11-13-95 agendaCITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
MONDAY, NOVEMBER 13, 1995
REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING
7:00 P.M.
COUNCIL CHAMBERS
AGENDA
INTRODUCTORY PROCEEDINGS
CALL TO ORDER
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF THE (1) SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF OCTOBER
23,1995; (2) REGULAR CITY COUNCIL OF OCTOBER 23,1995; (3) SPECIAL CITY
COUNCIL AND HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY WITH PLANNING
COMMISSION MEETING OF OCTOBER 24,1995; AND (4) CITY COUNCIL STUDY
SESSION OF NOVEMBER 6, 1995
PRESENTATION
1. OPPORTUNITY FOR CITIZENS TO ADDRESS THE COUNCIL ON ITEMS NOT ON
THE AGENDA
AGENDA APPROVAL
2. COUNCIL APPROVAL OF AGENDA
CONSENT CALENDAR
3. CONSENT CALENDAR CONTAINS SEVERAL SEPARATE ITEMS WHICH ARE
ACTED UPON BY THE CITY COUNCIL IN ONE MOTION. ONCE THE CONSENT
CALENDAR HAS BEEN APPROVED, THE INDIVIDUAL ITEMS AND
RECOMMENDED ACTIONS HAVE ALSO BEEN APPROVED. NO FURTHER
COUNCIL ACTION IS NECESSARY. HOWEVER, ANY COUNCIL MEMBER MAY
REQUEST THAT AN ITEM BE REMOVED FROM THE CONSENT CALENDAR AND
PLACED ON THE REGULAR AGENDA FOR COUNCIL DISCUSSION AND ACTION.
ALL ITEMS LISTED ON THE CONSENT CALENDAR ARE RECOMMENDED FOR
APPROVAL.
A. CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING
PARTICIPATION IN LOCAL HOUSING INCENTIVES ACCOUNT PROGRAM
UNDER METROPOLITAN LIVABLE COMMUNITIES ACT C.L. 289
B. CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF PARTICIPATION IN PHASE ONE OF
SOUTH HENNEPIN FAMILY SERVICES COLLABORATIVE IMPLEMENTATION
GRANT AND APPROVAL OF INKIND CONTRIBUTION IN AMOUNT OF $29,030
C.L. 290
C. CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF SETTING PUBLIC HEARING DATE OF
DECEMBER 11, 1995 FOR RENEWAL OF WINE LICENSES FOR MILLER'S
FIRESIDE PIZZA, SILVER SPOON RESTAURANT, RED PEPPER CHINESE
RESTAURANT, AND THE FRENCHMAN'S C.L. 291
D. CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF SETTING PUBLIC HEARING DATE OF
DECEMBER 11, 1995 FOR RENEWAL OF ON-SALE LIQUOR LICENSES FOR CHI
CHI'S MEXICAN RESTAURANTE, THE GROUND ROUND, KHAN'S MONGOLIAN
BARBECUE, AMERICAN LEGION POST NO. 435, VFW POST NO. 5555, AND
CHAMPPS OF RICHFIELD C.L. 292
E. CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF SETTING PUBLIC HEARING DATE OF
DECEMBER 11, 1995 FOR RENEWAL OF PAWNBROKER AND SECONDHAND
GOODS LICENSES FOR THE GUN SHOP AND PAWNBROKER AND PLAZA
PAWN C.L. 293
F. CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF REQUEST FOR CONDITIONAL USE
PERMIT FOR MINNESOTA TAXI, 7608 KNOX AVENUE C.L. 294
G. CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF REQUEST FOR CONDITIONAL USE
PERMIT FOR THE CUSTOM SHOP, 1201 EAST 66TH STREET C.L. 295
H. CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF REQUEST OF AMENDED PLANNED UNIT
DEVELOPMENT/FINAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
FOR HUB SHOPPING CENTER, BURGER KING, 98 WEST 66TH STREET C.L. 296
1. CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF REQUEST FROM STATE OF MINNESOTA
TO REVIEW REQUEST FOR RENEWAL OF CURRENCY EXCHANGE LICENSE
FOR SUPER CASH, 6417 LYNDALE AVENUE C.L. 297
J. CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF PURCHASE IN EXCESS OF $5,000 TO
UPGRADE DETENTION AND SECURITY PORTION OF PUBLIC SAFETY
DEPARTMENT'S VIDEO MONITORING SYSTEM FROM VIDEOTRONIX, INC. IN
AMOUNT OF $13,802.88 C.L. 298
K. CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF APPLICATION FOR RENEWAL OF
RESIDENTIAL KENNEL LICENSE; 2800 WEST 71ST STREET; THREE DOGS C.L.
299
L. ESTIMATE #4 PAYMENT FOR PAINTING LOGAN WATER TOWER; DELOUGHERY
PAINTING COMPANY; $30,617.55
RESOLUTION
4. CONSIDERATION OF RESOLUTION DESIGNATING CITY'S 1996 CONTRIBUTION
TOWARD HEALTH, TERM LIFE AND DENTAL INSURANCE PREMIUM FOR
GENERAL SERVICES AND MANAGEMENT EMPLOYEES
COUNCIL LETTER NO. 300
PROPOSED ORDINANCES
5. CONSIDERATION OF FIRST READING OF ORDINANCE AMENDMENT
ESTABLISHING DEADLINES FOR ZONING CASES THAT ARE IN COMPLIANCE
WITH STATE LAW
COUNCIL LETTER NO. 301
• 6. CONSIDERATION OF FIRST READING OF ORDINANCE MODIFYING
DEPARTMENT RESPONSIBILITY FOR ADMINISTRATION OF CITY'S RECREATION
ENTERPRISE FUND
COUNCIL LETTER NO. 302
7. CONSIDERATION OF RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING ACQUISITION OF 6432-15TH
AND 6529 EMERSON AVENUES FOR NEW HOME CONSTRUCTION AND FIRST
READING OF TRANSITORY ORDINANCE AUTHORIZING SALE OF PROPERTY TO
HRA
COUNCIL LETTER NO. 303
8. CONSIDERATION OF FIRST READING OF ORDINANCE AMENDMENT
REGARDING LAWFUL GAMBLING IN LIQUOR ESTABLISHMENTS
COUNCIL LETTER NO. 304
ADMINISTRATIVE REPORTS AND OTHER BUSINESS
9. CONSIDERATION OF DRAFT CITY OF RICHFIELD 1996 LEGISLATIVE INITIATIVES
COUNCIL LETTER NO. 305
AIRPORT BUSINESS
10. AIRPORT STATUS REPORT
CORRESPONDENCE
11. LEGISLATIVE REPORT
COUNCIL CHOICE
12. COUNCIL DISCUSSION ITEMS
13. CLAIMS AND PAYROLLS
14. 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.
9
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Council Letter No. 305
Agenda November 13, 1995
Issue Statement:
Consideration of a draft of the City of Richfield's 1996 Legislative Initiatives.
Background:
Every City of Richfield department is influenced by activity at the State Legislature.
Rather than remaining passive and continually reacting to legislation, the City is
committed to a proactive approach of anticipating Richfield needs and balancing those
with potentially impactful legislation., In order to work cooperatively with elected state
officials representing Richfield, a meeting with legislators will be scheduled for
December. This draft of Richfield initiatives reflects recent or refined policy positions in
1996. These will be integrated into the City of Richfield 1996 Legislative Initiatives &
Policies booklet. Council Members may wish to review the 1995 Legislative Initiatives.
Recommended Motion:
Discuss the draft of the City of Richfield's 1996 Legislative Initiatives & Policies, and
provide staff direction on these and other issues that may not be contained herein.
Basis of Recommendation:
1. It is important for the City to have a coherent and reasonable legislative strategy.
Alternative Recommendation:
1. Delay discussion until a later date.
Discussion/Decision Mode:
This is an agenda item for the Regular City Council Meeting scheduled for Monday,
November 13, 1995.
Respectfully submitted,
Jam . Prosser
City ager
JDP:cak
0
q'I
1996 LEGISLATIVE INITIATIVES
Draft for Council Review
Administrative Services
In addition to those issues discussed below, there are also a number of policies which will be adopted by the League
of Minnesota Cities (LMC) and the Association of Metropolitan Municipalities (AMM) which will also merit our
support.
Pension - Fire Consolidation
The City is currently in the process of exploring a consolidation of the Richfield Fire Relief
Association with the PERA Police and Fire Fund. To that end, it may be necessary to pass
special legislation to allow certain benefit enhancements which would make the consolidation
more attractive to the Fire Relief Association. At this time, no certain benefit enhancements
have been identified.
Pension - Early Retirement Incentives
With all of the financial constraints facing cities now and in the future, there is a critical need for
cities to have some tools to assist in the restructuring or downsizing of municipal organizations
as those actions may become necessary. One extremely valuable such tool would be special
periods of time (open window periods) where employees with at least 25 years of PERA service
and 55 years of age would qualify for an unreduced PERA pension and a voluntary contribution
by the political jurisdiction toward such employees' health insurance for a set period of time. In
exchange for such an early retirement option, the political subdivision would be prevented from
refilling the position for a set period of time such as five years.
Similarly, the City would support an employee paid "Rule of 85" option for PERA members.
The cost of providing for the Rule of 85 would be borne by the employees through increased
payroll contributions. In addition, the Rule of 85 would only be available to qualified members
who have paid the additional employee contribution for a minimum period of time (three to five
years).
Assessing - This Old House Amendment
The Administrative Services Director has been working with Senator Phil Riveness to draft
legislation that would provide a better opportunity for persons who make improvements under
the "This Old House" provision to take advantage of the benefits. Currently, if the homeowner
does not file the proper paperwork to apply for the 10 year tax benefit, within a set period of
time, the opportunity is lost forever. Under the amendment, the homeowner would still be
eligible for the tax benefit for the number of the years of eligibility remaining at the time the
application was filed.
In other words, under current law, if a qualifying home improvement was made in 1995 and a
timely application was not filed, the tax benefit (until 2005) was entirely lost. Under our
amendment, if the application was not filed until 1997, the homeowner would qualify for the
remaining eligibility until 2005.
0 _"?_
• COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
Livable Communities Act
The City should encourage making the Livable Communities Act more supportive for suburban
core communities. This can be achieved by broadening existing fund accounts to provide direct
financial support that would help Richfield achieve a more diverse housing market. Richfield
should be discouraged as a relocation site for Minneapolis Public Housing clients, because
Richfield is already an area of high concentration.
"This Old Apartment"
The City should pursue a "This Old Apartment" property tax adjustment that supports repair and
investment in rental housing. Support a legislative delay in property tax assessment increases for
improvements made to rental housing. A class rate change for a specified period of time could
be provided if a rental property owner agrees to certain improvements and management
guidelines. The agreement would specify type and schedule for completion of improvements.
The class rate would equal the subsidized class rate.
Scattered Site Redevelopment - Airport
The City should pursue state support for scattered site redevelopment monies in support of
airport acquisitions. Additional substandard homes can be cleared and airport-area residents
served by new housing sites if state monies can be combined with HRA monies. Further
discussion of other airport impacted housing issues is included in the Executive Department
section.
Community Protection Concepts -Airport
City staff will continue to pursue legislative approval of the MSP-Area Community Protection
Concepts package. The package is a compilation of various tools that airport-impacted
communities may utilize to stabilize potential disinvestment and encourage redevelopment of
airport compatible land uses. The package, whether in totality or significant parts, should be
adopted by the legislature prior to a decision on the Dual Track Airport Planning Process as
recognition that, whichever track is pursued, the existing is going to remain in place and continue
to impact surrounding areas for at least 15-20 years. Further delay of protection tools only
heightens the likelihood that disinvestment will reach such levels that remediation will be far too
costly. Some of the tools for which legislative approval is required are:
• Community Stabilization Techniques - Possible programs include property value guarantees
underwritten by the participating municipalities, tax credits for housing revitalization in noise
impact areas similar to recent Met Council incentives for homeowners in declining
neighborhoods, and acquisition of incompatible land use prior to deterioration such as the
New Ford Town and Rich Acres buyout.
• Community Revitalization Approaches - Examples would be tailored tax increment financing
districts and community development banks, both of which would make it easier for
communities to revitalize or redevelop areas where necessary. Tax increment financing
represents one of the few remaining tools for fully developed cities to implement needed
9-3
redevelopment, given the costs of such projects in an environment of increasingly limited
financial resources.
• Incentive Programs - Similar programs are often utilized as a trade-off for developments and
other land uses that provide more of a benefit for regional users than is received by those
directly impacted; e.g., recreation centers built as compensation for large industrial
developments.
• Airport Protection Measures - These would include local land use controls to prohibit or
control future developments that may be incompatible with airport impacted areas, unless
appropriate mitigation measures are taken.
IMCA Penalties
To assist suburban core communities with achieving their Livable Community goals, HACA
penalties should be removed from the Richfield Rediscovered Tax Increment District. There
may also be an administrative solution through recent legislation that staff is currently analyzing.
Job and Wage Goals
Tax increment redevelopment and housing district job and wage goals should be removed. The
purpose of redevelopment in communities such as Richfield is not job creation. The purpose is
revitalization and stabilization. Job and wage goals and redevelopment, therefore, should not be
linked.
0 COMMUNITY SERVICES
Legislative Commission on Minnesota Resources (LCMR)
Support the LCMR's 30 year commitment to recommending funding for various natural resource
projects including, many in city, county and state parks. Support the continued LCMR efforts to
fund trails and trail connections to promote non-motorized transportation and recreation in
Minnesota. Trails are linear parks connecting people and spaces as well as destinations. Trail
use in this region for biking, walking and in line skating is on the increase. Support this
environmentally sound form of recreation as it is good for the body, the soul, and the
environment. The challenge to all is not only to connect our city trails but to connect the city,
county and state trail system. It is a vision for the future to set aside land in the cities, counties
and throughout the state to be designated as linear parks or trails. In summary:
• Support continued designation of the LCMR.
• Encourage the Environmental and Natural Resource Trust Fund to prioritize the following
two items for funding:
• Expenditures support preservation management and restoration of natural resources that
encompass both urban and rural environmental issues.
• Trust Fund expenditures for trail connections and corridors throughout the state by
building trails that promote non-motorized transportation.
0
9-q
• Support a state bonding bill for parks and trails that represents the level of funding
appropriate to acquire, develop/redevelop, and protect parks within the state, region and local
jurisdictions.
• Encourage Senators and Congressmen to reinstate Land And Water Conservation
(LAWCON) funds.
Roadway Financing
Support the white paper prepared by I-35W Solutions Alliance. A copy of the white paper can
be provided if needed for discussion. Funding is needed for the 77th Street project to finish.
Funding could be gas tax or sales tax or another mechanism.
Maintenance Garage Facilities/Site
The City of Richfield has long been seeking a new, expanded site for a city maintenance facility.
Over the years, the City has conversed with Metropolitan Airports Commission (MAC) staff
about a site on the west side of MAC property. More recent conversations have included the
Minnesota Department of Transportation (MnDOT) staff who is also looking for a site to replace
current sites along I-494 that will no longer be available in a year or two.
LIQUOR OPERATIONS
The City should oppose efforts to lower the legal blood alcohol content (BAC) limit from .10 to
08 BAC. The City should support more severe penalties for repeat DWI offenders and more
significant fines for first-time offenders (see Public Safety initiatives for more information).
PUBLIC SAFETY
Joint Police and Fire Training Facility
The City of Richfield, along with Airport Police, Bloomington, Edina, and Eden Prairie, are
proposing a joint training facility for police and fire training. Currently, each of these
departments train their members somewhat independently and, therefore, much of the training
programs that are developed are redundant. The joint facility would produce programs of mutual
benefit, at different times of the day, reducing overtime and overlap of training needs.
A proposal has been made to include a portion of the $5 million estimated cost of this facility in
the Governor's Bonding Bill. Part of the rationale behind State participation is the State's
mandates on training on police and fire personnel in such areas as:
• Use of Force
• Domestic Violence
• Bias Crimes
• Bloodborne Pathogens
• Hazardous Materials Awareness
9 Pursuit Policy
(?-5-
9 Richfield supports this concept.
Unfunded Mandates
The Legislature is encouraged to carefully review any additional mandates on police
departments. Every time a mandate is imposed, a cost is associated with meeting the new
requirements. This cost must be absorbed by the City and, ultimately, the taxpayer.
Recovery of D. W.L Arrest Costs
Richfield currently makes approximately 145 D.W.I. arrests annually. These arrests require
police officer time during testing, booking and court process. Additionally, cities are responsible
for out of pocket expenses including prosecuting and correctional supervision cost. The total
cost for the average D.W.I. conviction to the City of Richfield is $802, while the average fine for
a D.W.I. defendant was $126. The City recovers only a portion of D.W.I. fines when levied and
collected. The portion received by the City covers approximately 15% of the cost of arrests.
Therefore, the more aggressive the City is in removing D.W.I. drivers the greater the financial
burden on the City. The City should urge the Legislature to provide greater recovery of D.W.I.
cost that would help resolve this problem.
Police Minority Recruitment
The City urges the Legislature to provide funding for cities like Richfield to establish a
cooperative "cadet" program. The program would recruit minorities out of high school, provide
them with law enforcement training and provide a subsistence type of income for them while
they were in the training program. The goal would be to hire the minority candidates for police
positions in the participating communities upon the completion of training.
Crime Prevention
Violence is increasing in urban areas and throughout the United States. While the police
continue to respond and provide a number of programs, Richfield is stretched to the limit. The
solution to this and other crime programs is prevention education. Furthermore, crime is mobile:
many crimes are not committed by persons from Richfield. Because of this, it is not a Richfield
problem but the State's. Therefore, the Legislature should provide for innovative programs that
will give Richfield and other communities the resources necessary to educate our citizens on
good crime prevention and safety awareness programs.
12
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Council Letter No. 304
Agenda November 13, 1995
Issue Statement:
First reading of an ordinance amending Section 1100. 13, Subd. 7, which will allow
charitable gambling (pull tabs/pull tab machines) to places other than the American
Legion and VFW and limiting pull tabs to licensed liquor establishments.
Background:
The current ordinance (Section 1100.13, Subd. 7) limits charitable gambling (pull tabs)
to only organizations which :
-- own or lease their establishment; and,
-- it is their principal place of business
This ordinance essentially limits this activity in Richfield to the American Legion and
V.F.W., since no other charitable organization can comply with the ordinance.
The Council was recently approached at a Study Session by representatives of some of
the youth sports organizations, as well as other charitable organizations, in an effort to
• allow this activity at other licensed liquor establishments. To do this requires an
ordinance change. The Council, after discussion at the Study Session, directed staff to
prepare an ordinance which would allow this activity.
In a related issue, the Council asked if they could limit the licenses to local
organizations. In an Attorney General's opinion, dated October 25, 1988, the City of
Cloquet was contemplating the same action. However, the Attorney General's opinion
was that Cloquet, by limiting lawful gambling to local organizations, was possibly in
violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the State and/or Federal Constitution.
The Statute (Chapter 349) offers no guidance to local units of government on what is a
good reason for disapproval of a resolution. The Council may recall that they can, by
resolution, disapprove or approve a license; however, all licenses are issued by the
State.
What the City can do is require that a licensed, lawful gambling organization spend all
or a portion of its expenditures in the City's trade area. However, the Council must
define what that trade area is, which must include the cities contiguous to the defining
city (Chapter 349.213, Subd. 1, Paragraph b). In addition, these regulations must apply
equally to all of the licensed organizations.
40 In summary, the City can determine what kind of lawful gambling (if any) can take
place; it can specify the hours; and it can determine where in the City it will be
conducted. This activity is not limited to establishments who are licensed to sell
<B_I
• intoxicating and non-intoxicating liquors. Therefore, the Council may, by ordinance,
limit this activity to only establishments who sell for consumption on premises
intoxicating and/or non-intoxicating liquor(s). Otherwise, permits could be issued to
virtually any retail establishment. The concern here is the age restriction for the
purchase of pull tabs, which is 18 years or older. This would be at best difficult to
control in businesses other than those licensed to sell liquor.
Recommended Motion:
Approve first reading of an ordinance amending Section 1100.13, Subd. 7 (limiting
gambling, pull tabs) to places other than the American Legion and V.F.W. and limiting
this activity to licensed intoxicating and non-intoxicating liquor establishments and set
the public hearing and second reading for December 11, 1995.
Basis of Recommendation:
1. Staff has reviewed this issue and is comfortable with the expansion of this activity.
The Council has heard testimony from interested groups who feel this may assist
them in supporting some youth sports activities.
2. The amending of Section 1100.13, Sub. 7, will allow additional places in the
community. In addition, the amendment will restrict this activity to licensed liquor
establishments which will assist in controlling the activity and minimize persons
• under 18 from purchasing pull tabs.
Alternative Recommendation:
1. Do nothing. Leave the ordinance as is which essentially leaves charitable
gambling (pull tabs) at only two locations.
2. Repeal Section 1100. 13, Subd. 7, and do not adopt an ordinance which limits this
activity to only licensed liquor establishments. This would then allow not-for-profit
organizations to lease space in any business and sell pull tabs. This would make
it difficult to control.
Discussion/Decision Mode:
Approve first reading of an ordinance amending Section 1100. 13, Subd. 7, which allows
pull tabs to licensed liquor establishments and set the public hearing and second
reading for December 11, 1995.
Reppe ully submitted,
JTes Prosser
City Manager
• JDP:cak
NOV 09 '95 14:16 KENNEDY & GRAVEN
I
i BILL NO.
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SUBSECTION 1100.13 OF THE
RICHFIELD CITY CODE; RELATING TO LAWFUL
GAMBLING; REPEALING CERTAIN ELIGIBILITY
REQUIREMENTS FOR APPROVAL OF A LAWFUL.
GAMBLING LICENSE
THE CITY OF RICHFIELD DOES ORDAIN:
S-2-
Section 1. Subsection 1100.13, subdivision 7 of the Richfield City Code is hereby
amended to read as follows:
Subd. 7. Off premises gambling. The city will disapprove of any
application wherein the applicant seeks to be permitted to conduct gambling on
premises which are not:
(a) owned or leased by the applicant, and
(b) located within *e a property
for which an on-sale intoxicating or non-intoxicating
liouor license has been issued
Upon the receipt of notification of the pendency of any license application before
the charitable gambling board requesting such off-premises gambling the clerk
shall, in lieu of the provisions contained in subdivisions 4, 5, b and 9 of this
subsection, transmit a certified copy of subdivision 7 to the charitable gambling
board together with a statement from the city clerk that subdivision 7 is in full
force and effect and that the application is disapproved pursuant to that subdivi-
sion. Such action by the city clerk shall constitute the official action of the city.
The provisions of this subdivision shall not apply to the sale of raffle tickets.
Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this day of
.199-.
Martin 3. Kirsch, Mayor
ATTEST:
omas Per ty er
P.3
RC160-2
AC160
i
i
NOV 09 '95 14:16 KENNEDY & GRAVEN
KENNEDY & GRAVEN
CHARTERED
Atiw" at Low
ROMMr A. ALSOP
RONALD H. BATTY
JOHN W MAN
DANLw J. GRR6KSWU0
DAVIDJ. RRNNRDY
CIIm?"I I. LZFEVUZ
JOHN 115, taftVAR. JR.
ROJNMT J. LINIM"
ROMW C. LONG
JAMM At. $TR mam
CORRiRa HELVE TnomoN
470 PWsbwy Ceatff, MIaOSPO" bl 0809ta SSM
(612) 337.9300
Fac"ft (612) 337-"10
WRITER'S DIRECT DIAL
(fig) err_M7
BY FAX AND MAIL
November 9, 1995
Jack Erskine
City of Richfield
6700 Portland Avenue South
Richfield, MN 55423
RE: Ordinance re lawful gambling licenses
Dear Jack:
P.2
F=3
JAMS J. TROMt M JL
LARRY h L W&RU M
BONNIE L. WRJUNS
J0R Y. YANG
DAVID L. 09AVEN Ong-Ml)
OF COiTRM
D&L" At t<ATFUSON
ROURT C. CARD Ml
Room L. DAVAHON
WELLINGTON N. LAW
CORTR A. MUM
T. JAY 6ALMEN
Enclosed is the ordinance that we discussed this morning. If adopted, the ordinance would
modify Subsection 1100.13, subdivision 7 of the Richfield City Code in two respects:
(1) it would remove the restriction that previously limited lawful gambling to the principal place
of business of the applicant; and (2) it would add a requirement that lawful gambling only be
allowed on properties that are also licensed for on-sale liquor sales.
As we discussed, one reason for restricting lawful gambling to licensed liquor establishments is
to better assure compliance with the restriction against selling pull-tabs to persons under age 18.
For the sane reason, the restriction is limited to on-sale establishments only (although as the
owner of the off-sale municipal liquor stores, the City could independently prevent lawful
gambling on its property).
f If you have questions, please contact me.
Sincerely,
Corrine H. Thomson
Enclosure
cc: Jim Prosser
CAR96SSO
AC260-3
• CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Council Letter No. 303
Agenda November 13, 1995
Issue Statement:
Consideration of a resolution authorizing acquisition of 6432-15th and 6529 Emerson
Avenues for new home construction and the first reading of an ordinance authorizing
sale of the property to the HRA.
Background:
The HRA, working with Vo-Tech and non-profit builders, has developed new housing for
moderate income families for over 15 years. When CDBG funds are used, HUD rules
require that the City purchase the property and subsequently transfer it to the HRA to
re-sell at the appropriate time. The City would use 1995 federal CDBG funds reserved
in the HRH's New Home budget for this acquisition. City revenues would not be used
for the purchase.
The properties are substandard as to their size, function,'and condition. The owners of
both properties, through participation in the Voluntary Acquisition Program, have stated
an interest in selling the property. An independent appraiser has evaluated the
property and staff has negotiated the purchase price at the apprised value of $55,000
• for 6432-15th Avenue and $57,000 for 6529 Emerson Avenue. The HRA supports a
purchase at these prices. Upon authorization, the City would enter into a purchase
agreement with the owner to acquire the property with CDBG funds. The City would
then sell the property to the HRA for $1.
It is anticipated that the City would acquire the property by the end of this year. Sale to
the HRA would occur in early 1996. The HRA is responsible for all holding and
maintenance costs. Site clearance and construction would not start until mid 1996 and
after the site is transferred to the HRA.
Recommended Motion:
It is recommended that the City Council take the following actions:
1. Adopt the attached resolution which authorizes the City Manager and Mayor to:
A. Enter into a purchase agreement and take other actions necessary to acquire
the property at 6423-15th Avenue for $55,000 and 6529 Emerson Avenue for
$57,000.
B. Enter into a sales agreement with the HRA and take other actions necessary to
transfer the properties to the HRA for $1.00.
C. Schedule a public hearing and a second reading of the transitory ordinance to
• accomplish the sale to the HRA for December 11, 1995.
2. Give first reading to the attached transitory ordinance.
/7-/
Basis of Recommendation:
1. The HRA has identified these properties for the New Home Program and
authorized staff to acquire the properties.
2. The property owners are interested in selling the property through the Voluntary
Acquisition Program.
3. The property is substandard and qualified for acquisition in accordance with the
Voluntary Acquisition Program Guidelines.
4. Funds have been budgeted for acquisition, clearance, and maintenance from 1995
federal CDBG funds. The CDBG funds must be utilized for these purposes and to
provide a new home for a moderate income, first-time buying families.
5. Staff anticipates that one site would be used for a Vo-Tech construction program in
late 1996. A non-profit developer would be sought for the other site.
6. A finding has been made by the Planning Commission that acquisition and
disposition of these properties is in conformance with the Comprehensive Plan.
7. HUD rules require a procedure by which the city acquires the property and transfers
the property to the HRA.
• 8. The owners are both elderly and need to sell this year. CDBG funds need to be
expended this year.
9. City owned property requires the adoption of a transitory ordinance to effectuate a
. sale.
City Manager
JDP:ds
Alternative Recommendation:
The City can choose not to acquire the property. However, the HRA would not be able
to proceed with first time buyer projects in a timely manner. No better property
acquisition sites have been identified for the HRA first time buyer projects.
Discussion/Decision Mode:
The sale from the City to the HRA will require a public hearing and second reading of a
transitory ordinance scheduled for December 11, 1995.
Respec ly submitted,
James Prosser
?- C-)-
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING ACQUISITION AND A PUBLIC HEARING ON THE
SALE OF CERTAIN LAND
WHEREAS, the City has considered the purchase of the following properties
with CDBG funds on behalf of the Richfield HRA. The properties are further described
as:
Address: Legal Purchase Price
6432-15th Avenue Lot 9, Block 3, Nokomis $55,000
Gardens Rearrangement of
Block 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 Girard
Parkview Addition, Hennepin
County
6529 Emerson Avenue The North 60 feet of Lot B, $57,000
Silver Wood Second Addition
to Richfield, Hennepin County
WHEREAS, the City of Richfield, Minnesota (the "City:) proposes to sell the real
property to the HRA for $1.00 in furtherance of HRA housing program; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to the City Charter, Second 13.04, the City is authorized to
sell its Property following a public hearing for which notice was published not less than
ten days before such hearing.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of
Richfield, Minnesota as follows:
1. The City Manager and Mayor are authorized to take those actions necessary
to purchase 6432-15th Avenue for $55,000 and 6529 Emerson Avenue for
$57,000.
2. The City shall hold a public hearing and second reading of the ordinance
regarding the sale of land to the HRA on Monday, December 11, 1995.
3. The City Clerk is directed to publish notice of such hearing in the official
newspaper of the City and post notice of said hearing.
Adopted by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this 13th day of
November, 1995.
Martin J. Kirsch, Mayor
ATTEST:
0 Thomas P. Ferber, City Clerk
•
•
TRANSITORY ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE AUTHORIZING AND PROVIDING FOR THE SALE, TRANSFER OR
OTHER DISPOSITION AND CONVEYANCE OF CERTAIN CITY OWNED REAL
PROPERTY LOCATED IN THE CITY OF RICHFIELD, COUNTY OF HENNEPIN,
STATE OF MINNESOTA AT: 6432-15TH AVENUE AND 6529 EMERSON AVENUE
The City of Richfield Does Ordain:
Section 1.
The following described real property located in the City of Richfield, County of
Hennepin, State of Minnesota, is hereby,authorized to be sold, transferred or otherwise
disposed of, and conveyed by the City as herein provided:
Street Address:
6432-15th Avenue
6529 Emerson Avenue
Section 2.
Legal
Lot 9, Block 3, Nokomis
Gardens Rearrangement of
Block 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 Girard
Parkview Addition, Hennepin
County
The North 60 feet of Lot B,
Silver Wood Second Addition
to Richfield, Hennepin County
The Mayor and City Manager are hereby authorized to take all action as is required to
sell, transfer, or other wise dispose of and convey the real property described in the
foregoing Section 1, including, by way of illustration and not limitation, the execution of
all documents, purchase agreements, deeds of conveyance, and other instruments
connected with such sale, transfer or disposition and conveyance.
Passed this day of , 1995 by the Richfield City Council.
Martini. Kirsch, Mayor
•
ATTEST:
Thomas P. Ferber, City Clerk
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Council Letter No. 302
Agenda November 13, 1995
Issue Statement:
Consideration of first reading of an ordinance modifying department responsibility for
administration of the City's Recreation Enterprise Fund.
Background:
Richfield's Ordinance Code Section 300 establishes the responsibilities of the City's
departments and of the Department Directors. Currently, the overall administration of
the divisions of the City's new Recreation Enterprise Fund, which includes the golf
course, ice arena, waterslide/pool, and special facilities (miniature golf) is specified in
Section 300.09. That subsection defines the duties of the Community Services
Director. The proposed ordinance change would move the overall administration of that
Fund to the Administrative Services Department.
In the past two years, a special emphasis has been placed on a business planning
process for City enterprise operations. As a part of the effort, the Administrative
Services Director has worked with the Recreation Enterprise Fund and St. Thomas
University to develop business planning and to develop an enterprise type of
accounting system which could be better used as a tool to manage the various aspects
of the fund.
The enterprise operations will continue to receive advisory direction from the
Community Services Advisory Commission. The Director of Administrative Services will
attend and participate in Community Services Advisory Commission meetings as
appropriate.
Recommended Motion:
Approve first reading of the ordinance modifying department responsibility for the
Recreation Enterprise Fund and schedule a public hearing and second reading of the
ordinance for December 11, 1995.
Basis of Recommendation:
1. Organizing City enterprise operations under the supervision of a single department
helps assure greater consistency in management.
2. Transferring these operations provides for a better balance in departmental
workload.
Alternative Recommendation:
1. The Council could decide to request additional information regarding this change.
2. The Council could decide not to authorize any change in operational structure.
?,/
Discussion/Decision Mode:
First reading is scheduled for November 13, 1995. Public hearing and second reading
is scheduled for December 11, 1995.
Respectfully submitted,
James D. Prosser
City Manager
JDP:ds
•
9
6
0 BILL NO.
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTIONS 300.07 AND 300.09 OF THE RICHFIELD
CITY CODE; MODIFYING THE DUTIES OF DEPARTMENT DIRECTORS
REGARDING THE ADMINISTRATION OF THE RECREATION ENTERPRISE FUND.
THE CITY OF RICHFIELD DOES ORDAIN:
Section 1. Subsection 300.07 of the Richfield City Code is amended to read as
follows:
300.07. Administrative services department: duties of director. The director of
administrative services is responsible to the manager for the organization, planning,
administration and coordination of the administrative services of the city including:
(a) those duties imposed by law and charter upon city clerks and treasurers;
(b) acting as secretary to the council and maintaining all city records;
(c) safekeeping and managing of city funds;
(d) maintaining the financial records of the city;
(e) performing the functions of city assessor;
• (f) providing central personnel services relating to city personnel, providing
central data processing;
(g) printing and supply services for the city,
(h) handling the business affairs of the water and sewer utilities of the city;
(i) providing risk management services for the city;
(i) managing the recreation enterprise fund, including but not limited to, Rich
Acres Golf Course, ice arena. swimming pool and special facilities;
(k) any additional duties assigned by the manager.
Section 2. Subsection 300.09 of the Richfield City Code is amended to read as
follows:
300.09. Community services department: duties of director. The director of community
services is responsible to the manager for the organization, planning, administration
and coordination of community services of the city including:
(a) the ine aFenaj
0
(b) Swimming pool-;
(c} U community center;
(d} kW recreation activities;
(e3 Uc Wood Lake Nature Center;
(4 ,(o forestry activities, maintenance of amenity areas;
(M Ue? maintenance of government buildings;
(44) Mf operation of the central garage;
(4 LM operation and maintenance of the parks, streets and sewer and water
utilities of the city;
golf Geur-se,
(k} (W engineering; and
{4 Q any additional duties assigned by the city manager.
Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this day of
1995.
Martin J. Kirsch, Mayor
ATTEST:
Thomas P. Ferber, City Clerk
•
•
hs
V
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Council Letter No. 301
Agenda November 13, 1995
Issue Statement:
First reading consideration of an ordinance amendment that establishes deadlines for
zoning cases that are in compliance with state law.
Background:
The 1995 Legislature passed a law that requires all governmental agencies to approve or
deny a written request relating to zoning within 60 days of receiving a complete application.
If an agency fails to meet the deadline, the application is automatically approved. An
agency may extend the time period by an additional 60 days, if the applicant is notified in
writing of the extension. The applicant has to approve an extension of more than 60 days.
The City currently processes most applications within 60 days but the ordinance specifies
other time limits which are inconsistent with the state law. The change in the deadline
affects the following zoning procedures: site plan review, planned unit developments,
variance appeals, conditional use permits, ordinance amendments, and variances.
Staff will be modifying application packages and procedures to ensure that the 60-day
timeline is met and to avoid automatic approval.
Recommended Motion:
Approve the first reading of an ordinance amendment that establishes deadlines for zoning
cases that are in compliance with state law and set a public hearing and second reading for
December 11, 1995.
Basis of Recommendation:
1. Language in the zoning ordinance is inconsistent with state law.
2. The City currently meets most deadlines within 60 days.
3. The City Attorney has reviewed the proposed ordinance.
4. On October 24, 1995, the Planning Commission voted unanimously to recommend
approval of the ordinance amendment.
Alternative Recommendation:
1. The City Council could deny this amendment, however, that would result in retaining
ordinance language that is not in compliance with state law.
Discussion/Decision Mode:
A public hearing and second reading is scheduled at 7 p.m. on Monday, December 11,
1995. The hearing will be held in the City Council Chambers of Richfield City Hall, 6700
Portland Avenue. Notice of the hearing was published in the Sun-Current.
Respe submitted,
James rosser
City Man ger
JDP:ds
Re v, s ed., 5-1
• Bill No. 1995-
Amendment to Appendix B
of the City Code
of the City of Richfield
The City of Richfield Does Ordain:
Section 1
Section 526 of Appendix B to the Richfield City Code entitled "Zoning: Commercial Districts"
is hereby amended by amending Section 526.43, Subd. 5 to read as follows:
Subd. 5. Public hearing. Upon receipt of a completed application, a date shall be set
for a public hearing before the Planning Commission. The hearing will be held no less
than 10 days after mailed notice is sent to the owners of properties located wholly or
partially within 350 feet of the site. Within 4-5 days af?eef the elese of the publi
hearing, the The Planning Commission shall submit its recommendations to the
Council. Following appropriate review, the Council shall make a decision regarding
the application.
Section 2:
Section 536 of Appendix B to the Richfield City Code entitled "Zoning: Planned Unit
• Developments" is hereby amended by amending Section 536.17, Subd. 2 to read as follows:
Subd. 2. Planning Commission review. The Planning Commission shall conduct a
public hearing on the PUD application and serve mailed notice of such hearing to the
applicant and all property owners situated wholly or partially within 350 feet of the
proposed PUD district. Within 45 days after adjourmnent of stieh publie hearing, th
The Planning Commission shall submit its recommendation to the Council. The
Planning Commission may recommend approval with or without modifications, or may
recommend denial of the PUD application.
Section 3•
Section 546 of Appendix B to the Richfield City Code entitled "Zoning: Administration" is
hereby amended by amending Section 546.03, Subd. 7 to read as follows:
Subd. 7. Procedures. The Director shall prepare reports and other necessary
information for the Board. The Board shall, days, widiin 45 make a decision
regarding any matter before it by adopting findings within 60 days of submission of a
written appeal unless written notice of an extension is provided to the applicant. The
notification must state the reasons for the extension and its anticipated length, which
may not exceed 60 dgys unless approved by the applicant If the Board fails to make a
timely decision the appeal shall be deemed to have been approved. A copy of the
Board's decision shall be served by mail upon the person requesting the adjustment or
appeal.
r?
U
Rev?se? 5' ?'
Section 4•
Section 546 of Appendix B to the Richfield City Code entitled "Zoning: Administration" is
hereby amended by amending Section 546.05, Subd: 5 to read as follows:
Subd. 5. Public hearing. After receipt of the recommendation of the Planning
Commission, a date shall be set for a public hearing. Not less than 10 days prior to
the public hearing, notice shall be published once in the official newspaper and sent by
mail to all the owners of properties located wholly or partially within 350 feet. The
Council shall make the final determination on the application, and in doing so shall
make findings regarding its review. The Council may impose conditions and require
guarantees on the granting of the permit in order to ensure compliance with the
conditions designated in connection therewith. The Council shall make a decision
within 440 60 days of submission of a completed application or sueh longer period
objeeted to by the appliefifft unless written notice of an extension is provided to the
aMlicant. The notification must state the reasons for the extension and its anticipated
length, which may not exceed 60 days unless approved by the applicant. If the Council
fails to make a timely decision, the conditional use permit shall be deemed to have
been approved.
Section 5:
Section 546 of Appendix B to the Richfield City Code entitled "Zoning: Administration" is
hereby amended by amending Section 546.07, Subd. 4 to read as follows:
Subd. 4. City Council consideration. After receipt of the recommendation of the
Planning Commission, the Council shall consider the matter at a first reading. The
Council may offer whatever public notice of its first reading review that it deems
necessary. If the application is approved for first reading, the Council shall set a date
for a second reading and public hearing. Not less than 10 days prior to the public
hearing, notice shall be published once in the official newspaper. Notice regarding an
amendment which involves a change in the boundaries of a zoning district shall also be
sent by mail to the applicant and all the owners of properties located wholly or
partially within 350 feet. The Council shall act upon the amendment within 430 60
days of submission of a completed application
the applieawr unless written notice of an extension is provided to the applicant. The
notification must state the reasons for the extension and its anticipated length, which
may not exceed 60 days unless approved by the applicant. If the Council fails to make
a timely decision, the amendment shall be deemed to have been-denW gpnroved. The
Council may adopt an amendment to this code only upon an affirmative vote of at least
two-thirds of its full membership.
Section 6•
Section 546 of Appendix B to the Richfield City Code entitled "Zoning: Administration" is
hereby amended by amending Section 546.09, Subd. 5 to read as follows:
Subd. 5. Decision. Not less than 30 60 days after the elese of the hearing or- any
eentifmanee whieh is not appealed by the applieam receipt of a completed application,
90(SeCL 5 -3
the Hearing Examiner shall render a written decision regarding the application unless
written notice of an extension is provided to the applicant. The notification must state
the reasons for the extension and its anticipated length, which may not exceed 60 days
unless approved by the applicant If the Hearing Examiner fails to make a_ timely
decision, the variance shall be deemed to have been approved. The decision shall be
supported by findings specifically related to the applicable criteria contained in this
code. The decision shall be mailed to all parties of record and filed with the City
Clerk. The Hearing Examiner's decision shall be final, subject to appeal. If th
period, applieant may present its appheation to the Bee&d of Adjushmems and Appeals for
The Hearing Examiner or Betel
may impose conditions in granting variances to effect the intent of this code - and to
protect adjacent properties.
Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this day of
, 1995.
Martin J. Kirsch, Mayor
ATTEST:
0
Thomas P. Ferber, City Clerk
0
4
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Council Letter No. 300
Agenda Novemer 13, 1995
Issue Statement:
Resolution designating City's contribution toward health, term life and dental insurance
premium for General Services and Management employees.
Background:
At the present time, the City contributes to the cost of premiums for four kinds of
insurance coverages available to City employees. Management and General Services
employee contributions are discussed within this letter. Other employees are covered
under terms of labor agreements.
LIFE
A $20,000 term life insurance policy is currently provided for all Management and
General Services employees. The City pays the full premium for this insurance, which
is $3.40 per month per employee for 1995.
The $20,000 policy limit which was implemented in 1995 is still below what would be
considered adequate. Other cities provide life insurance of $30,000 to $40,000 or at an
amount equal to one or one and one half time their respective annual salary. The
$20,000 policy limit is also still low in considering the costs and hardships involved in a
death or dismemberment.
For 1996, an increase to a $25,000 limit is proposed. The rate per thousand dollars of
coverage charged for this policy is the same as for the previous limit. The cost of
providing life insurance would increase 85 cents per month per employee for an annual
cost increase of about $1,100 for all Management and General Services employees.
The $25,000 is a limit which would likely remain for the next several years.
DENTAL
The second type of insurance provided to Management and General Services
employees is a self-funded group dental insurance. In 1995, the City contributed $24
per month per employee for the total cost of employee (not dependent) coverage.
Employees who desire dependent coverage must pay the full cost of such additional
premium, which for 1995 was $31. Inasmuch as dental insurance is self-funded, the
City establishes the dental rates from year to year internally, based upon administrative
and benefit pay-out cost data. No change is recommended for 1996. While the City
does not contribute to dependent coverage for dental insurance, for informational
purposes, the rate the employee will pay will remain at $31 per month.
HEALTH
The third type of insurance coverage available to Management and General Services
employees is group health coverage. Employees may select among three optional
?-1
plans available through the LOGIS Health Insurance Program. The City pays the full
individual employee premium and provides an additional contribution toward dependent
coverage up to a specified maximum insurance premium.
The 1995 and 1996 monthly premium costs of the health plans are:
1995 Rate 1996 Rate % Change
Group Health Inc.
Individual $170.74 $162.32 -5.19%
Family 465.86 443.32 -5.08%
MedCenter
Individual $160.71 $156.10 -2.95%
Family 478.35 464.63 -2.95%
Medica
Individual $187.16 $187.16 0%
Family 449.05 449.03 0%
In 1996, the City's contribution for Management and General Services employees will
be increased by $10 to $345. The City's contribution for Management and General
Services employees as a percent of premium over the past five years is shown in
Attachment 1.
LONG-TERM DISABILITY (LTD)
The fourth type of insurance provided to Management and General Services employees
is disability insurance.. Short-term disability insurance is self-funded out of the current
operating budget, similar to the manner in which sick leave costs are covered. Long-
term disability insurance (LTD) is provided through a group LTD policy secured by the
City. Currently, the City pays a premium rate of 36 cents per $100 of salary for covered
employees. No change is recommended.
Recommended Motion:
It is recommended that the following actions be taken with respect to the City's
insurance contributions for Management and General Services employees:
A. Life Insurance
That the term life insurance increase from $20,000 to $25,000 at the same rate,
with a premium charge increase from $3.40 to $4.25 per month per employee.
B. Dental Insurance
That the per employee per month contribution remain at $24. As in the past,
employees who desire dependent coverage would pay the full cost of such
additional premium.
• C. Long-Term Disability Insurance
That the long-term disability insurance remain with a premium charge of 36 cents
per $100 of salary.
D. Group Health Insurance
That the City contribution be increased from a maximum of $335 per month to
$345 per moonth per employee for dependent coverage.
Basis of Recommendation:
1. To provide adequate insurance protection for the Management and General
Services employee groups, which are comparable to other City employee groups, as
well as employees performing similar jobs in comparable communities.
2. Greater benefit equality is achieved between female classes found in General
Services and Management groups and male classes found in the contracted labor
units.
3. The 1996 Budget includes the funding necessary to provide for premium
contribution increases recommended.
Alternative Recommendation:
• 1. The Council may take no action to increase the insurance premiums beyond the
current 1995 funding level.
Discussion/Decision Mode:
The City should implement the premium increases for coverages by December 10,
1995. Payroll deductions for January insurance payments, the beginning of the new
insurance period, are calculated in December.
Respectfully submitted,
James Q. Fero
City Man)jer
JDP:ds
Copy: Administrative Services Director
Human Resources Manager
0
q-3
• RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION DESIGNATING CITY'S CONTRIBUTION
TOWARD HEALTH, TERM LIFE AND DENTAL INSURANCE PREMIUM
FOR MANAGEMENT AND GENERAL SERVICES EMPLOYEES
WHEREAS, the hospital-medical/surgical group health insurance plan is available
from the LOGIS Health Insurance Program for City employees and their families; and
WHEREAS, a term life and accidental death and dismemberment insurance plan is
available from the Local Government Information Systems Association (LOGIS) for City
employees; and
WHEREAS, a self-funded group dental insurance plan is available to City
Management and General Services employees and their families; and
WHEREAS, a group short-term and long-term disability program is available to City
Management and General Services employees; 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 $345.00 per month for family health insurance, and in any event, said contributions shall
not exceed the cost of single coverage for employees selecting that option. The City shall
also pay the $24.00 monthly premium for the employee dental insurance plan, and the
$4.25 monthly premium for the term life and accidental death and dismemberment
insurance plan for Management and General Services employees, for a total possible
maximum 1996 insurance premium contribution of $373.25 per month. Such contributions
shall be for coverage effective January 1, 1996.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City shall contribute the full cost of long-term
disability insurance for the Management and General Services employees' coverage.
BE IT 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.
Adopted by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this day of
, 1995.
Martin J. Kirsch, Mayor
ATTEST:
Thomas P. Ferber, City Clerk
0
U-y
Attachment 1
The City's Contribution Toward Dependent Health
. Insurance as a Percent of Total Premium Cost
DEPENDENT CITY CONTRIBUTION
YEAR HEALTH PREMIUM CITY CONTRIBUTION AVERAGE % OF
PLAN COST MGMT./GEN.SVCS. PREMIUM
1985 PHP $204.70 $132.00
MCHP $180.15 $132.00 71%
GHI $169.83 $132.00
1986 PHP $211.07 $140.00
MCHP $187.35 $140.00 72%
GHI $183.05 $140.00
1987 PHP $221.62 $150.00
MCHP $196.70 $150.00 74%
GHI $186.70 $150.00
1988 PHP $221.62 $160.00
MCHP $233.55 $160.00 73%
GHI $204.65 $160.00
1989 PHP $266.00 $170.00
MCHP $291.25 $170.00 63%
GHI $254.70 $170.00
1990 PHP $299.50 $210.00
MCHP $326.20 $210.00 68%
GHI $290.67 $210.00
1991 PHP $340.00 $240.00
MCHP $357.20 $240.00 70%
GHI $321.46 $240.00
1992 MEDICA $399.00 $255.00
MCHP $389.35 $255.00 66%
GHI $356.76 $255.00
1993 MEDICA $430.92 $285.00
MCHP $437.25 $285.00 68%
GHI $397.48 $285.00
1994 MEDICA $449.05 $315.00
MCHP $478.35 $315.00 69.5%
GHI $431.44 $315.00
1995 MEDICA $449.05 $335.00
MCHP $478.35 $335.00 72%
GHI $465.86 $335.00
• 1996 MEDICA $449.03 $345.00
MCHP $464.63 $345.00 76%
GHI $443.32 $345.00
3K
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Council Letter No. 299
Agenda November 13, 1995
Issue Statement:
Consideration of an application for a renewal of a residential kennel license for Ruth
Peterson, 2800 West 71 st Street.
Background:
On October 3, 1995, Ruth Peterson submitted an application for a residential kennel
license. She owns three dogs. Ms. Peterson's application contains all contiguous property
owners' signatures.
On October 8, 1995, an inspection of the property was conducted by a Community Service
Officer. There were no apparent problems found at that time.
The City has adopted a policy that staff notify neighbors surrounding the area of the
residential kennel license. Staff received no calls or complaints from any of the neighbors.
Although this application is for three dogs, it does not exceed the maximum number of six
animals that was approved by the Council as policy on July 22, 1991.
Recommended Motion:
Staff recommends that the application for a residential kennel license be approved.
Basis for Recommendation:
1. It is up to the animal owner to prove that the keeping of more than two dogs does not
have an adverse effect on the neighborhood. Ms. Peterson has been able to do this.
Alternative Recommendation:
1. The Council could decide to deny Ms. Peterson's residential kennel license. This
would mean that she would have to reduce the number of animals on her property
from three to two.
Discussion/Decision Mode:
Recommendation to approve a residential kennel license for Ruth Peterson, 2800 West
71 st Street, is presented for Council consideration at this time.
submitted,
• James
City Man
JDP:ds
?J
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Council Letter No. 298
Agenda November 13, 1995
Issue Statement:
Council approval to have Videotronix, Inc. upgrade the detention and security portion of
the Public Safety Department's video monitoring system.
Background:
One portion of the Public Safety Detention Area Maintenance and Update Project
provides for upgrading the detention and security portion of the department's video
monitoring system. Videotronix, Inc. has installed and maintained the entire Public
Safety video monitoring system since it was configured many years ago.
This project involves only upgrades to a portion of the video system as it relates to
prisoner detention and security. To update the video cameras and monitors,
Videotronix has researched the needs and, using much of the existing cabling, wiring
and mounts, can upgrade the current system and continue to maintain the system.
Since Videotronix, Inc., maintains the entire video system for Public Safety, they should
continue to be the sole source vendor for this project.
The video portion of the upgrade will include replacement of outdated video cameras
and monitors with newer models. The new cameras will be relocated to give better
viewing of in-custody persons by dispatch and supervisory personnel. Equipment and
installation are included in the price of this upgrade.
•
Recommended Motion:
Approve Videotronix, Inc. as the vendor to provide the upgrading of the detention and
security portion of the Public Safety Department's video monitoring system in the
amount of $13,802.88.
Basis of Recommendation:
1. Videotronix, Inc. has submitted the lower priced proposal for completion of this
project.
2. Since Videotronix, Inc. currently maintains the entire video system for Public Safety,
they should continue to be the sole source vendor for this project.
Alternative Recommendation:
1. Award the project to the higher bidder (Alpha Video).
Discussion/Decision Mode:
To allow project completion prior to December 31, 1995, awarding of the project should
occur as soon as possible.
Respe ully submitted,
Jame Prosser
City M ager
JDP:ds
OCT.-23'95(MON) 08:51 VIDEOTRONIY INC. TEL:612 894 0509
10 VideoTronix, Inc.
Richfield PD Camera Update
RICHFIELD POLICE DEPARTMENT
Qty Model Number Sales Description
10 WV CP214 Color Camera, 1/3" CCD
8 L2.8 1.3/CS 2.8mm F1.3 lens, CS mount
1 L4 1.4/CS Lenses, 4mm, Fixed with CS/C
3 CCEH 2O0D Corner Housing Dention Grade
1 25815 Plenum RG59/U 20 Sld Jkt
1 25224 Plenum 2/C 18
3 CKV 20DST1/5 Color Monitor
1 SSM 1380 Color 13" Monitor
2 NM5 Color Quad
10
1 rm04 Rack Kit
Equipment
Miscellaneous Parts
Total Equipment
Total Labor
SubTotal
Sales Tax State Tax 6.50
Total withTax
23-Oct-9S
Price
$566.00
$77.00
$44.00
$262.00
$41.00
$17.00
$535.00
$434.00
$1,020.00
$73.00
$11,316
$40
P. 002
V
23-Oct-95
Equipment
Total
$5,660.00
$616.00
$44.00
$786.00
$41.00
$17.00
$1,605.00
$434.00
$2,040.00
$73.00
$11,379
$1,300
$12,679
% $740
$13,418
Richfield PD Camera Update 1
•
00-r-20-91:5 F R I
r?
1:2:11 A L P H A VIDE-0
PROPOSAL
ACCT # QUOTE # PAGE
213471 015294-SQ 1
771
EdrwL MN lCompular65436 Avenue
(612) 896.9898
FAX (612) 896-9899
4
4 Company: SHIP TO:
CITY OF RICHFIELD
$ubmitted PUBLIC SAFETY
To: 6700 PORTLAND AVE
RICHFIELD MN 55423
ATTN: LT BILL SUECH
Date:
Terms:
P . 0:Z
10/20/95 1:35 PM
NET 30 DAYS
ITEM OUAN. MODEL DESCRIPTION UNIT PRICE TOTAL'
1 10 WVCP214 PAN CCTV COLOR CAMERA 24V 414.00 4140.00
2 8 L2.81.3/ S RAINBOW 2.8MM MANUAL IRIS LENS 61.00 488.00
3 1 L41.4GII C RAINBOW 4MM AUTO IRIS LENS 65.00 65.00
4 3 *MS90AHC VIDEOLARM ARMOR CORNER HOUSING 465.00 1395.00
5 2 CT2084Y PAN PRO 2011 COLOR MONITOR 363.00 726.00
6 1 AD1584SL 6 AMERICAN DYNAMICS MULTIPLEXER 2539.00 2539.00
7 1 C13CL6 JVC CON 1311 MONITOR/RECEIVER 198.00 198.00
8 1 *VS512B PELCO SEQUENTIAL SWITCHER 489.00 489.00
9 1 *RKS20 PELCO RACKMOUNT KIT 22.00 22.00
10 1 *L10X6MEA C RAINBOW MOTORIZED ZOOM LENS 769.00 769.00
11 25 AVTS LABO R FOR CAMERA INSTALLATION 60.00 1500.00
12 1 AVTS MIS PARTS/CABLE FOR INSTALL 310.00 310.00
13 1 AVTS MIS ONE YEAR PREVENTIVE MAINTANCE 600.00 600.00
14 4 TM9U JVC PRO 9" COLOR MONITOR 397.00 1588.00
Proposal Total* $ 14829.00 Submitted By- BLN NELSON
*P&as do not Include safes tax. Prkat rettact current manutacturen cost and are sub)act to dw o.
WE HEREBY ACCEPT this proposal and agree to purchase the items as listed above and
on any continuation pages attached hereto to acordance with the terms and provisions set
forth on both sides hereof.
P.O. No.
Authorized Agent: X
Title:
Date:
33-
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Council Letter No. 297
Agenda November 13, 1995
Issue Statement:
Request from the State of Minnesota to review the request for a renewal of a currency
exchange license for Super Cash, 6417 Lyndale Avenue.
Background:
On September 20, 1995, the City of Richfield received notification from the State of
Minnesota Department of Commerce of a renewal application for a currency exchange
license in the name of Super Cash, 6417 Lyndale Avenue.
A license for this type of business is not required in the City. However, effective on
April 24, 1992, Minnesota Statute 53A.04 requires that the Department of Commerce
submit any application for licensure as a currency exchange to the governing body of
the municipality in which the business proposes to conduct business.
This law also requires the governing municipality to render a decision regarding
issuance or denial of the license within 60 days receipt of the State's notification.
The State requires that the applicant submit the following information when applying for
this type of license:
• License fees in the amount of $50.
• A current fee schedule used for cashing checks, money orders or traveler's checks.
• A surety bond in the amount of $10,000.
• Any owner, partner, officer, director, stockholder (owning 10% or more of the
corporate stock) or any employee with the authority to exercise management or
policy control over the company must submit to a background investigation by the
Bureau of Criminal Apprehension. .
All of this information has been provided to the State of Minnesota and a background
investigation conducted by the Bureau of Criminal Apprehension found no information
on the applicants, Donald E. and Gloria Anderson. The Anderson's reside in the City of
Bloomington.
Richfield Public Safety Department has conducted a background investigation on the
applicants. There were eight Public Safety contacts with this establishment from
October 1, 1994 through September 30, 1995. They were for two burglary alarms, two
3_=1
S forgeries, one suspicious vehicle, two suspicious persons and one follow-up
investigation.
Recommended Motion:
Staff recommends that the Council approve a license for Super Cash, 6417 Lyndale
Avenue.
Basis for Recommendation:
1. The applicant has complied with State Statute 53A.04 for a currency exchange
license with the State of Minnesota.
2. A background investigation of the applicants finds no reason to recommend denial
of the license.
Alternative Recommendation:
1. The Council could deny the license request; however, staff has determined that
there is no basis for this alternative.
Discussion/Decision Mode:
Approval of the issuance of a currency exchange license by the State of Minnesota for
Super Cash, 6417 Lyndale Avenue, is submitted for City Council consideration at this
time.
Respectfully submitted,
Jam D. Prosser
City anager
JDP:ds
3n
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Council Letter No. 296
Agenda November 13, 1995
Issue Statement:
Request for consideration of an amended planned unit development/final development
plan and conditional use permit for the Hub Shopping Center.
Background:
Bradley Midwest Management is requesting an amendment to the planned unit
development/final development plan of the Hub Shopping Center to allow an expansion
of the restaurant/office building located in the south central part of the Center.
Burger King is planning to take over the space currently occupied by Hardee's, which is
going out of business. Burger King is planning to add 940 square feet to the front
atrium of the existing building to create an indoor children's play area. The play area
will incorporate a large-scale play feature. The expansion will remove five parking
spaces from the area in front of the building.
Recommended Motion:
Approve the request for an amended planned unit development/final development plan
and conditional use permit with the following stipulation:
1. A stormwater drainage plan be approved by the City Engineer.
Basis of Recommendation:
1. Adequate on-site parking is available in the area surrounding the building to support
the loss of parking.
2. The expansion will improve the visual image of the building as a retail use.
3. The expansion design meets contemporary standards and fits with the update of the
entire center that was undertaken in the late 1980s.
4. On October 24, 1995, the Planning Commission voted unanimously to recommend
approval of the amended planned unit development/final development plan and
conditional use permit.
Alternative Recommendation:
The Council may deny with a finding that the proposal would have an adverse impact
on adjacent properties.
Discussion/Decision Mode:
Consideration of this item is scheduled for the November 13, 1995 City Council
meeting.
Resp y submitted,
James Prosser
City Manager
JDP:ds
o-
A
i
W
0
z s
W
U?
•Lti1SfE 7fY
W
w
cr-
F-
U)
LO
(D
•
•
50A
WW?
4 N
2
9 m
Eb$
o S ?
R
SQ
G
IQ
r
3nN3AV 13-1-1001N
'O
d
fA
O
C
O
G.
Iq-,/
F-
LLJ
W
F-
t
(D
(D
F-
N
LJ
PBOAR I uWnoS PMAPJON SpOd¢BU M
?.. ?. W C 7's_xa NVId 3115
gsi 3s5 V10S3NNIW 'O1313H?1b AMTS H199 ISM 'anH 3H1 a 4.
U < S S T ;.. -. it
V ..1 U <N W 3?" £?, N O I 1 1 0 a V V 3 a V A V l d
_ 's a: ONIN ?nmj 19 3 s
r-- -
UT
?N-C--
H
W
UL
°C 4 lu
W g
?• ? I U
Q ._
Iu I I _W
-? J n
I I
I I
I
d I ? ?
' , 'v I I I P
lm I II 4.z?
m
Y
•
?1- 3
.2._8.
PROPOSED PLAY ROOM ADDITION
1314 SQ FT. GROSS
NET INCFEASE 940 Sa FT.
EXISTING SOLARIUM ADDITION
314 sm FT. GROSS
TO BE REMOVED
EXISTING CLLILDING PLAN
LINE OF EXIST
\
r--/E---------
i
I
I '
I
I
EXISTwo flu
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
LEASE SPACE
I
I
I
I
I '
I
I
I
I II lil +
I
L----------------.
0
Y
7MI O
f --------------1
JL?M?:a\ l I
v I
i I
? I
I
11
ILDING LOBBY
I
i
EXISTING RESTAUIEWT SPACE
? NEW j/
YESTICULE
I
I n..b.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
!
! I
! I
I
- - - - - - - -•- - - - - - - - - J
EXISTNG FLOOR PLAN W/ NEW PLAY ROOM
MALE: V*' • 1'-V
01'r
YAGGY
COLBY
ASSOCIATES
717 THIRD AVENUE SOUTHEAST BURGM 04G at TK HUB
ROCHESTER, MINNESOTA 55904
507-288=6464 SWESTWIND GROUP,
FAX 507-288-5058
WfEW, WAMOTA
ENGINEERS • ARCHITECTS
SURVEYORS • PLANNERS
LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS
EXISTING BUILDING PLAN
WITH NEW PLAY ROOM ADDITION
SOUTH ELEVATION W1 NEW FLY ROOM
SCALE: 1/16' = 1'-0'
WEST ELEVATION UJ/ NEUJ FLY ROOM
SCALE: 1/16' = 1'-0'
i
YAG GY
COLBY
ASSOCIATES
717 THIRD AVENUE SOUTHEAST
ROCHESTER, MINNESOTA 55904
507-288-6464
FAX 507-288-5058
ENGINEERS -
SURVEYORS
LANDSCAPE
IIM BURGER KING at THE HUB
MNO WESTWIND GROUP
RUED, MNKSOTA
EXISTING BUILDING ELEVATIONS
WITH NEW PLAY ROOM ADDITION
ARCHITECTS
- PLANNERS
ARCHITECTS
`-----------------------------------------
------------
NEW PLAY ROCt't EXIST. ENTRANCE
WINDOW NEW NEW PLAY ROOM
ENTRANCE
EAST ELEVATION W1 NEW FLAY ROOM
5C.^-L° i/ICo' = V-0'
EXIST DRIVE-UP
WNDOW
NORTH ELEVATION W1 NEW PLAY ROOM
SC-:LE: 1/16' = V-0'
el*t
YAGGY
COLBY
ASSOCIATES
717 THIRD AVENUE SOUTHEAST duaftmBURGER KING at THE HUB
ROCHESTER, MINNESOTA 55904
507-288-6464 4WWESTWIND GROUP
FAX 507-288-5058
RICHW, MNNESOTA
ENGINEERS • ARCHITECTS
SURVEYORS • PLANNERS
LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS
EXISTING BUILDING ELEVATIONS
WITH NEW PLAY ROOM ADDITION
3&
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Council Letter No. 295
Agenda November 13, 1995
Issue Statement:
Request for consideration of a conditional use permit for 1201 East 66th Street.
Background:
The applicant is requesting a conditional use permit to allow operation of an auto
detailing business, The Custom Shop, at 1201 East 66th Street. The existing building
has two bays where auto detailing will be performed. The front office area will serve as
a showroom for automotive accessories. No changes are planned for the existing
building.
There are currently four drive entrances into the parking lot, two of which are in close
proximity to the signalized intersection. The location of these two driveways creates a
high potential for traffic conflicts and accidents. In addition, licensing requirements limit
the number of entrances to one driveway per adjacent street. The two driveways will be
closed and replaced with curb and gutter to match the existing curbing.
Recommended Motion:
Approve the request for a conditional use permit with the following stipulations:
1. That the two driveways nearest the intersection of East 66th Street and 12th Avenue
be closed, replaced with curbing to match the existing, and sodded.
2. That the driveways be closed or a cash escrow be deposited with the City for the
cost of closing the two driveways before the conditional use permit becomes valid.
Basis of Recommendation:
1. There is adequate on-site parking available.
2. The proposed business makes use of a currently vacant building.
3. The business is compatible with the adjacent commercial and multiple residential
uses. There is landscaping on the south side of the property that serves as a buffer
between this use and the adjacent apartment building.
4. This type of business requires a license which limits the hours of operation to 7:00
a.m. to 7:00 p.m.
5. The building is designed for automotive-related businesses and has been used as
such in the past.
40 6. On October 24, 1995, the Planning Commission voted unanimously to recommend
approval of the conditional use permit.
3(-.r JI
0
Alternative Recommendation:
The Council may deny the conditional use permit with a finding that the proposal would
have an adverse impact on adjacent properties.
Discussion/Decision Mode:
Consideration of this item is scheduled for the November 13, 1995 City Council
meeting.
Respectfully submitted,
Jame . Prosser
City M nager
JDP:ds
•
1201 E. 66TH ST.
EXISTING SITE PLAN
•
I 27-'-g.
s
O ,
111 .
?I I
i
i
i
0
I
- $CT671 bUl(„alhZ?j
JJieo . -
ii
i
i
_ EAST 66TH STREET _
104.58' _ 26'
EXISTING SIDEWALK
EXISTING SOD
1201 E. 66TH ST.
-3 PROPOSED SITE PLAN
EXHIBIT "A"
HI I
i
(A; _
uj o
Q
I-
N
0
N
63'-3"
EXISTING PAVEMENT
1201 EAST 66TH
EXISTING
BUILDING
1380 SQ.
49'-4"
138.58'
i
N ?
1
i
? p
O
O
T.
I
N I ?
FT.
0 * SITE AREA - 13,858 SQ.FT.
N SCALE 1"=25'
?5F
•
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Council Letter No. 294
Agenda November 13, 1995
Issue Statement:
Request for consideration of a conditional use permit for 7608 Knox Avenue.
Background:
Minnesota Taxi is requesting a conditional use permit to allow the company to repair
company vehicles at 7608 Knox Avenue. The applicant received an off-street parking
permit to operate a taxi dispatch service at the property and, as part of the business,
wants to repair and service company vehicles on site.
The owner has made several improvements to the property. Additional improvements
will be made to the parking lot as conditions of the off-street parking permit.
The existing building has three service bays and an office area. The applicant will use
two of the service bays to repair vehicles. A third bay will remain empty to provide
access to the parking available behind the building.
Recommended Motion:
i Approve the request for an off-street parking with the following stipulations:
That the conditions of the off-street parking permit, approved by the City Council on
October 9, 1995, be met.
2. That the building meet all building and fire codes that apply to the type of repair
work to be performed.
Basis of Recommendation:
1. Adequate parking is provided on site for the minimal parking needs of this use.
2. Taxis will not be stored on site.
3. The business is compatible with the adjacent commercial and multiple residential
uses.
4. The building is designed for automotive-related businesses and has been used as
such in the past.
5. On October 24, 1995, the Planning Commission voted unanimously to recommend
approval of the conditional use permit.
Alternative Recommendation:
The Council may deny the conditional use permit with a finding that the proposal would
have an adverse impact on adjacent properties.
•
Discussion/Decision Mode:
Consideration of this item is scheduled for the November 13, 1995 City Council
meeting.
Respectfu11X submitted,
James P/Prosser
City M ager
JDP:ds
0
_
.3nN3Ad XON)
.zz .
3NI1 la3dOdd
edno'
w o I
a
I I
N it
N
Q
z
Q
33VdS
dVDIONVH
z
i
I
i
v
I
?
z I
I
a
a
Q
U I
s
i ?
?
0
g
ao
1
I
i
W
z
U.
t?PGE o
?P
I I I nl
301 .6 S VdS t
3NIl Ald3dOdd
Keg
,I o
a
z
a
a
W
0
W
(J)
0
CL
0
m
a
c
N
r
W
J
Q
U
N
az
0
Cl)
W
D
z
W
Q
x
0
z
le
00
0
co
z
? 0
1i.1
66 N
uV
66z
OZ
?S
ud
,?E
. CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Council Letter No. 293
Agenda November 13, 1995
Issue Statement:
Consideration of setting the date of public hearings for the renewal of pawnbroker and
secondhand goods licenses.
Background:
The pawnbroker and secondhand goods licenses will expire on January 1, 1996. City
ordinance provides that the City Council conduct a public hearing to consider all
pawnbroker and secondhand goods license renewals.
Recommended Motion:
Schedule December 11, 1995 as the date to hold public hearings on the renewal of
pawnbroker and secondhand goods licenses for The Gun Shop and Pawnbroker and
for Plaza Pawn.
Basis for Recommendation:
1. Hearings must be scheduled and held before a renewal license may be
considered.
2. The renewal process has been initiated.
3. Holding the public hearings on December 11 will provide ample time to complete
the licensing process before January 1, 1996.
Alternative Recommendation:
1. Schedule the hearings for another date. However, this may delay the licensing
process.
Discussion/Decision Mode:
Action to schedule the public hearings on November 13, 1995 will provide sufficient
time for legal publication of the hearings.
submitted,
ResYager
Jamosser
City 0 JDP:ds
3Q
• CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Council Letter No. 292
Agenda November 13, 1995
Issue Statement:
Consideration of setting the date of public hearings for the renewal of on-sale liquor
licenses.
Background:
The on-sale liquor licenses for restaurant establishments will expire on January 1, 1996
City ordinance provides that the City Council conduct a public hearing to consider all
liquor license renewals.
Recommended Motion:
Schedule December 11, 1995 as the date to hold public hearings on the renewal of
liquor licenses for Chi Chi's Mexican Restaurante; The Ground Round; Khan's
Mongolian Barbecue; American Legion Post No. 435; VFW Post No. 5555; and
Champps of Richfield.
Basis for Recommendation:
1. Hearings must be scheduled and held before a renewal license may be
• considered.
2. The renewal process has been initiated.
3. Holding the public hearings on December 11 will provide ample time to complete
the licensing process before January 1, 1996.
Alternative Recommendation:
1. Schedule the hearings for another date. However, this may delay the licensing
process.
Discussion/Decision Mode:
Action to schedule the public hearings on November 13, 1995 will provide sufficient
time for legal publication of the hearings.
Respectf I submitted,
Jame' D rosser
city er
JD
P:ds
2C
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Council Letter No. 291
Agenda November 13, 1995
Issue Statement:
Consideration of setting the date of public hearings for the renewal of wine licenses.
Background:
The wine licenses for restaurant establishments will expire on January 1, 1996. City
ordinance provides that the City Council conduct a public hearing to consider all wine
license renewals.
Recommended Motion:
Schedule December 11, 1995 as the date to hold public hearings on the renewal of
wine licenses for Miller's Fireside Pizza, Silver Spoon Restaurant, Red Pepper Chinese
Restaurant and The Frenchman's.
Basis for Recommendation:
1. Hearings must be scheduled and held before a renewal license may be
considered.
0 2. The renewal process has been initiated.
3. Holding the public hearings on December 11 will provide ample time to complete
the licensing process before January 1, 1996.
Alternative Recommendation:
1. Schedule the hearings for another date. However, this may delay the licensing
process.
Discussion/Decision Mode:
Action to schedule the public hearings on November 13, 1995 will provide sufficient
time for legal publication of the hearings.
Respectf submitted,
James `Prosser
City Manager
JDP:ds
•
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA 36
Council Letter No. 290
Agenda November 13, 1995
Issue Statement:
Approval to participate in phase one (October 1995 through June 1996) of the South
Hennepin Family Services Collaborative implementation grant and approval of an inkind
contribution in the amount of $29,030.
Background:
The services systems including healthcare, human services, employment and training,
corrections or welfare--are undergoing significant change and restructuring, resulting in
integrated service systems. Underlying some of these changes is the reduction in
public funding for services that is forcing increased responsibilities on more local levels
of government--county, city and school.
These trends have made collaboration between organizations and communities more
important than ever. The South Hennepin Family Services Collaborative was created
by bringing together South Hennepin families, schools, cities, public health, Hennepin
County, private service providers, funders, and other community organizations serving
families and children into a partnership. The lead agency in this collaborative effort is
the South Hennepin Regional Planning Agency.
When the South Hennepin Family Services Collaborative was initiated in March of
1.994, it began by studying the needs of families and children and developing a
blueprint for an integrated services system. The blueprint was completed in June 1995.
It was guided by a Steering Committee of all partner organizations and involved over
300 people. Local representatives included Arlene Dixson, Camillo DeSantis, Dennis
Johnson, Lynda Gault and Nancy Rowley.
The necessity for agencies, organizations and local governments to come together in a
collaborative effort in South Hennepin is necessary because: 1) Families and providers
themselves often find great diffulty in connecting family members to the services they
need and 2) By working together in a collaborative method, agencies and organizations
will be better able to address problems at an early stage and reduce the fragmentation
of families going to several different service providers each of which attempts to treat
one piece of the family's problems.
The Family Services Collaborative grant application to the State of Minnesota is in the
amount of $187,500. The total amount when considering other grants ($25,000) and
inkind contributions ($620,744) is $833,244.
Recommended Motion:
Approval to participate in phase one (October 1995 through June 1996) of the South
Hennepin Family Services Collaborative implementation grant and approval of an inkind
contribution in the amount of $29,030.
Basis of Recommendation:
1. Systematically identify and deal with family problems as they emerge.
2. Increase access and simplify the process of linking families and children to needed
supports
3. Integrate these supports into a continuum of care that will result in a more holistic
and successful resolution of problems families face.
4. Help families strengthen their natural support networks, e.g. relatives, friends,
neighbors, religious organizations.
5. Full funding is available from the State of Minnesota for the first year e.g. 1995-
1996. Full funding is also proposed for the second and third year of the
collaborative e.g. up to $250,000 each year. Fourth year funding is proposed to
be reduced by one-third and a two-thirds reduction in year five.
6. The State of Minnesota has made a significant investment in time and money for
statewide collaborative efforts.
7. Future funding (reductions proposed after the third year) will be addressed
immediately by a sub-committee of the collaborative.
8. Evalute the effectiveness of integrating family services.
9. The current Human Services Delivery System does not function as a system
because of fragmentation.
10. From the Federal level on down, local communities are being looked to for
solutions to complex problems.
Alternative Recommendation:
Reject the proposal. This would mean that Richfield would not participate with
Bloomington, Eden Prairie, and Edina in this collaborative effort to improve the Human
Service delivery system.
Discussion/Decision Mode:
A response from the City Council on November 13, 1995 will enable the grant
application to move forward on a timely basis for funding by the State of Minnesota.
Res c ully submitted,
Jame D. Prosser
10 City Manager
JDP:cak
it
SOUTH HENNEPIN FAMILY SERVICES COLLABORATIVE
SUMMARY OF THE IMPLEMENTATION GRANT PROPOSAL
TO THE STATE OF MINNESOTA
BACKGROUND
The services systems - be it health care, human services, employment and training,
corrections or welfare are undergoing significant change and restructuring, resulting in
integrated service systems. Underlying some of these changes is the reduction in public
funding for services that is forcing increased responsibilities on more local levels of
government - county, city and school.
These trends have made collaboration between organizations and communities more
important than ever. The South Hennepin Family Services Collaborative began in March of
1994 as part of a statewide effort to promote collaboration and integrated service systems. The
Collaborative was created through a partnership between South Hennepin families, schools,
cities, public health, Hennepin County, private human service providers, funders, and other
community organizations serving families and children. The South Hennepin Regional
Planning Agency is the lead coordinating agency for the collaborative effort.
The collaborative effort in South Hennepin began with the tasks of studying the needs of
families and children and developing a blueprint for an integrated service system that is:
• family focused and empowering for families;
• comprehensive and provides a continuum of services;
• community-based;
• culturally relevant;
• focused on prevention and early intervention; and
• built on the strengths and resources of families and communities.
The studying of the issues and development of a blueprint took a little over a year to complete
(from March, 1994 to June, 1995). This planning process was guided by a Steering Committee
comprised of representatives from all of the partner organizations and involved over 300
people, who contributed a combined total of over 1600 volunteer hours to the collaborative
planning process.
There are an estimated 24,300 families with children in the four South Hennepin school
10 districts, with a total of over 43,700 children. Teachers and other front-line staff in schools
estimate that a quarter to a third (or 6,000 - 8,000) of their students are dealing with family
South Hennepin Family Services Collaborative, Summary of the Implementation Grant Proposal Submitted 9115195 1
problems and may need some kind of assistance. Most, however, are not getting needed
supports.
All families raising children need support; it is simply too difficult for families to rear children
alone. Sometimes this support comes from a natural support network of friends, relatives, or
neighbors; and sometimes it comes from more formal supports such as social services.
Our families are in the process of rapid change. Lifestyle choices, work place and household
structure and family norms all are undergoing transformation. There has also been a
corresponding transformation in the community- and family-based social support systems and
institutions.
Supports for families are fragmented and the lack of a natural support network can be harmful
for parents who are isolated and overrun by a multitude of stresses. There are four
fundamental problems limiting or preventing families from getting the supports they need.
? First, families and providers or other people who are trying to help families often face
tremendous difficulties in finding and connecting with needed services.
? Second, because potential problems are more difficult to recognize in the early stages of
development than in the later stages, those which could have been averted or alleviated by
early intervention often go unnoticed until they escalate in seriousness.
? Third , once families and children do get connected to the services they need, these services
? Finally, services are often provided in isolation from families' natural support network,
limiting the strength of support a family might need.
are often fragmented and inflexible and, therefore, not able to meet the needs of families
and children in a holistic manner. Families must often go to several different service
providers each of which attempts to treat one piece of the family's problems. While many
good services are in place, fragmentation makes them less effective and efficient than they
could be -this is why service collaboration is so important.
The inherent nature of the problems identified require solutions that address the fundamental
design of the service system and that are collaborative in nature. Because services are
fragmented and families receive support from more than one organization, collaboration must
occur between all organizations serving families - schools, public health, county, city and
community-based services. Because families live, work, go to school and socialize in more than
one community, collaboration must also occur between communities.
The South Hennepin Family Services Collaborative is proposing a model for improving how
services are delivered. The model is called the "South Hennepin Family Support Network",
which is a family-focused system for integrated service delivery in South Hennepin.
•
South Hennepin Family Services Collaborative, Summary of the Implementation Grant Proposal Submitted 9115195 2
36-4
INITIAL PRIORITIES OF THE SOUTH HENNEPIN FAMILY SERVICES
C OLLABORATIVE
The startup phase of the South Hennepin Family Services Collaborative will focus on three
priorities 1) the development of the proposed South Hennepin Family Support Network, 2)
the collaborative governance model of the Family Services Collaborative and 3) the
localization and integration of Hennepin County services in South Hennepin.
11 The South Hennepin Family Sunnort Network
The proposed Family Support Network for South Hennepin families and children is designed
to:
1. systematically identify and deal with family problems as they emerge;
2. increase access and simplify the process of linking families and children to needed
supports;
3. integrate these supports into a continuum of care that will result in a more holistic
and successful resolution of these problems; and
4. help families strengthen their natural support networks (e.g. relatives, friends,
neighbors, religious organizations);
5. provide a mechanism for evaluating the effectiveness of integrated family services.
The Family Support Network will be formed as a collaborative between cities, schools,
Hennepin County, and private providers serving South Hennepin. It has two main
components:
? a Resource Center Network, and
? a provider affiliation formed by a Memorandum Of Understanding (MOU).
(Refer to diagram on next page
The Resource Center Network. The Resource Center Network will be an interconnected
group of up to four local Resource Centers, where families can go or call to get connected to
needed supports, and which offers a coordinated approach to addressing family issues. The
local Resource Centers will be responsible for 1) being the access point for a full range of
information about available community and metropolitan resources, 2) simplifying access to
services, 3) providing broad-based family assessment, 4) making referrals to a full range of
supports within the community, not only traditional family services, and 5) initiating service
coordination among family service providers and community supports when needed. The four
centers will be linked and supported through a Support Hub, which provides the coordination
of services that are more cost-efficient when done on a regional basis. These components
include the service and clients information systems, common intake processes, training,
specialty services such as crisis hotlines, evaluation design, and seeking funding.
South Hennepin Family Services Collaborative, Summary of the Implementation Grant Proposal Submitted 9115195 3
3iB-3
L L
- O
C1 O
'o
m
- y d
-0 ------ 0--- U1
W `
Z
?, a p C
0. ? d U
(L
M w
O
J
10 ---------- 's O s-
Q •E W o
O U
d
LL 1?
2
Z - m -0
w
z
z
W Lrn
cli
N a)
O 3 v_ o (D cLa
?E? c?.c c a):Eli CL - ?0?
M
C0 ?m Q,3 3c" a c
i ... - °C-.S ° c o w o f
co L m Y (n
0 a)
E 0' 0 CO
O `er. C C: 3: 0 M cc
`
N Q c"- L. C ca N
d +?•? '?5VQ N N N C CZY
OL co-a ccL m c
N
fC N N E : r r 3OU _ fl.
_ N ,? C N .? (C f6 O 3
4) M (1) 0 C:3
OEnE -a C: N om "U)
a) 0 2 ca U) Or- 0 (D 40-
2
E- w M Q N M v
O
Q
Q.
L
O
v
L
O
N
South Hennepin Family Services Collaborative, Summary of the Implementation Grant Proposal Submitted 9115195 'E
66-4n
The Memorandum Of Understanding (MOU). A Memorandum Of Understanding will be
established among the local Resource Centers and community organizations, and would be an
agreement to work collaboratively to 1) systematically identify and respond to family
problems early, 2) integrate services for families in need of multiple supports and 3) strengthen
families' natural support systems, and 4) evaluate service effectiveness.
The anticipated benefits and outcomes of the Family Support Network are the following:
1. Save families and providers time in finding appropriate services and increase access
to services.
2. Increase the likelihood that problems'are addressed as they emerge, with the goal of
reducing the long-term need for later intervention.
3. Improve the integration of services for families in need of multiple supports.
4. Reduce the number of times a family has to tell its story and the amount of time
providers spend repeating similar intake processes.
5. Reduce the number of families who are unable to connect with the supports they
need.
6. Strengthen family supports.
7. Increase the ability to evaluate the success of serving families.
8. Provide the ability to identify gaps in services.
9. Save costs in the service system.
10. Increase the availability and accessibility of county and other services presently not
easily accessible to South Hennepin residents.
2) The Governance Model of the South Hennepin Family Services Collaborative
The Family Support Network and other components of the Family Services Collaborative
will require the ongoing support and leadership of the South Hennepin communities, at both
the local and regional levels. The Family Services Collaborative has proposed that:
One, Community Councils be established in each South Hennepin community, comprised of
representatives of the schools, cities, public health service providers, human service providers,
residents, customers of services, local foundations, civic and religious organizations, local
businesses and other key stakeholders. The function of the Community Councils will be to
bring together all of the organizations serving families and children to jointly facilitate the
implementation of the Family Services Collaborative at the local level.
Where possible, the Community Councils would be established through expanding existing
community-based advisory and citizen groups. Each South Hennepin community will decide
how its Community Council would be formed and structured.
South Hennepin Family Services Collaborative, Summary of the Implementation Grant Proposal Submitted 9115195
6` /
Two, a South Hennepin Family Services Council be established to support local activities and
to provide a vehicle to work together.
The South Hennepin Family Services Council would allow representatives of local
communities to work with their counterparts in the other South Hennepin communities and
with Hennepin County to determine the common priorities which can be more efficiently
addressed on a regional or subregional basis. It is proposed that the Family Services Council be
formed by expanding the existing joint powers agreement between the four South Hennepin
cities (i.e. South Hennepin Regional Planning Agency) to include the ongoing participation of
the schools and Hennepin County, rather than by creating a new entity.
The anticipated benefits and outcomes of the collaborative governance structure and
process include the following:
1. Increase the efficiency and effectiveness of collaborative efforts at the local and regional
(South Hennepin) levels.
2. Help ensure the successful implementation of the Family Support Network and other
recommendations.
3. Improve communication and build relationships across family serving institutions and
communities.
4. Develop a stronger and ongoing partnership between the South Hennepin communities
and Hennepin County.
5. Provide a local decision making structure for the delivery of family services.
3) Localization and Integration of County Services in South Hennen
A third primary area of focus of the collaborative effort during the first year of
implementation is to work with Hennepin County to make its services more accessible locally
and integrated with South Hennepin service providers. The proposed South Family Support
Network would serve as a central vehicle for the four South Hennepin communities to work
with Hennepin County and other providers in their efforts to decentralize and integrate
services in South Hennepin.
Ongoing evaluation will be the primary means of continuously assessing the effectiveness of
the Family Support Network system. Three key areas of the collaborative effort will be
evaluated: 1) effectiveness and quality, 2) customer satisfaction, and 3) collaborative service
delivery.
•
South Hennepin Family Services Collaborative, Summary of the Implementation Grant Proposal Submitted 9115195 6
ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES OF PARTNER ORGANIZATIONS
Roles and responsibilities are outlined for the primary partner organizations of the South
Hennepin Family Services Collaborative: the South Hennepin school districts and city
governments, the South Hennepin Regional Planning Agency, Hennepin County, and
community-based health and human service providers.
Each partner organization is asked to become a member of the Family Support Network,
assisting in its development and, upon agreement among the partners, reallocate staff and/or
other existing resources to support its activities. Participation in the Memorandum Of
Understanding will require reorientation of some staff hours to lead and/or participate in
family support teams.
In addition to participation in the Family Support Network, each partner organization is
asked to participate in and support its respective Community Council and the South
Hennepin Family Services Council.
IMPLEMENTATION FUNDING AND BUDGET FOR THE FIRST YEAR OF
IMPLEMENTATION
An underlying assumption of the Family Services Collaborative model is that there will not
be significant ongoing new dollars to support it or other service redesign models. Moreover,
the Family Services Collaborative considers implementation grants from the State of
Minnesota to be a resource for startup costs and short-term funding.
Efforts to redesign how services are provided will be accomplished primarily through
reallocating and pooling existing resources among partner organizations. As such, the partners
of the South Hennepin Family Services Collaborative are committing significant resources
from their existing operations for the short- and long-term success of the Collaborative. The
initial resource commitments of the collaborative partners for implementation of the Family
Services Collaborative blueprint total $645,744. (The full implementation proposal includes a
breakdown of the inkind resources from the various partner organizations.)
The Family Services Collaborative is requesting $187,000 from the State of Minnesota for
first-year implementation to supplement the resources of the collaborative partners. The
implementation funds from the State of Minnesota represent approximately a third of the
total potential resources of the Collaborative during the upcoming work plan period. (Refer to
attached budget) '
While the initial resource contributions of the collaborative partners are significant, we also
recognize the need to develop creative funding strategies to sustain the Collaborative in the
long term. For this reason, the first year work plan includes the development of long-term
funding strategies.
South Hennepin Family Services Collaborative, Summary of the Implementation Grant Proposal Submitted 9115195 7
BUDGET
The following is a breakdown of projected revenues and expenses for the first year work plan
period. It shows the grant and inkind resources anticipated from both the State of Minnesota and
the partner organizations. As stated previously, the actual resource contributions made by the
partner organizations during the first year work plan period may differ from the projected
contributions depending on the actual progress made in the development of the Family Support
Network.
PARTNER RESOURCES
FSC GRANT GRANTS INKIND
REVENUES
State of MN $187,500
School districts $117,790
Cities $112,318
Public Health $17,460
SHeRPA $42,458
Hennepin County $246,596
Private providers $25,000 $84,122
TOTAL INCOME $187,500 $25,000 $620,744
EXPENSES
Staff $124,800 $530,236
Salaries $99,840
Benefits/taxes $24,960
Contracted services $30,000 $2,950
Employee in-state travel $864
Computers, phone, fax equipment $16,100 $10,350
Space and furniture $31,942
Materials, supplies, copying, postage $11,386 $2,466
Resource library $41,500
Other $4,350 $25,000 $1,300
TOTAL EXPENSES $187,500 $25,000 $620,744
INCOME - EXPENSES $0 $0 $0
TOTAL
$187,500
$117,790
$112,318
$17,460
$42,458
$246,596
$109,122
$833,244
$655,036
$32,950
$864
$26,450
$31,942
$13,852
$41,500
$30,650
$833,244
$0
South Hennepin Family Services Collaborative, Summary of the Implemenation Grant Proposal Submitted 9115195 8
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
• Council Letter No. 289
Agenda November 13, 1995
Issue Statement:
Consideration of a resolution authorizing participation in "Metropolitan Livable Community
Act" programs.
Background:
The Minnesota Legislature created the "Metropolitan Livable Communities Act" in June
1995. The act designates the Metropolitan Council to develop an improved regional
framework for:
• housing revitalization and redevelopment;
• affordable and life cycle housing; ("life cycle" housing provides housing choices in
a community throughout a persons life).
• greater financial support for pollution clean-up.
The opportunities provided by the act will be different for each participating community.
Based on a housing affordability index created by the Metropolitan Council, Richfield is
found to be a very affordable place to live. Other communities in the region will have to
increase their commitment to affordable housing.
The value of Richfield participating in the program is to provide access on a competitive
basis to three funds starting in 1996:
The Livable Communities Demonstration Account provides approximately $4 million
annually as grants and loans. A greater diversity in housing stock and improved
transit and job access to that housing is a priority. Market rate new construction and
remodeled homes for families and empty nestor attached single family homes are
desirable additions in Richfield. Financial support for high speed bus service is an
example of a non housing initiative that could also be considered for funding.
2. The Tax Base Revitalization Account provides approximately $6.5 million annually as
grants to cleanup polluted sites. Richfield is unlikely to access these grant monies.
3. The Local Housing Incentives Account provides $1 million annually as grants to help
communities achieve locally developed housing goals. Like the Demonstration
Account monies, the use of funds would be to support and supplement HRA
programs already underway.
The Metropolitan Council anticipates that numerical goals, which must be formulated by
January 15, 1996 for Richfield, will continue to fulfill the following unique Richfield housing
needs:
Single family market rate new construction and remodeling.
.
0 Development of low density attached single family homes.
3p-1
A greater variety of apartment choices.
• Affordable housing opportunities such as Vo-Tech or Habitat.
Recommended Motion
Authorize the attached resolution which indicates that Richfield elects to participate in the
Local Housing Incentive Account Program. Further, the City Council authorizes the HRA to
formulate housing goals by January 15, 1996 and prepare an action plan to meet those
goals by June 30, 1996.
Basis of Recommendation: '
1. The Metropolitan Livable Communities Act requires a city to take an action to
participate or not. The attached resolution, which the City Council must act on before
November 15, 1995, supports participation.
2. Richfield participation provides greater access to state resources than not
participating. It is very likely that many future funding opportunities outside of those
created by the "Act" will be closely linked to whether a community is an "Act"
participant.
3. It is appropriate for the HRA as an advisor to the City Council to formulate goals and
present them to the City Council as a recommendation. To that end, the HRA at their
October meeting acted to request the City Council to participant in the program.
0 4. Participation is based on Richfield's locally decided goals, plans, and programs.
Alternative Recommendation:
Take no action. In effect, Richfield chooses not to participate in the Livable Communities
Act programs.
Discussion/Decision Mode:
1. The Metropolitan Council must be notified of Richfield's intent by November 15, 1995.
2. By January 15, 1996, housing goals must be finalized with the Metropolitan Council.
Staff would recommend goals following review and discussion with the HRA.
3. By June 30, 1996, an action plan would be developed in support of achieving the goals.
Consideration of this item is scheduled for the November 13, 1995 City Council meeting.
Respec Ily submitted,
James D. Prosser
City Manager
JDP:ds
Tev, S'ecL 3
RESOLUTION NO.
• RESOLUTION ELECTING TO PARTICIPATE IN THE LOCAL HOUSING INCENTIVES
ACCOUNT PROGRAM UNDER THE METROPOLITAN LIVABLE COMMUNITIES ACT
WHEREAS, the Metropolitan Livable Communities Act (1995 Minnesota Laws
Chapter 255) establishes a Metropolitan Livable Communities Fund which is intended to
address housing and other development issues facing the metropolitan area defined by
Minnesota Statutes Section 473.121; and
WHEREAS, the Metropolitan Livable Communities Fund, comprising the Tax Base
Revitalization Account, the Livable Communities Demonstration Account and the Local
Housing Incentives Account, is intended to provide certain funding and other assistance to
metropolitan area municipalities; and
WHEREAS, a metropolitan area municipality is not eligible to receive grants or loans
under the Metropolitan Livable Communities Fund or eligible to receive certain polluted
sites cleanup finding from the Minnesota Department of Trade and Economic Development
unless the municipality is participating in the Local Housing Incentives Account Program
under Minnesota Statues Section 473.254; and
WHEREAS, the Metropolitan Livable Communities Act requests the Metropolitan
• Council to negotiate with each municipality to establish affordable and life-cycle housing
goals for that municipality that are consistent with and promote the policies of the
Metropolitan Council as provided in the adopted Metropolitan Development Guide; and
WHEREAS, a metropolitan area municipality which elects to participate in the Local
Housing Incentive Accounts Program must do so by November 15 of each year; and
WHEREAS, the Metropolitan Council must adopt, by resolution after a public
hearing, the negotiated affordable and life-cycle housing goals for each municipality by
January 15, 1996; and
WHEREAS, by June 30, 1996, each municipality must identify to the Metropolitan
Council the actions the municipality plans to take to meet the established housing goals;
and
WHEREAS, for calendar year 1996, a metropolitan area municipality can participate
under Minnesota Statutes Section 473.254 only if: (a) the municipality elects to participate
in the Local Housing Incentives Account Program by November 15, 1995; (b) the
Metropolitan Council and the municipality successfully negotiate affordable and life-cycle
housing goals for the municipality; and (c) by January 15, 1996 the Metropolitan Council
adopts by resolution the negotiated affordable and life-cycle housing goals for each
• municipality.
Rwj?4d-2 3A-3
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City of Richfield hereby elects to
participate in the Local Housing Incentives Program under the Metropolitan Livable
Communities Act during calendar year 1996.
Adopted by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this 13th day of
November, 1995.
Martin J. Kirsch, Mayor
ATTEST:
Thomas P. Ferber, City Clerk
0