Loading...
11-14-94 agenda• CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA MONDAY, NOVEMBER 14, 1994 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 24, 1994; (2) REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF OCTOBER 24, 1994; (3) SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL STUDY SESSION OF OCTOBER 25, 1994; AND (4) SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF OCTOBER 29, 1994 PRESENTATIONS 1. OPPORTUNITY FOR PERSONS TO ADDRESS THE COUNCIL ON ITEMS NOT LISTED ON THE AGENDA 2. RECOGNITION BY CITY COUNCIL OF RESTAURANTS IN RICHFIELD WHO HAVE ADOPTED A SMOKE-FREE POLICY IN THEIR ESTABLISHMENTS COUNCIL LETTER NO. 300 3. PRESENTATION BY NORTHERN STATES POWER COMPANY TO CITY OF RICHFIELD FOR PARTICIPATION IN LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROGRAM COUNCIL LETTER NO. 301 4. PROCLAMATION HONORING SISTER MARY WALTER DU VAL, SSND; PRINCIPAL OF THE ACADEMY OF THE HOLY ANGELS AGENDA APPROVAL 5. COUNCIL APPROVAL OF AGENDA CONSENT CALENDAR NOTE: 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. 6A. CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING • EXPENDITURE OF ADDITIONAL $2,500 FROM RICHFIELD'S MUNICIPAL STATE AID CONSTRUCTION ACCOUNT TO COVER PRELIMINARY AND CONSTRUCTION ENGINEERING COSTS C.L. 302 B. CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF SETTING DECEMBER 12, 1994 AS DATE FOR PUBLIC HEARINGS FOR RENEWAL OF WINE LICENSES C.L. 303 C. CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF SETTING DECEMBER 12, 1994 AS DATE FOR PUBLIC HEARINGS FOR RENEWAL OF ON-SALE LIQUOR LICENSES C.L. 304 D. CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF SETTING DECEMBER 12, 1994 AS DATE FOR PUBLIC HEARINGS FOR RENEWAL OF PAWNBROKER AND SECONDHAND GOODS LICENSES C.L. 305 E. CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF PURCHASE IN EXCESS OF $5,000 FOR PURCHASE AND INSTALLATION OF VIDEO, AUDIO AND RECORDING EQUIPMENT IN TWO POLICE INTERVIEW ROOMS FROM VIDEOTRONIX, INC. IN AMOUNT OF $10,043 C.L. 306 F. CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF PURCHASE IN EXCESS OF $5,000 FOR CARBON DIOXIDE FOR WATER TREATMENT FROM KOCH CARBON DIOXIDE COMPANY IN ESTIMATED AMOUNT OF $9,600 C.L. 307 G. ESTIMATE #4 PAYMENT FOR SITE DEVELOPMENT OF WASHINGTON PARK CP897; SUNRAM CONSTRUCTION, INC.; $25,772.98 H. FIRST AND FINAL PAYMENT FOR 1994 SIDEWALK, CURB AND GUTTER REPAIR; STANDARD SIDEWALK, INC.; $43,413.09 PUBLIC HEARING • 7. PUBLIC HEARING REGARDING REQUEST FOR TRANSITIONAL ACTIVITY PERMIT AND SPECIAL APPROVAL TO ALLOW RELOCATION OF NAEGELE BILLBOARD FROM 7738 COLFAX AVENUE TO 7700 FREMONT AVENUE COUNCIL LETTER NO. 308 RESOLUTIONS 8. CONSIDERATION OF RESOLUTION DESIGNATING CITY'S CONTRIBUTION TOWARD HEALTH, TERM LIFE AND DENTAL INSURANCE PREMIUM FOR GENERAL SERVICES AND MANAGEMENT EMPLOYEES COUNCIL LETTER NO. 309 9. CONSIDERATION OF RESOLUTION DETERMINING RESULTS OF CITY GENERAL ELECTION HELD ON TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 8, 1994 COUNCIL LETTER NO. 310 ADMINISTRATIVE REPORTS & OTHER BUSINESS 10. CONSIDERATION OF REQUEST FOR AMENDMENT TO ZONING CODE WHICH WOULD MAKE AUTO REPAIR A PERMITTED USE IN NEIGHBORHOOD BUSINESS DISTRICT COUNCIL LETTER NO. 311 • 11. CONSIDERATION OF CONSENT AND AGREEMENT PROVIDING FOR ASSIGNMENT OF PHASE I EMERSON AVENUE LICENSURE AGREEMENT WITH CSM TO NORWEST BANK COUNCIL LETTER NO. 312 12. CONSIDERATION OF APPOINTMENT OF COMMITTEE TO CONSIDER WILDLIFE MANAGEMENT RELATED TO ISSUE OF DEER OVERPOPULATION COUNCIL LETTER NO. 313 AIRPORT BUSINESS 13. AIRPORT STATUS REPORT 77TH STREET PROJECT BUSINESS 14. 77TH STREET PROJECT STATUS REPORT CORRESPONDENCE 15. LEGISLATIVE REPORT COUNCIL CHOICE 16. COUNCIL DISCUSSION ITEMS 17. CLAIMS AND PAYROLLS ADJOURNMENT Auxiliary aids for individuals with disabilities are available upon request. Requests must be made at least 96 hours in advance to the Administrative Services Director at 861-9702. 0 • CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Council Letter No. 313 Agenda November 14, 1994 Issue Statement: Appointment of a committee to consider wildlife management related to the issue of deer overpopulation. Background: The deer population in the metropolitan area has been growing for several years. On September 27, 1993 the City Council approved an ordinance amendment prohibiting the feeding of deer and raccoon. However, the deer population in Richfield continues to grow. In response to citizen concerns and inquiries, the Council is being asked to consider appointment of a committee to consider wildlife management related to the issue of deer overpopulation in Richfield. The suggestion is that the committee membership consist of the Mayor or a member of the City Council, the chair or a member of the Community Services Commission, the chair or a member of the Friends of Wood Lake Board of Directors, staff representatives of the Community Services Department and a staff representative of the Public Safety Department. Any recommendation of the committee would be presented to the City Council for consideration. Recommended Motion: • Authorize creation of and appoint members to a committee to consider wildlife management related to the issue of deer overpopulation. Basis of Recommendation: 1. The metropolitan area, including the City of Richfield, is experiencing overpopulation of deer. 2. Richfield residents have asked that consideration be given to finding solutions to problems related to deer overpopulation. 3. A committee to consider the issue will provide a variety of perspectives. Alternative Recommendation: The Council may choose to do nothing related to the issue of deer overpopulation in the community. Discussion/Decision Mode: This item in on the November 14, 1994 Cgj4ncil agenda. fVlly submitted, Ja?D. Prosser City Manager JDP:cak 1 011-1 • Members of the Community Services Commission: Matt Stokes, Chair Arnie Auchstetter Dave Delzer Elayne Gilhousen Jim McGinty Joe Sausen Denise Schaefer Maureen Scaglia Lou Stocco Tom Ulmer Members of the Friends of Wood Lake Board of Directors: Bill Bullock, Chair Emily Day Bill Fillmore Jean Fox Suzanne Haas John Hamilton • Bill Kirchner Nancy Kraft Bernie Mittelsteadt Bill Snyder Lou Stocco Russ Susag c 9 • CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Council Letter No. 312 Agenda November 14, 1994 Issue Statement: Approval of "Consent and Agreement" providing for assignment of Phase I Emerson Avenue Licensure Agreement to a lender. Background: On August 1, 1994, the City Council approved a Licensure Agreement with CSM which provided for the use of Emerson Avenue by CSM for parking. The attached letter from the August 1, 1994 meeting delineates the responsibilities assumed by CSM in the agreement. CSM has been financing the redevelopment of Phase I internally. However, to strengthen its ability to undertake Phase II, CSM has been seeking construction financing from a lender, Norwest Bank. The HRA will be holding a special meeting at 6:30 p.m. on November 14, 1994. A purpose for that meeting is for the HRA to consider subordinating its interest in the Phase I redevelopment to that of Norwest Bank. This subordination of interest is a requirement of the bank. In case of default by CSM, the lender rather than the HRA would have the first opportunity to cure any defaults. • The lender, before it would close on the loan, must also have access to site control. Emerson Avenue is an integral part of Phase I in that it provides an area for needed parking. The lender is therefore requesting that it be given control over Emerson Avenue if CSM defaults. Control would be provided by the "Consent and Agreement." Two points not in the Licensure Agreement between CSM and the City but included in the "Consent and Agreement:" 1. The City acknowledges its willingness to move toward the vacation of Emerson and Colfax Avenues and conveyance of the vacated streets to the developer. 2. The City could not terminate the license agreement for breach by CSM until Norwest was given notice and a chance to cure the default. Recommended Motion: Approve the "Consent and Agreement" which assigns to Norwest Bank the Licensure Agreement if CSM defaults. Basis of Recommendation: 1. CSM has requested the approval of the "Consent and • Agreement." 0 2. Approval must take place before the refinancing can be closed. 3. All of the rights and responsibilities provided to CSM would be assigned to the lender. 4. The City's position is protected as noted. Alternative Recommendation: 1. Delay action. 2. Refuse to approve the agreement. Discussion/Decision Mode: The closing is scheduled to take place within a few days subject to Council action. JDP:ds • Respectful submitted, C7V James Mrosser City Danger 0 [ V 04 '94 16: i` FAEGRE 5? sEr61_fl P. J l?- DRAFT {"] 11 4 94 CONSENT AND AGREEMENT This Agreement is made as of [^] November 15, 1994, by and between THE CITY OF RICHFIELD, a Minnesota municipal corporation, whose address is (the "City") ["]r„ NORWEST BANK MINNESOTA, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, a national banking association, whose address is Sixth Street and Marquette Avenue, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55479-2060 (the "Lender") and CSM IN?IESTORS , INC?Mi.nnesota corporation, whose . _ r3--A Cr D?111 M, nnAnnta S5114-1500 • Developer. NOW THEREFORE, the parties hereto hereby agree as WHEREAS, the City and (^) the Develo er- have entered into an Agreement dated as of August 9, 1994 the "Agreement") relating to that portion of Emerson Avenue South which is legally described on Exhibit A attached hereto (the "Portion"). WHEREAS, the Lender has agreed to make ["] a loan of un to 55.020 000 the -,Le nde Loan") to the Developer upon the condition, among others, that the ["] Dew grant the Lender a Combination Mortgage, Security Agreement and F-xture Financing Statement (as the same may be amended and supplemented from time to time, the [A]"Lender Mortgage") and an Assignment of Rents and be amended and supplemented from time to Leases (as the same may time, the [A] "Lender Assignment of Rents") , as security for repayment of auc financial accommodations, covering certain real estate, including, without limitation, the ["] real estate lectally described in Exhibit Aattached hereto (the "Land") and nr1raamPnt to induce the follows: 2, LendgrIs Right to Cure. if a default shall occur under paragraph 8(a) of the Agreement (a "Default"), the City shall send written notice thereof to the Lender to the attention of Winston B. Dolland at the address described above or as the • Lender may otherwise designate by notice to the City. The Lender shall have 30 days after (i.) receipt of such notice or (ii) expiration of the grace period given to the [^] Deve_, lr_, whichever occurs last, within which to cure or remove the Lender to provide such financing to the t#)v 04 "34 15:15 FAEGRE a BENSON /-3 • specified Default. Notwithstanding any provision of the Agreement to the contraUJI the City shall not have any right pursuant to the Agreement or otherwise to terminate the Agreement or the rights of the [^] Develo olL thereunder due to a Default unless the City shall have first given written notice thereof to the Lender and unless the Lender shall have failed to cure or remove, or cause to be cured or removed, or commence the cure or removal of such Default within the time required by this paragraph 2. The City will accept performance by the Lender of any covenant, agreement, obligation or option to purchase of the [^j Developer Contained in the Agreement or in the Contract (as defined in the Agreement) with the same effect as though performed by the [^) Developer, in each case in order to permit such Default to be cured. [^l ^] 3 Obll acion or c.zu •a.? -. -- -- - with the Lender. if the t T Developer's interests under the Agreement or in the Portion shall be terminated as a result of the rejection or disaffirmance of the Agreement pursuant to bankruptcy law or other law affecting creditor's rights or shall be terminated by the City because of a Default or for any other reason, the City will enter into a new agreement with the Lender, or any party designated by the Lender, not less than 10 nor more • than 30 days.after the request of the Lender, effective as of the date of such rejection, disaffirmance, or termination, which new agreement shall be upon the same terms and [^] conditions as are presently contained in the Agreement, except that such new agreement shall [^] Anot?include la y,Richrcumstancestse forth in r &,a TnaL- c ?u? -- --- the Aareement. ?Che provisions o this garaQranh 8ta) Ash survive the rejection, disaffirmance or paragraph [ ] ah termination of the Agreement or the rights of the [^] 2§y&1.2 eerr thereunder and shall continue in full effect thereafter inasmuch as-this Agreement is a separate and independent contract made by the City and the Lender. From the effective date of such rejection, disaffirmance, or termination of the Agreement to the date of execution and delivery of such new agreement, the Lender may use and enjoy the rights and privileges created by the Agreement without hindrance by the City. n LJ -3- FME??E :? cErr?:r? NO bq ?q4 16:16 5. ^xemntion from ASsianment Restrictions. The City • t Dev gig2ftr ree t at the asst nment restrictions contained in paragraph 12 of therAgreement4F) shallf-noteprevent and 6. No Amendment t9 Aareement. Without the written consent of the Lender, the Agreement shall not be amended [?] by the City or the [^] D2vg o?r, and the city shall accept no voluntary termination or-surrender of the Agreement or the Portion by the [^] Peveloner. 7. Option to Purchase. The City will provide written notice to the Lender simultaneously with any written notice provided to the ("] Developer informing the (?? Developer that the [^] Dever may exercise its option to purchase the Portion pursuant to paragraph 8(c) of the Agreement. If for any reason the [^3 Reveloper fails to exercise the option to purchase the Portion, the City agrees that the Lender may exercise the option to purchase the Portion on behalf of the`[] Developer. 8. Remedies Cumulative. The Lender's rights 40 hereunder are cumulative and not exclusive. 9 -4- rM='Y ©4 '93 1E ii FAEGPE 3? BEN11_-r4 l -D IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have signed this • Agreement as of the day and year first above written. THE CITY OF RICHFIELD P.o By Its Mayor By its city Manager NORWEST BANK MINNESOTA, NATXONAL ASSOCIATION By Its CSM INVESTORS, INC. • By - Its This instrument was drafted by: Faegre & Benson (LGW) 2200 Norwest Center 90 South Seventh Street Minneapolis, Minnesota 55902-3901 -5- r -v 04 'q-4 16; 17 F ,E-?RE s BEr STATE OF MINNESOTA) as. COUNTY OF L l / - 6:?" The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of 1994, by and , respectively the M -Mayor Mayor and the Cry Ma„ r of The City of Richfield, a Minnesota municipal corporation, on behalf of said corporation. Notary Public STATE OF MINNESOTA) } ss• COUNTY OF [ ] The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of , 1994, by the of Norwest Bank Minnesota, National Association, a national banking association, on behalf of said • association. Notary Public MKK123CF.WPS STATE OF MINNESO'T'A? ss COUNTY OF ) r {i J 04 '94 16:1. FHE,?PE s. BEHS6[i Ii-7 EXHIBIT A TO CONSENT AND AGREEMENT The real estate described in the referenced instrument Apu .r erred to ag the Portion is located in Hennepin County, ca?a K?. ref ?? -- - Minnesota, and is legally described as follows: That part of the West 30 feet of the East Half of the Southeast Quarter of the Southwest Quarter of the Southeast Quarter of Section 3.3, Township 28, Range 24, Hennepin County, Minnesota which lies South of the North 240 feet thereof except part taken for highway. and The East 30 Feet of the West Half of the Southeast Quarter of the Southwest Quarter of the Southeast Quarter of Section 33, Township 28, Range 24, Hennepin County, Minnesota, except that part taken for highway purposes. and The West 30 feet of the North 240 feet of the East Half of the Southeast Quarter of the Southwest Quarter of the Southeast Quarter of Section 33, Township 28, Range 24, Hennepin County, Minnesota. MKK123CP.WPS 0 -7- r*Dv 04 ' 94 16:18 F? Ek=RE :; BEr 1SOr l . EXHIBIT B TO CONSENT AND AGREEMENT Mtcjci /1-g 0 -8- 0 CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Council Letter N0.213 Agenda August 1, 1994 Issue Statement: Approval of agreement with CSM for use of Emerson Avenue for motor vehicle parking. Background: With CSM's•initial proposal, all of its parking needs were to be met on property it was to redevelop. However, when others were invited to submit concept proposals for the Phase II area, it became necessary for CSM to meet its parking needs on land not included in Phase II (CSM's status with regards to Phase II may not be known until November). The use of Emerson Avenue between 78th and 77th Streets is the only way that Phase I parking needs may be met. The attached agreement would permit CSM to utilize Emerson Avenue between 77th and 78th Streets. It provides the following: 1. CSM may use the street for ingress and egress as well as parking. 2. The use must be as depicted in Exhibit B to the agreement. . 3. CSM is responsible for any costs related to construction or reconstruction. The plans must be reviewed and approved by the City and the work proceed as a City project. 4. CSM is responsible for maintenance and repair. 5. CSM.may not engage in activities which could result in a lien against the street. 6. CSM is responsible.for insuring the'City against liability. 7. CSM is to indemnify the City and its representatives against any claims arising from its use of the street. 8. CSM is responsible for taxes if levied against the street. 9. CSM grants the City the right to maintain utilities beneath the street. 10. CSM may not assign or transfer its interest in this agreement without consent of the City. Recommended Motion: Adopt a motion approving the agreement and authorizing the Mayor. and City Manager to execute it. Basis of Recommendation: 1. With the removal of the existing development, Emerson Avenue will not directly service any users. 2. Phase I development needs more parking area. 3. Emerson Avenue could provide the additional parking area. 4. The proposed agreement adequately protects the City. Alternative Recommendation: 1. Refuse to approve the agreement. 2. Delay action on the agreement. Discussion/Decision Mode: The redevelopment of Phase I cannot proceed without assurance of adequate parking. JDP:ds 0 Respectfu y submitted, James Prosser City M pager 0 • AGREE?TT DRAFT 7/29 THIS AGREEMENT made and entered into this day of , 1994 by and between the CITY OF RICHFIELD, a Minnesota municipal corporation (the "City") and CSM INVESTORS, INC., a Minnesota corporation ("CSM"). WITNrESsETH : 1. The City maintains and operates Emerson Avenue South ("Emerson") as part of its public roadway system. 2. A portion of Emerson lying between 77th Street on the north and 78th Street on the south is within and immediately west of the westerly line of the Phase I property which is to be developed by CSM. That portion of Emerson (the "Portion") is described in the attached Exhibit A. 8. in furtherance of the CSM development, it has asked the City, for . permission to utilize the Portion for certain activities and uses which are fully described in this Agreement, including, without limitation, the parking of motor vehicles and for ingress and egress. 4. The City council has reviewed the request including the proposed parking layout to be located on the Portion and has received the recommendations of staff. THEREFORE, on the basis of the foregoing and upon the mutual undertakings and promises herein contained, the parties hereto stipulate and agree as follows: I. Use of Portion. Subject to the limitations hereinafter contained, CBM shall have the right to occupy and use the Portion for certain activities and uses which are fully described in this Agreement, including, without limitation, the parking of motor vehicles and for ingress and egress. 2. Des' n. The use and occupancy shall be In arcordanee with the design gout which is attached hereto as Exhibit B. No modification to the design may occur without the prior written consent of the City. X77645 RC125-65 1 - I?L 3. Construction. CSM shall be entirely responsible for the cost of • construction and reconstruction upon the Portion during the term of this Agreement. CSM may proceed with installation of the initial improvements shown on Exhibit B together with the removal and/or installation of utilities within the Portion immediately following approval of the plans and specifications for such work by the city engineer. In the event that CSM shall, following completion of the initial construction, determine that it is necessary to carry out construction or reconstruction work within the Portion, it shall proceed as follows : a. It shall notify the City of such determination and may, with such notification request that the City undertake the construction or reconstruction as a city project. The notification shall also contain proposed plans and specifications for the construction or reconstruction. b. The City shall, within 10 days following such notice of determination, review the proposed plane and specifications, and, in the event that they are in conformity with the standards for construction or reconstruction of public streets, shall either i) let the contract for bid, or, ii) permit CSM to proceed with the work. e. If CSM is to be permitted to proceed with the work, the City may place such procedural or other requirements on CSM as it deems appropriate for construction work or a public street. d. No construction or reconstruction of the portion may take place whether by CSM or the City until CSM has, in the City's reasonable judgment, paid or secured payment of the entire cost of such construction or reconstruction. 4. Maintenance and Retgir. CSM shall be entirely responsible for the maintenance and repair of the Portion during the term of this Agreement. Maintenance and repair shall include without limitation, patching, filling, sealing, coating, stripping, the removal of rubbish, debris, snow and ioe. CSM shall provide the City with written notice at least five days in advance of maintenance and repair activities which are likely to result in a disruption of the use of the Portion for a period of more than one day; and shall obtain the City's written consent before undertaking any repair or maintenance activity having a cost of $10, 000 or more. 5. Liens and Encumbrances. CSM agrees that during the term of this Agreement it shall not permit or suffer any liens or encumbrances to be placed against the Portion, nor shall it during such term engage in any activity which would cause or result in the placement of any liens or circumstances against the Portion. 6. Insurance. In addition to CSM's obligations under paragraph 7 below, Cam "grow* to obtain and ]seep In place one or more Doucies of u9abLuty durance, in an amount and form acceptable to the City, which insure against the risk of property damage, personal Injury or death ooaaeioao 4 by or Qviaing out of C5M'u uses and occupancy of the Portion. =73115 RC125-6e 2 1C-13 Said policy or policies of insurance shall, as they relate to the portion, • name the City at an additional insured. 7. Indemnity. CSM shall indemnify, release, defend and save harmless the City, its officers, agents and employees from all claims, or whatever nature, and including claims for punitive damages, for contractual liability, property damage, personal injury or death occasioned by or arising out of CSM s occupancy and use repair, maintenance, construction and reconstruction of the Portion. The provisions of this paragraph shall not be deemed to constitute a waiver of the liability -limits contained in ? Statutes, Chapter 468; nor -shall the provisions of this paragraph apply to the extent that any claim for damages is based upon the City's negligence. 8. Term. This Agreement shalt remain in full force and effect until tom ated by the happening of any of the following: a. CSM is in default of its obligations hereunder or under its contract for private redevelopment with the Richfield Housing and Redevelopment Authority date April 293, 1994 (the "Contract"), and has failed to cure such default under this Agreement within 30 days of written notice by the City or has failed to promptly commence and pursue cure activities in instances in which the cure will take more than 30 days; or has failed to effect a cure in the time required under the Contract for any default thereunder. • b. The City makes available for purchase an alternative area which can be developed to contain at least the same number of parking spaces; and which is as accessible to the Phase I development as is the Portion. The purchase price shall be an amount equal to the cost and expenses which the City incurs in acquiring such land. co The City, whether or not being first asked by CSM to do so, vacates Emerson lying within the Portion and offers the Portion for sale to CSM at an amount equal to the City's costs and expense to acquire. In the event the City proceeds under either paragraphs b or c of this Section 8, termination shall be effective 30 days following the date of the offer to sell an alternative area or the offer of sale of the Portion following vocation; provided, however, that if within such period CSM shall accept such offer, then this agreement shell not terminate until the parties have a reasonable time to complete the transactions; and in the event of an 8b transaction such additional time as is reasonably necessary to complete construction on the alternative improvements. In the event of a termination, the City shall grant CSM an easement to maintain any utilities owned and used by CSM located within the Portion, but only if and to the extent that such grant will not unreasonable interfere with the City's use of the Portion following termination . Nothing in this paragraph 8 shall be deemed as a waiver by the City of its right to seek, as it sees fit, to terminate the interest of CEM in tho Portion through the cxcrcine of ' c anent do main. i JW73"S acin-" 3 8. Taxes. In the event that the Portion should become taxable as a result . of its use and occupancy as provided herein, CSM agrees that it will, promptly when due and before penalty attaches, pay all real estate taxes and installments on special assessments. 10. Utilities. CSM acknowledges that the indemnity contained in paragraph 7 of this agreement is intended to release the City, its officers, agents and employees from any damage done to the Portion as the result of the City's repair, replacement or maintenance of the City utility services located within the Portion. CSM acknowledges that the reasonable cost of restoring the surface following any such City activities is CSM's responsibility. CSM also agrees that the City and its agents have the right to enter upon the Portion and do all things reasonably necessary and proper to carry out such activities. The City agrees that it will exercise reasonable care to limit any disruption caused by such work. 11. Usa . The City specifically retains the right to authorize others to use the Portion for parking purposes and ingress and egress thereto but only to the extent that suitable arrangements are made to provide alternative parking of location sad sufficient number of spaces to compensate for the reasonably aatidpated impact of such usage on GSM's parking requirements. Such arrangement shall also reasonably address maintenance, repair, cost and liability issues. 12. Assignment. The rights granted to CSM hereunder may be transferred only in connection with a transfer or the Phase I property in accordance with the provisions of Articles VIII or IX of the Contract. IN TESTIMONY WHEREOF, the parties hereto have set their hands as of the day and year first above written. By CITY OF RICHFIELD By .Its Its CSM CORPORATION By Ita =73"s aces-6e 4 0-15 STATE OF MINNESOTA ) COUNTY OF )SS. The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this _ day of 1994, by and the Mayor aad City .Manager, respective$ on behalf the City of Michfield, Minnesota, a i?tinnesota municipal corporation. Notary Public STATE OF MINNESOTA ) COUNTY OF SS. The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of , 1993, by and respectively, of CSM Corporation, a ota corporation, on e o the corporation. Notary Public 0 0 MM73Wi 2=0-" 5 .y?.,w,.? 1dS0 'NOS •tOS3elMn {,{ ,' fad 03Nrd3Nd '073rsN?uN I+ {?" _? 3-1` (INA'l IV SdOHS 3H1 ?? ? J1. 9 ._ _:_ %Sr soji& -n m H H W H x x w 61 fir l? I w' 1:. I I I I Y - J • ?; i a , .? i f ? II i I ; ? gs in s ?c$S s II I II' - _??'?17. S lS?C'Z 7?S S ST'S S S ?? r,i! • Y I U + i L' ?i YiL ? 61y L) ;T) jrri g1; }; t .. R ! 3 , • : z r y11 t{ ? • ? ?tf?ts,{ ? i :i3 i I I 'I 1 z •? Y x z a a w H H 0 H E - z w 0 ?r w E ca w O a- 0 a • CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Council Letter No. 311 Agenda November 14, 1994 Issue Statement: Request for an amendment to the Zoning Code which would make auto repair a "permitted" use in the C-1 (neighborhood business) district. Background: Dunrite Automotive, 3322 West 44th Street in Minneapolis, is requesting an amendment that would allow them to operate an auto repair center at 7301 Penn Avenue. This site is zoned C-1, where auto repair is prohibited by the code. The previous use was Steve's Detailing, which was permitted with special business licensing. Dunrite is now requesting a code amendment to make auto repair "permitted" in C-1 with similar licensing requirements (see attachment). Auto repair is allowed in the C-2 (general commercial) and I (industrial) districts, if a conditional use permit is granted by the Council. If this parcel were rezoned to C-2 or I, it still would not be eligible for auto repair use because, among other reasons, it abuts single family homes and is within 300 feet of the grounds of a church. • Recommended Motion: Review the proposed amendment and decide not to take further action as to its adoption. Basis of Recommendation: 1. The proposed amendment is designed specifically to fit this particular situation, however, would have impact City-wide, because other C-1 parcels would become eligible for auto repair. There are some 14 separated areas zoned C-1 throughout the City such as the Erik's Bike Shop area of 71st and Chicago Avenue. 2. The C=1 neighborhood business district was established for uses intended for the supplying of a limited variety of services primarily for the benefit of residents of the immediate neighborhood. A successful business of the size proposed would, of necessity, draw from a much larger area. 3. The issue of auto repair adjacent to residential property has been considered several times in recent years and rejected because of non-compatibility. Auto repair as a home occupation was rejected as was an auto repair facility at 7200 Cedar Avenue. 4. There are potential uses which may be made of the site which would be less impacting on the neighbors and which could be accomplished within normal parameters. i(D --i . Alternative Recommendation: Forward the proposed amendment to the Planning Commission for review, and direct the Planning Commission to provide its recommendation by December 12, 1994. Discussion/Decision Mode: This matter will be presented for action at the City Council meeting of November 14, 1994. Respectfully submitted, J Jame Prosser City, tanager JDP:ds 40 0 /b --a • FA EG R E & B E N S O N 2200 NORWEST CENTER 90 SOUTH SEVENTH STREET MINNEAPOLIS, MINNESOTA 55402-3901 612/336-3000 FACSIMILE 612/336-3026 Gary L. Gandrud Direct Dial (612) 336-3332 Facsimile (612) 336-3885 October 20, 1994 6700 Portland Ave. S. Richfield, Minn. 55423 Byron Wallace Community Development Director City of Richfield re: 7301 Penn Avenue 11 0 Dear Mr. Wallace: On behalf of Mr. and Mrs. Kit Arom, I have been discussing the use of their property at 7301 Penn Avenue with your City Attorney, John Dean. At John's suggestion I ,have prepared the attached text amendment that would allow the use of that property for certain specified uses. Like the "detailing" ordinance, a stringent licensing ordinance accompanies the zoning text amendment. After reviewing the proposed amendment, John suggested that I forward it to you with the request that it be brought before the City Council for their consideration. The property at 7301 Penn has been improved by the Arom's construction. The proposed amendments would allow a use in keeping with that property and not result in the kind of City wide change that would be more difficult to-assess. The way that the building is proposed to.be used, in accordance with the licensing ordinance, accomplishes the same goals that were sought in the "detailing" use that was previously approved. In fact, this use creates more off street parking because the inside capacity is greater. I understand that this represents a change from the past actions on the property but_great care was taken to make changes that were appropriate to the neighborhood and the property's history. Certainly, I could foresee uses that would not be so closely regulated and so compatible with the neighborhood. DENVER DES MOINES WASHINGTON,D.C. LONDON FRANKFURT Io-3 Please contact me with your analysis of the proposal. is We request that it be put before the City Council as expeditiously as is proper. Thank you. Verr,y truly yours, Gary L\ andrud GLG/ MRROC9DD.WP5 cc: Su Arom John Dean, City Attorney 0 BILL NO. DRAFT 10/17/94 AMENDMENT TO SECTION 520 SUBDIVISION NO. 5 OF THE RICHFIELD CITY CODE (ZONING) CITY OF RICHFIELD DOES ORDAIN: Section 520, Subdivision 5 of the Zoning Code is hereby amended in the following respects: 1. By revising said subdivision 5 of Section 520 to read as follows: "Other: 1. Automobile detailing establishments which are, , licensed under section 1195 of this code are permitted in the C-1 district. r.. 2. Specialized Minor Mechanical Auto Repair Centers • which are licensed under.Section 1195A of this Code are permitted in the C-1 district. 2. By adding to said subdivision 5 of Section 520 the following new language: 1. Public garage, unless licensed as a Specialized Minor Mechanical Auto Repair Center under Section 1195A of this Code. BILL NO. • AMENDMENT TO SECTION 1195 OF THE ORDINANCE CODE OF THE CITY OF RICHFIELD City of Richfield Does Ordain: Section 1195 of the Ordinance Code of the City of Richfield entitled "Business and Trade Regulation and Licensing" is amended by adding thereto the following new Section 1195A. 1195A. Specialized Minor Mechanical Auto Repair Center: Subd. 1. Definitions. The following terms shall have the meanings ascribed to them in this section: 1. "Specialized Minor Mechanical Auto Repair Center" means a business where, for a fee, automobiles, including component parts, are mechanically repaired, cleaned and refurbished. This term requires that at least 800 of the business performed is by appointment and that the business does not include: welding, body- work, painting, fuel sales, storage of automobiles or rte, engine replacement. • 2. "Automobile" means a motor vehicle exclusively designed and equipped to transport its driver and passengers. The term includes a van or light truck which is so equipped, but does not include buses, motor homes, or heavy or commercial trucks. Subd. 2. License Required. No person shall operate a Specialized Minor Mechanical Auto Repair Center without having first obtained a current and valid license to do so. Except as hereinafter provided, operation without a license is a misdemeanor. Subd. 3. Application. Any person desiring to engage in the business of operating a Specialized Minor Mechanical Auto Repair Center shall submit an application for a license to the City Clerk. The application shall be on a form prepared by the City Clerk and shall contain the following: 1. The applicant's name, age, residence and whether applicant is a-registered voter of the city. If the applicant is a partnership, the names of all partners verified by one such partner. If the applicant is a corporation, the names of all the officers verified by one such officer. 2. The business and residence addresses of the applicant.for a period of five years prior to the application date, whether the applicant is sole owner of the business and that no persons other than those -2- fo-b named in the application have any interest in the management and control of the business. 3. The application shall be accompanied by the favorable recommendations of two citizens of the city, attesting to the integrity and business ability of the applicant, or, if applicant is a partnership, the same attestation as to each partner, or, if applicant is a corporation, the same attestation as to the corporate officers and managers. 4. The applicant shall provide a plot plan or drawing showing: a. The total area of the business premises; b. The location of streets and alleys adjacent to such premises; C. The location or proposed location of any building to be used in connection with the business; d. The proposed location, size and kind of advertising signs; e. The proposed location of vehicle entrances and exits. i, 5. A complete description of the Specialized Minor Mechanical Auto Repair Center activities proposed to be conducted on the premises. 6. Such other and further information as the City Clerk shall require. Subd. 4. License Fee and License Year. The license fee is as provided in Appendix D of this Code. The fee shall be paid in full at the time of application. The license, once issued, shall be valid for 12 months from the date of issuance unless earlier suspended or revoked. Subd. 5. Conditions Governing Issuance. The following conditions are imposed upon the granting of all licenses under this section: 1. The site shall abut and have access to an arterial roadway. 2. No mechanical car washing equipment shall be used in connection with the licensed activity. 3. No overnight outside storage of vehicles shall be permitted. 4. The site shall be adequately screened from adjacent residential properties. -3- / o - '0'? 5. The licensed activity shall not result in undue congestion on surrounding streets. 6. There shall be adequate parking spaces provided on the site for customers and employees; three offstreet parking spaces for each bay where specialized minor mechanical auto repair takes place and one offstreet parking space for every employee shall be provided; and the licensee shall instruct customers and employees not to parking on surrounding streets. 7. The use must be conducted completely within the confines of the building. 8. There shall be no exterior storage or sales of equipment, materials or products. 9. The use shall not generate, noise, dust, or odors which disturb or annoy occupants of adjacent residential properties. 10. There shall be no more than one curb cut per street. Curb cuts must be located at least 50 feet from any intersection. z?. 11. Exterior lighting shall be designed and • directed so as not to cast light on adjacent residential property. 12. The establishment shall be open only between 7:00 a.m. and 7:00 p.m. 13. The premises shall be maintained in a state of good repair at all times, and shall be kept free of litter, trash, debris and weeds. 14. Underground storage tanks shall be removed as required by the City. 15. Licenses shall be granted only to establishments located in the commercial districts of the City. 16. In addition to other conditions provided for in this subdivision, if the establishment is located in a C-1 district of the City, it must be proposed as a replacement to an Automobile Detailing Establishment. Subd. 6. Suspension or Revocation. If the City Manager determines that the licensee has violated any of the conditions for licensure contained in subdivision 5 of this section, the Manager shall notify the Council of the nature of the violation and request that it consider taking action to suspend or revoke the license. A copy of the notice shall be mailed, or otherwise delivered, to the licensee at -4- i C)--9 the licensed premises. The Council shall consider the matter at its next regularly scheduled meeting, at least ten days following the date of mailing or delivery of the notice. At the hearing, the licensee or its representative shall have an opportunity to rebut any of the information contained in the Manager's notice and to offer evidence in mitigation thereof. Following the hearing,,the Council shall determine whether the evidence of violation is established and whether the license should be suspended or revoked... In considering suspension.of the license,.the Council may place additional and further conditions upon the licensee, if the Council concludes that such additional conditions will assist in the orderly operation of the business. Subd. 7. Relationship to Other Licenses or Permits. Businesses located in C-2 districts of the city which lawfully operate as gasoline service stations, service station stores, public garages or car sale lots may continue to engage in those aspects of an Specialized Minor Mechanical Auto Repair Center which are permitted as part of their lawful operation without the need to first obtain the license required in this section. ,4. Effective Date. This amendment will be effective from and after the later of: (1) 30 days following the date of publication, or (2) the date on which the amendment to Section 520, subdivision 5 making Specialized Minor Mechanical Auto Repair Centers a permitted use in C-1 districts is effective. Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this day of , 1994. Mayor ATTEST: City Clerk NMOC83F. WP5 • -5- CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Council Letter No. 310 Agenda November 14, 1994 Issue Statement: Consideration of a resolution determining results of the City General Election held on Tuesday, November 8, 1994. Background: The City General Election was conducted on Tuesday, November 8, 1994 on the General Election ballot. Richfield City Charter Section 4.07 states that: "The council shall meet and canvass the election returns at the next regular or special council meeting immediately following any regular, primary or special election but in no event later than the Monday next following, and shall make full declaration of the results as soon as possible, and file a statement thereof with the City Clerk." Recommended Motion: Approve the resolution determining the results of the City General Election held on Tuesday, November 8, 1994. Basis for Recommendation: 1. The election judges have certified the returns of the election. 2. The City Charter provides that the City Council declare the results of the election. Alternative Recommendation: None. Discussion/Decision Mode: This matter has been scheduled for consideration at the November 14, 1994 Council Meeting. r Respectfully submitted, James I Prosser City Manager JDP:cak RESOLUTION NO. 0 RESOLUTION DETERMINING RESULTS OF THE GENERAL ELECTION OF THE CITY OF RICHFIELD HELD ON TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 8, 1994 BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Richfield that the council, having received and considered the tally of votes by the election judges of the General Election held November 8, 1994, the results are determined to be as follows: Votes cast for Mayor - Four Year Term: Jean Fox 5,351 Marin J. Kirsch 8,320 Write-ins: 39 Votes cast for Council Member At Large - Four Year Term: Michael M. Sandahl 6,714 Larry Wozniczka 6,006 Write-ins: 46 0 Total number of voters: 14,734 Total number of spoiled ballots: 372 Attached Appendix A is complete tabulation of results. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the following list of judges were those certifying returns of said election: James Alagna (IR) Mark Amberson (IR) Janice Andersen (IR) Clyde Anderson (IR) Angela Aylward (DFL) Mark Benefiel (IR) Muriel Bernstein (DFL) Roy Blankenship (IR) Linda Bloomgren (DFL) Elizabeth Bowman (IR) Linda Boyd (IR) Gert Broker (IR) Ann C. Burkhardt (DFL) Mr. Ted Chao (IR) Darlene Colbenson (DFL) Barb Cook (DFL) Geraldine R. Cooper (IR) Corrine Cosgrove (DFL) Clara Darsow (DFL) Emily Day (DFL) Maurice Devitt (DFL) Alice Dickinson (IR) Celestine Dumas (IR) Liz Ekholm (DFL) Mary Erickson (IR) Rose Erlander (DFL) Lynette Farnel3,(IR) Veronica Fashant (DFL) Donna Fischer (DFL) Jette Floberg (IR) Jack Foeller (DFL) Beatrice Frankus (DFL) Eloise Friend (IR) Betty Funk (IR) Nancy Garwick (DFL) Elayne Gilhousen (IR) Shirley Gisselquist (DFL) Jerry Guritz (DFL) Betty Halloran (IR) Mary Lee Hanson (IR) James Harkness (DFL) Gladys Hayden (DFL) Joan Helmer (DFL) Gertrude Herll (DFL) Mae Hermansen (IR) Helen Hillstrom (DFL) Mildred Hines (DFL) Ilene Holen (IR) JoAnn Holt (IR) Rose Hoppenrath (IR) Marion Horning (DFL) Jill Horowitz (DFL) Marie Howe (DFL) Raymond Howe (DFL) r (? Resolution No. Page 2 Adele Irrthum (DFL) Julian Sandsness (IR) 40 Mary Lou Janco (DFL) Mary Ann Schindler (DFL) Ray Johnson (DFL) Dorothy Schostag (DFL) Danette Kamrath (IR) Joann Schuldt (IR) Lois Karnas (IR) Judy Schultz (IR) Olga Kelash (DFL) Ellen Smith (DFL) June King (IR) Hazel Splittstoeser (IR) Emil Sherwood Koebnick (DFL) William Stixrud (DFL) Shirley Elaine Koebnick (DFL) Geraldine Stoffel (IR) Rosemary Koelln (IR) Fay Sullivan (DFL) Earl Kommerstad (IR) Eleanore Swanson (IR) Lois Kovach (DFL) Arline Thomas (IR) Elinor Kuhl (DFL) Marion Thompson (IR) Michaelene Kvaale (IR) Gayle C. Ticen (DFL) Bernadette Lais (IR) Claire Todd (DFL) Kathleen Leckner (DFL) Pat Toney (IR) Nancy Lindberg (DFL) Gertrude Ulrich (DFL) Patricia Lindberg (DFL) Thelma Urang (IR) Jeanne Lindstrom (IR) Bernice Utter (DFL) Jeanette Lofstrom (DFL) Kathryn Voigt-Johnson (DFL) Doris Long (IR) Helen Volz (DFL) John Lundquist (IR) Marilyn Wagner (IR) Ruth Lundquist (DFL) Audrey Winslow (IR) Darold Luze (DFL) Floyd Young (IR) Robert Mack (DFL) Della Shuck Zilka (DFL) Lorraine Maki (DFL) Clifford Martinson (IR) Student Trainee Judges: LuAnn May (IR) Jeff Baker Connie McDonald (DFL) Matt Biermaier Patricia Medley (DFL) Susan Boothby Donna Mercer (DFL) Mariesa Bumgarner Alvina Mjelve (IR) Joel Comstock Carolyn Moe (DFL) Meghan Elliott Federick Moore (DFL) Marc Estall Richard Morey (DFL) Scott Finn Helen Moritz (DFL) Dave Fors Howard Mortensen (IR) Cali Gaibor Carol Yvonne Mortenson (IR) Dan Goodlund Philip Mortenson (IR) Shannon Hansmann Abner Morvig (DFL) Ryan Herbert John Nelson (DFL) Nicole LaValle Renee Nelson (IR) Chad Mayer Marilyn Nienkerk (DFL) Kari McGuire Edyth Nye (IR) Debbie Murphy Fern Oreck (DFL) Angie Murray Ruth Pafko (DFL) Mike Parten Dorothy A. Peabody (IR) Katie Petersen Joan Pelfrey (DFL) Elisa Pluhar Barbara Peterson (DFL) Amy Rodquist Martha Prottengeier (IR) Diane Sokolski Eleanor Rasmussen (DFL) Anne Sween Marian Rausch (IR) Thomas Tapero Phyllis Reinmuth (DFL) Kindra Witthans Carolyn Ring (IR) Becky Witzman Kathie Roberts (DFL) Joel Wolf q'3 Resolution No. • Page 3 PASSED by the City Council of Richfield, Minnesota this 14th day of November, 1994. Martin J. Kirsch Mayor ATTEST: Thomas P. Ferber City Clerk 0 I? ?J APPENDIX A'? / City of Richfield November 8, 1994 General Election Results 0 United States Senator Total Precincts Votes Percent 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Dean M. Barkley 892 6.11% 100 94 104 107 91 99 115 101 81 Rod Grams 6,571 45.00% 690 822 884 825 546 649 918 650 587 Marea Himelgrin 19 0.13% 2 5 1 3 1 1 3 3 Stephen Johnson 30 0.21% 2 4 5 6 1 3 1 5 3 Candice E. Sjostrom 158 1.08% 23 13 21 17 17 16 22 12 17 Ann Wynia 6,903 47.27% 747 854 919 808 545 648 970 765 647 Write in 29 0.20% 2 1 3 2 3 4 8 3 3 United States Representative District 5 Dorothy LeGrand 6,229 44.24% 628 775 867 808 527 634 850 611 529 Martin Olav Sabo 7,791 55.33% 875 924 1008 886 605 744 1112 883 754 Write in 61 0.43% 4 7 7 10 7 8 8 6 4 State Representative District 40A 4Aark P. Mahon 2,088 49.41% --- --- --- 818 581 689 --- --- --- Brian D. Skon 2,109 49.91% --- --- --- 861 563 685 --- --- --- Write in 29 0.69% --- --- --- 11 7 11 --- --- --- State Representative District 63B Edwina Garcia 6,016 59.90% 957 1015 1088 --- --- --- 1201 931 824 Paul A. Hintermeyer 3,976 39.59% 580 718 815 --- --- --- 799 568 496 Write in 51 0.51% 6 14 7 --- --- --- 10 6 8 Governor and Lieutenant Governor Carlson & Benson 9,095 62.49% 935 1100 1252 1151 735 906 1253 950 813 Davis & Ratte' 28 0.19% 3 1 3 3 3 2 5 3 5 Hillson & Finger 16 0.11% 2 2 3 2 4 2 1 Marty & Larson 4,811 33.06% 540 618 621 513 396 451 677 529 466 Olson & Strand 140 0.96% 15 18 12 21 14 17 13 11 19 Shetterly & Davis 174 1.20% 34 10 15 17 18 19 28 19 14 Write in 290 1.99% 33 30 31 50 28 33 42 21 22 Secretary of State Joan Anderson Growe 8,691 61.14% 959 1045 1103 1027 707 837 1237 956 820 Dick Kimbler 5,067 35.65% 508 653 732 625 406 499 688 498 458 Dale D. Wilkinson 441 3.10% 56 40 51 58 43 54 56 46 37 Write in 15 0.11% 1 1 3 1 1 2 4 1 1 State Auditor Oteven C. Anderson 591 4.28% 71 57 61 77 69 70 75 60 51 Judi Dutcher 6,814 49.32% 706 835 972 853 550 642 940 688 628 Donald M. Moe 6,385 46.21% 695 789 811 736 488 629 923 708 606 Write in 26 0.19% 1 3 7 1 5 2 4 3 City of Richfield November 8, 1994 General Election Results page 1 q -5 *ate Treasurer Colleen Bonniwell Michael A. McGrath James C. Olson Write in Attorney General Dean W. Amundson Sharon Anderson Hubert Humphrey III Write in Total Precincts Votes Percent 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 $ 9 695 5.12% 78 74 81 92 71 71 104 73 51 6,712 49.44% 730 820 851 763 531 643 966 756 652 5,727 42.18% 603 703 812 714 475 571 771 555 523 443 3.26% 46 60 69 57 29 43 58 46 35 563 3.99% 63 70 69 76 52 68 72 51 42 3,478 24.62% 371 400 492 428 320 330 446 359 332 9,568 67.73% 1020 1189 1235 1131 745 924 1384 1035 905 518 3.67% 49 69 82 64 39 55 75 51 34 Off-Track Wagering on Horse Races Yes 7,045 47.87% 749 777 944 842 580 687 983 765 718 No 6,486 44.07% 676 823 904 782 514 652 963 664 508 Undervote 1,187 8.06% 156 205 103 153 116 101 103 120 130 ount Commissioner District 5 andy Johnson 10,414 98.61% 1134 1265 1375 1223 844 1037 1479 1082 975 Write in 147 1.39% 14 11 23 18 14 8 35 17 7 County Sheriff O.L. Butch LaBerge 4,858 40.11% 479 638 614 618 400 444 721 528 416 Pat McGowan 7,210 59.52% 831 817 1007 824 579 743 960 742 707 Write in 45 0.37% 7 7 7 5 4 7 6 2 County Attorney Michael 0. Freeman 9,069 71.37% 994 1134 1136 1064 666 814 1303 1017 941 Chuck Hall 3,594 28.28% 385 409 528 442 320 407 492 332 279 Write in 44 0.35% 4 5 9 5 4 7 4 4 2 Soil and Water. Conservation Supervisor District 1 Thomas D. Wegner 9,613 99.23% 1059 1141 1284 1115 767 939 1369 1027 912 Write in 75 0.77% 11 10 10 7 5 4 16 8 4 Soil and Water Conservation Supervisor District 3 Karen S. Johnson 9,579 99.39% 1034 1125 1297 1115 766 935 1364 1028 915 Write in 59 0.61% 14 7 9 5 4 2 11 6 1 Soil and Water Conservation Supervisor District 5 Harold H. Burrows 3,413 35.62% 310 359 405 348 312 336 553 372 418 Bonnie Ann Smith 2,990 31.20% 384 430 447 271 268 227 436 241 286 Cindy Lee Sykes 3,114 32.50% 359 333 409 466 202 359 348 419 219 W rite in 65 0.68% 12 10 5 8 6 2 11 7 4 City of Richfield November 8, 1994 General Election Results page 2 9 4,0 • City of Richfield Mayor Jean Fox 5,351 39.03% 594 613 768 609 478 505 771 522 491 Martin J. Kirsch 8,320 60.69% 908 1032 1072 1044 614 819 1164 881 786 Write in 39 0.28% 3 7 4 4 4 6 6 5 City of Richfield Council Member At Large Michael M. Sandahl 6,714 52.59% 793 696 974 804 552 699 841 675 680 Larry Wozniczka 6,006 47.05% 613 838 718 708 432 540 994 631 532 Write in 46 0.36% 1 6 6 4 2 9 9 2 7 Judae 11 Court of Appeals Fred C. Norton 5,500 50.94% 561 725 694 660 434 504 811 633 478 Roger A Peterson 5,266 48.78% 643 563 762 561 435 544 704 493 561 Write in 30 0.28% 4 4 3 4 3 3 4 3 2 Judge 6 Court of Appeals James C. Harten 9,020 97.91% 994 1073 1227 1012 729 872 1289 952 872 Write in 193 2.09% 13 16 26 30 14 21 29 26 18 Judge 22 4th District Court Deborah Hedlund 7,024 63.82% 734 900 938 821 559 638 1035 737 662 *evin J. Kolosky 3,959 35.97% 481 428 550 426 324 427 518 401 404 Write in 23 0.21% 1 2 2 3 2 4 3 5 1 Judge 40 4th District Court Donald A. Hillstrom 4,896 45.27% 523 608 639 562 357 492 712 537 466 Dolores C. Orey 5,893 54.49% 668 682 842 658 512 560 802 580 589 Write in 26 0.24% 1 2 2 6 3 4 2 5 1 Judge 44 41th District Court Patricia Kerr Karasov 6,376 56.98% 628 794 863 794 503 637 917 660 580 Sean Jerome Rice 4,765 42.58% 621 589 688 522 406 455 666 518 300 Write in 49 0.44% 2 2 3 3 2 6 6 5 20 Judge 6 41th District Court Patricia L. Belois 9,064 98.03% 999 1087 1248 1007 734 871 1301 942 875 Write in 182 1.97% 13 15 21 29 16 25 22 21 20 Judge 10 4th District Court Thomas H. Carey 8,982 98.56% 994 1076 1228 998 730 861 1286 932 877 Write in 131 1.44% 12 10 18 13 13 17 19 15 14 Judge 14 4th District Court Mary L. Davidson 9,025 98.93% 996 1085 1244 999 730 862 1302 932 875 Write in 98 1.07% 7 6 11 12 10 16 13 14 9 Judge 16 4th.District Court David M. Duffy 8,976 98.89% 993 1073 1237 991 726 852 1294 936 874 Write in 101 1.11% 7 6 10 14 11 18 11 14 10 Judge 17 4th District Court Patrick Fitzgerald 9,056 98.93% 1005 1085 1241 1003 736 862 1299 942 883 Write in 98 1.07% 3 10 14 11 7 11 21 12 9 City of Richfield November 8, 1994 Gen eral Election Results page 3 Total Precincts Votes Percent 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 q-'1 Total Precincts Votes Percent 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Oudge 20 4th District Court Myron S. Greenberg Write in Judge 28 4th District Court Steven Z. Lange Write in Judge 35 4th District Court Daniel H. Mabley Write in Judge 37 4th District Court Cara Lee T. Neville Write in Judge 39 4th District Court Allen Oleisky Write in Judge 45 4th District Court Marilyn B. Rosenbaum Write in Judge 48 4th District Court Richard B. Solum Write in Budge 52 4th District Court Edward Toussaint, Jr. Write in 8,835 99.17% 976 1049 1203 979 718 841 1279 920 870 74 0.83% 6 5 12 9 5 8 12 10 7 8,865 99.17% 979 1058 1208 983 717 847 1280 926 867 74 0.83% 6 5 13 9 7 8 11 9 6 8,784 99.21% 972 1043 1191 967 715 845 1274 919 858 . 70 0.79% 5 5 14 8 7 6 10 9 6 8,867 99.15% 980 1055 1205 982 723 851 1282 918 871 76 0.85% 6 7 15 9 6 8 12 8 5 8,982 99.27% 988 1072 1223 998 730 857 1304 935 875 66 0.73% 6 6 13 6 5 6 12 6 6 8,872 99.12% 968 1057 1206 995 722 857 1285 919 863 79 0.88% 9 4 13 6 7 8 15 10 7 8,835 99.18% 970 1055 1201 979 716 842 1281 926 865 73 0.82% 6 6 12 6 7 8 13 9 6 8,824 99.07% 970 1053 1200 981 717 845 1274 922 862 83 0.93% 7 9 9 10 6 7 17 10 8 Precincts TOTAL Percent 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Registered at 7:OOAM 22,321 New Registrants 1,241 Total Registered Voters 23,562 Absentee Ballots 969 Total Voters 14,734 Doter Turnout Percentage 62.53% 2575 2638 2887 118 165 170 2693 2803 3057 103 146 155 1581 1806 1953 59% 64% 64% 2544 162 2706 103 1777 66% 2167 154 2321 44 1218 52% 2221 2866 2339 2084 103 134 134 101 2324 3000 2473 2185 93 133 135 57 1440 2051 1552 1356 62% 68% 63% 62% City of Richfield November 8, 1994 General Election Results page 4 • CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Council Letter No.309 Agenda November 14, 1994 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 $15,000 term life insurance policy is provided for all Management and General Services employees. The City pays the full premium for this insurance, which is $2.55 per month per employee for 1994. The $15,000 limit is lower than other cities to which the City of Richfield compares itself and is low considering the costs and hardships involved in a death or dismemberment. A $20,000 limit is proposed at the same rate with no census or evidence of insurability needed. This benefit has not increased since January 1, 1987. The 1995 premium will increase from $2.55 to $3.40 per month per employee. DENTAL The second type of insurance provided to Management and General Services employees is a self-funded group dental insurance. In 1994, the City contributed $23 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 1994 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. For 1995, the estimated cost of employee coverage is $24. While the City does not contribute to dependent coverage for dental insurance, for informational purposes, the rate the employee will pay will remain at $31.00 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 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. ?- I • The 1994 and 1995 monthly Premium costs of the health plans are: 1994 Rate 1995 Rate Increase Group Health Inc. Individual $ 158.13 $ 170.74 7.97% Family 431.44 465.86 7.97% MedCenter Health Plan Individual $ 160.71 160.71 0% Family 478.35 478.35 0% Medica Individual $ 187.16 187.16 0% Family $ 449.05 449.05 0% In 1995, the City's contribution for Management and General Services employees will be increased by $20.00 to $335. 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. In 1989-1992 the large premium increases made the City fall behind the level of contribution the City provided and wanted to provide toward the total health premium. The $20.00 increase brings the City up to a level the City feels is more comparable • to other cities' levels. 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 360 per $100 of salary for covered employees. 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 $15,000 to $20,000 at the same rate, with a premium charge increase from $2.55 to $3.40 per month per employee. B. Dental Insurance That the per employee per month contribution be increased from $23 to $24. As in the past, employees who desire dependent coverage would pay the full cost of such additional premium. ?a • C. Long-Term Disability Insurance That the long-term disability insurance remain with a premium charge of 36q per $100 of salary. D. Group Health Insurance That the City contribution be increased from a maximum of $315 per month to $335 per month 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 1995 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 1994 funding level. • Discussion/Decision Mode: The City should implement the premium increases for coverages by December 9, 1994. Payroll deductions for January insurance payments, the beginning of the new insurance period, are calculated in December. Resp fully submitted, Jam D. Prosser Cit anager JDP:ff Copy: Administrative Services Director Personnel Manager ?`-3 0ttachment 1 The City's Contribution Toward Dependent Health Insurance as a Percent of Total Premium Cost HEALTH DEPENDENT CITY CONTRIBUTION CITY CONTRIBUTION AS YEAR PLAN PREMIUM COST MGMT./GEN. SERVICES AVERAGE % OF 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 E LJ E RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION DESIGNATING CITY'S CONTRIBUTION TOWARD HEALTH, TERM LIFE AND DENTAL INSURANCE PREMIUM FOR MANAGEMENT AND GENERAL SERVICES EMPLOYEES 8-4 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 $335.00 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 $3.40 monthly premium for the term life and accidental death and dismemberment insurance plan for Management and General Services employees, for a total possible maximum 1995 insurance premium contribution of $362.40 per month. Such contributions shall be for coverage effective January 1, 1995. 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 , 1994. ATTEST: Martin J. Kirsch, Mayor Thomas P. Ferber, City Clerk CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Council Letter No. 308 Agenda November 14, 1994 Issue Statement: Public hearing regarding request for a transitional activity permit and special approval to allow relocation of a Naegele billboard from 7738 Colfax Avenue to 7700 Fremont Avenue. Background: The subject billboard was constructed in 1984 on the site of the former Cutler Animal Hospital. In 1987, Richfield amended its sign ordinance, making the billboard nonconforming to the zoning district, height and setback requirements, and required distance from interstate highways. Earlier this year, the Cutler site was purchased for the CSM Phase I Redevelopment Project, requiring the billboard to be removed from 7738 Colfax. Naegele is requesting the relocation of the billboard to the southern portion of the Cloverleaf site under an agreement with the Housing and Redevelopment Authority (HRA). Under the proposal, the sign would be relocated approximately 450 feet to the west of its Cutler location. The billboard is a unipole mounted double-face "V" sign, and measures 14 feet high by 48 feet long. It would be mounted at a total height of 40 feet from the ground to the top of the sign- face. Recommended Motion: Approve the transitional activity permit and grant special approval to allow relocation of a billboard from 7738 Colfax Avenue to 7700 Fremont Avenue with the following stipulation: 1. That the transitional activity permit shall expire on October 31, 1997, or such earlier date as determined by the cancellation of the lease. Basis of Recommendation: 1. The City Attorney has reviewed and approved the applicant's process to seek relocation of the billboard. 2. The lease agreement with the City is satisfactory to properly protect the City's interest. 3. The relocated billboard will be the same size and type as the Cutler billboard. 4. Due to the CSM Redevelopment Project, the HRA/CSM has a relocation obligation for this billboard. 6 i 1-/ • 5. On October 17, 1994, the HRA approved the billboard lease agreement, subject to the Council's approval of the transitional activity permit and special sign approval. 6. On October 25, 1994, the Planning Commission reviewed the proposal and voted unanimously to recommend approval. Findings of Fact: 1. The transitional activity is in conjunction with an existing use which is allowable in the district as a nonconforming use. 2. The transitional activity will maintain the vitality and economic success of the applicant's business during the transition of the C-3'district. 3. The transitional activity will not have an adverse impact upon development of land within the C-3 district in the manner intended for the district under the City's land use regulations or its comprehensive plan. 4. The transitional use will not materially increase the potential public cost of development within the C-3 district. 5. The transitional activity will be no less compatible with the surrounding uses than the existing advertising sign, nor will • it have additional adverse impacts on surrounding properties. It will be in compliance with the regulations applicable to the C-2 district, except for those items granted with special approval by the Council. Alternative Recommendation: The Council could deny the request with a finding that the proposal would have an adverse impact on surrounding properties or potential redevelopment of the C-3 district. Discussion/Decision Mode: A public hearing is scheduled at 7:00 p.m. on Monday, November 14, 1994. The hearing will be held in the City Council Chambers of Richfield City Hall, 6700 Portland Avenue. Notice of hearing was published in the Sun-Current and mailed to property owners within 350 feet of the subject property. Respectf lly submitted, Jame . Prosser City anager JDP:ds 0 7'0? w oG ' -? 4 NORTH I - - --1 LL- - 1-494 I -- 76TH ST. -----T- - - -? f ' I- Ix" z I F O J o. _ O U 0V 1 s 4f A PROPOSED y'9s BILLBOARD I tc j EXISTING LOCATION BILLBOARD 40=-?I LOCATION , ` 450' ? I \\ ? CSMPYLON _ - 1-3 0 4 PROPOSED BILLBOARD RELOCATION 7700 FREMONT AVE. SO.- SCALE: /„^ SFr, NAEGELE Naegele Outdoor Advertising Company E ATTACHMENT TO THE APPLICATION OF NAEGELE OU'T'DOOR ADVERTISING TO RELOCATE ITS BILLBOARD FROM 7701 COLFAX AVENUE TO THE CLOVERLEAF SITE 1. Proposal Naegele proposes to relocate its existing billboard from 7701 Colfax Avenue South approximately*50 ft. to the west onto a site leased from the Richfield Housing and Redevelopment Authority (see attachment one). The relocation is necessary due the Authority's condemnation of the Colfax Avenue site to permit the redevelopment of that area. The new billboard will be identical to the billboard it replaces and most other billboards on 494 in Richfield. It will have two 14 ft. by 48 ft. basic sign faces on a single steel pole. The top of the basic sign faces will be 40 ft. above grade. The bottom of the structural support under the sign faces will be 23 ft. above grade. This site would be used for a billboard for not more than three years, subject to the lease provisions that permit cancellation by the City upon development or on 90 days notice that would require removal at a time prior to the maximum three year term. The proposed billboard will have no effect upon, and not be effected by the present use of the site. The billboard's location on the site, and its 23 ft. clearance will permit the "batch plant" activity to continue with no interference. The noise, vibration, dust, and storage of the batch plant activity will have no impact on the use of the billboard. 2. Impacts on surrounding properties Billboards in Richfield, and other communities, constructed and used in compliance with local and State regulations have insignifcant effect on surrounding properties. At this specific site the greatest potential impact is visual, and only when approaching the new development from the west on I 494. The site of the proposed billboard has been chosen-to insure any impact is minimal. The specific proposed location is behind and west of the proposed on premise sign located at the southwest corner of the development to insure no conflict occurs. The backdrop of the billboard is mature trees and the mound of fill. The billboard generates no trips, noise or vibration, and requires no public services. The backdrop of the billboard and the primary 1700 West 78th Street • Minneapolis, MN 55423-3899 612/869-1900 9 FAX # 612/869-7082 J'-5 0 activity on the site will screen the billboard from the nearby office use. The nearest residential uses are screened by the new sound walls. David Carlin of CSM supports this relocation and site. 3. Activities and estimated costs. Naegele employees will dismantle the present sign at 494 and Colfax, and will install that upper structure on a newly fabricated foundation and pole at the proposed site. Construction of the new structure is estimated to cost $42,000.00. 4. Fiscal costs and benefits Due to the terms of the lease, we expect no change in market value. Due to the ownership of the site and terms of the lease, we expect no change in taxes. Due to the terms of the lease, the potential cost of public development will be reduced by at least $22,200.00 in avoided relocation payments and will provide $24,000.00 to the City in lease payments for each year of the lease. 5. Findings This Transitional Activity Permit is in connection with the existing billboard structure at 7701 Colfax Avenue S., allowed in the district as a nonconforming use. Maitenance of this use is important to the vitality and economic success of Naegele Outdoor Advertising for the three year period of the transition. The transitional activity is accepted by the developer of the surrounding property as compatable and not adverse. When, or before, the site is developed, the billboard will be removed. The transitional use will materially decrease the potential public cost of development by the terms of the lease regarding relocation payments and annual rent. The transitional use will be in full compliance with all standards and requirements contained in the City Code applicable to billboards in the C-2 district. C l)-6 • CONIlVIER.CIAL LEASE THIS LEASE is made the day of , 1994 by and between THE HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY IN AND FOR THE CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA, Landlord, and NAEGELE OUTDOOR ADVERTISING COMPANY, INC., Tenant. WITNESSETH 0 U In consideration of payment of the rent hereinafter specified to be paid by Tenant, and the covenants and agreements herein contained, Landlord hereby leases to Tenant that certain property (herein called the Premises) in the County of Hennepin, State of Minnesota, which is located in the northwest corner of the intersection of Emerson Avenue and 78th Street, Richfield, Minnesota. Type of Property: Vacant Land Legal Description: That land shown outlined in red on the attached EXHIBIT, which EXHIBIT is hereby incorporated as part of this lease. including improvements, if any, for the term of 35.5 months commencing on November 15, 1994 and ending on October 31, 1997, with the right of termination in both Landlord and Tenant as hereinafter set forth. IT IS AGREED: 1. RENT. Tenant shall pay to Landlord as rent for the Premises the sum of $24,000, in monthly payments of $2,000 in advance on the first day of each month during the term of this lease. Rent payments are to be mailed or delivered to Landlord's office as follows : Richfield HRA 6700 Portland Avenue Richfield, MN 55423 Make checks payable to: Richfield HRA 2. PREPAID RENT. Tenant has paid to Landlord the sum of $3, 000 as rent for November and December, 1994. 3. USE OF PREMISES. Tenant will use the Premises for the following purpose only: Maintenance of one outdoor advertising structure, a unipole mounted double face "V", 14' x 481, set in concrete. It is the sole responsibility of Tenant to comply with all laws, regulations or ordinances imposed by any jurisdiction governing the -use of the Premises. Failure to comply will not relieve Tenant of the obligation to pay rent. 4. MAINTENANCE AND REPAIRS. Tenant shall keep the Premises in good condition at Tenant's own expense and shall not call on Landlord to make any improvements or repairs. .5. UTILITY CHARGES. Tenant shall pay when due all utility charges and any other charges or expenses connected with Tenant's use of the Premises. CAH76837 RC125-68 J,? 6. NOTICES. All notices herein provided to be given, or which may be given, by either party to the other, shall be deemed to have been fully given when served personally on Landlord or Tenant or when made in writing and deposited in the United States mail and addressed as follows : To Tenant: Director of Real Estate Naegele Outdoor Advertising Company, Inc. 1700 West 78th Street Richfield, MN 55423 To Landord: Address listed at paragraph 1 above The address to which notices are mailed may be changed by written notice by either party to the other as herein provided. 7. CANCELLATION. This lease shall be subject to cancellation by Tenant at any time during the term of this lease. Landlord may cancel this lease at any time (i) if Landlord has entered into a contract with a third party for development of the Premises or (ii) pursuant to paragraph 17 of this lease. In all other cases, Landlord may cancel this lease at any time after November 15, 1995. The party cancelling the lease must give the other party notice in writing at least sixty days prior to the date when the cancellation shall become effective. The cancellation notice shall be accompanied by the cancellation fee, if any, required by paragraph 8 of this lease. In the event of cancellation, any unearned rent paid by Tenant shall be returned. 8. CANCELLATION FEE. Tenant shall not be required to pay a cancellation fee. Landlord shall not be required to pay a cancellation fee if Landlord has entered into a contract with a third party for development of the Premises or if Landlord cancels the lease pursuant to paragraph 17 of this lease. In all other cases, however, Landlord shall pay a cancellation fee, the amount of which shall be determined according to the following schedule: Lease year in which cancelled Cancellation Fee Cancellation during second year of lease $21,000 Cancellation during third year of lease $15,000 9. INDEMNIFICATION AND RELEASE. Tenant shall defend, indemnify, save harmless and release Landlord and Landlord's employees from and against all claims, demands and causes of action for injury to or death of persons or loss of or damage to property (including Tenant and Tenant's property) occurring on the Premises or connected with Tenant's use and occupancy of the Premises, regardless of whether such injury, death, loss or damage is caused in part by the negligence of Landlord or is deemed to be the responsibility of Landlord because of its failure to supervise, inspect or control the operations of Tenant or otherwise discover or prevent actions or operations of Tenant giving rise to liability to any person. 10. LIABILITY INSURANCE. Tenant shall maintain during the full term of this lease a policy of public liability insurance with the following minimum limits of liability: Bodily injury and property damage combined $1,000,000 each occurrence $1,000,000 aggregate CAS76837 RC125-68 111)--Y The insurance policy shall include the coverage provided by one of the following policies, consistent with the risk involved: Comprehensive General Liability; Premises-Operations Liability; Owners', Landlords', and Tenants' Liability; Manufacturers' and Contractors' Liability. Prior to execution of this lease by Landlord, the Tenant shall have a Certificate of Insurance sent to Landlord as proof of coverage. The Certificate shall name the Landlord as Additional Insured and shall designate the leased Premises as the location covered by the policy. 11. FIRE INSURANCE. None required. Tenant will make no claim against Landlord arising out of any loss to the Premises. 12. TAXES. Tenant shall pay all taxes, permits, and license fees, if any, arising out of the. operation and maintenance or ownership of the advertising structure on the Premises. 13. LIENS . Tenant shall keep the Premises free and clear of all liens arising out of Tenant's use of the Premises and agrees to protect and indemnify Landlord against all costs, expenses, loss and damage which may in any manner result from the filing or attempted enforcement of any and all such liens. 14. RIGHT TO ENTER. Tenant shall allow Landlord, Landlord's contractors, agents and assigns to enter upon the Premises for any of the following purposes: to survey the land; to take soil borings; to show the Premises to prospective developers; to install, remove or repair utilities. If any of these operations substantially restrict the Tenant's use of the Premises, rent shall be reduced proportional to the restricted use of the Premises for the period of the restricted use. Landlord or its representatives may enter without notice to Tenant, and for such entry. 15. ASSIGNMENT AND SUBLETTING. Tenant shall not assign this lease or sublet the Premises, in whole or in part, without the written consent of Land ord. 16. CIVIL RIGHTS ACT. Tenant shall not discriminate on the grounds of race, color, sex or national origin against any person in access to and use of the facilities and services operated or otherwise maintained on the Premises; and the Tenant shall operate and maintain such facilities and services in compliance with Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and Title 49, Code of Federal Regulations, Part 21. 17. REMEDIES. If any rent is due and unpaid or if Tenant defaults in any of the covenants or agreements on the part of the Tenant contained in this lease, Landlord may, at any time after default, cancel this lease, re-enter and take possession of the Premises in the manner provided by law. Tenant will pay Landlord all costs and expenses, including attorneys' fees, in any successful action brought by Landlord to recover any rent due and unpaid hereunder, or for the breach of any of the covenants or agreements contained in this lease, or to recover possession of the Premises. 18. HOLDING OVER. If Tenant holds over after the expiration of the term of this lease with the consent of the Landlord, express or implied, the tenancy shall be deemed to be a tenancy only from month to month, subject otherwise to all of the terms and conditions of this lease so far as applicable. CAH76837 RC125-68 3 J-67 19. MOVING OUT. At the expiration or sooner termination of this lease, Tenant shall remove the outdoor advertising structure and leave the Premises in as good condition as when delivered to Tenant (except for ordinary wear and any loss covered by insurance under paragraph 10). 20. CONDEMNATION. If the whole or any substantial part of the Premises shall be taken or condemned or purchased under threat of condemnation by any governmental authority other than Landlord, then the Term of this Lease shall cease and terminate as of the date when the condemning authority takes possession of the Premises and Tenant shall have no claim against the condemning authority, Landlord or otherwise for any portion of the amount that may be awarded as damages as a result of such taking or condemnation or for the value of any unexpired term of this Lease. 21. SETTLEMENT OF CLAIMS. Tenant acknowledges that by execution of this lease, Tenant and Landlord have reached a complete and final settlement of all claims, whether for just compensation, interest, attorney's fees, relocation benefits, appraisal fees, or otherwise, which Tenant has or could make against Landlord in connection with the Landlord's acquisition by condemnation of the real estate at 7738 Colfax Avenue South, Richfield, Minnesota, pursuant to that certain action filed as Hennepin County District Court File No. CD-2324. Tenant agrees that any breach by Landlord of the terms and conditions of this lease shall not reinstate any claim settled pursuant to this paragraph but that Tenant shall have a cause of action for breach of contract against Landlord. 22. ADDITIONAL AGREEMENTS. None. • TENANT NAEGELE OUTDOOR ADVERTISING COMPANY, INC. By: General Manager By: Director-Real Estate LANDLORD THE HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY IN AND FOR THE CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA By: Chair By. Executive Director CAH76837 RC125-68 4 ?F 9 CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Council Letter No. 307 Agenda November 14, 1994 Issue Statement: Purchase in excess of $5,000 for carbon dioxide (C02) for water treatment. Background: The City Council policy resolution on purchasing provides that when the purchase of merchandise, materials, equipment or construction exceeds the amount of $5,000, authority to purchase shall be submitted to the City Council for consideration. The City purchases carbon dioxide every year for the Water Treatment Plant. Carbon dioxide is added to the water to lower Ph levels and remove lime. Approximately 200 tons are needed for one year of treatment. Richfield joined the cities of Minneapolis, St. Paul, and Bloomington in a mutual request for quotations for the purchase of carbon dioxide. The following proposals were returned: KOCH Carbon Dioxide Company $ 48/ton $ 9,600/yearly Liquid Carbonic 55/ton 11,000/yearly Air Liquids America Corp 100/ton 20,000/yearly Previous history for purchase of carbon dioxide is: Year Unit Price 1994 $45/ton 1993 $60/ton 1992 $55/ton Recommended Motion: Approve a 1995 master purchase order to KOCH Carbon Dioxide Company for approximately 200 ton of CO at a unit price of $48 per ton, for an estimated total of $9,630. Basis of Recommendation: 1. Carbon dioxide is a necessary additive that lowers Ph levels and removes excessive lime. 2. KOCH Carbon Dioxide Company submitted the lowest quotation. 3. There are sufficient funds in the 1995 Proposed Water Maintenance budget for the purchase of carbon dioxide. Alternative Recommendation: Council may choose not to accept any of the quotations and instruct staff to obtain new quotes. However, KOCH Carbon Dioxide Company submitted the low quote and staff does not believe lower prices are available. (pF- a • Discussion/Decision Mode: Staff requests approval at the November 14, 1994 Council meeting. Respec ully submitted, Jam MProsser Cit nager JDP:ds 0 0 6e • CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Council Letter No. 306 Agenda November 14, 1994 Issue Statement: Consideration of purchase in excess of $5,000 for equipping two police interview rooms with video and audio recording capabilities. Background: On June 30, 1994, the Minnesota Supreme Court issued the Scales decision which requires, "All custodial interrogation including any information about rights, any waiver of those rights, and all questioning shall be electronically recorded when feasible and must be recorded when recording occurs at a place of detention." Since almost all interrogations are performed in the secure facilities in Public Safety, and because often criminal suspects refuse to give statements on audio tape recorders, equipping the two interview rooms with video recording capabilities will ensure compliance with the Scales decision. Video taping allows for up to two hours of uninterrupted interviewing. Audio only taping requires frequent changes of the cassettes. More and more courts are using video taped interviews with the • victims of child abuse and sexual assault, which relieves the victim from testifying in court. This equipment can be very useful in this area. Quotations for purchase and installation of this video equipment were provided by two vendors: ? Videotronix, Inc. $10,043 ? Alpha Video $10,434 Recommended Motion: Approve a purchase order to Videotronix, Inc. in the amount of $10,043 to purchase and install the video, audio and recording equipment in the two interview rooms. Basis of Recommendation: 1. The Minnesota Supreme Court Scales decision makes recording of interrogations mandatory when taken at a place of detention. 2. All interrogations are taken in one of two interview rooms in the Public Safety area. 3. Videotronix, Inc. submitted the lower quotation for the equipment and installation required. 4. Funds for this project will be provided from forfeited/seized money received in accordance with Minnesota Forfeiture Statutes under 609.53. ?C-I 0 Alternative Recommendation: The Council may elect not to approve the purchase and installation of the video equipment; however, some other form of compliance with the Scales decision will need to be addressed. Discussion/Decision Mode: This item is on the November 14, 1994 agenda. Action is requested at this time to comply with the June 30, 1994 Scales decision. Respe lly submitted, Jame Prosser City anager JDP:ds 0 0 CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Council Letter No. 305 Agenda November 14, 1994 Issue Statement: Setting 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, 1995. City ordinance provides that the City Council conduct a public hearing to consider all pawnbroker and secondhand goods license renewals. Recommended Motion: Schedule December 12, 1994 as the date to hold public hearings on the renewal of pawnbroker and secondhand goods licenses for The Gun Shop and Pawnbroker; and 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 12 will provide ample • time to complete the licensing process before January 1, 1995. 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 14, 1994 will provide sufficient time for legal publication of the hearings. Respect lly submitted, Jame Prosser City anager JDP:ds • ?i • CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Council Letter No. 304 Agenda November 14, 1994 Issue Statement: Setting date of public hearings for.renewal of on-sale liquor licenses. Background: The on-sale liquor licenses for restaurant establishments will expire on January 1, 1995. City ordinance provides that the City Council conduct a public hearing to consider all liquor license renewals. Recommended Motion: Schedule December 12, 1994 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 hearing on December 12 will provide ample time to complete the licensing process before January 1, 1995. 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 14, 1994 will provide sufficient time for legal publication of the hearings. Respectfully submitted, rosser James fnager City JDP:ds 0 (P14 U CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Council Letter No. 303 Agenda November 14, 1994 Issue Statement: Setting date of public hearings for the renewal of wine licenses. Background: The wine licenses for restaurant establishments will expire on January 1, 1995. City ordinance provides that the City Council conduct a public hearing to consider all wine license renewals. Recommended Motion: Schedule December 12, 1994 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. 2. The renewal process has been initiated. 3. Holding the public hearings on December 12 will provide ample time to complete the licensing process before January 1, . 1995. 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 14, 1994 will provide sufficient time for legal publication of the hearings. Respe lly submitted, Jame Prosser City nager JDP:ds 0 G?- CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Council Letter No. 302 Agenda November 14, 1994 Issue Statement: Consideration of a resolution approving expenditure of an additional $2,500 from Richfield's Municipal State Aid (MSA) construction account. Background: On August 22, 1994, the City Council authorized the use of MSA funds for construction of handicap accessible pedestrian ramps on County roads and local non-MSA system streets. Further authorization is needed to recover staff administration and engineering costs. This increase is due to actual construction quantities exceeding contract estimated quantities. Recommended Motion: Approve the attached resolution authorizing expenditure of an additional $2,500 from Richfield's MSA construction account to cover preliminary and construction engineering costs. Basis of Recommendation: 1. The cost will be paid by MSA to cover engineering costs. 2. Council approval is necessary to obtain MSA funding required • for this project. Alternative Recommendation: Council could choose not to approve MSA funding for engineering costs; however, costs would then have to be covered by the General Fund. Discussion/Decision Mode: This items appears on the November 14, 1994 Council agenda. Staff is requesting approval at this time. Respectfully submitted, Jam . Prosser Cit Manager JDP:ds Attachment U 09 - I • RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING EXPENDITURE OF $2,500 OF RICHFIELD'S MUNICIPAL STAID AID CONSTRUCTION MONIES TO OFFSET ENGINEERING COSTS ASSOCIATED WITH THE INSTALLATION OF PEDESTRIAN RAMPS WHEREAS, it has been mandated by federal and state regulations that Richfield construct pedestrian ramps; and WHEREAS, the Municipal State Aid (MSA) division of the Minnesota Department of Transportation (MnDOT) has granted an administrative waiver allowing the expenditure of MSA construction account funds for the purpose of constructing the ramps; and WHEREAS, engineering costs may be recovered through the Municipal State Aid account; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the City of Richfield does hereby appropriate from its Municipal State Aid construction account the sum of $2,500 to apply to the engineering costs associated with the said off-system improvement, and requests the • Commissioner of Transportation to approve this authorization. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Richfield this 14th day of November, 1994. Martin J. Kirsch, Mayor ATTEST: Thomas P. Ferber, City Clerk 0 • CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Council Letter No. 301: Agenda November 14, 1994 Issue Statement: Presentation by Northern States Power Company to the City of Richfield for participation in local government program. Background: In 1993 the City of Richfield converted light fixtures at the Ice Arena to bi-level metal halide. Purchase of the fixtures was financed by Northern States Power (NSP) with a rebate and a zero percent financing rate. The operational cost savings repay NSP. Richfield was one of the first communities to participate in this local government program offered by NSP. Recommended Motion: Receive recognition from Northern States Power Company for the City of Richfield's participation in the NSP local government program. Basis of Recommendation: 1. The City of Richfield is energy conscious. 2. Northern States Power Company worked with the City to provide • new, more efficient and less energy consuming lighting fixtures at the Richfield Ice Arena. 3. Northern States Power Company wishes to recognize the City of Richfield for participation in NSP's local government program. Alternative Recommendation : None. Discussion/Decision Mode: This item is scheduled for the November 14, 1994 Council meeting. A representative from NSP will make the presentation. Ice Arena Manager Al Payne will be present to share in the acceptance of the recognition. ully submitted, Respp.p Jam s Prosser City anager JDP:ds C?_ • CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Council Letter No.300 Agenda November 14, 1994 Issue Statement: Recognition by the City Council of restaurants in Richfield who have adopted a "smoke-free" policy in their establishments. Background: In April 1994, the Richfield Advisory Board of Health sent letters to all restaurants in the City describing a "smoke-free" restaurant campaign they were hoping restaurants would be interested in participating in on a voluntary basis. A brochure entitled, "20 Reasons To Become a Smoke-Free Restaurant in Minnesota" was also included for their review. (Letter and brochure are attached.) The program would recognize the efforts of a restaurant already "smoke-free" as well as those encouraged to do so as a result of the Health Board's letter. Recognition would occur by the Mayor and City Council at a Council meeting in the form of a certificate presentation. A brief article would also be submitted to the Sun Current recognizing the efforts of the restaurant in providing a "smoke-free" alternative to the public. is Ten restaurants will be recognized at this time. It should be noted that each established already had a "smoke free" policy in place before being contacted by the Health Board. They do, however, want to show their support for the program and, hopefully, will encourage other restaurants to do the same. Recommended Motion: Recognition by the Richfield City Council of the following restaurants for their efforts at providing a "smoke-free" alternative to the public: 1. Dairy Queen - 7533 Lyndale Avenue 2. Vina - 6401 Nicollet Avenue 3. Mister Donut - 6435 Lyndale Avenue 4. Mister Donut - 6600 Penn Avenue 5. Burger King - 140 East 78th Street 6. Arby's - 7744 Fifth Avenue 7. Delectable Deli - 1401 West 76th Street 8. Leeann Chin - 6420 Nicollet Avenue 9. McDonald's - 6621 Lyndale Avenue 10. Bakers Square - 3000 West 66th Street Basis of Recommendation: 1. Health publications continue to confirm the adverse effect that first and secondhand smoke has on smokers and nonsmokers. 2. A "smoke-free" restaurant provides nonsmokers or people with health problems an alternative for eating meals out. a-I Alternative Recommendation: None Discussion/Decision Mode: Recognition by the City Council of restaurants in Richfield who have adopted a "smoke-free" policy in their establishments. y submitted, D. Prosser Manager JDP:ds n U 0 0 CITY OF 6700 Portland Avenue • Richfield, Minnesota 55423-2599 RICHFIFLD City Manager Mayor Council James D. Prosser Martin Kirsch Don Priebe Michael Sandahl Susan Rosenberg Russ Susag Dear Restaurant Owner/Manager: We are writing as members of the Richfield Advisory Board of Health, which is a citizen advisory group to the Richfield City Council on issues of health and wellness in our community. We feel strongly about the issue of tobacco/smoking and would like to encourage you to participate in a voluntary program we are beginning. As a means of promoting good health, the Richfield Advisory Board of Health i\interested in recognizing restaurants in our City that have adopted a "Smoke Free" policy in their establishments. As you know, many national restaurant chains (i.e., McDonald's, Leeann Chin) have already adopted that policy and have prohibited smoking. This is a critical issue and health publications continue to confirm that both first and secondhand smoke has an • adverse effect on smokers and nonsmokers. Our program would include recognition by Richfield's Mayor and City Council at a Council meeting in the form of a certificate presentation and a brief article recognizing the efforts of restaurants in this area in the Richfield Sun Current. If you are interested in participating, please fill out the attached form and return it to the address below. An Advisory Board of Health member will contact you promptly concerning the process. If you should have additional questions, please feel free to contact Mary Jane Markkula at 861-8093. Thank you for your time and consideration. Sincerely, Carlene Ulmer, Chair Richfield Advisory Board of Health City of Richfield CU:bac • Telephone Number General' City Matters: (612) 861-9700 Public Safety Non-emergency (24 hr.) (612) 861-9800 POLICE/FIRE/EMERGENCY: DIAL 911 RETURN FORM TO:. City of Richfield 6700 Portland Ave. S. Richfield, MN. 55423 Attn: Advisory Board of Health FROM: Restaurant Name: Address: Manager/Contact Person: Telephone Number: Best Time'to Call: YES, my restaurant would like to voluntarily participate with the Richfield Advisory Board of Health by providing a totally smoke- free environment for our patrons. Please have a member of the Advisory Board of Health contact us to provide further details. Signature: 0 C?- 4 • o ? ?. S d C ? M I r Si "'CC6 •Z" ,y? ,? o °? ?;? .. }y ? a ? O`?O ? °?oo ? o o.s P C b z ° d to ... N O 'b 0.i R? b R1 S (c O-A • 0 t O\ ? " d t! O i 96 '42 ' O y wax v .i' .r •°k vii N = `? .. 1 O O p g55'io 00 00 0 e o N () P It s C C? dg ij;g o ? ? a w ci m O w to E 41 E "`+ • •O O td .+ O .4: ?•• ec '? 00 ;; c u o o? 'o o ( y 3.? m° a v v v `? 3. `o 0 000par?a x? ?ii'. CU ( °,° o"c o d C U v u .,w. 9, V C w • • • w to Co d v o ate- o u, 0O cj? 00 U U h CCII I\ U d r y a: y O t lb F to o °' t, Hy~ " ., ? _ C+ cn ?+ N w ° bo y o u w m O u N doo r.O\ v2s ° p ?• v? cad .. ?, a, 3 „ E ai 0 00 00 o a. v d -o b o ? 3 0 14 . O O 'b cn o 44 E o !E ova 0 ia30 p;a.s4 x o6 w N -80 0 rn1 s - b " ° °' d t ' a b c v doh o r? 0D eyi C% eu0 19 ? to ? m 3 A :E H p ea 0.1 y r?+ O .?.. cc 0 to cu 'm p o p 3 b4 O ,b m u po off' O 0p m X 'b y G w 0 U ; to ? 3 I g u ? o bOl U • do 0 0 2? ? o u q ?, o v 0 0 3 -4 a o m 0 m ?.. O ca p a 0 v `? w v °3? Zt $4.