D--?
III.
REVIEW OF COMPARABLE PROCEDURES
RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY
RECORDS
Provide a field card record of a
subject property and
comparable properties.
Request for more than
five properties must be
submitted in writing and
include individual
property addresses (PID
numbers will help cut our
response time).
The individual must allow
the City to set the time
convenient for the City to
supply information on a
one-on-one basis.
More than five
comparable properties,
will be allowed to view
and record information
under strict supervision of
the Assessing Division.
The City will not
assemble or analyze
data.
Certified copies will state:
"This is a true and correct
reproduction of the
original on file at the City
Assessor's office"
FEES
May request $1.00 per
copy for up to five
comparable properties.
Certified copies $5.00.
Free of charge when
personally writes
information supplied by
the Assessing Division.
n
0
•
•
t?-A
IV.
REVIEW OF COMPARABLE
COMMERCIAL, INDUSTRIAL
AND APARTMENT
PROPERTY RECORDS
Provide partial field card record
of a subject property and
comparable properties.
PROCEDURES
Request for more than
five properties must be
submitted in writing and
include individual
property addresses (PID
numbers will help cut our
response time).
Because of the data
privacy act, viewing the
property field cards will
be prohibited.
Confidential , private or
nonpublic data is
protected under the data
privacy act.
The following confidential
data is recorded on the
property field cards:
a. Detailed income and
expense figures:
b. Average vacancy
factors;
c. Verified net rentable
areas or net usable
areas;
d. Anticipated income
and expenses for the
current year; and
e. Projected vacancy
factor for the current
year.
The above confidential
information will be
blocked out when
photocopying field cards.
FEES
May request $2.00 per
copy.
Certified copies $5.00.
Free of charge when
personally writes
information orally
supplied by the
Assessing Division.
/ (0 C0
IV.
REVIEW OF COMPARABLE PROCEDURES FEES
IS COMMERCIAL, INDUSTRIAL
AND APARTMENT
PROPERTY RECORDS
The individual must allow
the City to set the time
convenient for the City to
supply information on a
one-on-one basis.
The City will not The City
will not assemble or
analyze data.
Certified copies will state:
"This is a true and correct
reproduction of the
original on file at the City
Assessor's office".
Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota, this 9th day of
December, 1996.
•
Martin J. Kirsch Mayor
ATTEST:
Thomas P. Ferber, City Clerk
•
1 6 ^a9
a RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION ADOPTING THE 1997 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT BUDGET
WHEREAS, a proposed Capital Improvement Budget for 1997 has been
prepared and submitted for review by the City Council in accordance with charter
requirements; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has received the recommendations and benefit of
review of these proposed documents by the Planning Commission and has itself
reviewed these proposals.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the 1997 Capital Improvement
Budget in the sum total of $9,506,436 is hereby approved as amended and adopted
with full recognition of the fact that the cost estimates are approximate and are subject
to final cost estimates and that all awards of contracts for these projects are subject to
necessary hearings and must be approved by the City Council in accordance with
established laws and practices governing such action, and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Manager is hereby authorized and
directed to initiate the procedures which will lead to more formal and detailed
consideration of these projects in accordance with the aforementioned laws and
practices.
Adopted by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this 9th day of
December, 1996.
Martin J. Kirsch, Mayor
ATTEST:
Thomas P. Ferber, City Clerk
ho,3 0
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION ADOPTING THE 1998-2002 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM
WHEREAS, a proposed Capital Improvement Program for 1998-2002 has been
prepared for review by the Planning Commission in accordance with charter
requirements; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has received the recommendations and benefit of
review of these proposed documents by the Planning Commission and has itself
reviewed these proposals.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the 1998-2002 Capital Improve-
ment Program is hereby approved and adopted subject to annual review and revision,
and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Manager is hereby authorized and
directed to initiate the procedures which will lead to more formal and detailed
consideration of these projects in accordance with the aforementioned laws and
practices.
Adopted by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this 9th day of
December, 1996
Martin J. Kirsch, Mayor
ATTEST:
Thomas P. Ferber, City Clerk
•
RESOLUTION NO. 3
RESOLUTION AMENDING ESTABLISHED 1997 LICENSE,
PERMIT AND MISCELLANEOUS FEES
PURSUANT TO THE PROVISIONS OF APPENDIX D OF
THE ORDINANCE CODE OF THE CITY OF RICHFIELD
RESCINDING RESOLUTION NO. 8314
BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota as follows:
SECTION 1. ESTABLISHING FEES
A. License, permit and miscellaneous fees required under the ordinances of the City of Richfield shall be as
stated in the sections of this Resolution.
B. A period of no less than 30 days will be allowed for the remittance of City Business license renewal fees
contained in Sections 5,7, 8 and 9 of this resolution.
C. A 10% administrative surcharge will be assessed upon all renewals contained in Section 5, 7, 8 and 9 of
the resolution if not received by the City on or before December 31 st of each year. The 10% surcharge
will be based upon the cost of the license.
D. Nothing in this section shall be deemed to require the City to issue or renew any license for which the fee
has not been paid in a timely manner.
SECTION 2. CONSTRUCTION AND RELATED PERMIT FEES AND CHARGES
TYPE OF PERMIT SECTION
OR LICENSE REQUIRING TOTAL VALUATION FEE SCHEDULE
(1) Building 400.03-400.09 $1 to $500 $21.00.
Permits
$501 to $2,000
$21.00 for the first $500 plus $2.75
each additional $100, or fraction
thereof, to and including $2,000.
$2,001 to $25,000 $62.25 for the first $2,000 plus
$12.50 for each additional $1,000,
or fraction thereof, to and
including $25,000.
$25,001 to $50,000 $349.75 for the first $25,000 plus
$9.00 for each additional $1,000,
or fraction thereof, to and
including $50,000.
$50,001 to $100,000 $574.75 for the first $50,000 plus
$6.25 for each additional $1,000,
or fraction thereof, to and
including $100,000.
$100,001 to $500,000 $887.25 for the first $100,000 plus
$5.00 for each additional $1,000,
or fraction thereof, to and
including $500,000.
$500,001 to $1,000,000 $2,887.25 for the first $500,000 plus
$4.25 for each additional $1,000,
or fraction thereof, to and
including $1,000,000.
$1,000,001 and up $5,015.25 for the first $1,000,000 plus
$2.75 for each additional $1,000,
or fraction thereof.
TYPE OF PERMIT SECTION
OR LICENSE REQUIRING DESCRIPTION FEE
(a) Inspections outside of normal business hours $42.00 per hour*
(minimum charge - two hours)
(b) Reinspection fees assessed under provisions of Section 108.8 $42.00 per hour*
(c) Additional plan review required by changes,
additions or revision to plans (minimum charge - two hours) $42.00 per hour*
*Or the total hourly cost to the jurisdiction, whichever is the greatest. This cost shall include supervision,
overhead, equipment, hourly wages and fringe benefits of he employee involved.
(2) Driveway, Parking
Area Permits 515.05 (no permit fee for sidewalks) $ 25.00
(3) Fire Extinguishing
System Permit 400.03-400.09 Based on Building Permit fee schedule with a
with a minimum of $ 20.00
(4) Swimming 420.00
(5) Public Swimming 420.10
Pool Inspection
(6) Plan Review Fee 400.03-400.09
and State
40 Building Code
(7) Contractors License Verification Fee
(8) Moving Dwellings 845
and Buildings other
than Dwellings
(9) Garage 845
Moving
(10) Structure
Demolition 400.00-400.09
Permanent above or below ground pools are
based Building Permit. Portable Pools $ 13.50
(No fee shall be charged for construction or
erection of any pool 24 inches or less in depth at its
deepest part and not exceeding 177 sq ft in water surface)
1 st Pool $ 85.00
Each Additional $ 45.00
65% of building permit fee, except no fee for the following:
(a) Existing single family dwelling alterations
when habitable area is not enlarged.
(b) Single and two family dwelling repair and
maintenance work.
(c) Commercial and industrial repair and maintenance
work not exceeding $1,000 or where plans are not required.
(d) Residential garages and storage buildings.
$ 5.00
Pre-inspection Fee:
IN Richfield $ 35.00
OUTSIDE Richfield $ 70.00
Moving Permit Fee:
WITHIN Richfield $ 35.00
INTO Richfield $ 70.00
Moving Out of City $ 35.00
Pre-inspection Fee:
(if relocated in City) $ 23.00
Moving Permit Fee first stall $ 16.00
Plus each adjoining stall $ 9.00
Moving out of City $ 16.00
(a) Commercial
Demolition cost as per Building Permit
Schedule with q minimum of $ 25.00
(b) Dwelling
1. One or two story $ 22.00
2. Multiple First Unit $ 22.00
plus each additional unit $ 10.00
3. Residential - Garage and lesser structure $ 8.50
-133
SECTION 2. CONSTRUCTION AND RELATED PERMIT FEES AND CHARGES (CONTINUED
TYPE OF PERMIT SECTION
OR LICENSE REQUIRING DESCRIPTION
(11) Excavation in 800.01-800.15 For each transverse excavation and
Public each 300 feet or portion thereof longitudinal
Right of way excavation and for each curb and gutter
(12) Utility 700.05
Abandonment 710.01
(13) Certification
Charge 705.03-705.21
(14) (a) Sewer 700.05
Construction
(b) Water Service 715.01
Service Connection
•
•
(15) Plumbing Permit 400.03-400.09
section installed or driveway apron installed,
except when survey and grade stakes are set by City
(a) Sewer
(b) Water
(Delinquent)
Residential
Industrial/Commercial
As per Ordinance - To connect to existing
water service leads at the curb box
To connect to main where a curb box and service
lead is not installed the fee is the actual cost of
material and estimated cost of labor.
To turn on water after discontinuance of service
For raising or lowering stop-box tops to correspond
with ground level change made by property owner.
Cost plus 30% material and labor.
Residential
(a) Minimum Fee
FEE
$ 20.00
$ 75.00
$ 20.00
$ 20.00
$ 25.00
$ 20.00
$ 30.00
$ 20.00
$ 20.00
$ 30.00
(b) Fee for each fixture including:
Bath Tub Laundry Tray
Bidet Lavatory
Clothes Dryer Sewage Ejector
Dishwasher Shower Stall
Disposal Sink
Floor Drain Water Closet
Floor Tray Water Heater (New or Replacement)
Any Fixture Not listed
Gas piping per unit including:
Gas Grill Gas Oven
Gas Incinerator Gas Plate
Gas Stove Gas Light
(c) Lawn Sprinkler, AntiSyphon system (includes water
connection from building piping and yard side of
syphon breaker)
(d) Pool Heater (up to 199,000 BTU)
(e) Water Softener
(f) Water supply or distribution piping extension or
alteration
(g) Sewer and Waste Alteration/Repair
$ 9.00
$ 9.00
$ 25.00
$ 35.00
$ 9.50
$ 9.50
$ 9.50
V V J34
TYPE OF PERMIT SECTION
OR LICENSE REQUIRING DESCRIPTION FEE
(16) Plumbing Permit 400.03-400.09 Commercial
(a) Minimum Fee $ 40.00
(b) Fee per fixture including:
Plaster Interceptor, Bidet-Disposer, Drinking
Fountain, Floor Drain or Trap
Sinks:
Bradley type wash-up, Laboratory, Service-Counter,
Flat/rim, Pot or Scullery, Bar
Urinal - Water heater
Any fixture not listed above $ 10.00
(c) Clothes Dryer- 1-5 Units $ 25.00
each Additional Unit $ 7.50
(d) Dental Chair $ 30.00
(e) Dishwasher $ 19.00
(f) Food Cold Case-Condensate Lines (each unit) $ 7.50
(g) Flammable Waste Trap - Catch Basin $ 19.00
(h) Ground run (new for existing building) $ 19.00
(1) Ice Making Machines $ 10.00
(j) Indirect coil for hot water storage $ 13.50
(k) Lawn Sprinkler, AntiSyphon System (Including water
connection from building piping to yard
side of syphon breaker) $ 38.00
(1) Neutralizing Tank $ 38.00
(m) Rainwater Leader:
All stacks 7 stories or less $ 19.00
All stacks over 7 stories $ 30.00
(n) Roof Area Drains: Each Drain $ 10.00
(o) Sewage Ejector $ 25.00
(p) Shower (gang type per head) $ 5.50
q) Water softener $ 25.00
(r) Water supply or distribution piping, extension
or alteration $ 19.00
(s) Sewer and Waste alteration/repair $ 19.00
(t) Installation of Gas Piping:
1. Up to 2" in diameter First 3 openings $ 9.00
Each additional opening
II. Exceeding 2" in diameter:
First 3 openings $ 20.00
Each additional opening $ 5.50
SECTION 2. CONSTRUCTION AND RELATED PERMIT FEES AND CHARGES (CONTINUED) ' Yo-3S
TYPE OF PERMIT SECTION
OR LICENSE REQUIRING DESCRIPTION FEE
(17) Plumbing Permit 400.03-400.09 99,000 BTU or less $ 13.50
Gas Unit (Burners) 100,000-199,000 BTU $ 19.00
Installation 200,000- 399,000 BTU $ 33.00
400,000 599,000 BTU $ 49.00
600,000- 999,999 BTU $ 64.00
1,000,000- 2,499,000 BTU $109.00
2,500,000- 9,999,000 BTU $129.00
10,000,000- 49,999,000 BTU $183.00
50,000,000- 74,999,000 BTU $233.00
more than- 74,999,000 BTU $306.00
(18) Plumbing 620 2" Casing $ 13.50
Permit Wells 3" Casing $ 16.00
4" Casing $ 21.00
5" Casing $ 37.00
6' Casing $ 49.00
(19) Electrical Permit 400.03-.400.09 Residential
(a) Minimum Fee $ 30.00
(b) Complete Wiring Fee:
Single Family Residence $ 55.00
Two Family Residence $106,00
(c) New Service - up to 200 amps $ 13.50
(d) Temporary Service - (for construction) $ 19.00
(e) Installation or replacement of each major appliance
during or after completion of building $ 9.00
(f) Swimming Pools $ 25.00
(g) Wiring of Addition or rewiring:
First Room $ 13.50
Each Additional Room $ 6.50
(h) Furnace or Air Conditioning: Per Unit $ 9.00
(i) Electrical Heating System:
2% of estimated job cost with a minimum of $ 19.00
(j) Electric or base board (Infrared Heaters): Per Circuit $ 9.00
(k) Work required to comply with minimum Housing Code
provisions other than new service - 2% of contract
cost with minimum of $ 18.00
(20) Electrical Permit 400.03-400.09 Commercial, Industrial and multiple dwellings
Commercial (more than two units) Minimum Fee $ 40.00
(a) Based on total job cost
- 2% of estimated job cost with a minimum of $ 40.00
-Over $50,000 - Fee/ $1,000.00
plus 1 1/2% of cost over $50,000.00
(b) Temporary Services for Construction:
0-100 amps $ 19.00
100 + amps $ 30.00
) T
(
ffi
Si
l
P
I
t
ti
ra
c
c
gna
s:
er
n
ersec
on $185.00
(d) Elevators:
Per Elevator - Hydraulic $ 50.00
Per Elevator - Electric $100.00
/(0-
TYPE OF PERMIT SECTION
OR LICENSE REQUIRING
(21) Electrical Permit 400.03-400.09
Signs
(22) Electrical Permit 400.03-400.09
DESCRIPTION FEE
Based on cost of Electrical Job to Customer
$0-$100 $ 40.00
$101 - $50,000 - 2% of estimated job cost with a
minimum of $ 40.00
Over $50,000 - Fee/ $1,000.00 plus 1 1/2% of cost over $ 50,000.00
Telephone Booths:Wiring of Booth
(includes company signs) $ 25.00
Central Systems and Additions, Alterations and Repairs
1 1/2% estimated cost with a minimum of $30.00
(23) Heating, 400.03-400.09
Ventilating, Air
Conditioning and Refrigeration
(24) Heating, 400.03-400.09
Ventilation,
Air Conditioning, Refrigeration
Storage Tanks
•
(a) Fuel storage Tanks (Underground or Enclosed)
Installation to be used with oil burner only.
Per tank not exceeding 1,000 gal. $ 10.00
Per tank exceeding 1,000 gal. $ 20.00
(b) Fuel Storage Tanks (Above ground or not enclosed)
Installation to be used with oil burner only.
Per tank $ 10.00
(c) Other Tanks (Installation modification,
removal, abandonment)
Each above ground tank $ 30.00
Each below ground tank $ 80.00
For installation or alteration of piping $ 15.00
(25) Benches 805.01-805.27 First Year $ 21.00
Renewal $ 14.50
(26) Fire 400.21-400.29 For initial fee required under code Per year $ 25.00
Prevention Code For each additional fee required under code Per year $ 10.00
If not renewed within 2 months of notification
add penalty of $ 15.00
(27) Sign 415.01-415.11 50 sq. ft. or less per sign $ 25.00
Installation Each additional 50 sq. ft. or less - per 50 sq. ft. $ 15.00
(a) Sign supportstructures based on Building
permit fee schedule
(28) Parking Areas 800.15-800.23 $ 8.00
(29) Housing 400.11-400.17 First Unit $ 75.00
Inspection Fee Additional Unit $ 25.00
This fee should apply to each inspection when:
1. Seller calls for minimum housing inspection
2. Homeowner calls for minimum housing inspection
3. House industry calls for minimum housing inspection
4. Government agencies call for minimum housing inspection
5. Private lending institution calls for minimum housing inspection
/65,-3r7
SECTION 3. CONSTRUCTION AND RELATED LICENSE FEES
TYPE OF PERMIT SECTION
OR LICENSE REQUIRING DESCRIPTION
(1) Heating and 400.07
Ventilating
Installer
(2) Sign Installer 16.01-416.13
(3) Electrical Installer 00.03-.400.09 State License Required
(4) Plumber 400.03-400.09 State License Required
(5) Well Driller 620 State License Required
(6) Tree Contractors 1 197
FEE
1 Year $ 45.00
1 Year $ 40.00
$25.00
SECTION 4. ZONING. LAND USE AND RELATED CHARGES
TYPE OF PERMIT SECTION
OR LICENSE REQUIRING DESCRIPTION
(1)* Planned Unit 530 (a) $450 plus $5/ $1,000 of project value up to a
Development maximum fee of
(b) PUD Plan Amendment fee
(2)* C-3 Zoning District 520.35
Site Plan Review
Transitional Activity
permit 520.57
(a) $400 plus $5 / $1,000 of project value to a
maximum fee of
(b) Plan Amendment Fee
$300 plus $5/ $1,000 of project value up to a
maximum fee of
(3)* Variance 545.05
Residential
Non Residential
FEE
$3,000.00
$ 500.00
$3,000.00
$ 500.00
$3,000.00
$ 200.00
$ 400.00
(4)* Conditional 545.09 $400 plus $5/ $1,000 of project value up to a
Use Permit maximum fee of $3,000.00
(5)* Zoning District
Change 545.11 $ 450.00
(6)* Subdivision
Approval 500.01-500.05 $ 500.00
Subdivision
Waiver 500.05-Subd.2 $ 450.00
* Any additional expense of notification necessitated by applicants request for continuance will be charged to
the applicant.
(7) Off-street
Parking Permit 545.09 (a) As part of conditional use permit process No Fee
800.15-800.23
(8) Street Vacation 820
(9) Forestry Permit 810
(10) Conditional Activity
Permit 515.71
(11) Nonconforming
Use Permit 515.73
(b) In conjunction with permitted use $ 200.00
$ 350.00
$ 10.00
$ 300.00
$ 300.00
(P -
TYPE OF PERMIT
OR LICENSE
(1) Arcade
(2) Amusement
Device
SECTION
REQUIRING
1105
DE SCRIPTION FEE
1 Year $ 300.00
1100.01
(3) Lawful Gambling 1100.13
(c) Video Games Per Premise
(a) Mechanical Amusement Device (Pinball) 1 Year $ 45.00
(b) Mechanical Music Box 1 Year $ 45.00
1. 1-5 video games 1 Year $ 100.00
2. 6-10 video games 1 Year $ 200.00
3. over 10 games $150 plus each additional $ 10.00
Bingo, Tipboard, Paddle Wheel, Raffle, Pull Tabs
(a) Lawful Gambling Permit
(those exempt from State Licensure) 1 year $ 100.00
{State Statute 349.213)
(b) Lawful Gambling Investigative Fee 1 year $ 100.00
(State Statute 349.16)
STATE LICENSE REQUIRED
(4) Itinerant Place 1100.05-1100.11 1 day $ 160.00
of Amusement
(5) Public Dance 1110.03 For each day dances are held - $2 1 month $ 25.00
No fee for locations holding tavern licenses.
(6) General 1100.03 (a) Billiard, Pool or Pigeonhole table (each) 1 year $ 32.00
Amusement 1. Coin operated l year $ 90.00
(b) Bowling Alley (per lane) 1 year $ 25.00
(c) Circus 1 year $129.00
(d) Dance Hall 1 day $129.00
(e) Golf
1. Miniature 1 year $ 30.00
2. Driving Tee 1 year $ 30.00
(f) Mountback 1 day $124.00
(g) Rides, mechanical/animal of any kind (ea) 1 year $ 19.00
(h) Shows, any kind 1 day $ 124.00
(i) Shuffleboard (each lane) 1 year $ 14.00
(j) Other games 1 day $ 63.00
(6a)Musical Concert 1110.01 Per event $ 25.00
(7) Theatre Cinema 1 120 1 year $ 124.00
Plus a notice publication fee $ . 6.50
(8) Roller Rink 1115 1 year or portion thereof $ 124.00
9 Commercial Adult- 605
1 year
$1,500.00
Oriented Enterprises Investigation fee 1 Year $1,500.00
(10) Massage Certificate fee 1 year $ 50.00
Practitioner 605 Investigation fee 1 year $ 124.00
(11) Public Baths 610 1 year $1,737.00
Investigation fee (actual cost minimum) $1,737.00
(12) Fortune Teller 1130.05-1130.07 1 day $ 100.00
and related trade 1 week $ 300.00
1 month $ 600.00
1 year $1,000.00
•
SECTION 6. ANIMAL LICENSES AND PERMITS
TYPE OF PERMIT SECTION
OR LICENSE REQUIRING DE SCRIPTION
(1) Animals 905.01-905.29 (a) Dog
(b) Cat
(c) Duplicate (either dog or cat)
(d) Late Penalty (each animal)
905.31-905.33 (e) Commercial Kennel
(f) Residential Kennel
905.37-905.39 (g) Pigeons
905.41 (h) Non-domestic Animals (Temporary Permit)
905.01-905.29 (I) Impounding (each animal)
1 st time
2nd Time (each impound after
SECTION 7. VEHICLE AND TRANSPORTATION LICENSE AND PERMIT FEES
TYPE OF PERMIT SECTION
OR LICENSE REQUIRING DE SCRIPTION
(1) Bicycle 1335
(2) Aircraft 1340
(3) Food Vehicle 615
(4) Garbage and Refuse
Collection 601.01-601.33
(5) Motor Vehicle
Dealer
(6) Motor Bicycle
Business
(7) Sound Truck
(8) Taxicab
1155
Minnesota State Registration
(a) Bakery vehicle
(b) Catering - for first food vehicle
Second vehicle
Each additional vehicle
(c) Readily perishable (Same as (b) above)
Commercial and Residential
First vehicle
Each additional vehicle
Per place of business
Each additional place of business
1 160 Per place of business
Per place of business to sell, rent or lease
1 165 Per vehicle
Per vehicle
1 170 First vehicle or auto livery
Each additional vehicle or auto livery
operated at any time within license period
(9) Taxicab Driver 1175
(10) Rental or Utility 1 185
Trailers and Trucks
Each place of business
/(a39
FEE
1 year $ 9.00
1 year $ 8.00
1 year $ 5.50
$ 1.00
1 year $150.00
1 year $ 85.00
1 year $ 30.00
$ 20.00
$ 25.00
$ 50.00
FEE
1 day $ 30.00
1 year $ 75.00
1 year $160.00
1 year $ 65.00
1 year $ 35.00
1 year $150.00
1 year $ 32.00
1 year $175.00
1 year $ 65.00
1 year $129.00
1 year $ 65.00
1 year $129.00
1 day $ 20.00
1 year $325.00
1 year $40.00
1 year $30.00
1 year $65.00
I (P - 40
SECTION 8. COMMERCIAL BUSINESS AND TRADE LICENSES A-ND PERMITS
TYPE OF PERMIT SECTION
OR LICENSE REQUIRING DESCRIPTION FEE
(1) Firearms Dealer 920.01-920.05 1 year $1,000.00
(2) Itinerant Food 615
Establishment 1 year $80.00
(3) Retail Candy 615 First facility 1 year $80.00
Shop Each additional on same premises 1 year $20.00
(4) Food Establishment 615 (a) Retail or Wholesale Food Sales (Grocery) 1 year $210.00
(b) Restaurant (Prepackaged food only sold for
consumption) 1 year $210.00
(c) Restaurant (Prepared food sold for
consumption) 1 year $395.00
(d) Plan Review Fee (New/remodeled food
preparation facility) $125.00
(e) Additional Food Facilities
(Baked goods, meat, produce, microwave
ovens) Each $11.00
(5) Vending Machine 615 (a) Food vending machine requiring coin or token
(excepting those machines dispensing bottled
or canned soft drinks) 1 year $15.00
(b) Other food vending machines (excepting
those dispensing bottled or canned
soft drinks) 1 year $15.00
(c) Ice vending machine 1 year $15.00
(6) Automobile Washing
Establishment 1125 Per calendar year or fraction thereof $100.00
(7) Scavenger 600.25 Each vehicle 1 year $30.00
Permit fee for opening cesspool or dumping
contents of each cesspool into City sewer $15.00
(8) Incinerator 600.01-600.23 1 year $30.00
(9) Tobacco 1145.03 (MS 461.12) Retail Sale and Distribution - per month or fraction
thereof License issued on calendar year basis
(cigarette vending machines prohibited,
bill No. 1990-7 4-21-90) $30.00
(10) Soft drink 1145.01 (a) Cans, bottles from shelf or cooler, fountain se rvice $25.00
(b) Vending machine dispensing bottles or cans -0-
(c) Other vending machines
Per year or fraction thereof $25.00
Per each additional machine $25.00
(11) Transient
Merchant 1181.01-1181.09 1 day $60.00
(12) Wagon
Peddler 1181 1 year $150.00
(13) Christmas
Tree Sales 1130.03 1 year $80.00
/ (-y L/I
SECTION 8. COMMERCIAL BUSINESS AND TRADE LICENSES AND PERMITS (CONTINUED)
TYPE OF PERMIT SECTION
• OR LICENSE REQUIRING DESCRIPTION FEE
(14) Motel 1190 First Unit $140.00
Per year each additional unit $ 9.00
(15) Outdoor
Merchandising 1135 Permit $65.00
(16) Storage .
Enclosure 1 135 Per Enclosure $56.00
(17) Pawnbroker 1 186 (a) Pawnbroker 1 year $1,750.00
and Second hand
Goods Dealer (b) Second hand Goods Dealer 1 year $300.00
(c) Initial investigation fee (nonrefundable) actu al costs
in excess of above with total not exceeding $1,200.00
Applicant shall deposit $1,200.00 with City Clerk along with
application. Amount in excess of actual investigation
costs shall be refunded.
(18) Auto Detailing 1195.01
Establishment 1 year $225.00
SECTION 9. LIQUOR AND RELATED LICENSE AND PERMIT FEES
TYPE OF PERMIT SECTION
OR LICENSE REQUIRING DESCRIPTION FEE
(1) Nonintoxicating
Malt Liquor 1210 (a) On-Sale 1 year $550.00
(b) Tavern (dance) 1 year $450.00
(c) Wholesale 1 year $21.00
(d) Off-Sale 1 year $160.00
(e) Club (Bottle Club) 1 year $365.00
(2) Liquor 1200.01-1200.25,
1200.29-1200.39 (a) On-Sale 1 year $11,200.00
1215 (b) Sunday (Fee set by state law) 1 year $200.00
1225 (c) Wine 1 year $800.00
1200.01-1200.25 (d) Veterans' Organization (Ex-Sunday) I year $520.00
1200.29-1200.39
(3) Employee License 1200.01-1200.25, Effective 10/1 /95 all licenses issued shall be valid
On-Sale Liquor 1200.29-1200.39 for a period of two years from the date of initial
Establishments application $ 21.00
(4) Investigation 1200.01-1200.25, (a) On-Sale liquor including Veterans' Organizati on
Fee 1200.29-1200.39 each person shown on application $500.00 and
actual costs in excess of above.
Each additional investigation for each person not
listed on original or renewal application. $150.00
1225 (b) Wine - Original Application initial Fee $275,00 and
actual costs in excess of above
with total fee not to exceed $2,107.00
Renewal Application Initial Fee 62.00 and
actual costs in excess of above
with total cost not to exceed $2,107.00
1200.09 Additional Investigation under 1200.09 Subd. 3 $1 24.00 and
not to exceed $2,107.00
Investigation of substitute manager $62.00
i(P _qd-
SECTION 10 - MISCELLANEOUS FEES
TYPE OF PERMIT SECTION
OR LICENSE REQUIRING
is (1) Registration 1 181
(2) Permit to reside 1190
(3) License for 405.25
Apartment Houses
and Rental Homes
(4) Certificate of 405.26
• Housing maintenance
Compliance
(5) Permit Fee for
DESCRIPTION
(a) State hawker or Peddler license
6 month/per person covered
(b) Canvasser or Solicitor,
6 month/per person covered
In motel for more than six months
(a) Apartment House (includes first 4 Units) 1 year
each additional unit in excess of 4
(b) Rental Home - single family dwelling 1 year
(c) D uplexes/double bungalows, triples and quads
First unit 1 year
Each additional rental unit 1 year
(d) Late Fee
10% penalty for each month or portion thereof
during which said fee remains unpaid.
(e) License Transfer Fee
(f) Reinstatement of suspended license
50% of license fee
(g) Reinstatement of Revoked license
100% of license fee
(a) Single family home or owner/occupied
portion of a 2-family home
FEE
$30.00
$30.00
$15.00
$55.00
$ 8.25
$55.00
$55.00
$20.00
$10.00
$55.00
1 year $75.00
$10.00
Per load $20.00
Rooming House 405.19
(6) Permit to Carry Mn Uniform Crime Bill (a) Processing Fee
a Gun Chapt 636 Article 3
(7) Seasonal Load
Limit Exemption
Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield this 9th day of December, 1996.
ATTEST:
Thomas P. Ferber City Clerk
Martin J. Kirsch
Mayor
0
15
• CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Council Letter No. 378
Agenda' December 9, 1996
Issue Statement:
Consideration of adjustments to General Services, Management and Specialized Pay
Plans to maintain comparable worth compliance.
Background:
The Minnesota Local Government Pay Equity Act requires all governments to achieve
pay equity through comparable worth. The Minnesota Department of Employee
Relations (DOER) administers the act and requires all local government units to submit
to periodic compliance reviews. To date, Richfield has received notices of compliance
from DOER when Richfield pay data has been reviewed. However, Richfield's
continued compliance is a delicate balance to ensure that pay increases for female
dominated positions remain equal to or greater than pay increases for male dominated
positions.
The 1996 budget provided for pay adjustments of 3% for all pay classifications in the
City. Pay plans for General Services, Specialized and Management were adjusted
according to the budget. Subsequent contract settlements with the City's Police and
Fire personnel resulted in staged pay increases which provided for a mid-year increase
to 3.5% over the 1995 wage. Because the 3.5% increase was staged in two parts the
cost to the City for 1995 was 3%.
It is now critical to continued compliance with the City's comparable worth plan that the
City's female dominated positions included as part of the City's General Services,
Management and Specialized Pay Plans also be given an additional .5% to bring them
to a total 3.5% greater than 1995 wage rates. Thus, these pay plans should now be
adjusted to reflect the .5% increase for the last pay period of the year.
Recommended Motion:
Approve the attached resolutions increasing the 1996 General Services, Specialized
and Management pay plans by .5% for the last pay period of 1996.
Basis of Recommendation:
1. Other male dominated positions in the City have received a greater pay increase
for 1996 than the female dominated position classifications.
2. A .5% increase for affected pay plans in the last pay period of 1996 would bring
the 1996 increase back to an even plane for male and female dominated
positions.
c6--
3. The City needs to maintain equity in pay increases granted to all positions in the
City services, especially those which are female dominated in order to continue to
comply with the Comparable Worth Act.
Alternative Recommendation:
1. The City Council could elect to forego any year-end adjustments to one or all of
the pay plans cited.
2. The City Council could grant year-end adjustments which are either greater or less
than the one recommended.
Discussion/Decision Mode:
If an adjustment to the pay plans suggested is to be made for the last pay period of
1996, it must be approved on December 9 to facilitate timely processing of the
necessary paperwork.
submitted,
ResYe
Jamosser
r
City
JDP:cak
40
RESOLUTION NO.
/5-a
RESOLUTION RELATING TO THE 1996 MANAGEMENT
• SALARY COMPENSATION PLAN
WHEREAS, the municipal code of the City of Richfield provides for the adoption of a pay plan for
Management employees from time-to-time; and
WHEREAS, the City is to prepare a Comparable Worth Analysis at the end of selected calendar
years; and
WHEREAS, the Management pay play contains female-dominated classes comparable to the
male-dominated, contracted labor units, and
WHEREAS, the City administration has prepared a pay plan for the last payroll period in 1996 for
position classifications for the Management employees, designed to provide greater salary range equity
between the female-dominated and male-dominated employees, and
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council do and hereby does establish for
,the last full payroll period in 1996 the following pay plan, which is to be effective December 8, 1996 and
subject to all applicable provisions of the City Code:
MANAGEMENT COMPENSATION PLAN
PAY GRADE MINIMUM MID-RANGE MAXIMUM
M-NE YR 32,635.20 39,020.80 45,676.80
MO 2,719.60 3,251.73 3,806.40
BW 1,255.20 1,500.80 1,756.80
HR 15.69 18.76 21.96
M-1 YR 35.235.20 42,182.40 49,316.80
MO 2,936.27 3,515.20 4,109.73
BW 1,355.20 1,622.40 1,896.80
HR 16.94 20.28 23.71
M-2 YR 39,811.20 47,611.20 55,744.00
MO 3.317.60 3,967.60 4,645.33
BW 1,531.20 1,831.20 2,144.00
HR 19.14 22.89 26.80
M-3 YR 45.406.40 54,350.40 63,731.20
MO 3.783.87 4,529.20 5,310.93
BW 1,746.40 2,090.40 2,451.20
HR 21.83 26.13 30.64
M-4 YR 50.627.20 60,528.00 70,844.80
MO 4.218.93 5,044.00 5,903.73
BW 1,947.20 2,328.00 2,724.80
HR 24.34 29.10 34.06
M-5 YR 58.718.40 70,220.80 82,160.00
• MO
BW 4.893.20
2,258.40 5,851.73
2,700.80 6,846.67
3,160.00
HR 28.23 33.76 39.50
/-,5) ,
•
0
0
c
c?
a
cu
CA
C
a?
CL
E
O
c
m
E
d
0
cu
c
t
O
L
L?
r
O
.y
N
L
O
L
a
E
L-
0
z
H
cc
-0 3 Z
o
p
??
G. ?? n o
` c
° 0 0
a)
> a) u. r- r- CO
O° or
cu +
W? ?QQQQ
o rnrnrnrn
co i
E 0
a> c W
c •-
r
z
o
N O Zo
cUr
OCO?
(D Q a 00 O
CO
C` o
a u. + +
:
E cu -6
6 -6
z114 z Q Q Q Q
6
c 0La a) m a> m 0
>
?,
cu c rnrna?rn
?_ c s= c
c o
Q
E
E a) OoD???? •
o a v
E cu
-_
L
0 0 0
E
cn a) z_ Un O V) o
? Q
0 [f M r- y
.
L
M
a,ooo a)
Q
U CU r CO c-
> e + + +
'C: dam) Co
?
n It QQ¢¢ i
a
c
a) a) a) a) a)
Q 0) CT) C)0) v
C
o Z a m m m o
> ?wC11- 0: T- z
Cm
c
ui
a) w
0 U
E N
Q Qz o a)
con C-)
(tf >
N .? U. CD cn - O
V CU
> C cu C2 U
W E
0
Z' 3 0 0-
CL co
N
-
> in
0
>
°
ca
M N -
N N c
6
CA
rn
0
a
cu
2
r
U
y
Y
Y
U
w
U
N
U-
n:
w E
O
¢ fL-•
/S4
MANAGEMENT POSITION CLASSIFICATION STRUCTURE
RANGE POSITION TITLES CLASS
M-NE Foreman/Supervisor Non-Exempt
Turf Supervisor Non-Exempt
M-1 City Clerk Exempt
Community Services Manager Exempt
Health Administrator Exempt
Liquor Store Manager Exempt
M-2 Asst. Fire Chief/Fire Marshal Exempt
Chief Building Official Exempt
Data Processing Manager Exempt
Engineering Supervisor. Exempt
Housing & Redevelopment Manager Exempt
Superintendent Exempt
Transportation Engineer Exempt
M-3 City Engineer Exempt
Community Development Manager Exempt
Finance Manager Exempt
Human Resources Manager Exempt
Operations Coordinator
Recreation Services Coordinator Exempt
M-4 Liquor Operations Director Exempt
M-5 Department Director Exempt
(Rev. 9-96)
0
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION RELATING TO THE 1996 GENERAL SERVICES
SALARY COMPENSATION PLAN
WHEREAS, the municipal code of the City of Richfield provides for the adoption of a pay plan for General Services
employees from time-to-time, and
WHEREAS, the City is to prepare a Comparable Worth Analysis at the end of selected calendar years; and
WHEREAS, the General Services pay plan contains female-dominated classes comparable to the male-
dominated, contracted labor units; and
WHEREAS, the City administration has prepared a pay plan for the last payroll period in 1996 for position
classifications for the General Services employees, designed to provide greater salary range equity between the female-
dominated and male-dominated employees; and
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council do and hereby does establish for the year 1996 the
following pay plan, which is to be effective December 8, 1996 and subject to all applicable provisions of the City Code:
GENERAL SERVICES COMPENSATION PLAN
GS1 YR 20,092.80 21,278.40 22,464.00 23,691.20 24,897.60 25,646.40
MO 1,674.40 1,773.20 1,872.00 1,974.27 2,074.80 2,137.20
BW 772.80 818.40 864.00 911.20 957.60 .986.40
HR 9.66 10.23 10.80 11.39 11.97 12.33
GS2 YR 22,131.20 23,254.40 24,419.20 25,646.40 28,288.00
MO 1,844.27 1,937.87 2,034.93 2,137.20 2,357.33
BW 851.20 894.40 939.20 986.40 1,088.00
0 HR 10.64 11.18 11.74 12.33 13.60
GS3 YR 24,419.20 25,646.40 26.956.80 28,288.00 31,220.80
MO 2,034.93 2,137.20 2.246.40 2,357.33 2,601.73
BW 939.20 986.40 1,036.80 1,088.00 1,200.80
HR 11.74 12.33 12.96 13.60 15.01
GS4 YR 26,956.80 28,288.00 29.744.00 31,220.80 34,486.40
MO 2,246.40 2,357.33 2,478.67 2,601.73 2,873.87
BW 1,036.80 1,088.00 1,144.00 1,200.80 1,326.40
HR 12.96 13.60 14.30 15.01 16.58
GS4E YR 28,974.40 30,388.80 31,969.60 33,592.00 37,086.40
MO 2,414.53 2.532.40 2,664.13 2,799.33 3,090.53
BW 1,114.40 1,168.80 1,229.60 1,292.00 1,426.40
HR 13.93 14.61 15.37 16.15 17.83
GS5 YR 29,744.00 31,220.80 32.801.60 34,486.40 38,043.20
MO 2,478.67 2,601.73 2.73347 2.873.87 3,170.27
BW 1,144.00 1,200.80 1.261.60 1,326.40 1,463.20
HR 14.30 15.01 1537 16.58 18.29
GS5E YR 31,969.60 33,592.00 35.235.20 37,086.40 40,872.00
MO 2,664.13 2.799.33 2,936.27 3,090.53 3,406.00
BW 1,229.60 1,292.00 1.355.20 1,426.40 1,572.00
HR 15.37 16.15 16.94 17.83 19.65
GS6 YR 32,801.60 34,486.40 36.233.60 38,043.20 44,075.20
MO 2,733.47 2.873.87 3,019.47 3,170.27 3,672.93
BW 1,261.60 1,326.40 1,393.60 1,463.20 1,695.20
HR 15.77 16.58 17.42 18.29 21.19
GS6E YR 35,235.20 37.086.40 38,937.60 40,872.00 47,382.40
MO 2,936.27 3.090.53 3,244.80 3,406.00 3,948.53
BW 1,355.20 1,426.40 1,497.60 1,572.00 1,822.40
HR 16.94 17.83 18.72 19.65 22.78
/5-(o
Normal Progression Through General Services Compensation Plan
a. Step 1 - Start
b. Step 2 - One year from anniversary date
c. Step 3 - One year since last increase
If an employee is rated Needs Improvement, the employee may not advance to Step 3 until performance
is rated Satisfactory or higher.
d. Step 4 - One year since last increase
If an employee is rated Needs Improvement, the employee may not advance to Step 4 until performance
is rated Satisfactory or higher.
e. Merit Range - One year since last increase for those rated Above Satisfactory or Outstanding. Satisfactory and
Needs Improvement performers may not advance to or within the Merit Range. Salary increases in the Merit
Range will be determined by the supervisor and may range between 2% - 5%.
An employee within the Merit Range who is performing at least at an Above Satisfactory level will receive a
percentage salary adjustment equal to the percentage of the overall range adjustment. An employee within the
Merit Range who is performing at a Satisfactory level will received a percentage salary increase equal to one-half
(%) of the overall percentage adjustment.
An employee within the Merit Range who is performing at a Needs Improvement level will not received a salary
adjustment, provided however that such employee's salary would not remain at an amount less than the new rate
for Step 4 of such employee's current salary grade.
f. Employees whose competency level and/or performance are rated Unsatisfactory may not advance to the next
step until their performance improves.
Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this 9th day of December, 1996.
•
Martin J. Kirsch
Mayor
ATTEST:
Thomas P. Ferber City Clerk
0
I (j /
•
•
GENERAL SERVICES POSITION CLASSIFICATION STRUCTURE
GRADE POSITION TITLES CLASS
1 Clerk Typist Non-Exempt
Data Entry Operator Non-Exempt
Switchboard-Receptionist Non-Exempt
2 Community Development Technician Non-Exempt
Community Service Officer Non-Exempt
Custodian Non-Exempt
Finance Clerk Non-Exempt
Lead Liquor Clerk Non-Exempt
Licensing Clerk Non-Exempt
Police Cadet Non-Exempt
Senior Clerk Typist Non-Exempt
Transportation Specialist Non-Exempt
3 Accounting Clerk Non-Exempt
Arena Operations Assistant Non-Exempt
Code Compliance Officer Non-Exempt
Dispatcher, Non-Exempt
Health/Licensing Specialist Non-Exempt
Leased Housing Assistant Non-Exempt
Secretary Non-Exempt
4 Assessment Clerk Non-Exempt
Assistant Turf Supervisor Non-Exempt
Central Services Technician Non-Exempt
Data Processing Technician Non-Exempt
Media Assistant Non-Exempt
Housing Inspector I Non-Exempt
4E Administrative Aide Exempt
Associate Planner Exempt
Payroll Accountant Exempt
Project Assistant Exempt
Records Supervisor Exempt
Zoning Administrator Exempt
5 Assistant Building Superintendent Non-Exempt
Community Development Assistant Non-Exempt
Engineering Technician Non-Exempt
Housing Inspector 11 Non-Exempt
E
•
0
(Rev. 9-96)
GRADE POSITION TITLES
5E Administrative Assistant
Assistant Golf Course Manager
Assistant Liquor Store Manager
Civilian Crime Prevention Specialist
Community Center Programmer
Human Services Planner/Coordinator
Leased Housing Specialist
Motor Vehicle Licensing Supervisor
Naturalist
Planning and Research Specialist
Recreation Supervisor
Redevelopment Specialist
Rehabilitation Specialist
Youth Resource Specialist
6. Electrical/Building Inspector
Programmer/Analyst
6E Accountant
Administrative Assistant
CLASS
Exempt
Exempt
Exempt
Exempt
Exempt
Exempt
Exempt
Exempt
Exempt
Exempt
Exempt
Exempt
Exempt
Exempt
Non-Exempt
Non-Exempt
Exempt
Exempt
U
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION RELATING TO THE 1996 SPECIALIZED PAY PLAN
WHEREAS, the municipal code of the City of Richfield provides for the adoption of a pay plan for
Specialized pay plan employees from time-to-time;
WHEREAS, the City is to prepare a Comparable Worth Analysis at the end of selected calendar
years; and
WHEREAS, the General Services pay plan contains female-dominated classes compaarable to
the male-dominated, contracted labor units; and
WHEREAS, the City administration has prepared a pay plan for the last payroll period in 1996 for
position classifications for the Specialized pay plan employees, designed to provide greater salary range
equity between the female-dominated and male-dominated employees; and
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council do and hereby does establish for
the year 1996 the following pay plan which is to be effective on December 8, 1996 and subject to the
provisions of the personnel rules and regulations ordinance:
SPECIALIZED PAY PLAN
INTERMITTENT AND SEASONAL
Pay Grade Step 1 Step 2 Step Step 4 tep 5
SP1-E-NE HR 4.59 4.81 5.08 5.30 5.58
SP2-E-NE HR 5.11 5.34 5.61 5.88 6.17
SP3-E-NE HR 5.51 5.77 6.07 6.36 6.68
SP4-E-NE HR 5.95 6.23 6.55 6.86 7.22
SP5-E-NE HR 6.41 6.71 7.07 7.41 7.80
SP6-E-NE HR 6.92 7.29 7.64 8.01 8.42
SP7-E-NE HR 7.50 7.84 8.23 8.65 9.08
SP8-E-NE HR 8.10 8.49 8.89 9.35 9.81
SP9-E-NE HR 8.71 9.14 9.62 10.09 10.59
SP10-E-NE HR 9.43 9.91 10.40 10.91 11.47
SP11-E-NE HR 10.17 10.66 11.21 11.78 12.35
SP12-E-NE HR 10.96 11.53 12.09 12.70 13.35
Instructor's Range: $5.00 - $50.00
Election Judge: $5.50
Election Co-Chair: $5.75
Election Chairperson: $6.25
j 5 - to
Normal Progression Through the Specialized Pay Plan
Individual employees will be eligible to received increases to the next higher grade step based on
individual performance and the following progression:
a. Step 1 - Start
b. Step 2 - One year from anniversary date
c.. Step 3 - One year from last increase
d. Step 4 - One year from last increase
e. Step 5 - One year from last increase
Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this 9th day of December, 1996.
Martin J. Kirsch Mayor
ATTEST:
Thomas P. Ferber City Clerk
•
1 E Driving Range I NE Administrative Services Clerk
E Pool Attendant NE Assessment Clerk
2 NE Concession I (all sites EXCEPT Pool, NE Concession Supervisor (all sites
Vet's & Taft) EXCEPT pool)
NE Ice Guard
V
'
ft
l NE Construction Specialist
E Concession I (Pool,
et
s & Ta
on
y) NE Licensing Clerk
E Facility Rental Attendant NE Naturalist 1
3 NE Bike Patrol Officer NE Zamboni Operator
NE Concession II (all sites EXCEPT Pool, E Concession Supervisor - Pool
Vet's & Taft) E Golf Course Technician I
NE Scorer/Timer E Miniature Golf Supervisor
NE Special Events Worker 8 NE Adaptive Coordinator
NE Sports attendant I NE Construction Inspector
E Concession II (Pool, Vet's & Taft only) NE Farmers Market Coordinator
E Facility Cashier NE Naturalist Coordinator
Mini Golf Attendant NE Publication Supervisor
E Pool Day Watch E Golf Course Technician 11
4 NE Custodian I E Playground Coordinator
NE Maintenance Laborer I E Tennis Coordinator
NE Men Open Gym Attendant E Winter Golf Course Technician
NE Dance Coordinator & Skate 9 NE Community Development Tech.
Coordinator E Special Facilities Coordinator
NE Sports Attendant II 10 NE Athletic Coordinator
NE Video Production Assistant NE Engineering Aide
E Pool Night Watch E Clubhouse Coordinator
E Ranger E Playground Coordinator
E Warming House Attendant 11 NE Community Relations Coordinator
5 E
NE Waterslide Attendant (parks)
Adaptive Assistant 12
13 NE NONE
911 Dispatcher
NE Custodian II
NE Intern Instructors
NE Liquor Cashier NE Building Inspector
NE Liquor Clerk NE Figure Skating
NE Maintenance Laborer II NE Hockey (Arena)
NE Substitute Van Driver NE Housing & Redevelopment Tech.
NE Survey Crew Person NE Sports Official
NE Winter Sports Attendant NE Dance
E Driving Range II E Cross Country Ski
E Golf Course Laborer I E Golf Professional
E Par-3/Driving Range Attendant E Hockey (outside)
E Starter E Tennis
6 NE Adaptive Leader/Specialist E WSI
NE Clerk Typist - Int. & Sub. OTHER
NE Concession III (all sites EXCEPT Pool) Election Judge $5.50
NE Maintenance Laborer III Election Co-Chair $5.75
NE Pro Shop Attendant Election Chairperson $6.25
NE Substitute Naturalist
E Concession III (Pool only) NE=Non-Exempt, may work up to 40 hours per
E Golf Course Laborer II week witho ut overtime pay.
E Lifeguard E-Exempt, may work up to 48 hours per week
E Outdoor Skating Supervisor without ove rtime pay.
E Playground Leader All Pool positions are exempt from overtime, even Concessions.
All Golf positions, except Concessions/Pro Shop positions, are exempt.
E Warming House Supervisor All Playground and outdoor Rink positions are exempt.
E Mini Golf Coordinator All Community Center, Woodlake Nature Center, Ice Arena and
7 NE Accounting Clerk Maintenance positions are non-exempt.
NE Adaptive Program Supervisor (revised 8-96)
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Council Letter No. 377
Agenda December 9, 1996
Issue Statement:
Consideration of a resolution to amend the Letter of Understanding between the City of
Richfield and the City Manager, adjusting compensation.
Background:
A Special City Council Executive Session was held at 5:30 p.m. on Tuesday, December
3, 1996 to discuss the City Manager's evaluation and compensation.
Attached is Resolution No. 8301 amending the Letter of Understanding between the
City of Richfield and James D. Prosser, City Manager, which was approved by the City
Council on December 11, 1995.
Mayor Kirsch requested that consideration of a resolution adjusting the compensation
of the City Manager be placed on the December 9, 1996 Council agenda.
Recommended Motion:
1. The Mayor will provide a summary of the results of the Special City Council
Executive Session regarding the City Manager's evaluation and compensation.
2. The City Council should also decide whether to act on the proposed resolution
adjusting the City Manager's compensation.
Basis of Recommendation:
1. The Mayor has requested this item be placed on the agenda for the regular City
Council meeting of December 9, 1996.
Alternative Recommendation:
1. The City Council could choose to defer action on this item to a meeting at a later
date.
Discussion/Decision Mode:
This resolution has been placed on the December 9, 1996 agenda for Council
consideration.
MJK:cak
40
14-1
0 RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION AMENDING THE LETTER OF UNDERSTANDING
BETWEEN THE CITY OF RICHFIELD AND JAMES D. PROSSER, CITY MANAGER
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of
Richfield, Minnesota as follows:
The following section of the Letter of Understanding between the City of
Richfield, Minnesota and James D. Prosser, City Manager, dated July 14, 1986 is
amended as follows:
1. Section 5. Salarv. Employer agrees to increase the City Manager's base
salary of $87,568 by % and also % effective the last pay period of 1996,
payable in installments at the time as other employees of the employer are paid.
2. Section 13. Retirement. Employer agrees to a lump sum allotment of
% of annual gross salary for investment in retirement funds on September 1 of each
year.
Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this 9th day of
December, 1996.
Martin J. Kirsch, Mayor
ATTEST:
Thomas P. Ferber, City Clerk
C7
/4-0,
0 RESOLUTION NO. 8301
RESOLUTION AMENDING THE LETTER OF UNDERSTANDING
BETWEEN THE CITY OF RICHFIELD AND JAMES D. PROSSER, CITY MANAGER
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of
Richfield, Minnesota, as follows:
The following section of the Letter of Understanding between the City of
Richfield, Minnesota and James D. Prosser, City Manager, dated July 14, 1986 is
amended as follows:
1. Section 5. Salary: Employer agrees to increase the City Manager's base
salary of $85,007 by 2.5% to $87,131 effective September 1, 1995 and .5% to $87,568
effective March 1, 1996, payable in installments at the time as other employees of the
employer are paid.
2. Longevity Pay : Longevity pay shall be granted to the City Manager in
accordance with the benefit plan in effect at the time of employment.
Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this 11th day of
• December, 1995.
Martin J. Kirsch, Mayor
ATTEST:
Thomas P. Ferber, City Clerk
•
13
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Council Letter No. 376
Agenda December 9, 1996
Issue Statement:
Adoption of a resolution awarding the sale of $5,075,000 General Obligation Taxable
Tax Increment Bonds, Series 1996; fixing their form and specifications; directing their
execution and delivery; and providing for their payment.
Background:
At the November 12, 1996 meeting, the Council approved the sale of taxable revenue
bonds in order to commit future tax increment resources from the LHN and ILN tax
increment districts to future development opportunities. The Bond Sale Report which
provided greater detail of the nature and structure of the bond sale was attached to the
November 12, 1995 Council Letter.
Subsequent to the November 12 action and after a public hearing on November 25,
1996, the Council approved modification to the Richfield Redevelopment Plan and
modifications to the LHN and ILN Redevelopment Plans and Tax Increment Financing
Plans so that future tax increments from the two districts could be pledged to bond
payments.
Since then, the City's financial advisor, Mr. Sid Inman of Ehlers and Associates, Inc.
(previously known as Publicorp, Inc.) has undertaken the necessary activities to solicit
bid proposals for the sale of taxable revenue bonds. The bid sheet which summarizes
the bidders and bid results will be provided by Mr. Inman at the Council meeting on
December 9 as the deadline for submitting bids for the bonds was 12:00 noon,
December 9, 1996. After review of the bid sheet, Mr. Inman will propose an
appropriate, qualified bond buyer so that award of the bond sale may be made.
Attached to this letter is a resolution which provides for the award for the sale of the
taxable revenue bonds and authorizes other administrative actions. Please note that as
part of the approval of this resolution at Section 1.01 (f), the Council will also be
approving a Tax Increment Pledge Agreement between the HRA and the City. This
Agreement is also attached. (The HRA will be asked to approve the pledge agreement
at their December 16, 1996 meeting.) Sale of the bond is contingent upon HRA
approval of the pledge agreement. Areas left blank in the resolution will be filled in with
specific information as it relates to the award of the bond to the buyer by Ehlers and
Associates, Inc.
The closing on the bond sale is scheduled for December 26, 1996.
Recommended Motion:
Adopt a resolution awarding the sale of $5,075,000 General Obligation Taxable Tax
40 Increment Bonds, Series 1996; fixing their form and specifications; directing their
execution and delivery; and providing for their payment.
13? 1
Basis of Recommendation:
16 1. The City Council approved the sale of $5,075,000 General Obligation Taxable Tax
Increment Bonds, Series 1996 on November 12, 1996 at the request of the HRA.
2. The City Council approved modification to the Richfield Redevelopment Plan and
modifications to the LHN and ILN Redevelopment Plans and Tax Increment
Financing Plans on November 25, 1996 following action by the HRA.
3. The City retained Ehlers and Associates, Inc., in Minneapolis, Minnesota, as its
independent financial advisor for the Bonds who is, therefore, authorized to solicit
proposals in accordance with Minnesota Statutes, Section 475.60, Subdivision
2(9).
4. Based on the bid documents submitted it is appropriate for Ehlers and Associates,
Inc., to summarize and tally bid results and propose a qualifying, lowest bidder
and bond buyer to the Council.
Alternative Recommendation:
1. Defer this proposal.
2. Choose not to sell the bonds.
Discussion/Decision Mode:
• To protect the assets, the bond closing must be completed prior to the end of 1996.
Respectfully submitted,
Jame D. Prosser
City Manager
JDP:cak
/3'a
• RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION AWARDING THE SALE OF $5,075,000
GENERAL OBLIGATION TAXABLE TAX INCREMENT
BONDS, SERIES 1996;
FIXING THEIR FORM AND SPECIFICATIONS;
DIRECTING THEIR EXECUTION AND DELIVERY;
AND PROVIDING FOR THEIR PAYMENT
BE IT RESOLVED By the City Council of the City of Richfield, Hennepin County,
Minnesota (City) as follows:
Section 1. Sale of Bonds.
1.01. It is hereby determined that:
(a) the City has duly established the Richfield Redevelopment Project Area
(Project Area) pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Sections 469.001 through 469.047 (Act);
(b) the City has duly established the LHN and ILN tax increment financing
districts (TIF Districts) within the Project Area pursuant to the Act, in the case of the
LHN TIF District, and pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Sections 469.174 to 469.179 (TIF
Act), in the case of the ILN TIF District;
(c) the City is authorized by Section 469.178 of the TIF Act to issue and sell
its general obligations to pay all or a portion of the public redevelopment costs (Costs)
related to the Project Area as identified in the tax increment financing plan (Plan) for the
TIF Districts.
(d) the Plan authorizes the following Costs to be financed by the general
obligations:
Public Improvements Total Development Costs
Sources
Par Amount of Bonds $5,075,000
Interest Earned 50.000
Total Sources $5,125,000
. SJB113618
RC145-319
13-3
Uses
Total Project Costs $4,885,650
Discount Allowance 91,350
Capitalized Interest 105,000
Finance Related Expenses 43,000
Total Uses $5,125,000
(e) it is necessary and expedient to the sound financial management of the
affairs of the City to issue $5,075,000 General Obligation Taxable Tax Increment Bonds,
Series 1996 (Bonds) to provide financing for the Costs;
(f) the Tax Increment Pledge Agreement between the Housing and
Redevelopment Authority of the City (Authority) and the City (Pledge Agreement) is
hereby approved. The Mayor and City Manager are authorized to execute the Pledge
Agreement on behalf of the City in the form on file with the City on the date hereof, with
such modifications as are approved by such officials, whose approval shall be concusively
evidenced by their execution of the Pledge Agreement.
(g) the Authority has requested the City to issue and sell its general obligations
to finance a portion of the Costs.
1.02. The proposal of (Purchaser) to
purchase $5,075,000 General Obligation Taxable Tax Increment Bonds, Series 1996 (Bonds) of
the City described in the Official Terms of Proposal thereof is found and determined to be a
reasonable offer and is accepted, the proposal being to purchase the Bonds at a price of
$ plus accrued interest to date of delivery, for Bonds bearing interest as follows:
Year of Interest Year of Interest
Maturi Rate Maturity Rate
1999 2006
2000 2007
2001 2008
2002 2009
2003 2010
2004 2011
2005 2012
True interest cost:
1.03. The sum of $ being the amount proposed by the Purchaser in excess
of $4,983,650 will be credited to the Debt Service Fund hereinafter created. The City Manager
Is SJB113618
RC145-319
)3-4
is directed to retain the good faith check of the Purchaser pending completion of the sale of the
Bonds, and to return the good faith checks of the unsuccessful proposers forthwith. The Mayor
and City Manager are directed to execute a contract with the Purchaser on behalf of the City.
1.04. The City will forthwith issue and sell the Bonds pursuant to Minnesota Statutes,
Chapter 469 (Act) in the total principal amount of $5,075,000, originally dated December 1,
1996, in the denomination of $5,000 each or any integral multiple thereof, numbered No. R-1,
upward, bearing interest as above set forth, and maturing serially on February 1 in the years and
amounts as follows:
Year Amount Year Amount
1999 $ 310,000 2006 $230,000
2000 595,000 2007 245,000
2001 1,385,000 2008 265,000
2002 170,000 2009 285,000
2003 185,000 2010 305,000
2004 200,000 2011 330,000
2005 215,000 2012 355,000
1.05. Optional Redemption. The City may elect on February 1, 2003, and on any day
. thereafter to prepay Bonds due on or after February 1, 2004. Redemption may be in whole or
in part and if in part, at the option of the City and in such manner as the City will determine.
If less than all Bonds of a maturity are called for redemption, the City will notify DTC (as
defined in Section 6 hereof) of the particular amount of such maturity to be prepaid. DTC will
determine by lot the amount of each participant's interest in such maturity to be redeemed and
each participant will then select by lot the beneficial ownership interests in such maturity to be
redeemed. Prepayments will be at a price of par plus accrued interest.
1.06. Term Bonds. (To be completed if Term Bonds are requested by the Purchaser.)
Section 2. Registration and Payment.
2.01. Registered Form. The Bonds will be issued only in fully registered form. The
interest thereon and, upon surrender of each Bond, the principal amount thereof, is payable by
check or draft issued by the Registrar described herein.
2.02. Dates; Interest Payment Dates. Each Bond will be dated as of the last interest
payment date preceding the date of authentication to which interest on the Bond has been paid
or made available for payment, unless (i) the date of authentication is an interest payment date
to which interest has been paid or made available for payment, in which case the Bond will be
dated as of the date of authentication, or (ii) the date of authentication is prior to the first interest
SJB113618
RC145-319
payment date, in which case the Bond will be dated as of the date of original issue. The interest,
on the Bonds is payable on February 1 and August 1 of each year, commencing August 1, 1997,
to the registered owners of record thereof as of the close of business on the fifteenth day of the
immediately preceding month, whether or not such day is a business day.
2.03. Registration. The City will appoint a bond registrar, transfer agent, authenticating
agent and paying agent (Registrar). The effect of registration and the rights and duties of the
City and the Registrar with respect thereto are as follows:
(a) Register. The Registrar must keep at its principal corporate trust office a
bond register in which the Registrar provides for the registration of ownership of Bonds
and the registration of transfers and exchanges of Bonds entitled to be registered,
transferred or exchanged.
(b) Transfer of Bonds. Upon surrender for transfer of a Bond duly endorsed
by the registered owner thereof or accompanied by a written instrument of transfer, in
form satisfactory to the Registrar, duly executed by the registered owner thereof or by an
attorney duly authorized by the registered owner in writing, the Registrar will authenticate
and deliver, in the name of the designated transferee or transferees, one or more new
Bonds of a like aggregate principal amount and maturity, as requested by the transferor.
The Registrar may, however, close the books for registration of any transfer after the
fifteenth day of the month preceding each interest payment date and until that interest
payment date.
(c) Exchange of Bonds. When Bonds are surrendered by the registered owner
for exchange the Registrar will authenticate and deliver one or more new Bonds of a like
aggregate principal amount and maturity as requested by the registered owner or the
owner's attorney in writing.
(d) Cancellation. Bonds surrendered upon transfer or exchange will be
promptly cancelled by the Registrar and thereafter disposed of as directed by the City.
(e) Improper or Unauthorized Transfer. When a Bond is presented to the
Registrar for transfer, the Registrar may refuse to transfer the Bond until the Registrar is
satisfied that the endorsement on the Bond or separate instrument of transfer is valid and
genuine and that the requested transfer is legally authorized. The Registrar will incur no
liability for the refusal, in good faith, to make transfers which it, in its judgment, deems
improper or unauthorized.
(f) Persons Deemed Owners. The City and the Registrar may treat the person
in whose name a Bond is registered in the bond register as the absolute owner of the
Bond, whether the Bond is overdue or not, for the purpose of receiving payment of, or
on account of, the principal of and interest on the Bond and for all other purposes, and
payments so made to a registered owner or upon the owner's order will be valid and
SJB113618
RC145-319
43 -(?
effectual to satisfy and discharge the liability upon the Bond to the extent of the sum or
sums so paid.
(g) Taxes, Fees and Charges. The Registrar may impose a charge upon the
owner thereof for a transfer or exchange of Bonds sufficient to reimburse the Registrar
for any tax, fee or other governmental charge required to be paid with respect to the
transfer or exchange.
(h) Mutilated, Lost, Stolen or Destroyed Bonds. If a Bond becomes mutilated
or is destroyed, stolen or lost, the Registrar will deliver a new Bond of like amount,
number, maturity date and tenor in exchange and substitution for and upon cancellation
of the mutilated Bond or in lieu of and in substitution for a Bond destroyed, stolen or lost,
upon the payment of the reasonable expenses and charges of the Registrar in connection
therewith; and, in the case of a Bond destroyed, stolen or lost, upon filing with the
Registrar of evidence satisfactory to it that the Bond was destroyed, stolen or lost, and of
the ownership thereof, and upon furnishing to the Registrar an appropriate bond or
indemnity in form, substance and amount satisfactory to it and as provided by law, in
which both the City and the Registrar must be named as obligees. Bonds so surrendered
to the Registrar will be cancelled by the Registrar and evidence of such cancellation must
be given to the City. If the mutilated, destroyed, stolen or lost Bond has already matured
or been called for redemption in accordance with its terms it is not necessary to issue a
new Bond prior to payment.
(i) Redemption. In the event any of the Bonds are called for redemption,
notice thereof identifying the Bonds to be redeemed will be given by the Registrar by
mailing a copy of the redemption notice by first class mail (postage prepaid) not more
than 60 and not less than 30 days prior to the date fixed for redemption to the registered
owner of each Bond to be redeemed at the address shown on the registration books kept
by the Registrar and by publishing the notice if required by law. Failure to give notice
by publication or by mail to any registered owner, or any defect therein, will not affect
the validity of the proceedings for the redemption of Bonds. Bonds so called for
redemption will cease to bear interest after the specified redemption date, provided that
the funds for the redemption are on deposit with the place of payment at that time.
2.04. Appointment of Initial Registr ar. The City appoints Norwest Bank Minnesota,
National Association, Minneapolis, Minnesota, as the initial Registrar. The Mayor and the City
Manager are authorized to execute and deliver, on behalf of the City, a contract with the
Registrar. Upon merger or consolidation of the Registrar with another corporation, if the
resulting corporation is a bank or trust company authorized by law to conduct such business, the
resulting corporation is authorized to act as successor Registrar. The City agrees to pay the
reasonable and customary charges of the Registrar for the services performed. The City reserves
the right to remove the Registrar upon 30 days' notice and upon the appointment of a successor
Registrar, in which event the predecessor Registrar must deliver all cash and Bonds in its
possession to the successor Registrar and must deliver the bond register to the successor Registrar.
SJB113618
RC145-319
G ' J9
On or before each principal or interest due date, without further order of this Council, the City
Manager must transmit to the Registrar monies sufficient for the payment of all principal and
interest then due.
2.05. Execution Authentication and Delive . The Bonds will be prepared under the
direction of the City Manager and executed on behalf of the City by the signatures of the Mayor
and the City Manager, provided that all signatures may be printed, engraved or lithographed
facsimiles of the originals. If an officer whose signature or a facsimile of whose signature
appears on the Bonds ceases to be such officer before the delivery of any Bond, such signature
or facsimile will nevertheless be valid and sufficient for all purposes, the same as if the officer
had remained in office until delivery. Notwithstanding such execution, a Bond will not be valid
or obligatory for any purpose or entitled to any security or benefit under this Resolution unless
and until a certificate of authentication on the Bond has been duly executed by the manual
signature of an authorized representative of the Registrar. Certificates of authentication on
different Bonds need not be signed by 'the same representative. The executed certificate of
authentication on a Bond is conclusive evidence that it has been authenticated and delivered under
this Resolution. When the Bonds have been so prepared, executed and authenticated, the City
Manager will deliver the same to the Purchaser upon payment of the purchase price in accordance
with the contract of sale heretofore made and executed, and the Purchaser is not obligated to see
to the application of the purchase price.
2.06. Temporary Bonds. The City may elect to deliver in lieu of printed definitive
Bonds one or more typewritten temporary Bonds in substantially the form set forth in Section 3
with such changes as may be necessary to reflect more than one maturity in a single temporary
bond. Upon the execution and delivery of definitive Bonds the temporary Bonds will be
exchanged therefor and cancelled.
Section 3. Form of Bond.
3.01. The Bonds will be printed or typewritten in substantially the following form:
SJB113618
RC145-319
13-2
[Face of the Bond]
No. R- UNITED STATES OF AMERICA $
STATE OF MINNESOTA
COUNTY OF HENNEPIN
CITY OF RICHFIELD
GENERAL OBLIGATION TAXABLE TAX INCREMENT
BOND, SERIES 1996
Date of
Rate Maturity Original Issue CUSIP
December 1, 1996
Registered Owner: Cede & Co.
The City of Richfield, Minnesota, a duly organized and existing municipal corporation in
Hennepin County, Minnesota (City), acknowledges itself to be indebted and for value received
hereby promises to pay to the Registered Owner specified above or registered assigns, the
principal sum of $ on the maturity date specified above with interest thereon from
the date hereof at the annual rate specified above, payable February 1 and August 1 in each year,
commencing August 1, 1997, to the person in whose name this Bond is registered at the close
of business on the fifteenth day (whether or not a business day) of the immediately preceding
month. The interest hereon and, upon presentation and surrender hereof, the principal hereof are
payable in lawful money of the United States of America by check or draft by Norwest Bank
Minnesota, National Association, Minneapolis, Minnesota, as Bond Registrar, Paying Agent,
Transfer Agent and Authenticating Agent, or its designated successor under the Resolution
described herein. For the prompt and full payment of such principal and interest as the same
respectively become due, the full faith and credit and taxing powers of the City have been and
are hereby irrevocably pledged.
The City may elect on February 1, 2003, and on any day thereafter to prepay Bonds due
on or after February 1, 2004. Redemption may be in whole or in part and if in part, at the option
of the City and in such manner as the City will determine. If less than all Bonds of a maturity
are called for redemption, the City will notify The Depository Trust Company (DTC) of the
particular amount of such maturity to be prepaid. DTC will determine by lot the amount of each
participant's interest in such maturity to be redeemed and each participant will then select by lot
to SJB113618
RC145-319
13--9
the beneficial ownership interests in such maturity to be redeemed. Prepayments will be at a
price of par plus accrued interest.
Additional provisions of this Bond are contained on the reverse hereof and such provisions
for all purposes have the same effect as though fully set forth in this place.
This Bond is not valid or obligatory for any purpose or entitled to any security or benefit
under the Resolution until the Certificate of Authentication hereon has been executed by the Bond
Registrar by manual signature of one of its authorized representatives.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the City of Richfield, Hennepin County, Minnesota, by its City
Council, has caused this Bond to be executed on its behalf by the facsimile or manual signatures
of the Mayor and City Manager and has caused this Bond to be dated as of the date set forth
below.
Dated:
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
(facsimile) (facsimile)
City Manager Mayor
CERTIFICATE OF AUTHENTICATION
This is one of the Bonds delivered pursuant to the Resolution mentioned within.
NORWEST BANK MINNESOTA
National Association
By
Authorized Representative
[Reverse of the Bond]
This Bond is one of an issue in the aggregate principal amount of $5,075,000 all of like
original issue date and tenor, except as to number, maturity date, redemption privilege, and
interest rate, all issued pursuant to a resolution adopted by the City Council on December 9, 1996
(the Resolution), for the purpose of providing money to aid in financing public redevelopment
costs in a Redevelopment Project (Project) in the City, pursuant to and in full conformity with
the home rule charter of the City and the Constitution and laws of the State of Minnesota,
SJB113618
RC145-319
f3_/D
including Minnesota Statutes, Sections 469.174 through 469.179, the Minnesota Tax Increment
Financing Act, and Minnesota Statutes, Sections 469.001 through 469.047, and the principal
hereof and interest hereon are payable primarily from tax increments resulting from increases in
taxable valuation of real property in certain Tax Increment Financing Districts (TIF Districts)
within the Project as set forth in the Resolution to which reference is made for a full statement
of rights and powers thereby conferred. The full faith and credit of the City are irrevocably
pledged for payment of this Bond and the City Council has obligated itself to levy ad valorem
taxes on all taxable property in the City in the event of any deficiency of tax increments pledged,
which taxes may be levied without limitation as to rate or amount. The Bonds of this series are
issued only as fully registered Bonds in denominations of $5,000 or any integral multiple thereof
of single maturities.
As provided in the Resolution and subject to certain limitations set forth therein, this Bond
is transferable upon the books of the City at the principal office of the Bond Registrar, by the
registered owner hereof in person or by the owner's attorney duly authorized in writing, upon
surrender hereof together with a written instrument of transfer satisfactory to the Bond Registrar,
duly executed by the registered owner or the owner's attorney; and may also be surrendered in
exchange for Bonds of other authorized denominations. Upon such transfer or exchange the City
will cause a new Bond or Bonds to be issued in the name of the transferee or registered owner,
of the same aggregate principal amount, bearing interest at the same rate and maturing on the
same date, subject to reimbursement for any tax, fee or governmental charge required to be paid
with respect to such transfer or exchange.
The City and the Bond Registrar may deem and treat the person in whose name this Bond
is registered as the absolute owner hereof, whether this Bond is overdue or not, for the purpose
of receiving payment and for all other purposes, and neither the City nor the Bond Registrar will
be affected by any notice to the contrary.
IT IS HEREBY CERTIFIED, RECITED, COVENANTED AND AGREED that all acts,
conditions and things required by the home rule charter of the City and the Constitution and laws
of the State of Minnesota to be done, to exist, to happen and to be performed preliminary to and
in the issuance of this Bond in order to make it a valid and binding general obligation of the City
in accordance with its terms, have been done, do exist, have happened and have been performed
as so required, and that the issuance of this Bond does not cause the indebtedness of the City to
exceed any constitutional, statutory or charter limitation of indebtedness.
is SJB113618
RC145-319
/3-ii
The following abbreviations, when used in the inscription on the face of this Bond, will
be construed as though they were written out in full according to applicable laws or regulations:
TEN COM -- as tenants UNIF GIFT MIN ACT Custodian
in common (Cust) (Minor)
TEN ENT -- as tenants
by entireties
JT TEN -- as joint tenants with
right of survivorship and
not as tenants in common
under Uniform Gifts or
Transfers to Minors
Act . . . . . . . . . . .
(State)
Additional abbreviations may also be used though not in the above list.
ASSIGNMENT
For value received, the undersigned hereby sells, assigns and transfers unto
40 the within Bond and all rights thereunder, and
does hereby irrevocably constitute and appoint attorney to transfer
the said Bond on the books kept for registration of the within Bond, with full power of
substitution in the premises.
Dated:
Notice: The assignor's signature to this assignment must correspond with the name
as it appears upon the face of the within Bond in every particular, without
alteration or any change whatever.
SJB113618
RC145-319
13-10-
41 Signature Guaranteed:
NOTICE: Signature(s) must be guaranteed by a financial institution that is a member of the
Securities Transfer Agent Medallion Program ("STAMP"), the Stock Exchange Medallion
Program ("SEMP"), the New York Stock Exchange, Inc. Medallion Signature Program ("MSP")
or such other "signature guarantee program" as may be determined by the Registrar in addition
to, or in substitution for, STAMP, SEMP or MSP, all in accordance with the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934, as amended.
The Bond Registrar will not effect transfer of this Bond unless the information concerning
the assignee requested below is provided.
Name and Address:
(Include information for all joint owners if this
Bond is held by joint account.)
Please insert social security or other
identifying number of assignee
PROVISIONS AS TO REGISTRATION
The ownership of the principal of and interest on the within Bond has been registered on
the books of the Registrar in the name of the person last noted below.
Signature of
Date of Registration Registered Owner Officer of the Re istrar
Cede & Co.
Federal ID #13-2555119
SJB113618
RC145-319
13-(3
3.02. The City Manager is directed to obtain a copy of the proposed approving legal
opinion of Kennedy & Graven, Chartered, Minneapolis, Minnesota, which is to be complete
except as to dating thereof and will cause the opinion to be printed on or accompany each Bond.
Section 4. Payment: Security.
4.01. (a) The Bonds are payable from the General Obligation Taxable Tax Increment
Bonds, Series 1996 Debt Service Fund (Debt Service Fund) hereby created, and all tax
increments (Tax Increments) received by the City pursuant to the Pledge Agreement
described in Section 1.01 hereof are pledged to the Debt Service Fund. If a payment of
principal or interest on the Bonds becomes due when there is not sufficient money in the
Debt Service Fund to pay the same, the City Manager will pay such principal or interest
from the general fund of the City, and the general fund will be reimbursed for those
advances out of the proceeds of Tax Increments when received. There is hereby
appropriated to the Debt Service Fund (i) capitalized interest financed from Bond
proceeds, if any, (ii) any amount over the minimum purchase price of the Bonds paid by
the Purchaser, and (iii) the accrued interest paid by the Purchaser upon closing and
delivery of the Bonds.
(b) The proceeds of the Bonds, less the appropriations made in paragraph (a),
will be paid to the HRA in accordance with the Pledge Agreement to be used solely to
defray expenses of the public redevelopment costs in the Project Area.
4.02. It is hereby determined that the estimated collection of Tax Increments for payment
of principal and interest on the Bonds will produce at least five percent in excess of the amount
needed to meet, when due, the principal and interest payments on the Bonds and that no tax levy
is needed at this time.
4.03. The City Manager is authorized and directed to file a certified copy of this
resolution with the Director of Property Taxation of Hennepin County and to obtain the certificate
required by Minnesota Statutes, Section 475.63.
Section 5. Authentication of Transcript.
5.01. The officers of the City are authorized and directed to prepare and furnish to the
Purchaser and to the attorneys approving the Bonds, certified copies of proceedings and records
of the City relating to the Bonds and to the financial condition and affairs of the City, and such
other certificates, affidavits and transcripts as may be required to show the facts within their
knowledge or as shown by the books and records in their custody and under their control, relating
to the validity and marketability of the Bonds, and such instruments, including any heretofore
furnished, may be deemed representations of the City as to the facts stated therein.
Is SJB113618
RC145-319
13- jq
5.02. The Mayor and City Manager are hereby authorized and directed to certify that
they have examined the Official Statement prepared and circulated in connection with the
issuance and sale of the Bonds and that to the best of their knowledge and belief the Official
Statement is a complete and accurate representation of the facts and representations made therein
as of the date of the Official Statement.
5.03. The City authorizes the Purchaser to forward the amount of Bond proceeds
allocable to the payment of issuance expenses (other than amounts payable to Kennedy & Graven,
Chartered as Bond Counsel) to Resource Bank & Trust Company, Minneapolis, Minnesota on the
closing date for further distribution as directed by the City's financial adviser, Ehlers and
Associates, Inc.
Section 6. Book-Ep= System; Limited Obligation of City.
6.01. The Bonds will be initially issued in the form of a separate single typewritten or
printed fully registered Bond for each of the maturities set forth in Section 1.03 hereof. Upon
initial issuance, the ownership of each Bond will be registered in the registration books kept by
the Bond Registrar in the name of Cede & Co., as nominee for The Depository Trust Company,
New York, New York, and its successors and assigns (DTC). Except as provided in this section,
all of the outstanding Bonds will be registered in the registration books kept by the Bond
Registrar in the name of Cede & Co., as nominee of DTC.
6.02. With respect to Bonds registered in the registration books kept by the Bond
18 Registrar in the name of Cede & Co., as nominee of DTC, the City, the Bond Registrar and the
Paying Agent will have no responsibility or obligation to any broker dealers, banks and other
financial institutions from time to time for which DTC holds Bonds as securities depository
(Participants) or to any other person on behalf of which a Participant holds an interest in the
Bonds, including but not limited to any responsibility or obligation with respect to (i) the
accuracy of the records of DTC, Cede & Co. or any Participant with respect to any ownership
interest in the Bonds, (ii) the delivery to any Participant or any other person (other than a
registered owner of Bonds, as shown by the registration books kept by the Bond Registrar,) of
any notice with respect to the Bonds, including any notice of redemption, or (iii) the payment to
any Participant or any other person, other than a registered owner of Bonds, of any amount with
respect to principal of, premium, if any, or interest on the Bonds. The City, the Bond Registrar
and the Paying Agent may treat and consider the person in whose name each Bond is registered
in the registration books kept by the Bond Registrar as the holder and absolute owner of such
Bond for the purpose of payment of principal, premium and interest with respect to such Bond,
for the purpose of registering transfers with respect to such Bonds, and for all other purposes.
The Paying Agent will pay all principal of, premium, if any, and interest on the Bonds only to
or on the order of the respective registered owners, as shown in the registration books kept by
the Bond Registrar, and all such payments will be valid and effectual to fully satisfy and
discharge the City's obligations with respect to payment of principal of, premium, if any, or
interest on the Bonds to the extent of the sum or sums so paid. No person other than a registered
owner of Bonds, as shown in the registration books kept by the Bond Registrar, will receive a
SJB113618
RC145-319
13-1,5
certificated Bond evidencing the obligation of this resolution. Upon delivery by DTC to the City
Manager of a written notice to the effect that DTC has determined to substitute a new nominee
in place of Cede & Co., the words "Cede & Co.," will refer to such new nominee of DTC; and
upon receipt of such a notice, the City Manager will promptly deliver a copy of the same to the
Bond Registrar and Paying Agent.
6.03. Representation Letter. The City has heretofore executed and delivered to DTC a
Blanket Issuer Letter of Representations (Representation Letter) which shall govern payment of
principal of, premium, if any, and interest on the Bonds and notices with respect to the Bonds.
Any Paying Agent or Bond Registrar subsequently appointed by the City with respect to the
Bonds will agree to take all action necessary for all representations of the City in the
Representation letter with respect to the Bond Registrar and Paying Agent, respectively, to be
complied with at all times.
6.04. Transfers Outside Book-Entry System. In the event the City, by resolution of the
City Council, determines that it is in the best interests of the persons having beneficial interests
in the Bonds that they be able to obtain Bond certificates, the City will notify DTC, whereupon
DTC will notify the Participants, of the availability through DTC of Bond certificates. In such
event the City will issue, transfer and exchange Bond certificates as requested by DTC and any
other registered owners in accordance with the provisions of this Resolution. DTC may
determine to discontinue providing its services with respect to the Bonds at any time by giving
notice to the City and discharging its responsibilities with respect thereto under applicable law.
. In such event, if no successor securities depository is appointed, the City will issue and the Bond
Registrar will authenticate Bond certificates in accordance with this resolution and the provisions
hereof will apply to the transfer, exchange and method of payment thereof.
6.05. Payments to Cede & Co. Notwithstanding any other provision of this Resolution
to the contrary, so long as a Bond is registered in the name of Cede & Co., as nominee of DTC,
payments with respect to principal of, premium, if any, and interest on the Bond and notices with
respect to the Bond will be made and given, respectively in the manner provided in DTC's
Operational Arrangements, as set forth in the Representation Letter.
Section 7. Continuing Disclosure.
7.01. The City hereby covenants and agrees that it will comply with and carry out all of
the provisions of the Continuing Disclosure Certificate. Notwithstanding any other provision of
this Resolution, failure of the City to comply with the Continuing Disclosure Certificate is not
to be considered an event of default with respect to the Bonds; however, any Bondholder may
take such actions as may be necessary and appropriate, including seeking mandate or specific
performance by court order, to cause the City to comply with its obligations under this section.
a SJB113618
RC145-319
/3-l&
7.02. "Continuing Disclosure Certificate" means that certain Continuing Disclosure
Certificate executed by the Mayor and City Manager and dated the date of issuance and delivery
of the Bonds, as originally executed and as it may be amended from time to time in accordance
with the terms thereof
Adopted by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota, this 9th day of
December, 1996.
Martin J. Kirsch, Mayor
Attest:
Thomas P. Ferber, City Clerk
•
•
SJB113618
RC145-319
13-1.7
• TAX INCREMENT PLEDGE AGREEMENT
by and between
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
and
THE HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
IN AND FOR THE CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
THIS AGREEMENT is made and entered into on or as of the 9th day of December, 1996,
by and between the City of Richfield, Minnesota (the "City"), and The Housing and
Redevelopment Authority in and for the City of Richfield, Minnesota (the "HRA").
WHEREAS, the HRA has established the Richfield Redevelopment Project Area (the
"Project Area"), and approved a Redevelopment Plan (the "Project Plan") for the Project Area,
dated June 14, 1993; and
WHEREAS, the Project Area incorporates the LHN Redevelopment Project Area and the
ILN Redevelopment Project Area previously established by the HRA; and
WHEREAS, on October 21, 1996, the HRA approved a modification of the Project Plan
and the related tax increment financing plans for the LHN Tax Increment Financing District and
the ILN Tax Increment Financing District (the "TIF Districts"); and
WHEREAS, on November 25, 1996, the City Council approved a modification of the
Project Plan and the related tax increment financing plans for the TIF Districts; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to authority conferred by Minnesota Statutes, Section 469.178, and
Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 475, the City has agreed to finance certain public redevelopment
costs to be incurred by the HRA in the Project Area through the issuance of general obligation
bonds of the City in the principal amount of $5,075,000, designated the General Obligation
Taxable Tax Increment Bonds, Series 1996, and hereinafter referred to as the "Bonds"; and
WHEREAS, the HRA has agreed to pledge certain tax increment revenues to the City for
the principal and interest on the Bonds maturing (or subject to mandatory sinking fund
redemption, in the case of any term bonds) in the following years and amounts and issued
pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Section 469.178:
Year Amount Year Amount
1999 $ 310,000 2006 $230,000
2000 595,000 2007 245,000
2001 1,385,000 2008 265,000
2002 170,000 2009 285,000
is
SJB113637
RC145-319
f3-i?
2003 185,000 2010 305,000
2004 200,000 2011 330,000
2005 215,000 2012 355,000
WHEREAS, pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Section 469.178, Subdivision 2, any
agreement to pledge tax increment revenues must be made by written agreement by and between
the HRA and the City and must be filed with the Taxpayer Services Division Manager of
Hennepin County;
NOW, THEREFORE, the City and the HRA mutually agree to the following:
(1) The City will sell the Bonds.
(2) The proceeds from the sale of the bonds will be paid to the HRA and the earnings
from the investment of such proceeds will be made available by the HRA to pay
or reimburse certain public redevelopment costs paid, incurred, or to be paid or
incurred by the HRA in connection with the HRA's various public redevelopment
costs in the Project Area.
(3) The HRA hereby pledges to the payment of the principal of and interest on the
Bonds tax increments received by the HRA from the TIF Districts in an amount
sufficient, to pay 105% of such principal and interest due on the Bonds from time
to time. Notwithstanding anything to the contrary herein, tax increments received
by the HRA from the LHN TIF District after April 1, 2001 shall not be paid with
respect to the Bonds and are not pledged to the Bonds.
(4) Not less than three (3) business days prior to each debt service payment date for
the Bonds, there shall be transferred from the accounts for the TIF Districts to the
Debt Service Fund maintained by the City for the payment of the Bonds, an
amount which when taken together with amounts already on deposit in such Debt
Service Fund, is equal to the principal of and interest on the Bonds to become due
on the subject payment date. The Executive Director of the HRA may specify the
TIF District from which payments will be made, subject to the limitation described
in paragraph (3) hereof with respect to the LHN TIF District. Any tax increments
generated from the TIF Districts in excess of 105% of the principal and interest
due with respect to the Bonds on any payment date may be retained by the HRA
in the tax increment account for the TIF District from which such tax increment
is generated and applied to any public redevelopment costs of the Project Area in
accordance with law.
(5) Without regard to anything in this Agreement to the contrary, tax increment
generated by the TIF Districts shall be available to pay, on a parity basis, principal
of and interest on both the Bonds and any other obligations issued by the City,
SJB113637
RC145-319
w
13-1 9
•
HRA or any other public body to finance public redevelopment costs paid or
incurred by the HRA in the Project Area.
(6) When the entire costs of the Project Area have been paid and all principal and
interest on the Bonds and other obligations issued to finance the public
redevelopment costs of the Project Area have been paid, and the City has been
reimbursed from collections of tax increment from the TIF Districts used to pay
principal of and interest on the Bonds, then the HRA shall report such fact to the
City Council of the City and the HRA shall submit a final statement of such
payments.
(7) An executed copy of this Agreement shall be filed with the Taxpayer Service
Division Manager of County pursuant to the requirement contained in Minnesota
Statutes, Section 469.178, Subdivision 2.
ATTEST:
City Manager
(SEAL)
.J
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the City and the HRA have caused this Agreement to be duly
executed on their behalf and their seals to be hereunto affixed and such signatures and seals to
be attested, as of the day and year first above written.
SJB113637
RC145-319
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
By_
Mayor
/3"qo
•
ATTEST:
Secretary
(SEAL)
n
U
SJB113637
RC145-319
THE HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT
AUTHORITY IN AND FOR THE CITY OF
RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
By
Chair
0 BID TABULATION
$5,075,000 General Obligation Taxable Tax Increment Bonds, Series 1996
City of Richfield, Minnesota
SALE: December 9, 1996
AWARD: SMITH BARNEY, INC.
RATING: MBIA Insured (Moody's Investors Service "Aaa")*
BBI: 5.57%
NET TRUE
NAME OF BIDDER RATE YEAR PRICE INTEREST INTEREST
COST RATE
SMITH BARNEY, INC.
Chicago, Illinois
CRONIN & COMPANY, INC.
Minneapolis, Minnesota
FIDELITY CAPITAL MARKETS
Chicago, Illinois
Juran & Moody, Inc.
?DAIN BOSWORTH, INC.
Chicago, Illinois
NORWEST INVESTMENT SERVICES, INC.
Minneapolis, Minnesota
FBS INVESTMENT SERVICES, INC.
Minneapolis, Minnesota
6.00% 1999
6.15% 2000
6.30% 2001-2002
6.40% 2003-2004
6.50% 2005-2007
6.60% 2008
6.75% 2009
7.00% 2010-2012 Term*"
6.00% 1999
6.125% 2000
6.30% 2001
6.40% 2002
6.50% 2003
6.625% 2004
6.75% 2005
6.80% 2006
6.875% 2007
6.90% 2008-2012
6.00%
6.10%
6.20%
6.30%
6.40%
6.50%
6.60%
6.70%
6.80%
6.90%
7.00%
7.10%
7.20%
7.25%
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
&BIA insurance purchased by Smith Barney, Inc.
$5,007,425.30
$5,021,933.85
$5,034,400.00
**$990,000 Term Bond due February 1, 2012 with mandatory redemption in 2010-2011.
Ehlers and Associates, Inc.
LEADERS IN PUBLIC FINANCE
$2,635,081.37
$2,645,404.90
$2,660,644.58
6.8454%
6.8618%
6.8700%
2950 NorwestCente
90 South Seventh Stree
Minneapolis, MN 55402-4101
(612) 339-8291 FAX (612) 339-085,
$5,075,000 General Obligation Taxable Tax Increment Bonds, Series 1996
City of Richfield, Minnesota Page
NET TFc
NAME OF BIDDER RATE YEAR PRICE INTEREST INTEREST
COST RATE
NIKE SECURITIES L.P. 6.10% 1999 $5,020,402.00 $2,667,591.33 6.9182%
Lisle, Illinois 6.25% 2000
WILLIAM R. HOUGH & CO. 6.30% 2001
St. Petersburg, Florida 6.50% 2002-2003
6.70% 2004
6.75% 2005
6.80% 2006-2007
6.90% 2008
7.00% 2009-2012
0
:7
is
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Council Letter No. 375
Agenda December 9, 1996
Issue Statement:
Renewal of a 1997 Pawnbroker and Secondhand Goods Dealer license for Plaza
Pawn, 6414 Nicollet Avenue.
Background:
On November 7, 1996, the City received the application and other required documents
for the Pawnbroker and Secondhand Goods Dealer license for Plaza Pawn. The
applicant has paid the required license fees.
The Public Safety background investigation has been completed and reveals the
following:
• Dorothy Krieger is the owner of this establishment, and Hal Krieger is the
manager.They have no known criminal records.
• Ms. Krieger holds a Federal Firearms License - U. S. Treasury, Bureau of Tobacco,
Alcohol and Firearms and has a City Firearm Dealer's License.
• • A copy of the Articles of Incorporation have been provided and is on file with the
City.
• The $1,500 bond will be submitted as soon as possible.
From November 1995 through October 1996 there were seven Public Safety contacts
with Plaza Pawn. This compares with nine contacts for the previous year. A
breakdown of these contacts is attached to this letter.
Environmental Health staff have not received any complaints in 1996.
The owner of the business continues to act in a cooperative manner with the Public
Safety Department on the recovery of stolen articles.
Recommended Motion:
Approve the renewal of Pawnbroker and Secondhand Goods Dealer license for Plaza
Pawn for 1997.
Basis for Recommendation:
1. The applicant has complied with all of the provisions of the City codes pertaining to
pawnbroker and secondhand goods dealer licensing with the exception of the
submittal of their $1,500 bond.
is H
2. Based upon the information supplied by the applicant and the investigation
conducted, there appears to be no reason to deny the issuance of the license
requested.
Alternative Recommendation:
1. The Council could decide to continue the hearing; however, if the hearing is
continued beyond January 1, 1997, the Council should consider the granting of a
temporary license to allow the applicant to continue his pawnbroker and
secondhand goods dealer business until the rescheduled hearing can be
conducted.
Discussion/Decision Mode:
The public hearing to consider the request for the renewal of Plaza Pawn's Pawnbroker
and Secondhand Goods Dealer license has been scheduled for December 9, 1996.
Their current license will expire January 1,
continue the hearing beyond December 9,
before the licenses expire.
1997. Therefore, if the Council decides to
any subsequent hearing should be held
Respectfully submitted,
JamjProsser
City ger
JDP:ds
0
Ia-a.
PUBLIC SAFETY CONTACTS
NOVEMBER 1995 THROUGH OCTOBER 1996
PLAZA PAWN
0
1995 1996
Total Contacts 9 7
Criminal Contacts 8 5
"Bar Type" (Included in Crim. Contacts) (0) (0)
Alarm (4) (3)
Misc. Non-Criminal 1 2
Assists (0) (2)
Traffic (1) (0)
Inspections/Licensing (0) (0)
Medical/Fire (0) (0)
The criminal contacts for 1996 were three burglary alarms, and two possess property.
(Numbers in parenthesis are included in total contact figures)
is
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Council Letter No. 374
Agenda December 9, 1996
Issue Statement:
Renewal of a 1997 Pawnbroker and Secondhand Goods Dealer license for Firearm
Systems and Design, d/b/a The Gun Shop and Pawnbroker, 7529 Lyndale Avenue.
Background:
On November 26, 1996, the City received the application and other required documents
for the Pawnbroker and Secondhand Goods Dealer license for Firearm Systems and
Design. The applicant has paid the required license fees.
The Public Safety background investigation has been completed and reveals the
following: '
• Patrick Teel is owner and manager of this establishment. He has no known criminal
record.
• Mr. Teel holds a Federal Firearms License - U. S. Treasury, Bureau of Tobacco,
Alcohol and Firearms, and a City Firearms Dealer License.
• A copy of the Articles of Incorporation and the By-Laws have been provided and are
on file with the City.
• The $1,500 bond will be submitted as soon as it is received.
From November 1995 through October 1996, there were ten Public Safety contacts
with Firearm Systems and Design. This compares with 17 contacts for the previous
year. A breakdown of these contacts is attached to this letter.
Environmental Health staff have not received any complaints in 1996.
The owner of the business continues to act in a cooperative manner with the Public
Safety Department on the recovery of stolen articles.
Recommended Motion:
Approve the renewal of Pawnbroker and Secondhand Goods Dealer license for Firearm
Systems and Design, d/b/a The Gun Shop and Pawnbroker for 1996 with the following
stipulation:
1. That the $1,500 bond is submitted as soon as possible.
0
IH
Basis for Recommendation:
1. The applicant has complied with all of the provisions of the City codes pertaining
to pawnbroker and secondhand goods dealer licensing, with the exception of the
submittal of the $1,500 bond.
2. Based upon the information supplied by the applicant and the investigation
conducted, there appears to be no reason to deny the renewal of the licenses
requested.
Alternative Recommendation:
1. The Council could decide to continue the hearing; however, if the hearing is
continued beyond January 1, 1997, the Council should consider the granting of a
temporary license to allow the applicant to continue his pawnbroker and
secondhand goods dealer business until the rescheduled hearing can be
conducted.
Discussion/Decision Mode:
The public hearing to consider the request for the renewal of Firearm Systems and
Design, d/b/a The Gun Shop and Pawnbrokers Secondhand Goods Dealer and
Pawnbroker license has been scheduled for December 9, 1996. Their current license
will expire January 1, 1997. Therefore, if the Council decides to continue the hearing.
beyond December 9, any subsequent hearing should be scheduled appropriately.
Respectfully submitted,
Jam D. Prosser
ICity Manager
JDP:ds
//,;I-
0
PUBLIC SAFETY CONTACTS
NOVEMBER 1995 THROUGH OCTOBER 1996
THE GUN SHOP AND PAWNBROKER
1995 1996
Total Contacts 17 10
Criminal Contacts 17 8
"Bar Type" (Included in Crim. Contacts) (0) (0)
Alarm (7) (2)
Misc. Non-Criminal 0 2
Assists (0) (0)
Traffic (0) (0)
Inspections/Licensing (0) (2)
Medical/Fire (0) (0)
The criminal contacts for 1996 were two burglary alarms, one suspicious person, three
weapons violation, one possess property, and one property damage.
(Numbers in parenthesis are included in total contact figures)
0
to
0
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Council Letter No. 373
Agenda December 9, 1996
Issue Statement:
Issuance of On-Sale Non-Intoxicating Malt Liquor License for Lan's Vietnamese
restaurant, 7545 Lyndale Avenue.
Background:
The application for the issuance of the On-Sale Non-Intoxicating Malt Liquor license
has been submitted by Lan's Vietnamese Restaurant. The required license fee has
been paid.
• The Public Safety investigation has been conducted and revealed the following:
• The applicant has paid all general real estate, state sales and withholding taxes.
• Mr. Thang Nguyen is the owner of the establishment. Ms. May Nguyen is the
manager. Neither of these persons has any known criminal record.
• During the previous 12 months there were no Public Safety contacts with Lan's
Vietnamese Restaurant.
Environmental Health staff received no complaints in 1996 regarding Lan's Vietnamese
Restaurant.
Recommended Motion:
Approve the issuance of the On-Sale Non-Intoxicating Malt Liquor license for Lan's
Vietnamese Restaurant, 7545 Lyndale Avenue.
Basis for Recommendation:
1. The applicant has complied with all of the provisions of both the City code and
State Statute pertaining to 3.2 beer licensing.
2. Based upon the information supplied by the applicant and the investigation
conducted by the Public Safety Department, there appears to be no reason to
deny the issuance of the license requested.
Alternative Recommendation:
1. The Council could decide to deny the On-Sale Non-Intoxicating Malt Liquor license
for Lan's Vietnamese Restaurant. This would mean that the restaurant would be
unable to serve any On-Sale Non-Intoxicating Malt Liquor.
10-?
Discussion/Decision Mode:
Respectfully submitted,
The request to consider the issuance of an On-Sale Non-Intoxicating Malt Liquor
license for Lan's Vietnamese Restaurant has been scheduled for December 9, 1996. If
the Council decides to continue the hearing beyond December 9, any subsequent
hearing should be scheduled appropriately.
James . Prosser
City Manager
JDP:ds
0
•
Richfield City Code 1210.01 (Rev. 1994) 10-a
Section 1210 - Nonintoxicating liquor: beer
1210.01. Sale and Dispensation of Nonintoxicating Malt Liquors. Subdivision 1.
Definitions. For purposes of this section the terms defined in this subsection
have the meanings given them.
Subd. 2. "Club" has the meaning given by Minnesota Statutes, section
340A.101.
Subd. 3. "Nonintoxicating malt liquor" or "beer" means malt liquor con-
taining not less than one-half of one percent alcohol by volume nor more than 3.2
percent alcohol by weight.
Subd. 4. "Off-sale" means the sale of beer in the original packages for
consumption off the licensed premises only.
Subd. 5. "On-sale" means the sale of beer for consumption on the licensed
premises only.
1201.03. Limitation on Application. Nothing in this section shall be construed
to prohibit or restrict the serving of nonintoxicating malt liquor to guests in
a private home, except that it shall be unlawful for a minor , to consume any
intoxicating or nonintoxicating malt liquor unless in the household of the parent
or guardian of the minor. The council may also permit any nonprofit social
organization, lodge, labor organization, political party, church or corporation
not included in the definition of bona fide club to serve nonintoxicating malt
liquor without a license free of charge, for a period not exceeding 12 hours and
not more than three times per calendar year. "Political party" as used in this
subsection includes city-wide political organizations but does not include
individual candidates or the campaign committees of individual candidates.
1210.05. License required. No person may sell nonintoxicating malt liquor in
the city without the license issued pursuant to this section. Application shall
be made at least 30 days prior to the date desired for the license period.
1210.07. Types of licenses. Subdivision 1. On-sale licenses. On-sale licenses
may be granted only to restaurants, hotels, clubs and establishments having food
licenses, provided that no nonintoxicating malt liquor manufacturer or wholesaler
has any interest in such business. Such licenses are for retail sales of
nonintoxicating malt liquor only. No more than 12 on-sale licenses may be
issued. (Amended, Bill No. 1987-23; Bill No. 1994-2)
Subd. 2. Off-sale licenses. Off-sale licenses may be granted for the sale
of nonintoxicating malt liquor for consumption off the premises.
Subd. 3. Temporary licenses. Temporary licenses may be granted to clubs,
or charitable, religious or non-profit social organizations, labor organizations,
political parties, churches or similar corporations. The term "political party"
means a city-wide political party organization but does not include individual
candidates or their campaign committees.
Subd. 4. Tavern licenses. Tavern licenses may be granted to holders of
on-sale licenses on whose premises dancing may be lawfully permitted.
1210.09. Contents of application. Persons desiring nonintoxicating malt liquor
licenses shall make application to the clerk. Applications shall include:
/03
Richfield City Code
1210.09(a)
(a) type of license applied for;
(b) name-, residence address, age, place and date, birth of applicant;
(c) the address and description of the place where the nonintoxicat-
ing malt liquor is to be sold;
(d) the hours per day and days per week such premises will be open to
the public; and
(e) any other information required by the clerk or council..
•
1210.11. License fees: term. The license fees are as provided in appendix D.
The license expires on the June 30 next following its issuance.
1210.13. Investigation and issuance. Each application may be referred to the
director of public safety, who shall investigate the applicant and report to the
council, with findings. The applicant for an on sale license or the applicant's
representative must be present at the meeting where the initial license applica-
tion will be considered to provide such additional information as may be re-
quired by the council. The applicant or applicant's representative shall also
be present when an application for renewal of a license is to be considered if
such attendance has been requested in writing by the director of public safety.
Failure to attend the meeting shall be grounds for denial of the application for
an on-sale license. 40
1210.15. Persons under 21. Subdivision 1. Adoption by reference. The provi-
sions of Minnesota Statutes, section 340A.503 are adopted by reference.
Subd. 2. Employment of minors. (a) No person under 18 years of age may be
employed in a place where nonintoxicating liquor is sold for consumption on the
premises, except persons under 18 years of age may be employed as musicians or
in bussing or washing dishes in a restaurant or hotel that is licensed to sell
nonintoxicating liquor.
(b) No person under 18 years of age shall offer for sale, sell, or in
any way assist in the sale of nonintoxicating liquor in the original packages
for consumption off the premises, except said prohibition shall not extend to
activities merely incidental to the sale of nonintoxicating liquors such as
stocking beer on shelves or carrying beer from the store at the customer's
request.
1210.17. Hours of sale. Subdivision 1. General rule. Non intoxicating liquor
may not be sold during hours when such sales are prohibited by Minnesota Stat-
utes, chapter 340A and only at the times that the sale of intoxicating liquor is
permitted by law.
Subd. 2. Hours business may be open. Every establishment where
nonintoxicating malt liquor is kept or sold shall be closed to the public
between 1:15 a.m. and 5:00 a.m. unless the licensee operates a cafe or restau-
rant which serves food all night, at least six nights per week. This provision
does not apply to establishments where food alone is served. If both food and
nonintoxicating beverages are served at an establishment, a separate and dis-
tinct room shall be maintained for the sale of food, and if no nonintoxicating
beverage is sold therein, such room may be kept open for the sale of food at all
hours, provided the balance of the establishment is entirely closed at such
times.
Richfield City Code
/ 0-Y
1210.19
1210.19. . Limitations on bona fide club. A bona fide club may sell nonin-
toxicating malt liquor only to its own members.
1210.21. Sale to intoxicated persons prohibited. No licensee may sell or serve
nonintoxicating malt liquor to any person who is, or appears to be, intoxicated.
No such intoxicated person shall be allowed to remain on the licensed premises.
1210.23. Sale of mixed or spiked malt liquor prohibited. No licensee shall
permit any mixing or spiking of nonintoxicating malt liquor or any other bever-
age, on the premises unless licensed to do so under section 1210.01 of this
chapter..
1210.25. License required. No licensee shall permit the consumption of intoxi-
cating liquor on the licensed premises except pursuant to a license issued under
either section 1200 or section 1205.
1210.27. Other conditions. Subdivision 1. License for specific premises only.
Any license shall be for the location specified thereon only, and shall not be
transferred to a different location without the approval of the council.
Subd. 2. License must be posted. The license shall at all times by posted
in a conspicuous place on the licensed premises.
Subd. 3. Inspection permitted. Any establishment licensed under this
. section shall be open to inspection by the director of public safety at all
times.
1210.29. Specific conditions governing issuance: on-sale licenses. Subdivision
1. Posted sign required. A sign reading "no spiking allowed" or "no spiking",
of sufficient size and clarity to be easily read by all persons in the premises,
shall be conspicuously displayed in each on-sale premises not holding a license
under either section 1200 or section 1205.
Subd. 2. Number of licenses. No on-sale license shall be granted to any
applicant who already possesses an on-sale license from the city.
Subd. 3. Limited location. No on-sale license shall permit the sale of
non-intoxicating malt liquor at more than one location and that location shall
be described in detail in the license.
1210.31. Licensee, natural persons or corporation. On-sale licenses, may be
issued to natural persons or to corporations. If the licensee is a natural-
person he shall be a resident of Hennepin County at the time the license is
issued, and he shall be the actual proprietor of the premises to be licensed.
To qualify as the actual proprietor the licensee shall own at least 50% interest
in the business establishment being licensed. Any on-sale license to a natural
person, once issued, shall be effective only as long as the licensee is the
actual proprietor of the business. If the licensee is a corporation or if the
licensee is a natural person who is not a resident of the city, the licensee
shall have a resident of the city designated as manager of the licensed premis-
es. The manager shall be designated by the applicant in writing. The manager
must be:
Richfield City Code
1210.31
(a) a resident of the twin city seven county metropolitan area as defined
in Minnesota Statutes, chapter 473;
(b) an employee of the licensee;
(c) actively engaged in the management and supervision of the business
being licensed; and
(d) a person of good moral character who would be qualified to obtain an
on-sale license in the city as the proprietor of the business.
1210.33. Bar equipment required. Each on-sale premises shall be equipped with
sinks and running hot and cold water for sterilizing and rising cups, glasses,
mugs or other utensils in which nonintoxicating malt liquor is served. Such
sink shall be con•.eniently located to the spigots from which the
non-intoxicating malt liquor is drawn. In bars or fountains the sinks shall be
of the two compartment type.
1210.35. Specific conditions: tavern licenses. Subdivision 1. Peace officer.
Persons operating under a tavern license may be required by the manager to
employ a peace officer to be on duty at the licensee's place of business from
9:00 p.m. to closing time.
0
Subd. 2. Compliance. Tavern licenses shall comply with the regulatory •
provisions of this section.
Subd. 3. 0n-sale license required. A tavern licenses may not be issued to
a person who does not have an on-sale license and a food license.
Subd. 4. Dancing. Public dancing is not permitted in any place where
intoxicating or nonintoxicating malt liquor is sold, unless such place operates
under a tavern license.
Subd. 5. Liquor license. A tavern license may be issued to an establish-
ment which is licensed under either section 1200 or section 1205, whether or not
such establishment has an on-sale license for the sale of nonintoxicating malt
liquor, provided that such establishment also has a food license.
1210.37. Temporary license. Subdivision 1. Fee. There is no fee for a
temporary license.
Subd. 2. Duration. A temporary license is issued for single periods of
not more than 12 consecutive hours.
Subd. 3. Number. An applicant may not be issued more than three temporary
licenses in one calendar year.
1210.39. Provisions of state law adopted. Except as modified in this section,
the provisions of Minnesota Statutes, chapter 340A, relating to the definition
of terms, licensing, consumption, sales, conditions of bonds of .licensees, hours
of sale, and all other matters pertaining to the retail sale, distribution, and
consumption of non-intoxicating malt liquor are adopted by reference.
9
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Council Letter No. 372
Agenda December 9, 1996
Issue Statement:
Consideration of a request for a new 1997 On-Sale Wine and Non-Intoxicating Malt
Liquor license for Thompson's Fireside Pizza, Inc., 6736 Penn Avenue, previously
licensed as Miller's Fireside Pizza.
Background:
On November 18, 1996, the City received the new application and other required
documents for the Wine and Non-Intoxicating Malt Liquor license for Thompson's
Fireside Pizza, Inc. The applicant has paid the required license fees.
The Public Safety background investigation has been completed and reveals the
following:
• Richard Bruce Thompson has made application for an On-Sale Wine and Non-
Intoxicating Malt Liquor license under the name, Thompson's Fireside Pizza, Inc.
The corporate structure shows that Richard Bruce Thompson is serving as
President, and Richard Orville Thompson is serving as Vice-President. Michelle
Lynn Thompson serves as Secretary and Treasurer. Richard Bruce Thompson will
be serving as the General Manager of the restaurant. None of these individuals has
any known criminal record.
• The applicant will supply proof of liquor liability insurance and proof of workers'
compensation insurance as soon as possible.
• On-Sale Wine and Non-Intoxicating Malt 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 is also attached to this letter.
• All general sales, real estate and withholding taxes have been paid and are current.
• The $10,000 bond will be submitted as soon as possible.
• 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 91 % of the total sales, while liquor sales accounted for 9%
of the total sales.
From November 1995 through October 1996, there were five Public Safety contacts
with Miller's Fireside Pizza. This compares with seven contacts for the previous year.
A breakdown of these contacts is attached to this letter.
q-)
Environmental Health staff received one complaint in 1996 regarding debris outside.
The property owner was notified and no further complaints have been received by staff.
On November 25, 1996, a public hearing was also set for the renewal of an On-Sale
Wine and Non-Intoxicating Malt Liquor license for Miller's Fireside Pizza. This hearing
will no longer be necessary as the current owner, Dave Miller, is licensed through
December 31, 1996. The new owners will take ownership January 1, 1997; therefore,
the need for a public hearing for a new On-Sale Wine and Non-Intoxicating Malt Liquor
license.
Recommended Motion:
Approve.the issuance of a new 1997 Wine and Non-Intoxicating Malt Liquor license for
Thompson's Fireside Pizza, Inc., with the stipulation that the requirements are met in
Resolution No. 7380.
Basis for Recommendation:
1. The applicant has complied with all of the provisions of both City Codes and State
Statutes pertaining to an On-Sale Wine and Non-Intoxicating Malt Liquor license.
2. Based upon the information supplied by the applicant, there appears to be no
reason to deny the license requested.
Alternative Recommendation:
1. The Council could decide to deny the request for an On-Sale Wine and Non-
Intoxicating Malt Liquor license. This would mean that the restaurant would be
unable to serve any Wine and Non-Intoxicating Malt Liquor.
Discussion/Decision Mode:
The public hearing to consider the request for the issuance of a new On-Sale Wine and
Non-Intoxicating Malt Liquor license for Thompson's Fireside Pizza, Inc., has been
scheduled for December 9, 1996 and is being presented to Council at this time.
Respectfully submitted,
Jam D. Prosser
City manager
JDP:ds
0
9-a
•
Officers for Thompson's Fireside Pizza
•
Richard Bruce Johnson
Richard Orville Thompson -
Michelle Lynn Thompson
President and General Manager
Vice President
Secretary and Treasurer
0
9-3
I•
PUBLIC SAFETY CONTACTS
NOVEMBER 1995 THROUGH OCTOBER 1996
MILLER'S FIRESIDE PIZZA
Total Contacts
Criminal Contacts
"Bar Type" (Included in Crim. Contacts)
Alarm
Misc. Non-Criminal
Assists
Traffic
Inspections/Licensing
Medical/Fire
1995 1996
7 5
5 4
( 1)
(0)
2
(0)
(0)
(0)
(2)
(1)
(0)
1
(1)
(0)
(0)
(0)
The criminal contacts for 1996 were one theft, one vehicle theft, one adult mischief, and
one weapons violation.
(Numbers in parenthesis are included in total contact figures)
0
9j-
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Council Letter No. 371
Agenda December 9, 1996
Issue Statement:
Renewal of 1997 On-Sale Wine and Non-Intoxicating Malt Liquor license for The
Frenchman's, 1400 East 66th Street.
Background:
On November 15, 1996, the City received the renewal applications and other required
documents for the Wine and Non-Intoxicating Malt Liquor licenses for The
Frenchman's. The applicant has paid the required license fees.
The Public Safety background investigation has been completed and reveals the
following:
• The corporate structure of the organization remains unchanged from last year. Mary
Blake continues serving as President, and Dean Blake is serving as Vice-President,
Secretary and Treasurer. Mary Blake will also continue serving as the General
Manager of the restaurant. Neither of these individuals has any known criminal
record.
• A 10 year contract for deed with William and Joan Snyder continues to be in effect
with all payments current.
• All general real estate taxes, state sales and withholding taxes have been paid and
are current.
• The applicant will supply proof of liquor liability insurance as soon as possible. Proof
of workers' compensation insurance coverage has been submitted.
• An accountant's statement has been prepared and submitted. This statement covers
the period from October 1995 through September 1996 and indicates that food sales
accounted for 53% of the total sales, while beer and wine sales accounted for 47%
of the total sales.
From November 1995 through October 1996, there were five Public Safety contacts
with The Frenchman's, as compared to four contacts for the previous year. A
breakdown of these contacts is attached to this letter.
Environmental Health staff received no complaints in 1996 regarding The Frenchman's.
On-Sale Wine and Non-Intoxicating Malt 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 provided to Council.
m,1
Recommended Motion:
Approve the renewal of the 1997 On-Sale Wine and Non-Intoxicating Malt Liquor
licenses for The Frenchman's with the following stipulations:
That the requirements are met in Resolution No. 7380.
2. That their liquor liability insurance information is submitted as soon as possible.
Basis for Recommendation:
1. The applicant has complied with all of the provisions of both City Codes and State
Statutes pertaining to On-Sale Wine and Non-Intoxicating Malt Liquor licenses with.
the exception of the submittal of their liquor liability insurance information.
2. Based upon the information supplied by the applicant and the investigation
conducted, there appears to be no reason to deny the license requested.
Alternative Recommendation:
1. The Council could decide to continue the hearing; however, if the hearing is
continued beyond January 1, 1997, the Council should consider the granting of a
license extension to allow the applicant to continue to sell wine and non-
intoxicating malt liquor until the rescheduled hearing can be conducted.
2. The Council could decide to suspend or revoke the licenses. Any suspension or
revocation must, according to Minnesota State Statute 340A.415, be based upon
a finding that the licensee has failed to comply with an applicable statute, rule or
ordinance relating to alcoholic beverages. The Council must also note that no
revocation or suspension takes effect until the licensee has been afforded an
opportunity for a hearing under Sections 14.57 to 14.70 of the Administrative
Procedure Act.
It is the opinion of the Public Safety Department that the licensee has not committed
any violation relating to alcoholic beverages and, therefore, it is recommended that the
license not be revoked or suspended.
Discussion/Decision Mode:
The public hearing to consider the request for the renewal of The Frenchman's Wine
and Non-Intoxicating Malt Liquor licenses has been scheduled for December 9, 1996.
Their current licenses expire January 1, 1997. Therefore, if the Council decides to
continue the hearing beyond December 9, any subsequent hearing should be held
before the licenses expire.
Respectfully submitted,
Prosser
JamIMnager
City JDP:ds
PUBLIC SAFETY CONTACTS
NOVEMBER 1995 THROUGH OCTOBER 1996
THE FRENCHMAN'S
1995 1996
Total Contacts 4 5
Criminal Contacts 2 4
"Bar Type" (Included in Crim. Contacts) (0) (2)
Alarm (0) (0)
Misc. Non-Criminal 2 1
Assists (1) (0)
Traffic (0) (0)
Inspections/Licensing (0) (0)
Medical/Fire (1) (1)
The criminal contacts for 1996 were one threat, one drunkeness, one suspicious vehicle
and one suspicious person.
(Numbers in parenthesis are included in total contact figures)
•
?1
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Council Letter No. 370
Agenda December 9, 1996
Issue Statement:
Renewal of a 1997 On-Sale Wine and Non-Intoxicating Malt liquor licenses for Kiang's
Red Pepper, Inc., d/b/a Red Pepper Chinese Restaurant, 2902 West 66th Street.
Background:
On October 31, 1996, the City received the renewal applications and other required
documents for the On-Sale Wine and Non-Intoxicating Malt Liquor license for Red
Pepper Chinese Restaurant. The applicant has paid the required license fees.
The Public Safety background investigation has been completed and reveals the
following:
• The corporate structure of the organization remains unchanged. Ricky Kiang is
serving as President, Vice-President, Secretary and Treasurer. Mr. Kiang continues
to serve as the General Manager of the restaurant and has no known criminal
record.
• All general real estate taxes, state sales and withholding taxes have been paid and
. are current.
• The lease between the applicant and the property owner, Carlson Real Estate
Company, continues to be in effect with all payments current.
• The required proof of liquor liability insurance and workers' compensation coverage
has been received showing Farmers Insurance Group as affording the required
coverage.
• An accountant's statement has been prepared and submitted. This statement
covers the period from October 1995 through September 1996 and indicates that
food sales accounted for 98% of the total sales, while beer and wine sales
accounted for 2% of the total sales.
From November 1995 through October 1996, there were nine Public Safety contacts
with Red Pepper as compared to five contacts for the previous year. A breakdown of
these contacts is attached to this letter.
Environmental Health staff received two complaints in 1996. They concerned
unpackaged chopsticks. Bloomington health inspectors were notified and no further
complaints have been received by staff.
On-Sale Wine and Non-Intoxicating Malt 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 provided to Council.
Recommended Motion:
Approve the renewal of the 1997 On-Sale Wine and Non-Intoxicating Malt Liquor
license for Kiang's Red Pepper, Inc., d/b/a Red Pepper Chinese Restaurant with the
following stipulation:
That the requirements are met in Resolution No. 7380.
Basis for Recommendation:
1. The applicant has complied with all of the provisions of both City Codes and State
Statutes pertaining to a on-sale wine and non-intoxicating malt liquor licenses.
2. Based upon the information supplied by the applicant and the investigation
conducted, there appears to be no reason to deny the license requested.
Alternative Recommendation:
1. The Council could decide to continue the hearing; however, if the hearing is
continued beyond January 1, 1997, the Council should consider the granting of a
license extension to allow the applicant to continue to sell wine and non-
intoxicating malt liquor until the rescheduled hearing can be conducted.
2. The Council could decide to suspend or revoke the license. Any suspension or
revocation must, according to Minnesota State Statute 340A.415, be based upon
1 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 is the opinion of the Public Safety Department that the licensee has not
committed any violation relating to alcoholic beverages and, therefore, it is
recommended that the license not be revoked or suspended.
Discussion/Decision Mode:
The public hearing to consider the request for the renewal of Kiang's Red Pepper, Inc.,
d/b/a Red Pepper Chinese Restaurant's Wine and Non-Intoxicating Malt Liquor license
has been scheduled for December 9, 1996. Their current license expires January 1,
1997. Therefore, if the Council decides to continue the hearing beyond December 9,
any subsequent hearing should be held before the licenses expire.
Respectfully submitted,
0 James . Prosser
City Manager
JDP:ds
sj_a
LJ
PUBLIC SAFETY CONTACTS
NOVEMBER 1995 THROUGH OCTOBER 1996
RED PEPPER CHINESE RESTAURANT
0
Total Contacts
Criminal Contacts
"Bar Type" (Included in Crim. Contacts)
Alarm
Misc. Non-Criminal
Assists
Traffic
Inspections/Licensing
Medical/Fire
1995
5
4
(0)
( 1)
1
(0)
(0)
(0)
(1)
1996
9
7
( 1)
(5)
2'
(0)
(1)
(0)
(1)
The criminal contacts for 1996 were five burglary alarms, one forgery, and one property
damage.
(Numbers in parenthesis are included in total contact figures)
•
g14
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Council Letter No. 369
Agenda December 9, 1996
Issue Statement:
Renewal of 1997 On-Sale Wine and Non-Intoxicating Malt Liquor licenses for Gin Ng Inc.,
d/b/a Silver Spoon Restaurant, 6700 Penn Avenue.
Background:
On October 31, 1996, the City received the renewal applications and other required
documents for the Wine and Non-Intoxicating Malt Liquor licenses for Silver Spoon
Restaurant. The applicant has paid the required license fees.
The Public Safety background investigation has been completed and reveals the following:
• The corporate structure of the organization remains unchanged from last year. A copy
of the list of officers of the corporation is attached to this letter. Gin Ng continues to
serve as the General Manager of the restaurant. None of these individuals has any
known criminal record.
• The building and property continue to be owned by Kenneth Youngberg, and the lease
between the applicant and the landlord continues to be in effect with all payments
current.
• All general real estate taxes, state sales and withholding taxes have been paid and are
current.
• The applicant has supplied proof of liquor liability insurance coverage showing JHC
Insurance Group as affording the required coverage. Proof of workers' compensation
insurance coverage has also been supplied.
• An accountant's statement has been prepared and submitted by S. Krishnan, CPA.
This statement covers the period from October 1995 through September 1996 and
indicates that food sales accounted for 98% of the total sales, while beer and wine
sales accounted for 2% of the total sales.
From November 1995 through October 1996, there were three Public Safety contacts with
Silver Spoon Restaurant as compared to one contact for the previous year. A breakdown
of these contacts is attached to this letter.
Environmental Health staff received one complaint in 1996 regarding Silver Spoon
Restaurant. The complaint involved a food related problem. The owner of the property
was notified and no further complaints have been received by staff.
On-Sale Wine and Non-Intoxicating Malt 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 provided to Council.
WI
Recommended Motion:
Approve the renewal of the 1997 On-Sale Wine and Non-Intoxicating Malt Liquor licenses
for Gin Ng Inc., d/b/a Silver Spoon Restaurant with the following stipulation:
That the requirements are met in Resolution No. 7380.
Basis for Recommendation:
The applicant has complied with all of the provisions of both City Codes and State
Statutes pertaining to on-sale wine and non-intoxicating malt liquor licenses.
2. Based upon the information supplied by the applicant and the investigation
conducted, there appears to be no reason to deny the license requested.
Alternative Recommendation:
1. The Council could decide to continue the hearing, however, if the hearing is
continued beyond January 1, 1997, the Council should consider the granting of a
license extension to allow the applicant to continue to sell wine and non-intoxicating
malt liquor until the rescheduled hearing can be conducted.
2. The Council could decide to suspend or revoke the licenses. Any suspension or
revocation must, according to Minnesota State Statute 340A.415, be based upon a
finding that the licensee has failed to comply with an applicable statute, rule or
ordinance relating to alcoholic beverages. The Council must also note that no
revocation or suspension takes effect until the licensee has been afforded an
opportunity for a hearing under Sections 14.57 to 14.70 of the Administrative
Procedure Act.
It is the opinion of the Public Safety Department that the licensee has not committed
any violation relating to alcoholic beverages and, therefore, it is recommended that
the license not be revoked or suspended.
Discussion/Decision Mode:
The public hearing to consider the request for the renewal of Gin Ng Inc., d/b/a Silver
Spoon Restaurant's Wine and Non-Intoxicating Malt Liquor licenses has been scheduled
for December 9, 1996. Their current licenses expire January 1, 1997. Therefore, if the
Council decides to continue the hearing beyond December 9, any subsequent hearing
should be held before the licenses expire.
Respectf Ily submitted,
James . Prosser
City Manager
JDP:ds
814-ol
SILVER SPOON RESTAURANT
Partners/Officer and Title:
Gin Chiu Ng President
Oi Chi Lau Vice President
0
8N3
PUBLIC SAFETY CONTACTS
NOVEMBER 1995 THROUGH OCTOBER 1996
SILVER SPOON RESTAURANT
1995 1996
Total Contacts 1 3
Criminal Contacts 0 3
"Bar Type" (Included in Crim. Contacts) (0) ( 1)
Alarm (0) (2)
Misc. Non-Criminal 1 0
Assists 0 0
Traffic (0) (0)
Inspections/Licensing (0) (0)
Medical/Fire (1) (0)
The criminal contacts for 1996 were one forgery, one possess property, and one noise
complaint.
(Numbers in parenthesis are included in total contact figures)
? 0
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Council Letter No. 368
Agenda December 9, 1996
Issue Statement:
Renewal of 1997 On-Sale and Sunday Liquor licenses for Americana Dining Corporation
d/b/a Champps Sports Cafe, 790 West 66th Street.
Background:
On November 12, 1996, the City received the renewal applications and other required
documents for the On-Sale and Sunday Liquor licenses for Champps Sports Cafe. The
applicant has paid the required license fees.
The Public Safety background investigation has been completed and reveals the following:
• The corporate structure of the organization has changed from last year. A copy of the
list of officers and directors of the corporation is attached to this letter.
• All general sales, real estate and withholding taxes have been paid and are current.
• The lease between the applicant and the property owner, Market Plaza Commercial
Ltd., is in effect with all payments current.
The $10,000 bond issued by National Fire Insurance Company of Hartford has been
submitted.
• The required proof of liquor liability insurance coverage has been received showing
Willis Carroon Corporation of Massachusetts as affording the required coverage. Proof
of workers' compensation insurance coverage has also been supplied.
• An accountant's statement has been prepared and submitted. This statement covers
the period from October 1995 through September of 1996 and indicates that food sales
accounted for 66% of the total sales, while liquor sales accounted for 34% of the total
sales.
From November 1995 through October 1996, there were 39 Public Safety contacts with
Champps. This compares with 35 contacts for the previous year. A breakdown of these
contacts is attached to this letter.
Environmental health staff received one complaint in 1996 regarding Champps. The
complaint involved garbage pickup in the early morning hours. The garbage hauling
company 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
provided to the Council.
S ?_]
Recommended Motion:
• Approve the renewal of the 1997 On-Sale and Sunday Liquor licenses for Champps
Sports Cafe with the following stipulation:
That the requirements are met in Resolution No. 7380.
Basis for Recommendation:
1. The applicant has complied with all of the provisions of both City Codes and State
Statutes pertaining to on-sale and Sunday liquor licensing.
2. Based upon the information supplied by the applicant and the investigation
conducted, there appears to be no reason to deny the license requested.
Alternative Recommendation:
1. The Council could decide to continue the hearing; however, if the hearing is
continued beyond January 1, 1997, the Council should consider the granting of a
license extension to allow the applicant to continue to sell liquor until the
rescheduled hearing can be conducted.
2. The Council could decide to suspend or revoke the licenses. Any suspension or
revocation must, according to Minnesota State Statute 340A.415, be based upon
a finding that the licensee has failed to comply with an applicable statute, rule or
ordinance relating to alcoholic beverages. The Council must also note that no
revocation or suspension takes effect until the licensee has been afforded an
opportunity for a hearing under Section 14.57 to 14.70 of the Administrative
Procedure Act.
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:
The public hearing to consider the request for the renewal of Champps Sports Cafe On-
Sale and Sunday Liquor licenses has been scheduled for December 9, 1996. These
licenses expire January 1, 1997. Therefore, if the Council decides to continue the
hearing beyond December 9, any subsequent hearing should be held before the
licenses expire.
Respectfully submitted,
James . Prosser
City Manager
JDP:ds
8&_),
•
CHAMPPS SPORTS CAFE - OFFICERS
William Baumhauer President
Charles Redepenning Sr. Vice-President and Secretary
Vacant Treasurer
Edmund Fadel Director of Operations
•
g
•
PUBLIC SAFETY CONTACTS
NOVEMBER 1995 THROUGH OCTOBER 1996
CHAMPPS SPORT CAFE
1995 1996
Total Contacts 35 39
Criminal Contacts 23 33
"Bar Type" (Included in Crim. Contacts) (7) (13)
Alarm (2) (0)
Misc. Non-Criminal 12 6
Assists (2) (4)
Traffic (5) (1)
Inspections/Licensing (0) (0)
Medical/Fire (5) (1)
The criminal contacts for 1996 were six thefts, one threat, three drunkenesses, two
forgeries, one assault, three suspicious persons, one no pay, one misc. ordinance
violation, one order for protection, six noise complaints, four property damages, one
follow-up investigation, two disorderly conducts, and one robbery.
(Numbers in parenthesis are included in total contact figures)
9F
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Council Letter No. 367
Agenda December 9, 1996
Issue Statement:
Renewal of a 1997 On-Sale and Sunday Liquor license for DF&R Operating Company,
Inc., d/b/a Don Pablo's, 980 West 78th Street.
Background:
On November 4, 1996, the City received the renewal application and all other required
documents for the On-Sale and Sunday Liquor license for Don Pablo's. The applicant
has paid the required license fees.
The Public Safety Background investigation has been completed and reveals the
following:
• The corporate structure of the organization has changed. Ryan Suntken was
elected as general manager. A copy of the list of officers and directors of the
corporation is attached to this letter.
• All general sales, real estate and withholding taxes have been paid and are current.
i • The lease with CSM Investors, Inc. is in effect and all payments are current.
• The $10,000 bond issued by United Pacific Insurance Company has been
submitted.
• The required proof of liquor liability insurance coverage has been received showing
Safeco Insurance Company as affording the required coverage. Proof of workers'
compensation insurance coverage has also been supplied.
• A financial statement has been prepared and submitted. This statement covers the
period from March 1996 through September of 1996 and indicates that food sales
accounted for 71 % of the total sales, while liquor sales accounted for 29% of the
total sales.
From March 1996 through October 1996, there were 34 Public Safety contacts with
Don Pablo's. A breakdown of these contacts is attached to this letter.
Environmental Health staff received two complaints in 1996 regarding Don Pablo's.
The complaints involved food related problems. 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 provided to Council.
Recommended Motion:
Approve the renewal of the 1997 On-Sale and Sunday Liquor licenses for Don Pablo's
with the following stipulation:
That the requirements are met in Resolution No. 7380.
Basis for Recommendation:
1. The applicant has complied with all of the provisions of both City Codes and State
Statutes pertaining to on-sale and Sunday liquor licensing.
2. Based upon the information supplied by the applicant and the investigation
conducted, there appears to be no reason to deny the license requested.
Alternative Recommendation:
1. The Council could decide to continue the hearing; however, if the hearing is
continued beyond January 1, 1997, the Council should consider the granting of a
license extension to allow the applicant to continue to sell liquor until the
rescheduled hearing can be conducted.
2. The Council could decide to suspend or revoke the licenses. Any suspension or
revocation must, according to Minnesota State Statute 340A.415, be based upon a
finding that the licensee has failed to comply with an applicable statute, rule or
ordinance relating to alcoholic beverages. The Council must also note that no
revocation or suspension takes effect until the licensee has been afforded an
opportunity for a hearing under Section 14.57 to 14.70 of the Administrative
Procedure Act.
It appears that the licensee has not commited any violation relating to alcoholic
beverages and therefore, it is recommended that the license not be revoked or
suspended.
Discussion/Decision Mode:
The public hearing to consider the requests for the renewal of Don Pablo's On-Sale and
Sunday Liquor license has been scheduled for December 9, 1996. These licenses
expire January 1, 1997. Therefore, if the Council decides to continue the hearing
beyond December 9, any subsequent hearing should be held before the licenses
expire.
Respect Ily submitted,
James . Prosser
City Manager
JDP:ds
?Fa
•
•
DON PABLO'S - OFFICERS
David Patrick Frazier
Marc Duane Redus
William Vern Davis
Ryan Jason Suntken
President
Vice President/Secretary
Vice President
General Manager
0
9F-3
•
PUBLIC SAFETY CONTACTS
NOVEMBER 1995 THROUGH OCTOBER 1996
DF&R OPERATING COMPANY, INC. DBA DON PABLO'S
•
1996
Total Contacts 34
Criminal Contacts 27
"Bar Type" (Included in Crim. Contacts) (4)
Alarm (15)
Misc. Non-Criminal 7
Assists (2)
Traffic (0)
Inspections/Licensing (1)
Medical/Fire (4)
The criminal contacts for 1996 were three thefts, one vandalism, eight burglary alarms,
seven fire alarms, one warrant, two suspicious vehicles, one suspicious person, one open
bottle, one detox commitment, one disturbance, and one property damage.
(Numbers in parenthesis are included in total contact figures)
I0
8E_
•
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Council Letter No. 366
Agenda December 9, 1996
Issue Statement:
Renewal of 1997 Club On-Sale and Sunday Liquor licenses for Fred Babcock V.F.W.
Post No. 5555, 710 Lake Shore Drive.
Background:
On November 12, 1996, the City received the renewal applications and other required
documents for the Club On-Sale and Sunday Liquor licenses for Fred Babcock V.F.W.
Post No. 5555. The applicant has paid the required license fees.
The Public Safety background investigation has been completed and reveals the
following:
• Arlan King, Harry LaVan, and Leon Lunas were elected as new post officers in
1996. Thomas Goalen continues to serve as the other post officer. A copy of the
list of officers is attached to this letter. Roy J. Hitchcock continues to serve as club
manager. None of these individuals has any known criminal record.
• All general sales, real estate and withholding taxes have been paid and are current.
is • The property and building continue to be owned by Fred Babcock V.F.W. Post No.
5555.
• The $10,000 bond issued by Old Republic Surety Company has been submitted.
• The required proof of liquor liability insurance coverage has been received showing
Commercial Union Insurance as affording the required coverage. Proof of workers'
compensation insurance coverage has been supplied.
• An accountant's statement has been prepared and submitted. This statement covers
the period from October 1995 through September 1996 and indicates that food
sales accounted for 52% of the total sales, while liquor sales accounted for 48% of
the total sales.
From November 1995 through October 1996, there were 27 Public Safety contacts with
Fred Babcock V.F.W. Post No. 5555. This compares with 18 contacts for the previous
year. A breakdown of these contacts is attached to this letter.
Environmental Health staff received no complaints in 1996 regarding the VFW.
Club 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 provided to Council.
? e-- I
Recommended Motion:
Approve the renewal of the 1997 Club On-Sale and Sunday Liquor license for Fred
Babcock V.F.W. Post No. 5555 with the following stipulations:
That the requirements are met in Resolution No. 7380.
Basis for Recommendation:
1. The applicant has complied with all of the provisions of both City Codes and State
Statutes pertaining to club on-sale and Sunday liquor licensing.
2. Based upon the information supplied by the applicant and the investigation
conducted, there appears to be no reason to deny the renewal of the licenses
requested.
Alternative Recommendation:
1. The Council could decide to continue the hearing; however, if the hearing is
continued beyond January 1, 1997, the Council should consider the granting of a
license extension to allow the applicant to continue to sell liquor until the
rescheduled hearing can be conducted.
2. The Council could decide to suspend or revoke the licenses. Any suspension or
revocation must, according to Minnesota State Statute 340A.415, be based upon
a finding that the licensee has failed to comply with an applicable statute, rule or
ordinance relating to alcoholic beverages. The Council must also note that no
revocation or suspension takes effect until the licensee has been afforded an
opportunity for a hearing under Section 14.57 to 14.70 of the Administrative
Procedure Act.
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:
The public hearing to consider the requests for the renewal of Fred Babcock V.F.W.
Post No. 5555 club on-sale and Sunday liquor licenses has been scheduled for
December 9, 1996. These licenses expire January 1, 1997. Therefore, if the Council
decides to continue the hearing beyond December 9, any subsequent hearing should
be held before the licenses expire.
Respectfully submitted,
' Jam D. Prosser
City Manager
JDP:ds
0
•
Fred Babcock VFW Post #5555
Officers/Titles
Thomas Goalen
Arlan King
Harry LaVan
Leon Lunas
Commander
Sr. Vice-Commander
Jr. Vice-Commander
Quartermaster
0
gE--3
•
PUBLIC SAFETY CONTACTS
NOVEMBER 1995 THROUGH OCTOBER 1996
FRED BABCOCK V.F.W. POST #5555
1995 1996
Total Contacts 18 27
Criminal Contacts 12 18
"Bar Type" (Included in Crim. Contacts) (6) (2)
Alarm (0) (0)
Misc. Non-Criminal 6 9
Assists (1) (3)
Traffic (1) (0)
Inspections/Licensing (0) (0)
Medical/Fire (4) (6)
The criminal contacts for 1996 were eight thefts, three vandalisms, two drunkenesses, one
forgery, one suspicious vehicle, one suspicious person, one robbery, and one welfare
check.
(Numbers in parenthesis are included in total contact figures)
•
8p
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Council Letter No. 365
Agenda December 9, 1997
Issue Statement:
Renewal of 1997 Club On-Sale and Sunday Liquor licenses for Minneapolis-Richfield
American Legion Post 435, 6501 Portland Avenue.
Background:
On October 22, 1996, the City received the renewal applications and other required
documents for the Club On-Sale and Sunday Liquor licenses for Minneapolis-Richfield
American Legion Post 435. The applicant has paid the required license fees.
The Public Safety background investigation has been completed and reveals the
following:
• Richard Anglim was elected as a new post officer in 1996. Andrew Constans and
George Karnas continue to serve as the other post officers. A copy of the list of
officers is attached to this letter. Robert Gilbertson was elected as club manager in
1996. None of these individuals has any known criminal record.
• All general real estate taxes, state sales and withholding taxes have been paid and
• are current.
• The property and building continue to be owned by the American Legion.
• The $10,000 bond will be submitted as soon as possible.
• The required proof of liquor liability insurance coverage has been received showing
Great American Insurance Company as affording the required coverage. Proof of
workers' compensation insurance coverage has been submitted.
• An accountant's statement has been prepared and submitted. This statement covers
the period from November 1995 through October 1996 and indicates that food sales
accounted for 64% of the total sales: liquor sales accounted for 36% of the total
sales.
From November 1995 through October 1996, there were 29 Public Safety contacts with
the American Legion. This compares with 29 contacts for the previous year. A
breakdown of these contacts is attached to this letter.
There were no environmental health complaints received during this time period.
is Club 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 provided to Council.
Recommended Motion:
• Approve the renewal of the 1997 Club On-Sale and Sunday Liquor licenses for
Minneapolis-Richfield American Legion Post 435 with the following stipulations:
That the requirements are met in Resolution No. 7380.
2. That their $10,000 bond is received as soon as possible.
Basis for Recommendation:
1. The applicant has complied with all of the provisions of both City Codes and State
Statutes pertaining to Club On-Sale and Sunday Liquor licensing with the exception
of the submittal of their $10,000 bond.
2. Based upon the information supplied by the applicant and the investigation
conducted, there appears to be no reason to deny the renewal of the licenses
requested.
Alternative Recommendation:
1. The Council could decide to continue the hearing; however, if the hearing is
continued beyond January 1, 1997, the Council should consider the granting of a
license extension to allow the applicant to continue to sell liquor until the rescheduled
hearing can be conducted.
2. The Council could decide to suspend or revoke the licenses. Any suspension or
revocation must, according to Minnesota State Statute 340A.415, be based upon a
finding that the licensee has failed to comply with an applicable statute, rule or
ordinance relating to alcoholic beverages. The Council must also note that no
revocation or suspension takes effect until the licensee has been afforded an
opportunity for a hearing under Section 14.57 to 14.70 of the Administrative
Procedure Act.
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:
The public hearing to consider the request for the renewal of Minneapolis-Richfield
American Legion Post 435 Club On-Sale and Sunday Liquor licenses has been scheduled
for December 9, 1996. These licenses expire January 1, 1997. Therefore, if the Council,
decides to continue the hearing beyond December 9, any subsequent hearing should be
held before the licenses expire.
Respectfully submitted,
•
James . Prosser
City Manager
JDP:ds
?p a
0 MPLS-RICHFIELD AMERICAN LEGION POST 435
OFFICERS AND DIRECTORS
Andrew Constans - President
Richard Anglim - Secretary
George Karnas - Treasurer
0
g?J- 3
•
PUBLIC SAFETY CONTACTS
NOVEMBER 1995 THROUGH OCTOBER 1996
MPLS. - RICHFIELD AMERICAN LEGION POST 435
1995 1996
Total Contacts 29 29
Criminal Contacts 25 22
"Bar Type" (Included in Crim. Contacts) (8) (10)
Alarm (4) (6)
Misc. Non-Criminal 4 7
Assists (0) (2)
Traffic (3) (1)
Inspections/Licensing (0) (0)
Medical/Fire (1) (4)
The criminal contacts for 1996 were one theft, one threat, one vandalism, six burglary
alarms, one forgery, two assaults, one domestic, one suspicious person, one detox
commitment, four disorderly conduct, one noise complaint, one suspicious activity, and
one burglary.
(Numbers in parenthesis are included in total contact figures)
I0
RL
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Council Letter No. 364
Agenda December 9, 1996
Issue Statement:
Renewal of 1997 On-Sale and Sunday Liquor licenses for Paisan Incorporated d/b/a
Khan's Mongolian Barbeque, 500 East 78th Street.
Background:
On November 8, 1996, the City received the renewal applications and other required
documents for the On-Sale and Sunday Liquor licenses for Khan's Mongolian
Barbeque. The applicant has paid the required license fees.
The Public Safety background investigation has been completed and reveals the
following:
• The corporate structure of the organization remains unchanged from last year.
Mitchal Law continues to serve as the General Manager of the restaurant. Mitchal
Law and Paisan Law are sole owners of the restaurant. Neither of these individuals
has any known criminal record.
• The lease between the applicant and the property owner, Roy A. Bogen, is in effect
with all payments current.
• All general sales, real estate and withholding taxes have been paid and are current.
• The $10,000 bond will be issued as soon as possible.
• The required proof of liquor liability insurance and proof of workers' compensation
will be supplied as soon as possible.
• An accountant's statement has been prepared and submitted. This statement covers
the period from October 1995 through September 1996 and indicates that food sales
accounted for 87% of the total sales, while liquor sales accounted for 13% of the
total sales.
From November 1995 through October 1996, there were thirteen Public Safety contacts
with Khan's. This compares with twelve contacts for the previous year. A breakdown of
these contacts is attached to this letter.
Environmental Health staff received one complaint in 1996. It concerned debris outside
of the door. The condition was corrected 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 provided to Council.
(11
Recommended Motion:
Approve the renewal of the 1997 On-Sale and Sunday Liquor license for Khan's Mongolian
Barbeque with the following stipulations:
That the requirements are met in Resolution No. 7380.
2. That their required proof of liquor liability insurance, proof of workers' compensation
insurance and $10,000 bond information is submitted as soon as possible.
Basis for 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 with the exception of the
submittal of their required proof of liquor liability insurance, proof of workers'
compensation insurance and the $10,000 bond information.
2. Based upon the information supplied by the applicant and the investigation conducted,
there appears to be no reason to deny the license requested.
Alternative Recommendation:
1. The Council could decide to continue the hearing; however, if the hearing is continued
beyond January 1, 1997, the Council should consider the granting of a license
extension to allow the applicant to continue to sell liquor until the rescheduled hearing
can be conducted.
2. The Council could decide to suspend or revoke the licenses. Any suspension or
revocation must, according to Minnesota State Statute 340A.415, be based upon a
finding that the licensee has failed to comply with an applicable statute, rule or
ordinance relating to alcoholic beverages. The Council must also note that no
revocation or suspension takes effect until the licensee has been afforded an
opportunity for a hearing under Section 14.57 to 14.70 of the Administrative Procedure
Act.
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:
The public hearing to consider the requests for the renewal of Khan's Mongolian. Barbeque
On-Sale and Sunday Liquor licenses has been scheduled for December 9, 1996. These
licenses expire January 1, 1997. Therefore, if the Council decides to continue the hearing
beyond December 9, any subsequent hearing should be held before the licenses expire.
Respectfully submitted,
• Jame . Prosser
City M ager
JDP:ds
3 C-
LJ
PUBLIC SAFETY CONTACTS
NOVEMBER 1995 THROUGH OCTOBER 1996
KHAN'S MONGOLIAN BARBEQUE
Total Contacts
Criminal Contacts
"Bar Type" (Included in Crim. Contacts)
Alarm
Misc. Non-Criminal
Assists
Traffic
Inspections/Licensing
Medical/Fire
1995
12
11
(0)
(6)
1
(0)
(0)
(0)
(1)
1996
13
13
( 1)
(7)
0
(0)
(0)
(0)
(0)
The criminal contacts for 1996 were seven burglary alarms, three suspicious vehicles, one
suspicious person, one domestic, and one no pay.
(Numbers in parenthesis are included in total contact figures)
0
?8
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Council Letter No. 363
Agenda December 9, 1996
Issue Statement:
Renewal of 1997 On-Sale and Sunday Liquor licenses for the Ground Round of Minn.,
Inc., d/b/a The Ground Round, 1500 East 78th Street.
Background:
On November 5, 1996, staff received the renewal applications for On-Sale and Sunday
Liquor licenses for The Ground Round. All required fees have been paid.
Public Safety's investigation is complete and reveals the following:
The corporate structure of the organization has changed from last year. Russell
Savrann is now serving as President. Stephen Kiel is now serving as Vice-President
& Treasurer. Robin Moroz continues to serve as Vice-P resident/Secretary. A copy
of the list of officers of the corporation is attached to this letter. Scott Olson
continues to serve as the general manager of the restaurant. None of these
individuals has any known criminal record.
0 • All general sales, real estate and withholding taxes have been paid and are current.
• The lease with A.G. Bogen (property owner) is in effect and all payments are current.
• The $10,000 bond issued by American Manufacturers Mutual Insurance Company
has been submitted.
• The applicant will supply proof.of workers' compensation insurance and liquor liability
insurance coverage as soon as possible.
• A financial statement has been prepared and submitted. This statement covers the
period from October 1995 through September 1996 and indicates that food sales
accounted for 64% of the total sales, while liquor sales accounted for 36% of the
total sales.
From November 1995 through October 1996, there were 46 Public Safety contacts with
the Ground Round. This compares with 32 contacts for the previous year. A
breakdown of these contacts is attached to this letter.
There were no Environmental Health complaints received during this time period.
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 provided to Council.
g(5-I
Recommended Motion:
Approve the renewal of the 1997 On-Sale and Sunday Liquor licenses for The Ground
Round of Minn., Inc. with the following stipulation:
1. That the requirements are met in Resolution No. 7380.
2. That proof of their workers' compensation insurance and liquor liability insurance
information is submitted as soon as possible.
Basis for 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 licenses with the exception of the
submittal of their workers' compensation and liquor liability insurance.
2. Based upon the information supplied by the applicant and the investigation conducted,
there appears to be no reason to deny the renewal of the licenses requested.
Alternative Recommendation:
1. The Council could decide to continue the hearing; however, if the hearing is continued
beyond January 1, 1997, the Council should consider the granting of a license
extension to allow the applicant to continue to sell liquor until the rescheduled hearing
can be conducted. ,
2. The Council could decide to suspend or revoke the licenses. Any suspension or
revocation must, according to Minnesota State Statute 340A.415, be based upon a
finding that the licensee has failed to comply with an applicable statute, rule or
ordinance relating to alcoholic beverages. The Council must also note that no
revocation or suspension takes effect until the licensee has been afforded an
opportunity for a hearing under Section 14.57 to 14.70 of the Administrative Procedure
Act.
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:
The public hearing to consider the requests for the renewal of The Ground Round of Minn
Inc., On-Sale and Sunday Liquor licenses has been scheduled for December 9, 1996.
These licenses expire January 1, 1997. Therefore, if the Council decides to continue the
hearing beyond December 9, any subsequent hearing should be held before the licenses
expire.
Respectfully submitted,
Jam s . Prosser
City ager
JDP:ds
36-a
E
0
THE GROUND ROUND INC.
Partners/Officers and Titles:
Russell Savrann President
Robin Moroz Vice-President, Secretary
Stephen Kiel Vice President, Treasurer
Scott Olson General Manager
86-3
40
PUBLIC SAFETY CONTACTS
NOVEMBER 1995 THROUGH OCTOBER 1996
GROUND ROUND RESTAURANT
1995 1996
Total Contacts 32 46
Criminal Contacts 23 37
"Bar Type" (Included in Crim. Contacts) (6) (7)
Alarm ( 1) (11)
Misc. Non-Criminal 9 9
Assists (5) (6)
Traffic (3) (0)
Inspections/Licensing (0) (0)
Medical/Fire (1) (3)
The criminal contacts for 1996 were three thefts, one threat, two vandalisms, eleven
burglary alarms, two drunkenesses, two forgeries, one DWI, one assault, two suspicious
persons, one suspicious activity, one no pay, one warrant, two vehicle thefts, one
disturbance, two follow-up investigations, one mental case commitment, and three
property damages.
(Numbers in parenthesis are included in total contact figures)
•
stq
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Council Letter No. 362
Agenda December 9, 1996
Issue Statement:
Renewal of 1997 On-Sale and Sunday Liquor licenses for Chi-Chi's, Inc., d/b/a Chi
Chi's Mexican Restaurante, 7717 Nicollet Avenue.
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
on November 19, 1996. At that time, statistical information relating to Public Safety
P_I
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 Cornell L. Moore, Attorney for 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 also was 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 to address the steps that will be taken.
On December 1, 1996, Public Safety staff received an action plan from Cornell L.
Moore. The action 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 gameroom area. This redesigning will also add a
complete new bar and include a comprehensive redecorating package.
0
p-a
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.
Recommended Motion:
Approve the renewal of the 1997 On-Sale and Sunday Liquor licenses for Chi Chi's
Mexican Restaurante with the following stipulations:
That the requirements are met in Resolution No. 7380.
2. That the license is 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. During the month of March 1997, the license would be revisited by the City
Council for consideration of a license for the remaining portion of 1997.
3. That a tavern license which allows for dancing on the premises not be granted for
1997.
Basis for Recommendation:
1. The applicant has complied with all of the provisions of both City Codes and State
Statutes pertaining to on-sale and Sunday liquor licensing.
2. Based upon the information supplied by the applicant and the investigation
conducted, denial may be warranted. However, it would be appropriate to permit
Chi Chi's an opportunity to correct these problems. Staff will closely monitor Chi
Chi's efforts in dealing with a significant increase in alcohol related calls during
1996. For that reason, the above stipulations should apply for the first quarter of
1997 with a review by City Council to be conducted in March 1997.
Alternative Recommendation:
1. The Council could decide to continue the hearing; however, if the hearing is
continued beyond January 1, 1997, the Council should consider the granting of a
license extension to allow the applicant to continue to sell liquor until the
rescheduled hearing can be conducted.
2. The Council could decide to suspend or revoke the licenses. Any suspension or
revocation must, according to Minnesota State Statute 340A.415, be based upon a
finding that the licensee has failed to comply with an applicable statute, rule or
ordinance relating to alcoholic beverages. The Council must also note that no
S Arevocation 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:
The public hearing to consider the requests for the renewal of Chi Chi's Mexican
Restaurante On-Sale and Sunday Liquor licenses has been scheduled for December 9,
1996. These licenses expire January 1, 1997. Therefore, if the Council decides to
continue the hearing beyond December 9, any subsequent hearing should be held
before the licenses expire.
Respectfully submitted,
James . Prosser
City Manager
0 JDP:cak
vq-4
•
CHI CHI'S MEXICAN RESTAURANTE
Partners/Officer and Titles
Roger Chamness
Robert Trebing
Todd Doyle
Kathleen Sorensen
Robert Gonda
Lawrence Ramaekers
President
Vice President
Secretary
Assistant Secretary
Treasurer
Chief Executive Officer
n
U
M-5
.J
PUBLIC SAFETY CONTACTS
NOVEMBER 1995 THROUGH OCTOBER 1996
CHI CHI'S MEXICAN RESTAURANTE
1995 1996
Total Contacts 66 122
Criminal Contacts 50 113
"Bar Type" (Included in Crim. 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 twenty-one thefts, six vandalisms, two burglary
alarms, thirteen drunkenesses, three forgeries, one DWI, six assaults, six suspicious
vehicles, three suspicious persons, five domestics, one no pay, two miscellaneous
ordinance violations, one warrant, eight property damages, five vehicle thefts, one
possess property, ten disturbances, nine disorderly conducts, one sex crime, one personal
injury, five follow-up investigations, one recovery, one detox commitment, and one
statute violation.
(Numbers in parenthesis are included in total contact figures)
?4- ?)
Richfield Liquor Establishments Calls for Service Data
1995 -1996
1995 *
Assault Disturbance Drunkenness All Other TOTAL
American Legion 1 5 4 17
Champs 1 2 3 22 }
Chi Chi's 1 14 8 38
Don Pablo's 0 0 0 0 >
Ground Round 0 5 2 22
Kahn's 0 0 0 11 1 1
VFW 0 0 3 15, 1
TOTAL 3 26, 20 125 174
* 1995 data is for the period Novermber 1, 1994 through October 31, 1995
•
"" 1996 data is for the period Novermber 1, 1995 through October 31, 1996
1996 **
Assault Disturbance Drunkenness All Other TOTAL
American Legion 3 5 1 20 21->
Champs 2 3 5 23
Chi Chi's 6 25 15 59 tt?;>
Don Pablo's 0 1 1 31 33
Ground Round 2 3 3 28 ;-"
Kahn's 0 1 0 11 12
VFW 0 1 2 23
TOTAL 13, 39 27 195 274
Chi Chi's
1995' 1996'
Assault 1 6
Disturbance 14 25
Drunkenness 8 15
All Other, 38 59
TOTAL 61, 105
1995 data is for the period Novermber 1, 1994 through October 31, 1995
1996 data is for the period Novermber 1, 1995 through October 31, 1996
•
? p I-'1
•
U
C ?
Q C, C, Q
? ? ¦ ¦i
LL
Y)
c
L
Y
7?
?a
0 o
C7 [[
c o
0 :5
a_
N
C
0
E a,
L V
ca (n
w o
O N
iC
CU
J LO
cr)
w
L
U
L
U
L
U
cc
O O
N O
CL
E
cz
L
U
c
? C
U _o
? Q1
J
Q
O
m to V N
•
•
0
? U
Ln 0
Q 0 0 Q
? ? ¦
cD
T
/
LO
N
L T
L O
U ?
Q
E
O
U
4 '
r
LO
LO
i
co Co
c?
0 00 0 0 0 0 O
N co (D 'IT cli
rn
rn
•
•
q)q - Ci
(D
U
L
Q?
L
0
T
U rn
T
L
U
t
U
G)
m -
Ln M EN r,
- Y
C O _
LO
r
i
N ._
I
LO
(.0
07 CY)
T T
® ? r
I
(00 `O oIt ? 0 0 0
L
a
N
y
N
c
a?
Y
C
7
0 C\l
a?
C
cC
0
75
N
Q
S/q-/D
Lo
U'
•
?
o ? -
i w ?
-_ /)
(
Q Q
LL
c
L
Y
•
cn
C
E
L V
L
N
( L
W O
L (n
0
FQ
CU
J cD
. r
t
V
c c
Z3 c
O p
CD m
0 o
Y)
L
U
L
U
s
I N
I ?
E
c?
L
U
c
«s c
U p
? J
Q
O O O O O O O
N O co co V N
T T
0?- l 1
•
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:
I. BACKr.RnTINn STATF.MF.NT
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 the City Code. Although, the
. provisions of that Section describe in a general way what is
expected of licensees in the proper conduct of the licensed
activity, the City Council is concerned that licensees should
have a more specific understanding of the types of conduct,
generally described in the Code, which may subject their licenses
to discipline; and further that they have a clear understanding
of the scope and nature of the discipline which may be imposed
for certain specific conduct. The levels of discipline described
in this resolution will be imposed only in accordance with the
applicable provisions of law. The list of activities and conduct
contained in this resolution is not intended to be exhaustive,
but rather concentrates on the types of conduct most frequently
observed at licensed establishments. Other activity or conduct
which is detrimental to the public safety, health, morals and
welfare and which constitutes a violation of the provisions of
Section 1200 of the City Code may also subject liquor licenses to
discipline. The actions which the City may take in accordance
with this resolution are not intended to preclude such further
actions such as actions in law or in equity or criminal
prosecution available to the City for the conduct described in
this resolution.
II SPEMPTC PRnTiTRTTF:. MNnurT ANn PRnP -qED SANrTTONS
A. Noise and nthPr iii c+„rhi nar C`nnduri- Wi i-hi n nr NPar the
LinpnQPd PTPmicec
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):
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
(34-13
9 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
0 make requests for service in situations where the licensee is
gR ??F
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. SF±rvi ncr Al crnhnl i n Beyera[7P-q BPynnc3 i-hcz Tnt-ri ar of tha
Pr(=M sPS wi th Al cnhr,, i n Rp ueT= 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
is 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.
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. PPrmi ttinQ nrrunannjr to Fxntmcmd the T imi is Dermi++cA TInder the
• Uni fnrm Fire Cnr3e 9-R-114 ( Qx7Prrrnwdj n^ )
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.
0 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. Fan;I;i-ating Gamhlinn? 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. EffenF of RucnPngi on nr RPVnnafi nn of Fnnr7 T i ncn?c 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.
9,4-/7
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.
Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield this
14th day of December 1987.
Jo n N. amilton, May
ATTEST:
/• F.A?
Thomas Ferber, City Clerk
is
DORSEY & WHITNEY LLP
MINNEAPOLIS PILLSBURY CLNTL•R SOUTH New YOWK
WASHINCTON. MC. 220 SOUTH SIXTH STREET DENVEiL
LONDON MINNEAPOLIS. MINNESOTA 55402-1498
SEATTLE
NRUSSPLS TELEeHONE: (612) 340-2600
FARC:O
HONG KONG FAX: (612) 340-2965
BILLINGS
Des MOINGS CORNFU.L MOORS
WOG:HUSTER (612a 340.=1 MIJSOVLA
COSTA MESA GREAT FALLS
December 2, 1996
Ms. Betsy Christianson
City of Richfield
Department of Public Service
6700 Portland Avenue South
Richfield, Minnesota 55423
Re: Chi-Chi's Restaurante, 7717 Nicollet Avenue South, Richfield,
Minnesota
Dear Ms. Christianson:
We appreciate this opportunity to review with you the proposed plan of our
client, the licenseholder, Chi-Chi's Restaurante, 7717 Nicollet Avenue South,
Richfield, Minmesota (hereinafter referred to as "licenseholder") to address the Public
Safety Department's concerns regarding the activity at the above-mentioned address.
The requirement of a tavern license for the licenseholder to allow dancing at
the above-mentioned address is a new issue, that over the last twenty years has never
been raised or discussed with the present or predecessor licenseholder. The list of
police calls to the licenseholder has been reviewed and mutually reduced to a much
smaller number than originally discussed, in fact, a number of the items listed as calls
for police assistance were initiated by the department itself, as crime prevention
efforts.
The licenseholder acknowledges the need for a review of the current and
proposed procedures to insure the safety and peaceful enjoyment of our place of
business by our patrons and the public in general, and we pledge our support in order
to affect and maintain the same.
We propose the following actions on the part of the licenseholder:
1. The licenseholder will continue its intensive in-house training program
. on the subject of alcohol awareness, in addition, the licenseholder has
engaged an outside provider, of exceptional expertise, to perform an in-
depth seminar to discuss the recognition of over consumption of
alcohol, by on sale patrons. This training will involve and be required
of all members of licenseholder's wait and bar staff. The provider of the
M-lq DORSEY & WHITNEY LLP
C
Ms. Betsy Christianson
December 2, 1996
Page 2
widely recognized training program is the Minnesota Restaurant
Association. The first session will take place on December 15, 1996 and
occur every six months thereafter.
We invite the Public Safety Department to attend and monitor these sessions,
and if possible, to also make a presentation of methods to minimize any aspects of
criminal disturbance as might be applicable under the circumstances.
2. Security personnel involved in licenseholder's operation have been
provided with voice communications devices in order to stay in touch
with management at all points of the licenseholder's premises, the
security personnel involved in the licenseholder's operation, all
employees of licenseholder, which insures uniformity of training, and
consistency in the application *of the rules and procedures governing the
security operation of the licenseholder. All security personnel are
interviewed and trained by the head of security, who has been in the
employment of licenseholder for over three years. All personnel are
personally interviewed and evaluated by a resident member of the
senior management of the licenseholder.
In order to assure our patrons and the general public of a safe and secure
environment, we maintain security personnel as follows:
1. Sunday night one security person is on duty;
2. Monday, Tuesday and Wednesday nights, two security persons are on
duty;
3. Thursday night four security persons are on duty; and
4. Friday and Saturday nights six security persons are on duty.
The security procedures in place include a physical walk around of the outside
of the licenseholder's premises to minimize any outside disturbance. We request and
seek any further police assistance and advice as a preventive measure that the
Department can provide.
Licenseholder has instituted additional procedures in order to minimize
disturbance and crowd control in the place of business:
1. There is a cover charge on the weekends in order to attempt to control
• the size of the patronage.
2. Licenseholder maintains a strict head count of 280 patrons, for obvious
safety and insurance reasons. The licenseholder conducts an ongoing
head count by a manual counter.
DORSEY & WHITNEY LLP gd-cgD
•
Ms. Betsy Christianson
December 2,1996
Page 3
3. The licenseholder has instituted a mandatory coat check policy on
weekends to mitigate the opportunity for patrons to introduce concealed
weapons to the premises. Licenseholder has constructed a suitable coat
storage room for this purpose.
The licenseholder monitors and surveys the patronage for unsavory and ill
reputed patrons, and as of this review, feels satisfied that that element is not
frequenting the premises on any regular or significant basis.
The licenseholder is considering the redesigning of the area devoted to social
dancing in order to alleviate crowded conditions and to accommodate the need for
modernization of the area in January of 1997 assuming that the permit for social
dancing is extended. The possibility exists for a demarcation of the present space that
will afford licenseholder a great flexibility in the use of the designated area. The
licenseholder estimates that the remodeling will cost between $80-100 Thousand
Dollars to redesign and modernize the area.
• The licenseholder intends to downsize the existing dance floor by one-half in
addition to a supplemental dance floor in the game room area to address any
potential problems caused thereby. The licenseholder also intends to add a complete
new bar and a comprehensive re-decorating package.
The licenseholder has an average of 5,000 patrons per week and is profitable,
this is the oldest and largest Chi-Chi's Restaurante in America. We request your
assistance in maintaining our base of jobs and employment for our mutual benefit.
We request that our application for license renewal be accepted and approved
as submitted.
Yo rs very truly,
ornell L. Moore
CLM/jkt
Enclosure
i
t7 i?
I
pAR.?C? PLooi? ? _? __._
I
12/04/96 WED 16:12 FAIT 16123402644 DORSEY WHITNEY
OORSEY & WHITNEY LLP
•
MINNEAPOLIS
WASHINGTON. D.C.
LONDON
BRUSSELS
HONG. X014C
DES MOINES
ROCHESTER
COSTA MP,.SA
PILLSBURY CENTER SOUTH
220 SOUTH SIXTH STRPCT
N4ZNNFAPOLIS, MINNESOTA 55402-1493
TELEPHONE: (612) 340-2600
FAx: (612) 340-2868
CORNMLL MOORE
(6121340-6331.
December 4, 1996
Via Facsimile
Ms. Betsy Christianson
City of Richfield
Department of Public Service
6700 Portland Avenue South
Richfield, Minnesota 55423
Re: Chi-Chi's Restaurante, 7717 Nicollet Avenue South, Richfield, Minnesota
•
Dear Ms. Christianson:
Z002
NEW YORK
DENVER
SEATTLE
FAR GO
AILLINGS
MISSOULA
GREAT FALLS
In reference to our telephone conversation of today during which we discussed your
proposed staff comments and recommendations regarding the license for Chi Chi's Restaurante for the
year 1997. We think that the stipulations suggested are harsh and unreasonable and would suggest the
following:
• In the event that a one year license can not be issued it seems that a six month extension
with stipulations could be structured.
• It appears that the license without the permission to allow social dancing is
unreasonable in that this activity has occurred at the licenseholder since the early
days of the licenseholder.
I hope that the above states clearly our position and look forward to receiving from you any
comments, suggestions or modified language prior to Monday at the Council meeting.
Please advise us of our position on the agenda and accept this letter as confirmation of
our attendance.
0 CLM/oes
Yours very truly,
0,44 h-104,
Cornell L. Moore
714
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Council Letter NO-361
Agenda December 9, 1996
Issue Statement:
Request for a public dance license for El Pulso De La Vida, 1145 Lilac Circle, Victoria,
Minnesota to be located at St. Peter's Catholic Church, 6730 Nicollet Avenue for
December 14 through December 21, 1996.
Background:
The applicant, Thomas William Bright, submitted an application on November 21, 1996
for a public dance license. These dances are scheduled for December 14 and 21.
They are scheduled to begin at 8 p.m. and end promptly at 1a.m. Dancing is done to a
disc jockey and is the only activity taking place. The applicant has a signed lease
agreement with St. Peter's Catholic Church for the dances to take place at their
location.
Staff has had several conversations with the owner of the establishment and has
reviewed all requirements with him thoroughly. There will be no alcohol of any kind
served to anyone or available during these dances. The owner has contacted Public
Safety and made arrangements for a police officer to be present at all public dances
with the cost being incurred by the owner. Arrangements will be made for an officer to
be present for each evening's activities. There have been no problems during dances
held in the past.
Recommended Motion:
Staff recommends approval of a public dance license for El Pulso De La Vida, 1145
Lilac Circle, Victoria, Minnesota to be held at St. Peter's Catholic Church, 6730 Nicollet
Avenue, for December 14 through December 21, 1996.
Basis of Recommendation:
1. The owner has submitted the required information and paid the fees.
2. The owner has had several discussions with Public Safety staff and has agreed to
all the requirements of the public dance ordinance.
Alternative Recommendation:
The Council could decide not to approve the public dance license which would mean
that no dancing could take place on the premises.
Discussion/Decision Mode:
The request for a public dance license is presented to Council for their consideration at
this time.
Respectf ly submitted,
(2V
. Prosser
Ja fanager
City 9 JDP:cak
?7 65-
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Council Letter NO. 360
Agenda December 9, 1996
Issue Statement:
Award of contract for Wood Lake Dredging and Wetland Enhancement Project and
consideration of a resolution regarding negative declaration of need for an
environmental impact statement.
Background:
Since its last dredging in 1971 Wood Lake has aged and filled in with sediment to a
point that the lake doesn't perform its stormwater functions and some species of ducks
no longer visit the Nature Center. Some stormwater storage capacity has also been
lost.
The project was designed to re-create the environmental features that attract a wider
variety of ducks than are now present, as well as to provide for increased storm water
storage capacity. In addition to achieving these goals, the. project creates new
treatment basins that will pre-treat storm water entering the Nature Center, remove
sediment and store that sediment in such a way as to make it easier to clean in the
future.
Bids for this project were opened at 10 a.m. on Wednesday, November 27. Seven
contractors placed bids for the basic dredging work, which includes dumping the
dredged materials on site. The three lowest bidders are listed below:
Veit Construction $352,950
Park Construction $499,960
Barbarossa & Sons $553,800
Contractors also bid to remove the dredged material from the Nature Center. The cost
of removal at this time is very high because the material would be wet and sealed
trucks would be needed to haul it. An additional contract.will most likely be awarded in
the future for removing the dredged materials after they have dewatered for a period of
many months to a few years.
With the assistance of Pete Willenbring, WSB Engineering, staff has completed the
environmental review and attached is a list of the findings of fact leading to a negative
declaration of need for the environmental impact statement.
Recommended Motion:
1. Accept the bid minutes/tabulation and award a contract for Wood Lake Dredging
and Wetland Enhancement Project to Veit Construction for the excavation and
storage on site for $352,950.
-7 G- I
0 . 2. Approve the resolution regarding a negative declaration of need for an
environmental impact statement.
Basis of Recommendation:
1. Veit Construction has worked for the City of Richfield before and is a qualified
contractor.
2. Funds are available for this project in the 1997 Capital Budget.
3. The project is needed and is timely considering the Richfield Lake Outlet Project and
the Wood Lake Outlet Project (also known as the Humboldt Avenue Storm Sewer
Project).
Alternative Recommendation:
1. Council could reject all bids; however, the price bid by Veit Construction is below the
Engineers Estimate of costs and it is doubtful that better bid prices can be attained
by re-bidding the project.
2. Council could award a contract to have materials removed from the site at this time.
However, the cost to do so is much higher than the cost to store materials on site.
3. Council could award a contract to another bidder. However, Veit Construction
submitted the lowest bid by a responsible bidder meeting specifications.
Discussion/Decision Mode:
This item is scheduled for the December 9, 1996 Council meeting. Action is requested
at this time so the work may be done over the winter and in coordination with the
project to provide a new floating bridge.
Respectfully submitted,
James Prosser
City Manager
JDP:cak
•
/6
. RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION ON NEGATIVE DECLARATION OF NEED FOR
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT (EIS)
FOR WOOD LAKE DREDGING AND WETLAND RESTORATION PROJECT
WHEREAS, the City of Richfield prepared an Environmental Assessment
Worksheet (EAW) for a proposed dredging and wetland restoration project at Wood
Lake in the City of Richfield; and
WHEREAS, the EAW was published in the EQB Monitor of November 4, 1996
and comments received December 4, 1996; and
WHEREAS, comments were received from the Minnesota Pollution Control
Agency (MPCA), the Metropolitan Council, and the Minnesota Department of Natural
Resources (MDNR), and each comment was reviewed and information was made
available to address each of the issues of concern; and
WHEREAS, the Metropolitan Council staff conducted a review of the EAW and
concluded that the EAW was complete and accurate with respect to regional concerns;
and
WHEREAS, the MDNR conducted a review of the EAW and also concluded the
EAW was complete and accurate with respect to regional concerns and indicated an
EIS is not necessary for the project,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of
Richfield, Minnesota, hereby passes this resolution making a negative declaration of
need for an EIS for the Wood Lake Dredging and Wetland Enhancement Project.
Adopted by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this 9th day of
December, 1996.
Martin J. Kirsch, Mayor
E.
ATTEST:
Thomas P. Ferber, City Clerk
•
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Bid Opening
November 27, 1996
10:00 a.m.
Wood Lake Dredging and Wetland Enhancement Project
Bid No. 96-25 City Project No. 503-30-578
Pursuant to requirements of Resolution No. 1015, a meeting of the Administrative Staff
was called by Thomas P. Ferber, City Clerk, who announced that the purpose of the
meeting was to receive, open and read aloud, bids for Wood Lake dredging and
wetland enhancement project, Bid No. 96-25, as advertised in the official newspaper on
November 6, 1996.
Present: Thomas Ferber, City Clerk
Bruce Palmborg, Community Development Director
Cheryl Krumholz, City Manager Representative
0
•
The following bids were submitted and read aloud:
Contractor Bid Security Total Bid Alternate Bid
Ames Construction 5% Bid Bond $1,062,000.00 $1,961,000.00
Barbarossa & Sons 5% Bid Bond $ 553,800.00 none
Carl Bolander & Sons 5% Bid Bond $ 798,360.00 $1,331,360.00
Kevitt Excavating, Inc. 5% Bid Bond $ 572,050.00 $1,027,050.00
Park Construction Co. 5% Bid Bond $ 499,960.00 none
Shafer Contracting Co. 5% Bid Bond $ 960,500.00 $1,220,500.00
Veit Construction 5% Bid Bond $ 352,950.00 $ 546,850.00
The City Clerk announced that the bids would be tabulated and considered at the
December 9, 1996 City Council Meeting.
Thomas P. Ferber City Clerk
Dec-05-96 01!46P P.03
ES-
•
WOOD LAKE DREDGING AND WETLAND RESTORA TTON PROJECT
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET COMMENTSIRESPONSES
The City of Richfield prepared an environmental assessment worksheet for proposed
dredging and wetland restoration at Wood Lake in the City of Richfield. The EAW was
published in the I? QB Monitor on November 4, 1996 with comments to be received by
December 4, 1996. In response to the comments received on the EAW, each agency which
commented on the contents of the EAW is listed below along with a response from the City
for each of the issues of concern. In addition, other comments have also been received
concerning this project through the DNR permit process, and these comments and the City's
response to each of these comments are also included.
L Metropolitan Council
Comment A: Council staff has conducted a review of this environmental assessment
worksheet (FAW ) to determine its adequacy and accuracy in addressing
regional concerns. The staff review has concluded that the EAW is
complete and accurate with respect to regional concerns and raises no
major issues of consistency with Council policies. An EIS is not
necessary for regional purposes.
Response : No response necessary
Comment B: Item 12 - Physical Impacts on Water Resources:
Council Policy 3-4 of the Water Resources Management Guide/Policy
Plan, Part 3, states that the Council will seek to preserve all protected
and unprotected natural watercourses - including wetlands, channels,
and flood plains - to enhance water quality and quantity, and to
preserve their ecological functions. The Council's policy follows the
primary directive of the Wetland Conservation Act which recommends
avoidance as a first alternative to wetland destruction. After avoidance,
minimization of impacts and mitigation follow as altematives.
The EAW states that the proposed project will require the dredging of
approximately 25 acres of wetlands. The project proposes to dredge
139 acres of lake to four feet and 3.6 acres to eight feet. Most or all of
the proposed dredging should qualify as restoration mitigation
according to the Wetland Conservation ,Act. The project also proposes
to construct 7,0 acres ofpretreatmcnt basins.
F. U1VP1d1JAn 1,166 /lit-C)1' 947m11
Dec-05-96 01!47P
-7 6
Findings (#'Fact
Wood Lake Dredging and Wetland Enhancement Restoration
Environmental Assessment Worksheet
Page ?
Council policy does not encourage the use of wetlands to construct
sediment detention basins. Although Council staff normally would
recommend finding alternative sites on the property to create a
sediment basin, it appears from this permit application that there are no
feasible alternative site locations.
P.04
•
Council staff is in agreement with the intent of the overall project, but
does sec the need to consistently apply Wetland Conservation Act
requirements. A new Army Corps of Engineers Section 404 may be
required for this project. The original permit only covered 1.8 acres of
wetland excavation. The proposed project is to dredge approximately
25 acres of wetland. The project proposer needs to work with the
Corps of Engineers to determine the extent of dredging that needs to be
covered in a new permit request. Mitigation which is not mentioned in
the EAW, should occur at 2:1 replacement ratio as required by the
Wetland Conservation Act. Excess over 1:1 replacement may be
eligible for a buffer and storm water pond credit. A buffer area of
natural vegetative cover should be maintained around the perimeter of
all wetlands including those created as a result of mitigation along with
the practice of pre-setting all runoff before it is discharged to the
wetlands. In addition, it is imperative that measures be taken to assure
the long-term integrity of the wetlands.
Response: The Wetland Conservation Act of 1991 was put in place to protect
wetlands from filling and draining activities which remove the net
acreage of wetlands %vithin the State of Minnesota.. This project is not
covered by the Wetland Conservation Act as draining and filling arc not
the activities undertaken. Mitigation will not be required as this falls
outside of the Wetland Conservation Act. However, the City feels the
net environmental impacts to the wetland will be positive and that
pretreatment of water will occur prior to discharge into Wood Lake.
This project is not being undertaken as a result of new development in
the City of Richfield, but is intended to rectify and existing situation in
an effort to protect the intended uses of the Wood Lake Nature Center
and the viability of the Wood Lake wetland complex for educational,
recreational and storm water management uses.
F AV1'WIM1000.I.JIMP Wrr;
Dec-05-96 01!47P P.05
76-(o
•
Findings gf*Fact
wood Lake Dredging and Wetland F,nhancement Restoration
Environmental Assessment Worksheet
Page 3
Comment C. Item 17 - T;rosion and Sedimentation
The EAW states that erosion control measures will be used as a
sediment control measure during construction. Council staff
recommend the sue ofthe Minnesota Pollution Control Agency's urban
"best management practices", titled Protecting Water Quality in Urban
Areas or an equivalent set of standards for erosion control. This is
consistent with the C'ouncil's adopted Interim Strategy to Reduce
Nonpoint Source Pollution to all Metropolitan Water Bodies.
Response: Erosion and sedimentation control measures will be used during the
construction of this project in accordance with the measures outlined in
• the document "Protecting Water Quality in Urban Areas".
Comment D: Item 18 - Water (.duality - Surface Water Runoff
Item 18 requires the project proposer to compare the quantity and
quantity of site runoff before and after the project, to describe the
methods to be used to manage and/or treat runoff, and to identify the
routes and receiving water bodies for runoff from the site. The EAW
does not adequately address these requirements. Information on the
methods to be used and routes and receiving water bodies for runoff
From the site must be included in the EAW.
Response: The proposed project will not alter the quantity or quality of runoff
directly from the project site. as a majority of the project site is
impervious (open water areas) in the existing condition and will remain
so. I iowever, it is anticipated that the quality of water discharged from
Wood Lake to the Mississippi River will be improved by the
implementation of this project by providing physical settling in the
storm water treatment basin areas, and biological uptake and additional
settling in Wood Lake.
•
L 1WPW1M1uaa 141POP WIT
Dec-05-96 01:47P P.06
-76-
0
Findings of Fact
Wood Luke Dredging and Wetland Enhancement Restoration
Environmental Assessment Worksheet
Pege4
II. Minnesota Pollution Control Agency
Comment A: Detail on the storm water treatment ponds must be provided to assess
the effectiveness of the mitigation measure. The EAW should provide
information regarding the outlets from the ponds, the cross section of
the ponds, and the velocity of flow in the ponds. The ratio of surface
area to discharge rate for lower flows should not exceed 1.3x10-4
feet/second. The EAW needs to demonstrate that this will be the case.
The maximum expected flow velocities expected in the ponds should
be indicated. We recommend a velocity of less than two feet per
second on an annual basis to minimize resuspension of settle particles,
and a flow rate of less than five feet per second on a less frequent basis •
(such as the ten-year-event design flow) to prevent damage to the
vegetated pond banks. Long thin ponds or swales (like those proposed)
can be effective treatment systems for small flows, but they will not be
effective if not properly designed because large flows can resuspend
materials and erode the structures, essentially undoing the benefits of
low flow treatment.
Response: The treatment basins constructed at Wood Lake will treat
approximately 90% of the total storm water runoff directed to the lake
from existing storm water conveyance systems. These storm water
treatment basins will be undersized relative to NURP
recommendations, as outlined by Dr. Walker, however the treatment
area will be maximized to the extent available on the site. The basins
total suspended solids removal efficiency is estimated at 60% to 75%.
Comment B: Will the storm water treatment ponds be constructed in existing
wetlands? This is not discussed in the EAW. The impact to existing
wetlands caused by the excavation of storm water treatment ponds must
be discussed and mitigation measures detailed. Measures taken to
comply with Wetland Compensatory Mitigation required under state
and federal law should have been discussed in the EAW.
F ?,W7'WIMloon 14LIVI, WID
0ec-05-96 01:47P
•
Findings nfFact
Wood Lake Dredging and Wetland Enhancement Resloralion
Environmental Assessment Worksheet
Page S
P.07
Response. The Wetland Conservation Act of 1991 was put in place to protect
wetlands from filling and draining activities which remove the net
acreage of wetlands within the State of Minnesota. This project is not
covered by the Wctland Conservation Act as draining and filling are not
the activities undertaken. Mitigation will not be required as this falls
outside of the Wetland Conservation Act. However, the City feels the
net environmental impacts to the wetland will be positive and that
pretreatment of water will occur prior to discharge into Wood Luke.
This project is not being undertaken as a result of new development in
the City of Richfield, but is intended to rectify and existing situation in
an effort to protect the intended uses of the Wood Lake Nature Center
and the viability of the Wood Lake wetland complex for educational,
. recreational and storm water management uses.
Comment C: Item 8 of the EAW should indicate that the disposal of dredged material
will require a State Disposal System (SDS) permit from the MPCA.
Please contact Judy Mader,, MPCA Water Quality Division. at (612)
297-7315 for further information.
Response: This has been addressed through the construction documents and Judy
Mader has been contacted.
Comment D: The temporary spoils disposal site must be described and assessed to
determine if there are wetlands impacts or other impacts associated
with the storage. Some adjustments in the extent and exact location of
the proposed site may need to be made to avoid, minimize or mitigate
impacts. How long does the City anticipate storing spoils on-site in the
temporary storage area? The final disposal of spoil material should be
discussed in more depth.
Response: The City has addressed the spoils storage site locution, and may choose
to relocate this site to nearby upland areas. The City does not anticipate
• storage to occur for more than one year.
Comment E. The document indicates that Wood Lake would be pumped dry, kept
dry during construction, and then refilled with water that was pumped
N; IWNWIVI n. 14V'0,-.BPI;
Dec-05-96 01:47P
(;- 1
Findings gl'Fact
Wood Lake Dredging and Wetland F,nhancement Restoration
Environmental Assessment Worksheet
Page t
to Richfield Lake. This action appears to have potential impact on both
Wood Lake and Richfield Lake that should he further elaborated on in
the EAW in order to access if there will be significant impact from this
action.
P.08
E
Response: Pumping of water from Wood Lake to Richfield Lake will allow for the
construction time on this project to be shortened considerably. By
improving the conditions under which construction will occur this will
reduce the overall impacts on Wood Lake by reducing suspended
sediment within the lake basin and the settling of these suspended
sediments in different areas of the lake. In addition, by restoring the
water level in Wood Lake immediately after construction it is
anticipated that this too will minimize the impact of construction upon .
the lake. The impact on Richfield Lake is anticipated to be minimal as
this constriction will take place during a dormancy period for all
vegetation within the lake. In addition, Richfield Lake is and has been
susceptible to large bounces in water elevation during storm events.
Therefore, vegetation around Richfield Lake is accustomed to frequent
inundation resulting from fluctuations in water elevations.
III. Minnesota Department of Natural Resources
Comment A: The Department of Natural Resources (DNR) has reviewed the EAW
for the Wood Lake Dredging and Wetland Restoration project. Our
only project-specific comment is that the proposed dredging should
result in improved habitat conditions in the system. We encourage
continuation of existing contacts with DNR staff through the DNR
permit process and beyond. We do not recommend preparation of an
environmental impact statement (EIS).
Response: No response necessary
•
P IWWAI JIJ(JU.114L't)F:W111)
Dec-05-96 01:48P
Findings (?f FUGI
Wood Take Dredging and Wetland Enhancement Restoration
Environmenfal Assessment Worksheet
Page
Additional comments and concerns received either after the publication of the FAW or
during the DNR permit review process are listed below;
L Hennepin Conservation District
Comment A: Would like to see more details about claimed sediment and phosphorus
reduction rates.
Response: The treatment basins constructed at Wood Lake will treat
approximately 90% of the total storm water runoff directed to the lake
from existing storm water conveyance systems. These storm water
treatment basins will be undersized relative to NURP
0 recommendations, as outlined by Dr. Walker, however the treatment
area will be maximized to the extent available on the site. The basins
total suspended solids removal efficiency is estimated at 60% to 75%.
Comment B: More detail is needed for erosion and sedimentation control, especially
around the stockpile.
Response: Attached, please find the plan sheet addressing the erosion control
measures proposed for the stockpile area.
Comment C: Pumping from Wood Lake to Richfield Lake at a rate of 220 gallons
per minute each with three pumps, for three months. This is about 86
million gallons (262 acre-feet). On the other hand, the permit says
discharge to Richfield Lake will be 22.5 to 33.9 million gallons.
Numbers don't match. 1 would like to know how the water
appropriations will work, considering the Richfield Lake has 130 acrc-
feet available between 824 and 828 elevation, total pumping; seems to
be 292 acre-feet.
Response: Pumping is not anticipated to be continuous over the entire permitted
period. It is anticipated that pumping will only take place prior to and
during construction. It is anticipated that approximately 22.5 to 33.9
P.09
PAWPUMioon. ull-ym.wvi)
Dec-05-96 01!48P
-7 6_0
P'indit?qs of Fact
Wood Lake Dredging and Wetland Enhancement Restoration
Environmental Assessment Worksheet
Page 8
million gallons may be displaced from Wood Lake to Richfield Lake
during this time period.
Comment D: is there an EAW? I would like to sec that first.
Response: Attached is a copy of the Environmental Assessment Worksheet
prepared for the Wood Lake Dredging and Wetland Enhancement
project.
Comment E: What is the expected average inflow to Wood Lake during the
construction and will the pumping be adequate to create the dry
construction conditions'?
Response: From December to February, the anticipated inflow into Wood Lake is
to be considered negligible as most precipitation during these months
is in the form of snow and ice and temperatures are typically below
freezing. Previous investigations have determined that the primary
source of water for Wood Fake is surface water runoff, which is at a
minimum under frozen conditions. It is also anticipated that a
completely dry working area will not be required for constriction to
take place.
Comment F: Recommend a mass balance sheet be prepared for the pumping
procedure and the storage volumes in the lakes.
Response: As previously indicated, there is approximately 130 acre-feet of storm
water storage available in Richfield Lake and the anticipated maximum
pumped volume of water from Wood Lake to Richfield Lake is
estimated at 104 acre-feet. Thereforc, there should be adequate storage
in Richfield Lake to accommodate these additional flows.
Comment G: If Wood Lake has an outlet, is it possible to drain the lake`? Would
there be enough inflow to fill it back in a few months`?
P,IW1+W1MIrkm 141H.ih' WNU
P.10
•
•
Dec-05-96 01:49P
Findings q f Fact
Wood Lake Dredging and Wetland Enhancement Restoration
Environmental Assessment Workyheet
Page 9
P.11
-7 C5-/ a-
Response: The purpose of pumping water from Wood Lake to Richfield Lake is
to restore the water elevation in Wood Lake as soon as possible so as
to minimize environmental impacts within the lake.
ll. Minnesota Department of Natural Resources
Comment A: A Blanding's turtle was found in the nature center in 1993. This state
threatened species is found throughout much of the metro region. Due
to rapid development that has and continues to occur throughout the
Twin Cities, a considerable portion of their historic habitat has been
destroyed or altered. Blanding's prefer shallow wetlands with adjacent
sandy uplands for nesting. Habitat destruction and degradation
resulting from drainage, channeling water level manipulation,
conversion of natural wetlands to water catchment basins, and.
fragmentation of habitat due to road construction and residential and
industrial development has significantly impacted the species
throughout the metro area and will continue to do so unless protection
strategies are developed. In general, maintaining water quality and
natural water levels in wetlands, and providing nearby undeveloped
sandy grasslands for nesting are recommended in known Rlanding's
turtle habitat. A fact sheet on the species is enclosed.
Response: The Wood Lake.Nature Center is intensely managed by on-site
naturalists. The Blanding's turtle reported in 1993 has not been seen
by any of the naturalist staff nor any visitors since 1993. The nature
center staff believe that Blanding's turtle is no longer present in Wood
Lake Nature Center area.
Comment B: Forster's terns, a state listed special cocern species, nested at Wood
Lake in the 1970's and 1980's; 1986 was the last known successful
breeding year. Water level appears to be a crucial factor in providing
sutiable breeding habitat (extensive areas of emergent vegetation or
• muskrat houses), :ts well as for overall nesting success. Unsuitable
water levels when the birds return in the spring may result in the birds
abandoning previous nesting sites. The potential exists for the birds to
):: f wpw I ooo.l W-Y)K OW.7
Dec-05-96 01:49P
Findings of Fact
Wood Take Dregiring and Wetland Enhancement Restoration
Environmental A.ssENSMenl Worksheet
Page 10
return to Wood Lake as they nested in significant number
sapproximately one mile north at Grass Lake in th emid 1990's. A fact
sheet on Forster's terns is enclosed.
Responce: The last occurance of the Forster's terns at Wood bake was in 1986.
It is hoped that upon completion of this project and with the installation
of the outlet structure at Wood Lake and the installation of the outlet
structure at Richfield Lake that water levels may be maintained in such
a manner that the Forster's tern may return to Woad Lake. However,
no guarantee can be made that this species will return to Wood Like
either under the existing or future conditions, and it is not the main
emphasis of this project.
P.12
•
•
0
YiWl'W1N1IOOO.l4N)/-:WPIi
7F
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Council Letter No. 359
Agenda December 9, 1996
Issue Statement:
Award of contract for construction and installation of a floating bridge at Wood Lake
Nature Center.
Backaround:
The floating boardwalk at Wood Lake Nature Center is 25 years old. The floats for the
structure are made primarily of chicken wire and Styrofoam. Muskrats eat the
Styrofoam. Chicken wire was used to protect the Styrofoam but it rusted out. The
Styrofoam is deteriorating and breaking into small pieces that are often found floating in
the marsh. While this substance will not be absorbed into the water, the pieces are not
beneficial to wildlife. In addition, the walkway boards have been repaired as needed,
but now are at the point that they must be replaced. The new boardwalk has a
polyethylene float and hard plastic with Styrofoam inside. Currently, this new product is
being used on bridges.
This winter, the marsh will be dredged to enhance the marsh and improve the wildlife
capacity of the nature center. Much of the area to be dredged is along and beneath the
boardwalk. Removal of the boardwalk is essential to a quality dredging project.
Replacement with a new boardwalk makes sense both economically and in time
savings to staff and programs at the facility.
Bids were opened in a formal bidding process on November 21, 1996 for the
construction and installation of a floating bridge at Wood Lake Nature Center. The
results of the bid opening are as follows:
Vendor Bid Amount
Bridgco Docks $113,952
Global Specialty $148,000
Lindahl & Carlson Inc. $ 91,556
Tom Monette $ 94,400
Corrigan Construction $109,946
Lametti & Sons Inc. $186,200
Altech Engr. Corp. $112,752
Odland Construction $ 86,969
Sunram Construction Inc. $ 80,000
Recommended Motion:
Accept the bid minutes/tabulation and award the contract for the construction and
installation of a floating bridge at Wood Lake Nature Center to Sunram Construction
000
.
Inc. for total amount of $80,
7F- I
Basis of Recommendation:
1. Sunram Construction Inc. is the lowest qualified bidder.
2. Funds are available in the 1997 Capital Improvement Budget for this purpose.
Alternative Recommendation:
Council may reject all bids and direct staff to readvertise; however, staff does not
believe a better price can be obtained.
Discussion/Decision Mode:
Council may choose to delay a decision on this item; however, the timing would be
delayed in the process which may cause difficulties in coordinating the project with the
dredging.
Respectful) submitted,
James .Prosser
City Manager
r1
LJ
JDP:cak
0
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA -77r -a
•
Bid Opening
November 21, 1996
10:00 a.m.
Construction and Installation of a Floating Bridge at Wood Lake Nature Center
Bid No. 96-24, City Project No. 329-9290
Pursuant to requirements of Resolution No. 1015, a meeting of the Administrative Staff
was called by Thomas P. Ferber, City Clerk, who announced that the purpose of the
meeting was to receive, open and read aloud, bids for construction and installation of a
floating bridge at Wood Lake Nature Center, Bid No. 96-24, as advertised in the official
newspaper on November 6, 1996.
Present: Thomas Ferber, City Clerk
Bruce Palmborg, Community Development Director
Cheryl Krumholz, City Manager Representative
The following bids were submitted and read aloud:
Bidder's Name/City Bid Security Total Bid Amount
Global Specialty Contractors
Burnsville, MN 5% Bid Bond $ 148,000.00
Lindahl & Carlson, Inc.
St. Paul, MN 5% Bid Bond $ 91,556.00
Tom Monette
Little Canada, MN 5% Bid Bond $ 94,400.00
Corrigan Construction
Becker, MN Cashier's Check $ 109,946.00
Lametti & Sons, Inc.
Hugo, MN 5% Bid Bond $ 186,200:00
Altech Engr. Corp.
Mendota Heights, MN 5% Bid Bond $ 112,752.00
Sunram Construction Inc.
Corcoran, MN 5% Bid Bond $ 80,000.00
Odland Construction
Stillwater, MN 5% Bid Bond $ 86,969.00
Bridgco Docks
St. Paul, MN Cashier's check $ 113,952.00
The City Clerk announced that the bids would be tabulated and considered at the
December 9, 1996 City Council Meeting.
Thomas P. Ferber City Clerk
7C-
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Council Letter No. 358
Agenda December 9, 1996
Issue Statement:
Authorization to adjust 1996 revised budget expenditures to include $7,000 for wall
coverings, replacement ceiling, lighting fixtures and chairs for City Hall.
Background:
The City Council has been previously made aware that there are several on-going
needs at City Hall and satellite facilities that have not been addressed because of the
inability to find adequate funding. The 1996 budget, including revisions, will provide the
opportunity to fund some of these concerns. The heating, ventilating and air
conditioning system was one previously cited.,
Another issue that has been previously considered by staff as having need for
upgrading is the wall covering, ceiling tiles and ceiling fixtures in the main conference
room at City Hall and the City Manager's office. Virtually every other office space on
the floor has been previously redone with either wall covering or painting. These two
rooms remain in need of upgrading. In addition, the existing ceiling tiles in these areas
are not completely matched and, in some instances, stained due to water leakage
which occurred before the roof problems were corrected.
The expenditures that are being presented here are ones that would typically not
require City Council action. However, because they were not included in the 1996
revised budget they should be separately addressed. At the time the budget was
prepared there was an understanding that there would not be adequate funding to do
such improvements. The proposed expenditures would be covered by revenues from
the 1996 revised budget. The improvements would include the following:
1. Wall covering, replacement ceiling, replacement lighting fixtures, labor and
materials: $3,750.
2. Replacement of conference room chairs: $3,250.
The above amounts include internal labor necessary to prepare the area for
improvement and also sales tax.
It is anticipated that this work would be completed sometime in early 1997. If the work
is not completed by the end of 1996 or materials are not received by that time, the
expenditure may have to appear in the 1997 budget. However, it is anticipated that
funding from 1996 would be set aside either directly or indirectly, through fund balance,
to pay for the improvements, similar to what is being done for the heating/air
conditioning improvements.
Ir-
Recommended Motion:
Approve the expenditure of up to $7,000 from the 1996 budget for the wall covering,
replacement ceiling, light fixtures and office chairs for the City Hall conference room
and City Manager office areas.
Basis of Recommendation:
1. It is apparent that there will be funding available in the 1996 budget to provide for
some additional needed improvements.
2. The Administrative main conference room at City Hall is a heavily utilized meeting
room which has not been upgraded for over 25 years. This room is heavily used
by internal staff and the public and is in need of updating.
3. The City Manager's office, which is also subject to heavy use, is also in need of
upgrading. The walls and ceiling tile are essentially original from the construction
of City Hall except for the periodic replacement of some selective ceiling tiles that
are stained from water leakage.
4. Because of the general tight budgets that the City has had for the past many
years, upgrades that would normally be included as part of the cost of doing
business on a year to year basis have been forgone and periodic upgrading of the
facility is necessary.
• 5. The City Manager and large conference room area are especially important in that
those rooms are used to meet with representatives of other agencies and private
sector developers who are interested in locating in Richfield. It is important that
the facilities updated and maintained in a manner which projects the City facilities
in its best light.
Alternative Recommendation:
1. The City Council could decide not to make any improvements and upgrades. In
that case, the City staff would look towards funding in 1997 to make the needed
improvements.
Discussion/Decision Mode:
If the City Council is to approve the use of any 1996 surplus funds to make these
needed improvements, December 9 may likely be the last opportunity to do so.
Respectfully submitted,
Ja D. Prosser
City Manager
JDP:cak
qo
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Council Letter No. 357
Agenda December 9, 1996
Issue Statement:
Approve a consulting contract with Brauer & Associates not to exceed $20,000 for
services relating to replacement of recreation assets at MAC.
Background:
The MAC has given the City notice of cancellation of the lease for land currently used
for Rich Acres Golf Course, east baseball and softball fields, community gardens and
an archery range. Whether the City is successful in postponing that cancellation
indefinitely or not, it is appropriate at this time to plan for the potential loss of those
facilities. The Master Park Plan subcommittee has recommended that City staff, a
consultant and a task force of user groups plan for the replacement of the facilities.
The consultant would provide the following services:
• Research of existing spaces both inside and outside the City;
• Determine capacity rates of current City owned facilities;
• Provide plans for possible redevelopment of existing athletic facilities to improve
their capacity;
• Provide digitized mapping of all park facilities; and
• Attend meetings of the task force as necessary to provide alternatives for their
review.
Brauer and Associates provides park landscape & design services and is highly
regarded in the state. (It is noted that this firm is not associated with Don Brauer who is
currently providing Comprehensive Plan services to the City.) The funds for this service
are not currently delineated in the 1997 budget, but will be incorporated in the revised
budget process.
Recommended Motion:
Approve the expenditure of up to $20,000 for consulting services related to replacement
of recreation assets at MAC as delineated in the proposed contract with Brauer and
Associates.
Basis of Recommendation:
1. Brauer and Associates is a highly qualified firm providing services in this area.
2. Funds will be freed up in the 1997 budget to accommodate this expenditure.
3. The study needs to be conducted as expeditiously as possible to accommodate
the potential loss of facilities at the airport site.
Alternative Recommendation:
1. Postpone the study until a later time, however staff believes that development of
plans should be performed as early as possible to allow sufficient time for
reviewing all possibilities.
2. Deny the contract and have staff seek for a different consultant.
Discussion/Decision Mode:
Decision is requested at the December 9 Council meeting to allow staff to begin the
study as soon as possible.
Respectfully submitted,
Ja l Prosser
City Manager
JDP:cak
L_J
0
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Council Letter No. 356
Agenda December 9, 1996
Issue Statement:
Approval of the continuation of the agreement with the City of Bloomington for the
provision of public health services for the City of Richfield for 1997.
Background:
In 1977, the State of Minnesota enacted the Community Health Services Act, which
transferred the responsibility for the administration of public health programs to local
jurisdictions. The State also provided funds for the programs and encouraged local
jurisdictions to increase the efficiency of the programs by grouping together. Richfield and
Edina entered into a joint powers agreement with Bloomington, and the program has been
administered under that agreement since that time.
The contract amount for 1997 reflects a 3% increase over the 1996 contract amount. This
is primarily due to increases in staff salaries. The 1997 contract amount will be $173,442,
while the 1996 contract amounted to $168,390.
Recommended Motion:
It is recommended that the City Council renew the joint powers agreement for public
health services for 1997.
0 Basis of Recommendation:
1. The City of Bloomington has sufficient resources to provide a professional level of
public health services to Richfield residents. Annual evaluations of their services has
shown that they are providing effective services in a very cost-efficient manner.
Alternative Recommendation:
1. The Council could decide to have Richfield provide its own public health services.
The cost of hiring the nursing staff necessary to provide the same level of services
and administrative support would be more than our current expenditures and would
require a budget increase.
2. The Council could decide to compensate the City of Bloomington at a lower rate
which would require designated reduction in services or programs.
Discussion/Decision Mode:
The renewal of the joint powers agreement between the City of Richfield and the City of
Bloomington for 1997 for the provision of public health services is being presented for
council approval.
Respec ully submitted,
Is Jam . Prosser
City Manager
JDP:ds
AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITIES
OF BLOOMINGTON AND RICHFIELD
TO PROVIDE COMMUNITY HEALTH SERVICES
THIS AGREEMENT, made and entered into this 9th day of December, 1996, by
and between the City of Bloomington, a Minnesota municipal corporation, in the County
of Hennepin, State of Minnesota ("Bloomington"), and the City of Richfield, a Minnesota
municipal corporation, in the County of Hennepin, State of Minnesota ("Richfield")
WITNESSETH:
WHEREAS, Bloomington warrants and represents that its Division of Public
Health is a duly certified public health agency operating in accordance with all
applicable federal and state requirements; and
WHEREAS, Bloomington's Division of Public Health provides community health
services, including, but not limited to home health services, well adult clinics, well child
clinics, health education, school health services, health promotion services, prevention
and control, and program administration; and
WHEREAS, Richfield wishes to promote, support, and maintain the health of its
residents by providing community health services such as health education,
communicable disease programs, nursing services, health assessment, counseling,
teaching, and evaluation in the community, home and clinic setting at a nominal fee to
those making use of such services, and to contract with Bloomington for Bloomington,
through its Division of Public Health, to provide such services to residents of Richfield;
and
WHEREAS, the governing bodies of Bloomington and Richfield are authorized
by Minnesota Statutes, Section 145A.04, Subdivision 5, and by Minnesota Statutes,
Section 471.59, Subdivision 10, to provide community health services and to enter into
agreements with each other for the providing by Bloomington of community health
services to residents of Richfield.
NOW, THEREFORE, the parties hereto, and for consideration of the covenants
hereinafter set forth, agree as follows:
1. Bloomington, through its Division of Public Health, agrees to provide residents
of Richfield with those community health services (hereinafter called "Health Services"),
that Richfield has outlined in its 1996-1999 Community Health Services Plan, which
includes home health, family health, disease prevention and control, and health
promotion. Richfield agrees not to amend said Plan in any manner that would impact
the service Bloomington provides without first contacting Bloomington.
C'
2. Bloomington agrees to provide to the residents of Richfield health services in
the same manner and the same extent including the same quality and kind of
personnel, equipment and facilities as health services are provided and rendered to
residents of Bloomington, it being the intent and purpose of this agreement to provide
and render the Health Services equally to residents of Bloomington and Richfield,
without discrimination in any way.
3. Bloomington shall provide the health services pursuant hereto on a
confidential basis, using capable, trained professionals.
4. All Health Services to be rendered hereunder by Bloomington shall be
rendered pursuant to and subject to public health policies, rules, and procedures now or
hereafter, from time to time, adopted by the Bloomington City Council, and in full
compliance with all applicable state and federal laws, provided, however, that (1) no
policy, rule, or procedure hereafter adopted by the Bloomington City Council shall in
any way affect, modify, or change the obligations, duties, liabilities, or rights of the
parties hereto as set out in this Agreement, or reduce or detract from the kind, quality,
and quantity of Health Services to be provided hereunder by Bloomington to residents
of Richfield, and (ii) all such policies, rules and procedures shall be uniformly applied to
all persons receiving Health Services from Bloomington, whether residents of Richfield,
Bloomington, or any other municipality. Richfield agrees to adopt the same policies,
rules and procedures as are from time to time adopted by Bloomington, if determined
by Richfield to be necessary or desirable to facilitate or regulate the provision of Health
Services by Bloomington to residents of Richfield pursuant hereto.
5. Richfield agrees to pay Bloomington, for the provision of Health Services
pursuant hereto, amounts and on terms as follows:
A. The annual sum of $173,442 shall be paid in quarterly payments of
$43,360.50 to Bloomington within fifteen (15) days of the receipt by Richfield of
each of the reports to be given pursuant to Paragraph 5.B hereof, subject,
however, to the provision of Paragraph 5.C hereof.
B. On April 15, July 15, and October 15, 1997 and on January 15, 1998,
Bloomington shall send Richfield a statement, certified by the person in charge of
Bloomington's Division of Public Health as being true and correct, and covering
the period of three (3) calendar months preceding the month in which the report
is given, and setting forth, in such detail as Richfield shall reasonably require, the
numbers of persons served, the kinds of Health Services delivered, the locations
where such services were delivered, and such other information as Richfield
shall reasonably request.
C. No payment or payments need be made by Richfield under this
Agreement while Bloomington is in default under any of the terms and conditions
hereof.
-7 C-3
6. In the event Richfield desires to inspect the financial books and records of
Bloomington relating to the providing of Health Services hereunder by Bloomington,
Bloomington shall make its financial books and records available at the Bloomington
City Hall for inspection and copying by Richfield, or any agent, employee, or
representative of Richfield, at reasonable business hours.
7. It shall be the sole responsibility of Bloomington to determine the
qualifications, functions, training, and performance standards for all health service
personnel who render Health Services under this Agreement; provided, however, that
Bloomington agrees that all such personnel shall be capable, trained professionals.
8. Bloomington's Division of Public Health will communicate with Richfield
relative to Health Services to be performed hereunder by Bloomington, such
communication to be in the form of reports, conferences, or consultations, as the
respective Richfield departments shall request. All reports relating to the providing of
Health Services that are given by Bloomington's Division of Public Health to the
Bloomington City Council or to the City Manager during the term of this Agreement shall
also, and at the same time, be given to Richfield.
9. Bloomington also agrees to send to Richfield an annual report describing the
activities performed and Health Services rendered pursuant to this Agreement. Such
report shall be in such detail and form as Richfield may reasonably request. The
annual report shall be sent with and in addition to the last quarterly report acquired by
Paragraph 5.13 hereof. Also, at Richfield's request, made not more than two (2) times
during the term of this Agreement, responsible administrative officers of Bloomington's
Division of Public Health shall attend meetings of the Richfield City Council or
appropriate board or commission to answer questions and give further information
relative to the activities performed and Health Services rendered under this Agreement.
10. Bloomington hereby agrees to maintain in force its present policy of
comprehensive liability insurance and professional liability coverage, each in the
minimum amount of five hundred thousand dollars ($500,000), for the term of this
contract. A copy of the policy or policies shall be furnished to Richfield. Said police
shall be with an insurance company authorized to do business in Minnesota.
11. Bloomington shall further require personal medical malpractice insurance
coverage by its physicians and other health professionals with whom Bloomington has
a contract for professional services.
12. This Agreement shall be for a period of from January 1, 1997, to December
31, 1997, provided that either party may terminate the same by one hundred twenty
(120) days written notice to the other. Upon such termination, all obligations and
liabilities of the parties hereunder shall cease and terminate, except the provisions of
Paragraph 12 hereof shall continue and survive such termination. Also. in the event of
• termination pursuant hereto, the quarterly payment next due shall be prorated and paid
for only the period ended on the date of termination, and Bloomington shall send to
-7 C- q
Richfield, with thirty (30) days after such termination, a report in the form of, and in lieu
of, the annual report required by paragraph 9 hereto, and Richfield shall pay such
reduced quarterly payment for the period ended on the date of termination, within
fifteen (15) days after receipt of both such reports.
13. Bloomington and Richfield understand and agree that each of them shall
apply and qualify, independently and separately, for any and all grants, matching funds,
and payment of all kinds from state, federal, and other governmental bodies relating to,
or for the provision of, any or all of the Health Services, and any and all such grants,
matching funds, and payments shall belong to the recipient and be used and applied as
the recipient thereof shall determine, without regard to this Agreement.
14. All notices, reports, or demands required or permitted to be given under this
Agreement shall be in writing and shall be deemed to be given when delivered
personally to an officer of the party to which notice is being given, or when deposited in
the United States mail in a sealed envelope, with registered or certified mail, postage
prepaid thereon, addressed to the parties at the following addresses:
To Bloomington: 2215 West Old Shakopee Road
Bloomington, Minnesota 55431
Attention: City Manger
To Richfield: 6700 Portland Avenue
Richfield, Minnesota 55423
Attention: City Manager
Such addresses may be changed by either party upon notice to the other party given as
herein provided.
15. The parties agree to comply with the following laws and regulations:
A. Richfield agrees to comply with the Americans with Disabilities Act and
agrees to hold harmless and indemnify the City of Bloomington from costs,
including but not limited to damages, attorney's fees and staff time, in any action
or proceeding brought by third parties alleging a violation of ADA by Richfield.
Bloomington agrees to hold harmless and indemnify Richfield from costs,
including but not limited to damages, attorney's fees and staff time, in any action
or proceeding brought by third parties alleging a violation of ADA by
Bloomington. The City of Bloomington does not discriminate on the basis of
disability in the admission or access to, or treatment or employment in, its
services, programs, or activities. Bloomington has designated coordinators to
facilitate compliance with the Americans With Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA), as
required by Section 35.107 of the U.S. Department of Justice regulations, and to
coordinate compliance with Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as
mandated by Section 8.53 of the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban
-7 C-5
Development regulations. For information contact the Human Services Division,
City of Bloomington, 2215 Old West Shakopee Road, Bloomington, Minnesota
55431; telephone 948-8900; TDD: 948-8740.
B. The parties agree to comply with the Minnesota State Human Rights Act,
Minnesota Statutes, Section 363 (1988).
16. Non-Assignment. This Agreement shall not be assignable except at the
written consent of Bloomington.
17. Scope of Agreement. This Agreement represents the entire Agreement
between Richfield and Bloomington and supersedes and cancels any and all prior
agreements or proposals, written or oral, between the parties relating to the subject
matter hereof and amendments, addenda, alterations, or modifications to the terms and
conditions of this Agreement shall be in writing and signed by both parties.
18. Richfield will comply with all applicable provisions of the Minnesota
Government Data Practices Act, Chapter 13 of the Minnesota Statutes.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this Agreement to be
duly executed and their corporate seal to be affixed hereto the day and year first above
written.
0 CITY OF BLOOMINGTON
BY:
Its Mayor
BY:
Its Manager
CITY OF RICHFIELD
BY:
Its Mayor
BY:
Its Manager
Approved:
0 City Attorney
?a
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Council Letter No. 355
Agenda December 9, 1996
Issue Statement:
Consideration of a resolution establishing fees for Commercial Wireless
Telecommunication Service antennas.
Background:
On September 23, 1996 the City Council passed an ordinance amendment regulating
the location of Commercial Wireless Telecommunication Service (CWTS) towers and
antennas in the City. The ordinance requires that antennas, to be located on existing
buildings or other structures, apply for a permit from the City.
The purpose of the antenna permit (in addition to any building permit that may or may
not be needed) is so staff can review the proposed location and screening of the
antennas and any related equipment. The ordinance amendment did not set a fee for
the permit. A fee of $75 should be charged to cover the cost of reviewing permit
applications for the installation of telecommunication antennas. A permit for adding
additional antennas to a site where antennas already exist should have a fee of $25.
Recommended Motion:
Adopt a resolution setting a permit fee of $75 for the initial installation of CWTS antenna
and a fee of $25 when additional antenna are to be added to an existing antenna
facility.
Basis of Recommendation:
1. The City's policy is to establish fees to cover the cost of providing the related
service.
2. The CWTS antenna and tower ordinance requires that antennas be screened
from street right-of-way and residential property and that accessory equipment be
screened or designed to be compatible with the surroundings.
3. The proposed fees are needed to cover the cost of staff time to review an
application for compliance with the ordinance.
Alternative Recommendation:
Decide to not establish a fee for antenna permits.
Discussion/Decision Mode:
Consideration of this item is scheduled on the consent calendar of the City Council
meeting.
Respectfully submitted,
Jam gan Pro sser
City ger
a JDP:cak
-7 6- 1
RESOLUTION NO.
THE CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING ANTENNA PERMIT FEE
WHEREAS, the City Council passed an ordinance amendment on September
23, 1996 establishing a permit process for Commercial Wireless Telecommunication
Service ("CWTS") antennas; and
WHEREAS, it is the intent of the City Council to charge a fee for the cost of
processing permit applications.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of
Richfield, Minnesota, as follows:
1. to establish a fee of $75 for a CWTS antenna permit application fee;
2. to establish a fee of $25 for an antenna permit when additional antennas are
added to an existing antenna location; and
3. to update Appendix D of the City Code to reflect the antenna permit fees.
Adopted by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this 9th day of
December, 1996.
Martin J. Kirsch, Mayor
ATTEST:
Thomas P. Ferber, City Clerk
0
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Council Letter No. 354
Agenda December 9, 1996
Issue Statement:
City Council confirmation of City Manager's appointment of a Hearing Examiner.
Background:
The hearing officer procedure was established by the City Council in 1985 to hear and
decide requests for variances from the literal provisions of the Zoning Ordinance where
unique circumstances would cause undue hardship.
The ordinance provides for the appointment of Hearing Examiners by the City Manager
subject to confirmation by the City Council. The term of appointment of an existing
Hearing Examiner, Connie Murray, expires this month and she has indicated a
willingness to continue.
Recommended Motion:
Confirm the City Manager's reappointment of Connie Murray to a two year term as a
Hearing Examiner.
Basis of Recommendation:
1. Ms. Murray's current term expires on December 31, 1996.
2. Ms. Murray has experience, training and knowledge as a Hearing Examiner and
warrants reappointment.
Alternative Recommendation:
1. Defer confirmation to a later Council meeting.
2. Deny confirmation of the appointment.
Discussion/Decision Mode:
This item has been placed on the consent calendar for December 9, 1996.
Respectfully submitted,
Ja D. Prosser
City Manager
JDP:cak
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Council Letter No. 353
Agenda December 9, 1996
Issue Statement:
Community Services Commission presentation of a certificate of appreciation for 24
years of service to the Commission and parks and recreation in the City of Richfield.
Background:
Sandy Rosenow has provided the Community Services Commission with clerical
support since 1972. In the recent reorganization of the Community Services
Department, Sandy has been assigned to the Engineering and Utilities staff. As she
would no longer be assigned to the Commission, the Commission voted unanimously to
present her with a Certificate of Appreciation for all her past service. Elayne Gilhousen,
Commission Chair, will be here to make the presentation and Ms. Rosenow will be here
to receive it.
Recommended Motion:
Join the Community Services Advisory Commission in thanking Ms. Rosenow for the
support she provided to the Commission for the last 24 years.
Basis of Recommendation:
• It is the wish of the Commission to recognize Ms. Rosenow's contributions.
Alternative Recommendation:
None.
Discussion/Decision Mode:
The presentation is scheduled for the December 9, 1996 City Council meeting.
Respectfully submitted,
Jame. Prosser
City Manager
JDP:cak
0
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Council Letter No. 352
Agenda December 9, 1996
Issue Statement:
Presentation of the Backstrom/Hansen Award for individuals and businesses who have
enhanced the lives of individuals with disabilities through their efforts. This award is
from the Adaptive Recreation/Learning Exchange (ARLE), a cooperative of the
communities of Edina, Richfield, Bloomington and Eden Prairie.
Background:
The Rich Acres Golf Course has offered golfing lessons for individuals with disabilities
over the past four years. Friday evening classes are directed by one staff person and
recruited volunteers from other golf leagues. This is an outstanding program which has
been written about in a national golf magazine.
Recommended Motion:
Accept the Backstrom/Hansen Award presented by Adaptive Recreation/Learning
Exchange.
Basis of Recommendation:
1. ARLE serves residents who are disabled in a four community area including
Richfield.
2. ARLE annually recognizes businesses for their contribution to individuals with
disabilities.
3. ARLE has selected Rich Acres Golf Course to be honored in 1996.
Alternative Recommendation:
None.
Discussion/Decision Mode:
Staff members and golf participants will be present for acknowledgment of the award.
A staff person from ARLE will present the certificate.
Respect ly submitted,
James D. Prosser
City Manager
JDP:cak
140
3
• CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Council Letter No. 351
Agenda December 9, 1996
Issue Statement:
Accept a donation from the Optimists of $800 for the Christian Park spiral slide, and
present a certificate of appreciation to them for the donation.
Background:
The Optimists approached the City with a suggestion that they donate the proceeds
from their 1996 Chili Feed to a piece of playground equipment. Staff suggested that the
funds go towards the spiral slide about to be built in Christian Park as part of the
playfeature replacement program. At their October meeting, former President Bob
Kruppstadt presented staff with a check for $800 towards the slide.
It would be appropriate to acknowledge the City's appreciation of the Optimists'
donation.
Recommended Motion:
Present the certificate of appreciation to the Optimists for their donation of $800 for the
Christian Park spiral slide.
Basis of Recommendation:
It would be appropriate to acknowledge the City's appreciation of the Optimists' efforts.
Alternative Recommendation:
None
Discussion/Decision Mode:
The presentation is scheduled for the December 9, 1996 City Council meeting.
Respectfully submitted,
James D rosser
City Manager
JDP:cak
•