The URL can be used to link to this page

12-13-93 agenda CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA MONDAY, DECEMBER 13, 1993 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) REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF NOVEMBER 22, 1993 AND (2) SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF DECEMBER 1, 1993 PRESENTATION 1. OPPORTUNITY FOR PERSONS TO ADDRESS THE COUNCIL ON ITEMS NOT LISTED ON THE AGENDA AGENDA APPROVAL 2. 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. 3A. CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF CONTINUATION OF AGREEMENT WITH CITY OF BLOOMINGTON FOR PROVISION OF INSPECTIONAL SERVICES FOR RICHFIELD FOR 1994 C.L. 333 B. CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF RESOLUTION IN SUPPORT OF APPLICATION TO BOARD OF GOVERNMENT INNOVATION AND COOPERATION FOR HIGH SPEED BUS PLANNING C.L. 334 C. CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF RESOLUTION IMPLEMENTING WETLAND CONSERVATION ACT OF 1991 AND RULES OF MINNESOTA BOARD OF WATER AND SOIL RESOURCES C.L. 335 D. CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF CITY MANAGER'S REAPPOINTMENT OF VERN LUETTINGER AS HEARING EXAMINER FOR TWO YEAR TERM C.L. 336 • E. CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING PURCHASE OF TOTAL PETROLEUM, 7645 LYNDALE AVENUE; 77TH STREET PROJECT C.L. 337 F. CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF PURCHASE IN EXCESS OF $5,000 FOR ASBESTOS REMOVAL FROM ROOF AT RICHFIELD ICE ARENA FROM SAFEAIR SYSTEMS, INC. IN ESTIMATED AMOUNT OF $9,500 C.L. 338 G. CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF PURCHASE IN EXCESS OF $5,000 FOR CARBON DIOXIDE ESSENTIAL IN WATER TREATMENT FROM KOCH CARBON DIOXIDE COMPANY IN AMOUNT OF APPROXIMATELY $9,000 C.L. 339 H. CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF PURCHASE IN EXCESS OF $5,000 FOR HYDROFLUOSILICIC ACID REQUIRED FOR WATER TREATMENT FROM FEED-RITE CONTROLS, INC. IN ESTIMATED YEARLY TOTAL OF $7,560 C.L. 340 I. CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF BID MINUTES/TABULATION AND AWARD OF CONTRACT FOR 1994 TRASH PICKUP AND RECYCLING COLLECTION SERVICES AT CITY-OWNED FACILITIES TO QUALITY WASTE CONTROL IN ESTIMATED AMOUNT OF $19,944.94 C.L. 341 J. CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF APPLICATION FOR RENEWAL OF RESIDENTIAL KENNEL LICENSE, 6633 15TH AVENUE, 2 DOGS AND 4 CATS C.L. 342 K. ESTIMATE #3 PAYMENT FOR ELECTRICAL AT WATER TREATMENT PLANT MODIFICATION; PAGE ELECTRICAL CONTRACTING, INC.; $15,675.00 L. ESTIMATE #5 PAYMENT FOR WATER TREATMENT PLANT MODIFICATIONS; BOR-SON CONSTRUCTION; $433,172.00 M. ESTIMATE #7 PAYMENT FOR SHELTER CONSTRUCTION AT NICOLLET PARK CP 889; EBERT CONSTRUCTION; $9,886.65 N. CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF 1994 LICENSE RENEWALS: AAGARD SANITATION: GARBAGE HAULER; 2 VEHICLES AIRPORT & AIRLINE TAXI: TAXICAB; 35 VEHICLES BOONE TRUCKING, INC.: GARBAGE HAULER; 2 VEHICLES DICK'S SANITATION SERVICE: GARBAGE HAULER; 3 VEHICLES GALLAGHER'S SERVICE: GARBAGE HAULER; 1 VEHICLE PAUL'S RENTALS & SALE: RENTAL OF TRAILERS & TRUCKS RICHFIELD-BLOOMINGTON HONDA: MOTOR VEHICLE DEALER RICHFIELD MITSUBISHI: MOTOR VEHICLE DEALER TIP TOP CAR WASH: CAR WASH TOTAL SANITATION COMPANY: GARBAGE HAULER; 1 VEHICLE ULTIMATE DETAILERS: AUTO DETAILING WALSER BUICK: MOTOR VEHICLE DEALER PUBLIC HEARINGS 4. PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER 1994 CLUB ON-SALE AND SUNDAY LIQUOR LICENSES FOR FRED BABCOCK V.F.W. POST NO. 5555, 710 LAKE SHORE DRIVE COUNCIL LETTER NO. 343 5. PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER 1994 CLUB ON-SALE AND SUNDAY LIQUOR LICENSES FOR MINNEAPOLIS-RICHFIELD AMERICAN LEGION POST 435, 6501 PORTLAND AVENUE COUNCIL LETTER NO. 344 6. PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER 1994 ON-SALE AND SUNDAY LIQUOR LICENSES FOR RICHFIELD RESTAURANT ACQUISITION CO. d/b/a CHAMPPS SPORTS CAFE, 790 WEST 66TH STREET COUNCIL LETTER NO. 345 7. PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER 1994 ON-SALE AND SUNDAY LIQUOR LICENSES FOR PAISAN INCORPORATED d/b/a KHAN'S MONGOLIAN .BARBECUE, 500 EAST 78TH STREET COUNCIL LETTER NO. 346 8. PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER 1994 ON-SALE AND SUNDAY LIQUOR LICENSES FOR CHI-CHI'S USA, INC. d/b/a CHI CHI'S MEXICAN RESTAURANTE, 7717 NICOLLET AVENUE COUNCIL LETTER NO. 347 9. PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER 1994 ON-SALE AND SUNDAY LIQUOR LICENSES FOR GROUND ROUND OF MINN. INC. d/b/a THE GROUND ROUND, 1500 EAST 78TH STREET COUNCIL LETTER NO. 348 10. PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER 1994 ON-SALE WINE AND NON- INTOXICATING MALT LIQUOR LICENSES FOR MILLER'S FIRESIDE PIZZA INC., 6736 PENN AVENUE COUNCIL LETTER NO. 349 11. PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER 1994 ON-SALE WINE AND NON- INTOXICATING MALT LIQUOR LICENSES FOR DAVANNI'S INC. d/b/a DAVANNI'S PIZZA AND HOT HOAGIES, 2312 WEST 66TH STREET COUNCIL LETTER NO. 350 12. PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER 1994 ON-SALE WINE AND NON- INTOXICATING MALT LIQUOR LICENSES FOR GN NG INC. d/b/a SILVER SPOON RESTAURANT, 6700 PENN AVENUE COUNCIL LETTER NO. 351 13. PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER 1994 ON-SALE WINE LICENSE FOR KIANG'S RED PEPPER, INC. d/b/a RED PEPPER CHINESE RESTAURANT, 2902 WEST 66TH STREET COUNCIL LETTER NO. 352 14. PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER 1994 PAWNBROKER AND SECONDHAND GOODS DEALER LICENSE FOR FIREARM SYSTEMS AND DESIGN, d/b/a THE GUN SHOP AND PAWNBROKER, 7529 LYNDALE AVENUE COUNCIL LETTER NO. 353 15. PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER 1994 PAWNBROKER AND SECONDHAND GOODS DEALER LICENSE FOR PLAZA PAWN, 6414 NICOLLET AVENUE COUNCIL LETTER NO. 354 16. PUBLIC HEARING AND SECOND READING OF ORDINANCE AMENDMENT TO REZONE THE FOLLOWING MULTIPLE RESIDENCE PROPERTIES: 1) 6615 ELLIOT AVENUE, 6614 AND 6615 10TH AVENUES, AND 6614 11TH AVENUE TO SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE; 2) 901 EAST 66TH STREET AND 6600 10TH AVENUE TO MULTI-FAMILY RESIDENCE; AND 3) A SMALL PARCEL OF LAND WITHIN VETERANS MEMORIAL PARK AT 64TH AND PORTLAND TO SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE COUNCIL LETTER NO. 355 RESOLUTIONS 17. CONSIDERATION OF RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING PURCHASE OF 1524 AND 1600 EAST 77TH STREET AND ADJOINING VACANT PARCEL; 77TH STREET PROJECT COUNCIL LETTER NO. 356 18. CONSIDERATION OF RESOLUTION GIVING PRELIMINARY APPROVAL TO ISSUANCE OF REFUNDING BONDS IN CONNECTION WITH MARKET TOWERS APARTMENTS PROJECT UNDER MN STATUTES, CHAPTER 462C AND . AUTHORIZING PREPARATION OF NECESSARY DOCUMENTS COUNCIL LETTER NO. 357 19. CONSIDERATION OF RESOLUTION PROVIDING FOR ISSUANCE AND SALE OF $575,000 GENERAL OBLIGATION IMPROVEMENT REFUNDING BONDS, SERIES 1994A, AND RESOLUTION PROVIDING FOR ISSUANCE AND SALE OF $2,790,000 GENERAL OBLIGATION IMPROVEMENT REFUNDING BONDS, SERIES 1994B COUNCIL LETTER NO. 358 20. CONSIDERATION OF RESOLUTION APPROVING SCHEDULE C AMENDMENT TO ASSESSMENT AGREEMENT AND ASSESSOR'S CERTIFICATION; RICHFIELD STATE AGENCY, INC., MEDICAL OFFICE FACILITY; LHN REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT COUNCIL LETTER NO. 359 ADMINISTRATIVE REPORTS & OTHER BUSINESS 21. CONSIDERATION OF PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS AND AUTHORIZATION TO ADVERTISE FOR BIDS FOR WASHINGTON PARK IMPROVEMENTS COUNCIL LETTER NO. 360 22. CONSIDERATION OF WHETHER TO HOLD A CITY COUNCIL MEETING ON DECEMBER 27, 1993 COUNCIL LETTER NO. 361 23. CONSIDERATION OF RICHFIELD'S POSITION FOR THE PROPOSED EXTENSION OF RUNWAY 4-22 COUNCIL LETTER NO. 362 24. CONSIDERATION OF ADOPTION OF 1993 REVISED/1994 PROPOSED BUDGET AND 1994 FINAL TAX LEVY AND RELATED RESOLUTIONS COUNCIL LETTER NO. 363 AIRPORT BUSINESS 25. AIRPORT STATUS REPORT 77TH STREET PROJECT BUSINESS 26. 77TH STREET PROJECT STATUS REPORT CORRESPONDENCE 27. LEGISLATIVE REPORT COUNCIL CHOICE 28. COUNCIL DISCUSSION ITEMS 29. 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. aq, CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Council Letter No.363 Agenda December 13, 1993 Issue Statement: Adoption of the•1993 Revised/1994 Proposed budget and final tax levy and related resolutions. Background: The City of Richfield has conducted and closed its 1993 truth-in- taxationhearing on December 1, 1993. During the course of the public hearing, testimony from members of the general public was heard. Information was also presented by staff in accordance with truth-in-taxation statute. The City Council must now take final action on the City's budget and tax levy. State Statute requires that final action by each municipality be taken on a final levy no later than December 20, 1993. The City then has five days to prepare all necessary reports and certification for submission to the County Auditor and State Department of Revenue. The proposed levy adopted in September 1993 reflects a 3.18% increase in the City's tax levy. The impact of this proposed levy would be a 6.1% increase in the City's tax capacity rate. On November 24, staff identified potential options levy up to approximately $105,000. The result of reduction would be a levy increase of 1.7% with a rate increase of 3.67%. The potential reductions include: to reduce the such a tax capacity identified ? A revision in the estimated cost of the 1994 pay structure adjustments to 2.5% instead of 3%. The .5% reduction would translate to roughly $36,000 in savings across the City. ? Communication costs budgeted at $50,000 would be paid from the Cable Fund. ? Reductions for the remaining $19-20,000 would be made up from a variety of cuts across all departments. Under the reduced levy scenario, the impact upon an $85,000 property (exclusive of market value adjustments) would be a City tax increase of about $8.82 a year. If the Council decides to fund the Human Service Planner/ Coordinator position, the levy decrease would be reduced by $50,000 to $55,000. The result would be a levy increase of 2.40% with a City tax capacity rate increase of 4.89%. Under this reduced levy scenario, the impact upon an $85,000 property (exclusive of market value adjustments) would be a City tax increase of about $11.46 a year. ?4_1 ti E In addition to the resolutions authorizing the revised 1993 budget (a decrease of $60,020 from the adopted budget) and adopting a 1994 budget and tax levy, several other resolutions included within the total budget document need to be considered. Resolutions pertaining to water and sewer utility rates, capital improvement and program budget, compensation plans and license/permit fees should-also be considered. Also under consideration is the addition of a fourth liquor store. This proposal is not identified by a separate resolution. Instead, it is incorporated as a proposed initiative of the Liquor Fund for the 1994 budget. Recommended Motion: Adopt the resolutions approving the 1993 Revised/1994 Proposed budget and tax levy and related resolutions. Basis of Recommendation: 1. A revised 1993 budget and final 1994 budget and tax levy must be adopted on or before December 20, 1993. 2. A proposed 1994 tax submitted to the Ci, revised 1993 budget adopted budget. 3. A truth-in-taxation budget and tax levy state law. levy with optional ty Council for cons reflects a $60,020 public hearing for has been conducted Alternative Recommendation: 1. The City Council could adopt in any amount which does not $7,348,600. reductions has been ideration. The decrease from the the 1994 proposed in accordance with a final 1994 budget and tax levy exceed the preliminary levy of Discussion/Decision Mode: It is suggested that the City Council take action on these items at the December 13, 1993 regular City Council meeting to ensure ample time to prepare final documents for submission to the County Auditor. Action on this item can not be taken on the same night as public testimony on the budget and tax levy are taken, according to state law. Respectfully submitted, 0 Jame D. Prosser City Manager JDP:cak aq-C;L RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING REVISION OF 1993 BUDGET OF VARIOUS DEPARTMENTS WHEREAS, Resolution No. 7936 appropriated funds for personal services, other expenses and capital outlays for each department of the city for the year of 1993;.and WHEREAS, The City Charter, Chapter 7, Section 7.09, gives the Council authority to transfer unencumbered appropriation balances from one office, department, or agency to another within the same fund at the request of the City Manager; and WHEREAS, The City Manager had requested a revision of the 1993 budget appropriations in accordance with Charter provisions and as detailed in the proposed 1994 budget document. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota as follows: a 1. That the 1993 apropriations for each department of the general Fund be amended to establish the following totals: GENERAL FUND Legislative $ 194,030 Executive 403,980 Administrative Services 833,990 Community Development 224,150 Public Safety 6,309,750 Community Services 3,858,380 TOTAL GENERAL FUND 11,824,280 DECREASE $ 60,020 2. Estimated 1993 gross revenue of the City of Richfield from all sources, as the same are more fully detailed in the City Managers's official copy of the proposed 1994 budget, and are hereby revised as follows: DECREASE S 60,020 3. That the City Manager and the Finance Manager bring into effect the provisions of this resolution. Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota, this 13th day of December, 1993. ATTEST: 0 Thomas P. Ferber City Clerk Martin J. Kirsch Mayor R-2 Oq`3 . RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION ADOPTING A BUDGET FOR THE YEAR 1994 AND LEVYING TAXES BE IT RESOLVED the City Council of the City of Richfield as follows: 1. The budget for the City of Richfield for the year 1994 is hereby approved and adopted with appropriations for each of the departments to be as follows: GENERAL FUND Legislative S 183,600 Executive 407,350 Administrative Services 943,070 Community Development 261,280 Public Safety 6,581,080 Community Services 3,833,690 TOTAL GENERAL FUND $12,210,070 2. The estimated gross revenue of the City of Richfield from all sources, including general ad valorem tax levies as hereinafter set forth for the year 1993, which are more fully detailed in the City Manager's official copy of the 1 budget, are hereby found and determined to be as follows: TOTAL GENERAL FUND $12,210,070 3. There is hereby levied upon all taxable property in the City of Richfield a direct ad valorem tax in the year 1993, payable in 1994 for the following purposes and in the following amounts: PURPOSE GENERAL FUND* AMOUNT $7,348,600 *Provision has been made in the General Fund for the payment of the City's contributory share to Public Employees' Retirement Association and Fireman's Relief Associations. Provision has also been made in the General Fund revenues for a general levy that includes a debt service levy in the amount of $250,000 for Bonds of 1977 and 1983. See separate resolutions on other bond issues. 0 R-1 aq-4 . 4. The budget for the Housing and Redevelopment Authority of Richfield for the year 1994 is hereby ratified and approved. There is hereby levied upon all taxable property in the City of Richfield a direct ad valorem tax in the year 1993, payable in 1994 for the following purposes: PURPOSE AMOUNT Housing and Redevelopment Authority $148,392 Relocation Information, Services and Assistance $ 14,726 5. A certified copy of this resolution shall be transmitted to the County Auditor. Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota, this 13th day of December, 1993. 0 ATTEST: Thomas P. Ferber City Clerk Martin J. Kirsch Mayor 11 RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING SANITARY SEWER SERVICE RATES AND CHARGES, WATER RATES AND CHARGES, SPECIAL WATER SERVICE CHARGES, STORM SEWER RATES AND CHARGES AND 5% PENALTY ON PAST DUE ACCOUNT BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota, as follows: SANITARY SEWER SERVICE RATES AND CHARGES FOR 1994 1. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 7.05 of the ordinance Code of the City of Richfield, the rates and charges for use and service of the sanitary sewer system are hereby established to be those set forth in the following paragraphs of this resolution which rescinds Resolution No. 7943: 2. Where the rate is not based upon the metered use of water, the following quarterly flat charges are established effective Janaury 1, 1994 for each billing district as defined in paragraph 3 of this resolution. 1994 A) Residential per unit $ 28.50 B) Commercial - For the equivalent of 10 or less persons $ 28.50 More than 10, less than 16 59.80 More than 15, less than 21 89.50 More than 20, less than 26 119.60 C) Institutional - For each public or private school the quarterly flat charge shall be charged whether the school is in session session or not (rates being charged upon average yearly use); shall be based upon the number of students enrolled at the beginning of the quarterly billing period or the preceding period if school is not then in session; and shall be as follows: 1994 For each 100 grade school students or fraction in excess thereof $ 51.70 For each 100 junior high school students or high school students or fraction there of 119.60 D) In addition to the above flat rates there shall be a customer charge on each invoice as determined in paragraph 4 of this resolution and a certifictation charge as determined in Section 7.05 of the City Ordinance Code. U R-9 C;? 4,(0 • 3. Where the rate for sanitary sewer service is based upon the metered use of water on the premises, such rates shall be as follows: A) For all residential premises the rate shall be based on the actual use, or less of water for the preceding winter quarter, per thousand gallons with minimum of 7,000 gallons, effective January 1, 1994, for each cus- tomer billing district and shall be as follow: 1994 $1.50 For the purpose of this paragraph A, the winter quarter shall be the winter quarter specified in Subdivision 3 of said Section 7.05. B) For all commercial, institutional, industrial, and other premises, the rate per thousand gallons of water effective January 1, 1994 shall be as follows: 1994 $1.50 C) A customer charge shall be made for each invoice rendered effective January 1, 1994, as follows: 1994 $3.00 If the invoice is for water service, as well as • sanitary sewer service, the customer charge, when collected, shall be allocated proportionally between the City's water fund, sewer fund and its storm sewer fund based on the user fees billed for by each fund. D) Where the metered use of water on the premises for the preceding winter quarter was not normal, the rate may be adjusted as provided in Subdivision 3 of said Sec- tion 7.05. 4. The foregoing rates and charges are in addition to, and not in lieu of, other rates and charges established by ordinance or resolution. WATER RATES AND CHARGES FOR 1994 1. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 7.15 of the ordinance Code of the City of Richfield, the rates and charges for city water and water service are hereby established to be those set forth in the following paragraphs of this resolution: 2. The charge due and payable to the City by each water customer of the City, during any quarter shall be $1.47 per 1,000 gallons. Water charges shall be payable quarterly, and all bills issued after January 1, 1994, shall be at this rate. These charges will cover, in some instances, water used during the months of October, November and December, 1993. a q-7 • SPECIAL WATER SERVICE CHARGES FOR 1994 1. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 7.15 of the Ordinance Code of the City of Richfield, the rates and charges for special customer services are hereby established to be those set forth in the following paragraphs of this resolution: 2. The charge for establishing a new customer account shall be $13.50 per account. 3. The charge for installation of meters or outside meter readers shall be $19.00 per installation. 4. The charge to flush and maintain fire hydrants located on -privately owned property within the City shall be $39.00 per hydrant per year plus any required parts. 5. The charge to thaw and service water pipes on customer property shall be actual cost to the City plus thirty percent. 6. The charge for any other services not covered by the above shall be based on actual hourly cost to the City plus thirty percent. STORM SEWER RATES AND CHARGES FOR 1994 • 1. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 7.20 of the Ordinance Code of the City of Richfield, the rates and charges for city storm sewer service are hereby established to be those set forth in the following paragraphs of this resolution: 2. The rates and charges for the use and availabilty of the system are determined through the use of a ."Residential Equivalent Factor" (REF). One REF is defined as the ratio of the average volume of surface runoff coming from one acre of land and subjected to a particular use, to the average volume of runoff coming from one acre of land subjected to typical single-family residential use within the city during a standard one year rainfall event. The REF's for the following land uses within the city and the billing classifications for such land uses are as follows: LAND USES REF CLASSFICATION Cemeteries .25 1 Parks and Railroads .75 2 Two-family residential 1.00 3 Single-family residential 1.00 4 Public and private schools and institutional uses 1.25 5 Multiple-family residential uses and churches 3.00 6 Commercial, industrial and . warehouse uses 5.00 7 a4-8 • 3. The basic system quarterly rate for storm sewer service is $37.75 per acre of land. $7.55 is the quarterly rate for a single family residence which is considered to have an acreage of one-fifth acre. The charge made against each parcel of land is then determined by multiplying the REF for the parcel's land use classification times the parcel's acreage times the basic system rate. 5% PENALTY OF PAST DUE ACCOUNTS 1. Customers will have thirty (30) days to pay their water, sanitary sewer and storm sewer quarterly bills from the date of mailing by the City. Any unpaid amount will be added to the next quarterly bill along with a 5% penalty on the delinquent amount. 2. The penalty charge when billed on past due accounts shall be allocated proportionally between the City's water fund, sewer fund and its storm sewer fund based on the user fees billed for each fund. Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota, this 13th day of December, 1993. • ATTEST: Thomas P. Ferber City Clerk Martin J. Kirsch Mayor 0 aL/-9 RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION ADOPTING THE 1994 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT BUDGET WHEREAS, a proposed Capital Improvement Budget for 1994 has been prepared and submitted for review by the City Council in accordance with charter requirements, and WHEREAS, the city council has received the recommendations and benefit of review of these proposed documents by the Planning Commission and has it- self reviewed these proposals. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the 1994 Capital Improvement Budget in the sum total of $17,693,270 is hereby approved as amended and adopted with full recognition of the fact that the cost estimates are approximate and are subject to final cost estimates and that all awards of contracts for these projects are subject to necessary hearings and must be approved by the City Council in accordance with established laws and practices governing such action, and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Manager is hereby authorized and directed to initiate the procedures which will lead to more formal and detailed consideration of these projects in accordance with the aforementioned laws and practices. • Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota, this 13th day of December, 1993. Martin J. Kirsch Mayor ATTEST: Thomas P. Ferber City Clerk • R-10 • RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION ADOPTING THE 1995-1999 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT BUDGET PROGRAM 0 0 WHEREAS, a proposed Capital Improvement Program for 1995-1999 has been prepared for review by the Planning Commission in accordance with charter requirements, and WHEREAS, the City Council has received the recommendations and benefit of review of these proposed documents by the Planning Commission and has it- self reviewed these proposals. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the 1995-1999 Capital Improvement Program is hereby approved and adopted subject to annual review and revision. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Manager is hereby authorized and directed to initiate the procedures which will lead to more formal and detail- ed consideration of these projects in accordance with the aforementioned laws and practices. Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota, this 13th day of December, 1993. Martin J. Kirsch Mayor ATTEST: Thomas P. Ferber City Clerk R-11 3/ increase a4-i/ RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION RELATING TO THE 1994 MANAGEMENT SALARY COMPENSATION PLAN WHEREAS, the municipal code of the City of Richfield provides for the adoption of a pay plan for Management employees from time-to-time; and WHEREAS, the City administration has prepared a 1994 pay plan for position classifications for Management employees. The City Manager is authorized to add or reclassify positions as necessary. Examples of positions in each pay grade are attached. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council do and hereby does establish for the year 1994 the following pay plan, which is to be effective January 1, 1994, and subject to all applicable provisions of the City Code: MANAGEMENT COMPENSATION PLAN PAY GRADE MINIMUM MID-RANGE MAXIMUM M-NE YR 30,742.40 36,795.20 43,035.20 • MO 2,561.87 3,066.27 3,586.27 BW 1,182.40 1,415.20 1,655.20 HR 14.78 17.69 20.69 M-1 YR 33,217.60 39,748.80 46,467.20 MO 2,768.13 3,312.40 3,872.27 BW 1,277.60 1,528.80 1,787.20 HR 15.97 19.11 22.34 M-2 YR 37,523.20 44,886.40 52,540.80 MO 3,126.93 3,740.53 4,378.40 BW 1,443.20 1,726.40 2,020.80 HR 18.04 21.58 25.26 M-3 YR 42,806.40 51,209.60 57,986.28 MO 3,567.20 4,267.47 4,832.19 BW 1,646.40 1,969.60 2,230.24 HR 20.58 24.62 28.87 M-4 YR 47,694.40 57,054.40 66,747.20 MO 3,974.53 4,754.53 5,562.27 BW 1,834.40 2,194.40 2,567.20 HR 22.93 27.43 32.09 M-5 YR 55,307.20 66,185.60 77,417.60 • MO 4,608.93 5,515.47 6,451.47 BW 2,127.20 2,545.60 2,977.60 HR 26.59 31.82 37.22 Q C - LO LO C? •,? E ON d•) z Ch rn (d H •n r-I P4 +? Q -P -P A O U ? a) ? ? N cC O O l) O A V. E (0 CD Oo O + a 1 0 (1) 44 dp 44 A r7 f•I LO •? O •n 4 •ri (1) O b b ro 4a 4-) 04 ri 4 dP Q Q O 0 44 14 0) ty) 0) a o (a m m b (a ? :3 c a x a a (1) ra •ri b .r., p O H ? E 0 • w aP 0\0 dp (1) o .,1 O LA LA i 4-) (1) z cd .Q •rl U E M H ra 4-) 0 z •n a? ? 'J rq a P4 4-) a +) • o r= 0 9 a A ,° o o ? O 0 • a i U 0 -I -I O U) O 0 O + + LL I 0 44 z 0 r-4 -H H 4.1 a ) 3 N? O o Q Q Q ? ? oYP O a H a a) ?' (A a) 10 E-1 1 5 tt) 0 ro -P H LO tm lm Im .,1 44 • £ 3 ? (a (0 (0 o f , O a) a) a / y W a a 0 J •n O U •ri s~ cd 0 r O fa • r -I dp op de p ? O • lA O In 0 E ? •? c •r i $4 10 M r-I )4 4-) 0 (a >1 E-4 a 0 ? ?rn H a 04 .rq ° 4-) ° 0 m a r-I r4 a) •ri x a) m r- A ° 0 r -I (Y) r-I • :3 •r i 91 R3 :3 44 0 bap + + + a 0 o A' r. C 44 0 -I •r-I ON •n •n •n O • ro O N a a a ro cs a ao p H (0? z m m m a V 0 z . ra 0 0 0 ? a o ??- a a z O rtl 0 U O W O 4-) am • rl O C .' ? (1) •ri O 4-) a) r. cd a U 0 a) p A • H a) w OH ? 4 IQ b ro H oo w w CL P P 0 W (0 4 a ` H ab ? o ? N t ) Q cn (1) (o o cn z ? O E 4 0 w x h .H cd E w E-4 E-4 4 x a) U U a) w a ,?Q c/ -/3 • MANAGEMENT POSITION CLASSIFICATION STRUCTURE RANGE POSITION M-NE Foreman/Supervisor Turf Supervisor M-1 City Clerk Community Services Manager Health Administrator Liquor Store Manager M-2 Asst. Fire Chief/Fire Marshal Chief Building Official City Planner Data Processing Manager Engineering Supervisor Superintendent Transportation Engineer M-3 City Engineer Finance Manager Fire Chief Housing & Redevelopment Coordinator Leisure Services Coordinator Operations Coordinator Personnel Manager m-4 M-5 (Rev. 8-93) Liquor Operations Director Department Director CLASS Non-Exempt Non-Exempt Exempt Exempt Exempt Exempt Exempt Exempt Exempt Exempt Exempt Exempt Exempt Exempt Exempt Exempt Exempt Exempt Exempt Exempt Exempt Exempt E 3/ increase RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION RELATING TO THE 1994 GENERAL SERVICES • SALARY COMPENSATION PLAN WHEREAS, the municipal code of the City of Richfield provides for the adoption of a pay plan for General Services employees from time-to-time, and WHEREAS, the City administration has prepared a 1994 pay plan for position classifications for General Services employees. The City Manager is authorized to add or reclassify positions as necessary. Examples of positions in each pay grade are attached. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council do and hereby does establish for the year 1994 the following pay plan, which is to be effective January 1, 1994, and subject to-all applicable provisions of the City Code: GENERAL SERVICES COMPENSATION PLAN Step 1 2 3 4 5 MERIT RANGE Range GS1 YR 18,907.20 20,051.20 21,195.20 22,318.40 23,462.40 24,169.60 MO 1,575.60 1,670.93 1,766.27 1,859.87 1,955.20 2,014.13 BW 727.20 771.20 815.20 858.40 902.40 929.60 HR 9.09 9.64 10.19 10.73 11.28 11.62 • GS2 YR 20,862.40 21,923.20 22,984.00 24,169.60 MO 1,738.53 1,826.93 1,915.33 2,014.13 BW 802.40 843.20 884.00 929.60 HR 10.03 10.54 11.05 11.62 GS3 YR 22,984.00 MO 1,915.33 BW 884.00 HR 11.05 GS4 YR 25,417.60 MO 2,118.13 BW 977.60 HR 12.22 24,169.60 2,014.13 929.60 11.62 26,644.80 2,220.40 1,024.80 12.81 25,417.60 26,644.80 2,118.13 2,220.40 977.60 1,024.80 12.22 12.81 28,017.60 29,432.00 2,334.80 2,452.67 1,077.60 1,132.00 13.47 14.15 GS4E YR 27,289.60 28,662.40 30,118.40 31,636.80 MO 2,274.13 2,388.53 2,509.87 2,636.40 BW 1,049.60 1,102.40 1,158.40 1,216.80 HR 13.12 13.78 14.48 15.21 GS5 YR 28,017.60 29,432.00 30,888.00 32,510.40 MO 2,334.80 2,452.67 2,574.00 2,709.20 BW 1,077.60 1,132.00 1,188.00 1,250.40 HR 13.47 14.15 14.85 15.63 GS5E YR 30,118.40 31,636.80 33,217.60 34,923.20 is MO 2,509.87 2,636.40 2,768.13 2,910.27 BW 1,158.40 1,216.80 1,277.60 1,343.20 HR 14.48 15.21 15.97 16.79 26,644.80 2,220.40 1,024.80 12.81 29,432.00 2,452.67 1,132.00 14.15 32,510.40 2,709.20 1,250.40 15.63 34,923.20 2,910.27 1,343.20 16.79 35,838.40 2,986.53 1,378.40 17.23 38,521.60 3,210.13 1,481.60 18.52 c1 1 r) GS6 YR 30,888.00 32,510.40 34,153.60 35,838.40 41,537.60 MO 2,574.00 2,709.20 2,846.13 2,986.53 3,461.47 . BW HR 1,188.00 14 85 1,250.40 15 63 1,313.60 16 42 1,378.40 17 23 1,597.60 19 97 . . . . . GS6E YR 33,217.60 34,923.20 36,691.20 38,521.60 44,678.40 MO 2,768.13 2,910.27 3,057.60 3,210.13 3,723.20 BW 1,277.60 1,343.20 1,411.20 1,481.60 1,718.40 HR 15.97 16.79 17.64 18.52 21.48 Normal Progression Through General Services Comp ensation Plan a. Step 1 - Start b. Step 2 - One year from annive rsary dat e c. Step 3 - One year since last increase If an employee is rated Needs Improvement, the employee may not advance to Step 3 until performance is rated Satisfactory or higher. d. Step 4 - One year since last increase If an employee is rated Needs Improvement, the employee may not advance to Step 4 until performance is rated Satisfactory or higher. e. Merit Range - One year since last increase for those rated Above Satisfactory or Outstanding. Satisfactory,and Needs Improvement performers may not advance to or within the Merit Range. Salary • increases in the Merit Range will be determined by the supervisor and may range between 2% - 5%. An employee within the Merit Range who is performing at least at an Above Satisfactory level will receive a percentage salary adjustment equal to the percentage of the overall range adjustment. An employee within the Merit Range who is performing at a Satisfactory level will receive a percentage salary increase equal to one-half (h) of the overall percentage adjustment. An employee within the Merit Range who is performing at a Needs Improvement level will not receive a salary adjustment, provided however, that such employee's salary would not remain at an amount less than the new rate for Step 4 of such employee's current salary grade. f. Employees whose competency level and/or performance are rated Unsatisfactory may not advance to the next step until their performance improves. Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this day of December, 1993. ATTEST: Martin J. Kirsch Mayor • Thomas P. Ferber City Clerk C;z L/ -? • GENERAL SERVICES POSITION CLASSIFICATION STRUCTURE GRADE POSITION TITLES CLASS 1 Clerk Typist Non-Exempt Data Entry Operator Non-Exempt Liquor Clerk. Non-Exempt Switchboard-Receptionist Non-Exempt 2 Community Development Technician Non-Exempt Community Service Officer Non-Exempt Custodian Non-Exempt Finance Clerk Non-Exempt Lead Liquor Clerk Non-Exempt Licensing Clerk Non-Exempt Liquor Clerk/Cashier Non-Exempt Senior Clerk Typist Non-Exempt Transportation Specialist Non-Exempt 3 Accounting Clerk Non-Exempt Arena Operations Assistant Non-Exempt Code Compliance Officer Non-Exempt Dispatcher Non-Exempt Health/Licensing Specialist Non-Exempt Leased Housing Assistant Non-Exempt Secretary Non-Exempt 4 Assessment Clerk Non-Exempt Assistant Turf Supervisor Non-Exempt Central Services Technician Non-Exempt Data Processing Technician Non-Exempt Engineering Technician Non-Exempt Social Services Supervisor Non-Exempt 4E Administrative Aide Exempt Associate Planner Exempt Media Assistant Exempt Payroll Accountant Exempt Project Assistant Exempt Zoning Administrator Exempt 5 Assistant Building Superintendent Non-Exempt Housing Inspector. Non-Exempt 5E Administrative Assistant Exempt Assistant Golf Course Manager. Exempt Assistant Liquor Store Manager Exempt Community Center Programmer Exempt Community Development Assistant Exempt Leased Housing Specialist Exempt Motor Vehicle Licensing Supervisor Exempt • Naturalist Exempt Planning and Research Specialist Exempt Recreation Supervisor Exempt Redevelopment Specialist Rehabilitation Specialist Youth Resource Specialist 6E (Rev. 8-93) L-A Electrical/Building Inspector Programmer/Analyst Senior Housing Inspector Accountant Housing Supervisor Administrative Assistant Exempt Exempt Exempt Non-Exempt Non-Exempt Non-Exempt Exempt Exempt Exempt 0 0 3/ increase RESOLUTION NO. e::;1I 7 _J Q RESOLUTION RELATING TO THE 1994 SPECIALIZED PAY PLAN U WHEREAS, Section 310.17 of the Ordinance Code of the City of Richfield provides that the pay grades, the number of steps or range of each pay grade, the compensation rates in each pay grade, and the method of normal progression through the pay grade be established by Council resolution; and WHEREAS, the City administration has prepared a 1994 pay plan for the positions for which there are no essentially similar position classifications in other regular pay plans. The City Manager is authorized to add or reclassify positions as necessary. Examples of positions in each pay grade are attached. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council do and hereby does establish for the year 1994 the following pay plan which is to be effective on January 1, 1994 and subject to the provisions of the personnel rules and regulations ordinance: SPECIALIZED PAY PLAN INTERMITTENT AND SEASONAL Pay Grade Step 1 Step 2 Step 3 Step 4 Step 5 SP1-E HR .4.33 4.54 4.78 5.00 5.25 SP2-E HR 4.81 5.03 5.28 5.54 5.82 SP3-E HR 5.18 5.43 5.72 5.99 6.30 SP4-E HR 5.60 5.87 6.18 6.47 6.80 SP5-E HR 6.04 6.33 6.66 6.98 7.34 SP6-E HR 6.53 6.86 7.20 7.55 7.94 SP7-E HR 7.06 7.39 7.76 8.16 8.56 SP8-E HR 7.63 8.00 8.38 8.82 9.25 SP9-E HR 8.22 8.62 9.05 9.51 9.98 SP10-E HR 8.88 9.33 9.81 10.28 10.80 SP11-E HR 9.59 10.05 10.57 11.09 11.64 SP12-E HR 10.33 10.87 11.39 11.97 12.58 Instructor's Range: $5.00 - $50.00 R.Y.E.S. Home Service Worker: $4.25 Election Judge: $5.25 Election Co-Chair: $5.50 Election Chairperson: $6.00 '1q-19 Normal Progression Through the Specialized Pay Plan Individual employees will be eligible to receive increases to the • next higher grade step based on individual performance and the following progression: a. Step 1 - Start b. Step 2 - One year from anniversary date c. Step 3 - One year from last increase d. Step 4 - One year from last increase e. Step 5 - One year from last increase Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this day of December, 1993. Martin J. Kirsch Mayor 0 ATTEST: Thomas P. Ferber City Clerk 0 C? C/ -C?® 1 E Driving Range I 7 NE Accounting Clerk E Pool Attendant NE Adaptive Program Spvr. NE Assessment Clerk 2 NE Concession I (All sites EXCEPT NE Concession Supervisor(All • Pool, Veteran's & Taft) sites EXCEPT Pool) NE Ice Guard NE Construction Specialist E Concession I (Pool, Veteran's NE Licensing Clerk & Taft only) NE Naturalist I E Facility Cashier NE Zamboni Operator E Facility Rental Attendant E Concession Supervisor-Pool E Golf Course Technician I 3 NE Bike Patrol Officer NE Concession II (All sites 8 NE Adaptive Coordinator EXCEPT Pool, Vet's & Taft) NE Construction Inspector NE Scorer/Timer NE Farmers Market Coord. NE Special Events Worker NE Naturalist Coordinator NE Sports Attendant I E Golf Course Technician II E Concession II (Pool, Veteran's E Playground Coordinator & Taft) E Tennis Coordinator E Pool Day Watch E Winter Golf Course Tech. 4 NE Custodian I 9 NE Comm. Development Tech. NE Maintenance Laborer I E Pool Supervisor NE Men Open Gym Attendant E Special Facilities Coord. NE Dance Coordinator NE Sports Attendant II 10 NE Engineering Aide NE Video Production Assistant E Clubhouse Coordinator E Pool Night Watch E Ranger 11 NE Community Relations Coord. E Warming House Attendant • E Waterslide Attendant(Parks) 12 None 5 NE Adaptive Assistant Instruct ors NE Custodian II NE Building Inspector NE Intern NE Figure Skating NE Liquor Cashier NE Hockey (Arena) NE Liquor Clerk NE Housing & Redev. Tech. NE Maintenance Laborer II NE Sports Official NE Substitute Van Driver NE Dance NE Survey Crew Person E Cross Country Ski NE Winter Sports Attendant E Golf Professional E Driving Range II E Hockey (Outside) E Golf Course Laborer I E Tennis E Lifeguard E Par-3/Driving Range Attend. Other Home Service Worker $4.25 E Starter Election Judge $5.25 E Miniature Golf Coordinator Election Co-Chair $5.50 Election Chairperson $6.00 6 NE Adaptive Leader/Specialist NE Clerk Typist - Int. & Sub. (Rev. 8- 93) NE Concession III(All sites EXCEPT Pool) NE Maintenance Laborer III 0 aq- C;z I NE Pro Shop Attendant NE Substitute Naturalist E Concession III (Pool only) E Golf Course Laborer II E Outdoor Skating Supervisor E Playground Leader E Waterslide Attendant(Pool) • NE=Non-Exempt, may work up to 40 hours per week without overtime pay. E=Exempt, may work up to 48 hours per week without overtime pay. All Pool Positions are exempt from overtime, even Concessions. All Golf Positions except Concessions/Pro Shop positions are exempt. All Playground and Outdoor Rink positions are exempt. All Community Center, WoodLake Nature Center, Ice Arena & Maintenance positions are non- exempt. 0 2.5/ increase • RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION RELATING TO THE 1994 MANAGEMENT SALARY COMPENSATION-PLAN WHEREAS, the municipal code of the City of Richfield provides for the adoption of a pay plan for Management employees from time-to-time; and WHEREAS, the City administration has prepared a 1994 pay plan for position classifications for Management employees. The City Manager is authorized to add or reclassify positions as necessary. Examples of positions in each pay grade are attached. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council do and hereby does establish for the year 1994 the following pay plan, which is to be effective January 1, 1994, and subject to all applicable provisions of the City Code: MANAGEMENT COMPENSATION PLAN PAY GRADE MINIMUM MID-RANGE MAXIMUM M-NE YR 30,594.20 36,606.44 42,831.88 MO 2,549.52 3,050.54 3,569.32 BW 1,176.70 1,407.94 1,647.38 HR 14.71 17.60 20.59 M-1 YR 33,046.00 39,548.60 46,243.08 MO 2,753.83 3,295.72 3,853.59 BW 1,271.00 1,521.10 1,778.58 HR 15.89 19.01 22.23 M-2 YR 37,331.32 44,665.40 52,276.64 MO 3,110.94 3,722.12 4,356.39 BW 1,435.82 1,717.90 2,010.64 HR 17.95 21.47 25.13 M-3 YR 42,597.36 50,954.80 57,986.28 MO 3,549.78 4,246.23 4,832.19 BW 1,638.36 1,959.80 2,230.24 HR 20.48 24.50 28.73 M-4 YR 47,458.32 56,775.16 66,433.12 MO 3,954.86 4,731.26 5,536.09 BW 1,825.32 2,183.66 2,555.12 HR 22.82 27.30 31.94 M-5 YR 55,048.24 65,857.48 77,050.48 MO 4,587.35 5,488.12 6,420.87 BW 2,117.24 2,532.98 2,963.48 HR 26.47 31.66 37.04 • t3 O)P dP dP . In LO O .ri 1-4 ON 4 z ?4 ? ai rn ca H •n ° ? ? a -P A L: 0 H O ri N ct1 O E O U) O A tti O H 5 op (r) o + a 0 O a) a) 44 oW 44 A rJ $4 LO •r.1 O •r, •r, •r-l a) o ro ro ro 44 4-) a ri a dP a a O 0 a) (a a a) a) a) >I 44 - W 0) 0) 0) tio °tio ° 0 a a a a) ro •r1 • > 0 E •r1 w dP OP dP u) ro •rt 0 0 LO LO •rl a) a Ia z A -r•I 0 Z M -4 .? 4-) >1 a) c? H O O .n rci O O r-I a a 4-) 4-) a 4-) 0 -j 4-) •rrii r (a 3 a A ko H O rI U) S 1~ O a H o t3) o a) 0 (o r. t) 0 W + + a I:."44 z ° v? r -I •r1 H 44 a) r-I ro (1) dP •n •n O •n rJ -r1 r. x z Ll) ro b ro O ro 3 (1) 4-) 0 0 a s dP a a a U) 04 E-4 I 5 •ri (1) ro 4-) H LO 0) tm tT -H 44 3 `a ° (a A) tio a) r4 ) ai a a Ix a a 0 • {-I N a) r. a 0 •r? C: 0 0 U) •ri r:3 41 •r1 r-I dP dP dP S-I O I"-r LO o LO 0 >4 •ri O 44 >+ •ri c+o rA • Sa d-) a a U (ac d b? H ? 4-) ? Q ° H P4 ri 'r1 4 r-I ri f•( A 0 0) 4-) 4-) (C r-i H (h r-I >j (a 44 b i + + + x O ro O)P r7 ro r-I LO 44 U) r-I •rl 0 M ON •r) •r7 •n O (d •r1 ro ri) a) 0 a Q a a dP P H a) a) W 0 4-)4 A a) a) N I~ O (d •{-) z t3) 0) tm •rl U • ro a V. a a ° ? >4- Ix z O ct7 0 U OU)O ? ? p 4-) 4 > •ri O ?.' 4-) O ( t3 a U ((a ? p A a) ca z 44 rJ O Q H H O -P ? a (a t n H 0 H 44 a) I-I a O ? tC U a ro >Y >4 ? a a ca 44 •rl a I"( O 0 w 4) N (0 CO . 4-) (o r-I a to > •r4 ro (a r i a ro +) O +-) a) U) v 1 o ia i(o a cn z ? w O x h H w Ea E+ a a) H U U 14 d A a) w a mC G O r. H aL) -aq 0 M-4 MANAGEMENT POSITION CLASSIFICATION STRUCTURE RANGE POSITION CLASS M-NE Foreman/Supervisor Non-Exempt Turf Supervisor Non-Exempt M-1 City Clerk Community Services Manager Health Administrator Liquor Store Manager M-2 Asst. Fire Chief/Fire Marshal Chief Building Official City Planner Data Processing Manager Engineering Supervisor Superintendent Transportation Engineer M-3 City Engineer Finance Manager Fire Chief Housing & Redevelopment Coordinator Leisure Services Coordinator Operations Coordinator Personnel Manager M-5 (Rev. 8-93) Liquor Operations Director Department Director Exempt Exempt Exempt Exempt Exempt Exempt Exempt Exempt Exempt Exempt Exempt Exempt Exempt Exempt Exempt Exempt Exempt Exempt Exempt Exempt 0 2.5/ increase RESOLUTION NO. • RESOLUTION RELATING TO THE 1994 GENERAL SERVICES SALARY COMPENSATION PLAN C? WHEREAS, the municipal code of the City of Richfield provides for the adoption of a pay plan for General Services employees from time-to-time, and WHEREAS, the City administration has prepared a 1994 pay plan for position classifications for General Services employees. The City Manager is authorized to add or reclassify positions as necessary. Examples of positions in each pay grade are attached. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council do and hereby does establish for the year 1994 the following pay plan, which is to be effective January 1, 1994, and subject to all applicable provisions of the City Code: GENERAL SERVICES COMPENSATION PLAN Step 1 2 3 4 5 MERIT RANGE Range GS1 YR 18,824.00 19,947.20 21,091.20 22,214.40 23,462.40 24,044.80 MO 1,568.67 1,662.27 1,757.60 1,851.20 1,955.20 2,003.73 BW 724.00 767.20 811.20 854.40 902.40 924.80 HR 9.05 9.59 10.14 10.68 11.22 11.56 GS2 YR 20,758.40 21,819.20 22,880.00 24,044.80 is MO 1,729.87 1,818.27 1,906.67 2,003.73 BW 798.40 839.20 880.00 924.80 HR 9.98 10.49 11.00 11.56 GS3 YR 22,880.00 24,044.80 25,292.80 26,520.00 MO 1,906.67 2,003.73 2,107.73 2,210.00 BW 880.00 924.80 972.80 1,020.00 HR 11.00 11.56 12.16 12.75 GS4 YR 25,292.80 26,520.00 27,892.80 29,286.40 MO 2,107.73 2,210.00 2,324.40 2,440.53 BW 972.80 1,020.00 1,072.80 1,126.40 HR 12.16 12.75 13.41 14.08 GS4E YR 27,164.80 28,516.80 29,972.80 31,491.20 MO 2,263.73 2,376.40 2,497.73 2,624.27 BW 1,044.80 1,096.80 1,152.80 1,211.20 HR 13.06 13.71 14.41 15.14 GS5 YR 27,892.80 29,286.40 30,742.40 32,344.00 MO 2,324.40 2,440.53 2,561.87 2,695.33 BW 1,072.80 1,126.40 1,182.40 1,244.00 HR 13.41 14.08 14.78 15.55 GS5E YR 29,972.80 31,491.20 33,051.20 34,756.80 • MO 2,497.73 2,624.27 2,754.27 2,896.40 BW 1,152.80 1,211.20 1,271.20 1,336.80 HR 14.41 15.14 15.89 16.71 26,520.00 2,210.00 1,020.00 12.75 29,286.40 2,440.53 1,126.40 14.08 32,344.00 2,695.33 1,244.00 15.55 34,756.80 2,896.40 1,336.80 16.71 35,672.00 2,972.67 1,372.00 17.15 38,334.40 3,194.53 1,474.40 18.43 q-acp GS6 YR MO 0 BW HR 30,742.40 32,344.00 2,561.87 2,695.33 1,182.40 1,244.00 14.78 15.55 33,987.20 35,672.00 2,832.27 2,972.67 1,307.20 1,372.00 16.34 17.15 41,329.60 3,444.13 1,589.60 19.87 GS6E YR 33,051.20 34,756.80 36,524.80 38,334.40 44,449.60 MO 2,754.27 2,896.40 3,043.73 3,194.53 3,704.13 BW 1,271.20 1,336.80 1,404.80 1,474.40 1,709.60 HR 15.89 16.71 17.56 18.43 21.37 Normal Progression Through General Services Compensation Plan a. Step 1 - Start b. Step 2 - One year from anniversary date c. Step 3 - One year since last increase If an employee is rated Needs Improvement, may not advance to Step 3 until performance Satisfactory or higher. d. Step 4 - One year since last increase If an employee is rated Needs Improvement, may not advance to Step 4 until performance Satisfactory or higher. the employee is rated the employee is rated e. Merit Range - One year since last increase for those rated Above Satisfactory or Outstanding. Satisfactory and Needs Improvement performers may not advance to or within the Merit Range. Salary increases in the Merit Range will be determined by the supervisor and may range between 2% - 5%. An employee within the Merit Range who is performing at least at an Above Satisfactory level will receive a percentage salary adjustment equal to the percentage of the overall range adjustment. An employee within the Merit Range who is performing at a Satisfactory level will receive a percentage salary increase equal to one-half (h) of the overall percentage adjustment. An employee within the Merit Range who is performing at a Needs Improvement level will not receive a salary adjustment, provided however, that such employee's salary would not remain at an amount less than the new rate for Step 4 of such employee's current salary grade. f. Employees whose competency level and/or performance are rated Unsatisfactory may not advance to the next step until their, performance improves. Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this day of December, 1993. Martin J. Kirsch Mayor `TEST : Thomas P. Ferber City Clerk c;4-a7 0 GENERAL SERVICES POSITION CLASSIFICATION STRUCTURE GRADE POSITION TITLES CLASS 1 Clerk Typist Non-Exempt Data Entry Operator Non-Exempt Liquor Clerk Non-Exempt Switchboard-Receptionist Non-Exempt 2 Community Development Technician Non-Exempt Community Service Officer Non-Exempt Custodian Non-Exempt Finance Clerk Non-Exempt Lead Liquor Clerk Non-Exempt Licensing Clerk Non-Exempt Liquor Clerk/Cashier Non-Exempt Senior Clerk Typist Non-Exempt Transportation Specialist Non-Exempt 3 Accounting Clerk Non-Exempt Arena Operations Assistant Non-Exempt Code Compliance Officer Non-Exempt Dispatcher Non-Exempt Health/Licensing Specialist Non-Exempt Leased Housing Assistant Non-Exempt Secretary Non-Exempt 4 Assessment Clerk Non-Exempt Assistant Turf Supervisor Non-Exempt Central Services Technician Non-Exempt Data Processing Technician Non-Exempt Engineering Technician Non-Exempt Social Services Supervisor Non-Exempt 4E Administrative Aide Exempt Associate Planner Exempt Media Assistant Exempt Payroll Accountant Exempt Project Assistant Exempt Zoning Administrator Exempt 5 Assistant Building Superintendent Non-Exempt Housing Inspector Non-Exempt 5E Administrative Assistant Exempt Assistant Golf Course Manager Exempt Assistant Liquor Store Manager Exempt Community Center Programmer Exempt Community Development Assistant Exempt Leased Housing Specialist Exempt Motor Vehicle Licensing Supervisor Exempt . Naturalist Exempt Planning and Research Specialist Exempt Recreation Supervisor Exempt ??'? ? Redevelopment Specialist Rehabilitation Specialist Youth Resource Specialist 06 6E (Rev. 8-93) Electrical/Building Inspector Programmer/Analyst Senior Housing Inspector Accountant Housing Supervisor Administrative Assistant Exempt Exempt Exempt Non-Exempt Non-Exempt Non-Exempt Exempt Exempt Exempt 0 2.5% increase RESOLUTION NO. C 47" _Q RESOLUTION RELATING TO THE 1994 SPECIALIZED PAY PLAN WHEREAS, Section 310.17 of the Ordinance Code of the City of Richfield provides that the pay grades, the number of steps or range of each pay grade, the compensation rates in each pay grade, and the method of normal progression through the pay grade be established by Council resolution; and WHEREAS, the City administration has prepared a 1994 pay plan for the positions for which there are no essentially similar position classifications in other regular pay plans. The City Manager is authorized to add or reclassify positions as necessary. Examples of positions in each pay grade are attached. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council do and hereby does establish for the year 1994 the following pay plan which is to be effective on January 1, 1994 and subject to the provisions of the personnel rules and regulations ordinance: SPECIALIZED PAY PLAN INTERMITTENT AND SEASONAL Pay Grade Step 1 Step 2 Step 3 Step 4 Step 5 SP1-E HR 4.31 4.52 4.76 4.97 5.23 • SP2-E HR 4.79 5.00 5.26 5.51 5.79 SP3-E HR 5.16 5.40 5.69 5.97 6.27 SP4-E HR 5.58 5.84 6.15 6.44 6.77 SP5-E HR 6.01 6.30 6.63 6.95 7.31 SP6-E HR 6.50 6.83 7.16 7.51 7.90 SP7-E HR 7.02 7.35 7.72 8.12 8.52 SP8-E HR 7.60 7.96 8.34 8.77 9.20 SP9-E HR 8.18 8.58 9.01 9.46 9.93 SP10-E HR 8.84 9.29 9.76 10.23 10.75 SP11-E HR 9.54 10.00 10.52 11.04 11.58 SP12-E HR 10.28 10.81 11.34 11.91 12.52 Instructor's Range: $5.00 - $50.00 R.Y.E.S. Home Service Worker: $4.25 Election Judge: $5.25 Election Co-Chair: $5.50 Election Chairperson: $6.00 3o Normal Progression Through the Specialized Pay Plan Individual employees will be eligible to receive increases to the next higher grade step based on individual performance and the following progression: a. Step 1 - Start b. Step 2 - One year from anniversary date c. Step 3 - One year from last increase d. Step 4 - One year from last increase e. Step 5 - One year from last increase Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this day of December, 1993. Martin J. Kirsch Mayor ATTEST: 41 Thomas P. Ferber City Clerk 1 E Driving Range I 7 NE Accounting Clerk E Pool Attendant NE Adaptive Program Spvr. NE Assessment Clerk 2 NE Concession I (All sites EXCEPT NE Concession Supervisor(All Pool, Veteran's & Taft) sites EXCEPT Pool) NE Ice Guard NE Construction Specialist E Concession I,(Pool, Veteran's NE Licensing Clerk & Taft only) NE Naturalist I E Facility Cashier NE Zamboni Operator E Facility Rental Attendant E Concession Supervisor-Pool E Golf Course Technician I 3 NE Bike Patrol Officer NE Concession II (All sites 8 NE Adaptive Coordinator EXCEPT Pool, Vet's & Taft) NE Construction Inspector NE Scorer/Timer NE Farmers Market Coord. NE Special Events Worker NE Naturalist Coordinator NE Sports Attendant I E Golf Course Technician II E Concession II (Pool, Veteran's E Playground Coordinator & Taft) E Tennis Coordinator E Pool Day Watch E Winter Golf Course Tech. 4 NE Custodian I 9 NE Comm. Development Tech. NE Maintenance Laborer I E Pool Supervisor NE Men Open Gym Attendant E Special Facilities Coord. NE Dance Coordinator NE Sports Attendant II 10 NE Engineering Aide NE Video Production Assistant E Clubhouse Coordinator E Pool Night Watch E Ranger 11 NE Community Relations Coord. E Warming House Attendant E Waterslide Attendant(Parks) .12 None 5 NE Adaptive Assistant Instructors NE Custodian II NE Building Inspector NE Intern NE Figure Skating NE Liquor Cashier NE Hockey (Arena) NE Liquor Clerk NE Housing & Redev. Tech. NE Maintenance Laborer II NE Sports Official NE Substitute Van Driver NE Dance NE Survey Crew Person E Cross Country Ski NE Winter Sports Attendant E Golf Professional E Driving Range II E Hockey (Outside) E Golf Course Laborer I E Tennis E Lifeguard E Par-3/Driving Range Attend. Other Home Service Worker $4.25 E Starter Election Judge $5.25 E Miniature Golf Coordinator Election Co-Chair $5.50 Election Chairperson $6.00 6 NE Adaptive Leader/Specialist NE Clerk Typist - Int. & Sub. (Rev. 8- 93) NE Concession III(All sites EXCEPT Pool) NE Maintenance Laborer III aq-3a. NE Pro Shop Attendant NE Substitute Naturalist E Concession III (Pool only) E Golf Course Laborer II E Outdoor Skating Supervisor E Playground Leader E Waterslide Attendant(Pool) ID NE=Non-Exempt, may work up to 40 hours per week without overtime pay. E=Exempt, may work up to 48 hours per week without overtime pay. All Pool Positions are exempt from overtime, even Concessions. All Golf Positions except Concessions/Pro Shop positions are exempt. All Playground and Outdoor Rink positions are exempt. All Community Center, WoodLake Nature Center, Ice Arena & Maintenance positions are non- exempt. 0 0 RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION AMENDING ESTABLISHED 1994 LICENSE, PERMIT AND MISCELLANEOUS FEES PURSUANT TO THE PROVISIONS OF APPENDIX D OF THE ORDINANCE CODE OF THE CITY OF RICHFIELD RESCINDING RESOLUTION NO. 7839 c? V-3 q BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota as follows: Section 1. Establishing Fees A. License, permit and miscellaneous fees required under the ordinances of the City of Richfield shall be as stated in the sections of this Resolution. B. A period of no less than 30 days will be allowed for the remittance of City Business license renewal fees contained in Sections 5,7, 8 and 9 of this resolution. C. A 10% administrative surcharge will be assessed upon all renewals contained in Section 5, 7, 8 and 9 of the resolution if not received by the City on or before December 31st of each year. The 10% surcharge will be based upon the cost of the license. D. Nothing in this section shall be deemed to require the City to issue or renew any license for which the fee has not been paid in a timely manner. Section 2. Construction and Related Permit Fees and Charges TYPE OF PERMIT SECTION OR LICENSE REQUIRING TOTAL VALUATION FEE SCHEDULE (1) Building 400.03-400.09 $ 1 $ 500 $15.00 Permits $ 501 $ 2,000 $15 plus $2 for each $100 $ 2;001 $ 25,000 $ 25,001 $ 50,000 $ 50,001 $ 100,000 $ 100,001 $ 500,000 $ 500,001 $1,000,000 $1,000,001 and up or fraction thereof over $500 $45 plus $9.00 for each $1,000 or fraction thereof over $2,000 $252 plus $6.50 for each $1,000 or fraction thereof over $25,000 $414.50 plus $4.50 for each $1,000 or fraction thereof over $50,000 $639.50 plus $3.50 for each $1,000 or fraction thereof over $100,000 $2,039.50 plus $3.00 for each $1,000 or fraction thereof over $500,000 $3,539.50 plus 2.00 for each $1,000 or fraction thereof over $1,000,000 (2) Fire Extinquishing 400.03-400.09 Based on Building Permit fee schedule with a minimum of $20.00 System Permit (3) Swimming 420.00 -Permanent above or below ground pools are based on Building Permit. -Portable Pools $13.50 No fee shall be charged for construction or erection of any pool 24 inches or less in depth at its deepest part and not exceeding 177 sq. ft. in water surface area (3a) Public Swiming 420.10 1st Pool $85.00 Pool Inspection Each Additional $45.00 (4) Plan 400.03-400.09 65% of building permit fee, except no fee for the following: Review and State (a) Existing single family dwelling alterations when habitable Fee Building code area is not enlarged. (b) Single and two family dwelling repair and maintenance work. (c) Commercial and industrial repair and maintenance work not exceeding $1,000 or where plans are not required. (d) Residential garages and storage buildings. R-16 c;?q- 35 TYPE OF PERMIT SECTION OR LICENSE REQUIRING FEE ?(4A) Contractors License Verification Fee $5.00 (5) Moving Dwellings 845 Pre-inspection Fee: and Buildings other -IN Richfield $35.00 than Dwellings -OUTSIDE Richfield $70.00 Moving Permit Fee: -WITHIN Richfield $35.00 -INTO Richfield $70.00 Moving Out of City $35.00 (6) Garage 845 Pre-inspection Fee: Moving (if relocated in City) $23.00 Moving Permit Fee first stall $16.00 -Plus each adjoining stall $ 9.00 Moving out of City $16.00 (7) Structure Demolitian 400.00-400.09 (a) Commercial Demolition cost as per Building Permit Schedule with a minimum of $25.00 (b) Dwelling 1. One or two story $22.00 2. Multiple First Unit $22.00 -plus each additional unit $10.00 3. Residential, -Garage and lesser structure $ 8.50 (8) Excavation in Public 800.01-800.15 For each transverse excavation and $20.00 Rigat of way each 300 feet or portion thereof longitudinal excavation and for each curb and gutter section installed or driveway apron installed Except when survey and grade stakes are set by City $75.00 . (9) Utility Abandonment 700.05 (a) Sewer $20.00 710.01 (b) Water $20.00 (9A) Certifcation Charge 705.03-705.21 $20.00 (Delinquent) (10) (a) Sewer 700.05 Residential $20.00 Construction Industrial/Commercial $30.00 (b) Water Service 715.01 As per Ordinance Service Connection To connect to existing water service leads at the curb box $20.00 To connect to main where a curb box and service lead is not installed the fee is the actual cost of material and estimated cost of labor. To turn on water after discontinuance of service $20.00 For raising or lowering stop-box tops to correspond with ground level change made by property owner. Cost plus 30% material and labor (11) Plumbing Permit 400.03-.400.09 -Residential (a) Minimum Fee $30.00 (b) Fee for each fixture including: -Bath Tub -Laundry Tray -Bidet -Lavatory -Clothes Dryer -Sewage Ejector -Dishwasher -Shower Stall -Disposal -Sink -Floor Drain -Water Closet -Floor Tray -Water Heater (New or Replacement) -Any Fixture Not listed $ 9.00 Gas piping per unit including: -Gas Grill -Gas Oven -Gas Incinerator -Gas Plate -Gas Stove -Gas Light $ 9.00 C-9 L/-310 TYPE OF PERMIT SECTION OR LICENSE REQUIRING ?(11) Plumbing Permit(Con't.) (12) Plumbing Permit 400.03-400.09 FEE (c) Lawn Sprinkler, AntiSyphon system (includes water connnection from building piping and yard side of syphon breaker) $25.00 (d) Pool Heater (up to 199,000 BTU) $35.00 (e) Water Softner $ 9.50 (f) Water supply or distribution piping extension or alteration $ 9.50 (g) Sewer and Waste Alteration/Repair $ 9.50 Commercial (a) Minimum Fee (b) Fee per fixture including: Plaster Interceptor, Bidet-Disposer, Drinking Fountain, Floor Drain or Trap Sinks: Bradley type wash-up, Laboratory, Service-Counter, Flat/rim, Pot or Scullery, Bar Urinal - Water heater Any fixture not listed above (c) Clothes Dryer- 1-5 Units Each Additional Unit (d) Dental Chair (e) Dishwasher (f) Food Cold Case-Condensate Lines (each unit) (g) Flammable Waste Trap - Catch Basin (h) Ground run (new for existing building) (i) Ice Making Machines (j) Indirect coil for hot water storage (k) Lawn Sprinkler, AntiSyphon System (Including water connection from building piping to yard side of syphon breaker) (1) Neutralizing Tank (m) Rainwater Leader: All stacks 7 stories or less All stacks over 7 stories (n) Roof Area Drains: Each Drain (o) Sewage Ejector (p) Shower (gang type per.head) (q) Water softner (r) Water supply or distribution piping, extension or alteration (s) Sewer and Waste alteration/repair (t) Installation of Gas Piping: 1. Up to 2" in diameter First 3 openings Each additional opening II. Exceeding 2" in diameter: First 3 openings Each additional opening $40.00 $10.00 $25.00 $ 7.50 $30.00 $19.00 $ 7.50 $19.00 $19.00 $10.00 $13.50 $38.00 $38.00 $19.00 $30.00 $10.00 $25.00 $ 5.50 $25.00 $19.00 $19.00 $ 9.00 $ 4.50 $20.00 $ 5.50 (;4-3+7 TYPE OF PERMIT SECTION OR LICENSE REQUIRING (13) Plumbing Permit 400.03-400.09 Gas Unit (Burners) ? Installation (14) Plumbing 620 Permit Wells (15) Electrical Permit 400.03-.400.09 (16) Electrical Permit 400.03-400.09 C FEE 99,000 BTU or less 100,000 - 199,000 BTU 200,000 - 399,000 BTU 400,000 - 599,000 BTU 600,000 - 999,999 BTU 1,000,000 - 2,499,000 BTU 2,500,000 - 9,999,000 BTU 10,000,000 - 49,999,000 BTU 50,000,000 - 74,999,000 BTU more than - 74,999,000 BTU 2" Casing 3" Casing 4" Casing 5" Casing 6" Casing Residential (a) Minimum Fee (b) Complete Wiring Fee: Single Family Residence Two Family Residence (c) New Service - up to 200 amps (d) Temporary Service - (for construction) (e) Installation or replacement of each major appliance during or after completion of building (f) Swimming Pools (g) Wiring of Addition or rewiring: First Room Each Additional Room (h) Furnace or Air Conditioning: Per Unit (i) Electrical Heating System: 2% of estimated job cost with a minimum of (j) Electric or base borad (Infrared Heaters): Per Circuit (k) Work requried to comply with minimum Housing Code provisions other than new service - 2% of contract cost with minimum of Commercial, Industrial and multiple dwellings (more than two units) Minimum Fee (a) Based on total job cost $ 13.50 $ 19.00 $ 33.00 $ 49.00 $ 64.00 $109.00 $129.00 $183.00 $233.00 $306.00 $13.50 $16.00 $21.00 $37.00 $49.00 $30.00 $55.00 $106.00 $13.50 $19.00 $ 9.00 $25.00 $13.50 $ 6.50 $ 9.00 $19.00 $ 9.00 $18.00 $40.00 - 2% of estimated job cost with a minimum of $40.00 - Over $50,000 - Fee/ $1,000.00 plus 1 1/2% of cost over $50,000 (b) Temporary Services for Construction: 0-100 amps $19.00 100 + amps $30.00 (c) Traffic Signals: Per Intersection $185.00 (d) Elevators: Per Elevator - Hydraulic $50.00. Per Elevator - Electric $100.00 c9LI-34? TYPE OF PERMIT SECTION OR LICENSE REQUIRING ?(17) Electrical Permit 400.03-400.09 Signs (18) Electrical Permit 400.03-400.09 (19) Heating, 400.03-400.09 Ventilating, Air Conditioning and Refrigeration (20) Heating, 400.03-400.09 Ventilation, Air Conditioning, Refrigeration Storage Tanks (21) Benches (22) Fire 10 Prevention Code (23) Sign Installation (24) Parking Areas (25) Housing Inspection Fee FEE Based on cost of Electrical Job to Customer - $0 - $100 $40.00 - $101 - $50,000 - 2% of estimated job cost with a minimum of $40.00 - Over $50,000 - Fee/ $1,000.00 plus 1 1/2% of cost over $50,000 Telephone Booths: Wiring of Booth (includes company signs) $25.00 805.01-805.27 400.21-400.29 415.01-415.11 800.15-800.23 400.11-400.17 (a) Central Systems and Additions, Alterations and Repairs 1 1/2% estimated cost with a minimum of (a) Fuel storage Tanks (Underground or Enclosed) Installation to be used with oil burner only. Per tank not exceeding 1,000 gal. Per tank exceeding 1,000 gal. (b) Fuel Storage Tanks (Above ground or not enclosed) Installation to be used with oil burner only. Per tank (c) Other Tanks (Installation modification, removal,abandonment) Each above ground tank Each below ground tank For installation or alteration of piping First Year Renewal For initial fee required under code- per year For each additional fee required under code - per year If not renewed within 2 months of notification add penalty of 50 sq. ft. or less per sign Each additional 50 sq. ft. or less - per 50 sq. ft. (a) Sign support structures based on Bldg. permit fee schedule First Unit Additional Unit This fee should apply to each inspection when: 1. Seller calls for minimum housing inspection 2. Homeowner calls for minimum housing inspection 3. House industry calls for minimum housing inspection 4. Government agencies call for minimum housing inspection 5. Private lending institution calls for minimum housing inspection $30.00 $10.00 $20.00 $10.00 $30.00 $80.00 $15.00 $21.00 $14.50 $25.00 $10.00 $15.00 $25.00 $15.00 $ 8.00 $75.00 $25.00 SECTION 3. CONSTRUCTION AND RELATED LICENSE FEES (1) Heating and 400.07 Ventilating Installer 1 Year $45.00 (2) Sign Installer 416.01-416.13 1 Year $40.00 (3) Electrical Installer 400.03-.400.09 State License Required (4) Plumber 400.03-400.09 State License Required (5) Well Driller 620 State License Required (6) Tree Contractors 1197 $25.00 c y-39 SECTION 4. ZONING. LAND USE AND RELATED CHARGES TYPE OF PERMIT SECTION OR LICENSE REQUIRING (1)* Planned Unit 530 (a) $400 plus $5/ $1,000 of project value up to a maximum fee of Development (b) PUD Plan Amendment fee (2)* C-3 Zoning District 520.35 (a) $300 plus $5 / $1,000 of project value to a maximum fee of Site Plan Review (b) Plan Amendment Fee Transitional Activity Permit 520.57 $300 plus $5/ $1,000 of project value up to a maximum fee of (3)* Variance 545.05 Residential Non Residential (4)* Conditional 545.09 $400 plus $5/ $1,000 of project value up to a maximum fee of Use Permit (5)* Zoning District Change 545.11 (6)* Subdivision Approval 500.01-500.05 Subdivision Waiver 500.05-Subd. 2 * Any additional expense of notification necessitated by applicants request for continuance will be charged to applicant. (7) Off-street Parking Permit 545.09 (a) As part of conditional use permit process 800.15-800.23 (b) In conjunction with permitted use • (8) Street Vacation 820 (9) Forestry Permit 810 (10) Conditional Activity Permit 515.71 (11) Nonconforming Use Permit 515.73 SECTION 5. AMUSEMENT AND RECREATION LICENSES AND PERMITS TYPE OF PERMIT SECTION OR LICENSE REQUIRING (1) Arcade 1105 (2) Amusement 1100.01 (a) Mechanical Amusement Device (Pinball) Device (b) Mechanical Music Box (3) Lawful Gambling 1100.13 (4) Itinerant Place Is of Amusement 1100.05-1100.11 (5) Public Dance 1110.03 (c) Video Games Per Premise 1. 1-5 video games 2. 6-10 video games 3. over 10 games $150 plus each additional Bingo, Tipboard, Paddle Wheel, Raffle, Pull Tabs (a) Lawful Gambling Permit (those exempt from State Licensure) (State Statute 349.213) (b) Lawful Gambling Investigative Fee (State Statute 349.16) STATE LICENSE REQUIRED For each day dances are held -$2 No fee for locations holding tavern licenses. 1 Year 1 Year 1 Year 1 Year 1 Year FEE $3,000.00 $500.00 $3,000.00 $500.00 $3,000.00 $200.00 $400.00 $3,000.00 $450.00 $500.00 $450.00 No Fee $200.00 $350.00 $ 10.00 $250.00 $300.00 FEE $300.00 $45.00 $45.00 $100.00 $200.00 $10.00 1 year $100.00 1 year $100.00 1 day $160.00 $25.00 MO. caq- qn TYPE OF PERMIT SECTION OR LICENSE REQUIRING FEE (6) General Amusement 1100.03 (a) Billiard, Pool or Pigeonhole table (each) 1 year $32.00 1. Coin operated 1 year $90.00 (b) Bowling Alley (per lane) 1 year $25.00 (c) Circus 1 year $129.00 (d) Dance Hall 1 day $129.00 (e) Golf 1. Minature 1 year $30.00 2. Driving Tee 1 year $30.00 (f) Mountback 1 day $124.00 (g) Rides, mechanical or animal of any kind (each) 1 year $19.00 (h) Shows, any kind 1 day $124.00 (i) Shuffleboard (each lane) 1 year $14.00 (j) Other games 1 day $63.00 (6a) Musical Concert 1110.01 Per event $25.00 (7) Theatre Cinema 1120 1 year $124.00 Plus a notice publication fee $ 6.50 (8) Roller Rink 1115 1 year or portion thereof $124.00 (9) Commercial Adult- 605 Oriented Enterprises 1 Year $1,500.00 Investigation fee 1 year $1,500.00 (10) Massage Practitioner 605 Certificate fee 1 year $50.00 Investigation fee 1 year $124.00 (11) Public Baths 610 1 year $1,737.00 • Investigation fee (actual cost minimum) $1,737.00 (12) Fortune Teller 1130.05-1130.07 1 day $100.00 and related trade 1 week $300.00 1 month $600.00 1 year $1,000.00 SECT ION 6. ANIMAL LICENS ES AND PERMITS TYPE OF PERMIT SECTION OR LICENSE REQUIRING FEE (1) Animals 905.01-905.29 (a) Dog 1 year $9.00 (b) Cat 1 year $8.00 (c) Duplicate Either dog or cat $5.50 t (d) Late Penalty Each animal $1.00 905.31-905.33 (e) Commercial Kennel 1 year $150.00 (f) Residential Kennel 1 year $85.00 905.37-905.39 (g) Pigeons 1 year $30.00 905.41 (h) Non-domestic Animals Temporary Permit $20.00 905.01-905.29 (i) Impounding each Animal 1st time $25.00 2nd Time $50.00 (& each imp ound after) 04-u I SECTION 7. VEHICLE AND TRANSPORTATION LICENSE AND PERMIT FEES TYPE OF PERMIT SECTION OR LICENSE REQUIRING (1) Bicycle 1335 Minnesota State Registration (2) Aircraft 1340 (3) Food Vehicle 615 (a) Bakery vehicle (4) Garbage and Refuse Collection 601.01-601.33 (Commercial and Residential) (5) Motor Vehicle Dealer 1155 (6) Motor Bicycle Business 1160 (7) Sound Truck 1165 (8) Taxicab 1170 (9) Taxicab Driver 1175 (10) Rental or Utility 1185 Trailers and Trucks (b) Catering - per year for first food vehicle Second vehicle Each additional vehicle (c) Readily perishable (Same as (b) above) Per year for first vehicle Each additional vehicle Per year first place of business Per year - each additional place of buisness Per year per place of business Per year per place of business to sell, rent or lease 1 year per vehicle 1 day per vehicle Per year - first vehicle or auto livery Per year - each additional vehicle or auto livery operated at any time within license period Per year each place of business SECTION 8. COMMERCIAL BUSINESS AND TRADE LICENSES AND PERMITS TYPE OF PERMIT SECTION OR LICENSE REQUIRING (1) Firearms Dealer 920.01-920.05 (2) Itinerant Food 615 Establishment (3) Retail Candy 615 Per year - first facility Shop Per year - each additional on same premises (4) Food Establishment 615 FEE 1 day $30.00 1 year $75.00 $160.00 $65.00 $35.00 $150.00 $32.00 $175.00 $65.00 $129.00 $65.00 $129.00 $20.00 $325.00 $40.00 1 year $30.00 $80.00 $80.00 $20.00 $65.00 FEE 1 year $200.00 1 year (a) Retail or Wholesale Food Sales (Grocery) 1 year (b) Restaurant (Prepackaged food only sold for consumption)1 year (c) Restaurant (Prepared food sold for consumption) 1 year (d) Plan Review Fee (New/remodeled food preparation facility) (e) Additional Food Facilities (Baked goods, meat, produce, microwave ovens) Each $210.00 $210.00 $395.00 $125.00 $11.00 TYPE OF PERMIT OR LICENSE (5) Vending Machine SECTION REQUIRING 615 (6) Automobile Washing Establishment 1125 (7) Scavenger 600.25 (8) Incinerator (9) Tobacco 600.01-600.23 1145.03(MS 461.12) (10) Soft drink (11) Transient Merchant (12) Wagon Peddler (13) Christmas Tree Sales (14) Motel (15) Outdoor Merchandising (16) Storage Enclosure (17) Pawnbroker and Secondhand Goods Dealer (18) Auto Detailing Establishment 1145.01 1181.01-1181.09 FEE (a) Food vending machine requiring coin or token (excepting those machines dispensing bottled or canned soft drinks) 1 year $15.00 (b) Other food vending machines (excepting those dispensing bottled or canned soft drinks) 1 year $15.00 (c) Ice vending machine 1 year $15.00 Per calendar year or fraction thereof $100.00 Per year each vehicle $30.00 Permit fee for opening cesspool or dumping contects of each cesspool into City sewer $15.00 1 year $30.00 Retail Sale and Distribution - per month or fraction thereof License issued on calendar year basis (cigarette vending machines prohibited, bill No. 1990-7 4-21-90) $30.00 (a) Cans, bottles from shelf or cooler, fountain service $25.00 (b) Vending machine dispensing bottles or cans -0- (c) Other vending machines i year $25.00 Per year or fraction thereof per each additional machine $25.00 1 day $60.00 1181 1 year $150.00 1130.03 1 year $80.00 1190 First Unit $140.00 Per year each additional unit $ 9.00 1135 Permit $65.00 1135 Per Enclosure $56.00 1186 (a) Pawnbroker 1 year $1,750.00 (b) Secondhand Goods Dealer 1 year $300.00 (c) Initial investigation fee (nonrefundable) actual costs in excess of above with total not exceeding $1,200.00 Applicant shall deposit $1,200.00 with City Clerk along with application. Amount in excess of actual investigation costs shall be refunded. 1195.01 1 year $225.00 C9 `7 `C/,;? SECTION 9 LIQUOR AND RELATED LICENSE AND PERMIT FEES TYPE OF PERMIT SECTION OR LICENSE REQUIRING FEE ?(1) NonIntoxicating Malt Liquor 1210 (a) On-Sale 1 year $550.00 (b) Tavern (dance) 1 year $450.00 (c) Wholesale 1 year $21.00 (d) Off-Sale 1 year $160.00 (e) Club (Bottle Club) 1 year $365.00 (2) Liquor • (3) Employee License On-Sale Liquor Establishments (4) Investigation Fee 1200.29-1200.39 (a) On-Sale 1215 (b) Sunday (Fee set by state law) 1225 (c) Wine 1200.01-1200.25, (d) Veterans' Organization (Ex-Sunday) 1200.29-1200.39 1200.01-1200.25, 1 year $11,200.00 1 year $200.00 1 year $800.00 1 year $520.00 1200.01-1200.25, Per year/per person covered 1200.29-1200.39 Expires on June 30th next following the effective date 1200.01-1200.25, (a) On-Sale liquor including Veterans' Organization 1200.29-1200.39 each person shown on application actual costs in excess of above. Each additional investigation for each person not listed on original or renewal application. 1225 (b) Wine - Original Application initial Fee actual costs in excess of above with total fee not to exceed Renewal Application Initial Fee actual costs in excess of above with total cost not to exceed 1200.09 Additional Investigation under 1200.09 Subdivision 3 not to exceed Investigation of substitute manager SECTION 10. MISCELLANEOUS FEES (1) Registration 1181 (2) Permit to reside 1190 (3) License for 405.25 Apartment Houses and Rental Homes .7 (a) State hawker or Peddler license 6 month/per person covered (b) Canvasser or Solicitor 6 month/per person covered In motel for more than six months (a) Apartment House (includes first 4 Units) each additional unit in excess of 4 (b) Rental Home - single family dwelling (c) Duplexes/double bungalows, triples and quads First unit Each additional rental unit (d) Late Fee 10% penalty for each month or portion thereof during which said fee remains unpaid. $ 21.00 $500.00 and $150.00 $275,00 and $2,107.00 $ 62.00 and $2,107.00 $124.00 and $2,107.00 $62.00 $30.00 $30.00 $15.00 1 year $55.00 $ 8.25 1 year $55.00 1 year $55.00 $20.00 (e) License Transfer Fee (f) Reinstatement of suspended license 50% of license fee . (g) Reinstatement of Revoked license 100% of license fee (4) Certificate of 405.26 Housing maintenance (a) Single family home or owner/occupied Compliance portion of a 2-family home (5) Permit Fee for Rooming House 405.19 Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield this 13th day of December, 1993. ATTEST Thomas P. Ferber City Clerk 0 $10.00 $55.00 1 year $75.00 Martin J. Kirsch Mayor I0 C?'7-C/,!;- • UNRESOLVED BUDGET ISSUES There are several unresolved budget issues which require final direction from the City Council. These should be addressed specifically by motion of the City Council. Those issues include the following: ? Human Services Planner/Coordinator Position. ? Fourth Liquor Store. ? Electrician Position. (Authorizing an electrician position will not increase the overall budget since funding for the position will be derived from a reduction in contract services and increase in revenue from the school district). ? Funding for Madison Park. ? Water and Sewer Rates. 0 a3 • CITY OR RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Council Letter No.362 Agenda December 13, 1993 Issue Statement:. Consideration of Richfield's position for the proposed extension of runway 4-22. Background: The Metropolitan Airports Commission (MAC) has reissued the Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the extension of runway 4-22. The City has previously opposed the extension of runway 4-22 based upon several factors including: ? One of the stated purposes of the proposal is to redistribute noise. However, no comprehensive response to Richfield's concerns regarding noise redistribution has been developed. ? Another purpose of the runway extension is to provide a longer runway for international flights. However, MAC has not identified an estimate of the number of flights that are adversely impacted by lack of a longer runway. ? No provisions were made in the original document to mitigate the new noise impact on Richfield. • ? Richfield airport consultants seriously doubt that the proposed runway will operate in the manner proposed by MAC. This means the impact upon Richfield could be considerably different than those addressed in the Draft Environmental Impact Statement. ? There are a number of safety factors which have not been addressed. Again, these safety factors may change the actual impact upon Richfield. The comments submitted by Richfield in opposition to the 4-22 Draft Environmental Impact Statement address these issues and requested additional information and details to complete our analysis. Instead of directly responding to those issues, the MAC decided to submit a revised Draft Environmental Impact Statement. That revision has been reviewed by staff and consultants. Airport consultant Bob Collette and Attorney Steve Pflaum have not yet completed this analysis. However, preliminary findings include the following: ? Several of the significant issues identified in our previous comments have not yet been addressed. While some additional information has been provided, that information does not support the findings included in the Draft Environmental Impact Statement report. ? Richfield's estimate for noise mitigation in our community alone exceeded M million. The funding for noise mitigation falls significantly short of requirements. • ? It appears means that MAC will be spending $40 million for a project of questionable benefit from an operation standpoint. MAC should consider how the $40 million might be better used to reduce noise impacts off of the existing parallel runways. ? MAC continues to resist providing detail regarding several aspects of the proposed runway construction. As an example, the layout of the queue taxiway is an integral component in understanding the capacity of this runway. The capacity obviously determines the community impact. MAC has indicated that they cannot provide this document because its size, 24 inches by 36 inches, precludes reproduction at reasonable cost. ? The project will require six waivers to Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) procedures. The ability of MAC to obtain these waivers and the impact that these waivers will have upon the safety and operational capacity of the runway remain in question. ? The proposal fails to comply with FAA guidelines of construction and operation of runways in several significant areas. The landing threshhold for runway 4 has been modified to 1,250 feet from the end of the new runway. This is not expected to • have a significant impact on Richfield. Recommended Motion: 1. Richfield should continue to oppose the extension of runway 4-22. 2. Request an extension in time to provide an official written response to the Draft Environmental Impact Statement for runway 4-22. Basis for Recommendation: 1. MAC has been unable to demonstrate that 4-22 extension is the best alternative available for accomplishing noise mitigation. 2. MAC has been unable to demonstrate the need for additional runway length for heavily loaded international flights. 3. There are apparently better alternatives to investing $40 million for noise mitigation purposes. 4. The new noise monitoring system (ANOMS) should have been included in calculating projected noise impacts on properties surrounding the airport. • 5. The document fails to provide a reasonable basis to support the projections for runway use. a-6--a 6. Significant safety issues have not been resolved. 7. The document fails to disclose sufficient detail to understand the operation and, therefore, the impact of the proposed action. 8. For the second straight year, MAC has provided the Draft Environmental Impact Statement document for review over a holiday period. Given the complexity of this document, it would appear reasonable to request an extension on the comment period. Alternative Recommendation: 1. The Council may decide to add or delete reasons for support of this position. 2. The Council may decide to support the runway extension. Discussion/Decision Mode: This matter will be presented at the City Council meeting of December 13. A public hearing on the proposal is scheduled for 7 p.m., December 16 at St. Kevin's Church. 0 JDP:ds Respectfully submitted, James Prosser City Manager 0 013-3 Comments on: Appendix C, Operational Summary The operational assumptions incorporated in the analysis of the DEIS alternatives are used in four areas: Aviation activity levels and aircraft types Runway use * Flight headings Aircraft takeoff and landing profiles The assumptions are central to the DEIS analysis, and the conclusions that flow from that analysis. If they are incorrect, the desired results also will be incorrect. The assumptions should be examined for objectivity, realistic premises, and accuracy. Richfield's operational comments are listed in the Revised DEIS on pages B-31 through B-46. They include more than two dozen specific items questioning how the proposed project will actually work The DEIS, with few exceptions, lumps their response to all these questions with the following under the heading of Proposed Action: `The Revised Draft provides additional detail on operational assumptions in Appendix C. This analysis addresses each of the issues raised in this comment.' and subsequent Richfield comments are answered `See response to the above comment' ....... directing the reader back to the statement above Responses, not answers, are provided Many of these general, in the form of correspondence between the parties. a 3-q • Groundside congestion When taxiwav 0 is full (six aircraft capacity): * where do the following aircraft wait? * how do they interact with arrivals taxiing to the gate? how are vehicle movements accommodated, especially around the concourse fingers? * will pushback activity be blocked by aircraft waiting to enter taxiway Q? * above is the only graphic representation of the $14 million Taxiway C-D complex in the Revised DEIS. 0 Runway. 22/ Taxiw centerline separation Transport Airport standard is 400 feet (Ref. AC 15015300-12, Table 2-1) Proposed Proiect separation is 199 feet. * The Revised DEIS does not mention this drastic reduction, placing the runway and taxiway centerlines at one half the FAA Airport Design Standard • This is an egregious example of the space constraints in the C-D complex, and the reticence of planners to acknowledge the problem. C-?3°60 0 Will the_Q_Taxiwav accept 45 departures per hour? The Revised DEIS states: "Since the departure queuing taxiway is planned to hold approximately six aircraft, ATC would have to return to departing Runways 29L &R when the queue exceed six aircraft. " It then toes on to what would trigger the queue taxiway overload: "It is estimated that the departure queues would contain more than six aircraft when departures reached 45 or more per hour. " In actual practice, the overload would be experienced much more frequently. An example, using January 1992 MAC schedule. *There are 33 departures in the 2000 to 2100 hour. * It takes 45 departures to require use of the parallels, per Revised DEIS. * But from 2030 to 2045 there are 25 departures. * Several of these are heavy jets, requiring full runway length or additional spacing. Can this `departure bubble' be accommodated by the CAD taxiway system without gridlock, given six aircraft at a time can wait on taxiway Q for departure? Both reason and experience dictate 25 departures, including heavy jets, cannot use a taxiway made for 6 aircraft in just 15 minutes. Therefore, a 33 departure hour can negate use of the Q taxiway. a?-7 +! What about the wind? The Criterion of wind is discussed in the Revised DEIS. Appendix C-1 Z "These assumptions incorporate the strict interpretation of FAA and wind criteria.-Actual use of this mode may be less than projected " * Actual vs Theoretical Acceptable wind conditions. - -Discussed at length in Richfield's comments (pg 10). -The Revised DEIS acknowledges a disparity between the two above, but fails to adjust it's estimate of r/w 22 use accordingly. * The Revised DEIS quotes the tower for it's authority in planning a 20 knot crosswind, 7 knot tailwind * The tower in turn quotes the FAA's runway use-order. No adjustment is made for actual operational experience, which can be significantly less. Aircrew members routinely challenge a runway assignment with direct crosswinds in excess of 15 knots The FAA Runway Use Order mandates that no tailwind component at all may be present if the runway is other than dry. At MSP that is most of the winter as well as periods of rain year-round Many flights cannot accept a certain tailwind component based on fuel, passenger load, or other factors. The value may be much less than 7 knots. * It is misleadinff to dismiss such considerations with: "actual use of this mode may be less than projected." 40 (?k -?F- U • What Does FAA Tower management say about ground traffic? Quotes from three former FAA managers: Former FAA control tower facility manager Jeffrey Griffith expressed "concern about the ability to queue aircraft without gridlock" (April 11,1991) Former FAA control tower facility manager Les Case expressed concern about congestion in the original DEIS. "There is congestion in this area even without improvements. Congestion would increase in this area after the proposed extension." Former FAA area manager & plans/procedures manager Bob Collette expressed concern about the ability to queue aircraft for runway 22 departures without gridlock at the proposed CID complex in 1988. Quote from current FAA manarer: Current FAA control tower facility manager Bruce Wagoner in a letter to the Airport District Office on May 6, 1992. "Ground traffic at the described locations would cause no more than the usual day to day operating problems already encountered" P39 That `additional operating configuration that will become available.....' * tower memo 3-23-93, the followinz is cited: "If Runway 22 is extended as proposed an additional operating configuration will become available at MSP. The extended runway would allow for landings on Runways llL&R and departures off of Runway 22 from the proposed Queuing Taxiway. In the land 11's depart 22 configuration there is an interdependency only between the Runway 22 and Runway 11R intersection. Departures from Runway 22 would be required to roll through the Runway 11Rintersection between arrivals ...... The land 11's depart 22 scenario could be best utilized during peak arrival periods to maximize the use of the parallels for landing aircraft. As the departure demand increases, a switch to a straight parallel operation or a combination of departures off Runway 22 could potentially extend from 220 degrees counterclockwise to 090 degrees." i i ii 3-- , O ? Additional operating conflauration (cont) Appendix C-13 says, "based on wind Runways 11L and IIR could be used 58 percent of the time the airport is operating on the parallel runways...." It is evident that the potential additional use of land - 11's/depart 22 is extremely high. The impacts of such a new configuration have not been examined in the DEIS for noise impacts, operational issues, etc The FAA tower savs the new contiouration will rarely be used. (4-13-93 letter) "Although this operating configuration may not be consistent with the goals of the RUS, there may be times when this scenario is used due to inclement weather conditions or unforseen circumstances. The fact that the potential does exist to use this configuration, even though it may be a small percentage of the time, necessitates it's evaluation in the EIS." * Prevailing winds allow maximum use of runways IIL & R during the summer months, meaning My 22 departures may be maximized with 11 arrivals. * Land 111depart 22 would mean less ground congestion, since arrivals turn off the parallels far from the CID taxiway complex * This configuration has the potential to be used extensively. * The Revised DEIS must evaluate it's impact before, not after the fact. a? II • How efficient is the Q taxiway concept? Runway 22 departures at Q must be cleared for takeoff with regard to: * all runway 29L arrivals that decline to hold short of runway 22. * all runway 29L arrivals recrossing runway 22 on taxi back to the gate. 0 * all heavy jet arrivals on runway 29L. * all heavy jet arrivals recrossing runway 29L on taxi back to the gate. * all runway 29R departures for wake turbulence. * all taxiway E aircraft will not be crossed behind any departing jet from Q. * all runway 29R arrivals recrossing runway 22 midfield to gates on south terminal. 0 A6- /? • Heavv lets and taxies *jet blast presents unique problems, made more critical in tight spaces around CID. The Revised DEIS is not clear as to how heavy jets will operate with regard to the proposed project References are scattered through the RDEIS, but inferences must still be drawn. This much is stated: • the Q taxiway is restricted to B757 and smaller size aircraft • only 23 heavy jets will be requesting the full length of runway 22 for departure by 1996. • heavy jets landing 29L will not hold short of runway 22. Nowhere does the RDEIS say heavy jets are routinely expected 40 to depart runway 22 from the CID complex This is inferred from the statement that only 23 heavies are expected to request the full length of runway 22 per day in 1996. question V. If heavy jets are all going to depart from the CID complex, where will they hold for departure? Taxiway Q is restricted to smaller design groups, and anyplace else around the concourse fingers would block taxi routes. question #2. Is it realistic to accept the proposition that only 2 heavy jets per day will request the full 11,000 ft on 22? Is there any commitment from the FAA, airport users, or the airport sponsor limiting heavy jet departures to 2 or 3 a day for full length runway 22 operations? 0 c? 3-13 Heavv lets and taxiway . (cont.) question #3. Tower memo 1-23-89 states in part, "The tower will coordinate and restrict heavy jet departures to ensure that runway 11L/29R operations will not be effected." It is unclear if reference is being made to the 2.3 heavy jets that will use the full length of runway 22 each day in 1996. Or is it in regard to the rest of the 25+ departures daily, all expected to depart from the CID complex? Or both? Is it realistic to state that "rfw 11LI29R operations will not be effected' when a heavy jet departs from either point? If the tower plans to release any significant number of • heavy jets from CID, have the wake turbulence factors been built into the runway use rates in the RDEIS? 0 ,q?-/ 4 M • The Revised DEIS does not answer all the concerns expressed by Richfield, Some responses are indirect or incomplete. 1. No selection of a CID construction alternative in the Revised DEIS. Of the five alternatives developed by TKDA, none is designated as the final choice Alternate #1 is recommended for further study in 5-24-89 by FAA Airports Engineer Gordon Nelson. 1 a. No revisions to Alternate #1 are finalized in the Revised DEIs, if indeed that is the configuration of choice. 2. No response to the issue of intersecting runways is made The FAA's Facility Operation & Adminstration Handbook, FAA Order No. 7210.3 para 1226 entitled "Simultaneous Operations on Intersecting Runways" C Questions Unanswered (conk) The FAA tower dismisses the issue with a conclusory assertion in a S-S-92 memo; `MSP ATCT anticipates normal operating procedures for arrivals landing Runway 29L to hold short of Runway 22 for departures." No answer is made to the FAA's requirement to limit the use of intersecting runways to where there is a 'valid operational need'. None of the FAA's three criteria appear to be met: 1. present airport capacity/acceptance rate will be increased 2 arrival/departure delays will be reduced 3. a reasonable savings in fuel consumption will result 3. No analysis of the congestion created by runway 29R arrivals turning off into the CID complex is made, Although identified by three former FAA managers as a choke point, it is dismissed with a single sentence- 4. No consideration is given to operational complexity. The CID complex is unique in that it is predicated on releasing departures from Q with reference to operations both behind the departing aircraft and in front of it. * behind the departing aircraft....... Aircraft taking off on rfw 29R, landing on I1L, or taxiing across E all must be protected from jet blast 'yin front of the departing aircraft.... Aircraft landing on runway 29L rolling across My 22, taxiing back across rfw 22, and crossing rfw 22 midfield from a 29R landing all must be protected from the takeoff action. The assurance is simply given the tower will `restrict operations' • to make all this work (In a constricted space that requires some half-dozen waivers of airport design standards.) 013-Ifs • Questions Unanswered (cont.) 5. Is the nroiect a sound long term investment? Given the no-build alternative, 24,450 persons are projected to reside within the 1996 DAIL 65 or greater contour. The build alternatives have a high of 27,820. A net of only 3,370 residents receive a decrease in noise. (RDEIS pg 4-34) The extension is viewed as a short term measure. (RDEIS pg. 4-61). Runway 4-22 will then be used primarily for long haul flights and during extreme weather conditions-which occurs less than 1% of the time at each runway end This may be the most expensive short term measure ever seen at MSP. Approximately $40 million spent to construct and then not use a runway! 6. Where will the hold lines at taxiway Q be located? The location of hold lines would be a problem since they could not be effectively placed on the connecting taxiway between taxiway Q and the runway. The operation of the proposed project would be impaired because the departing aircraft would have to make to 90 degree taxiing turns instead of one to enter the runway, and aircraft lined up for takeoff would have to sit further back from the runway. This was a concern expressed by the FAA's Airport District Office. See the "Runway 22/Taxiway Q centerline separation" depiction in this report for graphic 0 C? 3-1? • Privileced and Confidential McDermott, Will i Emery Chicago, Illinois • M E M O R A N D U M TO: James D. Prosser FROM: Steven F. Pflaum DATE: December 10, 1993 RE: Preliminary Analysis and Strategy Regarding Revised Draft EIS for Proposed Extension of Runway 4-22 1. INTRODUCTION This memorandum contains my initial thoughts regarding the Revised Draft Environmental Impact Statement ("RDEIS") for the Proposed Extension of Runway 4-22. The following analysis should be viewed as preliminary; at this point I have carefully examined only those sections of the RDEIS that experience indicates are likely to be most important in terms of the legal adequacy of the document. I have also received a preliminary analysis of the RDEIS from our noise expert, Dr. Sanford Fidell, and have reviewed Bob Collette's critique of the operational issues addressed in the RDEIS. On the basis of that information, Section II, below, summarizes my preliminary analysis of the strengths and weaknesses of the RDEIS. Section III contains a proposed strategy for responding to the RDEIS. II. PRELIMINARY ASSESSMENT 4F THE RDEIS The RDEIS is significantly stronger than the original Draft EIS and the Supplement to the Draft EIS. Most of the glaring defects in the Draft EIS, such as the failure to analyze potential noise mitigation measures, have been at least superficially corrected. The RDEIS also does a much better job of documenting support for the factual premises of the analyses in the report. While there are significant legal and environmental issues regarding the adequacy of the RDEIS, I believe that disproving the operational assumptions underlying this project is . the key to demonstrating both the improvident nature of the runway extension and the legal insufficiency of the RDEIS. While 12/10/93 15:12 a MW&E CHICAGO 444 CITY-RICHFIELD a 3 -J8 • I would normally hope that disproving the operational utility of a proposed project would cause the project's proponents to reconsider the project, I am not optimistic that that will occur here. I addressed this issue in a memo that I sent to you nearly two years ago, on January 24, 1992: "If NEPA is to be anything other than a cynical paper shuffle, the proponents of the Runway 4-22 extension will reconsider the merits of the project in light of the serious issues that we have raised regarding the feasibility of the project and the availability of feasible alternatives. I hope that that is exactly what happens." Unfortunately, that is not what happened. The RDEIS clings stubbornly to the same assertions regarding the operational feasibility of the project that appeared in the Draft EIS. Indeed, the RDEIS offers some new rationalizations for the benefits of the project and even an additional operational mode that could supposedly take advantage of the extended runway. Perhaps this would not be so disappointing if the RDEIS had persuasively refuted our critique of the operational feasibility of the Depart Runway 22 / Arrive Runways 27 concept that is the true raison d'Atre of the project. But the RDEIS is unable to refute that critique. Instead, it contains a remarkably turbid discussion of operational issues that relies on documents that tend to bolster, rather than weaken, our analysis. For example, we argued that the Draft EIS overstated the extent to which arrivals on Runway 29L would "hold short" of Runway 22. In response, the RDEIS relies on a statement by Bruce Wagoner, the manager of the Air Traffic Control Tower, that "MSP ATCT anticipates normal operating procedures for arrivals landing Runway 29L to hold short of Runway 22 departures." The RDEIS fails to mention what Mr. Wagoner said in the very next paragraph of his memo: "Approximately 20% of arrivals on Runway 29L do not accept a hold short restriction. The estimate does not include heavy jets nor adverse weather conditions." This example is symptomatic of what appears to be an attempt in the RDEIS to create an environmental document that supports a predetermined decision by MAC and the FAA to proceed with the runway extension project. If I am right about this, then absent an extraordinary occurrence that derails this project, such as the collapse of Northwest Airlines, litigation may offer the only hope of blocking the project. • ., -2- 2003 12/10/93 15:13 $ ME CHICAGO ->- CITY-RICHFIELD Q004 a3-1 ? • III. RECOMMENDED STRUNG Just as we did two years ago with respect to the original Draft EIS, we need to prepare comments on the RDEIS that make the kind of administrative record necessary to position ourselves for possible litigation. Generally speaking, parties challenging an environmental impact statement may not obtain discovery or supplement the administrative record. Consequently, we need to do everything possible now to develop expert testimony and obtain helpful admissions by the FAA, MAC, and their consultants. I recommend the following six-step strategy: 1. Serve FOIA requests on the FAA, MnDOT, and MAC addressing issues raised by the RDEIS. I would like to get the FOIA requests out by the end of next week. 2. Shortly after sending the FOIA requests, ask MnDOT and FAA for a 60-day extension of time in which to prepare our comments on the RDEIS. We could easily use that much time to obtain, review, assimilate, and follow up on the documents received in response to our FOIA requests. 3. Have Sandy Fidell and his company, BBN, prepare a detailed critique of the noise analysis in the RDEIS. Sandy . estimates that it would cost approximately $5,000 to $10,000 to prepare such an analysis. 4. Obtain Walt Gillfillan's comments on the RDEIS. We will need another affidavit from Walt in support of our comments. 5. utilize Bob Collette's expertise regarding operational issues. RDEIS. 6. Draft, revise, and finalize our comments on the I am sure that the City Council would like at least a ballpark idea of the cost of this strategy. I had hoped that our comments on the RDEIS would largely be a rehash of those that we submitted on the Draft EIS. The extensive revisions to the Draft EIS make that both infeasible and inadvisable. In terms of attorneys' fees, I estimate that preparing our comments on the RDEIS will cost approximately the same as preparing those on the Draft EIS. Although less legal research should be necessary this time around, my hourly rate is higher now. (For 1994, that rate will be $270.) -3- 12/10/93 15:13 $ X.W&E CHICAGO 444 CITY-RICHFIELD Z005 y O IV. CONCLDBON By forcing the FAA and MAC to supplement and then revise the Draft EIS, we won the first two rounds of the legal skirmish over the proposed runway extension. But we clearly have our work cut out for us if we are to prevail in this third, and most important, round. I am confident that the strategy outlined above is the best possible means of protecting Richfield from the threat posed by the proposed project. Respectfully submitted, McDEMOTT, JqI LL & EMERY By teven Pf laum \31805\010\MEM\50MEMSFP.007 r? U 0 -4- C!pa • CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Council Letter No. 361 Agenda December 13, 1993 Issue Statement: Council consideration as to whether to hold a City Council meeting on December 27, 1993. Background: The City Council regularly meets the second and fourth Monday evening of each month. However, items for the December 27 Council meeting can be carried over to January 1994. It is suggested that the regular City Council meeting scheduled for December 27 be cancelled. Recommended Motion: Cancel the City Council meeting scheduled for December 27, 1993. Basis of Recommendation: 1. The City Council business can be carried over to January 1994. 2. The December 27 meeting follows the Christmas holiday weekend. Alternative Recommendation: 1. Do not cancel the December 27 City Council meeting. 2. Reschedule the Council meeting. Discussion/Decision Mode: This item has been placed on the December 13, 1993 City Council agenda so proper notification can be made if the December 27 meeting is cancelled or rescheduled. Respectfully submitted, Ci JDP:cak s'/D. Prosser • a/ CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Council Letter No. 360 Agenda December 13, 1993 Issue Statement: Approval of plans and specifications and authorization to advertise for Washington Park improvements. Background: Washington ?Park is located in the vicinity of 77th Street and 17th Avenue. The 1994 Capital Budget includes $340,000 in special revenues and $100,000 from the 77th Street Project for the funding of park improvements at Washington Park. When the park is redeveloped, new spaces will be added to the west because the 77th Street Project required taking of some existing park land. The actual costs for park redevelopment to be charged to the 77th Street Project will be computed on a formula provided by the state/federal government. It is also necessary to provide some temporary storm water storage capacity at the park. Costs for these improvements will be charged to the storm sewer utility. The total cost of the Washington Park improvement is an estimated $540,00.0. Two neighborhood meetings were held with invitations mailed to approximately 1,100 addresses. At the first meeting, neighbors provided individual and group comments and designs which were used by professional site and building architects in preparation of the park plans and specifications. The neighbors at the second meeting were in agreement with the park plans. At the November 30, 1993 meeting, the Community Services Commission unanimously recommended City Council approval to implement the park plans. The plan includes two new tennis courts, a practice area for tennis, basketball area, and a volleyball area. South of the tennis courts new play equipment would be designed into two adjacent play areas, one for younger children ages 2-5 and one for older children ages 6-12. A simple backstop with a small agrilime area would be provided in the southeastern sector of the park. A slightly smaller width than regulation football/soccer field area would be superimposed over the informal outfield area. A general skating area would also be provided for potential future use. Earth formations and tree plantings would be added. A new building would blend into the site, in a somewhat centralized location, with a small sliding hill to the northeast. There would be landscaping, pathways and off-street parking will be provided. At the request of the Community Services Commission, feasibility of irrigating the football/soccer field is being investigated. The Community Services Director, Don Fondrick, the Leisure • Services Coordinator, Gretchen Blank, and the architects, Laurie McRosti of Orr-Schelen-Mayeron and Associates and Dick Schwarz of Schwarz Architects, will be in attendance to describe the plans and specifications in detail and to answer questions. " Al-1 Recommended Motion: Order City Project 897, approve the plans and specifications and authorize the advertisement for bids for the Washington Park redevelopment project. Basis of Recommendation: 1. The project is in the proposed 1994 Capital Budget. 2. The neighborhood was invited to participate in the design of the park improvement and those attending the meetings are in agreement with the plan. 3. The Community Services Commission has reviewed the plan and recommended approval. Alternative Recommendation: 1. Do not do any neighborhood park redevelopment at this time. 2. Amend the plans for the Washington.Park project. Discussion/Decision Mode: This item is scheduled for the December 13, 1993 Council meeting. Action is requested at this time to allow sufficient time for review as part of the 77th Street improvement project process and to allow construction to begin as soon as possible in the spring • of 1994. Resp lly submitted, James. Prosser City Manager JDP:ds ao • CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Council Letter No. 359 Agenda December 13, 1993 Issue Statement: Approval of Schedule C Amendment to Assessment Agreement and Assessor's Certification; Richfield State Agency Inc. (RSA) medical office facility; LHN redevelopment project. Background: RSA has proposed to redevelop a site at 66th street and Grand Avenue with a medical office facility. On October 25, 1993 the City Council approved the amended final development plan/conditional use permit for the facility. On November 15, 1993 the HRA approved the Contract for Private Development. It would now be appropriate for the City Council to approve Schedule C to that contract which is the Amended Assessment Agreement and Assessor's Certificate. In the early 19801s, RSA expanded and improved the primary facility occupied by their tenant, Richfield Bank and Trust. An Assessment Agreement and Assessor's Certification dated December 13, 1983, was entered into for $5,039,831. Because the medical office facility will be constructed on a site included in the 1983 agreement, state law provides that the previous agreement be amended. The amendment includes all the RSA property and revises the minimum market value from $5,039,831 to $6,104,631 or an increase of $1,064,800. Schedule C is attached. Recommended Motion: Adopt the attached resolution which approves the Amended Assessment Agreement and Assessor's Certificate. Basis of Recommendation: 1. Both the City Council and HRA have previously taken action to approve this redevelopment. 2. The medical office facility will provide added value to the RSA property. 3. State law provides for the appropriate manner to establish minimum value when a previous agreement exists. 4. A new state law effective August 1, 1993, requires City Council approval of amendments to existing assessment agreements. Alternative Recommendation: 1. Delay action. 2. Reject the proposal. O ©D -I Discussion/Decision Mode: RSA would like to initiate construction during December. The amended agreement needs to be approved before construction begins. Respectfu ly submitted, Jam g. Cit ger JDP:ds 0 ate- a. RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION APPROVING AMENDMENT TO ASSESSMENT AGREEMENT AND ASSESSOR'S CERTIFICATIONS WHEREAS, the City Council has been requested to approve a proposed amendment to that certain instrument entitled Assessment Agreement and Assessor's Certification dated December 13, 1983 ("Agreement"); and WHEREAS, such Agreement covers land now described as: Lots 1, 2 and 3, Block 1, RICHFIELD BANK ADDITION, and Lots 24 and 25, Block 4, Lyndale Shores on Wood Lake ("Property"); and WHEREAS, the City Council has received and reviewed a document entitled Amendment to Assessment Agreement and Assessor's Certification ("Amendment") which, provides for an increase in the minimum market value of the Property, and an allocation of the minimum market value among the parcels which constitute the Property. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota that the Amendment is in all respects APPROVED. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota • this 13th day of December, 1993. Martin J. Kirsch, Mayor ATTEST: Thomas Ferber, City Clerk ao -3 SCHEDULE C • AMENDMENT TO ASSESSMENT AGREEMENT AND ASSESSOR'S CERTIFICATION THIS AMENDMENT dated this _ day of , 1993 by and between the HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY IN AND FOR THE CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA, a public body corporate and politic ("Authority") and RICHFIELD STATE AGENCY, INC., a Minnesota corporation ("Redeveloper"). WHEREAS, the Authority and the Redeveloper did, on December 13, 1983 enter into an assessment agreement and assessor's certification ("Agreement") in accordance with the terms of a contract for the sale of land for private development dated January 21, 1982 ("Contract 111); and WHEREAS, such Agreement established a minimum market value for the land described in the Agreement ("Property") as shown in the attached Exhibit A and the improvements to be constructed thereon in accordance with the terms of Contract 1 of $5,039,831, all as fully set out in the Agreement which is attached hereto as Exhibit B ; and WHEREAS, the Property through replating is now described as Lots 1, 2 and 3, Block 1, RICHFIELD BANK ADDITION, and Lots 24 and 25, Block 4 Lyndale Shores on Wood Lake. WHEREAS, the Agreement is currently in full force and effect; and WHEREAS, the Redeveloper and Authority have entered into a subsequent instrument entitled Contract for Private Redevelopment dated .1993 ("Contract 211) which calls for additional improvements on a portion of the Property, namely Lot 2, Block 1, RICHFIELD BANK ADDITION ("Redevelopment Property") to be completed not later than December 31, 1994; and WHEREAS, the Authority and the Redeveloper desire to amend the Agreement to establish the minimum market value for the Property as such will be increased by construction of the improvements contemplated in Contract 2 on the Redevelopment • Property and to allocate the Minimum Market Value among the parcels which comprise JBD61182 RC125-45 C-1 gc)-q the Property all pursuant to the provisions of Minnesota Statutes, 1469.177, subd. • 8, a copy of which is attached herewith as Exhibit C; and WHEREAS, the Authority and the County Assessor for the City of Richfield have reviewed the plans and specifications for the improvements contemplated in Contract 2. NOW, THEREFORE, the parties do hereby agree as follows: 1. From the date of this Amendment and until January 2, 1995 the minimum market value for the land and improvements located on the Property shall continue to be $5,039,831. 2. Commencing on January 2, 1995 and continuing for the term of this Amendment, the minimum market value for the land and improvements located on the Property shall be $6,104,800. 3. Commencing on January 2, 1995, and continuing for the term of this Amendment, the Minimum Market Value will be allocated among the separate parcels which comprise the Property as follows : a. Lot 1, Block 1, RICHFIELD BANK ADDITION $4,030,300 b. Lot 2, Block 1, RICHFIELD BANK ADDITION $1,600,000 C. Lot 3, Block 1, RICHFIELD BANK ADDITION $400,500 d. Lots 24 and 25, Block 4, Lyndale Shores on Wood Lake $74,000 4. Nothing in this Amendment shall limit the discretion of the County Assessor for the City of Richfield or any other public official or body having the duty to determine the Market Value of the Property for ad valorem tax purposes, to assign to the Property and the Improvements to be built thereon, Market Value in excess of the minimum Market Value specified in this Amendment. 5. This Amendment shall inure to the benefit of and be binding upon the parties hereto and their successors and assigns. 6. This Amendment shall remain in full force and effect until the last date on which the Authority is entitled to receive tax increment from the district. • JW61182 RC125-45 C-2 act- 5- 7. This Amendment, upon being recorded shall supersede and replace the Agreement HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY IN AND FOR THE CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA By Its Commission Chair By STATE OF MINNESOTA ) SS. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) By Its Executive Director RICHFIELD STATE AGENCY, INC. By Its Its • The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of , 1993, by and , the Commission Chairman and Executive Director, respective, on behalf o the Housing and Redevelopment Authority in and for the City of Richfield, Minnesota, a public body corporate and politic. Notary Public STATE OF MINNESOTA ) SS. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of , 1993, by and , respectively, of Richfield State Agency, Inc., a Minnesota corporation. Notary Public 0 JW61182 RC125-as C-3 `7 -(00 Exhibit A TRACT 1 Parcel A - All of Block 3 (except Tracts 2 and 3) J. N. Hauser's Addition. Parcel B - A11 of Block 2, J. N. Hauser's Addition. Parcel C - All of Block 2, Lyndale Shores on Wood Lake. Parcel D - Lots 24 and 25, Block 4, Lyndale Shores on Wood Lake. TRACT 2 Lots 6 and 7, Block 3, Lyndale Shores on Wood Lake and that part of Lot 8, Block 3, Lyndale Shores on Wood Lake describe as follows: Beginning.at the Southwest corner of Lot 8; thence North 30.feet along the West line of said lot; thence Southeasterly 50 feet more or less on a straight line to a point on the South line of said lot which is 40 feet from the Southwest corner thereof; and thence 40 feet along the South line of said lot to the Southwest corner thereof and the point of beginning, according to the plat thereof on file or on record in the office of the Registrar of Titles in and for Hennepin County. i I TRACT 3 That part of Lot 1, Block 3, J. N. Hauser's Addition, Hennepin County, Minnesota, described as follows: Becinning at the Northwest corner of said Lot 1; thence East alonc_ the North line to the Northeast corner thereof; thence South along the East line of said lot a distance of 54.95 feet; thence West to a point in the Westerly line of said lot which point is Southwesterly from the point of beginning a distance of 58.6 feet; thence Northeasterly along said Westerly line to the point of beginning, excepting therefrom all that part of the above-described property lying Easter!, of the following described line: Beginning at a point on the North line of the above-described property, said point being 65.54 feet West of the Northeast corner thereof, as measured along the North line thereof; thence running Southerly to a point in the'South line of the above-describe- property said point being 65.07 feet West of the Southeast corner of said property, as.measured along the South line thereof, subject to and together with a right of a joint party wall the center line of which is the East bounda ^, line of lands herein conveyed and the West line of lards herein excepted and cost of repairing and maintaining said common wall is to be borne equally by owners of lands herein conveyed and owners of land herein excepted. eN- cj_? ? ASSESSMB.`iT AGREEMM4T AND ASSESSOR'S CERTIFICATION t THIS AGR]== DATED TEIS 1.1. day of ?, 1983, by and between the Eousing and Redevelopment Authority in and for the City of Richfield, Minnesota, a public body corporate and politic (ERA) and Richfield State Agency, Inc., a Minnesota cor- poration (Developer) WITNESSETE: WSEREAS, the ERA, the City of Richfield, and the Developer have entered into a Contract for the Sale of Land for Private Development, dated January 21, 19M regarding the redevelopment of certain real property located on the Lyndale-Hub-Nicollet Redevelopment Project Area in the City of Richfield; and WHEREAS, it is contemplated that pursuant to said Redevelop- ment Contract the Developer will construct a commercial develop- ment described as the Improvements in such Agreement to be com- pleted by January 1, 1987; and WHEREAS, the ERA and the Developer desire to establish minimum market values for said land and the minimum improvements to be constructed thereon during the time of the private devel- opment, pursuant to Minn.Stat., Section 273.76, Subdivision 8; and WHEREAS, the ERA and the Richfield City Assessor have reviewed the preliminary plans and specifications for the minimum improvements which it is contemplated will be erected; .NOW/)TEEREFORE, the parties do hereby agree as follows: ? pon completion 1. t3sr- mnery--}-- 198 i, the, minimum market value which and Ex&. < ^ _ shall be assessed for the land described in Exhibit A attached hereto shall be $5,039,831 2. Nothing in this Agreement shall limit the discretion of the City Assessor of the City of Richfield or any other public official or body having the duty to determine the Market Value of the Property for ad valorem tax purposes, to assign to the Prcp- erty and the Improvements to be built thereon, Market Value in excess of the minimum Market Value specified in this Agreement. 3. The ERA and the Developer agree that they will, from time to time, execute, acknowledge and deliver, or cause to be executed, acknowledged and delivered, such.supplements hereto and such further instruments as may reasonably be required for cor- recting or clarifying any description of the property or to amend the minimum market value. 4. Neither the preambles nor the provisions of this Agree- meat are intended nor shall they be construed as modifying the terms of the Development Contract between the ERA and tie Devel- oper. 5. In the event that the Developer shall elect to prepay its obligation created in Section 5.1(a) of the Redevelopment Contract in the manner therein provided, then this Agreement and the obligations contained herein shall be null and void upon such prepayment. In such event, the ERA shall furnish the Developer with sufficient documentation evidencing the termination of such obligations. 6. This Agreement shall inure to the benefit and be biad- ing upon the successors and assigns of the parties. HOUSING AND REDMLOP1= AUTECR:TY IN AND FOR THE CITY OF RICEFIELD, MINNESOTA ?? &Z, h By 14?s fah ! - Thomas A. Morgan, 'r. Its Acting Executive Director gv Thomas E. Harms Its Commission Chairman RICHFIELD STATE AGENCY I is y y ao-9 M. 10014-CTYua M •s as?w?f?•w-Jt C+n?nsw www-D.- C? H-w- U- County of on this ?.T_.day o? __? <+..? .----• 19C-.., r Ore Me. Q .Within and for said Co n* ptrwnally appeared ?-f'O 4._.__?'. •_?s. ?:?r-.'7?`'..! ................. to me rsonally known. who, being such by me duly nnorn say that they arc rwpeeti:xly the wrGF.,r .._a_ .......LSs&sLdaxt and the -41 thwe ? ??..._............ oo*yoration named in the foregoing instrument, and that the seal h f uwd to said inetrulns:u is the corporate seal of said corporation, and that scud instrument ICae signed and ssaled in behalf of said aorporatn by authority of eta Board i S.. ......... ............_ aeknmcledged said 4,net7ument to be Ow frrt ad and deed of said 1r eo:aae? Piffix.wMOM MENNEPIN COLW" Votary Public County. ` w ewnaa.on to... 1v. L sett MY eornm?uson. espiree ... 18..-.. M. tee)tii--CnWo?.? Ae?s..+eerwr C+n..¦w. Coup o )(l °' C? Yrs. Yu. On day of - c.?, - 29 E =• I before +ru n .._._?!.. ?, ..? -•_..__._. _....__ +ithtn and for said Co .nty Ww,,,U a ' Y MM rod to me psreonally known, :oho, being each by me duly ern 4 Aid tie tJtat they respsdyi elf -- provident and tJu...? ?+..t.- say are ?..._. !-'? ?•......._._-_. instrument the oorporatian named ia? the foregoing , and thdt the seal it fAxsd to said instru rent is tlu - , 1 and that said instr:emsnt :cas signed and "aIc in bshal1 of evrporation b saidy g auu "thhority orny of mr its Board rtcr<rv. d of ..?..... -nd said ... i^? • ?? ?__L ?? 1?+n -xTrr- OT i Qek lodged cnstrurnent to be the JOHN L LEAN ft- act and deed of said x Woman P% L10 •eYGEOp ?KD C Ot6ry Public.- ?. Y y oo?n,D3u+eion sspir."re _ 18._._ a0-/D Fzh,e,f A-1 Agreement with RSA; Exhibit B, List of parcels included in Tract 1 along with mv, January 2, 1981. LEN Parcel E.Kv Env No. Land Bu+'dinc 84 28,000 26,000, Hagen 85 24,000 76,1000 86 350,000 11885,000 - 87 88 48,000 77,000 89 51,000 -0- 90 128,000 12,000 91 23,000 -0- 92• 18,000 40,000- 93 21,000 -0- 94 22,000 58,000 95 40,000 400,000 96 32,000 81000 97 18,000 38,200 98 18,000 35,100 99 16,400 32,300 100 16,400 33,800 X101 16,600 25,400 102 16,500 29,900 103 16,600 34,700 903,500 2,811,400 3,714,; ao- ?! TRACT P&rcel A - All of Block 3 sz=ept .rac-s 2 and 31 :. .,, 3auser s A-'d_ Par=e/ 3 - A.'/ Of 31ock 2, ,. N. Hauser's Addit-z,,, ?ar=e/ J - A,!/ of Block 2, Lvnda/e Shores --n mood La.<_. Par=el J - Lots 23 and 25, 3lock i Lyndale Shores :n Wood Lake. TRACT 2 Lots 6 and 7, Block 3, Lyndale Shores on Wood Lake and tat part of Lot 8, Block 3, Lyndale Shores on Wood Lake descr:-e as follows: Beginning.at the Southwest cornier of Lot 8; thence North 30 feet along the West line of said lot; thence southeasterly 50 feet acre or less on a straight line to a point on the South line of said lot which is 40 feet from the Southwest corner thereof; and thence 30 feet along i:he South line of said lot to the Southwest corner thereof and the point of beginning, according to the plat thereof on file or on record in the office of the Registrar of Titles in and for 3ennepin County. f TRACT 3 That part of Lot 1, Block 3, J. N. Rauser's addition, 3ennepin County, Minnesota, described as follows: Bec:nn:n: at the Northwest corner of said Lot 1; thence East a/onc the North line to the Northeast corner thereof; thhence South along the East line of said lot a distance of 53.35 feet; thence West to a point in the Westerly line of said lot which point is Southwesterly from the point of beg_nn:n_ a distance of 58.6 feet; thence Northeasterly along said Westerly line to the point of beginning, excepting tlherefr=- all that part of the above-described property lying :aster:- of the following described line: Beginning at a point the North line of the above-described property, said zc:nt being 65.54 feet West of the Northeast corner thereof, as measured along the North lizm thereof; thence ru:zing Southerly to a point in the, South line of the above-des=r: property said point being 65.07 feet West of the Southeas: corner of said property, as Measured along the South 1_ne thereof, sub;ect to and together-wit-'% a right of a party wall the center line of which is the East boundaz- line of lands herein conveyed and the West line cf lands herein excepted and cost of repairing and mainta-n.ng sa:_ c==cn wall is to be borne equally by owners Of lands herein conveyed and owners of land herein excepted. 0 CERTIFICATIUN BY CITY ASSESSOR The undersigned having reviewed the plans and specifications for the improvements to be constructed and the market value assigned to the land upon which the improvements are to be cor_- strscted and being of the opinion that the minimum market value contained in the foregoing Agreement appears reasonable, hereby certifies as follows: The undersigned Assessor for the City of Richfield, being legally responsible for the assessment of the above-described 0 property hereby cert4 Fies that the market value assigned to such upon completion shall land and improveme. ts not be less than $5,039,831 Cit Assessor f r L.2 CIty L of Richfield, Minnesota 0 •.d r It 90 -, ... ?. Khr / ranrEtr nnn !ss rlu / r[nT / PARCEL 1 ?• TYPE ut 8-1 IAQ T rl r.7 1"H 17 n 8 ] ?' r.?? 7 3 J ] In Ii ?5 t 24n { yE.. I?,((,1 ;J d-S 34 ?Ih?A ds5 Ii 127 ! i + I Nr. ?, F.4 h .S ?.r _ 7 V+? f if ?h? d5 ?] 1 i 1 F 1 F 2iJ rl?ar1 'i? t I 1 ?7 ??t3 l '7 rl? J r q+5itb 16++2 f, / i rl IVM )s???1'1. 1ch! ° I II??.I II ? I?I? I) I? k I Fc1.?5, r?ll,?•., , 1 I ?i-u 8-t 31 1? } , 1 'c r j MF4 457 9., ?' Fr. 1 .lie 1 7,- I Qn`1 5i7'r !49 f } (rile 1517? 18S I- r.'le 1 b c jt)Df 7? .76 ool _ _ 760 Ir 4 j 1 ?r.k , a ul I t g i tl rn 4 ?S. 0 pn ELI 7 I1?, _ ? _ G ? r:d 1.19-: t? 3 (+th S loc ?I I 1 I tb f 1?{$ 'o C' n+ c s F. 1i Ii, Ir rlli?? ?yl I I /f•ni?-i? :il poi r In h ?f?tl, s ?,•? I 7 1 7t? 2? .111 0 0' iU_ d ct, on? V ip t th s ,t ?. I r z c I^'k ei< r? ? pt ?1 TO I Ia r;?1i aI t c e8 7 at.111 ?^ tit I 5'?3??+S?It c pp II I `I J r? LJ, 1 1 I `j{ to I I I 5? t t t t n c: ^nt1 •? I I II I I I I ?jrb I (I ? 1 1 [ I I 11. I I• I 'B3 Inlnl 1 1 So 71, 7 ? I ?SSt ??1f.d ? 1 ol 00 l 1 I is 1, ? A ^ • z-3 .r 7 tra,]FC ? UO p j?o9S ? j ,06 I ?o ?,n9 ?5 P b L 00 I I "ie? ( ,..o,r c c4 9"M 9S 1 ,f 8 I?Ij:.. 0 0- XHIBIT C to Amendment Section 469.177, subd. 8. Assessment Agreements. An authority may enter into a written assessment agreement with any person establishing a minimum market value of land, existing improvements, or improvements to be constructed in a district, if the property is owned or will be owned by the person. The minimum market value established by an assessment agreement may be fixed, or increase or decrease in later years from the initial minimum market value. An assessment agreement terminates on the earliest of the date on which conditions in the assessment agreement for termination are satisfied, the termination date specified in the agreement, or the date when tax increment is no longer paid to the authority under section 469.176, subdivision 1. The assessment agreement shall be presented to the county assessor, or city assessor having the powers of the county assessor, of the jurisdiction in which the tax increment financing district and the property that is the subject of the agreement is located. The assessor shall review the plans and specifications for the improvements to be constructed, review the market value previously assigned to the land upon which the improvements are to be constructed and, so long as the minimum market value contained in the assessment agreement appears, in the judgment of the assessor, to be a reasonable estimate, shall execute the following certification upon the agreement: The undersigned assessor, being legally responsible for the assessment of the above described property, certifies that the market values assigned to the land and improvements are reasonable. .The assessment agreement shall be filed for record and recorded in the office of the county recorder or the registrar of titles of each county where the real estate or any part thereof is situated. The assessor shall value the property under section 273. 11, except that the market value assigned shall not be less than the minimum market value established by the assessment agreement. The assessor may assign a market value to the property in excess of the minimum market value established by the assessment agreement. The owner of the property may seek, through the exercise of administrative and legal remedies, a reduction in market value for property tax purposes, but no city assessor, county assessor, county auditor, board of review, board of equalization, commissioner of revenue, or court of this state shall grant a reduction of the market value below the minimum market value established by the assessment agreement during the term of the agreement filed of record regardless of actual market values which may result from incomplete construction of improvements, destruction, or diminution by any cause, insured or uninsured, except in the case of acquisition or reacquisition of the property by a public entity. Recording an assessment agreement constitutes notice of the agreement to anyone who acquires any interest in the land or improvements that is subject to the assessment agreement, and the agreement is binding upon them. 0 JBD61182 RC125-45 o?0 " / S CERTIFICATION BY ASSESSOR The undersigned having review the plans and specifications for the improvements to be constructed and the market value assigned to the land upon which the improvements are to be constructed and being of the opinion that the minimum market value contained in the foregoing Amendment appears reasonable, hereby certifies as follows : The undersigned County Assessor for the City of Richfield, being legally 0 is responsible for the assessment of the above described property hereby certifies that the market value assigned to such land and improvements shall from the date of the Amendment and until January 2, 1995 not be less than $5,039,831; and from January 2, 1995 until the termination of this Amendment shall not be less than $6,104,800. The undersigned further certifies that the market values to be assigned to the individual parcels which comprise the Property shall be as stated in paragraph 3 of the Amendment for the period also stated therein. JBD61182 RC125-d5 County Assessor for the City of Richfield, Minnesota t9 CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Council Letter No. 358 Agenda December 13, 1993 Issue Statement: Resolution providing for the issuance and sale of $575,000 general obligation improvement refunding bonds, Series 1994A and resolution providing for the issuance and sale of $2,790,000 general obligation improvement refunding bonds, Series 1994B. Background: Upon request, Publicorp, Inc. has completed a preliminary analysis of the potential for refunding various bond issues for the City of Richfield. The current interest climate may provide an opportunity for the City to take advantage of some savings on the debt service of its outstanding bonds. After completing the analysis, Publicorp identified two outstanding bond issues which could be refunded in order to provide present value debt savings of approximately $175,000. This net savings would be after all fees and closing costs were paid. The two potential bond issues suitable for refunding are: ? G.O. Improvement Refunding Bonds of 1988 with a potential is savings of $136,000 or 5.2% of debt service over the life of the issue. (A preliminary review by Holmes & Graven indicates that a refunding bond under this situation is allowable.) ? G.O. Improvement Bonds of 1987 with a potential savings of $39,000 or 7.1% of debt service over the life of the issue. Both of these issues are crossover refundings with call dates on February 1, 1997. That means that the City would continue to make the current debt service payments until sometime after February 1, 1997. At that time the reduced debt service payments would come into effect. Thus, the actual savings would not be experienced until that time. The cost of issuance would be as follows: Underwriter's Discount $41,875 Closing Costs $52,125 The resolution formally authorizing the issuance of the refunding bonds is attached. Upon obtaining quotations for the refunding bonds, the City Council could decide not to complete the refunding bond sale if the projected savings do not meet the current projection. Recommended Motion: Adopt the attached resolutions authorizing the City's financial consultant, Publicorp, Inc. to obtain proposals for the sale of $575,000 and $2,790,000 refunding bonds. IG-I Basis of Recommendation: 1. An analysis of outstanding bond issues projects a net present value savings if refunding of two particular bond issues is undertaken. 2. The net present value savings are above the legal threshold to allow for refunding of the bonds. 3. The previously refunded bonds may be refunded another time. 4. Any net present value savings will reduce the City's future obligations for retirement of bonded debt. Alternative Recommendation: 1. Do not refund these bond issues and continue to retire the current debt. 2. Authorize a refunding issue for only one of the bond issues. Discussion/Decision Mode: A resolution authorizing this refunding sale should be considered at the December 13, 1993 City Council meeting to allow for a bid opening on January 24 of the next year. Respectfully submitted, i Jame Prosser City nager JDP:ds 11/17193 City Of Richfield - G.O. Refunding Bonds of 1994, Series A / /-C? Page 1 CASHFLOW ASSUMPTIONS - G.O. REFUNDING BONDS OF 1994, SERIES A REFUNDED BONDS: G. O. IMPROVEMENT BONDS OF 1987 Date Of Bonds: 02/01/1994 02/01/1994 Closing Date: Crossover Date: 02101/1997 Date Interest Starts: 02/01/1994 First Principal Payment Date: 02/01/1998 First Interest Payment Date: 08/01/1994 Final Maturity Date: 02/0112008 Principal Payments Per Year: 1 Interest Payments Per Year: 2 Term (Years): 14.000 Refunding Bond Size : 575,000.00 Refunded Principal Amount: 550,000.00 Accrued Interest Days: 0 Days from Closing to First Payment: 180 First Period Days: 180 Total Days Per Period: 180 _ SOURCES SUMMARY OF PURCHASE PRICE Par Value of Refunding Bonds 575,000.00 Par Amount Of Refunding Bonds 575,000.00 Less Discount 1.22% (7,000.00) Less Discount/Plus Premium: (7,000.00) Accrued Interest 0 Plus: Accrued Interest 0.00 Days At 0.00 0.00 Less: Insurance Premium 0.00 Funds From issuer 1,743.93 Adjusted Purchase Price 568,000.00 Total Sources 569,743.93 D.S. Present Value Amount - T.I.C. 568,000.00 Par Less Discount/Plus Premium (Net Price) 568,000.00 D.S. Present Value Amount - Yield 575,000.00 Par Plus Accrued Interest 575,000.00 USES SUMMARY OF YIELDS Par Value Of Investment 552,400.00 NEIR of Refunding Bonds 4.588186% Closing Costs 3.00% 17,250.00 Net Interest Cost $ of Refunding Bonds $233,997.50 • Beginning Balance In Escrow 93.93 T.I.C. of Refunding Bonds di B d R f 4.599462% 427990% 4 Other 0.00 on s un ng Bond Yield on e . Other 0.00 Total Bond Years - Refunding Bonds 5,100.00 Total Uses 569.743.93 Average Life - Refunding Bonds 8.8696 Average Life - Refunded Bonds 9.0000 Total Bond Years - Refunded Bonds 4,950.00 Actual Present Percent Interest Cost Value Value Difference Savings SUMMARY OF SAVINGS FROM CROSSOVER 4.427990% Debt Service on Refunded Bonds 784,100.00 546,957.85 Less Debt Service on Refunding Bonds 727,725.00 506,159.27 7.14% 34.76% Less Funds From Issuer 1,743.93 1,743.93 Plus Transfer to New Debt Service Fund 0.00 0.00 54 631.07 39.054.65 RI100-26 Prepared by Publicorp Inc. IMP87REF /93 • of the City of Richfield, Hennepin County, Minnesota, was held at the City Hall in Pursuant to due call and notice thereof a regular meeting of the City Council the City on Monday, December 13, 1993, commencing at 7:00 P.M. The following members of the Council were present: n U and the following were absent: Extract of Minutes of Meeting of the City Council of the City of Richfield, Hennepin County, Minnesota The following written resolution was presented by Councilmember who moved its adoption the reading of which had been dispensed with by unanimous consent: RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION PROVIDING FOR THE ISSUANCE AND SALE OF $575,000 GENERAL OBLIGATION IMPROVEMENT REFUNDING BONDS, SERIES 1994A BE IT RESOLVED By the City Council of the City of Richfield, Hennepin County, Minnesota (City) as follows : 1. It is hereby determined that: (a) the City is authorized by the provisions of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 475 (Act) and Section 475.67, Subdivision 13 of the Act to issue and sell its general obligation bonds to refund outstanding bonds when determined by the City Council to be necessary and desirable; 0 DJR62463 RC145-260 q- (b) it is necessary and desirable that the City issue $575,000 General Obligation Improvement Refunding Bonds, Series 1994A (Bonds) to refund in advance of.maturity and at their redemption date, certain outstanding general obligations of the City; (c) the outstanding bonds to be refunded (Refunded Bonds) consist of the $1,080,000 General Obligation Improvement Bonds, Series 1987, dated September 1, 1987, of which $550,000 in principal amount is callable on February 1, 1997. 2. To provide moneys to refund in advance of maturity the Refunded Bonds, the City will therefor issue and sell Bonds in the amount of $567,813. In order to provide in part the additional interest required to market the Bonds at this time, additional Bonds will be issued in the amount of $7,187. The excess of the purchase price of the Bonds over the sum of $567,813 will be credited to the debt service fund for the Bonds for the purpose of paying interest first coming due on such additional Bonds. The Bonds be issued, sold and delivered in accordance with the terms and conditions of the following Official Terms of Proposal: LJ DJK62463 RC145-260 /9-5- TERMS OF PROPOSAL $575,000* General Obligation Improvement Refunding Bonds, Series 1994A (the "Series 1994A Bonds") City of Richfield Hennepin County, Minnesota NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that sealed proposals for the purchase of the Series 1994A Bonds will be received until 11:00, a.m., C.T. on Monday, January 24, 1994, in the offices of Publicorp, Inc., 512 Crown Roller Mill, 105 Fifth Avenue South, Minneapolis, Minnesota, 55401, (612)341-3646 at which time the proposals will be opened and tabulated for consideration by the City Council at a meeting at 7:00 p.m. on the same day. The Series 1994A Bonds are offered on the following terms. Purpose and Securitv The Series 1994A Bonds will be general obligations of the City, for which its full faith, credit and taxing powers are pledged together with special assessments from benefitted properties. The purpose of the Series 1994A Bonds is to provide funds for the refunding of that portion of the City's $1,080,000 General Obligation Improvement Bonds of 1987 dated September 1, 1987, maturing on and after February 1, 1998, authorized and issued pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 475. Date and Maturities The Series 1994A Bonds will be issued in fully registered form, will be dated February 1, 1994, will be in denominations of integral multi ples of $5,000 each and will mature on February 1, in the years and amounts as follows: • Series 1994A Bonds" Date Amount Date Amount 1998 $55,000 2004 $50,000 1999 $55,000 2005 $50,000 2000 $55,000 2006 $50,000 2001 $55,000 2007 $50,000 2002 $55,000 2008 $50,000 2003 $50,000 Optional Redemption The City may elect on February 1, 2003 or on any date thereafter to redeem and prepay bonds of the Series 1994A Bonds maturing on or after February 1, 2004 at a price of par plus accrued interest to date of redemption. Prepayment may be in whole or in part and will be in inverse order of maturities and by lot within maturities. * The City reserves the right, after proposals are opened and prior to award, to increase or reduce the total principal amount of the Series 1994A Bonds offered for sale. Any such increase or reduction will be in a total amount not to exceed $40,000 and will be made in multiples of $5,000 in any of the maturities. In the event the total principal amount of the Series 1994A Bonds is increased or reduced, any premium offered or any discount taken and the purchase price will be increased or reduced by a percentage equal to the percentage by which the total principal amount of the Series 1994A • Bonds is increased or decreased. Interest . Interest on the Series 1994A Bonds will be payable on August 1, 1994, and semiannually thereafter on each February 1 and August 1. Bonds maturing on the same date must bear interest from date of issue until paid at a single, uniform rate, not exceeding the rate specified for bonds of any subsequent maturity. Each rate must be in an integral multiple of 1/20 or 1/8 of 1%. Registrar The City will name the Registrar which will be subject to applicable SEC regulations. Principal will be payable at the principal office of the Registrar and interest will be payable by check or draft of the Registrar mailed to the registered holder of a bond. The City will pay the reasonable and customary charges for the services of the Registrar. CUSIP Numbers The City will assume no obligation for the assignment or printing of CUSIP numbers on the Series 1994A Bonds or for the correctness of any numbers printed thereon, but will permit such numbers to be assigned and printed at the expense of the purchaser, if the purchaser waives any extension of the time of delivery caused thereby. Del ivery Within 40 days after sale the City will furnish and deliver to the office of the purchaser or, at its option, will deposit with a bank in the United States selected by it and approved by the City as its agent to permit examination by and to deliver to the purchaser, the printed and executed bonds, the unqualified opinion thereon of bond counsel, and a certificate stating that no litigation in any manner questioning their validity is then threatened or pending. The charge of the delivery agent must be paid by the purchaser but all other costs will be paid by the City. The purchase price must be paid upon delivery of the Series 1994A Bonds in funds available for expenditure by the City on the day of payment. Legal Opinion An unqualified legal opinion on the Series 1994A Bonds will be furnished by Holmes & Graven, Chartered, Minneapolis, Minnesota. The legal opinion will be printed on the bonds at the request of the purchaser. The legal opinion will state generally that the Series 1994A Bonds are valid and binding general obligations of the City, that the City is required by law to levy taxes for the principal and interest thereon as the same become due without limit as to rate or amount, and that the interest on the Series 1994A Bonds will not be subject to federal and state income taxes. Official Statement The City has authorized the preparation of an Official Statement containing pertinent information relative to the Series 1994A Bonds, and said Official Statement will serve as a nearly-final Official Statement as required by Rule 15c2-12 of the Securities and Exchange Commission. The Official Statement, when further supplemented by an addendum or addenda specifying the interest rates of the Series 1994A Bonds, together with any other information required by law, shall constitute a Final Official Statement of the City with respect to the Bonds, as that term is defined in Rule 15c2-12. By awarding the Series 1994A Bonds to any underwriter or underwriting syndicate submitting an official Proposal Form therefor, the City agrees that, no more than seven business days after the date of such award, it shall provide without cost to the senior managing underwriter of the syndicate to which the Series 1994A Bonds are awarded 25 copies of the Official Statement and the addenda described above. The City designates the senior managing underwriter of the syndicate to • which the Series 1994A Bonds are awarded as its agent for purposes of distributing copies of the Final Official Statement to each Participating Underwriter. Any underwriter executing and delivering an Official Proposal /Ci-? Form with respect to the Bonds agrees thereby that if its proposal is accepted by the City (i) it shall accept such designation and (ii) it shall enter into a contractual relationship with all Participating Underwriters of the Series • 1994A Bonds for purposes of assuring the receipt by each such Participating Underwriter of the Final Official Statement. Tvpe of Proposal - Amount Sealed proposals must be mailed or delivered to the undersigned and must be received prior to the time specified for the opening of proposals. The proposal authorizing the lowest true interest cost will be deemed the most favorable. No oral proposal and no proposal of less than $567,813 for principal plus accrued interest on all of the bonds will be considered. The City reserves the right to reject any and all proposals and to waive an informality in a proposal. A proposal must be unconditional and must be accompanied by a cashier's or certified check, bank draft, or Financial Surety Bond in the amount of $5,750 payable to the City of Richfield, to be retained by the City as liquidated damages if the proposal is accepted and the purchaser fails to comply therewith. If a Financial Surety Bond is used, it must be from an insurance company licensed to issue such a bond in the State of Minnesota and preapproved by the City. Such bond must be submitted to Publicorp, Inc. prior to the opening of the proposals. The Financial Surety Bond must identify each underwriter whose Deposit is guaranteed by such Financial Surety Bond. If the Series 1994A Bonds are awarded to an underwriter using a Financial Surety Bond, then that purchaser is required to submit its Deposit to the City in the form of a certified or cashier's check or wire transfer as instructed by the City not later than 3:00 p.m. central time on the next business day following the award. If such Deposit is not received by that time, the Financial Surety Bond may be drawn by the City to satisfy the Deposit requirement. The City will deposit the check of the purchaser and deduct the amount of the check from the settlement amount at the delivery of the Series 1994A Bonds. If a purchaser fails to comply with the Terms of Proposal, the amount of the deposit will be retained by the City. C? BY ORDER OF THE CITY COUNCIL /s/ Thomas Ferber City Clerk City of Richfield Dated: December 13, 1993. l cl - 9 3. Publicorp, Inc. is authorized and directed to negotiate the Bonds in accordance with the foregoing Terms of Proposal. The City Council will meet at 7: 00 p.m. on Monday, January 24, 1994, to consider proposals on the Bonds and take any other appropriate action with respect to the Bonds. The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by Councilmember and upon vote being taken thereon the following members voted in favor of the motion: and the following voted against: whereupon the resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. • • DJK62463 RC145-260 /9-7 STATE OF MINNESOTA ) • ) COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) CITY OF RICHFIELD ) I, the undersigned, being the duly qualified and acting Clerk of the City of Richfield, Minnesota, hereby certify that I have carefully compared the attached and foregoing extract of minutes of a regular meeting of the City Council of the City held on Monday, December 13, 1993, with the original minutes on file in my office and the extract is a full, true and correct copy of the minutes, insofar as they relate to the issuance and sale of $575,000 General Obligation Improvement Refunding Bonds, Series 1994A of the City. WITNESS My hand as City Clerk and the corporate seal of the City this day of , 1993. City Clerk City of Richfield, Minnesota (SEAL) • DJK62463 RC145-260 11/17/93 City Of Richfield - G.O. Refunding Bonds of 1994, Series B / q_ /D Page 1 CASHFLOW ASSUMPTIONS - G.O. REFUNDING BONDS OF 1994, SERIES B REFUNDED BONDS: G.O. IMPROVEMENT R EFUNDING BONDS OF 1988 Date Of Bonds: 02/01/1994 Closing Date: 02/0111994 Crossover Date: 02/01/1997 Date Interest Starts: 02/01/1994 First Principal Payment Date: 02/01/1998 First Interest Payment Date: 08/01/1994 F I M t ' D t• 02101/2004 ma a unty a e. Principal Payments Per Year: Interest Payments Per Year: Term (Years): Refunding Bond Size : Refunded Principal Amount: Accrued Interest Days: Days from Closing to First Payment: First Period Days: Total Days Per Period: SOURCES Par Value of Refunding Bonds 2,790,000.00 Less Discount 1.25% (34,875.00) Accrued Interest 0 Days At 0.00 0.00 Funds From Issuer 3,863.65 Total Sources 2.758.988.65 USES Par Value Of Investment 2,724,100.00 Closing Costs 1.25% 34,875.00 Beginning Balance In Escrow 13.65 Other 0.00 Other 0.00 Total Uses 2.758.988.65 2 10.000 2,790,000.00 2,720,000.00 0 180 180 180 SUMMARY OF PURCHASE PRICE Par Amount Of Refunding Bonds 2,790,000.00 Less Discount/Plus Premium: (34,875.00) Plus: Accrued Interest 0.00 Less: Insurance Premium 0.00 Adjusted Purchase Price 2,755.125.00 D.S. Present Value Amount - T.I.C. 2,755,125.00 Par Less Discount/Plus Premium (Net Price) 2,755,125.00 D.S. Present Value Amount - Yield 2,790,000.00 Par Plus Accrued Interest 2,790,000.00 SUMMARY OF YIELDS NEIR of Refunding Bonds 4.204170% Net Interest Cost $ of Refunding Bonds $715,760.00 T.I.C. of Refunding Bonds 4.229251% Bond Yield on Refunding Bonds 3.993495% Total Bond Years - Refunding Bonds 17,025.00 Average Life - Refunding Bonds 6.1022 Average Life - Refunded Bonds 6.1176 Total Bond Years - Refunded Bonds 16,640.00 is SUMMARY OF SAVINGS FROM CROSSOVER Debt Service on Refunded Bonds Less Debt Service on Refunding Bonds Less Funds From Issuer Plus Transfer to New Debt Service Fund Actual Present Percent Interest Cost Value Value Difference Savings 7311,760.00 3,140,660.00 3,863.65 0.00 167,236.35 3.993495% 2,622,253.91 2,481,677.41 5.21% 40.74% 3,863.65 0.00 136,712.85 RI 100-26 Prepared by Publicorp Inc. IMP88REF /q-11 Extract of Minutes of Meeting of the City Council of the City of Richfield, Hennepin County, Minnesota Pursuant to due call and notice thereof a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Richfield, Hennepin County, Minnesota, was held at the City Hall in the City on Monday, December 13, 1993, commencing at 7:00 P.M. The following members of the Council were present: and the following were absent: 0 The following written resolution was presented by Councilmember who moved its adoption the reading of which had been dispensed with by unanimous consent: RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION PROVIDING FOR THE ISSUANCE AND SALE OF $2,790,000 GENERAL OBLIGATION IMPROVEMENT REFUNDING BONDS, SERIES 1994B BE IT RESOLVED By the City Council of the City of Richfield, Hennepin County, Minnesota (City) as follows: 1. It is hereby determined that : (a) the City is authorized by the provisions of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 475 (Act) and Section 475.67, Subdivision 13 of the Act to issue and sell its general obligation bonds to refund outstanding bonds when determined by the City Council to be necessary and desirable; . DJX62463 RC145-260 (b) " it is necessary and desirable that the City issue $2,790,000 General Obligation Improvement Refunding Bonds, Series 1994B (Bonds) to refund in advance of maturity and at their redemption date, certain outstanding general obligations of the City, (c) the outstanding bonds to be refunded (Refunded Bonds) consist of the $4;555,000 General Obligation Improvement Bonds, Series 1988, dated October 1, 1988, of which $2,720,000 in principal amount is callable on February 1, 1997. 2. To provide moneys to refund in advance of maturity the Refunded Bonds, the City will therefor issue and sell Bonds in the amount of $2,755,125. In order to provide in part the additional interest required to market the Bonds at this time, additional Bonds will be issued in the amount of $34,875. The excess of the purchase price of the Bonds over the sum of $2,755,125 will be credited to the debt service fund for the Bonds for the purpose of paying interest first coming due on such additional Bonds. The Bonds be issued, sold and delivered in accordance with the terms and conditions of the following Official Terms of Proposal: DJK62463 RC145-260 /-9-/3 TERMS OF PROPOSAL $2,790,000* General Obligation Improvement Refunding Bonds, Series 19940 (the "Series 1994B Bonds") City of Richfield Hennepin County, Minnesota NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that sealed proposals for the purchase of the Series 1994B Bonds will be received until 11:00, a.m., C.T. on Monday, January 24, 1994, in the offices of Publicorp, Inc., 512 Crown Roller Mill, 105 Fifth Avenue South, Minneapolis, Minnesota, 55401, (612)341-3646 at which time the proposals will be opened and tabulated for consideration by the City Council at a meeting at 7:00 p.m. on the same day. The Series 1994B Bonds are offered on the following terms. Purpose and Security The Series `19946 Bonds will be general obligations of the City, for which its full faith, credit and taxing powers are pledged together with special assessments from benefitted properties. The purpose of the Series 1994B Bonds is to provide funds for the refunding of that portion of the City's $4,555,000 General Obligation Improvement Refunding Bonds of 1988 dated October 1, 1988, maturing on and after February 1, 1998, authorized and issued pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 475. Date and Maturities The Series 1994B Bonds will be issued in fully registered form, will be dated February 1, 1994, will be in denominations of integral multiples of $5,000 each and will mature on February 1, in the years and amounts as follows: Date 1998 1999 2000 2001 Serie Amount $ 520,000 $540,000 $545,000 $565,000 s 1994B Bonds* Date Amount 2002 $580,000 2003 $20,000 2004 $20,000 Optional Redemption The City may elect on February 1, 2003 or on any date thereafter to redeem and prepay bonds of the Series 1994B Bonds maturing on or after February 1, 2004 at a price of par plus accrued interest to date of redemption. Prepayment may be in whole or in part and will be in inverse order of maturities and by lot within maturities. * The City reserves the right, after proposals are opened and prior to award, to increase or reduce the total principal amount of the Series 19948 Bonds offered for sale. Any such increase or reduction will be in a total amount not to exceed $80,000 and will be made in multiples of $5,000 in any of the maturities. In the event the total principal amount of the Series 19946 Bonds is increased or reduced, any premium offered or any discount taken and the purchase price will be increased or reduced by a percentage equal to the percentage by which the total principal amount of the Series 19948 Bonds is increased or decreased. Interest interest on the Series 19948 Bonds will be payable on August 1, 1994, and semiannually thereafter on each February 1 and A'gust 1. Bonds maturing on the same date must bear interest from date of issue until paid at a single, uniform rate, not exceeding the rate specified for bonds of any subsequent maturity. Each rate must be in an integral multiple of 1/20 or 1/8 of 1 %. Registrar The City will name the Registrar which will be subject to applicable SEC regulations. Principal will be payable at the principal office of the Registrar and interest will be payable by check or draft of the Registrar mailed to the registered holder of a bond. The City will pay the reasonable and customary charges for the services of the Registrar. CUSIP Numbers The City will assume no obligation for the assignment or printing of CUSIP numbers on the Series 1994B Bonds or for the correctness of any numbers printed thereon, but will permit such numbers to be assigned and printed at the expense of the purchaser, if the purchaser waives any extension of the time of delivery caused thereby. Delivery Within 40 days after sale the City will furnish and deliver to the office of the purchaser or, at its option, will deposit with a bank in the United States selected by it and approved by the City as its agent to permit examination by and to deliver to the purchaser, the printed and executed bonds, the unqualified opinion thereon of bond counsel, and a certificate stating that no litigation in any manner questioning their validity is then threatened or pending. The charge of the delivery agent must be paid by the purchaser but all other costs will be paid by the City. The purchase price must be paid upon delivery of the Series 1994B Bonds in funds available for expenditure by the City on the day of payment. Legal Opinion An unqualified legal opinion on the Series 1994B Bonds will be furnished by Holmes & Graven, Chartered, Minneapolis, Minnesota. The legal opinion will be printed on the bonds at the request of the purchaser. The legal opinion will state generally that the Series 19948 Bonds are valid and binding general obligations of the City, that the City is required by law to levy taxes for the principal and interest thereon as the same become due without limit as to rate or amount, and that the interest on the Series 19948 Bonds will not be subject to federal and state income taxes. Official Statement The City has authorized the preparation of an Official Statement containing pertinent information relative to the Series 1994B Bonds, and said Official Statement will serve as a nearly-final Official Statement as required by Rule 15c2-12 of the Securities and Exchange Commission. The Official Statement, when further supplemented by an addendum or addenda specifying the interest rates of the Series 1994B Bonds, together with any other information required by law, shall constitute a Final Official Statement of the City with respect to the Bonds, as that term is defined in Rule 15c2-12. By awarding the Series 1994B Bonds to any underwriter or underwriting syndicate submitting an official Proposal Form therefor, the City agrees that, no more than seven business days after the date of such award, it shall provide without cost to the senior managing underwriter of the syndicate to which the Series 1994B Bonds are awarded 25 copies of the Official Statement and the addenda described above. The City designates the senior managing underwriter of the syndicate to which the Series 1994B Bonds are awarded as its agent for purposes of distributing copies of the Final Official Statement to each Participating Underwriter. Any underwriter executing and delivering an Official Proposal /9-157 Form with respect to the Bonds agrees thereby that if its proposal is accepted by the City (i) it shall accept such designation and (ii) it shall enter into a contractual relationship with all Participating Underwriters of the Series 1994B Bonds for purposes of assuring the receipt by each such Participating Underwriter of the Final Official Statement. Tvpe of Proposal - Amount Sealed proposals must be mailed or delivered to the undersigned and must be received prior to the time specified for the opening of proposals. The proposal authorizing the lowest true interest cost will be deemed the most favorable. No oral proposal and no proposal of less than $2,755,125 for principal plus accrued interest on all of the bonds will be considered. The City reserves the right to reject any and all proposals and to waive an informality in a proposal. A proposal must be unconditional and must be accompanied by a cashier's or certified check, bank draft, or Financial Surety Bond in the amount of $27,900 payable to the City of Richfield, to be retained by the City as liquidated damages if the proposal is accepted and the purchaser fails to comply therewith. If a Financial Surety Bond is used, it must be from an insurance company licensed to issue such a bond in the State of Minnesota and preapproved by the City. Such bond must be submitted to Publicorp, Inc. prior to the opening of the proposals. The Financial Surety Bond must identify each underwriter whose Deposit is guaranteed by such Financial Surety Bond. If the Series 1994B Bonds are awarded to an underwriter using a Financial Surety Bond, then that purchaser is required to submit its Deposit to the City in the form of a certified or cashier's check or wire transfer as instructed by the City not later than 3:00 p.m. central time on the next business day following the award. If such Deposit is not received by that time, the Financial Surety Bond may be drawn by the City to satisfy the Deposit requirement. The City will deposit the check of the purchaser and deduct the amount of the check from the settlement amount at the delivery of the Series 1994B Bonds. If a purchaser fails to comply with the Terms of Proposal, the amount of the deposit will be retained by the City. BY ORDER OF THE CITY COUNCIL /s/ Thomas Ferber City Clerk City of Richfield Dated: December 13, 1993. lq-llv 3. Publicorp, Inc. is authorized and directed to negotiate the Bonds in accordance with the foregoing Terms of Proposal. The City Council will meet at 7: 00 p.m. on Monday, January 24, 1994, to consider proposals on the Bonds and take any other appropriate action with respect to the Bonds. The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by Councilmember , and upon vote being taken thereon the following members voted in favor of the motion: and the following voted against: whereupon the resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. DJK62463 RC145-260 iq-/7 STATE OF MINNESOTA ) COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) CITY OF RICHFIELD ) I, the undersigned, being the duly qualified and acting Clerk of the City of Richfield, Minnesota, hereby certify that I have carefully compared the attached and foregoing extract of minutes of a regular meeting of the City Council of the City held on Monday, December 13, 1993, with the original minutes on file in my office and the extract is a full, true and correct copy.of the minutes, insofar as they relate to the issuance and sale of $2,790,000 General Obligation Improvement Refunding Bonds, Series 1994B of the City. WITNESS My hand as City Clerk and the corporate seal of the City this day of 0 , 1993. City Clerk City of Richfield, Minnesota (SEAL) DJ862463 RC145-260 IE 9 CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Council Letter No. 357 Agenda December 13, 1993 Issue Statement: Resolution giving preliminary approval to the issuance of refunding bonds in connection with the Market Towers Apartments project under MN Statutes, Chapter 462C and authorizing preparation of necessary documents. Background: The City of Richfield is authorized by MN Statutes, Chapter 462C to issue revenue bonds for the purpose of financing the acquisition and construction of multifamily rental housing. Under that authority, the City issued $8,250,000 multifamily housing revenue bonds in 1985 for the Market Plaza Housing Project. This financed a 166 unit housing project located at 6501 Woodlake Drive. On February 8, 1993, the City Council approved a resolution amending the indentures relating to the bonds for Market Plaza and Market Towers. This enabled the purchase of bonds from the Resolution Trust Corporation (RTC) which had acquired the initial bonds from Midwest Federal. This temporary refinancing enabled the project to secure more favorable financing terms and proceed with remodeling and upgrading the project. The partnership is now working with representative from Dain Bosworth to convert this temporary financing arrangement to a long-term bond arrangement. To that end, Dain Bosworth is confident that it will be able to place the bonds sometime in January 1994. In essence, the requested action is a preliminary approval for the sale of revenue bonds estimated not to exceed $8,010,000 to finance the refunding of the outstanding bonds. The City Council will have the opportunity for final consideration of this matter early in 1994. The issuance of the requested $8,010,000 Housing Revenue Bonds does not represent an obligation of the City. The bonds, if issued, are payable solely from the revenues received from the project and property pledged to the payment of the bonds. A representative of Market Plaza Housing Limited Partnership will be present at the December 13 City Council meeting to answer questions regarding this requested authority. In addition, the Holmes & Graven law firm is serving as bond council to assist in the preparation and review of necessary bond documents. Recommended Motion: Adopt the resolution giving preliminary approval for issuance of • refunding bonds for the Market Towers Apartment Project and authorize the preparation of necessary documents. I ?-l Basis of Recommendation: . 1. According to the law firm of Holmes & Graven, it appears to be in the best interests of the City to issue these revenue bonds under Chapter 462C. 2. The refunding bonds will provide new permanent financing for the project and help to ensure its financial stability. 3. There is no obligation for the City to back these bonds, as they are backed solely by revenues received from the project. Alternative Recommendation: 1. The City could decline to issue these revenue bonds. Discussion/Decision Mode: In order to proceed with the bond offering in early January, City Council approval is needed at the December 13, 1993 meeting to allow sufficient time to execute the necessary documents and notices. Respec fully submitted, Jam D. Prosser Cit Manager 0 JDP:ds CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Council Letter No. 35 Agenda February 8, 1993 Issue Statement: Amendment of Indenture relating to bonds for Market Plaza/Market Towers. Background: The limited partnerships that own Market Plaza and Market Towers are in the process of restructuring the financing in order to facilitate refinancing, remodeling, repositioning and upgrade. The initial bond financing was through Midwest Federal which was taken over and the bonds now held by the Resolution Trust Corporation (RTC). The purchase of the bonds from RTC can be 'accomplished`on favorable terms but the transfer of bonds requires certain changes by the City in the Indenture. Counsel has informed the City that the changes will not jeopardize the City's position and, in the long run, the improvements contemplated may be advantageous to the tax base of the City. Any physical changes proposed or new replacement financing will have to be specifically reviewed by the HRA and City. The approval requested does not require that any subsequent requests for change be approved. Recommended Motion: • Approve the resolutions amending the Indentures relating to the bonds for Market Plaza and Market Towers. Basis of Recommendation: 1. The City and the trustees owning Market Plaza and Market Towers entered into Indentures as part of the original financing. 2. The Resolution Trust Corporation has acquired the bonds through Midwest Federal Savings. 3. To permit the transfer of these bonds with a tax preference, it is necessary for the Indenture to be amended as follows: A. Change the rate on the bonds to a fixed rate of 4% per annum. B. Provide that the trustee will not take action to enforce the remedies available without the written direction of the bondholder. C. Removal of the requirement for any reserves and authorizing the release, within the opinion of bond counsel, of those reserves to the Borrower. D. Removal of the requirement for the Letter of Credit. 4? 18-3 E. Removal of the requirement for collateral security for the Letter of Credit obligation. 4. Legal counsel for the City is of the opinion that approval of the changes by the City is necessary to retain the tax .exemption of the bonds and will not be detrimental to the City. 5. Any changes to the layout or operation of Market Plaza/Market Towers or refinancing will have to be reviewed by the City and HRA when presented. Alternative Recommendation: Deny approval of the resolution, which action will prevent transfer of the bonds. Discussion/Decision Mode: Petitioner states that action is necessary at the February 8, 1993 City Council meeting in order to comply with an RTC time deadline. Respe y submitted, rosser Jame rager City 0 JDP:cak 18-y CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA • RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION GIVING PRELIMINARY APPROVAL TO THE ISSUANCE OF REFUNDING BONDS IN CONNECTION WITH THE MARKET TOWERS APARTMENTS PROJECT UNDER MINNESOTA STATUTES, CHAPTER 462C AND AUTHORIZING PREPARATION OF NECESSARY DOCUMENTS WHEREAS, the City of Richfield (the "City") is authorized by the provisions of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 462C to issue its revenue bonds for the purpose of financing the acquisition and construction of multifamily rental housing; and WHEREAS, the City has previously issued its $8,250,000 Multifamily Housing Revenue Bonds, Series 1985 (Market Plaza Housing Project) (the "Refunded Bonds"), the proceeds of which Refunded Bonds were loaned to Market Plaza Housing Limited Partnership, a Minnesota limited partnership (the "Borrower") to finance a 166-unit multifamily housing project located at 6501 Woodlake Drive in the City (the "Project") ; and WHEREAS, the Borrower has requested the City to issue its multifamily housing refunding revenue bonds in an aggregate principal amount not to exceed $8,010,000 (collectively, the "Bonds"), in order to finance a loan to be made to the Borrower for the purpose of refunding the Refunded Bonds; WHEREAS, the City has been advised by the Borrower that on the basis of information submitted to them and their discussions with representatives of area financial institutions and potential buyers of tax-exempt bonds, revenue bonds of the City could be issued and sold upon favorable rates and terms to finance the refunding of the Refunded Bonds; and WHEREAS, on the basis of information given the City to date, it appears that it would be in the best interest of the City to issue its revenue bonds under the provisions of Chapter 462C, in an amount presently estimated not to exceed $8,010,000 to finance the refunding of the Refunded Bonds; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT: 1. The issuance of the Bonds is hereby given preliminary approval by the City in an amount not to exceed $8,010,000, subject to the mutual agreement of this body, the Borrower and the initial purchaser of the Bonds as to the details of the Bonds and provisions for their payment. In all events, it is understood, however, that the Bonds of the City shall not constitute a charge, lien or encumbrance legal or equitable upon any property of the City except the Project, and the Bonds, when, as, and if issued, shall recite in substance that the Bonds, including interest thereon, are payable solely from the revenues received from the Project and property pledged to the payment thereof, and shall not constitute a debt of the City. 2. The law firm of Holmes & Graven, Chartered, is authorized to act as Bond Counsel and to assist in the preparation and review of necessary documents relating to the Project and Bonds issued in connection therewith. The Mayor, City Manager, and other officers, employees and agents of the City are hereby authorized to assist Bond Counsel in the preparation of such documents. SNG62552 RC145-262 18-S 3. The Borrower has agreed to pay directly or through the City any and all cost incurred by the City in connection with the Project or the Bonds whether or not the Bonds or operative instruments are executed. 4. The adoption of this Resolution does not constitute a guarantee or firm commitment that the City will issue the Bonds as requested by the Borrower. The City retains the right in its sole discretion to withdraw from participation and accordingly not to issue the Bonds, or issue the Bonds in an amount less that.the amount referred to herein, should the City at any time prior to issuance thereof determine that it is in the best interest of the City not to issue the Bonds, or to issue the Bonds in an amount less than the amount referred to in paragraph 1 hereof, or should the parties to the transaction be unable to reach agreement as to the terms and conditions of any of the documents required for the transaction. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota on the 13th day of December 1993. Mayor Attest : 0 City Clerk • SNG62552 RC165-262 CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA • Council Letter No. 356 Agenda December 13, 1993 Issue Statement: Authorization to purchase 1524 and 1600 East 77th Street and adjoining vacant parcel; 77th Street Project. Background: The City Council on August 23, 1993 authorized the purchase of this property at $996,600 (value of real estate only). The offer was presented to the owner in early September. On September 27, 1993 the City Council authorized condemnation. At the time, it was to be a "friendly" condemnation. The owner was supportive of a process which allowed the City to take title and possession in September. This process included payment of the initial offer amount and continued negotiations to arrive at a final value. However, the owner subsequently altered this position. Now, the owner does want to schedule a transaction until a final total purchase price is determined either through voluntary negotiations or condemnation. An opportunity to settle voluntarily is now available. The owner has consistently maintained the position that the property is worth $1.5 million. Recently his request was reduced to $1,300,000. He is now agreeable to selling at $1,245,000. This • amount would include payment for real estate, relocation payments for which the owner may be eligible, and lost rents. Following the selection by the district court of the condemnation commissioners, staff reviewed the status of negotiations. The project had offered to pay approximately $1 million dollars for the property. Thus there was a spread of $300,000. The Commissioners were likely to split the difference. The project appraisers indicated that the apartment market had improved in the six months since the appraisal was completed. They were going to adjust their value by approximately $50,000. Fees which would be incurred for work on the condemnation hearings by attorneys and appraisers and commissioners for which the project would be responsible were estimated at approximately $35,000. The owner was also in the process of filing a civil suit in district court for damages which he claimed resulted from the condemnation process. This action would have cost several thousand dollars just to argue in court. Any award would have been an additional cost. Finally, there was the issue of lost rent resulting from the relocation process. Lost rent resulted because tenants were eligible for relocation benefits and could move after the offer to purchase was made to the owner. As tenants started moving out, to protect his cash flow, the owner advertised the vacant units for re-rental. The • least cost approach for the 77th Street Project was to make payments equal to the monthly rents to the'owner for those units vacated to avoid having them occupied. New tenants would have /'3 • been eligible for relocation benefits just as were the previous tenants. The lost rent payment has been estimated at approximately $28,000 for the October, November, December period. Conversations with the MnDOT relocation supervisor and the FHWA regional relocation supervisor in Chicago confirmed that the least cost approach would be to have the project "rent" the units. Recommended Motion: Adopt the attached resolution which authorizes purchase at $1,245,000 and the City Manager.and Mayor to sign documents to effectuate the purchase at this price. Basis of Recommendation: 1. A negotiated settlement has the advantage of avoiding the uncertainty of the condemnation process. 2. The condemnation process is not very likely to result in a number less than $1,245,000 and could be higher. 3. The acquisition will be grant reimbursable on the same basis as other project costs. 4. MnDOT/FHWA procedures have been followed. Alternative Recommendation: • Reject the proposed settlement. Discussion/Decision Mode: The proposed settlement is based on closing on or before December 15, 1993. submitted, James Prosser City 'Manager JDP:cak 0 RESOLUTION NO. / 1- 9 THE CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING PURCHASE OF REAL PROPERTY WHEREAS, the City of Richfield, Minnesota desires to purchase certain real property pursuant to and in furtherance of the 77th Street Project (Project) heretofore adopted by the City of Richfield (City) said real property located at 1524 and 1600 East 77th Street being described as follows: Tracts C, D, and E, Registered Land Survey No. 1003, according to the map or plat thereof on file or of record in the office of the Registrar of Titles in and for Hennepin County, Minnesota; and WHEREAS, on August 23, 1993, the City did set and approve just compensation for said real property in the amount of $996,600; and WHEREAS, said properties are two (2), twenty three (23) unit, multi-family rental apartment buildings with tenants currently residing on premises whose occupancy will cease at various times, and an adjacent undeveloped parcel of land; and WHEREAS, on September 27, 1993 the City Council authorized condemnation of said real property; and WHEREAS, an opportunity to settle with the owner on value of said real property is now available; and WHEREAS, the owner is agreeable to selling said real property at $1,245,000; and WHEREAS, no additional dollars would be paid to the owner for relocation benefits; and WHEREAS, acceptance of said offer by the City would avoid the necessity for continuing with the condemnation process and, therefore, obtaining title in a timely manner. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota as follows: 1. That it is in the best interest of the City and this project to pay $1,245,000 as the result of a negotiated settlement. 0 2. That the City Manager and Mayor are authorized to execute those documents necessary to effectuate a purchase. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this 13th day of December, 1993. Martin J. Kirsch, Mayor ATTEST: Thomas P. Ferber, City Clerk A0 CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Council Letter No. 355 Agenda December 13, 1993 Issue Statement: Public hearing and second reading of an ordinance amendment to rezone the following MR (multiple residence) properties: 1) 6615 Elliot Avenue, 6614 and 6615-10th Avenues, and 6614-11th Avenue to R (single family residence); 2) 901 East 66th Street and 6600- 10th Avenue to MR-2; and 3) a small parcel of land within Veterans Memorial Park (at 64th and Portland) to R. Background: Staff is reviewing the zoning ordinance for revision and update. Initial analysis indicates that the MR district is not effective because its provisions are incomplete, outdated and ambiguous. The MR district has no density limitation and incorporates the single family uses of the R district as well as the two family, multi-family and group housing developments. The MR district was the original and only multi-family district when Richfield's growth occurred. Later, the MR-1 (two family), MR-2 (multi-family), and MR-3 (high density multi-family) districts were created to provide more precise controls for the expanding variety of multi-family housing. When the MR-1, MR-2 and MR-3 districts were added, most MR zoned land was rezoned to fit into that classification system. The intention was for all MR zoned land to be rezoned but approximately 45 parcels of land are still zoned MR. These parcels are being evaluated and presented for reclassification to the most appropriate land use zone. The proposed zoning designations for the subject parcels are consistent with existing land use. Recommended Motion: Adopt the attached ordinance amendment approving the rezoning of 6615 Elliot Avenue, 6614 and 6615-10th Avenues, and 6614-11th Avenue from MR to R, the rezoning of 901 East 66th Street and 6600-10th Avenue from MR to MR-2, and the rezoning of a small parcel of land within Veterans Memorial Park (at 64th and, Portland) from MR to R. Basis of Recommendation: 1. This rezoning will help to bring the zoning map up to date with current land use practices and the comprehensive plan. 2. An MR zone is no longer an appropriate zoning district in the City and an update to a more appropriate district is called for whether or not the text of the zoning ordinance is changed. 3. If the text of the zoning ordinance is updated to eliminate the MR district," then it would be apropos to have rezoned such designated areas before the text change. 4. The proposed R zoning is most appropriate for the existing single family uses at 6615 Elliot Avenue, 6614 & 6615-10th Avenues, and 6614-11th Avenue, while offering proper regulatory control for present and future land uses. 5. The proposed MR-2 zoning is most appropriate for the existing 11 unit apartment use at 901 East 66th Street, and would ensure that higher density development (as allowed under the MR provisions) does not occur. 6. The proposed MR-2 zoning is most appropriate for the existing 12 unit apartment use at 6600-10th Avenue, and would ensure that higher density development (as allowed under the MR provisions) does not occur. 7. The proposed R zoning is most appropriate for the,park land use at Veterans Memorial Park (64th and Portland) and would eliminate an inconsistent spot zone of MR. 8. On October 26, 1993, the Planning Commission voted unanimously to recommend approval of the rezoning. Alternative Recommendation: The City Council could deny this rezoning with a finding that such rezoning would have an adverse impact on the subject parcels, adjacent properties or the City as a whole. Discussion/Decision Mode: A public hearing and second reading is scheduled at 7 p.m. on Monday, December 13, 1993. The hearing will be held in the City Council Chambers of Richfield City Hall, 6700 Portland Avenue. Notice of the hearing was published in the Sun-Current and mailed to property owners within 350 feet of the subject properties. Resp lly submitted, James Prosser City anager JDP:ds 1 6- D- Bill No. 1993- AMENDMENT TO APPENDIX I OF THE CITY ZONING CODE OF THE CITY OF RICHFIELD THE CITY OF RICHFIELD DOES ORDAIN: Appendix I which describes the boundaries of the various zoning districts of the City is hereby amended in the following respect: Section 5, Paragraph (16) is amended to read as follows: (16) Traets B, G, D, and E of Registered Land Survey N 2-546. [Repealed]. Section 5, Paragraph (18) is amended to read as follows: (18) I-ezs 1-4 and 15, Bleek 2, and Lots 4 and 15, Bleel? 1, Terraee-Gardens Additie .[Repealed]. Section 12, Paragraph (34) is amended to read as follows: (34) Lots 1-3, Block 2, Terrace Gardens Addition. This amendment constitutes a rezoning of the following properties: 1) rezone 6615 Elliot Avenue, 6614 and 6615-10th Avenues, and 6614-11th Avenue from MR to R; 2) rezone 901 East 66th Street and 6600-10th Avenue from MR to MR-2; and 3) rezone a small parcel of land within Veterans Memorial,Park (at 64th and Portland) from MR to R. Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this 13th day of December, 1993. Martin J. Kirsch, Mayor ATTEST: Thomas P. Ferber, City Clerk • REZONING PLAN i EXISTING LAND USE EXISTING ZONING PROPOSED ZONING 66TH ST. 66TH ST. 66TH ST. 901 901 901 0 0 co o 4e N a N a ?- r ? r r r b ?O m tC c0 O W a a a O = O = O = J p J p J O W r lu r w r moo 67TH ST. 67TH ST. 67TH ST. MR MR-2 R 901 East 66th St. 6615 Elliot Ave. 6600 10th Ave. wed 6614 10th Ave. ' . PLANNING . N(T) ZONING Community Developrnmrt Daparbmni 11 UNIT APT. BLDG. 12 UNIT APT. BLDG. SIN LE FA MILY R EZONING PLAN EXISTING LAND USE EXISTING ZONING PROPOSED ZONING 66TH ST. 66TH ST. 66TH ST. a co to 0 co 0 co co m co Q Q Q Q Q Q N = = = H F - H F - F - O r r r O r r r O r r r 67TH ST. 67TH ST. 67TH ST. 11 UNIT APT. BLDG.. 11 UNIT APT. BLDG. SING LE FA MILY RE EXISTING LAND USE CROS!T NiH?WY?. 62 'j::t WJ uj DUPLEX z fR PARK 64 !J W C Q W Q 0 J AMER. LEGION U5 a ;3?2 RIT CHAPEL AS STORE 66 17 GAS STA. PRINTING ZONING PLAN EXISTING ZONING CRR0S Ta? Nat.. 2 PROPOSED ZONING CROSgrCjWN?HW; 62 JJJJ J J J JJ J J J J J J J J JJJJ J J J J J JJJJ J J J J J J J J J J J J J J JJJJ JJJ JJJJ JJJJ J J J J J J J J 66 . ! J J J J J J J J j j J J J J J J J J J J J l JJJ JJJJ JJJJJJ J JJJJ JJJJ J J J J J J Yuj OQ J J J JJJJ JJJJ JJJJ J J J J JJJJ JJ J J J J 3 JJJJJJ J J J J b4aW Oa Park land within Veterans Memorial Park ® MR mom ft$6"41" MR-, PLANNING JJJJJJJJJ ¦_-Z ZONING R Community Dcvelopment DaparOmnt ¦ :I • CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Council Letter No. 354 Agenda December 13, 1993 Issue Statement: Renewal of a 1994 pawnbroker and secondhand goods dealer license for Plaza Pawn, 6414 Nicollet Avenue. Background: On October 29, 1993, the City received the application and other required documents for the pawnbroker and secondhand goods dealer license for Plaza Pawn. The applicant has paid the required license fees. The Public Safety background investigation has been completed and reveals the following: ? Dorothy Krieger is the owner of this establishment, and Hal Krieger is the manager. They have no known criminal records. ? Ms. Krieger holds a Federal Firearms License - U. S. Treasury Bureau of Tobacco, Alcohol and Firearms and has a City Firearm Dealer's License. ? A copy of the Articles of Incorporation have been provided and are on file with the City. ? The $1,500 bond issued by Truck Insurance Exchange has been submitted. From November of 1992 through October 1993 there were five Public Safety contacts with Plaza Pawn. This compares with ten contacts for the previous year. A breakdown of these contacts is attached to this letter. Environmental health staff have not received any complaints in 1993. The owner of the business continues to act in a cooperative manner with the Public Safety Department on the recovery of stolen articles. Recommended Motion: Approve the renewal of pawnbroker and secondhand goods dealer license for Plaza Pawn for 1994. Basis for Recommendation: 1. The applicant has complied with all of the provisions of the City codes pertaining to pawnbroker and secondhand goods dealer licensing. 2. Based upon the information supplied by the applicant and the investigation conducted, there appears-to be no reason to deny the issuance of the license requested. /5-( • Alternative Recommendation: 1. The Council could decide to continue the hearing, however, if the hearing is continued beyond January 1, 1994, the Council should consider the granting of a temporary license to allow the applicant to continue his pawnbroker and secondhand goods dealer business until the rescheduled hearing can be conducted. Discussion/Decision Mode: The public hearing to consider the request for the renewal of Plaza Pawn's pawnbroker and secondhand goods dealer license has been scheduled for December 13, 1993. Their current license will expire January 1, 1994. Therefore, if the Council decides to continue the hearing beyond December 13, any subsequent hearing should be held before the licenses expire. submitted, Resp7mgeor Jamesser City JDP:ds /S-a 0 9 PUBLIC SAFETY CONTACTS NOVEMBER 1992 THROUGH OCTOBER 1993 PLAZA PAWN 1992 1993 Total Contacts 10 5 Criminal contacts 9 5 Alarms (2) (1) Misc. Non-Criminal 1 0 Assists (1) (0) Traffic/Parking (0) (0) Medical/Fire (0) (0) Inspections (0) (0) The criminal contacts for 1993 were two posses-receive-sell property, one assist other agency, one robbery alarm and one . other theft. (Numbers in parenthesis are included in total contact figures) 0 CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Council Letter No. 353 Agenda December 13, 1993 Issue Statement: Renewal of a 1994 pawnbroker and secondhand goods dealer license for Firearm Systems and Design, d/b/a The Gun Shop and Pawnbroker, 7529 Lyndale Avenue. Background: On November 15, 1993, the City received the application and other required documents for the pawnbroker and secondhand goods dealer license for Firearm Systems and Design. The applicant has paid the required license fees. The Public Safety background investigation has been completed and reveals the following: - Patrick Teel is owner and manager of this establishment. He has no known criminal record. - Mr. Teel holds a Federal Firearms License - U. S. Treasury Bureau of Tobacco, Alcohol and Firearms and a City Firearms Dealer License. - A copy of the Articles of Incorporation and the By-Laws have is been provided and are on file with the City. - The $1,500 bond will be submitted as soon as it is received. From November of 1992 through October 1993 there were 25 Public Safety contacts with Firearm Systems and Design. This compares with ten contacts for the previous year. A breakdown of these contacts is attached to this letter. Environmental health staff have not received any complaints in 1993. The owner of the business continues to act in a cooperative manner with the Public Safety Department on the recovery of stolen articles. Recommended Motion: Approve the renewal of pawnbroker and secondhand goods dealer license for Firearm Systems and Design, d/b/a The Gun Shop and Pawnbroker for 1994. Basis for Recommendation: 1. The applicant has complied with all of the provisions of the City codes pertaining to pawnbroker and secondhand goods dealer licensing. • 2. Based upon the information supplied by the applicant and the investigation conducted, there appears to be no reason to deny the renewal of the licenses requested. N-1 • Alternative Recommendation: 1. The Council could decide to continue the hearing, however, if the hearing is continued beyond January 1, 1994, the Council should consider the granting of a temporary license to allow the applicant to continue his pawnbroker and secondhand goods dealer business until the rescheduled hearing can be conducted. Discussion/Decision Mode: The public hearing to consider the request for the renewal of Firearm Systems and Design, d/b/a The Gun Shop and Pawnbrokers secondhand goods dealer and pawnbroker license has been scheduled for December 13, 1993. Their current license will expire January 1, 1994. Therefore, if the Council decides to continue the hearing beyond December 13, any subsequent hearing should be scheduled appropriately. Respectfu y submitted, James Prosser City M' ager U JDP:ds 0 / (4-a PUBLIC SAFETY CONTACTS NOVEMBER 1992 THROUGH OCTOBER 1993 THE GUN SHOP AND PAWNBROKER Total Contacts 1992 10 1993 25 Criminal Contacts Alarms 10 (2) 23 (6) Misc. Non-Criminal 0 2 Assists (0) (2) Traffic/Parking (0) (0) Medical/Fire (0) (0) Inspections/Licensing (0) (0) The criminal contacts for 1993 were two found person/public assist, two suspicious persons, three weapon violations, one susp. vehicle, one burglary/business in progress, five burglary alarms, one robbery alarm, four possess-receive-sell property, one other theft, two assault-delayed, two harassing phone calls and one assault-just occurred. (Numbers in parenthesis are included in total contact figures) 00 f3 CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Council Letter No. 352 Agenda December 13, 1993 Issue Statement: Renewal of a 1994 on-sale wine license for Kiang's Red Pepper, Inc. d/b/a Red Pepper Chinese Restaurant, 2902 West 66th Street. Background: On September 23, 1993, the City received the renewal applications and other required documents for the on-sale wine license for Red Pepper Chinese Restaurant. The applicant has paid the required license fees. The Public Safety background investigation has been completed and reveals the following: ? The corporate structure of the organization remains unchanged. Ricky Kiang is serving as President, Vice-President, Secretary and Treasurer. Mr. Kiang continues to serve as the General Manager of the restaurant. Mr. Kiang has no known criminal record. ?,The lease between the applicant and the property owner, Carlson Real Estate Company, is in effect until December 1, • 2003 and renewable at that time. ? The applicant has supplied proof of liquor liability insurance coverage. This coverage indicates that Farmers Insurance Group is affording the required liquor liability insurance. Proof of workers' compensation insurance will be supplied as soon as possible. On-sale wine licenses require owners of these establishments to comply with Resolution No. 7380, which outlines discipline they can expect if any ongoing problems occur. A copy of this resolution has been given to the owner of the establishment and is also attached a copy to this letter. Recommended Motion: Approve the renewal of the 1994 on-sale wine license for Kiang's Red Pepper, Inc., d/b/a Red Pepper Chinese Restaurant with the stipulation that the requirements are met in Resolution No. 7380. Basis for Recommendation: 1. The applicant has complied with all of the provisions of both City codes and State statutes pertaining to a on-sale wine and license. 2. Based upon the information supplied by the applicant and the investigation conducted, there appears to be no reason to deny the license requested. Alternative Recommendation! 1. The Council could decide to continue the hearing, however, if the hearing is continued beyond January 1, 1994, the Council should consider the granting of a license extension to allow the applicant to continue to sell wine until the rescheduled hearing can be conducted. 2. The Council could decide to suspend or revoke the licenses. Any suspension or revocation must, according to Minnesota State Statute 340A.415, be based upon a finding that the licensee has failed to comply with an applicable statute, rule or ordinance relating to alcoholic beverages. The Council must also note that no revocation or suspension takes effect until the licensee has been afforded an opportunity for a hearing under Section 14.57 to 14.70 of the Administrative Procedure Act. It is the opinion of the Public Safety Department that the licensee has not committed any violation relating to alcoholic beverages and therefore, it is recommended that the license not be revoked or suspended. Discussion/Decision Mode: The public hearing to consider the request for the renewal of Kiang's Red Pepper, Inc., d/b/a Red Pepper Chinese Restaurant's wine license has been scheduled for December 13, 1993. Their . current license expires January 1, 1994. Therefore, if the Council decides to continue the hearing beyond December 13, any subsequent hearing should be held before the licenses expire. Respectf*lly submitted, Jame Prosser City anager JDP:ds J 3-Cl CITY OF RICHFIELD RESOLUTION NO. 7380 RESOLUTION SPECIFYING CERTAIN IMPROPER CONDUCT OF ON-SALE INTOXICATING LIQUOR LICENSEES AND STATING RECOMMENDED DISCIPLINE THEREFOR BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Richfield as follows: I. BACKCROiJND SrCA=rNT The City of Richfield annually issues a number of licenses permitting the on-sale sale of intoxicating liquor within the City. The conduct of the licensed activity is governed by the provisions of Section 1200 of the City Code. Although, the provisions of that Section describe in a general way what is expected of licensees in the proper conduct of the licensed activity, the City Council is concerned that licensees should have a more specific understanding of the types of conduct, generally described in the Code, which may subject their licenses to discipline; and further that they have a clear understanding of the scope and nature of the discipline which may be imposed for certain specific conduct. The levels of discipline described in this resolution will be imposed only in accordance with the applicable provisions of law. The list of activities and conduct contained in this resolution is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather concentrates on the types of conduct most frequently observed at licensed establishments. Other activity or conduct 0 which is detrimental to the public safety, health, morals and 13-3 welfare and which constitutes a violation of the provisions of Section 1200 of the City Code may also subject liquor licenses to discipline. The actions which the City may take in accordance with this resolution are not intended to preclude such further action: such as actions in law or in equity or criminal prosecution available to the City for the conduct described in this resolution. II. SPFCTFTC PROHTRTTF.n CONDUCT AND PRnPOSFn SAN.TTQNS_ A. Nnise and nthPr nic urhin Cnndurt Within nr N ar the Licensees are responsible for the conduct of their patrons while within the licensed establishment; and of individuals within the immediate vicinity of the establishment who are either coming to or leaving the establishment. The City is unwilling to permit the continued operation of a licensed liquor establishment in circumstances where it is evident that the licensed activity is having a detrimental impact upon the health, welfare, safety and morals of the community and patrons of the establishment. The following discipline may be imposed upon on-sale intoxicating liquor licenses for verified reports of criminal misconduct occurring on or near the licensed premises and attributable to patrons of the establishment (including persons entering or leaving): a) For five (5) such incidents occurring within less than a 31-day period (beginning with the date of the first of ID such five incidents) - suspension of the license for /3- y up to 10 days and a civil fine of $2,000 for each incident. b) For ten (10) such incidents occurring within less than a 61-day period (beginning with the date of the first of such incidents) - suspension of the license for up to 30 days and a civil fine of $2,000 for each incident. c) For fifteen (15) such incidents occurring within any 91- day period (beginning with the date of the first of such incidents) - suspension of the license for up to 60 days and a civil fine of $2,000 for each incident. The discipline outline above is intended to be cumulative in nature, and incidents which give rise to discipline (or the right to discipline) during a shorter period may be counted in determining whether discipline is appropriate during a longer period. The term "verified reports of criminal misconduct" means a report made to the director of public safety by the licensee or a complaint made by others concerning an incident constituting a crime under the City Code or the laws of the State of Minnesota, which, in the opinion of the director, is directly attributable to the licensed activity. Verified reports of criminal misconduct do not of necessity mean requests for service, and licensees shall not be required to make requests for service in situations where the licensee is l3-5 capable of resolving the incident without police assistance. However, it is necessary for the City to have an accurate measure of the level of criminal misconduct. The department of public safety shall establish standards and criteria for the making of such reports by the licensee. If the licensee fails to make the required reports of criminal misconduct in accordance with such standards and criteria, the following additional discipline may be imposed upon its on-sale intoxicating liquor license: a) For the first incident of failure to report criminal misconduct within any license year - suspension of license for up to five days and a civil fine of $2,000. b) For the second such incident in any license year - • suspension of license for up to 10 days and a civil fine of $2,000. c) For the third such incident in any license year - suspension of license for up to 15 days and a civil fine of $2,000. B. YrAmi GPg wi t-h Al r-nhnl ; r BPVPraciPS Licensees must assure that the service and consumption of alcoholic beverages will be confined only to those areas permitted by the license. Failure to do so may have an evident and adverse impact upon other activities lawfully occurring within the area and creates a substantial risk of criminal behavior such as violation of the Open Bottle Law. The following discipline may be imposed upon on-sale intoxicating beverage licenses: a) The first incident during the license year - up to a 10- day suspension and $2,000 civil fine. b) The second incident during the license year - up to a 30-day suspension and $2,000 civil fine. c) The third incident during the license year - up to a 60- day suspension and $2,000 civil fine. d) The fourth incident during the license year - revocation of license. C. PPrmi tti nca nnnu= AnrIZ to FxnppR the T i mi i-a Parmi i-tarI Under the . iJni fnrm Fire rnr9a 75 _ i l d ( nvArnrnwHj na ) Licensees are absolutely bound to prevent situations in which the licensed premises become overcrowded. The City finds that the opportunity to serve alcoholic beverages contributes to an environmental wherein overcrowding, if not strictly controlled by the licensee, may occur. Each liquor license issued shall state the maximum occupancy limit for the licensed premises. The following discipline may be imposed upon on-sale intoxicating liquor licenses for incident of overcrowding verified by the City's public safety director: a) The first incident during the license year - up to a 10- day license suspension and $2,000 civil fine. 0 b) The second incident during the license year - up to a 30-day suspension and $2,000 civil fine. c) The third incident during the license year - up to a 60- day suspension and $2,000 civil fine. d) The fourth or subsequent incident during the license year - revocation of the license. D. Facilitating Gamhl;na_ Licensees must not permit or allow any condition to occur on the licensed premises which would facilitate gambling activity. Licensees may not permit any device on the licensed premises which could be used for gambling. Such devices include blackjack tables, video games of chance, roulette wheels and any other amusement or gambling device as defined in Minnesota Statutes, Chapters 349 and 609, and Richfield City Code Subsections 1100.13 and 1100.01 For any incident of facilitation of gambling the on-sale intoxicating liquor may be suspended for up to a period of days equal in number to the period of days that such incident continued. E. EffPnt of S 1--zi nn nr RAVnc sti on of Fond T ; c-Pn.p On- sale intoxicating liquor licenses which are issued to establishments because they qualify as restaurants shall cease to be valid for any period of time during which the establishment's food license is under suspension or revocation as the result of actions taken by the city manager, enforcement officer, or both pursuant to Subsection 615.05, subdivision 6 of the City Code. The on-sale sale of intoxicating liquor during such period shall constitute an unlicensed sale. The City Council retains the right to modify the provisions of this resolution from time and to impose penalties in excess of those contained herein when, in the judgment of the council it is appropriate to do so. Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield this 14th day of December 1987. John N. Hamilton, Mayor 0 ATTEST: Thomas Ferber, City Clerk LJ /a CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Council Letter No. 351 Agenda December 13, 1993 Issue Statement: Renewal of 1994•on-sale wine and non-intoxicating malt liquor licenses for Gn Ng Inc. d/b/a Silver Spoon Restaurant, 6700 Penn Avenue. Background: On October 29, 1993, the City received the renewal applications and other required documents for the wine and non-intoxicating malt liquor licenses for Silver Spoon Restaurant. The applicant has paid the required license fees. The Public Safety background investigation has been completed and reveals the following: ? The corporate structure of the organization remains unchanged from last year. A copy of the list of officers of the corporation is attached to this letter. Gn Ng continues to serve as the General Manager of the restaurant. None of these individuals has any known criminal record. ? The building and property continue to be owned by Kenneth Youngberg, and the lease between the applicant and the landlord continues to be in effect with all payments current. • ? All general real estate taxes, state sales and withholding taxes have been paid and are current. ? The applicant has supplied proof of liquor liability insurance coverage. This coverage indicates that Acceptance Indemnity Insurance Company is also affording the required liquor liability insurance coverage. Proof of workers' compensation insurance has been supplied. ? An accountant's statement has been prepared and submitted by S. Krishnan, CPA. This statement covers the period from September of 1992 through August of 1993 and indicates that food sales accounted for 99% of the total sales, while beer and wine sales accounted for 1% of the total sales. From November of 1992 through October of 1993 there were four Public Safety contacts with Silver Spoon Restaurant as compared to four contacts for the previous year. A breakdown of these contacts is attached to this letter. There were no environmental health complaints received during this time period. On-sale wine and non-intoxicating malt liquor licenses require • owners of these establishments to comply with Resolution No. 7380, which outlines discipline they can expect if any ongoing problems occur. A copy of this resolution has been given to the owner of the establishment and is also attached a copy to this letter. / a Recommended Motion: Approve the renewal of the 1994 on-sale wine and non-intoxicating malt liquor licenses for Gn Ng Inc., d/b/a Silver Spoon Restaurant with the stipulation that the requirements are met in Resolution No. 7380. Basis for Recommendation: 1. The applicant has complied with all of the provisions of both City codes and State statutes pertaining to-on-sale wine and non-intoxicating malt liquor licenses. 2. Based upon the information supplied by the applicant and the investigation conducted, there appears to be no reason to deny the license requested. Alternative Recommendation: 1. The Council could decide to continue the hearing, however, if the hearing is continued beyond January 1, 1994, the Council should consider the granting of a license extension to allow the applicant to continue to sell wine and non-intoxicating malt liquor until the rescheduled hearing can be conducted. 2. The Council could decide to suspend or revoke the licenses. Any suspension or revocation must, according to Minnesota State Statutes 340A.415, be based upon a finding that the licensee has failed to comply with an applicable statute, • rule or ordinance relating to alcoholic beverages. The Council must also note that no revocation or suspension takes effect until the licensee has been afforded an opportunity for a hearing under Sections 14.57 to 14.70 of the Administrative Procedure Act. It is the opinion of the Public Safety Department that the licensee has not committed any violation relating to alcoholic beverages and therefore, it is recommended that the license not be revoked or suspended. Discussion/Decision Mode: The public hearing to consider the request for the renewal of Gn Ng Inc., d/b/a Silver Spoon Restaurant's wine and non- intoxicating malt liquor licenses has been scheduled for December 13, 1993. Their current licenses expire January 1, 1994. Therefore, if the Council decides to continue the hearing beyond December 13, any subsequent hearing should be held before the licenses expire. Respectf ly submitted, James D Prosser • City nager JDP:ds / (3? - • C? PUBLIC SAFETY CONTACTS NOVEMBER 1992 THROUGH OCTOBER 1993 SILVER SPOON RESTAURANT 1992 1993 Total Contacts 4 4 Criminal Contacts 4 3 "Bar Type" (included in Crim. Contacts) (0) (0) Alarm (1) (0) Misc. Non-Criminal 0 1 Assists (0) (0) Traffic/Parking (0) (0) Inspections/Licensing (0) (1) Medical/Fire (0) (0) The criminal contacts for 1993 were one suspicious person, one vandalism and one theft. (Numbers in parenthesis are included in total contact figures) 0 is-3 • Silver Spoon Restaurant Officer and Titles: Gin Chiu Ng - President Oi Chi Lau - Treasurer 0 0 la- C/ . CITY OF RICHFIELD RESOLUTION NO. 7380 RESOLUTION SPECIFYING CERTAIN IMPROPER CONDUCT OF ON-SALE INTOXICATING LIQUOR LICENSEES AND STATING RECOMMENDED DISCIPLINE THEREFOR BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Richfield as follows: I. BACKnRnliNn STATF.MF.NT The City of Richfield annually issues a number of licenses Cl permitting the on-sale sale of intoxicating liquor within the City. The conduct of the licensed activity is governed by the provisions of Section 1200 of the City Code. Although, the provisions of that Section describe in a general way what is expected of licensees in the proper conduct of the licensed activity, the City Council is concerned that licensees should have a more specific understanding of the types of conduct, generally described in the Code, which may subject their licenses to discipline; and further that they have a clear understanding of the scope and nature of the discipline which may be imposed for certain specific conduct. The levels of discipline described in this resolution will be imposed only in accordance with the applicable provisions of law. The list of activities and conduct contained in this resolution is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather concentrates on the types of conduct most frequently observed at licensed establishments. Other activity or conduct which is detrimental to the public safety, health, morals and / C/) -5 • welfare and which constitutes a violation of the provisions of Section 1200 of the City Code may also subject liquor licenses to discipline. The actions which the City may take in accordance with this.resolution are not intended to preclude such further actions such as actions in law or in equity or criminal prosecution available to the City for the conduct described in this resolution. II. SPF.CTFT . PROHTSTTFn CONni1CT AND PROPOS .n SANCTTONS _ A. Nni se and nthPr nJc;t-urhJncI Cn du.t Within or Naar th Licensees are responsible for the conduct of their patrons while within the licensed establishment; and of individuals within the • immediate vicinity of the establishment who are either coming to or leaving the establishment. The City is unwilling to permit the continued operation of a licensed liquor establishment in circumstances where it is evident that the licensed activity is having a detrimental impact upon the health, welfare, safety and moral's of the community and patrons of the establishment. The following discipline may be imposed upon on-sale intoxicating liquor licenses for verified reports of criminal misconduct occurring on or near the licensed premises and attributable to patrons of the establishment (including persons entering or leaving): a) For five (5) such incidents occurring within less than a 31-day period (beginning with the date of the first of such five incidents) - suspension of the license for ra & up to 10 days and a civil fine of $2,000 for each incident. b) For ten (10) such incidents occurring within less than a 61-day period (beginning with the date of the first of such incidents) - suspension of the license for up to 30 days and a civil fine of $2,000 for each incident. c) For fifteen (15) such incidents occurring within any 91- day period (beginning with the date of the first of such incidents) - suspension of the license for up to 60 days and a civil fine of $2,000 for each incident. The discipline outline above is intended to be cumulative in • nature, and incidents which give rise to discipline (or the right to discipline) during a shorter period may be counted in determining whether discipline is appropriate during a longer period. The term "verified reports of criminal misconduct" means a report made to the director of public safety by the licensee or a complaint made by others concerning an incident constituting a crime under the City Code or the laws of the State of Minnesota, which, in the opinion of the director, is directly attributable to the licensed activity. Verified reports of criminal misconduct do not of necessity mean requests for service, and licensees shall not be required to 0 make requests for service in situations where the licensee is / a--7 capable of resolving the incident without police assistance. However, it is necessary for the City to have an accurate measure of the level of criminal misconduct. The department of public safety shall establish standards and criteria for the making of such reports by the licensee. If the licensee fails to make the required reports of criminal misconduct in accordance with such standards and criteria, the following additional discipline may be imposed upon its on-sale intoxicating liquor license: a) For the first incident of failure to report criminal misconduct within any license year - suspension of license for up to five days and a civil fine of $2,000. b) For the second such incident in any license year - • suspension of license for up to 10 days and a civil fine of $2,000. c) For the third such incident in any license year - suspension of license for up to 15 days and a civil fine of $2,000. B. Premi-PS with Al .nhnlin RP?pranP? Licensees must assure that the service and consumption of alcoholic beverages will be confined only to those areas permitted by the license. Failure to do so may have an evident and adverse impact upon other activities lawfully occurring within the area and creates a 0 substantial risk of criminal behavior such as violation of the Open Bottle Law. The following discipline may be imposed upon • on-sale intoxicating beverage licenses: a) The first incident during the license year- up to a 10- day suspension and $2,000 civil fine. b) The second incident during the license year - up to a 30-day suspension and $2,000 civil fine. c) The third incident during the license year - up to a 60- day suspension and $2,000 civil fine. d) The fourth incident during the license year - revocation of license. C, P rmi tti ng 0e-r-upanc!V ttn xrPed the Limit-, PPrmi ttcri UndgM the • I7ni form Fi rP rndp 2S-L14 ( QuArr•r - - nn ) Licensees are absolutely bound to prevent situations in which the licensed premises become overcrowded. The City finds that the opportunity to serve alcoholic beverages contributes to an environmental wherein overcrowding, if not strictly controlled by the licensee, may occur. Each liquor license issued shall state the maximum occupancy limit for the licensed premises. The following discipline may be imposed upon on-sale intoxicating liquor licenses for incident of overcrowding verified by.the City's public safety director: a) The first incident during the license year - up to a 10- day license suspension and $2,000 civil fine. • b) The second incident during the license year - up to a /a-9 • 30-day suspension and $2,000 civil fine. c) The third incident during the license year - up to a 60- day suspension and $2,000 civil fine. d) The fourth or subsequent incident during the license year - revocation of the license. D. Far-i l i tat; nr; rambJ_ ncI_ Licensees must not permit or allow any condition to occur on the licensed premises which would facilitate gambling activity. Licensees may not permit any device on the licensed premises which could be used for gambling. Such devices include blackjack tables, video games of chance, roulette wheels and any other amusement or gambling • device as defined in Minnesota Statutes, Chapters 349 and 609, and Richfield City Code Subsections 1100.13 and 1100.01 For any incident of facilitation of gambling the on-sale intoxicating liquor may be suspended for up to a period of days equal in number to the period of days that such incident continued. E. EffPr_t of Su-,nPnai nn nr RPVnrati nn of Fnr)d ? i rPnge On- sale intoxicating liquor licenses which are issued to establishments because they qualify as restaurants shall cease to be valid for any period of time during which the establishment's food license is under suspension or revocation as the result of actions taken by the city manager, enforcement officer, or both • pursuant to Subsection 615.05, subdivision 6 of the City Code. /a-/ O The on-sale sale of intoxicating liquor during such period shall • constitute an unlicensed sale. The City Council retains the right to modify the provisions of this resolution from time and to impose penalties in excess of those contained herein when, in the judgment of the council it is appropriate to do so. Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield this 14th day of December 1987. John N. Hamilton, Mayor ATTEST: • Thomas Ferber, City Clerk 40 CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Council Letter No. 3.50 Agenda December 13, 1993 Issue Statement: Renewal of 1994?on-sale wine and non-intoxicating malt liquor licenses for Davanni's Inc. d/b/a Davanni's Pizza and Hot Hoagies, 2312 West 66th Street. Background: On October 20, 1993, the City received the renewal applications and other required documents for the wine and non-intoxicating malt liquor licenses for Davanni's Pizza and Hot Hoagies. The applicant has paid the required license fees. The Public Safety background investigation has been completed and reveals the following: The corporate structure of the organization remains unchanged from last year. A copy of the list of officers of the corporation is attached to this letter. Constance Zweber continues to serve as the general manager of the restaurant. None of these individuals has any known criminal record. ? All general real estate taxes, state sales and withholding taxes have been paid and are current. The building and property • continue to be owned by Hwy #52 Embers Inc., and the lease agreement between the applicant and the landlord continues to be in effect with all payments current. ? The applicant has supplied proof of liquor liability insurance coverage. This coverage indicates that Transcontinental Insurance Company is also affording the required liquor liability insurance coverage. The applicant will supply proof of workers' compensation insurance coverage as soon as possible. ? An accountant's statement has been prepared and submitted by Robert J. Stupka, C.P.A. This statement covers the period from September 1992 through September 1993 and indicates that food sales accounted for 99% of the total sales, while beer and wine sales accounted for 1% of the total sales. From November of 1992 through October of 1993 there were eight Safety contacts with Davanni's as compared to one contact for the previous year. A breakdown of these contacts is attached to this letter. There were no environmental health complaints received during this time period. On-sale wine and,non-intoxicating malt liquor licenses require . owners of these establishments to comply with Resolution No. 7380, which outlines discipline they can expect if any ongoing problems occur. A copy of this resolution has been given to the owner of the establishment and is also attached a copy to this letter. //-I . Recommended Motion: Approve the renewal of the 1994 wine and non-intoxicating malt liquor licenses for Davanni's Inc., d/b/a Davanni's Pizza & Hot Hoagies with the stipulation that the requirements are met in Resolution No. 7380. Basis for Recommendation: 1. The applicant has complied with all of the provisions of both City codes and State statutes pertaining to on-sale wine and non-intoxicating malt liquor licenses. 2. Based upon the information supplied by the applicant and the investigation conducted, there appears to be no reason to deny the renewal of the licenses requested. Alternative Recommendation: 1. The Council could decide to continue the hearing, however, if the hearing is continued beyond January 1, 1994, the Council should consider the granting of a license extension to allow the applicant to continue to sell wine and non-intoxicating malt liquor until the rescheduled hearing can be conducted. 2. The Council could decide to suspend or revoke the licenses. Any suspension or revocation must, according to Minnesota State Statute 340A.415, be based upon a finding that the licensee has failed to comply with an applicable statute, • rule or ordinance relating to alcoholic beverages. The Council must also note that no revocation or suspension takes effect until the licensee has been afforded an opportunity for a hearing under Sections 14.57 to 14.70 of the Administrative Procedure Act. It is the opinion of the Public Safety Department that the licensee has not committed any violation relating to alcoholic beverages and therefore, it is recommended that the license not be revoked or suspended. Discussion/Decision Mode: The public hearing to consider the requests for the renewal of Davanni's Inc., d/b/a Davanni's Pizza & Hot Hoagies wine and non- intoxicating malt liquor licenses has been scheduled for December 13, 1993. Their current licenses expire January 1, 1994. Therefore, if the Council decides to continue the hearing beyond December 13, any subsequent hearing should be held before the licenses expire. Respc lly submitted, James, Prosser is JDP:ds City M ager w a PUBLIC SAFETY CONTACTS NOVEMBER 1992 THROUGH OCTOBER 1993 DAVANNI'S PIZZA & HOT HOAGIES 0 1992 1993 Total Contacts 1 8 Criminal Contacts 1 2 "Bar Type" (Included in Crim. Contacts) (1) (0) Misc. Non-Criminal 0 6 Assists (0) (3) Traffic/Parking (0) (1) Inspections/Licensing (0) (0) Medical/Fire (0) (2) The criminal contacts for 1993 were one suspicious person and one suspicious vehicle. (Numbers in parenthesis are included in total contact figures) /t-3 DAVANNI'S PIZZA AND HOT HOAGIES Partners/Officer and Titles: Gladstone M. Stenson - President Roger W. Schelper - Vice President, Secretary Robert W. Carlson - Treasurer 0 0 JI-4 • CITY OF RICHFIELD RESOLUTION NO. 7380 RESOLUTION SPECIFYING CERTAIN IMPROPER CONDUCT OF ON-SALE INTOXICATING LIQUOR LICENSEES AND STATING RECOMMENDED DISCIPLINE THEREFOR BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Richfield as follows: I. 5ACKrRn1JNn STATFMF.NT The City of Richfield annually issues a number of licenses permitting the on-sale sale of intoxicating liquor within the City. The conduct of the licensed activity is governed by the provisions of Section 1200 of the City Code. Although, the provisions of that Section describe in a general way what is expected of licensees in the proper conduct of the licensed activity, the City Council is concerned that licensees should have a more specific understanding of the types of conduct, generally described in the Code, which may subject their licenses to discipline; and further that they have a clear understanding of the scope and nature of the discipline which may be imposed for certain specific conduct. The levels of discipline described in this resolution will be imposed only in accordance with the applicable provisions of law. The list of activities and conduct contained in this resolution is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather concentrates on the types of conduct most frequently observed at licensed establishments. Other activity or conduct 40 which is detrimental to the public safety, health, morals and II- ?s welfare and which constitutes a violation of the provisions of Section 1200 of the City Code may also subject liquor licenses to discipline. The actions which the City may take in accordance with this resolution are not intended to preclude such further actions such as actions in law or in equity or criminal prosecution available to the City for the conduct described in this resolution. II. SPPCTFT _ PROHTRTTF.T) CON17)IMT ANi) PRO OS n SAN(-TTONS _ A. Nnise and other niGturhin Conduit Within car NPar the Licensees are responsible for the conduct of their patrons while within the licensed establishment; and of individuals within the . immediate vicinity of the establishment who are either coming to or leaving the establishment. The City is unwilling to permit the continued operation of a licensed liquor establishment in circumstances where it is evident that the licensed activity is having a detrimental impact upon the health, welfare, safety and morals of the community and patrons of the establishment. The following discipline may be imposed upon on-sale intoxicating liquor licenses for verified reports of criminal misconduct occurring on or near the licensed premises and attributable to patrons of the establishment (including persons entering or leaving): a) For five (5) such incidents occurring within less than a 31-day period (beginning with the date of the first of such five incidents) - suspension of the license for //- L) • up to 10 days and a civil fine of $2,000 for each incident. b) For ten (10) such incidents occurring within less than a 61-day period (beginning with the date of the first of such incidents) - suspension of the license for up to 30 days and a civil fine of $2,000 for each incident. c) For fifteen (15) such incidents occurring within any 91- day period (beginning with the date of the first of such incidents) - suspension of the license for up to 60 days and a civil fine of $2,000 for each incident. The discipline outline above is intended to be cumulative in • nature, and incidents which give rise to discipline (or the right to discipline) during a shorter period may be counted in determining whether discipline is appropriate during a longer period. The term "verified reports of criminal misconduct" means a report made to the director of public safety by the licensee or a complaint made by others concerning an incident constituting a crime under the City Code or the laws of the State of Minnesota, which, in the opinion of the director, is directly attributable to the licensed activity. Verified reports of criminal misconduct do not of necessity mean requests for service, and licensees shall not be required to is make requests for service in situations where the licensee is l1--7 capable of resolving the incident without police assistance. • However, it is necessary for the City to have an accurate.measure of the level of criminal misconduct. The department of public safety shall establish standards and criteria for the making of such reports by the licensee. If the licensee fails to make the required reports of criminal misconduct in accordance with such standards and criteria, the following additional discipline may be imposed upon its on-sale intoxicating liquor license: a) For the first incident of failure to report criminal misconduct within any license year - suspension of license for up to five days and a civil fine of $2,000. b) For the second such incident in any license year - • suspension of license for up to 10 days and a civil fine of $2,000. c) For the third such incident in any license year - suspension of license for up to 15 days and a civil fine of $2,000. B. PramisP-, with Alcnhnlin f3Pvcr;;Q - Licensees must assure that the service and consumption of alcoholic beverages will be confined only to those areas permitted by the license. Failure to do so may have an evident and adverse impact upon other activities lawfully occurring within the area and creates a 0 substantial risk of criminal behavior such as violation of the )/- W Open Bottle Law. The following discipline may be imposed upon on-sale intoxicating beverage licenses: a) The first incident during the license year - up to a 10- day suspension and $2,000 civil fine. b) The second incident during the license year - up to a 30-day suspension and $2,000 civil fine. c) The third incident during the license year - up to a 60- day suspension and $2,000 civil fine. d) The fourth incident during the license year - revocation of license. C. Pe -mi ti-i ng C)c-cntirlannu to FX(+ccr9 the T i mi t-a PPrmi ttAr1 Under the • Uni farm Fi rP C:ndP 25 _ 1 1 4 ( Out-rcrowdi nC ) Licensees are absolutely bound to prevent situations in which the licensed premises become overcrowded. The City finds that the opportunity to serve alcoholic beverages contributes to an environmental wherein overcrowding, if not strictly controlled by the licensee, may occur. Each liquor license issued shall state the maximum occupancy limit for the licensed premises. The following discipline may be imposed upon on-sale intoxicating liquor licenses for incident of overcrowding verified by the City's public safety director: a) The first incident during the license year - up to a.10- day license suspension and $2,000 civil fine. 0 b) The second incident during the license year - up to a l?-mil 0 30-day suspension and $2,000 civil fine. c) The third incident during the license year - up to a 60- day suspension and $2,000 civil fine. d) The fourth or subsequent incident during the license year - revocation of the license. D. Fanilitatincr Gamhiincr_ Licensees must not permit or allow any condition to occur on the licensed premises which would facilitate gambling activity. Licensees may not permit any device on the licensed premises which could be used for gambling. Such devices include blackjack tables, video games of chance, roulette wheels and any other amusement or gambling • device as defined in Minnesota Statutes, Chapters 349 and 609, and Richfield City Code Subsections 1100.13 and 1100.01 For any incident of facilitation of gambling the on-sale intoxicating liquor may be suspended for up to a period of days equal in number to the period of days that such incident continued. E. F.ffPr-t of Suslaer si on nr R vnrati on of Fnnc9 r i npnse On- sale intoxicating liquor licenses which are issued to establishments because they qualify as restaurants shall cease to be valid for any period of time during which the establishment's food license is under suspension or revocation as the result of actions taken by the city manager, enforcement officer, or both 0 pursuant to Subsection 615.05, subdivision 6 of the City Code. /-/ D The on-sale sale of intoxicating liquor during such period shall • constitute an unlicensed sale. The City Council retains the right to modify the provisions of this resolution from time and to impose penalties in excess of those contained herein when, in the judgment of the council it is appropriate to do so. Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield this 14th day of December 1987. John N. Hamilton, Mayor ATTEST: • Thomas Ferber, City Clerk CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Council Letter No. 349 Agenda December 13, 1993 Issue Statement: Renewal of 1994•on-sale wine and non-intoxicating malt liquor licenses for Miller's Fireside Pizza, Inc., 6736 Penn Avenue. Background: On October ?25, 1993, the City received the renewal applications and other required documents for the wine and non-intoxicating malt liquor licenses for Miller's Fireside Pizza, Inc. The applicant has paid the required license fees. The Public Safety background investigation has been completed and. reveals the following: ? The corporate structure of the organization remains unchanged from last year. A copy of the list of officers of the corporation is attached to this letter. David Miller continues to serve as the general manager of the restaurant. None of these individuals has any known criminal record. ? All general real estate taxes, state sales and withholding taxes have been paid and are current. The building and property continue to be owned by the Millers. ? The applicant has supplied proof of liquor liability insurance coverage. This coverage indicates that Transcontinental Insurance Company is also affording the required liquor liability insurance coverage. The applicant will supply proof of workers' compensation insurance coverage as soon as possible. ? An accountant's statement has been prepared and submitted by Richard Ellsworth of the George M. Hanson Company, P.A. This statement covers the period from September 1992 through August 1993 and indicates that food sales accounted for 92% of the total sales, while beer and wine sales accounted for 8% of the total sales. From November of 1992 through October of 1993 there was one Public Safety contact with Miller's as compared to five contacts for the previous year. A breakdown of these contacts is attached to this letter. There were no environmental health complaints received during this time period. On-sale wine and non-intoxicating malt liquor licenses require owners of these establishments to comply with Resolution No. 7380, which outlines discipline they can expect if any ongoing problems occur. A copy of this resolution has been given to the owner of the establishment and is also attached a copy to this letter. Io-I Recommended Motion: Approve the renewal of the 1994 wine liquor licenses for Miller's Fireside stipulation that the requirements are and non-intoxicating malt Pizza, Inc. with the met in Resolution No. 7380. Basis for Recommendation: 1. The applicant has complied with all of the provisions of both City codes and State statutes pertaining to on-sale wine and non-intoxicating malt liquor licenses. 2. Based upon the information supplied by the applicant and the investigation conducted, there appears to be no reason to deny the renewal of the licenses requested. Alternative Recommendation: 1. The Council could decide to continue the hearing, however, if the hearing is continued beyond January 1, 1994, the Council should consider the granting of a license extension to allow the applicant to continue to sell wine and non-intoxicating malt liquor until the rescheduled hearing can be conducted. 2. The Council could decide to suspend or revoke the licenses. Any suspension or revocation must, according to Minnesota State Statute 340A.415, be based upon a finding that the licensee has failed to comply with an applicable statute, rule or ordinance relating to alcoholic beverages. The Council must also note that no revocation or suspension takes effect until the licensee has been afforded an opportunity for a hearing under Sections 14.57 to 14.70 of the Administrative Procedure Act. It is the opinion of the Public Safety Department that the licensee has not committed any violation relating to alcoholic beverages and therefore, it is recommended that the license not be revoked or suspended. Discussion/Decision Mode: The public hearing to consider the requests for the renewal of Miller's Fireside Pizza, Inc. wine and non-intoxicating malt liquor license has been scheduled for December 13, 1993. Their current licenses expire January 1, 1994. Therefore, if the Council decides to continue the hearing beyond December 13, any subsequent hearing should be held before the licenses expire. Res f lly submitted, James . Prosser City anager 41 JDP:ds /0-a PUBLIC SAFETY CONTACTS NOVEMBER 1992 THROUGH OCTOBER 1993 MILLER'S FIRESIDE PIZZA 1992 1993 Total Contacts 5 1 Criminal Contacts 1 1 "Bar Type" (Included in Crim. Contacts) (0) (1) Misc. Non-Criminal 4 0 Assists (2) (0) Traffic/Parking (0) (0) Inspections/Licensing (0) (0) Medical/Fire (2) (0) The criminal contact for 1993 was one drunkenness. (Numbers in parenthesis are included in total contact figures) • MILLER'S FIRESIDE PIZZA, INC. Partners/Officers Name and Title: David J. Miller - President Lucille Miller - Vice President Lucille Miller - Secretary David J. Miller - Treasurer C? 10-q • CITY OF RICHFIELD RESOLUTION NO. 7380 RESOLUTION SPECIFYING CERTAIN IMPROPER CONDUCT OF ON-SALE INTOXICATING LIQUOR LICENSEES AND STATING RECOMMENDED DISCIPLINE THEREFOR BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Richfield as follows: I. BACKnROUND STATEMP T The City of Richfield annually issues a number of licenses • permitting the on-sale sale of intoxicating liquor within the .City. The conduct of the licensed activity is governed by the provisions of Section 1200 of the City Code. Although, the provisions of that Section describe in a general way what is expected of licensees in the proper conduct of the licensed activity, the City Council is concerned that licensees should have a more specific understanding of the types of conduct, generally described in the Code, which may subject their licenses to discipline; and further that they have a clear understanding of the scope and nature of the discipline which may be imposed for certain specific conduct. The levels of discipline described in this resolution will be imposed only in accordance with the applicable provisions of law. The list of activities and conduct contained in this resolution is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather concentrates on the types of conduct most frequently observed at licensed establishments. Other activity or conduct which is detrimental to the public safety, health, morals and 10-5 welfare and which constitutes a violation of the provisions of Section 1200 of the City Code may also subject liquor licenses to discipline. The actions which the City may take in accordance with this resolution are not intended to preclude such further actions such as actions in law or in equity or criminal prosecution available to the City for the conduct described in this resolution. II. SPF_.CTFTr PROHTSTTFD CONDIMT AND PROPORRD RANCTTONR_ A. Nnice and Other Digturhin r-nndtict Within or Near the Licensees are responsible for the conduct of their patrons while within the licensed establishment; and of individuals within the 40 immediate vicinity of the establishment who are either coming to or leaving the establishment. The City is unwilling to permit the continued operation of a licensed liquor establishment in circumstances where it is evident that the licensed activity is having a detrimental impact upon the health, welfare, safety and morals of the community and patrons of the establishment. The following discipline may be imposed upon on-sale intoxicating liquor licenses for verified reports of criminal misconduct occurring on or near the licensed premises and attributable to patrons of the establishment (including persons entering or leaving): a) For five (5) such incidents occurring within less than a 31-day period (beginning with the date of the first of such five incidents) - suspension of the license for i0-L up to 10 days and a civil fine of $2,000 for each incident. b) For ten (10) such incidents occurring within less than a 61-day period (beginning with the date of the first of such incidents) - suspension of the license for up to 30 days and a civil fine of $2,000 for each incident. c) For fifteen (15) such incidents occurring within any 91- day period (beginning with the date of the first of such incidents) - suspension of the license for up to 60 days and a civil fine of $2,000 for each incident. The discipline outline above is intended to be cumulative in nature, and incidents which give rise to discipline (or the right to discipline) during a shorter period may be counted in determining whether discipline is appropriate during a longer period. The term "verified reports of criminal misconduct" means a report made to the director of public safety by the licensee or a complaint made by others concerning an incident constituting a crime under the City Code or the laws of the State of Minnesota, which, in the opinion of the director, is directly attributable to the licensed activity. Verified reports of criminal misconduct do not of necessity mean requests for service, and licensees shall not be required to 0 make requests for service in situations where the licensee is /o-7 capable of resolving the incident without police assistance. However, it is necessary for the City to have an accurate measure of the level of criminal misconduct. The department of public safety shall establish standards and criteria for the making of such reports by the licensee. If the licensee fails to make the required reports of criminal misconduct in accordance with such standards and criteria, the following additional discipline may be imposed upon its on-sale intoxicating liquor license: a) For the first incident of failure to report criminal misconduct within any license year - suspension of license for up to five days and a civil fine of $2,000. b) For the second such incident in any license year - suspension of license for up to 10 days and a civil fine • of $2,000. c) For the third such incident in any license year - suspension of license for up to 15 days and a civil fine of $2,000. B. SPrvin? Alnnhnlic RPVPranac Ravnnrl tha Tntcrinr of the YrAmiGAR with Alrnhnlir Bemeraaen- Licensees must assure that the service and consumption of alcoholic beverages will be confined only to those areas permitted by the license. Failure to do so may have an evident and adverse impact upon other activities lawfully occurring within the area and creates a 0 substantial risk of criminal behavior such as violation of the )0-3 Open Bottle Law. The following discipline may be imposed upon on-sale intoxicating beverage licenses: a) The first incident during the license year - up to a 10- day suspension and $2,000 civil fine. b) The second incident during the license year - up to a 30-day suspension and $2,000 civil fine. c) The third incident during the license year - up to a 60- day suspension and $2,000 civil fine. d) The fourth incident during the license year - revocation of license. C. PPrmi tti na nnnu annV to FxnApd th i mi t-a Permi ttcrl tinr3er the 0 Uniform Fire C ode 75 _ 1 1 d ( nverrrnca!9i nC ) Licensees are absolutely bound to prevent situations in which the licensed premises become overcrowded. The City finds that the opportunity to serve alcoholic beverages contributes to an environmental wherein overcrowding, if not strictly controlled by the licensee, may occur. Each liquor license issued shall state the maximum occupancy limit for the licensed premises. The following discipline may be imposed upon on-sale intoxicating liquor licenses for incident of overcrowding verified by the City's public safety director: a) The first incident during the license year - up to a 10- day license suspension and $2,000 civil fine. 0 b) The second incident during the license year - up to a /0-9 30-day suspension and $2,000 civil fine. c)- The third incident during the license year - up to a 60- day suspension and $2,000 civil fine. d) The fourth or subsequent incident during the license year - revocation of the license. D. Fanilitatina Gamhlincl_ Licensees must not permit or allow any condition to occur on the licensed premises which would facilitate gambling activity. Licensees may not permit any device on the licensed premises which could be used for gambling. Such devices include blackjack tables, video games of chance, roulette wheels and any other amusement or gambling device as defined in Minnesota Statutes, Chapters 349 and 609, and Richfield City Code Subsections 1100.13 and 1100.01 For any incident of facilitation of gambling the on-sale intoxicating liquor may be suspended for up to a period of days equal in number to the period of days that such incident continued. E. EffPnt of SuGpc=ns nn nr R vnrati on of Fond I i r naP On- sale intoxicating liquor licenses which are issued to establishments because they qualify as restaurants shall cease to be valid for any period of time during which the establishment's food license is under suspension or revocation as the result of. actions taken by the city manager, enforcement officer, or both 0 pursuant to Subsection 615.05, subdivision 6 of the City Code. /O-Jo The on-sale sale of intoxicating liquor during such period shall constitute an unlicensed sale. The City Council retains the right to modify the provisions of this resolution from time and to impose penalties in excess of those contained herein when, in the judgment of the council it is appropriate to do so. Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield this 14th day of December 1987. John N. Hamilton, Mayor ATTEST: a Thomas Ferber, City Clerk 0 9 CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Council Letter No. 348 . Agenda December 13, 1993 Issue Statement: Renewal of 1994•on-sale and Sunday liquor licenses for the Ground Round of Minn. Inc., d/b/a The Ground Round, 1500 East 78th Street. Background: On October •25, 1993, staff received the renewal applications for on-sale and Sunday liquor licenses for The Ground Round. All required fees have been paid. Public Safety's investigation is complete and reveals the following: ? The corporate structure of the organization has changed from last year. William Schoener is serving as President and Treasurer. A copy of the list of officers of the corporation is attached to this letter. John Sheehan is now serving as the general manager of the restaurant. None of these individuals has any known criminal record. ? All general sales, real estate and withholding taxes have been paid and are current. ? The lease with A.G. Bogen (property owner) is in effect and all payments are current. ? The $10,000 bond issued by American Manufacturers Mutual Insurance Company has been submitted. ? The required proof of liquor liability insurance and coverage has been received showing National Union Fire Insurance Company as affording the required coverage. Proof of workers' compensation insurance coverage has been submitted. ? A statement has been prepared and submitted by Douglas Harwell, C.P.A. This statement covers the period from October 1992 through September 1993 and indicates that food sales accounted for 64$.of the total sales, while liquor sales accounted for 36% of the total sales. From November of 1992 through October of 1993 there were 35 Public Safety contacts with the Ground Round. This compares with 40 contacts for the previous year. A breakdown of these contacts is attached to this letter. There were no environmental health complaints received during this time period. On-sale and Sunday liquor licenses require owners of these establishments to comply with Resolution No. 7380, which outlines discipline they can expect if any ongoing problems occur. A copy of this resolution has been given to the owner of the establishment and is also attached a copy to this letter. i Recommended Motion: Approve the renewal of the 1994 on-sale and Sunday liquor licenses for The Ground Round of Minn. Inc. with the stipulation that the requirements are met in Resolution No. 7380. • Basis for Recommendation: 1. The applicant has complied with all of the provisions of both City codes and State statutes pertaining to on-sale and Sunday liquor licensing. 2. Based upon the information supplied by the applicant and the investigation conducted, there appears to be no reason to deny the renewal of the licenses requested. Alternative Recommendation: 1. The Council could decide to continue the hearing, however, if the hearing is continued beyond January 1, 1994, the Council should consider the granting of a license extension to allow the applicant to continue to sell liquor until the rescheduled hearing can be conducted. 2. The Council could decide to suspend or revoke the licenses. Any suspension or revocation must, according to Minnesota State Statute 340A.415, be based upon a finding that the licensee has failed to comply with an applicable statute, rule or ordinance relating to alcoholic beverages. The Council must also note that no revocation or suspension takes effect until the licensee has been afforded an opportunity for a hearing under Section 14.57 to 14.70 of the Administrative Procedure Act. It appears that the licensee has not committed any violation relating to alcoholic beverages and therefore, it is recommended that the licenses not be revoked or suspended. Discussion/Decision Mode: The public hearing to consider the requests for the renewal of The Ground Round of Minn. Inc. on-sale and Sunday liquor licenses has been scheduled for December 13, 1993. These licenses expire January 1, 1994. Therefore, if the Council decides to continue the hearing beyond December 13, any subsequent hearing should be held before the licenses expire. ly submitted, James City JDP:ds Prosser 0 q_9_ • PUBLIC SAFETY CONTACTS NOVEMBER 1992 THROUGH OCTOBER 1993 GROUND ROUND RESTAURANT. Total Contacts Criminal Contacts 1992 40 1993 35 31 (11) (0) 4 25 "Bar Type" (Included in Crim. Contacts) (9) Alarm (2) Misc. Non-Criminal 15 Assists (9) Is Traffic/Parking (2) Inspections/Licensing (0) Medical/Fire (4) (3) (0) (0) (1) The criminal contacts for 1993 were five drunkenness, one assault, two disorderly conduct, two domestic, one DWI, two theft, two threats, two juvenile-incorrigibility, three suspicious persons, three suspicious vehicles, one vandalism, one order for protection, one recover o/agency stolen, two warrants, one no pay, one possess-receive-sell property and one miscellaneous City ordinance. (Numbers in parenthesis are included in total contact figures) THE GROUND ROUND INC. Partners/Officers and Titles: William Schoener - President, Treasurer Frank Puthoff - Vice-President, Secretary • 0 9,q . 0 CITY OF RICHFIELD RESOLUTION NO. 7380 RESOLUTION SPECIFYING CERTAIN IMPROPER CONDUCT OF ON-SALE INTOXICATING LIQUOR LICENSEES AND STATING RECOMMENDED DISCIPLINE THEREFOR BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Richfield as follows: I. BACKnRnTJND STATEMENT The City of Richfield annually issues a number of licenses permitting the on-sale sale of intoxicating liquor within the City. The conduct of the licensed activity is governed by the provisions of Section 1200 of the City Code. Although, the • provisions of that Section describe.in a general way what is expected of licensees in the proper conduct of the licensed activity, the City Council is concerned that licensees should have a more specific understanding of the types of conduct, generally described in the Code, which may subject their licenses to discipline; and further that they have a clear understanding of the scope and nature of the discipline which may be imposed for certain specific conduct. The levels of discipline described in this resolution will be imposed only in accordance with the applicable provisions of law. The list of activities and conduct contained in this resolution is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather concentrates on the types of conduct most frequently observed at licensed establishments. Other activity or conduct which is detrimental to the public safety, health, morals and 9-5- 0 welfare and which constitutes a violation of the provisions of Section 1200 of the City Code may also subject liquor licenses to discipline. The actions which the City may take in accordance with this resolution are not intended to preclude such further action; such as actions.in law or in equity or criminal prosecution available to the City for the conduct described in this resolution. II. PErTFT(- PRnHTRTTFn r_QNnTTC`T ANTI PRnPnCFn CANE TTnNC A. Noise aad ether W Rturhi n a r_nnrlunt Within nr NPar the Licensees are responsible for the conduct of their patrons while within the licensed establishment; and of individuals within the 0 immediate vicinity of the establishment who are either coming to or leaving the establishment.. The City is unwilling to permit the continued operation of a licensed liquor establishment in circumstances where it is evident that the licensed activity is having a detrimental impact upon the health, welfare, safety and morals of the community and patrons of the establishment. The following discipline may be imposed upon on-sale intoxicating liquor licenses for verified reports of criminal misconduct occurring on or near the licensed premises and attributable to patrons of the establishment (including persons entering or leaving): a) For five (5) such incidents occurring within less than a 31-day period (beginning with the date of the first of such five incidents) - suspension of the license for 9-60 • up to 10 days and a civil fine of $2,000 for each incident. b) For ten (10) such incidents occurring within less than a 61-day period (beginning with the date of the first of such incidents) - suspension of the license for up to 30 days and a civil fine of $2,000 for each incident. c) For fifteen (15) such incidents occurring within any 91- day period (beginning with the date of the first of such incidents) - suspension of the license for up to 60 days and a civil fine of $2,000 for each incident. The. discipline outline above is intended to be cumulative in . nature, and incidents which give rise to discipline (or the right to discipline) during a shorter period may be counted in determining whether discipline is appropriate during a longer period. The term "verified reports of criminal misconduct" means a report made to the director of public safety by the licensee or a complaint made by others concerning an incident constituting a crime under the City Code or the laws of the State of Minnesota, which, in the opinion of the director, is directly attributable to the licensed activity. Verified reports of criminal misconduct do not of necessity mean requests for service, and licensees shall not be required to 0 make requests for service in situations where the licensee is g --1 capable of resolving the incident without police assistance. However, it is necessary for the City to have an accurate measure of the level of criminal misconduct. The department of public safety shall establish standards and criteria for the making of such reports by the licensee. If the licensee fails to make the required reports of criminal misconduct in accordance with such standards and criteria, the following additional discipline may be imposed upon its on-sale intoxicating liquor license: a) For the first incident of failure to report criminal misconduct within any license year - suspension of license for up to five days and a civil fine of $2,000. b) For the second such incident in any license year - • suspension of license for up to 10 days and a civil fine of $2,000. c) For the third such incident in any license year - suspension of license for up to 15 days and a civil fine of $2,000. B. YrAmi GPR Wi rh Al c r)hnl i e` RPVPr;; PS Licensees must assure that the service and consumption of alcoholic beverages will be confined only to those areas permitted by the license. Failure to do so may have an evident and adverse impact upon other activities lawfully occurring within the area and creates a substantial risk of criminal behavior such as violation of the 9_2 Open Bottle Law. The following discipline may be imposed upon • on-sale intoxicating beverage licenses: a) The first incident during the license year - up to a 10- day suspension and $2,000 civil fine. b) The second incident during the license year - up to a 30-day suspension and $2,000 civil fine. c) The third incident during the license year - up to a 60- day suspension and $2,000 civil fine. d) The fourth incident during the license year - revocation of license. C. PArml tti ng nrnii= anrrV to Fxreer9 i-hp T i mi to PPrmi t+A(j L1nrjej the • Uni form Fi rp CnHp 29-114 ( nvprnrnwHi na ) Licensees are absolutely bound to prevent situations in which the licensed premises become overcrowded. The City finds that the opportunity to serve alcoholic beverages contributes to an environmental wherein overcrowding, if not strictly controlled by the licensee, may occur. Each liquor license issued shall state the maximum occupancy limit for the licensed premises. The following discipline may be imposed upon on-sale intoxicating liquor licenses for incident of overcrowding verified by the City's public safety director: a) The first incident during the license year - up to a 10- day license suspension and $2,000 civil fine. 40 b) The second incident during the license year - up to a q-CI • 30-day suspension and $2,000 civil fine. c) The third incident during the license year - up to a 60- day suspension and $2,000 civil fine. d) The fourth or subsequent incident during the license year - revocation of the license. D. Fanilitat-incl Gamhlina_ Licensees must not permit or allow any condition to occur on the licensed premises which would facilitate gambling activity. Licensees may not permit any device on the licensed premises which could be used for gambling. Such devices include blackjack tables, video games of chance, roulette wheels and any other amusement or gambling device as defined in Minnesota Statutes, Chapters 349 and 609, and Richfield City Code Subsections 1100.13 and 1100.01 For any incident of facilitation of gambling the on-sale intoxicating liquor may be suspended for up to a period of days equal in number to the period of days that such incident continued. E. F.ffPnt of S1-I)Pnci nn nr RP unnati nn of Fnncl 7 i nPnaP On- sale intoxicating liquor licenses which are issued to establishments because they qualify as restaurants shall cease to be valid for any period of time during which the establishment's food license is under suspension or revocation as the result of actions taken by the city manager, enforcement officer, or both pursuant to Subsection 615.05, subdivision 6 of the City Code. 9-lo The on-sale sale of intoxicating liquor during such period shall constitute an unlicensed sale. The City Council retains the right to modify the provisions of this resolution from time and to impose penalties in excess of those contained herein when, in the judgment of the council it is appropriate to do so. Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield this 14th day of December 1987. John N. Hamilton, Mayor ATTEST: 0 Thomas Ferber, City Clerk 10 8 CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Council Letter No.347 Agenda December 13, 1993 Issue Statement: Renewal of 1994•on-sale and Sunday liquor licenses for Chi-Chi's USA, Inc., d/b/a Chi Chi's Mexican Restaurante, 7717 Nicollet Avenue. Background: On October 28, 1993, the City received the renewal applications and other required documents for the on-sale and Sunday liquor licenses for Chi Chi's Mexican Restaurante. The applicant has paid the required license fees. The Public Safety background investigation has been completed and reveals the following: ? The corporate structure of the organization remains unchanged from last year. They have undergone a name change which has not affected any officers and directors positions. A copy of the list of officers and directors of the corporation is attached to this letter. Robert Schmidt continues to serve as the General Manager of the restaurant. None of these individuals has any known criminal record. • ? All general sales, real estate and withholding taxes have been paid and are current. ? The lease agreement between the applicant and the property owner, Maro-Max Company, continues to be in effect with all lease payments being current. ? The $10,000 bond issued by Fidelity and Deposit Company of Maryland has been submitted. ? The required proof of liquor liability insurance coverage has been received showing Transportation Insurance Company as affording the required coverage. Proof of workers' compensation insurance coverage was also supplied. ? An accountant's statement has been prepared and submitted. This statement covers the period from October 1992 through September 1993 and indicates that food sales accounted for 58.5% of the total sales, while liquor sales accounted for 41.5% of the total sales. From November 1992 through October 1993, there were 61 Public Safety contacts with Chi Chi's. This compares with 60 contacts for the previous year. A breakdown of these contacts is attached to this letter. There were no environmental health complaints received during this time period. S11 On-sale and Sunday liquor licenses require owners of these establishments to comply with Resolution No. 7380, which outlines discipline they can expect if any ongoing problems occur. A copy of this resolution has been given to the owner of the establishment and is also attached a copy to this letter. Recommended Motion: Approve the renewal of the 1994 on-sale and Sunday liquor licenses for Chi Chi's Mexican Restaurante with the stipulation that the requirements are met in Resolution No. 7380. Basis for Recommendation: 1. The applicant has complied with all of the provisions of both City codes and State statutes pertaining to on-sale and Sunday liquor licensing. 2. Based upon the information supplied by the applicant and the investigation conducted, there appears to be no reason to deny the renewal of the licenses requested. Alternative Recommendation: 1. The Council could decide to continue the hearing, however, if the hearing is continued beyond January 1, 1994, the Council should consider the granting of a license extension to allow the applicant to continue to sell liquor until the rescheduled hearing can be conducted. • 2. The Council could decide to suspend or revoke the licenses. Any suspension or revocation must, according to Minnesota State Statute 340A.415, be based upon a finding that the licensee has failed to comply with an applicable statute, rule or ordinance relating to alcoholic beverages. The Council must also note that no revocation or suspension takes effect until the licensee has been afforded an opportunity for a hearing under Section 14.57 to 14.70 of the Administrative Procedure Act. It appears that the licensee has not committed any violation relating to alcoholic beverages and therefore, it is recommended that the licenses not be revoked or suspended. Discussion/Decision Mode: The public hearing to consider the requests for the renewal of Chi Chi's Mexican Restaurante on-sale and Sunday liquor licenses has been scheduled for December 13, 1993. These licenses expire January 1, 1994. Therefore, if the Council decides to continue the hearing beyond December 13, any subsequent hearing should be held before the licenses expire. ly submitted, Resp 7DProsser JameCity er JDP:ds S_ ?;L 9 PUBLIC SAFETY CONTACTS NOVEMBER 1992 THROUGH OCTOBER 1993 CHI CHI'S MEXICAN RESTAURANTE 1992 1993 Total Contacts 60 61 Total Criminal Contacts 42 38 "Bar Type" (Included in Crim. Contacts)(20) (10) Alarm (3) (0) • Misc. Non-Criminal 18 23 Assists (9) (7) Traffic/Parking (5) (6) Inspections/Licensing (1) (1) Medical/Fire (3) (9) The criminal contacts for 1993 were nine thefts, two vandalism, two warrants, two suspicious persons, eight suspicious vehicles, six disorderly conduct, one drunkenness, one domestic, one detox, one open bottle, one harassment, one follow-up investigation, two possess-receive-sell property and one forgery. (Numbers in parenthesis are included in total contact figures) g?3 • CHI CHI'S MEXICAN RESTAURANTE Partners/Officer and Titles: James Padgett President Michael Guerra Vice President, Secretary & Treasurer g-q 0 CITY OF RICHFIELD RESOLUTION NO. 7380 RESOLUTION SPECIFYING CERTAIN IMPROPER CONDUCT OF ON-SALE INTOXICATING LIQUOR LICENSEES AND STATING RECOMMENDED DISCIPLINE THEREFOR BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Richfield as follows: ' I. BAC'KGRQUND STATF.MF.NT The City of Richfield annually issues a number of licenses permitting the on-sale sale of intoxicating liquor within the City. The conduct of the licensed activity is governed by the provisions of Section 1200 of the City Code. Although, the • provisions of that Section describe in a general way what is expected of licensees in the proper conduct of the licensed activity, the City Council is concerned that licensees should have a more specific understanding of the types of conduct, generally described in the Code, which may subject their licenses to discipline; and further that they have a clear understanding of the scope and nature of the discipline which may be imposed for certain specific conduct. The levels of discipline described in this resolution will be imposed only in accordance with the applicable provisions of law. The list of activities and conduct contained in this resolution is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather concentrates on the types of conduct most frequently observed at licensed establishments. Other activity or conduct 9 which is detrimental to the public safety, health, morals and vS welfare and which constitutes a violation of the provisions of Section 1200 of the City discipline. The actions with this resolution are actions such as actions prosecution available to this resolution. Code may also subject liquor licenses to which the City may take in accordance not intended to preclude such further in law or in equity or criminal the City for the conduct described in II. SPFCTFTC PROHTATTFD CONDUCT AND PRO OS D RANCTTONS A. Noise and Other Disturhin Conduct- Within car Near thin Licensees are responsible for the conduct of their patrons while within the licensed establishment; and of individuals within the 0 immediate vicinity of the establishment who are either coming to or leaving the establishment. The City is unwilling to permit the continued operation of a licensed liquor establishment in circumstances where it is evident that the licensed activity is having a detrimental impact upon the health, welfare, safety and morals of the community and patrons of the establishment. The following discipline may be imposed upon on-sale intoxicating liquor licenses for verified reports of criminal misconduct occurring on or near the licensed premises and attributable to patrons of the establishment (including persons entering or leaving): a) For five (5) such incidents occurring within less than a 31-day period (beginning with the date of the first of such five incidents) - suspension of the license for g-?O . up to 10 days and a civil fine of $2,000 for each incident. b) For ten (10) such incidents occurring within less than a 61-day period (beginning with the date of the first of such incidents) - suspension of the license for up to 30 days and a civil fine of $2,000 for each incident. c) For fifteen (15) such incidents occurring within any 91- day period (beginning with the date of the first of such incidents) - suspension of the license for up to 60 days and a civil fine of $2,000 for each incident. The discipline outline above is intended to be cumulative in • nature, and incidents which give rise to discipline (or the right to discipline) during a shorter period may be counted in determining whether discipline is appropriate during a longer period. The term "verified reports of criminal misconduct" means a report made to the director of public safety by the licensee or a complaint made by others concerning an incident constituting a crime under the City Code or the laws of the State of Minnesota, which, in the opinion of the director, is directly attributable to the licensed activity. Verified reports of criminal misconduct do not of necessity mean requests for service, and licensees shall not be required to 41 make requests for service in situations where the licensee is S-7 capable of resolving the incident without police assistance. • However, it is necessary for the City to have an accurate measure of the level of criminal misconduct. The department of public safety shall establish standards and criteria for the making of such reports by the licensee. If the licensee fails to make the required reports of criminal misconduct in accordance with such standards and criteria, the following additional discipline may be imposed upon its on-sale intoxicating liquor license: a) For the first incident of failure to report criminal misconduct within any license year - suspension of license for up to five days and a civil fine of $2,000. b) For the second such incident in any license year - • suspension of license for up to 10 days and a civil fine of $2,000. c) For the third such incident in any license year - suspension of license for up to 15 days and a civil fine of $2,000. B. SPrvinAlcohnlic RPVPranPG RPVnnM the Tntarinr of tho YrPmiPPS with Al_nholir RPM raCPC Licensees must assure that the service and consumption of alcoholic beverages will be confined only to those areas permitted by the license. Failure to do so may have an evident and adverse impact upon other activities lawfully occurring within the area and creates a substantial risk of criminal behavior such as violation of the 9- F Open Bottle Law. The following discipline may be imposed upon • on-sale intoxicating beverage licenses: a) The first incident during the license year - up to a 10- day suspension and $2,000 civil fine.. b) The second incident during the license year - up to a 30-day suspension and $2,000 civil fine. c) The third incident during the license year - up to a 60- day suspension and $2,000 civil fine. d) The fourth incident during the license year - revocation of license. C, PPrmi tti na nnnt? anr•? tt? FXr-PPr1 th L i mi to PPrmi t+cd iJnr7Pr i hP is Uniform Fire C'or7P 99-114 ( nvprnrgmd nn ) Licensees are absolutely bound to prevent situations in which the licensed premises become overcrowded. The City finds that the opportunity to serve alcoholic beverages contributes to an environmental wherein overcrowding, if not strictly controlled by the licensee, may occur. Each liquor license issued shall state the maximum occupancy limit for the licensed premises. The following discipline may be imposed upon on-sale intoxicating liquor licenses for incident of overcrowding verified by the City's public safety director: a) The first incident during the license year - up to a 10- day license suspension and $2,000 civil fine. b) The second incident during the license year - up to a $' 7 • 30-day suspension and $2,000 civil fine. c) The third incident during the license year - up to a 60- day suspension and $2,000 civil fine. d) The fourth or subsequent incident during the license year - revocation of the license. D. Fani l i tat; n a C,ambJ na _ Licensees must not permit or allow any condition to occur on the licensed premises which would facilitate gambling activity. Licensees may not permit any device on the licensed premises which could be used for gambling. Such devices include blackjack tables, video games of chance, roulette wheels and any other amusement or gambling • device as defined in Minnesota Statutes, Chapters 349 and 609, and Richfield City Code Subsections 1100.13 and 1100.01 For any incident of facilitation of gambling the on-sale intoxicating liquor may be suspended for up to a period of days equal in number to the period of days that such incident continued. E. Fffac-t of Siiczn Png; nn nr R unc-ati nn of Fond 7 i PnsP On- sale intoxicating liquor licenses which are issued to establishments because they qualify as restaurants shall cease to be valid for any period of time during which the establishment's food license is under suspension or revocation as the result of actions taken by the city manager, enforcement officer, or both pursuant to Subsection 615.05, subdivision 6 of the City Code. SS- l0 The on-sale sale of intoxicating liquor during such period shall constitute an unlicensed sale. The City Council retains the right to modify the provisions of this resolution from time and to impose penalties in excess of those contained herein when, in the judgment of the council it is appropriate to do so. Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield this 14th day of December 1987. John N. Hamilton, Mayor ATTEST: • Thomas Ferber, City Clerk 0 CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA `7 Council Letter No346 Agenda December 13, 1993 Issue Statement: Renewal of 1994?on-sale and Sunday liquor licenses for Paisan Incorporated d/b/a Khan's Mongolian Barbecue, 500 East 78th Street. Background: On October ?25, 1993, the City received the renewal applications and other required documents for the on-sale and Sunday liquor licenses for Khan's Mongolian Barbecue. The applicant has paid the required license fees. The Public Safety background investigation has been completed and reveals the following: ? The corporate structure of the organization remains unchanged from last year. Mitchal Law continues to serve as the General Manager of the restaurant. Mitchal Law and Paisan Law are sole owners of the restaurant. Neither of these individuals has any known criminal record. ? The lease between the applicant and the property owner, Roy A. Bogen, is in effect with all payments current. ? All general sales, real estate and withholding taxes have been paid and are current. ? The $10,000 bond issued by United Fire and Casualty Company has been submitted. ? The required proof of liquor liability insurance and coverage has been received showing Transcontinental Insurance Company as affording the required coverage. Proof of workers' compensation insurance coverage was also supplied. ? An accountant's statement has been prepared and submitted. This statement covers the period from January 1993 through October 1993 and indicates that food sales accounted for 90% of the total sales, while liquor sales accounted for 10% of the total sales. From November of 1992 through October of 1993 there were eight Public Safety contacts with Khan's. This compares with seven contacts that occurred between August 1992 through October of 1992. A breakdown of these contacts is attached to this letter. There were no environmental health complaints received during this time period. On-sale and Sunday liquor licenses require owners of these establishments to comply with Resolution No. 7380, which outlines discipline they can expect if any ongoing problem occur. A copy of this resolution has been given to the owner of the establishment and is also attached a copy to this letter. • Recommended Motion: Approve the renewal of the 1994 on-sale and Sunday liquor license for Khan's Mongolian Barbecue with the stipulation that the requirements are met in Resolution No. 7380. Basis for Recommendation: 1. The applicant has complied with all of the provisions of both City codes and State Statutes pertaining to on-sale and Sunday liquor licensing. n 2. Based upon the information supplied by the applicant and the investigation conducted, there appears to be no reason to deny the license requested. Alternative Recommendation: 1. The Council could.decide to continue the hearing, however, if the hearing is continued beyond January 1, 1994, the Council should'consider the granting of a license extension to allow the applicant to continue to sell liquor until the rescheduled hearing can be conducted. 2. The Council could decide to suspend or revoke the licenses. Any suspension or revocation must, according to Minnesota State Statute 340A.415, be based upon a finding that the licensee has failed to comply with an applicable statute, rule or ordinance relating to alcoholic beverages. The Council must also note that no revocation or suspension takes effect until the licensee has been afforded an opportunity for a hearing under Section 14.57 to 14.70 of the Administrative Procedure Act. It appears that the licensee has not committed any violation relating to alcoholic beverages and therefore, it is recommended that the licenses not be revoked or suspended. Discussion/Decision Mode: The public hearing to consider the requests for the renewal of Khan's Mongolian Barbecue on-sale and Sunday liquor licenses has been scheduled for December 13, 1993. These licenses expire January 1, 1994. Therefore, if the Council decides to continue the hearing beyond December 13, any subsequent hearing should be held before the licenses expire. Respectfully submitted, James D Prosser City a ger JDP:ds 0 /) - CQ_ • PUBLIC SAFETY CONTACTS NOVEMBER 1992 THROUGH OCTOBER 1993 KHAN'S MONGOLIAN BARBECUE Total Contacts 1992 7 1993 8 Total Criminal Contacts "Bar Type" (Included in Crim. Contacts) Alarm 4 (1) (3) 5 (0) (1) Misc. Non-Criminal 3 3 Assists (0) (2) Traffic/Parking (0) (0) Inspections/Licensing (2) (0) Medical/Fire (1) (1) The criminal contacts from November 1992 through October 1993 were one suspicious person, two.vehicle thefts, one theft and one alarm. (Numbers in parenthesis are included in total contact figures) U 1-3 Khan's Mongolian Barbecue Officers and Directors Mitchal Law President and Treasurer Sherri Law Vice-President and Secretary is 0 ?_1) CITY OF RICHFIELD RESOLUTION NO. 7380 RESOLUTION SPECIFYING CERTAIN IMPROPER CONDUCT OF ON-SALE INTOXICATING LIQUOR LICENSEES AND STATING RECOMMENDED DISCIPLINE THEREFOR BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Richfield as follows: I. BACKrR01JNn STATRM .NT The City of Richfield annually issues a number of licenses permitting the on-sale sale of intoxicating liquor within the City. The conduct of the licensed activity is governed by the provisions of Section 1200 of the City Code. Although, the • provisions of that Section describe in a general way what is expected of licensees in the proper conduct of the licensed activity, the City Council is concerned that licensees should have a more specific understanding of the types of conduct, generally described in the Code, which may subject their licenses to discipline; and further that they have a clear understanding of the scope and nature of the discipline which may be imposed for certain specific conduct. The levels of discipline described in this resolution will be imposed only in accordance with the applicable provisions of law. The list of activities and conduct contained in this resolution is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather concentrates on the types of conduct most frequently observed at licensed establishments. Other activity or conduct 40 which is detrimental to the public safety, health, morals and le) ,.- 5? • welfare and which constitutes a violation of the provisions of Section 1200 of the City Code may also subject liquor licenses to discipline. The actions which the City may take in accordance with this resolution are not intended to preclude such further actions such as actions in law or in equity or criminal prosecution available to the City for the conduct described in this resolution. II. SPF.CTFTr PRnHTRTTFD C`nNDi1CT AND PRnPnSFD SANQTTnNS_ A. Nni_ge aad nthPr ni St-urhi nc; C onr u-I Within or N ar t-hP Licensees are responsible for the conduct of their patrons while within the licensed establishment; and of individuals within the • immediate vicinity of the establishment who are either coming to or leaving the establishment. The City is unwilling to permit the continued operation of a licensed liquor establishment in circumstances where it is evident that the licensed activity is having a detrimental impact upon the health, welfare, safety and morals of the community and patrons of the establishment. The following discipline may be imposed upon on-sale intoxicating liquor licenses for verified reports of criminal misconduct occurring on or near the licensed premises and attributable to patrons of the establishment (including persons entering or leaving): a) For five (5) such incidents occurring within less than a 31-day period (beginning with the date of the first of such five incidents) - suspension of the license for 0 up to 10 days and a civil fine of $2,000 for each incident. b) For ten (10) such incidents occurring within less than a 61-day period (beginning with the date of the first of such incidents) - suspension of the license for up to 30 days and a civil fine of $2,000 for each incident. C) For fifteen (15) such incidents occurring within any 91- day period (beginning with the date of the first of such incidents) - suspension of the license for up to 60 days and a civil fine of $2,000 for each incident. The discipline outline above is intended to be cumulative in nature, and incidents which give rise to discipline (or the right to discipline) during a shorter period may be counted in determining whether discipline is appropriate during a longer period. The term "verified reports of criminal misconduct" means a report made to the director of public safety by the licensee or a complaint made by others concerning an incident constituting a crime under the City Code or the law's of the State of Minnesota, which, in the opinion of the director, is directly attributable to the licensed activity. Verified reports of criminal misconduct do not of necessity mean requests for service, and licensees shall not be required to 0 make requests for service in situations where the licensee is q -11) capable of resolving the incident without police assistance. However, it is necessary for the City to have an accurate measure of the level of criminal misconduct. The department of public safety shall establish standards and criteria for the making of such reports by the licensee. If the licensee fails to make the required reports of criminal misconduct in accordance with such standards and criteria, the following additional discipline may be imposed upon its on-sale intoxicating liquor license: a) For the first incident of failure to report criminal misconduct within any license year - suspension of license for up to five days and a civil fine of $2,000. b) For the second such incident in any license year - . suspension of license for up to 10 days and a civil fine of $2,000. c) For the third such incident in any license year - suspension of license for up to 15 days and a civil fine of $2,000. B. SPrVina Alnnhnlin RPVPranaa RavnnH +hc Tn+o,-inr of +hc rrPmicPq wi t-h Al [1nhnl i Q Rpuprages Licensees must assure that the service and consumption of alcoholic beverages will be confined only to those areas permitted by the license. Failure to do so may have an evident and adverse impact upon other activities lawfully occurring within the area and creates a . substantial risk of criminal behavior such as violation of the Open Bottle Law. The following discipline may be imposed upon on-sale intoxicating beverage licenses: a) The first incident during the license year - up to a 10- day suspension and $2,000 civil fine. b) The second incident during the license year - up to a 30-day suspension and $2,000 civil fine. c) The third incident during the license year - up to a 60- day suspension and $2,000 civil fine. d) The fourth incident during the license year - revocation of license. C. PPrmi tti n a OnnunannV to FxnPPr3 the i mi tc PPrmi t+arl Under the 0 L1ni fnrm Fire rnt3e 7 S _ 1 1 d ( nyPrrrnwdj nQ ) Licensees are absolutely bound to prevent situations in which the licensed premises become overcrowded. The City finds that the opportunity to serve alcoholic beverages contributes to an environmental wherein overcrowding, if not strictly controlled by the licensee, may occur. Each liquor license issued shall state the maximum occupancy limit for the licensed premises. The following discipline may be imposed upon on-sale intoxicating liquor licenses for incident of overcrowding verified by the City's public safety director: a) The first incident during the license year - up to a 10- day license suspension and $2,000 civil fine. • b) The second incident during the license year - up to a ?-9 0 30-day suspension and $2,000 civil fine. c) The third incident during the license year - up to a 60- day suspension and $2,000 civil fine. d) The fourth or subsequent incident during the license year - revocation of the license. D. Fanili;-a;-;ng GAmhl;nQ_ Licensees must not permit or allow any condition to occur on the licensed premises which would facilitate gambling activity. Licensees may not permit any device on the licensed premises which could be used for gambling. Such devices include blackjack tables, video games of chance, roulette wheels and any other amusement or gambling • device as defined in Minnesota Statutes, Chapters 349 and 609, and Richfield City Code Subsections 1100.13 and 1100.01 For any incident of facilitation of gambling the on-sale intoxicating liquor may be suspended for up to a period of days equal in number to the period of days that such incident continued. E. F.ffPn;- of SiianPnsi on or RPVnnati on of Fnnd I i n nge On- sale intoxicating liquor licenses which are issued to establishments because they qualify as restaurants shall cease to be valid for any period of time during which the establishment's food license is under suspension or revocation as the result of actions taken by the city manager, enforcement officer, or both . pursuant to Subsection 615.05, subdivision 6 of the City Code. /D The on-sale sale of intoxicating liquor during such period shall constitute an unlicensed sale. The City Council retains the right to modify the provisions of this resolution from time and to impose penalties in excess of those contained herein when, in the judgment of the council it is appropriate to do so. Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield this 14th day of December 1987. John N. Hamilton, Mayor ATTEST: rI LJ Thomas Ferber, City Clerk 0 CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Council Letter No. 345 Agenda December 13, 1993 Issue Statement: Renewal of 1994?on-sale and Sunday liquor licenses for Richfield Restaurant Acquisition Co. d/b/a Champps Sports Cafe, 790 West 66th Street. Background: On October ?28, 1993, the City received the renewal applications and other required documents for the on-sale and Sunday liquor licenses for Champps Sports Cafe. The applicant has paid the required license fees. The Public Safety background investigation has been completed and reveals the following: ? The corporate structure of the organization remains unchanged from last year. Arthur E. Pew III remains the sole owner of the restaurant. Robert Tinsley continues to serve as the general manager of the restaurant. Neither of these individuals has any known criminal record. ? All general sales, real estate and withholding taxes have been paid and are current. • ? The lease between the applicant and the property owner, Market Plaza Commercial Ltd., is in effect with all payments current. ? The $10,000 bond issued by Old Republic Surety Company has been .submitted. ? The required proof of liquor liability insurance coverage has been received showing Park Glen National Company as affording the required coverage. Proof of workers' compensation insurance coverage will be supplied as soon as possible. ? An accountant's statement has been prepared and submitted. This statement covers the period from November 1992 through October of 1993 and indicates that food sales accounted for 65% of the total sales, while liquor sales accounted for 35% of the total sales. From November of 1992 through October of 1993 there were 47 Public Safety contacts with Champps. This compares with 54 contacts for the previous year. A breakdown of these contacts is attached to this letter. Environmental health staff received six complaints in 1993 regarding Champps. One complaint related to grease/food odors, one complaint was about diesel trucks loading and unloading while their engines were on and four complaints were regarding garbage and debris that was in back of the building. These have all since been resolved and no further complaints have been received by staff. ?0- I E On-sale and Sunday liquor licenses require owners of these establishments to comply with Resolution No. 7380, which outlines discipline they can expect if any ongoing problems occur. A copy of this resolution has been given to the owner of the establishment and is also attached a copy to this letter. Recommended Motion: Approve the renewal of the 1994 on-sale and Sunday liquor licenses for Champps Sports Cafe with the stipulation that the requirements are met in Resolution No. 7380. Basis for Recommendation: 1. The applicant has complied with all of the provisions of both City codes and State statutes pertaining to on-sale and Sunday liquor licensing. 2. Based upon the information supplied by the applicant and the investigation conducted, there appears to be no reason to deny the license requested. Alternative Recommendation: 1. The Council could decide to continue the hearing, however, if the hearing is continued beyond January 1, 1994, the Council should consider the granting of a license extension to allow the applicant to continue to sell liquor until the rescheduled hearing can be conducted. 2. The Council could decide to suspend or revoke the licenses. Any suspension or revocation must, according to Minnesota State Statute 340A.415, be based upon a finding that the licensee has failed to comply with an applicable statute, rule or ordinance relating to alcoholic beverages. The Council must also note that no revocation or suspension takes effect until the licensee has been afforded an opportunity for a hearing under Section 14.57 to 14.70 of the Administrative Procedure Act. It appears that the licensee has not committed any violation relating to alcoholic beverages and therefore, it is recommended that the licenses not be revoked or suspended. 0 Discussion/Decision Mode: The public hearing to consider the requests for the renewal of Champps Sports Cafe on-sale and Sunday liquor licenses has been scheduled for December 13, 1993. These licenses expire January 1, 1994. Therefore, if the Council decides to continue the hearing beyond December 13, any subsequent hearing should be held before the licenses expire. Resp ct ly submitted, James Prosser City Ma ger JDP:ds ?0-a 11 PUBLIC SAFETY CONTACTS NOVEMBER 1992 THROUGH OCTOBER 1993 CHAMPPS SPORTS CAFE 1992 1993 TOTAL CONTACTS 54 47 Total Criminal Contacts 40 32 "Bar Type" (Included in Crim. Contacts) (23) (16) Alarms (6) (4) Total Misc. Non-Criminal 14 15 Assists (4) (3) Traffic/Parking (4) (8) Inspections/Licensing (0) (0) Medical/Fire (6) (4) The criminal contacts for 1993 were five thefts, one suspicious person, nine noise complaints, one assault, three forgery, one weapons violation, one no pay, one harassing phone call, six drunkenness and four alarms. (Numbers in parenthesis are included in total contact figures) 0 6-3 0 CITY OF RICHFIELD RESOLUTION NO. 7380 RESOLUTION SPECIFYING CERTAIN IMPROPER CONDUCT OF ON-SALE INTOXICATING LIQUOR LICENSEES AND STATING RECOMMENDED DISCIPLINE THEREFOR BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Richfield as follows: I. HACKQRDUND STATEMENT The City of Richfield annually issues a number of licenses • 0 which is detrimental to the public safety, health, morals and permitting the on-sale sale of intoxicating liquor within the City. The conduct of the licensed activity is governed by the provisions of Section 1200 of the City Code. Although, the provisions of that Section describe in a general way what is expected of licensees in the proper conduct of the licensed activity, the City Council is concerned that licensees should have a more specific understanding of the types of conduct, generally described in the Code, which may subject their licenses to discipline; and further that they have a clear understanding of the scope and nature of the discipline which may be imposed for certain specific conduct. The levels of discipline described in this resolution will be imposed only in accordance with the applicable provisions of law. The list of activities and conduct contained in this resolution is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather concentrates on the types of conduct most frequently observed at licensed establishments. Other activity or conduct welfare and which constitutes a violation of the provisions of Section 1200 of the City Code may also subject liquor licenses to discipline. The actions which the City may take in accordance with this.resolution are not intended to preclude such further actions such as actions in law or in equity or criminal prosecution available to the City for the conduct described in this resolution. II. RPF.CTFTC PRQHTRTTFD rONDIMT AND PROPQR .D RANCTTQNR_ A. Noise and nthAr ni czturhi ncl Cnnduri- Within nr NPar i-hP Licensees are responsible for the conduct of their patrons while within the licensed establishment; and of individuals within the • immediate vicinity of the establishment who are either coming to or leaving the establishment. The City is unwilling to permit the continued operation of a licensed liquor establishment in circumstances where it is evident that the licensed activity is having a detrimental impact upon the health, welfare, safety and morals of the community and patrons of the establishment. The following discipline may be imposed upon on-sale intoxicating liquor licenses for verified reports of criminal misconduct occurring on or near the licensed premises and attributable to patrons of the establishment (including persons entering or leaving): a) For five (5) such incidents occurring within less than a 31-day period (beginning with the date of the first of is such five incidents) - suspension of the license for • up to 10 days and a civil fine of $2,000 for each incident. b) For ten (10) such incidents occurring within less than a 61-day period (beginning with the date of the first of such incidents) - suspension of the license for up to 30 days and a civil fine of $2,000 for each incident. c) For fifteen (15) such incidents occurring within any 91- day period (beginning with the date of the first of such incidents) - suspension of the license for up to 60 days and a civil fine of $2,000 for each incident. The discipline outline above is intended to be cumulative in • nature, and incidents which give rise to discipline (or the right to discipline) during a shorter period may be counted in determining whether discipline is appropriate during a longer period. The term "verified reports of criminal misconduct" means a report made to the director of public safety by the licensee or a complaint made by others concerning an incident constituting a crime under the City Code or the laws of the State of Minnesota, which, in the opinion of the director, is directly attributable to the licensed activity. Verified reports of criminal misconduct do not of necessity mean requests for service, and licensees shall not be required to 0 make requests for service in situations where the licensee is (0 s capable of resolving the incident without police assistance. • However, it is necessary for the City to have an accurate measure of the level of criminal misconduct. The department of public safety shall establish standards and criteria for the making of such reports by the licensee. If the licensee fails to make the required reports of criminal misconduct in accordance with such standards and criteria, the following additional discipline may be imposed upon its on-sale intoxicating liquor license: a) For the first incident of failure to report criminal misconduct within any license year - suspension of license for up to five days and a civil fine of $2,000. b) For the second such incident in any license year - . suspension of license for up to 10 days and a civil fine of $2,000. c) For the third such incident in any license year - suspension of license for up to 15 days and a civil fine of $2,000. B. SPryi na Air-oholin RPVPracrPq RPVnnH the Tntari nr of the YrPmiCPS with Alnnhniir RPveraaeg Licensees must assure that the service and consumption of alcoholic beverages will be confined only to those areas permitted by the license. Failure to do so may have an evident and adverse impact upon other activities lawfully occurring within the area and creates a substantial risk of criminal behavior such as violation of the Open Bottle Law. The following discipline may be imposed upon on-sale intoxicating beverage licenses: a) The first incident during the license year - up to a 10- day suspension and $2,000 civil fine. b) The second incident during the license year up to a 30-day suspension and $2,000 civil fine. c) The third incident during the license year - up to a 60- day suspension and $2,000 civil fine. d) The fourth incident during the license year - revocation of license. C. PE?rmi tti ng Orr_Ur)anrV try Fxr_PPri i•ha T i mi t -, PPrmi t-i-PA L1nc3Pr the 0 11ni farm Fi rP rnr3P 25-114 ( OvPrrrnwr3i nn ) Licensees are absolutely bound to prevent situations in which the licensed premises become overcrowded. The City finds that the opportunity to serve alcoholic beverages contributes to an environmental wherein overcrowding, if not strictly controlled by the licensee, may occur. Each liquor license issued shall state the maximum occupancy limit for the licensed premises. The following discipline may be imposed upon on-sale intoxicating liquor licenses for incident of overcrowding verified by the City's public safety director: a) The first incident during the license year - up to a 10- day license suspension and $2,000 civil fine. • b) The second incident during the license year 7 up to a • 30-day suspension and $2,000 civil fine. c) The third incident during the license year - up to a 60- day suspension and $2,000 civil fine. d) The fourth or subsequent incident during the license year - revocation of the license. D. Fan;litat-ing Gamh?;ncr_ Licensees must not permit or allow any condition to occur on the licensed premises which would facilitate gambling activity. Licensees may not permit any device on the licensed premises which could be used for gambling. Such devices include blackjack tables, video games of chance, roulette wheels and any other amusement or gambling • device as defined in Minnesota Statutes, Chapters 349 and 609, and Richfield City Code Subsections 1100.13 and 1100.01 For any incident of facilitation of gambling the on-sale intoxicating liquor may be suspended for up to a period of days equal in number to the period of days that such incident continued. E. RffPnt of S -nPng;nn nr RPVnnation of Fnnd I;nPn4P On- sale intoxicating liquor licenses which are issued to establishments because they qualify as restaurants shall cease to be valid for any period of time during which the establishment's food license is under suspension or revocation as the result of actions taken by the city manager, enforcement officer, or both • pursuant to Subsection 615.05, subdivision 6 of the City Code. (o- I The on-sale sale of intoxicating liquor during such,period shall constitute an unlicensed sale. The City Council retains the right to modify the provisions of this resolution from time and to impose penalties in excess of those contained herein when, in the judgment of the council it is appropriate to do so. Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield this 14th day of December 1987. John N. Hamilton, Mayor ATTEST: • Thomas Ferber, City Clerk 40 CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Council Letter No. 344 Agenda December 13, 1993 Issue Statement: Renewal of 1994?club on-sale and Sunday liquor Licenses for Minneapolis-Richfield American Legion Post 435, 6501 Portland Avenue. Background: On October 29, 1993, the City received the renewal applications and other required documents for the club on-sale and Sunday liquor licenses for Minneapolis-Richfield American Legion Post 435. The applicant has paid the required license fees. The Public Safety background investigation has been completed and reveals the following: ? Two new officers, Eugene Svendsen and Theodore Stage were elected as post officers in 1993. Donald Vogtman and William Bray continue to serve as the other post officers. Patrick Anzevino continues to serve as club manager. None of these individuals has any known criminal record. ? All general real estate taxes, state sales and withholding taxes have been paid and are current. ? The property and building continue to be owned by the American Legion. ? The $10,000 bond issued by American Bankers Insurance Company of Florida has been submitted. ? The required proof of liquor liability insurance coverage has been received showing Transcontinental Insurance Company as affording the required coverage. The applicant will supply proof of workers' compensation coverage as soon as possible. ? An accountant's statement has been prepared and submitted. This statement covers the period from October 1992 through September 1993 and indicates that food sales accounted for 50% of the total sales, liquor sales accounted for 50% of the total sales. From November of 1992 through October of 1993 there were 40 Public Safety contacts with the American Legion. This compares with 33 contacts for the previous year. A breakdown of these contacts is attached to this letter. Their were no environmental health complaints received during this time period. Club on-sale and Sunday liquor licenses require owners of these establishments to comply with Resolution No. 7380, which outlines: discipline they can expect if any ongoing problems occur. A copy of this resolution has been given to the owner of the establishment and is also attached a copy to this letter. 5a Recommended Motion: Approve the renewal of the 1994 club on-sale and Sunday liquor licenses for Minneapolis-Richfield American Legion Post 435 with the stipulation that the requirements are met in Resolution No. 7380. Basis for Recommendation: 1. The applicant has complied with all of the provisions of both City codes and State statutes pertaining to club on-sale and Sunday liquor licensing. 2. Based upon the information supplied by the applicant and the investigation conducted, there appears to be no reason to deny the renewal of the licenses requested. Alternative Recommendation: 1. The Council could decide to continue the hearing, however, if the hearing is continued beyond January 1, 1994, the Council should consider the granting of a license extension to allow the applicant to continue to sell liquor until the rescheduled hearing can be conducted. 2. The Council could decide to suspend or revoke the licenses. Any suspension or revocation must, according to Minnesota State Statute 340A.415, be based upon a-finding that the licensee has failed to comply with an applicable statute, rule or ordinance relating to alcoholic beverages. The Council must also note that no revocation or suspension takes effect until the licensee has been afforded an opportunity for a hearing under Section 14.57 to 14.70 of the Administrative Procedure Act. It appears that the licensee has not committed any violation relating to alcoholic beverages and therefore, it is recommended that the licenses not be revoked or suspended. Discussion/Decision Mode: The public hearing to consider the requests for the renewal of Minneapolis-Richfield American Legion Post 435 club on-sale and Sunday liquor licenses has been scheduled for December 13, 1993. These licenses expire January 1, 1994. Therefore, if the Council decides to continue the hearing beyond December 13, any subsequent hearing should be held before the licenses expire. Res ully submitted, Jam s Prosser City anager 0 JDP:ds ?5-d- 0 PUBLIC SAFETY CONTACTS NOVEMBER 1992 THROUGH OCTOBER 1993 MPLS. - RICHFIELD AMERICAN LEGION POST 435 i 1992 1993 Total Contacts 33 40 Criminal Contacts 21 30 "Bar Type" (Included in Crim. Contacts) (5) (10) Alarm (9) (12) Misc. Non-Criminal 12 10 Assists (2) (1) Traffic/Parking (6) (2) Inspections/Licensing (0) (1) Medical/Fire (4) (6) The criminal contacts for 1993 were one theft, two vandalism, four disorderly conduct, one robbery, twelve alarms, five drunkenness, one noise complaint, one vehicle theft, two suspicious persons and one forgery. (Numbers in parenthesis are included in total contact figures) 0 6,?) MPLS-RICHFIELD AMERICAN LEGION POST 435 OFFICERS AND DIRECTORS William Bray - President Gene Svendsen - Vice President Theodore Stage - Secretary Donald Vogtman - Treasurer 0 5-4 • CITY OF RICHFIELD RESOLUTION NO. 7380 RESOLUTION SPECIFYING CERTAIN IMPROPER CONDUCT OF ON-SALE INTOXICATING LIQUOR LICENSEES AND STATING RECOMMENDED DISCIPLINE THEREFOR BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Richfield as follows: I. 5ACKQRQ11Nn STATEMENT The City of Richfield annually issues a number of licenses permitting the on-sale sale of intoxicating liquor within the City. The conduct of the licensed activity is governed by the provisions of Section 1200 of the City Code. Although, the provisions of that Section describe in a general way what is expected of licensees in the proper conduct of the licensed activity, the City Council is concerned that licensees should have a more specific understanding of the types of conduct, generally described in the Code, which may subject their licenses to discipline; and further that they have a clear understanding of the scope and nature of the discipline which may be imposed for certain specific conduct. The levels of discipline described in this resolution will be imposed only in accordance with the applicable provisions of law. The list of activities and conduct contained in this resolution is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather concentrates on the types of conduct most frequently observed at licensed establishments. Other activity or conduct which is detrimental to the public safety, health, morals and 5-5 0 welfare and which constitutes a violation of the provisions of Section 1200 of the City discipline. The actions with this resolution are actions such as actions prosecution available to this resolution. Code may also subject liquor licenses to which the City may take in accordance not intended to preclude such further in law or in equity or criminal the City for the conduct described in II. SPF.C'TFTr PRC)HTRTTFn rQNni1CT AND PRQPORFn SANrTTONS A. Nnige-and Ot-hPr nieturhin C'nndurt Within nr NPar the Licensees are responsible for.the conduct of their patrons while within the licensed establishment; and of individuals within the • immediate vicinity of the establishment who are either coming to or leaving the establishment. The City is unwilling to permit the continued operation of a licensed liquor establishment in circumstances where it is evident that the licensed activity is having a detrimental impact upon the health, welfare, safety and morals of the community and patrons of the establishment. The following discipline may be imposed upon on-sale intoxicating liquor licenses for verified reports of criminal misconduct occurring on or near the licensed premises and attributable to patrons of the establishment (including persons entering or leaving): a) For five (5) such incidents occurring within less than a 31-day period (beginning with the date of the first of such five incidents) - suspension of the license for 5-l up to 10 days and a civil fine of $2,000 for each incident. b) For ten (10) such incidents occurring within less than a 61-day period (beginning with the date of the first of such incidents) - suspension of the license for up to 30 days and a civil fine of $2,000 for each incident. c) For fifteen (15) such incidents occurring within any 91- day period (beginning with the date of the first of such incidents) - suspension of the license for up to 60_,days and a civil fine of $2,000 for each incident. The discipline outline above is intended to be cumulative in nature, and incidents which give rise to discipline (or the right to discipline) during a shorter period may be counted in determining whether discipline is appropriate during a longer period. The term "verified reports of criminal misconduct" means a report made to the director of public safety by the licensee or a complaint made by others concerning an incident constituting a crime under the City Code or the laws of the State of Minnesota, which, in the opinion of the director, is directly attributable to the licensed activity. Verified reports of criminal misconduct do not of necessity mean requests for service, and licensees shall not be required to make requests for service in situations where the licensee is capable of resolving the incident without police assistance. 0 However, it is necessary for the City to have an accurate measure of the level of criminal misconduct. The department of public safety shall establish standards and criteria for the making of such reports by the licensee. If the licensee fails to make the required reports of criminal misconduct in accordance with such standards and criteria, the following additional discipline may be imposed upon its on-sale intoxicating liquor license: a) For the first incident of failure to report criminal misconduct within any license year - suspension of license for up to five days and a civil fine of $2,000. b) For the second such incident in any license year - • suspension of license for up to 10 days and a civil fine of $2,000. c) For the third such incident in any license year - suspension of license for up to 15 days and a civil fine of $2,000. B. PrPmiGPfi with AInnholir BPVPragP? Licensees must assure that the service and consumption of alcoholic beverages will be confined only to those areas permitted by the license. Failure to do so may have an evident and adverse impact upon other activities lawfully occurring within the area and creates a 0 substantial risk of criminal behavior such as violation of the Open Bottle Law. The following discipline may be imposed upon on-sale intoxicating beverage licenses: a) The first incident during the license year - up to a 10- day suspension and $2,000 civil fine. b) The second incident during the license year - up to a 30-day suspension and $2,000 civil fine. c) The third incident during the license year - up to a 60- day suspension and $2,000 civil fine. d) The fourth incident during the license year - revocation of license. C. Permitti nn negnl ann3Z to RxnAAd the T i mi t_ PArmi t-tarl ilndt-r the • Tlni fnrm Fire rnrIP 25-114 ( nvernrnwri; nn ) Licensees are absolutely bound to prevent situations in which the licensed premises become overcrowded. The City finds that the opportunity to serve alcoholic beverages contributes to an environmental wherein overcrowding, if not strictly controlled by the licensee, may occur. Each liquor license issued shall state the maximum occupancy limit for the licensed premises. The following discipline may be imposed upon on-sale intoxicating liquor licenses for incident of overcrowding verified by the City's public safety director: a) The first incident during the license year - up to a.10- day license suspension and $2,000 civil fine. 0 b) The second incident during the license year - up to a 5-9 30-day suspension and $2,000 civil fine. c) The third incident during the license year - up to a 60- day suspension and $2,000 civil fine. d) The fourth or subsequent incident during the license year - revocation of the license. D. Fani ] i tati ncr ,aM4 i ncr _ Licensees must not permit or allow any condition to occur on the licensed premises which would facilitate gambling activity. Licensees may not permit any device on the licensed premises which could be used for gambling. Such devices include blackjack tables, video games of chance, roulette wheels and any other amusement or gambling • device as defined in Minnesota Statutes, Chapters 349 and 609, and Richfield City Code Subsections 1100.13 and 1100.01 For any incident of facilitation of gambling the on-sale intoxicating liquor may be suspended for up to a period of days equal in number to the period of days that such incident continued. E. . F.ffac-t of S ial Pnczi nn or RPvnnati nn of Fnnci r i cPnse On- sale intoxicating liquor licenses which are issued to establishments because they qualify as restaurants shall cease to be valid for any period of time during which the establishment's food license is under suspension or revocation as the result of actions taken by the city manager, enforcement officer, or both pursuant to Subsection 615.05, subdivision 6 of the City Code. 5-)0 The on-sale sale of intoxicating liquor during such period shall • constitute an unlicensed sale. The City Council retains the right to modify the provisions of this resolution from time and to impose penalties in excess of those contained herein when, in the judgment of the council it is appropriate to do so. Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield this 14th day of December 1987. John N. Hamilton, Mayor ATTEST: • Thomas Ferber, City Clerk 0 CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Council Letter No.343 • Agenda December 13, 1993 Issue Statement: Renewal of 1994•club on-sale and Sunday liquor licenses for Fred Babcock V.F.W. Post No. 5555, 710 Lake Shore Drive. Background: On October ?28, 1993, the City received the renewal applications and other required documents for the club on-sale and Sunday liquor licenses for Fred Babcock V.F.W. Post No. 5555. The applicant has paid the required license fees. The Public Safety background investigation has been completed and reveals the following: ? Two new officers, Robert Goelz and Gordon Olson were elected as post officers in 1993. Lyle Herrmann and Roger Fahrenkrug continue to serve as the other two post officers. A copy of the list of officers is attached to this letter. Roy J. Hitchcock continues to serve as club manager. In 1990, the current Quartermaster of the V.F.W. was convicted of driving while under the influence of alcohol. ? All general sales, real estate and withholding taxes have been paid and are current. ? The property and building continue to be owned by Fred Babcock V.F.W. Post No. 5555. ? The $10,000 bond will be submitted as soon as possible. ? The required proof of liquor liability insurance coverage is being provided by USF & G Insurance Company as affording the required coverage. Proof of workers' compensation insurance coverage has been supplied. ? An accountant's statement has been prepared and submitted. This statement covers the period from July 1992 through June 1993 and indicates that food sales accounted for 54% of the total sales, while liquor sales accounted for 46% of the total sales. From November of 1992 through October of 1993 there were 15 Public Safety contacts with Fred Babcock V.F.W. Post No. 5555. This compares with 12 contacts for the previous year. A breakdown of these contacts is attached to this letter. There were no environmental health complaints received during this time period. Club on-sale and Sunday liquor licenses require owners of these • establishments to comply with Resolution No. 7380, which outlines discipline they can expect if any ongoing problems occur. A copy of this resolution has been given to the owner of the establishment and is also attached a copy to this letter. y-1 • Recommended Motion: Approve the renewal of the 1994 club license for Fred Babcock V.F.W. Post stipulation that the requirements are • on-sale and Sunday No. 5555 with the met in Resolution liquor No. 7380. Basis for Recommendation:. 1. The applicant has complied.with all of the provisions of both City codes and State statutes pertaining to club on-sale and Sunday liquor licensing. 2. Based upon the information supplied by the applicant and the investigation conducted, there appears to be no reason to deny the renewal of the licenses requested. Alternative Recommendation: 1. The Council could decide to continue the hearing, however, if the hearing is continued beyond January 1, 1994, the Council should consider the granting of a license extension to allow the applicant to continue to sell liquor until the rescheduled hearing can be conducted. 2. The Council could decide to suspend or revoke the licenses. Any suspension or revocation must, according to Minnesota State Statute 340A.415, be based upon a finding that the licensee has failed to comply with an applicable statute, rule or ordinance relating to alcoholic beverages. The Council must also note that no revocation or suspension takes effect until the licensee has been afforded an opportunity for a hearing under Section 14.57 to 14.70 of the Administrative Procedure Act. It appears that the licensee has not committed any violation relating to alcoholic beverages and therefore, it is recommended that the licenses not be revoked or suspended. Discussion/Decision Mode: The public hearing to consider the requests for the renewal of Fred Babcock V.F.W. Post No. 5555 club on-sale and Sunday liquor licenses has been scheduled for December 13, 1993. These licenses expire January 1, 1994. Therefore, if the Council decides to continue the hearing beyond December 13, any subsequent hearing should be held before the licenses expire. Resp ly submitted, James Prosser City ager JDP:ds 0 q -a • PUBLIC SAFETY CONTACTS NOVEMBER 1992 THROUGH OCTOBER 1993 FRED BABCOCK V.F.W. POST #5555 1992 1993 Total Contacts 12 15 Total Criminal Contacts 4 6 "Bar Type" (1) (1) Misc. Non-Criminal 8 9 Assists (1) (0) Traffic/Parking (2) (3) Inspections/Licensing (0) (0) Medical/Fire (5) (6) The criminal contacts for 1993 were one DWI, one theft, one suspicious vehicle, one vehicle theft, one suspicious person and one miscellaneous City ordinance. (Numbers in parenthesis are included in total contact figures) r? U y-3 • Fred Babcock VFW Post #5555 Officers/Titles Roger Fahrenkrug Lyle Herrmann Robert Goelz Gordon Olson Commander Sr. Vice-Commander Jr. Vice-Commander Quartermaster . ?1 CITY OF RICHFIELD RESOLUTION NO. 7380 RESOLUTION SPECIFYING CERTAIN IMPROPER CONDUCT OF ON-SALE INTOXICATING LIQUOR LICENSEES AND STATING RECOMMENDED DISCIPLINE THEREFOR BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Richfield as follows: I. BACKC,RnTTNn STATRMFNT The City of Richfield annually issues a number of licenses permitting the on-sale sale of intoxicating liquor within the City. The conduct of the licensed activity is governed by the provisions of Section 1200 of the City Code. Although, the • provisions of that Section describe in a general way what is expected of licensees in the proper conduct of the licensed activity, the City Council is concerned that licensees should have a more specific understanding of the types of conduct, generally described in the Code, which may subject their licenses to discipline; and further that they have a clear understanding of the scope and nature of the discipline which may be imposed for certain specific conduct. The levels of discipline described in this resolution will be imposed only in accordance with the applicable provisions of law. The list of activities and conduct contained in this resolution is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather concentrates on the types of conduct most frequently observed at licensed establishments. Other activity or conduct • which is detrimental to the public safety, health, morals and y-5 welfare and which constitutes a violation of the provisions of Section 1200 of the City discipline. The actions with this resolution are actions such as actions prosecution available to this resolution. Code may also subject liquor licenses to which the City may take in accordance not intended to preclude such further in law or in equity or criminal the City for the conduct described in II. SPEC'TFTr PRQHTRTTFn OONniTCT ANn PROPOSED SANG TTONS _ A. Nni RP anc9 nthPr ni cturhi na C'nnriunt Within nr NPar the Licensees are responsible for the conduct of their patrons while within the licensed establishment; and of individuals within the • immediate vicinity of the establishment who are either coming to or leaving the establishment. The City is unwilling to permit the continued operation of a licensed liquor establishment in circumstances where it is evident that the licensed activity is having a detrimental impact upon the health, welfare, safety and morals of the community and patrons of the establishment. The following discipline may be imposed upon on-sale intoxicating liquor licenses for verified reports of criminal misconduct occurring on or near the licensed premises and attributable to patrons of the establishment (including persons entering or leaving): a) For five (5) such incidents occurring within less than a 31-day period (beginning with the date of the first of • such five incidents) - suspension of the license for q,? up to 10 days and a civil fine of $2,000 for each incident. b) For ten (10) such incidents occurring within less than a 61-day period (beginning with the date of the first of such incidents) - suspension of the license for up to 30 days and a civil fine of 52,000 for each incident. c) For fifteen (15) such incidents occurring within any 91- day period (beginning with the date of the first of such incidents) - suspension of the license for up to 60 days and a civil fine of $2,000 for each incident. The discipline outline above is intended to be cumulative in nature, and incidents which give rise to discipline (or the right • to discipline) during a shorter period may be counted in determining whether discipline is appropriate during a longer period. The term "verified reports of criminal misconduct" means a report made to the director of public safety by the licensee or a complaint made by others concerning an incident constituting a crime under the City Code or the laws of the State of Minnesota, which, in the opinion of the director, is directly attributable to the licensed activity. Verified reports of criminal misconduct do not of necessity mean requests for service, and licensees shall not be required to 0 make requests for service in situations where the licensee is q -1 capable of resolving the incident without police assistance. • However, it is necessary for the City to have an accurate measure of the level of criminal misconduct. The department of public safety shall establish standards and criteria for the making of such reports by the licensee. If the licensee fails to make the required reports of criminal misconduct in accordance with such standards and criteria, the following additional discipline may be imposed upon its on-sale intoxicating liquor license: a) For the first incident of failure to report criminal misconduct within any license year - suspension of license for up to five days and a civil fine of'$2,000. b) For the second such incident in any license year - suspension of license for up to 10 days and a civil fine of $2,000. c) For the third such incident in any license year - suspension of license for up to 15 days and a civil fine of $2,000. B. PrPmiSPS with Alnnhnlir RPVeracrPS_ Licensees must assure that the service and consumption of alcoholic beverages will be confined only to those areas permitted by the license. Failure to do so may have an evident and adverse impact upon other activities lawfully occurring within the area and creates a 0 substantial risk of criminal behavior such as violation of the U-8 Open Bottle Law. The following discipline may be imposed upon on-sale intoxicating beverage licenses: a) The first incident during the license year - up to a 10- day suspension and $2,000 civil fine. b) The second.incident during the license year - up to a 30-day suspension and $2,000 civil fine. c) The third incident during the license year - up to a 60- day suspension and $2,000 civil fine. d) The fourth incident during the license year - revocation of license. C. PPrmi tti n(3 Occupancy to FxnPPd t-h T i mi i-a PPrmi t-t-P(j Under tha • ITni Pnrm Fire rnda 25.1 1 4 ( 0yPTC p3gdi n(7 ) Licensees are absolutely bound to prevent situations in which the licensed premises become overcrowded. The City finds that the opportunity to serve alcoholic beverages contributes to an environmental wherein overcrowding, if not strictly controlled by the licensee, may occur. Each liquor license issued shall state the maximum occupancy limit for the licensed premises. The following.discipline may be imposed upon on-sale intoxicating liquor licenses for incident of overcrowding verified by the City's public safety director: a) The first incident during the license year - up to a 10- day license suspension and $2,000 civil fine. 0 b) The second incident during the license year - up to a 30-day suspension and $2,000 civil fine. c) The third incident during the license year - up to a 60- day suspension and $2,000 civil fine. d) The fourth or subsequent incident during the license year - revocation of the license. D. FAni i+ai-ing ramhlina_ Licensees must not permit or allow any condition to occur on the licensed premises which would facilitate gambling activity. Licensees may not permit any device on the licensed premises which could be used for gambling. Such devices include blackjack tables, video games of chance, roulette wheels and any other amusement or gambling device as defined in Minnesota Statutes, Chapters 349 and 609; • and 'Richfield City Code Subsections 1100.13 and 1100.01 For any incident of facilitation of gambling the on-sale intoxicating liquor may be suspended for up to a period of days equal in number to the period of days that such incident continued. E. Effprt- of Siignc-nSinn nr RPVnnati nn of Fnnc3 T,i Pnge _ On- sale intoxicating liquor licenses which are issued to establishments because they qualify as restaurants shall cease to be valid for any period of time during which the establishment's food license is under suspension or revocation as the result of actions taken by the city manager, enforcement officer, or both . pursuant to Subsection 615.05, subdivision 6 of the City Code. q-10 The on-sale sale of intoxicating liquor during such period shall 0 constitute an unlicensed sale. The City Council retains the right to modify the provisions of this resolution from time and to impose penalties in excess of those contained herein when, in the judgment of the council it is appropriate to do so. Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield this 14th day of December 1987. John N. Hamilton, Mayor ATTEST: Thomas Ferber, City Clerk 3j-- CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Council Letter No.342 Agenda December 13, 1993 Issue Statement: Consideration of an application for a renewal of a residential kennel license for Karen Patek, 6633-15th Avenue. Background: On August 26, 1993, Karen Patek submitted an application for a residential kennel license. She owns two dogs and four cats. Ms. Patek's application includes signatures of all contiguous property owners. On November 15, 1993, an inspection of the property was conducted by a Community Service Officer. There were no apparent problems found at that time. Although this application is for two dogs and four cats, it does not exceed the maximum number of six animals that was approved by the Council as policy on July 22, 1991. Recommended Motion: Staff recommends that the application for a residential kennel license be approved. '-7* Basis for Recommendation: 1. It is up to the animal owner to prove that the keeping of, more than two dogs and two cats does not have an adverse effect on the neighborhood. Ms. Patek has been able to do this. Alternative Recommendation: 1. The Council could decide to deny Ms. Patek's residential kennel license. This would mean that she would have to reduce the number of cats she has from four to two. Discussion/Decision Mode: Recommendation to approve the application for a residential kennel license for Karen Patek, 6633-15th Avenue, is presented for Council consideration at this time. Respectfully submitted, Ja D. Prosser Ci Manager JDP:ds 0 81- CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Council Letter No. 341 Agenda December 13, 1993 Issue Statement: Approval for 1994 trash pickup and recycling collection services at City-owned facilities. Background: Trash pickup is required at all City facilities on a regular basis. In addition, recycling collection of newspaper, glass, cans, plastic and cardboard was added in recent years. Most sites haul their recycling items to City Hall; however, the. Golf Course requires a separate pick up for cardboard during their busy season. The various sites budget for their portion of the service. Due to a variety of needs, costs will vary from site to site; i.e., City Hall will have more frequent pickups than Fire Station #2. Due to seasonal demands, costs may vary from month to month at an individual site; i.e., the golf course has more frequent pickups during the golf season. Buckingham Disposal, Inc. has been the hauler of trash and recyclables from City facilities for the past three years at a yearly charge of approximately $19,894. A formal bid opening for trash hauling from all City-owned facilities, excluding the liquor stores, for calendar year 1994, • was held November 15, 1993 with the following results: Vendor Gallagher's Service, Inc. Quality Waste Control Buckingham Disposal, Inc. Knutson Rubbish Service, Inc. Waste Management BFI Estimated Annual Amount $17,684.05 19,944.94 20,915.29 26,250.33 27,508.61 30,629.55 On November 30, Hennepin County adopted resolutions reducing tipping fees from $95 to $60 per ton and imposing a 14.5% hauler fee to be charged to nonresidential generators. On December 3, Gallagher's Services, Inc., the low bidder, informed the City that they could not honor their bid because of the new County regulations. Quality Waste Control, the second low bidder, was contacted. They say they will honor their bid. Gallagher's Service, Inc. has been notified that the City Council will be asked to accept the second low bid and that Gallagher's Service, Inc. will have to forfeit their bid bond. Gallagher's Service, Inc. has until the City Council acts on December 13 to respond to this notification. Recommended Motion: Accept the bid minutes/tabulation and authorize a 1994 master purchase order in the estimated sum of $19,944.94 to Quality Waste Control for 1994 trash pickup for City of Richfield facilities. 51-1 A Basis of Recommendation: 1. Gallagher's Service, Inc. submitted the low bid but has indicated the bid will not be honored. 2. Quality Waste Control submitted the second low bid, is a reputable licensed hauler and has indicated it will honor its. bid. 3. Staff believes the bid submitted by Quality Waste Control is a reasonable bid for the services to be provided. 4. Proposed 1994 budgets include funding for this service. Alternative Recommendation: Council could reject all proposals and direct staff to obtain new bids; however, staff does not believe we could obtain better prices.. Discussion/Decision Mode: The current contract with Buckingham Disposal, Inc. will end December 31, 1993. Staff is requesting approval at this time in order to provide uninterrupted service to City facilities. y submitted, `e I James DV/ Prosser City Mahager JDP:ds Attachment 0 CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA 3l Bid Opening November 15, 1993 11:00 A.M. Trash and Recyclables Collection at City Owned Facilities - 1994 Bid No. 93-20 Pursuant to requirements of Resolution No. 1015, a meeting of the Administrative Staff was called by Thomas P. Ferber, City Clerk, who announced that the purpose of the meeting was to receive, open and read aloud, bids for trash and recyclables collection - 1994, bid no. 93-20, as advertised in the official newspaper on November 3, 1993. Present: Thomas Ferber, City Clerk Steve Devich, Administrative Services Director Cheryl Krumholz, City Manager Representative Roxi Braa, Administrative Aide The following bids were submitted and read aloud: VENDOR ; BID TOTAL SECURITY I • 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 Waste Management Savage ; 5$ Bid Bond ; $27,508.61 ; 1 J 1 I 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 1 Knutson Rubbish & Services ; Cashier's ; $26,250.33 ; Rosemount ; Check 1 1 1 Gallagher Service, Inc. Fridley ; Cashier's ; $17,684.05 ; Check Buckingham Disposal, Inc. Savage ; Cashier's ; $20,915.29 ; Check I 1 1 BFI Eden Prairie ; Cashier's ; $30,629.55 ; Check 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Quality Waste Control, Inc. ; Cashier's ; $19,944.94 ; Burnsville ; Check 1 1 1 The City Clerk announced that the bids would be tabulated and considered at the December 13, 1993 City Council Meeting. Thomas P. Ferber City Clerk 3H CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Council Letter No. 340 Agenda December 13, 1993 Issue Statement: Purchase in excess of $5,000 for hydrofluosilicic acid (fluoride) essential and required in 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 hydrofluosilicic acid water treatment to prevent tooth decay. also required and regulated by Minnesota City purchased hydrofluosilicic acid froi at a purchase price of $1.26 per gallon, the year. yearly as an additive to Hydrofluosilicic acid is state law. In 1993, the n Feed-Rite Controls, Inc. approximately $7,560 for Two vendors were contacted and proposals were received for approximately 6,000 gallons of hydrofluosilicic acid from: Feed-Rite Controls, Inc. $1.26/gallon $7,560/year DPC Industries, Inc. $1.32/gallon $7,920/year Recommended Motion: Approve a 1994 master purchase order to Feed-Rite Controls, Inc. for the purchase of approximately 6,000 gallons of hydrofluosilicic acid for an estimated yearly total of $7,560. Basis of Recommendation: 1. Hydrofluosilicic acid is a required chemical additive inwater treatment. 2. Feed-Rite Controls, Inc. submitted the lowest quotation. 3. The 1994 proposed budget includes sufficient funds for the chemical purchase. The price has remained the same for the past three years. Alternative Recommendation: Council may choose not to accept new quotes be obtained. However, prices can be obtained. any of the quotations and require staff does not believe better Discussion/Decision Mode: Staff requests approval at the December 13, 1993 Council meeting. Res ctfully submitted, a s D. Prosser i Manager JDP:ds 3C CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Council Letter No.339 Agenda December 13, 1993 Issue Statement: Purchase in excess of $5,000 for carbon dioxide essential in 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 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. Five vendors returned proposals as follows: KOCH Carbon Dioxide Company $45.00/ton $ 9,000/yearly Liquid Carbonic 49.90/ton 9,980/yearly Bend Southall McBeatric 60.00/ton 12,000/yearly Airco Gases 89.00/ton 17,800/yearly Cardox 98.00/ton 19,600/yearly The low bid from KOCH Carbon Dioxide Company, is a decrease of $15 per ton from the 1993 price of $60/ton, which would result in a savings of approximately $3,000. Recommended Motion: Approve a 1994 master purchase order to KOCH Carbon Dioxide Company for approximately 200 ton of carbon dioxide at a unit price of $45 per ton, for a total of about $9,000. 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 1994 proposed water maintenance budget for the purchase of carbon dioxide. 5C -1 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. Discussion/Decision Mode: Staff requests approval at the December 13, 1993 Council meeting. Respect lly submitted, James Prosser City anager JDP:ds 3F CITY OF RICHFIELD Council Letter No. 338 Agenda December 13, 1993 Issue Statement: Purchase in excess of $5,000 for asbestos removal work at the Richfield Ice Arena. 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 bottom layer of asbestos paper covering the insulation on the roof along the west side needed to be removed in order to replace the damaged insulation. The bottom layer of asbestos on the north, east and south sides was not removed. The insulation was not being replaced on these sides. The Pollution Control Agency (PCA) approved covering the bottom layer of asbestos paper with plywood. The PCA approved having G&B Construction, roofing contractor, remove the final layer on the west side of the arena if a supervisor from an asbestos removal company was on site during the removal. G&B was unable to remove the paper for insurance reasons. Had G&B been willing to remove the asbestos, they would have had to apply for a permit which would have included a ten day waiting period before work could begin. The project needed to be completed as soon as possible. Since SafeAir Systems, Inc. was the contractor on site for the previous asbestos removal and had the permit, it was necessary to retain them to complete the final phase as soon as possible. SafeAir Systems, Inc. agreed to do the work for an estimated time and material cost of $9,500. Recommended Motion: Approve a purchase order in the estimated amount of $9,500 to SafeAir Systems, Inc. for removing approximately 10,000 square feet of asbestos roofing paper from the west side of the Richfield Ice Arena roof. Basis of Recommendation: l.' The asbestos removal at the Richfield Ice Arena roof must be completed. 2. SafeAir Systems, Inc. is already on the site and is a qualified contractor. 3. Because of the weather and time constraints, the work has been authorized. 3F--1 Alternative Recommendation: None. Discussion/Decision Mode: This item is on the December 13, 1993 Council agenda. Council action is requested to allow payment. Respectfully submitted, Jam D. Prosser Cit anaaer JDP:ds 0 3E CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Council Letter No. 337 Agenda December 13, 1993 Issue Statement: Authorization to purchase Total Petroleum, 7645 Lyndale Avenue; 77th Street Project. Background: On November 9, 1992 the City Council authorized the purchase of Total Petroleum for $183,740 by the 77th Street Project. The offer was made and rejected by the owner. On December 14, 1992 the Council authorized condemnation proceedings. Subsequently, the District Court provided title and possession to this property. However, the final purchase price has yet to be determined. Negotiations have continued. It is proposed that the project pay $240,000 for the property with the owner indemnifying the City with regards to state pollution standards. The owner has a creditable appraisal establishing value at $325,000. The offer by the project for this property was $183,740 based on one appraisal report. The MnDOT/FHWA rules require a second appraisal on this type of property. The second appraisal fixed the value at $256,740. Recommended Motion: Adopt the attached resolution which authorizes the purchase of Total Petroleum at $240,000 and the Mayor and City Manager to execute a stipulation terminating the condemnation process. Basis of Recommendation: 1. The initial offer was rejected. 2. A negotiated settlement is usually preferable to the uncertainties of condemnation. 3. The settlement price is below the project's second appraisal. 4. The owner will bear the financial burden/risk of site clean-up to state standards. 5. Project funds are available. 6. MnDOT/FHWA rules have been followed. Alternative Recommendation: 1. Delay action. E-C).- 0 - 2. Propose an alternative settlement price. Discussion/Decision Mode: The owner is awaiting a response. A timely response will avoid the use of resources in the condemnation process. Res a fully submitted, J m s D. Prosser Ci y Manager JDP:ds 0 3E-3 E RESOLUTION NO. THE CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA RESOLUTION,AUTHORIZING PURCHASE OF REAL PROPERTY 77TH STREET PROJECT 0 WHEREAS, the City of Richfield, Minnesota desires to purchase certain real property pursuant to and in furtherance of the 77th Street Project (Project) heretofore adopted by the City of Richfield (City) said real property located at 7645 Lyndale Avenue, being described as follows: Lots 9 and 10, Block 7, Sunset Terrace, according to the plat thereof on file or of record in the Office of the Registrar of Titles in and for Hennepin County, Minnesota; and WHEREAS, on November 9, 1992, the City Council did set and approve just compensation for said real property in the amount of $183,740; and WHEREAS, the owner of said real property rejected said offer based on the approved just compensation; and WHEREAS, on December 14, 1992 the City Council authorized condemnation proceedings against said real property so that the District Court could provide remedy to the City for title and possession to the real property; and WHEREAS, negotiations have continued between the property owner and the City, including additional appraisals to further determine fair market value of said real property; and WHEREAS, it is proposed that the 77th Street Project pay $240,000 for said real property and fixtures and that the property owner indemnify the City for environmental cleanup of said real property according to state pollution standards. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota as follows: 1. That purchase at $240,000, in addition to indemnification for environmental cleanup is authorized. 2. That the Mayor and City Manager are authorized to execute a stipulation agreement terminating the condemnation process. 0 3E-4 3. That the Mayor and City Manager are authorized to execute any other documents which will effectuate the purchase of this property. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this 13th day of December, 1993. Martin J. Kirsch, Mayor ATTEST: Thomas P. Ferber, City Clerk 0 0 3b CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Council Letter No. 336 Agenda December 13, 1993 Issue Statement: City Council confirmation of City Manager's appointment of a Hearing Examiner. Background: The hearing officer procedure was established by the City Council in 1985 to hear and decide requests for variances from the literal provisions of the Zoning Ordinance where unique circumstances would cause undue hardship. The ordinance provides for the appointment of hearing examiners by the City Manager subject to confirmation by the City Council. The term of appointment of an existing hearing examiner, Vern Luettinger, expires this month and he has indicated a willingness to continue. Recommended Motion: Confirm the City Manager's reappointment of Vern Luettinger to a two year term as a Hearing Examiner. Basis of Recommendation: 1. Mr. Luettinger's current term expires on December 31, 1993. • 2. Mr. Luettinger has experience, training and knowledge as a Hearing Examiner and warrants reappointment. Alternative Recommendation: 1. Defer confirmation to a later Council meeting. 2. Deny confirmation of the appointment. Discussion/Decision Mode: This item has been placed on the consent calendar for December 13, 1993. Res ully submitted, Jame . Prosser City anager JDP:ds _? C CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Council Letter No. 335 Agenda December 13, 1993 Issue Statement: Adoption of Wetland Conservation Act rules. Background: The purpose of the Wetland Conservation Act (WCA) of 1991 (Laws of Minnesota 1991, chapter 354) is to: A. achieve no net loss in the quantity, quality, and biological diversity of Minnesota's existing wetlands; B. increase the quantity, quality, and biological diversity of Minnesota's wetlands by restoring or enhancing diminished or drained wetlands; C. avoid direct or indirect impacts from activities that destroy or diminish the quantity, quality, and biological diviersity of wetlands; and D. replace wetland values where avoidance of activity is not feasible or prudent. The WCA was amended during the 1993 legislative session (MN Law Chapter 175). The Board of Water and Soil Resources (BWSR) adopted a WCA Rule incorporating the WCA and the changes made by the State in 1993. Local government units (LGUs) such as the City of Richfield must adopt these rules in their entirety and begin administering the Permanent Program. Although BWSR encourages adoption of the WCA Rule into local ordinances for more efficient program administration, the WCA Rule was written to work as a stand-alone document and the rule can be implemented on its own. An example of the application of the WCA rules is the dredging of Wood Lake as identified in the Capital Improvement Program. The plan for the dredging must protect the size and quality of the wetland. The WCA rules define allowable activities. Richfield is currently preparing a Surface Water Management Plan. The Plan must be completed and incorporated by ordinance within two years. This Plan is referred to as a 509 Plan because it is based on Chapter 509 of Minnesota State Code. Staff is requesting Council to adopt a resolution at this time to satisfy the requirement related to the WCA Rule. The WCA rules should have limited effect on City operating costs in the long run. Some staff time will be needed to interpret and apply the rules to the first projects which directly affect any wetlands in Richfield. 3C-1 Recommended Motion: Adopt the attached resolution related to the Wetland Conservation Act Rule. Basis of Recommendation: 1. The Board of Water and Soil Resources has adopted a final Wetland Conservation Act Rule including changes made during the 1993 legislative session. 2. The City of Richfield must adopt these rules in their entirety and begin administering the Permanent Program before December 31, 1993. 3. Because work on Richfield's 509 Plan is not yet complete, it is not recommended that the WCA Rule be adopted into local ordinance at this time. Alternative Recommendation: None. DiscussionfDecision Mode: This item is on the December 13, 1993 Council agenda. Action is requested at this time to meet the December 31, 1993 deadline for adopting the WCA Rule. 0 JDP:ds Attachment y submitted, Jame D. Prosser City anager 3 c_d- RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION TO IMPLEMENT THE WETLAND CONSERVATION ACT OF 1991 (MINN. LAWS 1991 CHAPTER 354, AS AMENDED) AND THE ACCOMPANYING RULES OF THE MINNESOTA BOARD OF WATER AND SOIL RESOURCES (MINN. RULES CHAPTER 8420, AS AMENDED) WHEREAS, the State of Minnesota has adopted a Wetland Conservation Act of 1991, and WHEREAS, the Board of Water and Soil Resources has adopted a final Wetland Conservation Act Rule which includes changes made to the Wetland Conservation Act of 1991 during the 1993 legislative session, and WHEREAS, the City of Richfield is required to adopt these rules in their entirety and begin administering the Permanent Program before December 31, 1993, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Richfield that the Wetland Conservation Act Rule is adopted in its entirety and the administration of the Permanent Program shall commence. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota, this 13th day of December, 1993. 0 ATTEST: Martin J. Kirsch Mayor Thomas P. Ferber City Clerk U 3C-3 December 13, 1993 Page l of 7 WETLAND CONSERVATION ACT FINAL RULE (6/09/93) SUMMARY OF BOARD OF WATER AND SOIL RESOURCES ADOPTED PERMANENT RULES RELATING TO WETLAND CONSERVATION 8420.0100.PURPOSE The purpose of the Wetland Conservation Act (WCA) of 1991 (Laws of Minnesota 1991, chapter 354) is to: A. achieve no net loss in the quantity, quality, and biological diversity of Minnesota's existing wetlands; B. increase the quantity, quality, and biological diversity of Minnesota's wetlands by restoring or enhancing diminished or drained wetlands; C. avoid direct or indirect impacts from activities that destroy or diminish the quantity, quality, and biological diversity of wetlands; and D. replace wetland values where avoidance of activity is not feasible or prudent. 8420.0105 SCOPE Among other things, wetlands must not be drained or filled wholly or partially unless replaced by restoring or creating wetland areas of at least equal public value. • 8420.0110 DEFINITIONS Definitions include: scope, act, activity, agricultural land, agricultural stabilization and conservations, aquaculture, best management practices, Board, City, Commissioner, creation., day, department, ditch, drain or drainage, drainage system, excavation, fill, floodplain wetland, flaw-through wetland, hydric soils, hydrophytic vegetation., impact, impacted wetland, infrastructure, introduced hayland, introduced pasture, isolated wetland, landowt.ex', local government unit, mining, non.degraded wetland, pasture, peace officer, project, project-specific, public transportation. project, public value of wetlands, public waters wetlands, replacement wetland, restoration, right-of-way acreage, riverine wetland, set aside, silviculture, soil and water conservation district, Soil Conservation Service, tributary wetland, utility, watershed, watershed management organization, wetlands, wetlands 3n a cultivated field, and wetlands located on agricultural land. 8420.0112 INCORPORATION BY REFERENCE Several documents are incorporated by reference. Most are available through the Minitex interlibrary loan system. 8420.0115 SCOPE OF EXEMPTION STANDARDS Among other things, this section notes that an activity conducted in a wetland under an exemption shall ensure that: A. appropriate erosion control measures are taken to prevent sedimentation of the water; B. the activity does net block fish activity in a watercourse; C. the activity is conducted in compliance with all otter applicable federal, • state, and local requirements, including best management practices and water resource protection requirements established.under Minnesota Statutes. ?c- q December 13, 1993 Page 2 of 7 WETLAND CONSERVATION ACT FINAL RULE (6/09/93) SUMMARY OF BOARD OF WATER AND SOIL RESOURCES ADOPTED PERMANENT RULES RELATING TO WETLAND CONSERVATION 8420.0120 EXEMPTION STANDARDS Twenty-five exertions are listed wherein a replacement plan for wetlands in not required. These ezBrpticns range from Subpart 1: "activities in a wetland that was planted with annually seeded crops, was in a ar rotation seeding of pasture grasses or lepxnes, or was required to be set aside to receive price support or other payments under United State Code in six of the last ten years prior to January 1, 1991" to Subpart 25: activities that result in the draining or filling of less than 400 square feet of wetlands; this exemption applies if the total wetland loss by draining and filling will be less than 400 square feet per year per landowner, and the cumulative impact by all persons on a wetland over time without replacement after January 1, 1992, does not exceed five percent of the wetland's area. 8420.0200 DE'PE MINING LOCAL GOVERNMENT UNIT The section indicates the local government unit responsible for making exemption and no-loss determinations and approving replacement plans in the seven-county metropolitan area is the city, town, or water management organization regulating • surface-water-related matters in the area in which the drain and fill activity is located, or its delegate. 8420.0210 EXEMPTION DETERMINATIONS A landowner intending to drain or fill a wetland without replacement, claiming exemption under part 8420.0120, may contact the local government unit before beginning draining or filling activities for determination whether or not the activity is exempt. Landowner and local gavUL111 it unit responsibilities are outlined. 8420.0220 NO-LOSS DMR4MTIONS A landowner unsure if proposed work will result in a loss of wetland may apply to the local government unlit for a determination. The local goverrment unlit shall issue a no-loss certificate if the landowner requests and if either: A. the work will not drain or fill a wetland; B. water level management activities will not result in the conversion of a wetland to another land use; C. the activities are in a surface impoundment for containment of fossil fuel combustion waste or water retention, and are not part of a compensatory wetland mitigation program; or D. the activity is being conducted as part of an approved replacement plan or is conducted or authorized by public agencies for the purpose of wetland restoration and the activity is restricted to placing fill in a previously excavated drainage system to restore a wetland to its original condition. 3C-5 December 13, 1993 Page 3 of 7 IS WETLAND CONSERVATION ACT FINAL RULE (6/09/93) SUMMARY OF BOARD OF WATER AND SOIL RESOURCES ADOPTED PERMANENT RULES RELATING TO WETLAND CONSERVATION 8420.0230 REPLACEMENT PLAN DETEE44MTIONS A landowner intending to drain or fill a wetland who does not quality for an exemption, or no-loss determination, shall obtain approval of a replacement plan from the local government unit before beginning draining or filling. Notice and publication, steps are outlined. For wetland replacement plans involving more than one local government unit, approval of all local government units involved shall constitute final approval of the replacement plan and is required before the project may proceed. The local government unit with jurisdiction for the impact site must approve all components of the replacement plan. The local Bove ill it unit with jurisdiction, for the replacement site shall limit the review to evaluation, of the replacement site. As part of the approval of the replacement plant, the local government unit with jurisdiction for the replacement site assumes responsibility for ensuring compliance with monitoring provisions. The local government unit with jurisdiction, for the replacement site may enter into joint powers agreements with a local gent unit with jurisdiction, for the impact site, assess fees, or develop other procedures considered necessary to facilitate the process. 8420.0235 WETLAND BANKING PROCEDURES • For wetland banking procedures, refer to parts 8420.0700 to 8420.0760. Appeals to the local government unit banking decisions are taken according to part 8420.0250. 8420.0240 TEC[iNICAL EVALUATION PANEL PROCEDURES For each local government unit, there is a technical evaluation panel of three persons. Responsibilities are outlined. 8420.0245 OILIER FOCAL GOVERNMENT UNIT WETLAND RULES AND ORDINANCES Subpart 1 deals with the appeal of replacement plan decisions. Subpart 2 deals with the appeal of exemption and ro-loss determinations. Subpart 3 deals with the Board appeal procedures. 8420.0260 PENALTY FUR LOCAL GOVERNMENT UNIT FAILURE TO APPLY LAW The City of Richfield is in compliance by acknowledging to the Board that it is assuming its responsibility under this chapter and the act. 8420.0270 COMPENSATION Replacement plan applicants who have completed the local government unit process and the board appeal process, and the plan has not been approved as submitted, may apply to the board for compensation under Miruiesota Statutes. 8420.0280 APPEAL FROM BOARD DECISIONS An appeal of a board decision, is taken to the state court of appeals and must be considered an appeal from a contested case decision, for purposes of judicial review under Minnesota Statutes. 8420.0290 ENFORCEMENT PROCEDURES Subpart 1 identifies enforcing authorities. Subpart 2 deals with cease and desist orders. Subpart 3 deals with restoration and replacement orders. ..C ( r l iy December 13, 1993 Page 4 of 7 • WETLAND CONSERVATION ACT FINAL RULE (6/09/93) SUMMARY OF BOARD OF WATER AND SOIL RESOURCES ADOPTED PERMANENT RULES RELATING TO WETLAND CONSERVATION MINING 8420.0300 MINING Wetlands may not be drained or filled as part of a project for which a permit to mine is required by Minnesota Statutes. HIGH PRIORITY REGIONS AND AREAS 8420.0350 HIGH PRIORITY REGIONS AND AREAS Subpart 1 defines high priority regions as counties that have lost 50% or more of their presettlement wetland base. Subpart 2 defines high priority areas. Water ?t plans prepared by water management organizations in the metropolitan area must identify those areas that qualify as high priority areas for wetland pregezvatien, enhancement, restoration, and establishment. To identify high priority areas, at least the following landscape characteristics shall be considered: 1) land use and cover types, 2) wetland and watershed ratio, 3) soil erosion rates, 4) watershed gradient, 5) surface water retention, 6) soil fertility, 7) geology, 8) wetland complexes, 9) prnx?mity to population centers, 10) public ownership and 11) significant wildlife use. • WETLAND PRESERVATION AREAS 8420.0400 WETLAND PRESERVATION AREAS Subpart 1 indicates wetlands located in areas that are both high priority regions and high priority areas are eligible for enrollment as wetland preservation areas and that a wetland so enrolled is exempt from property tax. Subpart 2 describes the process for landowner application to the county for designation of a wetland as a wetland preservation area. Subpart 3 describes the County review of applications. Subpart 4 notes applicable statutes. STANDARDS AND PROCEDURES FOR EVALUATING WETLAND REPLACEMENT PLANS 8420.0500 PURPOSE Parts 8420.0500 to 8420.0630 specify the procedures and criteria for avoiding and min. mizing wetland impacts and for ensuring adequate replacement of lost public values for unavoidable wetland impacts. 8420.0505 INTERIM REPLACEMENT PLANS Replacement plans approved under the interim guidelines in Minnesota Statutes must be completed in entirety by June 30, 1995. 8420.0510 PROCEDURES Subpart 1 indicates that no person shall drain or fill a wetland, wholly or partially, without first having a wetland value replacement plan, if required, approved by the governing body of the local government unit, or the lead local government unit if so designated by the board. Subpart 2 indicates that before preparation of a wetland value replacement plan, it is recommended that the landowner meet with the local: government unit for a preapplication conference and site visit. Subpart 3 indicates evaluation shall take place as provided in section. 8420.0240. December 13, 1993 Page 5 of 7 WETLAND CONSERVATION ACT FINAL RULE (6/09/93) SUMMARY OF BOARD OF WATER AND SOIL RESOURCES • ADOPTED PERMANENT RULES RELATING TO WETLAND CONSERVATION 8420.0520 SEQUENCING With some exception, the local government unit may not consider or approve a wetland replacement plan unless the local government unit finds that the applicant has --- __strated that the activity impacting a wetland has complied with all of the following principles in descending order or priority: A. avoids direct or indirect impacts to the wetland that may destroy or diminish the wetland tux3er the criteria in Subpart 3; B. minimizes the impact to the wetland by limiting the degree or magnitude of the wetland activity and its implementation under the criteria in Subpart 4; C. rectifies the impact by repairing, rehabilitating, or restoring the affected wetland under the criteria in Subpart 5; D. reduces or eliminates the impact to the wetland over time by preservation and maintenance operations under the criteria in Subpart 6; and E. replaces unavoidable impacts to the wetland by restoring or creating substitute wetland areas having equal or greater public value as provided in part 8420.0530 to 8420.0630. Subpart 2 describes application options. As referenced above, Subpart 3 deals with determination of impact avoidance, Subpart 4 deals with determination of impact minimization, Subpart 5 deals with determinations of impact rectification and Subpart 6 deals with determination of reduction or elimination of impacts over time. Subpart 7 indicates that unavoidable wetland impacts that remain after efforts to minimize, rectify, or reduce or eliminate them must be replaced according to parts 8420.0530 to 8420.0630. Subpart 8 deals with wetlands on • cultivated fields and Subpart 9 deals with calcareous fens. 8420.0530 REPLACEMENT PLAN CCMPONENTS Documentation needed for replacement plans is described. 8420.0540 REPLACEMENT PLAN EVALUATION CRITERIA . Before consideration or approval of a replacement plan, the local government unit must ensure that the applicant has exhausted all possibilities to avoid and minimize adverse wetland impacts according to sequencing in part 8420.0520. The order of preference for the method of replacement, from most preferred to least preferred, is project-specific restoration, project-specific creation, then wetland banking. Replacement of wetland values must be completed before or concurrent with the actual drai ni xg or filling of a wetland unless an irrevocable bank letter of credit or other security is submitted to guarantee successful completion of the replacement. Replacement wetlands shall be located within the same watershed or county as the impacted wetlands, except that counties or watersheds in which 80% or more of the presettlement acreage is intact may accomplish replacement in counties or watersheds in which 50% or more of the presettlement wetland acreage has been filled, drained, or otherwise degraded. For purposes of this part, Hennepin County has 50% or less of this presettlement acreage intact. Subpart 6 describes the size of replacement wetlands. Subpart 7 deals with carbon balance. Subpart 8 deals with ecological consistency. Subpart 9 details special considerations such as federal or state-listed endangered species, rare natural communities, special fish and wildlife resources, - arrlsaeological or historic sites, groundwater sensitivity, sensitive surface • waters, education or research use, waste disposal sites, and consistency with other plans. Subpart 10 deals with evaluation of wetland functions and valves. This includes evaluations options, wetland types, replacement ratios for in-kind replacement, out-of-kind replacement ratios, determining impacts of partial drainage, determining credit for restoration of partially drained wetland, special cases or appeals, decision of adequacy for the replacement plan, and eligibility for the Reinvest in Minnesota program. 3C-8 December 13, 1993 Page 6 of 7 WETLAND CONSERVATION ACT FINAL RULE (6/09/93) • SUMMARY OF BOARD OF WATER AND SOIL RESOURCES ADOPTED PERMANENT RULES RELATING TO WETLAND CONSERVATION 8420.0550 WETLAND REPLACBYMM STANDARDS General and specific requirements are outlined including water control structures, best management practices, vegetation, erosion control measures, organic substrata, bottom contours, sideslopes and edges. 8420.0600 MONITORING The purpose of wetland value replacement mordtoring is to ensure that the replacement wetland achieves the goal of replacing lost functions and values. 8420.0610 DURATION OF MONITORING Monitoring shall be by means of an annual report and shall continue for five years following completion of the wetland replacment project. 8420.0620 MONITORING ANNUAL REPORT The annual report is described as to purpose and content. 8420.0630 MONITORING DETERMINATIONS BY THE FOCAL GMM4,,M[VT UNIT This section outlines the steps that shall be taken by the local government unit during the monitoring period. STANWW AND CRITERIA FOR STATE WETLAND BANKING 8420.0700 PURPOSE The purpose of part 8420.0700 to 8420.0760 is to provide standards for the establishment and administration of a state wetland banking system as authorized by Minnesota statutes. 8420.0710 DEFINITIONS Definitions include account or wetland bank account, account holder, applicant, credits or wetland credits, and state wetland banking system or wetland bank. 8420.0720 PRINCIPLES OF WETLAND BANKING The goal is that implementation of a wetland banking system must comply with the purposes and goals of the act by achieving a no-net loss in the quantity, quality, and biological diversity of Minnesota's existing wetlands. This section goes on to outline sequencing prerequisite, geographic limitations, eligible wetlands, ineligible wetlands, account balance, credit transfers, deed recording, and qualification for wetland credit. 8420.0730 ADMINISTRATION AND MmmEmmr AmmTY This section deals with establishment of a state wetland bank, deposit requirements and the annual report. 8420.0740 PRUCIDURFS Detailed procedures are outlined for deposits, credits, and withdrawals. 8420.0750 AUDITING AND MONITORING Forms, files and reports are described. The board shall inspect wetlands • deposited into the wetland bank at least once every five years to ensure that the wetlands conform to conditions specified in the approved bank plan. 8420.0760 ENFOMVT AND CORRECTIVE ACTIONS Minnesota Statutes govern enforcement. The steps and options related to correction of rxxxx pliance are outlined. 3C-? December 13, 1993 Page 7 of 7 WETLAND CONSERVATION ACT FINAL RULE (6/09/93) SUMMARY OF BOARD OF WATER AND SOIL RESOURCES ADOPTED PERMANENT RULES RELATING TO WETLAND CONSERVATION STANARDS AND CRITERIA FOR IDENTIFICATION, PRC7=ION, AMID MANAGEMENT OF CALCAREOUS FENS 8420.1010 PURPOSE The purpose of parts 8420.1010 to 8420.1060 is to provide miniman standards and criteria for the identification, protection, and management of calcareous fens as authorized by Minnesota Statutes. Part 8420.0120 does not apply to calcareous fens. 8420.1020 IDENTIFYING CALCAREOUS FENS A calcareous fen is a peat-aoczmtulating wetland dominated by distinct groundwater inflows having specific chemical characteristics. The water is characterized as circxmmeutral to alkaline, with high concentrations of calcium and low dissolved oxygen content. 8420.1030 PROCEDURES TO LIST CALCAREOUS FENS Identification of calcareous fens, maintaining and updating lists is outlined. 8420.1040 MANAGEMENT PLANS Calcareaas fens may not be drained or filled or otherwise altered or degraded except as provided in an approved management plan. 8420.1050 RESTORATION The commissioner may approve management plans to restore or upgrade a previously damaged calcareous fen. 8420.1060 APPEALS Appeal of a determination that a wetland is a calcareous fen or of a nvnagenPnt plan may be dog through a hearing. The steps and procedures for such hearing(s) are outlined. 0 36 0 • CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Council Letter No. 334 Agenda December 13, 1993 Issue Statement: Consideration of a resolution in support of an application to the Board of Government Innovation and Cooperation for high speed bus planning. Background: The High Speed Bus Project partners have submitted an application to assist with planning the High Speed Bus Project. An initial review of our application has been completed. That review indicates that to qualify for the innovation grants, it is necessary for the cooperating agencies to approve a resolution in support of the grant application. The grant monies would be used to assist with funding of the high speed bus effort. A copy of the application is attached. Recommended Motion: Approve the resolution in support of the high speed bus planning grant request. Basis for Recommendation: 1. The project is innovative and cooperative. 2. Funding would be useful in furthering the efforts of the high speed bus planning effort. Alternative Recommendation: 1. The Council may decide not to endorse the application request. Discussion/Decision Mode: This matter will be presented for the City Council as a consent item on the agenda of December 13, 1993. Res ec ully submitted, J4es D. Pr osser Canager JDP:cak 36-1 . RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION IN SUPPORT OF AN APPLICATION FOR SERVICE BUDGET MANAGEMENT MODEL GRANT WHEREAS, reducing congestion on highways and local streets is a high priority for communities throughout the metropolitan area; and WHEREAS, the cities of Richfield, Prior Lake, Savage, Bloomington, Apple Valley, Eagan, Rosemount, Edina, Lakeville, Burnsville, the Minnesota Valley Transit Authority and Dakota County have joined in an effort to provide planning and implementation services related to a high speed bus effort; and WHEREAS, the Board of Government Innovation and Cooperation has requested grant proposals from local units of government; and WHEREAS, the High Speed Bus Project clearly qualifies for the grant as indicated by the criteria established by the Board of Government Innovation and Cooperation. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota as follows: Section 1. That the City Manager is hereby authorized to • execute an application form for service budget management model grant. Section 2. That the Mayor and City Council hereby encourage favorable consideration of this grant request. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Richfield this 13th day of December, 1993. ATTEST: Thomas P. Ferber City Clerk Martin J. Kirsch Mayor 0 BOARD OF GOVERNMENT INNOVATION ??- AND COOPERATION APPLICATION FORM Application For A Service Budget Management Model Grant PART ONE This application is submitted to the Board of Government Innovation and Cooperation pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, § 465.798. Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, eligible applicants for a Service Budget Management Model Grant include local unit(s) of government, an association of local governments, the metropolitan council, or an organization acting in conjunction with a local unit of government (hereinafter referred to as "eligible applicant(s)"). The eligible applicant(s) for this grant agree to abide by the requirements of Minnesota Statutes and the approved procedures for the Board. Please respond to the following questions. If necessary, use attachments to respond to specific questions. The Board shall return or reject applications that it determines do not provide an adequate response to the specific questions. 1. Name of eligible applicant(s). The High Speed Bus Coalition • 2. Name, address and telephone number of an individual who is able to respond to questions regarding the grant application. Name: Jim Prosser Position: City Manager, Richfielc Address: 6700 Portland Ave. So. (Name of an Ag%k appSeaot, or reprnmtative tbemb (Cky, State and zip Code) Richfield, MN 55423 (Street Addrm) Telephone Number: 612-86-1-9705 3. What is the specific service or program for which the eligible applicant intends to develop a model for innovative service budget management. Describe the conceptual means by which the service or program will be provided using the innovative service budget management model. What is the desired outcome from the eventual implementation of the innovative service budget management model and how will this outcome be measured. (Please Attach Response; limit response to a maximum of one typed page) 4. Total estimated cost of developing the model: (Do not include the cost of providing the service once the model is developed, unless there are one-time only start-up costs associated with the implementation of the model.) Total amount of grant requested ($50,000 Statutory Maximum): $. $ 50,000.00 (Marketing) 50,000.00 5.- Explain why the development of this model can not be accomplished using the existing resources 'of the 3 eligible applicant(s). Why is it necessary for the state Board of Government Innovation and Cooperation to participate financially in the development of this model? Each municipality and-county partner of the High Speed Bus. Coalition has contributed $7,500.00 to-be used for Phase 2 service plan development. In order to successfuly market the High Speed Bus Coalition plan, additional materials are needed to sustain a comprehensive and successful marketing component that educates and promotes the financial benefits and flexibility of a High Speed Bus Program for the metropolitan Twin Cities area. 6. Identify all 'groups of clients of the service or program that will be directly impacted by the eventual implementation of the model. Explain how these clients will be involved in the development of the model. (Please Attach Response; limit response to a maximum of one typed page) 7. Identify the minimum length of time the eligible applicant is committed to implementing/testing the model once it has been developed. Two (2) Years 8. Has the governing body of the eligible applicant(s) passed a resolution approving the application for the • Service Budget Management Model Grant? Yes X No (will be done at Nov. 10, 1993 Coalition membership meeting (Please Attach Copy Of Resolution(s)) To the best of my (our) knowledge, all information contained in this application is accurate and complete. (Signature) (Signature) (Signature) (Signature) Manager, City of Richfield 11/4/93 (Title) (Date) Commissioner, Dakota County 11/4/93 (Title) (Date) (Title) (Date) (Title) (Date) (The application must be signed by the senior elected or administrative official of the local unit of is government or the senior administrative official of an organization or association acting on behalf of local governments,-an application submitted by multiple units of government must be signed by the senior elected or administrative official from each participating unit of government.) 2 3s-4 High Speed Bus Coalition 0 Application for a Service Budget Management Model Grant November 5, 1993 ' Question #3• The High Speed Bus Coalition, a group of municipalities and counties within the metropolitan Twin Cities, has been established to assist metropolitan agencies with the redesign and delivery of existing transit services and to further the development of new and innovative transit systems. The goal of the High Speed Bus Coalition is to develop, promote and assist in the implementation of innovative transit services that provide residents of the metropolitan area with linkages that follow established trip patterns such as the following: intersuburban and intrasuburban travel, high-density neighborhoods to major employment centers, reverse commute services from the central cities to first, second and third- tier suburban worksites, and hub-to-hub linkages utilizing collector/ distributor feeders and restricted high-speed bus lanes. Other inducements, such as Intelligent Vehicle Highway Systems (IVHS) capabilities and alternative-fueled vehicles, are planned to demonstrate technological and environmental enhancements that can attract ridership. The Coalition has developed a three-phased workplan and hired a consultant team to carry out workplan tasks in accordance with the wishes of its membership, which currently stands at nine cities, one transit authority and one county (list attached). Each member of the Coalition is paying a $7,500 fee for deliverables to be provided within the second phase of the project. Currently in Phase 2, the Planning and Marketing Service Development stage, the Coalition is in the process of developing a specific operational service design and cost estimates, and a funding proposal package to be targeted at both the state and federal levels by Feburary 1994. An expected outcome of the Coalition workplan is the staging of a two-year operational high-speed transit demonstration project within coalition boundaries, to be funded. with the cooperation of the Minnesota State Legislature, the Federal Transit Administration, Congressional appropriations, public/private partnerships, "inkind" private donations and grants. The High Speed Bus Coalition expects to demonstrate that innovative transit service delivery planned on the "grass roots level" and specifically for the convenience of system users and metropolitan area residents, will increase mobility and allow for additional access to many areas of the Twin Cities not presently served or to be under reconstruction within the next five years (I-35W and I-494 corridors). The outcome will be measured by the ridership levels gained over the course of the demonstration period, as well as by a comparison of the cost of the planned services as compared to regional transit subsidization and cost per passenger guidelines. 36-6 r] Question #6• The clients that will be directly impacted by the eventual implementation of this model are the following: City of Richfield City of Prior Lake City of Savage City of Bloomington City of Apple Valley Dakota County City of Eagan City of Rosemout City of Edina City of Lakeville City of Burnsville Minnesota Valley Transit Authority These clients of the High Speed Bus Coalition will be providing specific transit service plans for their local areas that encompass the aspects of the High Speed Bus Plan listed previously within this proposal. The High Speed Bus Coalition Steering Committee is made up of one voting member per organization, and each member of the Committee will vote to implement service plans in the demonstration area during 1995-1997. Along with planning assistance, the clients of the High Speed Bus Coalition have each contributed $7,500 toward the development of the second phase deliverables and products of the proposed Phase 2 Work Plan. 2 S6-6 High Speed Bus Project . Draft Workplan Phase 2: October through January Summary: The following draft workplan develops the list of tasks to be accomplished in order that the coalition have a definable system and operational plan, a funding plan with completed applications for federal funding Araft: legislation and.a legislative strategy by the end of this project's Phase Two. TASKS : Except where otherwise noted, tasks are the responsibility of the consultants in coordination with and at the direction of the High Speed Bus Coalition Committee. I. Internal Organization/Administration (Coalition Partners.' Responsibility) A. Establish a schedule -- meetings every two weeks. (immediately) B. Establish a "contact person" for each community. (immediately) C. Establish a Committee Chair or Chief Representative as a contact between meetings on administrative issues. (immediately) D.Establish a technical subcommittee to help in design of the system. (immediately) 38--7 . II. Design of System and Operational Plan A. Meetings with individual coalition members to assess and define community service goals and needs. (Time frame: Oct.-Dec.) B. Meetings with High Speed Bus Coalition technical subcommittee to coordinate system plan and design with existing service levels in affected communities. (Time. frame: Oct.-Nov.) C. Meetings with High Speed Bus Coalition Committee to develop consensus on system and its elements. (Time frame: Dec.) III. Development of Funding Plan and Strategy A. Develop list of specific funding options from national,' state, regional and local sources including requirements and deadlines for funding applications for each. ( Time frame: Oct-Dec.) B. Based on system elements and funding opportunities, develop a recommended funding strategy to be approved by the High Speed Bus Coalition. members. (Time frame: Dec.) C. Identify and work with potential private partners for funding or provision of service or capital. (Ongoing) D. Develop applications for federal funding options. (Time frame: Jan.) E. Draft legislation for state and regional funding and develop a legislative strategy to target funding. (Time frame: Dec.-Jan.) IV. Coordination with Regional/State Agencies A. Meet with individuals from RTB, MTC, Met Council, Team Transit and MnDOT to update them on the project. (ongoing) B. Work with regional agencies on coordination of service plan and system with other,regional projects and established service. (ongoing) `'C Work through necessary, regional processes for any required approvals or endorsements prior to legislative session. (Time frame: Dec.-Jan.) V. Communicating Project to Legislature, Public, Media, Others A. Meet with legislators individually or in groups from partner communities to introduce the plan and obtain support. (ongoing) B. Meet with legislative transportation leadership and House and Senate leadership. (ongoing) C. Initiate a monthly one-page High Speed Bus newsletter for all interested parties. (immediately) D. Hold a major media event/news conference to announce the project. (Time frame: Nov.) E. Meet with editorial boards of both newspapers and community press. (Time frame: Nov.) 35- g F. Plan a one-day high speed bus conference. (Time frame: Dec.-Jan.) G. Enhance research, review and re-do materials for legislative presentations. (Time frame: Oct.-Nov.) . H. Develop a video as funding allows. (Time frame: Dec.- Jan.) 36-? A Summary of Planning and Marketing Services For the High Speed Bus Project LJR Transportation Planners & Consultants JMS Communications & Research Phase Two Project Time Frame; October 1 through January 15 Services Provided: • Development of service and operational plan Development of funding strategy and drafting funding proposals • Development of funding sbrateg support on local, state and federal levels • Regional and state agency coordyanation of project . • Development of legislative support, strategy and legislation • Development of project support among public, news media, organizations • Development of materials to communicate project to others Products Provided: • Operational Plan Funding proposal application(s) Draft legislation Refined board presentation and materials Monthly newsletter General brochure/ handout Public opinion survey Breakfast meeting one-Day Seminar Video (if funding permits) Phase 2 Summary Report Total Consultant Costs: $54,375 Marketing Products Cost Estimate: $50,000 C 36-1© Phase Two: Marketing Products Monthly Newsletter A newsletter will be produced and mailed monthly and sent to all those interested in the project to keep them informed of its progress. Booklet/Brochure -- A professional looking informational booklet about the system will be produced to help explain and generate interest in the project, and to help explain and illustrate the system to legislators. New Set of Boards -- A new set of boards will be developed which will be geared toward the project's funding stage and the Minnesota Legislature. Video -- A video will be produced to help in promotion of the system with legislators and with all other potential supporters of the project. Survey - A public opinion survey ey will be conducted to gauge the potential transit riders willingness to use this n system. • Breakfast Meeting -^ A breakfast meeting will be held to work with community coalition members and polity makers at all levels of government to prepare for the legislative session. withe brought One-Day Seminar Speakers from Minnesota and national experts in to talk about high speed bus systems and the y application in Twin Cities. Estimated Cost: $50,000 31Q CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Council Letter No. 333 Agenda December 13, 1993 Issue Statement: Approval of the continuation of the agreement with the City of Bloomington for the provision of inspectional services for Richfield for the year 1994. Background: The City of Bloomington has provided inspectional and enforcement services in the areas of plumbing, heating and air conditioning, food service, forestry and plan check for food services for several years. The proposed contract for 1994 is $91,750 compared to the 1993 contract amount of $89,550. Recommended Motion: It is recommended that.the City Council approve the agreement with the City of Bloomington for the provision of inspectional and enforcement services for the year 1994. Basis for Recommendation: 1. The City of Bloomington has sufficient resources to provide a professional level of inspectional services to Richfield residents. Annual evaluations of their services has shown that they are providing effective services in a very cost effective manner. Alternative Recommendation: 1. The Council could decide to have Richfield provide its own plumbing, heating and air conditioning, food inspection and forestry services. The cost of hiring the staff necessary to provide the same level of services and administrative support would be more than our current expenditures, and would require a budget increase. 2. The Council could decide to compensate the City of Bloomington at a lower rate which would require designated reduction in services or programs. Discussion/Decision Mode: The renewal of the agreement between Richfield and the City of Bloomington for the provision of inspectional services is being presented for Council approval. Res c lly submitted, Ja D. Prosser Cit Manager JDP:ds AGREEMENT • This Agreement is made this day of 1993, by and between the City of Richfield (hereinafter referred to as "Richfield") and the City of Bloomington (hereinafter referred to as "Bloomington:). WHEREAS, Richfield is authorized and empowered to provide for various types of inspections and code enforcement to ensure the public health, welfare and safety; and WHEREAS, it is the desire of the parties and the purpose of this agreement that certain of such services be performed by Bloomington on behalf of Richfield; NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual covenants and conditions set forth below, the above parties hereto agree as follows: 1. The term of this agreement shall be from January 1, 1994 through December 31, 1994, subject to termination as provided in paragraph 6. 2. For the term of this agreement, Bloomington shall provide Richfield with the following services, in and on behalf of Richfield: a. Plumbing inspection and code enforcement as necessary. b. Heating, ventilation, and air conditioning inspections and code enforcement as necessary. c. Food service inspections and code enforcement as necessary (a minimum of two inspections will be done of all restaurants and at least one inspection will be done of all grocery stores). d. Tree inspections and code enforcement as necessary. e. Plan check for food services. f. Public swimming pool inspections as necessary. g. Lodging inspections as necessary. 3. Bloomington shall have.control over the manner in which the inspections and code enforcement activities are conducted and over the determination of what enforcement action is appropriate consistent with Richfield City Code Section 615 and other policies as established by the City of Richfield. 4. Bloomington shall assume the expense of performing the inspections and code enforcement. 5. Richfield shall pay Bloomington the sum of $91,750.00 for services provided pursuant to this agreement. One-half of this amount shall be due on June 30, 1994, and the remainder shall be due on November 30, 1994. ,3)q r 6. This agreement shall terminate as follows: • a. Upon the expiration of 30 days after service of written notice upon the other party; or b. At any time, upon agreement of the parties; or c. In any event on December 31, 1994. 7. In the event of a termination prior to December 31, 1994, a prorata reduction of the compensation owed by Richfield to Bloomington shall occur which reflects the period remaining on the agreement at the time of termination. 8. Bloomington-agrees to defend, indemnify and hold harmless Richfield, and its officials, agents and employees from and against all claims, actions, damages, losses and expenses arising out of or resulting from Bloomington's performance of the duties required under this Agreement, provided that any such claim, action, damage, loss or expense is attributable to bodily injury, sickness, disease, or death or to the injury to or destruction of property including the loss of use resulting therefrom and is caused in whole or in part by any negligent act or omission or willful misconduct of Bloomington. 9. Bloomington shall carry liability insurance in the amount of at least $200,000 per individual and $600,000 per occurrence. Property damage liability insurance in the amount of $100,000. Richfield shall be named as an additional insured, and • a certificate of said insurance shall be provided to Richfield. Bloomington shall carry Worker's Compensation Insurance as required by Minnesota Statutes, Section 176.181, Subd. 2 (1991) and further agrees to provide a certificate of said insurance to Richfield. 10. Any employee assigned by Bloomington to perform its obligations hereunder shall remain the exclusive employee of Bloomington for all purposes including, but not limited to, wages, salary and employee benefits. 11. In addition to the services listed in Paragraph 2 above, Bloomington shall, upon request, also provide for and on behalf of Richfield: a. Electrical inspection and code enforcement services; b. Inspection of replacement residential heating and air conditioning equipment. Such services shall be paid for by Richfield on an hourly basis at the rate of $36.45 per hour, and said hourly rate shall be separate from, and in addition to, the payment provided for by Paragraph 5 of this Agreement. All other provisions of this Agreement shall remain applicable with respect to the electrical and heating, ventilation and air conditioning inspection services . being provided. SP-3 12. In addition to the services listed in Paragraph 2 above, . Bloomington shall, upon request, also provide building plan checking services for and on behalf of Richfield. Such services shall be paid for by Richfield on an hourly basis at a rate of $41.85 per hour, and said hourly rate shall be separate from, and in addition to, the payment provided for by Paragraph 5 of this Agreement. All other provisions of this Agreement shall remain applicable with respect to the building plan checking services being provided. 13. It is agreed that nothing herein contained is intended or should be construed in any manner as creating or establishing the relationship of co-partners between the parties hereto or as constituting the persons employed by Bloomington as the agent, representative or employee of Richfield for any purpose or in any manner whatsoever. Bloomington is to be and shall remain an independent contractor with respect to all services performed under this contract. Bloomington represents that it has, or will secure at its own expense, all personnel required in performing services under this contract. Any and all personnel of Bloomington or other persons, while engaged in the performance of any work or services required by Bloomington under this contract, shall have no contractual relationship with Richfield and shall not be considered employees of Richfield, and any and all claims that may or might arise under the Workers' Compensation Act of the State of Minnesota on behalf of said personnel or other • persons while so engaged, and any and all claims whatsoever on behalf of any such person or personnel arising out of employment or alleged employment including, without limitation, claims of discrimination against Bloomington, its officers, agents contracts or employees shall in no way be the responsibility of Richfield; and Bloomington shall defend, indemnify and hold Richfield, its officers, agents and employees harmless from any and all such claims regardless of any determination of any pertinent tribunal, agency, board, commission or court. Such personnel or other persons shall not require nor be entitled to any compensation, rights or benefits of any kind whatsoever from Richfield, including, without limitation, tenure rights, medical and hospital care, sick and vacation leave, Workers' Compensations, Unemployment Compensation, disability, severance pay and PERA. 14. The books, records, documents, and accounting procedures of Bloomington relevant to this Agreement, are subject to examination by Richfield and either the legislative or state auditor as appropriate, pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Section 16B.06, subd. 4. 15. This Agreement represents the entire Agreement between Bloomington and Richfield and supersedes and cancels any and all prior agreements or proposals, written or oral, between the parties relating to the subject matter hereof, any amendments, addenda, alterations, or modifications to the terms and conditions of.this Agreement shall be in writing and signed by both parties. 3,9-q IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have set forth their hands on the day and year first written above. Upon proper execution, this Agreement shall be a legal and binding obligation upon the City of Bloomington CITY OF BLOOMINGTON By: Its Mayor City Attorney By: Its City Manager CITY OF RICHFIELD By: Its Mayor By: Its City Manager 0