Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
11-26-90 agenda
3A CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Council Letter No. 270 Agenda November 26, 1990 Issue Statement• Setting date of•hearing for the renewal of wine licenses. Background: The wine licenses for restaurant establishments will expire on January 1, 1991. City ordinance provides that the City Council conduct a public hearing to consider all wine license renewals. Recommended Motion: Schedule December 10, 1990 as the date to hold public hearings on the renewal of wine licenses for Miller's Fireside Pizza; Richfield Management Company d/b/a Paesano's; and Davanni's Pizza and Hot Hoagies. Basis for Recommendation: 1. Hearings must be scheduled and held before a renewal license may be considered. 2. The renewal process has been initiated. 3. Holding the public hearings on December 10 will provide ample time to complete the licensing process before January 1, 1991. Alternative Recommendation: 1. Schedule the hearings for another date. However, this may delay the licensing process. Discussion/Decision Mode: Action to schedule the public hearings on November 26, 1990 will provide sufficient time for legal publication of the hearings. R p lly Submitted, J me D. Prosser it Manager JDP:bac ~JU CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Council Letter No. 271 Agenda November 26, 1990 Issue Statement: Setting date of hearing for renewal of on-sale liquor licenses. Background: The on-sale liquor licenses for restaurant establishments will expire on January 1, 1991. City ordinance provides that the City Council conduct a public hearing to consider all liquor license renewals. Recommended Motion: Schedule December 10, 1990 as the date toehold public hearings on the renewal of liquor licenses for Chi Chi's Mexican Restaurante; The Ground Round; American Legion Post No. 435; VFW Post No. 5555; and Champps of Richfield. Basis for Recommendation: 1. Hearings must be scheduled and held before a renewal license may be considered. 2. The renewal process has been initiated. 3. Holding the public hearings on December 10 will provide ample time to complete the licensing process before January 1, 1991. Alternative Recommendation: 1. Schedule the hearings for another date. However, this may delay the licensing process. Discussion/Decision Mode: Action to schedule the public hearings on November 26, 1990 will provide sufficient time for legal publication of the hearings. R fully Submitted, Ja D. Prosser Ci y Manager JDP:bac 3C CITY OF RICHFIELD Council Letter No. 272 Agenda November 26, 1990 Issue Statement: Award of contract for Quick Lime for water treatment. Background• The chemical Quick Lime is used in the water treatment process to lower water hardness. The City purchases Quick Lime every year. Bids were opened in a formal bidding process on November 14, 1990 for the purchase of 1,400 tons of Quick Lime. The results of the bids for 1991 are as follows: Vendor Unit Price Estimate Annual Cost Cutler-Magner $64.45/ton 590,230 Western Lime & Concrete 67.00/ton 93,800 Continental Lime No Bid The 1990 contract was awarded to Cutler-Magner at a unit price of 566.45 per ton, approximately 593,030 per year. Recommended Motion: Approve the bid minutes/tabulation ,and award a contract for the purchase of approximately 1,400 tons of Quick Lime to Cutler- Magner in the amount of 564.45 per ton, an estimated total purchase price of 590,230 for 1991. Basis of Recommendation: 1. Quick Lime is necessary in reducing water hardness. 2. Cutler-Magner was the lowest bidder and meets all requirements. 3. There is 5100,000 allocated in the 1991 Water Maintenance budget for the chemical. Alternative Recommendation: 1. Council may reject all bids and direct staff to readvertise; however, staff does not believe we can obtain a better price from a reputable supplier. 2. Council may award the contract to another vendor; however, Cutler-Magner has been a reputable contractor and did submit the lowest responsible bid. 3~ l Discussion/Decision Mode: Council may choose to delay a the current contract for Quick Therefore, staff is requesting Attachment JDP/reb decision on this item. However, Lime expires on December 31, 1990. approval at this time. Respectfu y submitted, Jame Prosser City anager 3C-2-- CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Bid Opening November 14, 1990 11:00 A.M. Water Treatment Quick Lime Bid No. 90-13 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 water treatment quick lime, bid no. 90-13 as advertised in the official newspaper on October 17, 1990. Present: Thomas Ferber, City Clerk Steve Devich, Administrative Services Director Doris Swanson, City Manager Representative The following bids were submitted and read aloud: VENDOR BID SECURITY Western Lime & Cement Co. Westbend, Wisconsin Cutler-Magner Co. Duluth, MN 5% cashiers check 5% Bid Bond TOTAL $93,800.00 ($67 unit price) $94,500.00 ($67.50 unit price) $90,230.00 ($64.45 unit price) The City Clerk announced that the bids would be tabulated and considered at the November 26, 1990 City Council Meeting. Thomas P. Ferber City Clerk CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Council Letter No. 273 Agenda November 26, 1990 Issue Statement• Purchase in excess of $5,000 for Hydrofluorsilic Acid, used 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 55,000, authority to purchase shall be submitted to the City Council for consideration. Each year the City purchases chemicals for use in water treatment at the Water Plant. Hydrofluorsilic Acid is required and regulated by Minnesota state law as a fluoride additive to drinking water to prevent dental cavities. Funding in the amount of $11,500 is allocated in the 1991 Water Maintenance budget. Two vendors were contacted and proposals received for an estimated 6,000 gallons of Hydrofluorsilic Acid as follows: Vendor Unit Price Estimated Annual Cost Dixie Petro Chemical $1.625/gallon $ 9,750 Feed Rite 51.73/gallon $10,380 The 1990 supplier was Dixie Petro Chemical who delivered this chemical at a unit price of 51.73 per gallon, approximately $10,380 for the year. Recommended Motion: Approve a 1991 Master Purchase Order to Dixie Petro Chemical for an estimated 6,000 gallons of Hydrofluorsilic Acid at a unit price of $1.625./gallon for an approximate total price of $9,750. Basis of Recommendation: 1. This chemical is required by Minnesota State law as an additive to water treatment. 2. Dixie Petro Chemical submitted the lowest quotation. 3. There is 511,500 allocated in the 1991 Water Maintenance budget. Alternative Recommendation: Council may choose not to accept any of the quotations and instruct staff to obtain new quotes. However, staff does not believe better prices can be obtained at this time. "3D-l Discussion/Decision Mode: Staff requests approval at the November 26, 1990 council meeting. Respect lly submitted, Jame Prosser City anager JDP/reb ~~ CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Council Letter No. 274. Agenda November 26, 1990 Issue Statement• Purchase in excess of $5,000 for Carbon Dioxide, used 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 55,000, authority to purchase shall be submitted to the City Council for consideration. Each year the City purchases chemicals for water treatment at the Water Plant. Carbon Dioxide is added to the water treatment to lower the Ph level. Approximately 200 tons of Carbon Dioxide are needed yearly. Three chemical vendors were contacted and proposals were received as follows: Liquid Carbonic Dioxide $150.00/ton KOCH Carbon Dioxide $55.00/ton Cardox $97.50/ton + $42.00 per delivery The 1990 awarded vendor was KOCH Carbon Dioxide at a unit price of $55 per ton, approximately $11,000 for the year. Recommended Motion: Approve a 1991 Master Purchase Order to KOCH Carbon Dioxide for a unit price of $55.00 per ton, approximately $11,000 total for 1991 carbon dioxide to be used in water treatment. Basis of Recommendation: 1. This chemical is a necessary additive to the water treatment process, in that it lowers the Ph level of the treated water. 2. KOCH Carbon Dioxide submitted the lowest quotation. 3. There is $12,500 in the 1991 Water Maintenance budget for the purchase of Carbon Dioxide. Alternative Recommendation: Council may choose not to accept any of the quotations and instruct staff to obtain new quotes. However, staff does not believe better prices can be obtained at this time. ~~' Discussion/Decision Mode: Staff requests approval at the November 26, 1990 Council meeting. Respect ully submitted, Jam Prosser Cit anager JDP/Cpk 3~ CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Council Letter No. 275 Agenda November 26, 1990 Issue Statement: Award of Contract for 1991 Disposal of Lime By-Product from the Dewatering Presses. Background• The two lime sludge presses at the Dewatering Building have been in operation for three years. The dried lime sludge is dropped from presses into trailers, hauled away and disposed of by the hauler. A formal bid opening was held on November 14, 1990, for the hauling and disposal of approximately 5,000 cubic yards of dried lime by-product. The results are as follows: Estimated Vendor Unit Price Annual Cost L & G Rehbein $20.50/cubic yard $102,500 Hader Farms 10.93/cubic yard 54,650 Anderson Excavating and Drainage. 10.50/cubic yard 52,500 Enviroland Inc. No Bid The 1990 contract was awarded to Anderson Excavating and Drainage for the hauling and disposal of the dried sludge. The unit cost of the removal was $7.10 per cubic yard, an estimated yearly cost of $35,500. The increase for 1991 is due in part to the increase in fuel prices, and is the rate other .cities are experiencing. Recommended Motion: Approve the bid minutes/tabulation and award a contract for the disposal of lime by-product to Anderson Excavating and Drainage in the amount of $10.50 per cubic yard, an estimated total of 552,500 for 1991. Basis of Recommendation: 1. It is necessary to remove the lime by-product from the Dewatering Presses. 2. Anderson Excavating and Drainage was the lowest responsible bidder and met all specifications. 3. There is $40,000 allocated in the 1991 Water Maintenance budget for lime by-product disposal. Other chemical prices for 1991 have come in lower than expected, and there is sufficient funding available for this purchase. The line item will be revised to show the changes. Alternative Recommendation: 1. Council may reject all bids and direct staff to readvertise; however, staff does not believe we can obtain a better price from a reputable contractor. ~~ i 2. Council could award a contract to another vendor; however, Anderson Excavating and Drainage has been a reputable contractor and submitted the lowest responsible bid. Discussion/Decision Mode: Council may delay a decision until the December 10, 1990 Council meeting; however, the 1990 contract expires December 31. Staff is asking for approval at the November 26, 1990 Council meeting. Respec y submitted, James Prosser City nager Attachment JDP/reb ~~- z CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Bid Opening November 14, 1990 11:10 A.M. Lime By-Product Disposal Bid No. 90-15 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 lime by-product disposal, bid no. 90-15, as advertised in the official newspaper on October 17, 1990. Present: Thomas Ferber, City Clerk Steve Devich, Administrative Services Director Doris Swanson, City Manager Representative The following bids were submitted and read aloud: VENDOR Hader Farms, Inc. Zumbrota, MN L & G Rehblen, Inc. Centerville, MN Anderson Ex. & Drainage. Owatonna BID SECURITY 5% Bid Bond 5% Bid Bond 5% Bid Bond TOTAL $54,650.00 $10.93 unit price $102,500.00 $20.50 unit price $52,500.00 $10.50 unit price The City Clerk. announced that the bids would be tabulated and considered at the November 26, 1990 City Council Meeting. Thomas P. Ferber City Clerk 3~ CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Council Letter No. 276 Agenda November 26,.1990 Issue Statement: Resolution designating City's contribution toward health, term life and dental insurance premium for General Services and Management employees. Background• At the present time, the City contributes to the cost of premiums for four kinds of insurance coverages available to City employees. General Services and Management employee contributions are discussed within this letter. Other employees are covered under terms of labor agreements. LIFE A $15,000 term life insurance policy is provided for all General Services and Management employees. The $15,000 limit was raised from $10,000 in 1990. The City now pays the full premium for this insurance, which is $2.55 per month per employee for 1990. The $15,000 limit is comparable to insurance provided by other metropolitan municipalities. The 1991 premium rate will remain at $2.55 per month per employee. DENTAL The second type of insurance provided to General Services and Management employees is a self-funded group dental insurance. In 1990, the City contributed $16.00 per month per employee for the total cost of employee (not dependent) coverage. Employees who desire dependent coverage must pay the full cost of such additional premium, which for 1990 was $20.50. Inasmuch as dental insurance is self-funded, the City establishes the dental rates from year to year internally, based upon administrative and benefit pay-out cost data. For 1991, the estimated cost of employee coverage is 518.00. While the City-does not contribute to dependent coverage for dental insurance, for informational purposes, the rate the employee will pay will be increased to $23.40 per month. HEALTH The third type of insurance coverage available to Management and General Services employees-is group health coverage. Employees may select among three optional plans available through the LOGIS Health Insurance Program. The City pays the full individual employee premium and provides an additional contribution toward dependent coverage up to a specified maximum insurance premium. ~~C~-) The 1990 and 1991 monthly premium costs of the health plans are: 1990 Rate 1991 Rate ~ Increase Group Health Inc. Individual $ 106.53 $ 117.82 11~ Family 290.67 321.46 11$ MedCenter Health Plan Individual 109.60 120.00 9% Family 326.20 357.20 10% Physicians Health Plan Individual 129.50 147.00 14$ Family 299.50 340.00 14$ In 1990, the City contributed up to a maximum of $210.00 per month per employee for employee and dependent coverage for eligible General Services and Management employees. In 1991, the City contribution for Management and General Services employees would be increased by $30.00, to $240.00. The City's contribution was a percent of premium over the past five years as shown in attachment 1. LONG-TERM DISABILITY (LTD) The fourth type of insurance provided to General Services and Management employees is disability insurance. Short-term disability insurance is self-funded out of the current operating budget, similar to the manner in which sick leave costs are covered. Long-term disability insurance (LTD) is provided through a group LTD policy secured by the City. Currently, the City pays a premium rate of 55G per $100 of salary for covered employees. The LTD premium rates will remain the same for 1991. Recommended Motion: It is recommended that the following actions be taken with respect to the City's insurance contributions for Management and General Services employees: A. Life Insurance That the term life insurance remain at $15,000 with a premium charge of $2.55 per month per employee. B. Dental Insurance That the per employee per month contribution be increased from $16.00 to $18.00. As in the past, employees who desire dependent coverage would pay the full cost of such additional premium. C. Long-Term Disability Insurance That the City contribution rate remain the same at $.55 per $100 of salary. ~~-z D. Group Health Insurance That the City contribution be increased from a maximum of $210.00 per month to $240.00 per month per employee for dependent coverage. Basis of Recommendation: 1. To provide adequate insurance protection for the Management and General Services employee groups, which are comparable to other City employee groups, as well as employees performing similar jobs in comparable communities. 2. The 1991 budget includes the funding necessary to provide for premium contribution increases recommended. 3. The premium rate for the disability insurances has remained the same, thus no increase has been recommended. Additionally, the coverage has been determined to be comparable and adequate for 1991. Alternative Recommendation: 1. The Council may take no action to increase the insurance premiums beyond the 1990 funding level. Discussion/Decision Mode: The City should implement the premium increases for coverages by December 1, 1990. Payroll deductions for January insurance payments, the beginning of the new insurance period, are made in December. Resp lly submitted, Ja a D. Prosser Ci Manager JDP:cak cc: Administrative Services Director Personnel Manager J~"J RESOLUTION N0. RESOLUTION DESIGNATING CITY'S CONTRIBUTION TOWARD HEALTH, TERM LIFE AND DENTAL INSURANCE PREMIUM FOR GENERAL SERVICES AND MANAGEMENT EMPLOYEES WHEREAS, the hospital-medical/surgical group health insurance plan is available from the LOGIS Health Insurance Program for City employees and their families; and WHEREAS, a term life and accidental death and dismemberment insurance plan is available from the Hennepin County Cooperative Purchasing Organization for City employees; and WHEREAS, a self-funded group dental insurance plan is available to City Management and General Services employees and their families; and WHEREAS, a group short-term and long-term disability program is available to City Management and General Services employees; and WHEREAS, the City Council is required to determine by resolution the City's contribution toward the premium for employee group insurance coverages. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that commencing January 1, 1991, the City shall contribute a maximum of $240.00 per month toward an employee health insurance premium for all eligible non- unionized employees; in any event said contribution shall not exceed the cost of single coverage for employees selecting that option. The City shall also pay the $18.00 monthly premium for the employee dental insurance plan and the $2.55 monthly premium for the term life and accidental death and dismemberment insurance plan for City employees for a total possible maximum insurance premium contribution of $260.55 per month. Such contributions shall be for coverage effective January 1, 1991. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City shall contribute the full cost of .long-term disability insurance for the General Services and Management employees' coverage. Such contribution shall be based upon a premium rate of $.55 per $100 of monthly coverage. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Council shall determine the City's contribution toward insurance premiums for all organized employee groups by the adoption of the appropriate resolutions concerning labor contracts with the respective organized employee groups. ~~' Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this 26th day of November, 1990. Steven J. Quam Mayor ATTEST: Thomas P. Ferber City Clerk ~J ~3" `J Attachment 1 The City's Contribution Toward Dependent Health Insurance as a Percent of Total Premium Cost HEALTH DEPENDENT CITY CONTRIBUTION YEAR PLAN PREMIUM COST MGMT./GEN. SERVICES 1985 PHP $204.70 $132.00 MCHP $180.15 $132.00 GHI $169.83 $132.00 1986 PHP $211.07 $140.00 MCHP $187.35 $140.00 GHI $183.05 $140.00 1987 PHP $221.62 $150.00 MCHP $196.70 $150.00 GHI $186.70 5150.00 1988 PHP $221.62 $160.00 MCHP $233.55 .$160.00 GHI $204.65 $160.00 1989 PHP $266.00 $170.00 MCHP 5291.25 $170.00 GHI 5254.70 $170.00 1990 PHP $299.50 $210.00 MCHP $326.20 $210.00 GHI $290.67 $210.00 1991 PHP $340.00 $240.00 MCHP $357.20 $240.00 GHI $321.46 $240.00 CITY CONTRIBUTION AS AVERAGE $ OF PREMIUM 710 72~ 74~ 73~ 63~ 68~ 70% 3H CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Council Letter No. 277 Agenda November 26, 1990 Issue Statement• Resolution adopting the City of Richfield Medical and Day Care Expense Reimbursement Plan (the "Plan"). Background: Currently the City of Richfield payroll systems does not provide for a flexible spending account. Thus deductions made for health and dental insurance premiums for family coverage are made from an employee's wages after taxes are withheld. Under a flexible spending type of account, sanctioned by the Internal Revenue Service Code Sections 125 and 129, the City could make such premium deductions before taxes are withheld. By making those pre-tax deductions, employees realize a net increase in take home wages, as well as a tax savings. Additionally, under a flexible spending account, such as proposed within this Council Letter, certain medical expenses, as well as day care expenses, may also be paid by an employee under a pre- tax payroll deduction arrangement. The plan proposed here would include employee medical and dental premiums deducted pre-tax for full-time permanent and full-time project employees. It would also provide for pre-tax medical care expenses and pre-tax day care expense accounts for all full-time employees as well as part-time permanent employees. The plan itself would be administered by DCA, Inc., a company that specializes. in flexible spending accounts. DCA handles most municipal flexible accounts in the metropolitan area and has extensive experience in administering those accounts. The DCA firm would be engaged by the City to provide for the entire administration of the flex spending account at a cost of approximately $3.60 per month per employee - 510,000 annually. In turn, the City would save roughly the same amount of money in FICA contributions, neutralizing the cost of the program. The option of providing this type of flexible spending account is a very attractive benefit to employees who are faced with rising health care and day care costs, especially with respect to medical insurance premiums. Many employees will be responsible for paying approximately $100 per month out of pocket for family health insurance premiums for 1991. This flexible spending account which allows pre-tax dollars to be used in the payment of those premiums may save a typical employee 30$-40~ of that amount depending upon their tax bracket. Recommended Motion: It is recommended that the City Council adopt the attached resolution establishing the City of Richfield Medical and Day Care Expense Reimbursement Plan and authorize the City Manager to enter into an agreement with DCA, Inc. for administration of that benefit. 3N-1 Basis of Recommendation: 1. Paying medical care and day care expenses with pre-tax dollars lowers an employee's taxes, thereby adding additional spendable income to each of the employee's paychecks. 2. Payroll dollars contributed to this Plan are not subject to federal, state, or Social Security taxes. 3. The administration costs of the Plan are designed to be offset by the City's Social Security savings, thus the City is able to offer a benefit to employees at no additional cost. 4. DCA, Inc. is an expert in the field of flexible benefit administration and will provide the City and its employees with a carefully administered plan which is fully in compliance with IRS regulations. Alternative Recommendation: 1. The Council may take no action to adopt the Plan. Discussion/Decision Mode: If the City Council wishes to proceed with this benefit, it is essential that the attached resolution be adopted as quickly as possible to allow for the Plan's effective date of January 1, 1991. The November 26, 1990 Council Meeting would provide the first opportunity to do so. Respes~Cf~ully submitted, Jam Prosser Cit anaQer JDP:ds 3~1-~ RESOLUTION N0. RESOLUTION ADOPTING A FLEXIBLE SPENDING. ACCOUNT PROGRAM FOR FULL-TIME PERMANENT, FULL-TIME PROJECT AND PART-TIME PERMANENT EMPLOYEES WHEREAS, the City of Richfield, Minnesota.(the "City") is a city duly organized and existing under the laws of the State of Minnesota; and WHEREAS, the administration of a flexible spending account program, the City of Richfield Medical and Day Care Expense Reimbursement Plan ("the Plan"), is available through DCA, Inc. for full-time permanent, full-time project and part-time permanent employees; and WHEREAS, the City Council is required to adopt the Plan by resolution. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that commencing January 1, 1991, the City of Richfield Medical and Day Care Expense Reimbursement Plan, be and is adopted. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that any proper officers of the City are hereby authorized to make such contributions from the funds of the City as are necessary. to carry out the provisions of said Plan at any time. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that in the event any conflict arises between the provisions of said Plan and the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA) or any other applicable law or regulation (as such law or regulation may be interpreted or amended), the City shall resolve such conflict in a manner which complies with ERISA or such law or regulation. Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this 26th day of November, 1990. Steven J. Quam Mayor ATTEST: Thomas P. Ferber City Clerk ~~ CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Council Letter No. 277A Agenda November 26, 1990 Issue Statement: Adoption of resolutions making adjustments in compensation of employees covered in the General Services, Management and Specialized Pay Plans. Background: Section 2.33, Subd. I of the municipal code requires the City Manager to submit a formal recommendation for pay plan and benefit adjustments for non-unionized City employees to the City Council. The purpose of this letter is to make recommendations for 1991 adjustments in the General Services, Management and Specialized Pay Plans which cover City employees who are nat represented by organized bargaining units. A council letter and resolution covering benefit adjustments for eligible non- unionized employees is also being presented to the City Council at this Council meeting. The General Services Pay Plan includes the City's office, clerical, technical and some supervisory personnel. The second pay plan under consideration is the Management Pay Plan, which includes management and supervisory personnel, ranging from first line Supervisors to Department Director positions. The third pay plan under consideration is the Specialized Pay Plan. The Specialized Pay Plan includes all the City's seasonal and non-permanent part-time employees. The total number of employees covered by this pay plan varies from month to month and time of year. However, during the course of the summer months, several hundred part-time employees may be paid from this pay plan. The three pay plans. presented here represent a 4.0$ pay increase for 1991 with some minor comparable worth adjustments to work towards comparable worth compliance at the end of 1991. The budget provides for a structured 4.0$ pay increase, and it is recommended that the pay resolutions be adopted as part of the budget process. All other City employees not covered by the three pay plans in this letter are represented by organized bargaining units. Recommended Motion: It is recommended that the City Council adopt the attached resolutions providing for a 4.0$ pay structure adjustment for the Management, General Services and Specialized Pay Plans. Basis for Recommendation: 1. The recommendation of 4.0$ is based on a thorough survey of surrounding communities with respect to non-unionized personnel. Many comparable cities indicated a tendency to grant 4.0$ increases. ~-~ 2. The budget provides for 4.Oo salary adjustments and for comparable worth adjustments. Thus, there is funding provided for the 4.0$ pay increase. 3. In arriving at a 4.0$ pay structure recommendation, other factors, such as internal employee equity and similar positions in other communities, were considered. Alternative Recommendations: 1. City Council could decide not to grant any pay adjustments for non-unionized City employees. 2. The City Council could delay granting pay structure increases for the City's non-unionized employees. 3. The City Council could decide to grant either a higher or lower percentage adjustment to the City's non-unionized employee groups. Discussion/Decision Mode: In order to allow the City's accounting personnel to modify payroll records in a timely fashion for January 1, 1991, it is recommended that the City Council act on November 26, 1990 to adopt the attached resolutions providing for pay structure adjustments effective January 1, 1991. Respectf ly submitted, Ja s D. Prosser City Manager JDP:ff ~~-A-z RESOLUTION N0. XXXX RESOLUTION RELATING TO THE 1991 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 1991 pay plan for position classifications for Management employees. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council do and hereby does establish for the year 1991 the following pay plan, which is to be effective January 1, 1991, and subject to all applicable provisions of the City Code: MANAGEMENT COMPENSATION PLAN PAY GRADE MINIMUM MID-RANGE MAXIMUM M-NE YR 28,267.20 33,820.80 39,561.60 MO 2,355.60 2,818.40 3,296.80 BW 1,087.20 1,300.80 1,521.60 HR 13.59 16.26 19.02 M-1 YR 30,388.80 36,358.40 42,536.00 MO 2,532.40 3,029.87 3,544.67 BW 1,168.80 1,398.40 1,636.00 HR 14.61 17.48 20.45 M-2 YR 34,340.80 41,080.00 48,068.80 MO 2,861.73 3,423.33 4,005.73 BW 1,320.80 1,580.00 1,848.80 HR 16.51 19.75 23.11 M-3 YR 39,166.44 46,841.60 54,808.00 MO 3,263.87 3,903.47 4,567.33 BW 1,506.40 1,801.60 2,108.00 HR 18.83 22.52 26.35 M-4 YR 43,846.40 52,4.57.60 61,380.80 MO 3,653.87 4,371.47 5,115.07 BW 1,686.40 2,017.60 2,360.80 HR 21.08 25.22 29.51 M-5 YR 50,876.80 60,860.80 71,198.40 MO 4,239.73 5,071.73 5,933.20 sw 1,956.80 2,340.80 2,738.40 HR 24.46 29.26 34.23 ~~~ '~ Normal Progression Throucth Management Compensation Plan Salary Increase Amounts. Individual salary increases will normally be made effective when the salary range structure changes and will vary in size, depending on the individual's performance rating and current position in the salary range in line with the following criteria. PF~iFORMANCE POSITION IN SALARY RANGE RATING UNDER 95% MIDPOINT 95-105% OF MIDPOINT 0R7EFt 105% OF MDPT. Outstanding Range Adj.+4.1-6.0% Range Adj.+2.1-4.0% Ratyge Adj.+1.0-2.0% Above Satis- factory Rarx,~e Adj,+2.1-4.0% Range Adj.+1.0-2.0% % of Range Adj. Satisfactory Needs Impr~ave- Range Adj.+1.0-2.0% % of Range Adj. Range Adj.-1.0-2.0% ment $ of Range Adj. Range Adj.-1.0-2.0% Range Adj.-2.1-4.0% Unsatisfactory No increase until performance improves. Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this day of 1990. Steven J. Quam Mayor ATTEST: Thomas P. Ferber City Clerk '3~~~ MANAGEMENT POSITION CLASSIFICATION STRUCTURE RANGE POSITION CLASS M-NE Foreman Non-Exempt Shop Foreman Non-Exempt Turf Supervisor Non-Exempt M-1 City Clerk Exempt Community Center Manager Exempt Golf Course Manager Exempt Health Administrator Exempt Ice Arena Manager Exempt Liquor Store Manager Exempt Nature Center Manager Exempt Recreation Manager Exempt M-2 Asst. Fire Chief/Fire Marshall Exempt Building Superintendent Exempt Chief Building Inspector Exempt City Planner Exempt Data Processing Manager Exempt Engineering Supervisor Exempt Maintenance Superintendent Exempt Transportation Engineer Exempt Utility Superintendent Exempt .-~-3 City Engineer Exempt Finance Manager Exempt Fire Chief Exempt Housing & Redevelopment Coordinator Exempt Operations Coordinator Exempt Personnel Manager Exempt Leisure Services Coordinator Exempt M-4 Liquor Operations Director Exempt M-5 Administrative Services Director Exempt Community Development Director Exempt Community Services Director Exempt Public Safety Director Exempt Rev. 8/2/90) 3N~-.~ RESOLUTION N0. XXXX RESOLUTION RELATING TO THE 1991 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 1991 pay plan for position classifications for General Services employees. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council do and hereby does establish for the year 1991 the following pay plan, which is to be effective January 1, 1991, and subject to all applicable provisions of the City Code: GENERAL SERVICES COMPENSATION PLAN Step 1 2 3 4 MERIT RANGE Range GS1 YR 17,305.60 18,158.40 19,094.40 20,051.20 22,110.40 MO 1,442.13 1,513.20 1,591.20 1,670.93 1,842.53 BW 665.60 698.40 734.40 771.20 850.40 HR 8.32 8.73 9.18 9.64 10.63 ~S2 YR 19,094.40 20,051.20 21,049.60 22,110.40 24,39$.40 MO 1,591.20 1,670.93 1,754.13 1,842.53 2,033.20 BW 734.40 771.20 809.60 850.40 938.40 HR 9.18 9.64 10.12 10.63 11.73 GS3 YR 21,049.60 22,110.40 23,233.60 24,398.40 26,936.00 MO 1,754.13 1,842.53 1,936.13 2,033.20 2,244.67 BW 809.60 850.40 893.60 938.40 1,036.00 HR 10.12 10.63 11.17 11.73 12.95 GS4 YR 23,233.60 24,398.40 25,646.40 26,936.00 29,744.00 MO 1,936.13 2,033.20 2,137.20 2,244.67 2,478.67 BW 893.60 938.40 986.40 1,036.00 1,144.00 HR 11.17 11.73 12.33 12.95 14.30 GS4E YR 24,980.80 26,228.80 27,560.00 28,953.60 31,969.60 MO 2,081.73 2,185.73 2,296.67 2,412.80 2,664.13 Bw 960.80 1,008.80 1,060.00 1,113.60 1,229.60 HR 12.01 12.61 13.25 13.92 15.37 GS5 YR 25,646.40 26,936.00 28,267.20 29,744.00 32,801.60 MO 2,137.20 2,244.67 2,355.60 2,478.67 2,733.47 Bw 986.40 1,036.00 1,087.20 1,144.00 1,261.60 HR 12.33 12.95 13.59 14.30 15.77 -r,S5E YR 27,560.00 28,953.60 30,388.80 31,969.60 35,256.00 MO 2,296.67 2,412.80 2,532.40 2,664.13 2,938.00 BW 1,060.00 1,113.60 1,168.80 1,229.60 1,356.00 HR 13.25 13.92 14.61 15.37 16.95 GS6 YR 28,267.20 29,744.00 31,241.60 32,801.60 MO 2,355.60 2,478.67 2,603.47 2,733.47 BW 1,087.20 1,144.00 1,201.60 1,261.60 HR 13.59 14.30 15.02 15.77 GS6E YR 30,388.80 31,969.60 33,592.00 35,256.00 MO 2,532.40 2,664.13 2,799.33 2,938.00 BW 1,168.80 1,229.60 1,292.00 1,356.00 HR 14.61 15.37 16.15 16.95 3r1~A- ~ 38,022.40 3,168.53 1,462.40 18.28 40,872.00 3,406.00 1,572.00 19.65 Normal Progression Through General Services Compensation Plan a. Step 1 - Start b. Step 2 - One year from anniversary date c. Step 3 - One year since last increase d. Step 4 - One year since last increase e. Merit Range - One year since last increase for those rated Above Satisfactory or Outstanding. Satisfactory and Needs Improvement performers may not advance to or within the Merit Range. Salary increases in the Merit Range will be determined by the supervisor and may range between 3$ - 80. 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 1990. Steven J. Quam ATTEST: Mayor Thomas P. Ferber City Clerk ~~-~ -~ 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 Arena Operations Assistant Non-Exempt Community Development Technician Non-Exempt Community Service Officer Non-Exempt Custodian 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 Accounting Technician Non-Exempt Accounts Payable Clerk Non-Exempt Assistant Turf Supervisor/Mechanic I Non-Exempt Code Compliance Officer Non-Exempt Dispatcher Non-Exempt Health/Licensing Specialist Non-Exempt Leased Housing Assistant Non-Exempt Liquor Account Clerk Non-Exempt Secretary Non-Exempt Utility Billing Clerk Non-Exempt 4 Assessment Clerk Non-Exempt Central Services Technician Non-Exempt Data Processing Technician Non-Exempt Energy Technician Non-Exempt Engineering Technician Non-Exempt Planning Technician Non-Exempt Social Services Supervisor Non-Exempt Solid Waste/Environmental Specialist Non-Exempt 4E Administrative Aide Exempt Media Assistant Exempt Payroll Accountant Exempt Zoning Technician Exempt 5 Assistant Building Superintendent Non-Exempt Assistant Turf Supervisor/Mechanic II Non-Exempt Housing Inspector Non-Exempt 911 Supervisor/Dispatcher Non-Exempt 5E 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 Redevelopment Specialist Exempt Rehabilitation Specialist Exempt Youth Resource Specialist Exempt ,3N~_g 6 Computer Operator Electrical/Building Inspector Senior Housing Inspector 6E Accountant Adaptive Recreation Supervisor Administrative Assistant Housing Supervisor Programmer Analyst Recreation Supervisor Recreation Supervisor/Designer Non-Exempt Non-Exempt Non-Exempt Exempt Exempt Exempt Exempt Exempt Exempt Exempt (Rev. 8/2/90) 3~} A q RESOLUTION NO. XXXX RESOLUTION RELATING TO THE 1991 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 Counc il resolution; and WHEREAS, the City a dministration has prepared a 1991 pay-plan for the positions for which there are no essentially similar posi tion classifications in other regular pay plans. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council do and hereby does establish for the year 1991 the following pay plan, which is to be effective on January 1, 1991, and subject to the provisions of the personnel rules and regu lations ordinance: SPECIALIZED PAY PLAN INTERMITTENT AND SEASONAL Comp Code A B C D E Step 1 2 3 4 5 SP1-E HR 4.08 4.28 4.50 4.71 4.95 SP2-E HR 4.53 4.74 4.98 5.22 5.49 SP3-E HR 4.88 5.12. 5.39 5.65 5.94 SP4-E HR 5.28 5.53 5.83 6.10 6.41 SP5-E HR 5.69 5.97 6.28 6.58 6.92 SP6-E HR 6.16 6.47 6.79 7.12 7.49 SP7-E HR 6.65 6.96 7.31 7.69 8.07 SP8-E HR 7.19 7.54 7.90 8.31 8.72 SP9-E HR 7.75 8:13 8.53 8.96 9.41 SP10-E HR 8.37 8.80 9.24 9.69 10.18 SP11-E HR 9.04 9.48 9.96 10.46 10.97 SP12-E HR 9.74 10.24 10.74 11.28 11.85 Instructor's Range: $5.00 - $50.00 R.Y.E.S. Home Service Worker: $3.76 ~~t,~- i ~ Normal Progression Through the Specialized Pav 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 c. Step 3 - One year d. Step 4 - One year e. Step 5 - One year Passed by the City Coy day of 1990. anniversary date last increase last increase last increase of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this from from from £rom uncil teven J. Quam ATTEST: Mayor Thomas P. Ferber City Clerk 3~~-> > SPECIALIZED POSITION CLASSIFICATION STRUCTURE Grade Position Titles Grade Position Titles _1 Driving Range I 7 Accounting Clerk Pool Attendant Adaptive Program Supervisor Assessment Clerk 2 Concession I Concession Supervisor Facility Cashier Construction Specialist Facility Rental Attendant Golf Course Technician I Ice Guard Licensing Clerk Projectionist Naturalist I Zamboni Operator 3 Bike Patrol Officer Concession II 8 Adaptive Coordinator Pool Night Watchman Construction Inspector Scorer/Timer Golf Course Technician II Special Events Worker Naturalist Coordinator Sports Attendant I Playground Coordinator Teen Center Coordinator 4 Custodian I Tennis Coordinator Lifeguard I (No WSI or Cert.) Winter Golf Course Technician Maintenance Laborer I Mens Open Gym Attendant 9 Community Development Tech. Program Coordinator Pool Supervisor Ranger Residential Energy Sports Attendant II Conservation Assistant Video Production Assistant Warming House Attendant 10 Clubhouse Coordinator Waterslide Attendant Engineering Aide ., Adaptive Assistant 11 None Custodian II Driving Range II 12 None Golf Course Laborer I Intern Inst. Baton Lifeguard II Belly Dancing Liquor Clerk Cross Country Ski Maintenance Laborer II Figure Skating Par-3/Driving Range Attend. Golf Professional Special Events Supervisor Hockey Starter Housing & Redev. Tech. Substitute Van Driver Self Defense Survey Crew Person Slimnastics Winter Sports Attendant Sports Official Tap and Ballet 6 Adaptive Leader/Specialist Tennis I Clerk Typist - Int. & Sub. Tennis II Concession III WSI Golf Course Laborer II Outdoor Skating Supervisor Building Inspector Maintenance Laborer III Playground Leader Other Home Service Worker Playground Specialist Pro Shop Attendant Substitute Naturalist Teen Center Leader (Rev. 3/89) CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Council Letter No. 2~g Agenda November 26, 1990 Issue Statement• Selection of an•auditor for the audit of City .financial report for the one year period ending December 31, 1990. Background• In 1985, the City of Richfield solicited proposals from audit firms for auditing services for the fiscal years 1985 through 1989. At the conclusion of that selection process, the audit firm of Deloitte, Haskins & Sells (DH&S) was selected and an agreement for service for the five year period was executed. The five year term has now concluded and the City must a select an auditor to audit the City's finances for the year ending December 31, 1990. During the past five year association with Deloitte, Haskins & Sells (now Deloitte & Touche), the City of Richfield has attained a certificate of achievement for financial reporting in each of those years. In addition, Deloitte & Touche has been a very valuable information resource to the City for a number of financial issues that have arisen. Based upon the auditing relationship with Deloitte during the past five years, the City requested a one year proposal from Deloitte & Touche. In the one year proposal, Deloitte has proposed providing the audit service for the City for a fee of $23,400, which is virtually identical to the amount charged by Deloitte to audit the City's financial records for the year ending 1989. In addition, a single audit fee of $3,500 was proposed for the Housing and Redevelopment Authority and $4,100 for the Police and Fire Relief Association. Again, those sums were also very nearly equal to the amounts charged in the previous year. In addition, it should be noted that contained within the Deloitte proposal was a reassignment of the Audit Engagement Manager for the Richfield audit for the year ending 1990. The previous Audit Engagement Manager served five years as the Engagement Manager for Richfield and thus would be rotated. The new proposed Audit Engagement Manager has several years of experience in public audit accounting and was a staff auditor on the City of Eagan audit for the past five years. The supervising senior accountant assigned to Richfield would be the same individual that has been here for the past three years. Thus, in summary, considering the level of service received by the City of Richfield from the Deloitte & Touche firm in addition to the proposed cost of 1990 audit services, it is recommended that the City engage Deloitte & Touche to audit the City's financial records for the year ending December 31, 1990. ~~~ Recommended Motion: Authorize the City Manager to execute an agreement with Deloitte & Touche for audit services for the year ending December 31, 1990. Basis of Recommendation: 1. The Deloitte & Touche firm has served as the City's auditor for the past five years and during that time, the City has attained numerous awards for its financial reporting. 2. The Deloitte & Touche firm serves as the auditor for several other metropolitan municipalities which hold Certificates of Achievement in Financial Reporting, including Bloomington, Brooklyn Center, Brooklyn Park, Eagan, Minnetonka and Robbinsdale. 3. The fees for the audit service proposed by Deloitte & Touche are very reasonable and provide little increase from the previous year. Alternative Recommendation: The City Council could authorize the City Manager to solicit audit proposals from additional auditing firms. Discussion/Decision Mode: It is suggested that action on this item be taken at the November 26, 1990 City Council Meeting so that the preliminary work necessary for the audit may begin as soon as possible. Respectf ly submitted, James Prosser City Manager Deloitte & Touche /\ 900 Pillsbury Center Facsimile: (612) 375-5418 Minneapolis, Minnesota 55402-1483 Telephone: (612) 333-2301 October 4, 1990 Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Richfield Richfield, Minnesota 55431-3096 Dear Mr. Mayor and Council Members: In connection with your appointment of auditors for calendar year 1990, we are pleased to provide you with the following information regarding our services as your independent certified public accountants. Reporting As a matter of policy, we require that our appointment as auditors be made annually by the City Council. We believe this is necessary to clearly indicate that we are responsible to the City Council and not the administration. We wish to assure you that in the course of carrying out the audit engagement, should circumstances arise that, in our judgment, would be either a limitation on the scope of our work or a finding of impropriety, we would report such circumstances to you promptly. We regularly report to you at a regular Council meeting at the conclusion of the annual audit. Independence We confirm that we are independent with respect to the City. None of our partners, managers, or staff have any direct or indirect financial interest in City contracts, and no one assigned to the audit of the City is related to any employee of the City. In addition, it is our policy that staff accountants may not be assigned to the audit engagement for more than three consecutive years, the manager not be assigned for more than five consecutive years, and the partner not be assigned for more than seven consecutive years (an American Institute of Certified Public Accountants rule). This policy not only assures professional independence but also brings fresh ideas to the audit engagement. Statement of Auditing Standard In 1989, the Auditing Standards Board issued SAS 63, Compliance Auditing Applicable to governmental entities and other recipients of Governmental assistance effective for the current year. The new standard deals with the auditors' responsibility for testing and Member ww~ ~:: l; International i City of Richfield October 4, 1990 Page 2 reporting on compliance with laws and regulations. Our 1990 audit will be in conformity with this new standard. The U.S. General-Accounting Office (GAO) also issued new government auditing standards effective for audits starting January 1, 1989. The new standards require compliance with specific rules including 24 hours of new continuing education requirements in subjects directly related to all government environment and to government auditing for all accountants performing significant work on governmental audits. Our 1990 audit personnel will be in conformity with this new standard. We will perform a financial audit combining statements of all funds of the City of Richfield, Minnesota for the fiscal year ending December 31, 1990. The audit will be made in accordance with generally accepted auditing standards, and the audit report will follow generally accepted accounting principles. Further, the audit report will follow statements and interpretations of the Governmental Accounting Standards Board and the American Institute of Certified Public Accountants Industry Audit Guide "Audits of State and Local Government Units". We will perform a compliance -audit in accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards of all Federal financial assistance provided to the City pursuant to the requirements of the Single Audit Act of 1984 and the OMB Circular A-128. The proposed audit will also be made in accordance with the provisions of Minnesota statutes, especially Section 6.65, and the Richfield City Charter. During the course of our examination, we would review the internal controls and operations of the City and submit to you in a separate report our evaluation, findings, and recommendations relative to those areas that we feel warrant attention and/or improvements. We will prepare the annual report to be filed with the state auditor. We will include in the audit the Housing Authority and Police and Fire Relief Associations. City of Richfield October 4, 1990 Page 3 A tentative audit timetable follows the previous year's schedule and is as follows: Events Preliminary audit fieldwork Final audit fieldwork Final discussion with City personnel on proposed audit adjustments if necessary Draft available for City incorporation in CAFR The above timetable should be reasonably closing books on a timely basis. Based discussion we estimate the cost of these s City General (general and circular A-128) Housing and Redevelopment Authority Police and Fire Relief Associations Dates December 31, 1990 - January 4, 1991 April 22 - May 10, 1991 May 10, 1991 May 10, 1991 accurate subject to the City on our reviews and previous ervices to be as follows: 535 hours $23,400 65 hours $ 3,500 110 hours $ 4,100 The above fees should be considered as maximum. You will be billed based upon the normal per diem rate plus out of pocket expenses. Should our time charges at the regular per diem rate amount to less, we would, of course, bill you at the lower amount. The foregoing fees are based upon the understanding that accounts and records of the City, including appropriate subsidiary records such as insurance schedules, accounts receivable detail and bank reconciliations and accounts payable detail, will be properly and currently maintained and in balance account prior to commencement of our assignment. Should any unusual circumstances arise, originating from the City or its personnel requiring excessive time on our part, we would, of course, consult with you regarding possible charges that could result. Further we would request that certain schedules and other analyses be prepared and made available to us by your City personnel. This data would consist of trial balances, copies of bank reconciliations and accounts receivable and payable listings, insurance schedules, contributions letters, and certain other account analyses to be designated. City of Richfield October 4, 1990 Page 4 Audit Personnel Jeff Radunz will serve as the advisory partner for our work with the City of Richfield. Jeff has over 10 years of experience in public accounting. Jeff is a resident of the City of Richfield, living on 7027 First Avenue South. Megan Tully will be the engagement manager assigned to supervise our 1990 audit services to the City and is replacing Dan Mayleben who rotated off the engagement. Megan has 6 years of experience in public accounting and was previously assigned as a staff auditor on the City of Eagan and related entities for 5 years during 1985 to 1989, serving as the engagement senior in 1988 and 1989. Bridget Walstrom will be returning as the supervising senior accountant. This will be Bridget's fourth year at Richfield. Barb Bina will be serving the City of Richfield as the senior accountant in charge of the audit field work. This .will be Barb's third year at Richfield; she has several years of experience on municipal audits. I will continue to serve as engagement partner responsible for all services to the City. In addition to serving the City of Richfield, I serve as the Deloitte & Touche national audit partner for all of our state and local government clients. Financial Reporting The City administration places a high priority on maintaining good internal control and financial reporting systems. Obviously this is the result of strong support in these areas from the City Council. We wish to commend both the administration and City Council for this, as we believe the City's financial reporting is among the best in the nation. As evidence of this quality, the City receives the GFOA certificate of achievement for excellence in financial reporting. City of Richfield October 4, 1990 Page 5 For all our services to the City, we assure you that you will continue to receive: - Two-way communications throughout the year to respond to your questions and provide you with our informal insights on emerging issues. - A management letter oriented to constructive improvements for the future. - An engagement team with substantial experience in working with Minnesota cities, including more experience in helping cities obtain and maintain their GFOA Certificate of Achievement than any other CPA firm. - We are very proud of our association with the City of Richfield and the following Minnesota governmental clients of our firm which also hold Certificates: - Bloomington - Brooklyn Center - Brooklyn Park - Eagan - Minnetonka - Robbinsdale - Winona - Bloomington Public Schools - Minneapolis Public Schools - Metropolitan Airports Commission - Hennepin County - Olmsted County City of Richfield October 4, 1990 Page 6 Our Merger Deloitte Haskins & Sells and Touche Ross have merged. This combination has not affected the proposed fees or staffing commitments contained in this document. It has been a privilege to serve as auditors for the City in the past, and we look forward to continuing that relationship. Please be assured that our services to you will continue to receive our best efforts. Yours truly, ~-~~ 3~" CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Council Letter No. 279 Agenda November 26, 1990 Issue Statement: Request for an amendment to the off-street parking permit at 1300 East 66th Street. Background• Applicant CSC Publishing, Inc. is proposing to construct an addition to the rear of its existing office building which requires an amendment to the off-street parking permit. Adequate space is available for the required 13 parking spaces as indicated on the site plan. On October 5, 1990, a setback variance for the addition was approved by the hearing examiner subject to an amendment to the off-street parking permit and approval of plans by staff. This property is zoned C-2, general commercial. Professional offices are a permitted use in the C-2 district. Recommended Motion: Approve the request for an amendment to the off-street parking permit at 1300 East 66th Street. Basis of Recommendation: 1. Applicant meets the parking space and handicap parking requirements. 2. Applicant has agreed to stripe and screen the new rear parking lot according. to the City Landscape Guidelines. 3. Applicant will provide a cash escrow to ensure completion of the parking lot improvements. 4. The staff administrative review committee has considered and approved the parking layout with no changes to the existing south lot. This includes the continued use of the existing 20 foot curb lot. The widening of the curb cut would make it wider than the drive aisle creating a conflict with parked vehicles. Similarly, widening would bring the curb cut even closer to the intersection necessitating relocation and loss of parking. The location of this curb cut on 13th Avenue minimizes the negative impacts. 3~'- I Alternative Recommendation: ~~ The City Council may deny the off-street permit amendment if a finding of fact .determines that the proposal would have an adverse impact on surrounding properties. Discussion/Decision Mode: Consideration of this item is scheduled for the Monday, November 26, 1990 City Council meeting. Respec f ly submitted, Jam s D. Prosser Cit Manager r - Z ZQ Z~ n N rn ~ r- _Z~ Z n r rn N rn ~~ Z~ r" 0 n O z 1 rn. rn rn ~ v 0~ u i r -~ s ~ ; s = ?7$ ~ 3 ~ ~ K xUx[S AVE. ~ --- Ts 1tlASNeURN ~• ~~-J C'-' VINC[NT II " CJ~~~ C~C~C~~r r11oYAS I u~`-~~fL SN[RIOAN ~~ '~~~~~` RUSSELL I ~ I~ ~~~ WEEK II nl, ~ I~C~C P[MN AVt. ~~ CSC-,CSC=7L OLwER ~Y r N[IRTON I' ~~~I ~ ~L YOR6AN ij~~l ~LC 100AN ` U KNOx _ C JAME3 ~~ IRVINO \~~\~ I C NureoLOr - - -?~~---'r GIRARD ~~'~ (~ C~~hG FROraNr ,~ C~~C3C EMERSON ~~ ~~~~r OUPONT ~~O~C~C~ cafAx ~. sRTANT ~ C~C~ AIORICN II ~,_,~~ lYNOAI[ AvE. 6ARFlEL0 1 ~' ~~~ NARRIET 1 ~ GRAND I ~~ I I-~ PLEASANT --•-~~~ q _.,._.-._. PllISeURT 1 NiENTM1OttM ~~~~~ i 1 eLA1soELL `-~~ NICOILET AVE. i~~ _ _ ~: •A. STEVEN! Sr iC~ ~ 1 2n0 L-'~~--~~ !r0 i~. 1 CIIN TON I O • 111 ~ !tN 1~ 'i C PORTLAND AVE. ^"("~~'~~(~~ OAKLINO 0111 I~~l._I - I'~~ ~CC~C=i' PARK ,, ,I - COIUYeU3 111~~ IC~CJC~C~ cNICAGO 41„ ~C~C~~~C '~~ C~C~C~OC ELUOT iii. C~~C~C~C 1011, 1;:~ JC~C~~C 11 IA 1i'~ 12 re h'.-',l-u~C~CJC 1! t~ ~ ~~uC~00. ' C=1C=l,~' CC I• IA I `- iu~ ~ LLB IS to e~corlNaroN 1, ~--~r~~jC~C- I y~ ly; 17111 tI C~ .ter le /n pl~ I~. iL-~ 'u11~ 1 ~-- ~-- ~_- IONGFELIOrI ~ ------~R----""~ " Wi 3 s` s a u s H 1 ~ i y y !'~~r~?___ __ ~I `_JI rl ~, i I i~ I i~ II ~ - o~ 1 A a a a• . - - A - M ~ - 4 O ~~ 11vf ~ ~ 1~ ~ v ~ u i Z i ~ J s ~ ~ ; ~ ~ ~ Y 1 1N n ~ N y !•1 N H 1 _ _.. a+~a . .-y_- _~ y _ -y__ u ~i~ i i, ~ ~~~I ~+`, xfexES AVER I WASMeURN ' 1 VINCENT -- uvtoN TNOMAS SNERIOAN (I RUSSELL '~N OUEEN IT PENN AVE. ~'~~~ OUVER ~~ NEMTON ~~~~~I MOR6AN C, LOGIN ~ KNOX JAMES ~I1~ IRViN6 r~ 1' NUMe0l0T I ~~ II GIRARO .__ 6 F1R:110NT ~\\ I, EMER30N ~\~~I OVPONT ---~~~ IrI'I' COLFAX X111 BRTANT ~I' ALORION ~, LYNOAIE AVE. ~ I 1I.I~I WRfIEL0 ~ I NARRIET ~II GRANO _~• y PLEASANT ~I jli I PILLSeUR7 -"I~' WENtWORTN I II BLAISDEII ~~t NICOLLET 4V E. ~1 1~1 ~I , STEVENS _It1 2 n0 !N CIINTON i .,. ~;, 3111 1 PORTlANO AVE. OAKlAN0 ~_ '1II PARR COLUMlUS I CNICAGO ElUOT i- ~I I 10 111 1 n 1n ~1 121n 1! fp Y I { 111 1 IS 1~ 8100YINGtON IQ IA 1Trn Istl1 --'~ CEDAR AV[: LONGfEllOM1 191n 20th 21 ~I zzn~ 4TANOISN 27 r0 A N s -- - -- -- ' s ~ ALLEY __~PROPERTY LNG v 1IAI~DICIIP SIGN ~ g ~ 12' 9.S~ 9.5' SPACED Q FT. ~ M'ERVALS 36' W I N . °°~-= ~ ~ ABC p, i ~ ~~ O t -~-~~ I i LA PNG EXISTNG BU~Df~K ' iSOD o0 N 33' I 12.5 ' ~ 4` ZI. SDEWALK ~ _~ ~ ~ J ~ ~ N I~ N I I W IZ , CONC. Q o I ;~. s~ACKTOP N I N I ~ ~ 1 ~ c*~ T I 9• O ~ N I SKIN 1 h X 17 HIGH tr SHRtlBERY HEDGE ~ LANDS~APNG i ROCK PROPERTY LgE ~ 3~ - 3 ~_ SCREEPED DiIdPSTER AREA TO BE PROVDED N SCALE 1 "= 20' 4, s' ;~ _ _ ~ _ _ 66TH STREET PROPOSED SITE PLAN 1300 EAST 66TH STREET SITE CONTEXT Zoning CITY OF RICHFIELD PLANNING & ZONING 1300 EAST 66th STREET, KEY C-Z GENERAL COUMAERCIAL MR MULTI-FAMILY RESIDENCE 000000 0 0 o MR-2 THREE TO 17 UNIT RESIDENCE Q Q R SNIGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE N ~'~MMENTS: ~~~~~~~~ss~ 0 200 400 600 800 1000 SCALE FEET ~ni sr. SITE CONTEXT Land Use CITY OF RICHFIELD PLANNING & ZONING 1300 EAST 66th STREET, CONMIIERCIAL ~ OUASI-PUBLIC APARTMENT a,;f,._. PARK Q SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE -Q ®VACAN'T N KEY COMMENTS: ~~~^~~~~~~~ o Zoo aoo soo aoo tooo SCALE FEET °° ° ° ° °°o °° °° °° ° °°° °° °°° °° o ° o° _°°°°° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° 'a ~~ ~ _ ; -- o ~n~ sr. °°° °° °° °° ° °° °°° °°°°° °°°°° SITE CONTEXT Comprehensive Development Plan CITY OF RICHFIELD PLANNING & ZONING 1300 EAST Stith STREET, KEY °o°o~o N~D~MA DENSITY 6UFFER NdSTtTUT10N Q SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE Q ry ~ PARKS & OPEN SPACE -OMMENTS: ~~~~~~~~~~ 0 20o aoo soo aoo iooo SCALE FEET ~K CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Council Letter No. 280 Agenda November 26, 1990 Issue Statement: Award of Contract for Purchase of Fire Rescue Truck and Apparatus. Background• Unit #8064, a 1980 fire rescue truck, is fully depreciated and scheduled to be replaced in 1991. The 1991 Central Garage proposed budget contains $70,000 for the purchase of a new fire rescue truck and apparatus. A formal bid opening was held October 29, 1990 with the following results. Marion Bodyworks, Inc. $57,957 MN Conway Fire & Safety (E-1) 559,181 Road Rescue, Inc. 560,564 Linear Dynamics, Inc. $72,926 None of the bidders met exact specifications, but there were particular problems with the two apparent low bidders. Marion Bodyworks, Inc. could not comply with four specified areas as follows: 1. Tow hooks on front of chassis not included. 2. Compartment doors did not match specification. 3. No specific drawings were included with the proposal. 4. Split bench seat not available. In addition, Marion only guarantees the bid for 60 days rather than the 90 days specified, and. stated a delivery date of September 1991. They also offer only a one year warranty on workmanship, and the specifications called for a five year warranty. MN Conway Fire and Safety (E-1) could not comply with three specified areas as follows: 1. Could not comply with compartment door sizes unless they went to a larger style box at considerable additional expense. 2. Could not make the rear compartment doors large enough to meet specification. The design committee feels the size of the rear doors were of prime importance in the design of the vehicle. 3. No specific drawings were included with the proposal. In addition, the manufacturer is refusing to pay for travel to the factory, which is located in Florida. It is estimated that a minimum of two trips to the factory will need to be made, and the estimated cost for travel to the factory is $3,000 per trip (minimum two trips). The specifications clearly stated any trip to factories was to be paid for by the manufacturer. The purpose "3K-~ of the trips is to ensure that a vehicle of this type and complexity is being built to the specifications. A lot of time and effort went into the design of this unit, and it would be time wasted if the unit was not built as specified. During construction is the time to catch mistakes, as opposed to after, when the internal mechanisms are masked by cosmetics. Road Rescue, Inc. came the closest to meeting specifications as written. They could not comply with one specified area, which was a split bench seat. Recommended Motion: Approve the bid minutes/tabulation and award a contract for the purchase of a fire rescue truck to Road Rescue, Inc. in the sum of $60,564. Basis of Recommendation: 1. Road Rescue, Inc. most closely met specifications as written. 2. Road Rescue is a local company which has done satisfactory work for us in the past. 3. Road Rescue's bid exceeds specifications in many areas, as well as exceed the specified warranty requirement. Alternative Recommendation: 1. Council may choose to reject all the bids and direct staff to rewrite the specifications, beginning the bid process over. However, staff believes the bid from Road Rescue, Inc. is the most reasonable, and most closely meets specifications as written. 2. Council may choose to award the contract to another vendor. However, staff believes the bid from Road Rescue, Inc. is the most reasonable, and most closely meets specifications as written. Discussion/Decision Mode: Staff is seeking approval at the November 26, 1990 council meeting in order to facilitate delivery of the new fire rescue truck. lly submitted, Jam D. Prosser Cit Manager Attachment JDP/reb cc: Community Services Director Public Safety Director CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Council Letter No. 281 Agenda November 26, 1990 Issue Statement: Disciplinary hearing for Sandy's Tavern located at 6612 Penn Avenue South. The hearing is necessary as a result of an alleged sale of alcohol to a minor on one occasion in March of 1990. Background In March of 1990, .staff requested the police division to conduct an investigation of the city's liquor and beer establishments to determine whether problems existed with minors being served alcohol. On March 27, 1990, the police division made arrangements for an 18 year old minor to enter Sandy's Tavern with undercover police officers. The group, including the minor, was served alcohol by an employee of the establishment without the employee requesting any identification. The minor did not consume any of the alcohol. On April 9, 1990, the employee involved and the establishment were charged with a gross misdemeanor for providing alcohol to persons underage. The pretrial court hearing on the criminal charges was scheduled for May 1, 1990. An additional hearing was also scheduled for June 5, 1990. On April 18, 1990, staff and the city attorney met with the owners of the establishment and their attorney. The purpose of the meeting was to discuss the allegations and to arrive at a possible disposition of the matter. At the meeting, the owners requested that further discussions be deferred until the criminal case against them was concluded. The criminal case has since been disposed of in court. The employee who had served the minor pled guilty and was convicted. The case against the owners was dismissed, based on a finding by the court that the owner could not be held criminally liable by the acts of their employees. The owners of the establishment and their attorney have now agreed to a stipulation that the establishment's license be suspended for a period of two consecutive days. Recommended Motion: City Council approved a resolution suspending the non-intoxicating malt liquor license for Sandy's Tavern for a ~fi period of two consecutive days beginning no later than November 30, 1990. Basis for Recommendation: 1. The owners of the establishment have agreed to the disciplinary terms in a stipulation. 2. The employee who was convicted of the illegal sale has been terminated by the owners. 3. The owners, through their attorney, in a letter dated April 25, 1990, outlined the steps which they have taken since this incident to eliminate the possibility that these problems would occur in the future. Alternative Recommendation: 1. The City Council could decide to revoke the non- intoxicating malt liquor license for Sandy's Tavern. This would mean that no non-intoxicating malt liquor could be served at any time in the establishment. 2. The City Council could decide to suspend the license for a length of time different than the recommended two days stated in this letter. Discussion/Decision Mode• Hearing on the suspension. of the non-intoxicating malt liquor license for Sandy's Tavern is presented for council consideration at this time. At the meeting, council will be provided a stipulation executed by the owner and a resolution approving the stipulation. Resp lly Submitted, Jam D. Prosser Cit Manager JDP:bac `-1 ~~ STIPULATION 19th November Ti3I5 AGREEMENT made and entered into as of the ~i.day of , 1990, by and between the City of Richfield, a Minnesota municipal corporation {hereinafter "City's and Jeffrey and Debra Erickson, d/bla Sandy's Tavern, 6612 Penn Avenue South, Richfield, Minnesota, {hereinafter "Licensee"}. BACKGROUND 2. Licensee operates a restaurant located at 661:2 Penn Avenue South, Richfield, Minnesota. 2. In conjunction with the restaurant operations, licensee holds a license permitting the on-sale sale of non-intoxicating malt liquor. The license was .~ issued by the City on -~-~ ~ / ~~` , 19%C, and by Its terms e:cpires at the end of 1990. 3. Pending before the City Council is the proposed discipline of Licensee based upon an alleged ~ sale of non-intoxicating malt liquor to a person under the age of Z 1 years, ~ : 4. Representatives of the Richfield Department of Public Safety have met with the Lteensee and Licensee's attorney for the purpose of discussing the allegations and a possible disposition of the matter. STIPULATION Based upon the Foregoing, it is hereby stipulated and agreed by and between the parties as follows: 1. The City hereby imposes upon Licensee and Licensee hereby accepts a TWO DAY suspension of Licensee's 1994 on-sale non-intoxicating malt liquor license. ~I-3 2. Said suspension shall occur on two consecutive business days and shall begin December 23 -not later. than.~~~~xl X990. Licensee shall notify the Department of Public Safety of the actual beginning date of the suspension period not later than two days prior to such actual beginning date. 3. By accepting the above-described discipline, Licensee specifically waives and releases any claims which it may have, for any reason, to challenge the actions of the City which are the subject of this Stipulation, or to challenge the findings o£ the City Council regarding the alleged illegal sale of 'aleaIzolic h~verages t~ a person under 2i years of -age; provi3ed, however, that this waiver and release sha11 not be construed in any way to constitute an admission by Licensee regarding ,such sale, may not be introduced in any criminal proceeding as evidence of an admission, and shall not preclude Licensee, in any such criminal proceedings, from imposing any defense including, but not limited to a denial that such sale occurred. IN WITNESS W~TEREt~F, the parties have caused this Agreement to be duly executed as oP the day and year first above written. - CITY OF RICHFIELD By Its Mayor I3y . Its City Manager s ,~1 :, -~ J ., ~ ~~, ;' :(. , - ? JeYfrey Erickson i.:' ~ , •- ~ - ,.: .~:.- j: a y ~' w - __ Debra Erickson " RC160-Q06 Z City of Richfield, Minnesota Council Letter No. 282 Agenda November 26, 1990 Issue Statement• Public hearing on a request for a conditional use permit and off- street parking permit at 1200 East 78th Street. This item was reviewed at the October 8, 1990 City Council meeting and referred back to the Planning Commission. Background• Systems Control, Inc. has requested a conditional use permit to allow a vehicle emission testing facility at 1200 East 78th Street. This facility would be one of eleven such facilities necessitated by recent legislation requiring vehicle emission testing prior to registration. The testing requirements become effective July 1, 1991. The facility is designed to serve drivers within a five mile radius and has a peak capacity of 139 vehicles per hour (vph). The testing process is designed to accommodate 200 of peak capacity which is expected to occur at least one-percent of the time. Systems Control presented two revised site plans to the City Council during the October 8 hearing. The site plans had not been reviewed or approved by the Planning Commission, thus requiring referral back to them for consideration. The Planning Commission reviewed these proposals at their October 23 meeting. Recommended Motion: Deny the request for conditional use permit and off-street parking permit. Basis of Recommendation: 1. On October 23, 1990, the Planning Commission voted 6-1 to .recommend denial. of the conditional use permit. See attached appendix for background materials. 2. Systems Control has a seven year contract with the State which suggests a seven year time line for project impact consideration. 3. Substantial traffic impacts occur relative to the changes in site plan, which include: a) There is no specific time line for the improvement of 77th Street during the seven year time period. Although the city is diligently working on this, specific planning for implementation is not available and cannot be assumed for this project. b) The environmental impact study has not been completed for I494 nor has a schedule for funding of improvements been finalized. As a result, it is also likely that 78th Street and the 12th Avenue ramp will remain open during 5-1 the seven year period. c) Traffic entering and exiting the site through the intersection of 12th Avenue and 78th Street will further congest that intersection and contribute to a degradation of the level of service of the off-ramp intersection. Southbound vehicles stopped at the signal could conflict with turning movements of those exiting the site via 78th Street. Vehicles attempting to enter the site from 12th Avenue and awaiting a gap in northbound vehicle traffic could add to further delays in moving through the intersection. d) The present configuration of 78th Street does not appear adequate for a left turn lane for traffic turning south on 12th Avenue. e) As left turns into 78th Street increase in difficulty, entry to the site will likely occur via 14th Avenue and 78th Street, increasing the traffic volume on 14th Avenue. f) A study cited by Westwood Professional Services relative to a previous proposal for the same site discusses the "potential for congestion on 78th Street east of 12th Avenue if the site had access only to/from 78th Street, development traffic would interfere more with exiting traffic using 78th Street." g) Substantial difficulty will be encountered by traffic exiting the site during peak traffic flow on 78th Street because of the proximity of the exit to the intersection. h) Until improvement of 77th Street, northbound traffic will likely follow 12th Avenue to 76th Street in order to utilize the signalized intersection at Portland Avenue and 76th Street. This increase in traffic will contribute to a degradation in level of service on 12th Avenue and a change in character of the street. i) The closest vehicle license issuing station is the City of Richfield at 6700 Portland Avenue. To get to City Hall, some of the traffic generated from the proposed use will take 12th Avenue north of 76th Street which is a two lane roadway, with single family residences, designated a residential collector. Adding commercial traffic would be a change in character. j) Peak traffic expected to be generated by the site is 139 vehicles per hour or 1,668 daily trips. According to Systems Control at least one-percent of the time, use will reach 200$ of capacity or 278 vph or 3,332 daily trips. ~~ k) The City of Richfield Transportation Guidelines state "Traffic volumes on roadways with abutting property designated for single family residential use should not exceed ... 6,000 vehicles per day on collectors". Twelfth Avenue is designated as a residential collector and shows an ADT of 9,220 between 78th Street and 76th Street in 1988. Peak hour counts at the intersection of 12th Avenue and 77th Street show a total of 755 vehicles passing through the intersection of which 174 are southbound and 342 are northbound. 4. Proposed use is inconsistent with adjacent land uses and could affect future redevelopment plans for the I-494 strip. 5. Air quality analysis shows that the garages bordering the east edge of the site protect the apartments immediately east of the station from drifting carbon monoxide. However, in the process, carbon monoxide is trapped over the proposed station. 6. Air quality estimates prepared by Braslau and Associates for Systems Control used existing and 1992 traffic volumes on I-494. Increased volumes and presumably increased emissions resulting from expanding I-494 were not considered. Alternative Recommendation: Approve the request for conditional use permit and off-street parking permit with the following stipulations: 1. An in depth traffic impact study be performed and approved by the City Council. 2. Site plan related issues be corrected. Discussion/Decision Mode: A public hearing is scheduled at 7:00 p.m. on Monday, November 26, 1990 in the City Council Chambers of Richfield City Hall, 6700 Portland Avenue. Notice of public hearing was again published in the Sun-Current and mailed to property owners within 350 feet of the property. ly submitted, Jame D Prosser City M alter ~-3 ~~ ~;~ g "~ia ~o ~.+ r Q ~~ .a..£ b QO(~ O((I Q ~I G .. a~Z W W C H r ~ ~ ~o ~ 5 ~ ~ $.; ~ \l ~ }~l ,. ; a. b~ .L/1 £1 JB~ .~ tii a p 777 a ~ 7 ! 3 = ~== 8 ~ _ > ~ e - I - . -` ~ ~ ~~ ~ •~ ~ - ~~ ;~~ ~ g €! W o `~! ~ ~ i J ~ V ); a ~~~„ QaE N 8Q~ Fi o ~ ~ U~U N U~ ~ '~ ~ W i ~~. ~ga~ag$~3 ~-o I 'y~66 •§~:Q~ r4 - ::~ 3;~~ . ~'~ ~.~b~ 0 pQp~, F W W F- Z ~ a _ .~ a~ ~ ~ Ws ~ a I- _ ~ ~ a W O 0 N T aZ z ~ O N V V ct Z • O Z ~ g V a H1ff0• iflN7RY V1L1 ~J' -~ W Y a- Mlfl Ot iflNiAY 43L1 W J W ~` ~_~ 0--- ~" it Ih .__4 W II II W '"'H II • 11 I,,, I I o- -:~1 ~ ,I II W II 11 J ~I I 0_ . 11 l II Z S, I I n O II u - II F n u Q II II > n N W II J II II W II II II II 0( 11 II Q II II W 11 j1 OL II ~~ o e 0 e ei ~ 4~~ 0 t 0 4 ? U o-- - - ~ --~ -==~1 11 II ~-. I II II __#I - II - - I I s=~1 II i _- I ;y~ p n _ ~ I u _ II f" : O- - ~i Q :. '. I - BI II' ?c~ ~ I II II W n '_ I J 11 II W o-- - _ it I I - 11 II ~ '~' ~ Z .-__- ~ -- I II o~ 11 11 o- - - ~"\• ~I _~J ~~ 1 Z J a WW a~ Qa V= ~ a O Z d J W W ono N Q W 0 O N aZ Z c ~' o ~ S °~ V _ CC V O Z ~ g U a ~~~ ~~ ; ~f, ~'i ~ ~ di ~, ~. ~ ~ ~~ , ~ z! ~ Hr- 'Oi d"~ ~ 'Q w O .e-.E 0 O ~~ ~ ~ Q ICI I I z 11 U ~ N z d~ W W f • w '- W ~ ~ 30 ~ 5 y ~ ~ ~.~ ~ ~ ~\ ~ _~ j. .t•1 .f O.1 tra b~ L/I BI e~ ~a& __ _ ~e~ _ - &~ ae = _ .,~. = - ~ o - _ ~ U }C~ ~ ` ~ ~~~ Z! ~~ ~, Z 0 ~~ ~, ,,U~ V/' O 0 W s `~iill~ a~ ~ ~~ Q ~~~ ~=; ~. ~~~ :. I Z 0 F-• / ..~- /^' w O 7; ~ O p ~kEgSD~f ~ ~~~e~ :: ~ 3~~ of ~ a ~ i 3 ~~ O Q~ ~~ O W W H Z tl~ Q - .~ J a W ~ Q ~ ~ a ~ to Q W 0 0 N T aZ z D W G N °~ _V V ~. O ~` Z U a ~J ~ Yi W W e • _~ A w N • W 0--- '_"` 1, ~/ a- ~~ _~ ni~ i ~ < - __ 39i~ ~ . ~ ~~~~ ~ ~ N1f10• i(1NiAV gill ~, ~> II W J II 11 W II II II it H II II ~ ~~ 11 _ I I. ~ 11 W II U ~` .~ o-- 'It .,I ~ II u W II 1 I J Q- - II II W 71 II II F- 11 ~ _' ~i ~ II W II II J 11 ~I ~-i II II II 11 II II II II II 11 II II it ~II 2 II n O II H II II Q II II > II II W 11 J II I I W II ~( II II Q II 11 W II II ~ II ~- ~ - O- - ~- O- - ~ - a e 0 c b 0 e O t O M ti ti • t IjJ ~ Qa Z ~I _~I II ?11 II II II `Yi Z .I `11 ~', II ~ '~I II Q 8I II > 11 W II SII J II .11 W II 11 ~ II Z II ~I O I 11 ~ II II LL II W Z W H o. v~ W - ~ a a W ~ .~ °° v = r ~ a i! ~ Q Z W a o O N r aZ z O LI. N °~ V _ ~. V ` . O Z ~ g u a a ~ ^~ > Q= ~ a ~ U a a = s ~ ~aDra~IInQ~Q a~ = a ~ SOUTHBOUND QUE CC DELAY LEFT TURN OF EXRMG VEHICLES i.-- . ..~ PROPOSED S1TE . NO LEFT . TURN LANE: COULD CONFLICIV EXITMIG VEHICLES 77TH ST. -~ SITE NTRY IA 14TH AVE. WILL E LEFT TURNS ONTO 78TH . BE OME DIFFICULT. ~~ ~,~ 78TH ST. 1-494 REVISED SITE CIRCULATION OPTION 2A CITY OF RICHFIELD PLANNING & ZONING 1200 EAST 78th STREET KEY TRAFFIC SIGNALS ..COMMENTS: • ONE WAY WESTBOUND ON 78TH STREET WILL BE ELIMaVATED UPON COMPLETION OF I-494 RAMP. Q N 0 200 400 600 800 1000 SCALE FEET • VEHICLES W~L LNCELY USE 76TH & PORTLAND INTERSECTION TO AVOID STOP SIGN AT 77TH & PORTLAND. qa ~ ,'~ ~ Q Q~ as aaf~ ~~D~q~a~aQ a POTENTIAL CONFLICT \ BETWEEN LEFT-TURNING TRAFFIC & SIGNAL CUE `a ~~ ,~ ' ' "~ ACCESS. SHIFTED FROM 14TH AVE. ~i PROPOSED SiTE~ ~~ COULD CYCLE '~ Q L.l ~a a ~ ~ ~ ~ 77TH ST. a ~ ~] 78TH ST. RAMP & FRONTAGE ROAD CLOSED AT 1-494 RECONSTRUCTION ~-494 REVISED SITE CIRCULATION OPTION 2B CITY OF RICHFIELD PLANNING & ZONING 1200. EAST 78th STREET KEY ~G TRAFFIC SIGNALS OPERATIONAL UNTIL 1.494 RECONSTRUCTION. Q I~ ~.OMMENTS: ~ ~ ~~ ~~ ~~~~ o Zoo aoo soo aoo iooo SCALE FEET ~`~ T'1 TH STREET -' •• .. f J BUFFER AREA ADEQUATE ~. ~- ~ INADEQUATE SPACE TO Q I SOFTEN GARAGE WALLS I .... _ _____ •- ~ _.... M___ ~ ~ ~ _ PROXIMITY OF DRIVE I Mc ~ ac ' ~ ~ _-~_ TO GARAGE WILL E- ._ __ TRAP EMISSIONS OF ----- STACKED VEHICLES ., 7TENTIAL DELAY AS ~ , ~ ~ .FT TURNING VEHICLES ~ ~ 'VAIT CHANCE TO ~ ~ -•txrt CECUTE URN ~~~, t•.so~ .• TqG~ ROgp ~ ~ ~~ ~' ~~ r ~.._`, SYSTEMS CONTROL 1/M STATION ~~ CONCEPT PLAN -OPTION: ZA ~ SITE PLAN ANALYSIS i r ff~~1 I~.l BUFFER SPACE ADEQUATE ~-~ s' ..-~ ~ v ' '. '> .. 77 ~ ~kef' .h~ ~. ~ ~ ~' -. _. ~C'"' ~c ~ -- - ~, N Pl ~NTIAL TURNING MOVEMENT CONFLIC ~ ,; r" ~ ~~' __ NORTH BOUND TRAFFIC T~~~f ~,' i , BUFFEF ., !~ ., •\ .' ! i . `'-~... ~., ~- Tom, ~,,~ ~ -~-~ . ~ ~ 2+o r-~i~ s~ACes FRONTAGE ROAD ~ -~, N CLOSED? ," ~~' ~5 ~1 1/N1 , ,' ~„ ~'%iou 28 _~ ~'~-.. 310' . ~\~ , ~~ CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Council Letter No. 283 Agenda November 26, 1990 Issue Statement: Approval of Modification #1 to the Cedar Avenue Business Area (CABA) Redevelopment Plan and Tax Increment Plan (plans) following a public hearing. Background: Early in 1988, the CABA plans were approved by the HRA and City Council. The plans provided assistance to Copy Duplicating Products to redevelop the old Cedar Avenue liquor store site. Tax increment assistance was provided on a "pay as you go" basis. It is proposed to amend the plans to accomplish two objectives; to repay the Cedar Liquor Fund and, to make a voluntary distribution of the available tax increment to the taxing jurisdictions including the school district. A Modification Summary appears on page 1-1. To easily track the proposal, the amendment contains three appendices each of which are sources and distribution statements for taxes payable 1990 (Appendix D-1, page D-1-1), taxes payable 1991 (Appendix D-2, page D-2-1) and taxes payable 1992-97 (Appendix D-3, page D-3-1). The appendices differ in the distribution funds. In years 1990 and 1991 the Cedar Liquor Fund is reimbursed and money is distributed to the taxing jurisdictions. With a lesser payment due the Liquor Fund in 1991, a "TIF District No. 1252 Fund" line is added to the distributions. The increment not distributed will be collected with the intention of paying the CDP assistance in full prior to 1997. A distribution to the HRA is also included in the same amount as in the original plan. The modification, however, delays the initial payment from 1990 to 1991. If projections are correct, all the payments to CDP could be made by 1993 or 1994 rather than 1997. Recommendation: Hold the public hearing and adopt the attached resolution which approves the modification. Basis for Recommendation: 1. The modification would permit repayment to the Cedar Liquor Fund. 2. Excess increment would be distributed to the taxing jurisdictions, including the Richfield School District. 3. The amount of assistance paid to CDP is not being altered. 4. Notice of the public hearing was published in the Richfield Sun-Current November 7, 1990. ~-- i Alternative Recommendation: 1. Not approve the modification. 2. Delay approval of the modification. Discussion/Decision Mode: Approval on November 26th would permit implementation in December when the tax increment receipts are received. ly submitted, James D. Prosser City nager CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION APPROVING A MODIFIED REDEVELOPMENT PLAN AND TAX INCREMENT FINANCING PLAN FOR THE CEDAR AVENUE BUSINESS AREA PROJECT BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota as follows: Section 1. Recitals. 1.01. The Housing and Redevelopment Authority in and for the City of Richfield, Minnesota (HRA) adopted a redevelopment plan (Redevelopment Plan) and a tax increment financing plan (TIF Plan) for the area of the City. generally known as the Cedar Avenue Business Area (Project Area) on January 19, 1988. 1.02. The city council of the City of Richfield (City) held a public hearing on the Redevelopment Plan and TIF Plan and approved the Plans on February 22, 1988. 1.03. Changes in the distribution of tax increment revenue generated by the Project Area have prompted the HRA to prepare modified Plans. 1.04. The modified Plans are contained in a document entitled "Modification No. 1 to the Redevelopment Plan for the CABA Redevelopment Project Area and Tax Increment Financing Plan for the Tax Increment Economic Development District," dated October 15, 1990, now on file with the HRA. All relating to the Cedar Avenue Business Area Redevelopment Project. 1.05. On October 15, 1990, the HRA approved the modified Plans for the Project Area contingent upon review and approval by the Richfield Planning Commission, and referred them to the City Council for public hearing and consideration as provided by the Acts. 1.06. The modified Plans have been referred to the Richfield Planning Commission which on October 23, 1990, found that they conform to and are not in conflict with the general plans for the development or redevelopment of the City as a whole. 1.07. Copies of the modified Plans have been forwarded to Independent School District No. 280, Intermediate School District No. 287, and Hennepin County along with a notice of the public hearing as required by the TIF Act. 1.08. The City Council has fully reviewed the contents of the modified Plans and has this date conducted a public hearing thereon at which the views of all interested persons were heard. ~~~ Section 3. Modified Redevelopment Plan and TIF Plan Adopted. 3.01. Except for the modification stated herein the City reaffirms its finding and conclusions as approved on February 22, 1988 in the original Plan dated January 19, 1988. 3.02. The modified Redevelopment Plan and TIF Plan is approved. 3.03. The HRA is requested to file a copy of the modified Plans with the Minnesota Commissioner of Revenue as required by the TIF Act. 3.04. The City Clerk is authorized and directed to transmit a certified copy of the resolution to the HRA Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this 26th day of November, 1990. ATTEST: Mayor Thomas Ferber, City Clerk 1p' The Housing and Redevelopment Authority In and for The City of Richfield, Minnesota Modification No. 1 to the Redevelopment Plan for the CABA Redevelopment Project Area and Tax Increment Financing Plan for the Tax Increment Economic Development District All Relating to the The Cedar Avenue Business Area Redeye/opment Project Dated: October 15, 1990 ~~ MAYOR STEI/EN J. QUAM CITY COUNCIL Edwina Garcia Martin Kirsch Ivan Ludeman Michael Sandahl HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY Thomas Harms, Chair :Edwina Garcia Joan Helmberger Ivan Ludeman Vern Luettinger CITY MANAGER/EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR James D. Prosser CITY STAFF Byron Wallace Community Development Director John Dean Holmes & Graven, Chartered City Attorney Ronald Batty Holmes & Graven, Chartered HRA Attorney Bruce Palmborg Housing & Redevelopment Coordinator Kathy Jab/onsky Redevelopment Specialist fo - b TABLE OF CONTENTS Part Redevelopment Plan Original Plan Page A. Statement of Public Purpose. 6 B. Statutory Authority 6 C. Description of Redevelopment Project Area. 6 D. Statement of Goals and Objectives 7 E. Development Activities and Agreements 8 F. Proposed Land Use . 10 G. Acquisition Relocation, and Rehabilitation Activities 10 H. Environmental Considerations 11 I. Redevelopment Plan Modification. 11 J. Administration of Redevelopment Project 12 Part N. Tax Increment Financing Plan A. Statutory Authority . B. Statement of Objectives. C. Development Program. . D. Description of Property in the Tax Increment Financing District. E. Classification of the Tax Increment Financing District. F. Parcels To Be Acquired . G. Estimate of,Costs. . H. Estimated Amount of Obligated Funds.. Modification No. 1 Plan Page 13 --- 14 --- 14 --- 15- 15 --- 16 --- 16 --- 16 --- (i) ~~ Original Modification Plan No. 1 Plan Page Page I. Sources of Revenue. 16 --- J. Original Assessed Value. 1~ ___ K. Estimated Captured Assessed Value. lg ___ L. Duration of the District. lg ___ M. Estimated Impact on Other Taxing Jurisdictions 18 ___ N. Modifications of the Tax Increment Financing District. lg ___ O. Limitation on Administrative Expenses. 19 ___ P. Limitation on Duration of Tax Increment Financing Districts. lg ___ Q. Limitation on Qualification of Property in Increment District Not Subject To Improvement. 19 ___ R. Limitation of the Use of Tax Increment. 20 -__ S. Notification of Prior Planned Improvements. 20 --_ T. Excess Tax Increments. 21 ___ U. Assessment Agreements. 21 ___ V. Administration of the Tax Increment Financing District and Maintenance of the Tax Increment Account 22 ___ W. Annual Disclosure Requirements.. 22 ___ X. Assumptions. 22 ___ Y. Municipal Findings. 22 ___ Appendix A: Map 1: Redevelopment Project Boundary and Area 26 ___ Appendix B: Map 2: Property in the Tax Increment District Boundary and Area 28 ___ 4ppendix C: Estimate of Tax Increments 30 (jj) ~-8 Appendix D: Uses of Tax Increment Revenue Appendix D-1: Uses of Tax Increment Revenue for Taxes Payable 1990 Appendix D-2: Uses of Tax Increment Revenue for Taxes Payable 1991 Appendix D-2: Uses of Tax Increment Revenue for Taxes Payable 1992-1997 Appendix E: Estimate of Total Annual Taxes Appendix F: Tax Increment Financing Budget Appendix G: Estimate of Impacts on Other Taxing Jurisdictions Original Modification Plan No. 1 Plan Page Page 33 --- --- D-1-1 --- D-2-1 --- D-3-1 34 --- 35 --- 36 --- Other: Summary of Modification No. 1 --- 1-1 (~fj) ~~ SUMMARY FOR MODIFICATION NO. 1 TO THE TAX INCREMENT FINANCING PLAN On January 19, 1988, the Richfield Housing and Redevelopment Authority authorized the Cedar Avenue Business Area (CABA) Redevelopment Project and approved the Redevelopment Plan and Tax Increment Financing Plan relating thereto. After a public hearing on this matter on February 22, 1988, the City Council approved the project and adopted the Redevelopment Plan and Tax Increment Financing Plan. Modification No. 1 to the CABA Redevelopment Plan and Tax Increment Financing Plan is being undertaken to reflect two changes since the original Plan approval. The first amendment to the 1988 Plan involves the repayment of an interim loan. As a means of providing an interim source of funding for the project, the City borrowed the HRA funds from the Cedar Liquor Fund. A portion of the outstanding loan balance was repaid with land sale proceeds resulting from the sale of the project parcel (Cedar Avenue Liquor Store parcel) to the developer. Modification No. l reflects the repayment of the outstanding balance of this loan. Repayment will occur in 1990 and 1991 with tax increment revenue generated from the district during this tax period. The second amendment to the 1988 Plan involves the City's voluntary payment of tax increment revenue to the School District in 1990. This payment is based on the 1989/1990 tax capacity rate applicable to the School District's voter approved special excess levy referendum on January 31, 1989. The text which follows represents only the aforementioned amendments. To understand the redevelopment project activities originally proposed and the proposed modification, it is encouraged that the original Plan, dated January 19, 1988, be reviewed. 1-1 ~-ice APPENDIX D-1 USES OF TAX INCREMENT REVENUE FOR TAXES PAYABLE 1990 BACKGROUND INFORMATION Actual 1990 Net Tax Capacity Current Net Tax Capacity for Taxes Payable 1990 S 327,140 Less: Fiscal Disparity Contributionl $ 51,826 Certified Base Value2 S 18,489 Net Tax Capacity Available $ 256,825 DISTRIBUTION OF 1990 TAX INCREMENT REVENUE Tax Increment Developer3 $ .106,250 Richfield HRA4 $ 0 School District #2805 $ 13,612 Taxing Jurisdictions:6 City of Richfield Richfield HRA Hennepin County School Distr. #280 Vo-Tech. School Water Shed #3 Miscellaneous Cedar Avenue Liquor Fund? Total Tax Increment $ 14, 254 352 19,836 33,849 784 85 4.001 $ 73,161 71,414 $ 264,437 ___________ Actual 1990 Tax Increment S 336, 836 S 53,362 S 19, 037 $ 264,437 z=o=~=ssa~~ Total 40.18$ 0$ 5.15$ 27.66$ 27.01$ 100.00$ D-1-1 fo-1 ~ Footnotes to Appendix D-1: 1Fiscal disparity contribution for taxes payable 1990 equals 15.824$ of net tax capacity value. 2Base value as certified in 1988 and adjusted to commercial property status from original exempt status. 3Annual payment of $106,250 to Developer as assisstance as per original 1/19/88 Plan. 4Unti1 the Cedar Avenue Liquor Fund is repaid, the HRA will forego any reimbursement for administrative expenses from tax increment revenue. SVoluntary tax increment payment to the School District based on a 5.3$ tax capacity rate for taxes payable 1990 in accordance with the approved excess levy referendum of January 31, 1989. 6Voluntary distribution of tax increment to taxing jurisdictions according to respective tax capacity rates for taxes payable 1990. Distribution is discretionary and contingent upon availability of increment. Outstanding 1990 loan balance for interim project funds of $84,898.11. Repayment to Cedar Avenue Liquor Fund in 1990 to be $71,414.00. D-1-2 f c,- f 2-- APPENDIX D-2 USES OF TAX INCREMENT REVENUE FOR TAXES PAYABLE 1991 BACKGROUND INFORMATION Estimated 1991 Net Tax Capacity Estimated Net Tax Capacityl $ 327,140 Less: Fiscal Disparity Contribution2 $ 51,826 Certified Base Value3 ~ 18,489 Net Tax Capacity Available $ 256,825 DISTRIBUTION OF 1991 TAX INCREMENT REVENUE Tax Increment Developer4 $ 106,250 Richfield HRAS $ 9,362 School District.#2806 $ 13,612 Taxing Jurisdictions? $ 73,161 Cedar Avenue Liquor FundB $ 13,484 TIF District No. 1252 Fund9 S 48,568 Total Tax Increment $ 264,437 s s x= s s s s a s s Estimated 1991 Tax Increment S 336,836 $ 53,362 $ 19,037 $ 264,437 s=====_____ $ Total 40.18$ 3.54$ 5.15$ 27.66$ 5.10$ 18.37$ 100.00$ D 2-1 ~-i3 Footnotes to Appendix D-2: lEstimated net tax capacity is based on tax increment of $264,437 for taxes payable 1990. 2Fiscal disparity contribution is based upon the level payable for 1990 taxes, or 15.842$ of net tax capacity. 3Base value as certified in 1988 and adjusted to commercial property status from original exempt status. 4Annual payment of $106,250 to Developer as assisstance as per original 1/19/88 Plan. SAnnual payment to the HRA for administrative expenses as authorized in original 1/19/88 Plan. 6Voluntary tax increment payment to the School .District based on a 5.3$ tax capacity rate for taxes payable 1990 in accordance with the approved excess levy referendum of January 31, 1989. Voluntary distribution of tax increment to taxing jurisdictions will be in accordance with respective tax capacity rates for taxes payable 1991. Distribution is discretionary and contingent upon availability of increment. BThe payment of $13,484.to the Cedar Avenue Liquor Fund represents a final payment. Interim project loan is deemed satisfied. 9Revenues and expenditures pertaining to the CABA TIF District will be handled through TIF District No. 1252 Fund. D-2-2 -~`K APPENDIX D-3 USES OF TAX INCREMENT REVENUE FOR TAXES PAYABLE 1992-1997 BACKGROUND INFORMATION Estimated 1992-1997 (Represented as Annual Figures) Tax Capacity Estimated Net Tax Capacityl $ 327,140 Less: Fiscal Disparity Contribution2 $ 51,826 Certified Base Value3 ~ 18,489 Net Tax Capacity Available $ 256,825 DISTRIBUTION OF 1992-1997 TAX INCREMENT REVENUE Tax Increment Developer4 $ 106,250 Richfield HRAS $ 9,362 School District #2806 $ 13,612 Taxing Jurisdictions? $ 73,161 TIF District No. 1252 FundB S 62,052 Total Tax Increment $ 264,437 ___________ Estimated 1992-1997 Tax Increment $ 336,836 S 53,362 $ 19,037 $ 264,437 $ Total 40.18$ 3.54$ 5.15$ 2.7.66$ _..23.47$ 100.00$ D-3-1 ~_~s Footnotes to Appendix D-3• lEstimated net tax capacity is based on tax increment of 5264,437 for taxes payable 1990. 2Fiscal disparity contribution is based upon the level payable for 1990 taxes,. or 15.842$ of net tax capacity. 3Base value as certified in 1988 and adjusted to commercial property status from original exempt status. 4Annual payment of 5106,250 to Developer as assisstance as per original 1/19/88 Plan. .Total assistance for the life of the CABA TIF district of eight years will be $850,000. SAnnual payment to the HRA for administrative expenses as authorized in original 1/19/88 Plan. 6Voluntary tax increment payment to the School District based on a 5.3$ tax capacity rate for taxes payable 1990 in accordance with the approved excess levy referendum of January 31, 1989. 7Voluntary distribution of tax increment to taxing jurisdictions will be in accordance with respective tax capacity rates for taxes payable 1992-1997. Distribution is discretionary and contingent upon availability of increment. BRevenues and expenditures pertaining to the CABA TIF District will be handled through TIF District No. 1252 Fund. D-3 2 City of Richfield, Minnesota Council Letter No. 284. Agenda November 26, 1990 Issue Statement: Public Hearing and second reading of an amendment to the zoning ordinance which increases from 12 to 14 the number of children permitted at licensed group family day care facilities. Background• State statute provides that licensed day care facilities shall be treated as residential uses under local zoning ordinances. Depending on size, they are either a single or multiple family use. The statutory definition of "group family day care" has been amended to increase the allowable number of children from 12 to 14. The differentiation now made between family day care and group family. day care is based on the age of the children, number of supervisors and other applicable regulations. The proposed amendment brings the zoning ordinance into conformity with State statute. Recommended Motion: Approve second reading of an amendment to Section 515 of the Zoning Ordinance, which raises the number of children permitted at licensed group family daycare facilities from 12 to 14. Basis of Recommendation: 1. The Planning Commission unanimously recommended approval of the amendment on September 25, 1990. 2. The City Council approved first reading on October 8, 1990. 3. This amendment would bring the zoning ordinance into consistency with State statute. Alternative Recommendation: The City Council could decide not to adopt the amendment; however, this would be inconsistent with State law. Discussion/Decision Mode: Public Hearing and second reading is scheduled at 7:00 p.m. on Monday, November 26, 1990. The hearing will be held in the City Council Chambers of Richfield City Hall, 6700 Portland Avenue South. Notice of hearing was published in the Sun-Current. Respec ully submitted, Ja a D. Prosser Ci Manager BILL N0. 1990 ~- AMENDMENT TO SECTION 515 OF APPENDIX B TO THE RICHFIELD CITY CODE THE CITY OF RICHFIELD DOES ORDAIN: Section 515 of Appendix B to the Richfield City Code entitled: "Zoning: residential districts" is hereby amended in the following respects: A. Subsection 515.05 is amended by amending Subdivision 7 thereof to read as follows: Subd. 7 Family axd g~eag €a~}1y day care homes licensed by the appropriate .governmental authorities for 12 or fewer persons, group family day care facilities licensed under Minnesota Rules, parts 9502.0315 to 9502.0445 serving 14 or fewer persons or as otherwise permitted by law. B. Subsection 515.07 is amended by amending Subdivision 2 thereof to read as follows: Subd. 2 Day care centers for more than 12 persons licensed by the appropriate governmental authority, group family day care facilities licensed under Minnesota Rules, parts 9502.0315 to 9502.0445 serving more than 14 persons or as otherwise permitted by law. C. Subsection 515.23 is amended by amending Subdivision 4 thereof to read as follow: Subd. 4. Day care facility for more than 12 persons, rg oup family day care facilities licensed under Minnesota Rules, parts 9502.0315 to 9502.0445 serving more than 14 persons or as otherwise permitted by law. Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this day of 1990. CITY OF RICHFIELD ATTEST: By Steven J. Quam - Mayor Thomas P. Ferber, City Clerk CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Council Letter No. 285 Agenda November 26, 1990 Issue Statement• Second Reading of an Ordinance Amendment regulating backyard composting of organic materials. Background• Increased yard waste disposal costs, combined with a growing awareness and concern on the part of the public about environmental problems associated with waste disposal, have motivated many Richfield residents to initiate backyard composting. At the current time, Richfield City Code does not directly address backyard composting. Until now, composting has been addressed on a case by case basis under City Code Section 601.03, the last sentence of which specifies that: "No person may accumulate or permit to accumulate any unacceptable waste on any property in the city which might constitute a nuisance by reason of appearance, odor, sanitation, littering of the property on which the unacceptable waste is accumulated or an adjacent property, or a fire hazard." It is anticipated that increased numbers of residents will turn to composting as an alternative yard waste management technique. Residents need some clear-cut guidelines on how and what to compost. An ordinance amendment specifically addressing composting would give residents the direction they need in initiating and managing compost piles, while making it easier for City staff to regulate composting activities. Hennepin County and the Metropolitan Council, among other governmental entities, currently have promotional campaigns encouraging people to compost yard waste. At the current time, Richfield's solid waste ordinance does not address composting. To be consistent with county and regional government waste campaigns, and to encourage composting as an alternative waste management strategy, it is necessary to specify backyard composting restrictions and requirements. A copy of the amendment to City Code Section 601.03 is attached. The amendment addresses, and provides specifications for, the following issues: 1) Location requirements of compost piles on residential property; 2) Size and composition of compost structures; 3) Materials that can, and cannot, be composted. As directed by City Council during the first reading of the ordinance, the location requirement for compost piles has been changed. Instead of requiring that compost piles be located at the rear of the property, the ordinance now requires that compost piles be located in the rear yard of ~~i the property. Alternatives to this requirement would be subject to Department of Public Safety review and approval. Recommended Motion: Approve second reading of the ordinance amendment specifically regulating backyard composting. Basis of Recommendation: 1. The current approach to backyard composting has created some confusion on the part of residents and City of Richfield staff about what constitutes a "nuisance." 2. For public health reasons, it is in the City's best interest to regulate what types of materials go into compost piles, and how such piles should be prepared and managed. Alternative Recommendation: The City Council could choose to retain Section 601 as written; however, Richfield has always been a leader in solid waste management strategies, and staff believes amending the ordinance at this time will insure our city remains in step with the county guidelines. Discussion/Decision Mode: Staff is requesting approval of the second reading at the November 26, 1990 Council meeting. submitted, Ja~-~/D. Prosser Ci Manager Attachment JDP/reb ~ -2. BILL N0. 1990- AMENDMENT TO SECTION 601 OF THE CITY CODE; REGULATING COMPOSTING OF ORGANIC MATERIALS FOR THE CITY OF RICHFIELD. THE CITY OF RICHFIELD DOES ORDAIN: Section 1. Subsection 601.01, subdivision 2 of the Richfield City Code is amended to read: Subd. 2. "Garbage" means animal and vegetable matter resulting from the preparation, cooking, service, consumption or display of meat, fish, fowl, fruit, grains or vegetables. The term does not include organic materials that are composted according to subsection 601.35. Section 2. Subsection 601.01, subdivision 3 of the Richfield City Code is amended to read: Subd. 3. "Refuse" means wastes which normally result from the operation of a household, excluding body wastes, garbage, and designated recyclables. Refuse includes but is not limited to rubbish, tin cans, paper, cardboard, glass jars, bottles, wood, grass-e~~ggiags, ashes, sod, dirt, tires, rocks, household appliances and furniture or any other household refuse or material. The term does not include construction material or other waste or debris resulting from construction or reconstruction of buildings and other improvements by contractors, or trees in excess of six inches in diameter. Subsection 601.01, subdivision 7 of the Richfield City Code is amended to read: Subd. 7. "Yard waste" means leaves, grass clippings or other organic materials as may be defined by the city manager. The term does not include organic materials that are composted according to subsection 601.35. Sec. 4. Section 601 of the Richfield City Code is amended by adding a new subsection as follows: 601.35. Composting. Private composting is permitted if the following conditions are met. (a) Only organic materials, such as grass clippings, leaves, flowers, dried weeds, sawdust, wood ash and plant trimmings, lake plants, straw, raw vegetable and fruit scraps, coffee grounds, egg shells, and commercially available compost ingredients, may be placed in the compost container. ~r3 (b) Composting shall be conducted within an enclosed structure, not to exceed 100 cubic feet (for example, 5'x5'x4') in volume for individual structures, or 300 cubic feet (approximately 15'x5'x4') for "three bin" containers. Compost structures must be of a durable material such as wood, brick, concrete block, or sturdy metal fencing material, and must be neat in appearance and capable of securing composting materials. The three bin and barrel composter methods may also be utilized. (c) The following materials are .not permitted in compost containers: meat, bones, fat, oils, whole eggs, dairy products, whole branches or logs, plastics, synthetic fibers, human or pet wastes, diseased plants, or paper. (d) The compost container shall be located in the rear yard of the property, at least 3 feet from any property line. If a rear yard location is unavailable or impractical, the compost container may be placed in another location approved by the public safety director or authorized designee. (e) At no time shall composting create a health hazard or a nuisance to adjoining properties. Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this 26th day of November, 1990. Steven J. Quam ATTEST: Mayor Thomas P. Ferber City Clerk I CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Council Letter No. 286 Agenda November 26, 1990 Issue Statement• First reading of an ordinance providing for the licensing and regulation of pawnshops and secondhand goods dealers. Backc,~round Suburban communities are experiencing an increase in pawnshop activity due, in part, to strict regulations governing pawnshop operations in Minneapolis and St. Paul, and an unwillingness by the City of Minneapolis to issue any additional pawnshop licenses. Richfield has three businesses that pawn merchandise: Plaza Pawn Shop at 6417 Lyndale Avenue, the Gun Shop at 408 West 65th Street, and Veberod Gem Gallery at 6534 Penn Avenue. Currently, The Gun Shop only pawns firearms and the Gem Gallery only pawns jewelry. The. Gun Shop is planning to expand its operation to include other goods. Minnesota Statute 471.927 permits municipalities to regulate pawnbrokers and secondhand goods dealers. The proposed Richfield ordinance was compiled after reviewing similar ordinances from Minneapolis, St. Paul, Bloomington-(proposed), and Robbinsdale. The most significant features include: -- Pawnshops and secondhand goods dealers will be licensed (secondhand goods dealers who only deal in used furniture and clothing are exempt). -- Persons with a criminal record will be ineligible for a license. -- Police officers or agents will be able to inspect the licensed premises for stolen property. -- Licensees will be required to keep detailed records of pawned merchandise. -- Licensees will not be able to receive goods from persons who do not have a valid driver's license or state picture ID. -- Licensees will be required to submit daily reports of merchandise received to the Department of Public Safety. The proposed license fee is $1,200.00 for a pawnbroker and $300.00 for a secondhand goods dealer. A pawnbroker that also deals in secondhand goods will have to pay both fees. These fees are justifiable because of the staff time required to process daily reports and conduct periodic inspections of licensed establishments, and are consistent with other communities (see attached). In addition to the license fee, the applicant will be required to pay a nonrefundable investigation fee to cover the cost of conducting the required background checks. The investigation fee will be determined by staff time and other costs associated with the investigation. It is proposed that the applicant be required to deposit $1,200.00 with the City Clerk l'1 before the investigation is undertaken. If the license is granted, the applicant will be required to pay the balance of the investigation fee. If the license is denied, the application fee will be refunded, but the investigation fee will not. Recommended Motion: Approve the first reading of the ordinance providing for licensing and regulation of pawnshops and secondhand goods dealers. Basis for Recommendation: 1. Pawnshop activity seems to be increasing in the suburbs. 2. Strict regulation of pawnshops and secondhand goods dealers is necessary to prevent such establishments from becoming a focus of criminal activity. 3. Strict regulations may discourage new establishments from moving into the city. Alternative Recommendations: 1. Do nothing. 2. Recommend changes in the proposed ordinance. Discussion/Decision Mode: Approval of first reading and setting January 14, 1991, as second reading public hearing for an ordinance providing for the licensing and regulation of pawnshops and secondhand goods dealers. y submitted, James Prosser City anager JDE/JDP:lmv Richfield City Code Section 11 00 - Pawnbrokers and secondhand Goods dealers. [DRAFT] -~. 11_.00 11 .01. Definitions. For purposes of this section the terms defined in this subsection have the meanings given them. 1. "Pawnbroker" means a person who loans money on deposit or pledge of personal property, or other valuable thing, or who deals in the purchasing of personal property or other valuable thing on condition of selling the same back again at a stipulated price, or who loans money secured by chattel mortgage on personal property, taking possession of the property or any part thereof so mortgaged. 2. "Secondhand goods dealer" means a person engaged in the business of selling or receiving tangible personal property (excluding motor vehicles) previously used, rented, owned or leased. 11 .03. Exemptions. Subdivision 1. This section does not apply`':to or include the following: (a) the sale of secondhand goods where all of the following conditions are present: (1) the sale is held on property principally occupied as a dwelling by the seller, or owned, rented or leased by a charitable or political organization; (2) the items offered for sale are owned by the occupant; (3) the sale is not held for more than 4 days in any 7 day period; (4) not more than three sales are held either by the same person or on the same property in any twelve month period; and (5) none of the items offered for sale have been purchased for resale or received on consignment for the purchase of resale. (b) sales of motor vehicles by a person licensed under Section 1155 as an auto dealer; (c) Secondhand goods dealers that do not receive or sell any of the following: (1) items with a serial number, "operation identification" symbol or number, or other identification number; (2) cameras; (3) electronic equipment, including but not limited to audio equipment, video equipment, computers and computer related equipment; (4) precious jewelry or gems, and precious metals, including coins containing precious metals; (5) artist-signed or artist-attributed works of art; (6) guns; (d) the sale of goods at an auction held by a licensed auctioneer; (e) the business of buying or selling only those secondhand goods taken as part or full payment for new goods, and where such business is incidental to and not the primary business; Richfield City Code `~ 11_.00 (f) a bulk sale of property from a merchant, manufacturer or wholesaler having an established place of business or of goods sold at open sale from bankrupt stock; (g) sales made by public officials in discharge of their official duties; or (h) sales made by assignees or receivers appointed in this state to make sales for the benefit of creditors. 11 .05. License Required. Subdivision 1. Secondhand Goods Dealer. No person may engage in the business of secondhand goods dealer without first obtaining a secondhand goods dealer license. Subd. 2. Pawnbroker. No person may conduct, operate or engage in the business of pawnbroker without having first obtained a license. Subd. 3. Separate Licenses Reauired. A pawnbroker may not conduct, operate or engage in the business of secondhand goods dealer without having obtained a secondhand goods dealer license in addition to a pawnbroker license. A secondhand goods dealer may not conduct, operate or engage in the business of pawnbroker without having obtained a pawnbroker license in addition to a secondhand goods dealer license. 11 .07. License Fee. Subdivision 1. Secondhand goods. The annual license fee fora secondhand goods dealer is set by appendix D. Subd. 2. Pawnbroker. The annual license fee for pawnbroker is set by appendix D. 11 .09. Bond. A pawnbroker or secondhand goods dealer license will not be issued unless the applicant files, with the City Clerk, a bond with corporate surety. The surety bond shall be approved by the city attorney as to form and execution and deposited with the city clerk. The bond shall be kept in full force and effect throughout the license period and shall be conditioned as follows: (a) the licensee shall obey the laws relating to the licensed business; (b) the licensee shall pay to the city, when, due all taxes, license fees, penalties and other charges provided by law; and (c) in the event of violation of any law relating to the business for which the license has been granted, the bond shall be forfeited to the city. 11 .11. Investigations. Subdivision 1. Prior to the granting of an initial or renewed pawnbroker or secondhand goods dealer license the Department of Public Safety must conduct a background and financial investigation of the applicant. Any person having a beneficial interest in the license must be investigated. The investigation shall be conducted by the Department of Public Safety and the results reported to the City Council. Subd. 2. Investigation Fee. The fee charged by the City Clerk to an applicant for the costs of investigation is set by appendix D. 11 .13. Public Hearing. A pawnbroker or secondhand goods dealer license will not be issued or renewed without a public hearing. Any person having an interest in or who will be affected by the proposed license will be permitted to testify at the hearing. The public hearing must be preceded by at least ten days' published notice specifying the location of the proposed licensed business premises. Richfield City Code q~~ 11_. ~~ 11 .15. Granting of License. After review of the license application, investigation report and public hearing, the City Council may grant or refuse, for one or more of the reasons set forth in Section 11 .19 , the application for a new or renewed pawnbroker or secondhand goods dealer license. A license will not be effective unless the application fee and bond have been filed with the City Clerk. 11 .17. Persons Ineliaible for License. Subdivision 1. A pawnbroker or secondhand goods dealer license will not be issued to: (a) a person not a citizen of the United States or a resident alien; (b) a person under 18 years of age; (c) a person who has been convicted of any state or federal law relating to receiving stolen property, sale of stolen property or controlled substance, burglary, robbery, theft, damage or trespass to property, operation of a business, or any law or ordinance regulating the business of pawnbroker or secondhand goods dealer; (d) a person who within five years of the license application date had a pawnbroker or secondhand goods dealer license revoked; (e) a person whom the City Council determines not to be of sufficient good moral character and repute. Subd. 2. A pawnbroker or secondhand goods dealer license will not be issued to any partnership or corporation if such applicant has a partner, managing partner, manager, proprietor, or agent who do not meet the standards set forth in Subd. 1. (a)-(e) of this section.. 11 .19. License Denial, Suspension or Revocation. A license under this Section may be denied, suspended or revoked by the Council, after an investigation and public hearing where the licensee is granted the opportunity to be heard, for one or more of the following reasons: (a) the operating of the business is in conflict with any provision of this Code; (b) the operation of the business is in conflict with any health, fire, building, building maintenance, zoning, or any other applicable Codes or laws; (c) the applicant, licensee or the business premises fails to conform with the standards for license application contained in this section; (d) the applicant or licensee has failed to comply with one or more -provisions of this Section or any statute, rule or ordinance pertaining to the businesses of pawnbroker or secondhand goods dealer; (e) fraud, misrepresentation or bribery in securing a license; (f) fraud, misrepresentation or false .statements made in the course of the applicant's business; (g) the applicant or licensee has been convicted of any state or federal law relating to receiving stolen property, sale of stolen property or controlled substance, burglary, robbery, theft, damage or trespass to property, operation of a business, or any law or ordinance regulating the business of pawnbroker or secondhand goods dealer. (h) issuance or renewal of the license would adversely affect public health, safety or welfare. Richfield City Code q-~ 11_.00 11 .21. License Limitations. A license will be issued to the applicant only and only for the business premises as described in the application. The license is effective only for the premises specified in the approved license application. 11 .23. Records. Subdivision 1. A licensed secondhand goods dealer and pawnbroker,. at the time of receipt of an item, must immediately record the following information: (a) an accurate description of the item including, but not limited to, any trademark, identification number, serial number, model number, brand name, or other identifying mark on such item; (b) the purchase price; (c) date, time and place of receipt; (d) name,-address, phone number and date of birth of the person from whom the item was received; (e) the identification number from any of the following forms of identification of the seller: (1) valid picture driver's license; (2) official state picture identification. Subd. 2. The books as well as the goods received must be open for inspection by the police department at reasonable times. Records required by this subsection must be stored and maintained by the licensee for a period of at least three years. 11 .25. Daily Reports. Subdivision 1. For the following items, regardless of resale price, a secondhand goods dealer or pawnbroker must complete report forms and send the forms daily to the Department of Public Safety: (a) items with a serial number, "operation identification" symbol or number, or other identification number; (b) cameras; (c) electronic equipment, including but not limited to audio equipment, video equipment, computers and computer related equipment; (d) precious jewelry or gems, and precious metals, including coins containing precious metals; (e) artist-signed or artist-attributed works of art; (f) guns; and (g) items not included in the above, except furniture and kitchen or laundry appliances, which the secondhand goods dealer intends to sell for more than $200. Subd. 2 The daily report form design must be approved by the Department of Public Safety and must contain the all of the information required in section 11 .23. Subd. l.(a)-(e). 11 .27. Stolen Goods. A licensed pawnbroker or secondhand goods dealer must report to the police any article pledged or received, or sought to be pledged or received, if the licensee has reason to believe that the article was stolen or lost. Richfield City Code qr~ 11_. ~~ 11 .29. - Holding. An item received by a secondhand goods dealer or pawnbroker, for which a report to the police is required, may not be sold or otherwise transferred or, in the case of jewelry and precious metals, melted down or dismantled for a period of 12 days after the date of such report to the police. However, an individual may redeem an item pawned 72 hours after the item was received on deposit, excluding Sundays and legal holidays. 11 .31. Receipt. Subdivision 1. A licensed secondhand goods dealer or pawnbroker must provide a receipt to the seller or consignor of any items which includes: (a) the address and phone number of the licensee's business; (b) the date; (c) a description of the item purchased; and (d) the purchaser's signature. 11 .33. Police Orders. If a police officer notifies a dealer not to sell an item, the item may not be sold, redeemed, or removed from the licensed premises until authorized to be released by the Richfield Department of Public Safety. 11 .35. Prohibited Acts. Subdivision 1. Minors. A minor may not sell or consign, or attempt to sell or consign,-goods with a secondhand goods dealer or pawnbroker. A secondhand goods dealer or pawnbroker may not purchase or receive goods from a person under 18 years of age. Subd. 2. Others. A secondhand goods dealer or pawnbroker may not receive any goods from a person of unsound mind or an intoxicated person. Subd. 3. Identification. A secondhand goods dealer or pawnbroker may not receive goods, unless the seller presents identification in the form of a valid picture driver's license or official state photo identification. 11 .37. Inspections. Any person licensed under the provisions of this chapter shall, at all times during the term of said license, allow the inspector or officers of the Richfield Department of Public Safety to enter the premises where said licensee is carrying on such business, for the purpose of inspecting such premises and inspecting the goods, wares and merchandise therein for the purpose of locating goods suspected or alleged to have been stolen or otherwise improperly disposed of. q-~1 LICENSE FEE COMPARISON PAWNSHOP SECONDHAND INVESTIGATION GOODS DEALER FEE St. Paul $ 809 $ 256 none Minneapolis 356 120 57 Robbinsdale 500 200 fee is provided for, but not specified Crystal 500 200 fee is provided for, but not specified Bloomington (proposed) 1,500 1,500* 1,500 deposit, total not to exceed 10,000 Richfield (proposed) $ 1,200 $ 300 $1,200 deposit * applies to precious metals dealers only ~~ CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Council Letter No. 287 Agenda November 26, 1990 Issue Statement• Resolution constituting official City policy relating to rental use of city facilities including the Community Center, City Council Chambers, Golf Course Clubhouse, Ice Arena meeting room and nature center building. Background• Past practice related to rental use of city facilities has been to combine city faculty use and fees/charges into one resolution. This has been somewhat cumbersome. City faculty use has been generally consistent over the years. Fees and charges have changed intermittently. Recommended Motion: Adopt the City Facilities Use Policy resolution separate from the fees/charges policy. Basis of Recommendation: 1. A policy for rental use of city facilities is in the best interests of the public and the city staff. 2. The proposed policy resolution facilitates the procedure and process for rental of city facilities. 3. With the adoption of this city facilities use policy resolution, the Council will still have the opportunity to review fees and charges on an annual basis. 4. The policy has been developed, reviewed and approved by the Community Services Advisory Commission. Alternative Recommendation: 1. Continue to use the existing process which combines the use policy and rental fees and charges into a single document. This, however, can be cumbersome during the Council review process. 2. Do not have an adopted policy for city facility usage. This would be contrary to present practice and would be confusing to the public. ~~_i Discussion/Decision Mode: This item is scheduled for the meeting. The policy resolution however, if action were delayed Attachment JDP/sdr November 26, 1990 City Council could still become effective, to the December 10, 1990 meeting. Jame Prosser City nager Respe ly submitted, ~-~- RESOLUTION NO. CITY FACILITIES USE POLICY BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA, as follows: That effective January 1, 1991, the following shall constitute the official City policy relating to use of the Richfield Community Center, City Council Chambers, Golf Course Clubhouse, Ice Arena meeting room, and Nature Center Building: I. General Statement All organizations, except the City Council, official City commissions and the City staff, must complete an application and have it approved before using the Community Center, Council Chambers, Golf Course Clubhouse, Ice Arena meeting room or Nature Center Building. Applications must be submitted as far in advance as possible of the date for which the reservations is requested. II. Hours of Availability The Community Center is available seven (7) days a week from 8:30 a.m. until 11:00 p.m. with the exception of national holidays. Hours of availability of the Council Chambers, Golf Course Clubhouse, Ice Arena, and Nature Center Building are more limited and should be confirmed with City staff responsible for those facilities. Special permission may be granted by the City Manager or his duly authorized representative, however, for requested variations from this designated schedule. Groups whose members are under 18 years of age may use the facilities until 9:45 p.m. and must leave the premises by 10:00 p.m. III. Who May Use the City Facilities X0-3 _ The described city facilities are available to all local community organizations which have a membership consisting of at least one-fourth (~/a) of Richfield residents. Groups who have their own facilities shall be allowed to use the City facilities provided two (2) conditions are met: 1. The organization's own facilities cannot be used. 2. The time requested does not conflict with a request made by a group which does not have its own facilities. Organizations not having at least one-fourth (~/a) of its membership living inside the City of Richfield. private profit- making agencies, and fund raising events may use the facilities but are not allowed to reserve rooms on a monthly basis. City facilities are non-partisan in nature. Therefore, no city facility may be used to suggest endorsement by the city or any of `,'s facilities of any political candidate or party. Political meetings, such as caucuses, are allowed. The City Council, official city commissions, the city staff or any governmental or quasi governmental organizations whose meetings are sponsored by the City Council, an official city commission or the city staff shall have priority the use of the Council Chambers. Although efforts will be made to avoid potential conflicts, it may be necessary to cancel reservations in order to accommodate official city business. more (©-~ IV. Rules and Regulations 1. Hours of use designated on the application must be adhered to. The facility shall be opened for the applicant at the time first indicated on the application. The facility shall be closed and locked at the time last indicated on the application 2. The custodian shall have complete supervisory control over the operation of the facilities. No equipment may be operated without his permission. 3. No banners, streamers or signs may be attached to the walls of rooms or halls without permission of the City Manager or his duly authorized representative. Any such attachments which are permitted must be removed by the group using the facility. 4. Youth groups shall be chaperoned on a ratio of one adult for each fifteen (15) or fewer youth under the age of 18. The number of youth attending and the names of the chaperones shall be submitted with the applications. If the general public is invited, the City Manager or his duly authorized representative and the signer of the application shall determine the number of chaperones needed. 5. The City assumes no liability for loss, damage, injury or illness incurred by the users of the facilities. 6. The signer of the application shall be held personally responsible for any breakage, damage, extra costs incurred or los of equipment. The signer of the application shall also indicate that he has read and understands the rules. 7. All buildings are designated as nonsmoking. 8. All damage must be reported to the City Manager or his duly authorized representative within twenty-four (24) hours. 9. Failure to adhere to these policies and rules will be cause for forfeiture of future privileges. , 0. Cancellations by any group must be received seven days prior to the reserved time. Any group cancelling with less tha ~o-~ ,_ seven ('n days notice will be charged 10% of the original fee.. Groups cancelling with less than 48 hours notice will be charged 50°k of the original fee. No shows will be charged the full original fee. Groups cancelling without seven (7) days notice will be given low priority in reserving future dates. 11. All areas of the City Hall except the Council Chambers, entry corridor and restrooms are restricted from any use by the organization using the Council Chambers. 12. Beer or intoxicating beverages are prohibited by city ordinance in any City building, in the parking lot and surrounding park areas. 13. The Community Center kitchen has been equipped with a stove, refrigerator, coffee maker, china, flatware and other items used in the preparation of food. Only these items may be used unless permission to use special equipment is obtained. No kitchen facilities are available at the Council Chambers, Golf Course Clubhouse, Ice Arena meeting room, or Nature Center. Groups using those facilities may provide their own coffee and light refreshments; however, no meals are allowed in the Council Chambers. 14. Users of the Community Center shall be responsible for cleaning the kitchen. Soap and cleaning materials will be provided by the City. Users of any City facility shall be responsible for basic cleanup and pickup. 15. Each facility shall develop appropriate application procedures for their sites. Fees shall be set annually during the budget process. CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Council Letter No. 288 Agenda November 26, 1990 Issue Statement: Consideration of a resolution declaring a vacancy to exist on the City Council. Background• Council Member Edwina Garcia has been elected to State Legislature. The state law has established that an individual may not hold the positions of Council Member and State Legislator concurrently. Therefore, it is necessary for Council Member Edwina Garcia to resign her position on the City Council. City Charter Section 2.05 provides a procedure for filling vacancies on the City Council. That procedure states that the Council shall by resolution declare a vacancy to exist upon receipt of resignation from a Council Member. Council Member Edwina Garcia has indicated her intent to submit her resignation. Recommended Motion: Approve resolution declaring a vacancy to exist on the City Council. Basis of Recommendation: 1. Council Member Edwina Garcia's indication of intent to resign. 2. Compliance with City Charter. Alternative Recommendations: 1. The Council may choose to approve this resolution at a later date. 2. Council Member Edwina Garcia may choose to submit her resignation at a later date. Discussion/Decision Mode: This matter was presented for Council action at the meeting of November 26, 1990. Respe ully submitted, Ja D. Prosser Ci Manager JDP:ds - CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA RESOLUTION NO. 7698 RESOLUTION DECLARING A VACANCY ON THE CITY COUNCIL WHEREAS, Section 2.05 of the City Charter establishes a procedure for filling vacancies on the City Council; and WHEREAS, Council Member Edwina Garcia has been elected to the position State Representative for the State of Minnesota; and WHEREAS, Council Member Edwina Garcia has resigned from the City Council in order that she may fulfill the responsibilities as State Representative; and WHEREAS, the City Charter requires that the Council, by resolution declare a vacancy to exist in cases of resignation from the City Council. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED as follows: Section 1. That the City Council accepts the resignation of Council Member Garcia. Section 2. That the Council declare the vacancy to exist on the City Council. Section 3. In accordance with the provision of Section 2.05 of the Richfield City Charter, an eligible person shall be appointed to fill the vacancy as provided by the City Charter. Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this 30th day of November, 1990. Steven J. Quam Mayor ATTEST: Thomas P. Ferber City Clerk CITY CHARTER Sec. 2.05. Vacancies in the Council. A vacancy in the council shall be deemed to exist in case of the failure of any person elected thereto to qualify on or before the date of the second regular meeting of the new council, or by reason of the death, resignation, removal from office, removal from the City, continuous absence from the City for more than three months, or conviction of a felony of any such person whether before or after his qualification, or by reason of the failure of any councilman without good cause to perform any of the duties of membership in the council for a period of three months. In each such case the council shall by resolution declare a vacancy to exist and shall forthwith appoint an eligible person to fill the same until the next regular municipal election, when the office shall be filled for the unexpired term.. If the council'shall be unable to agree on an appointee to fill the vacancy within "thirty (30) days, the mayor shall appoint a person to fill such vacancy. Sec. 2.06. The Mavor. The mayor shall be the presiding officer of the council, except that the council shall choose from its members a president pro tem who shall hold office at the pleasure of the council and shall serve as president in the mayor's absence and as mayor in case of the mayor's disability or absence from the City. The mayor shall have a vote as a member of the council. He shall exercise all powers and perform all duties conferred and imposed upon him by this charter, the ordinances of the City, and the laws of the state. He shall be recognized as the official head of .the City for. all ceremonial purposes, by the courts for the purpose of serving civil process, and by the governor for the purposes of martial law. He shall study the operations of the City government and shall report to the council any neglect, dereliction of duty, or waste on the part of any officer or department of the City. In time of public danger or emer- gency he may, with the consent of the council, take command of the police, maintain order and enforce the law. Sac. 2.07. Salaries. The mayor .and the members of the council shall re- ceive payment as set by ordinance. No change in salary shall take effect until after the next succeeding municipal election. ThQ cite manager and all subordinate officers and employees of the City shall receive such salaries or wages as may be fixed by the council. (Bill 1982-19) 7/26/82 This ordinance shall be effective upon passage and publication in the manner required by law. Sec. 2.08. Investistation of City Affairs. The..council and the city manager, or either of them, and any officer or officers formally authorized by them, or either of them, shall have power to make investigations into the City's affairs, to subpoena witnesses, administer oaths, and compel the production of bocks and papers. The council shall provide for an audit of the City's accounts at least once a year by the state department in charge of such work or by a certified public accountant. The council may at any time provide for an examination or audit of the accounts of any officer or department of the City government and it may cause to be made any survey or research study of any subject of municipal concern. Sec. 2.09. Interference with Administration. The council may by ordinance establish a merit system in all or part of the city administration, but neither the :council nor any of its members shall .dictate. the appointment of any person to office 7/26/82 CITY CHARTER A. 3 CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA i ~. CITY OF RICHFIELD MINNESOTA Council Letter No. 289 Agenda November 26, 1990 Issue Statement• Discussion of replacement process for council resignations. Background• Council Members Edwina Garcia and Martin Kirsch will vacate their seats on the City Council as a result of elections to State Representative and Council Mayor respectively. The City Charter establishes a procedure for filling vacancies on the Council. The City Attorney has provided an analysis of that procedure which is attached for Council review. Recommended Motion: The Council should discuss the procedure that will be used to fill the vacancies on the Council. Basis of Recommendation: The Mayor has requested this item be placed on the agenda for discussion at the meeting of November 26. Alternative Recommendation: The Council may decide to defer this item to a later Council meeting or not discuss the matter at all. Discussion/Decision Mode: This matter will be placed on the agenda for the Council meeting of November 26, 1990. ly submitted, JambS~. Prosser Ci y anager JDP:ds AttontlYs at I.nw ROL€Rr A.Ats4P PAUi, p. YA6RTtiCNt RoN~t.p H. BATYY MARY ]. RRENDEN STEPHEx ~. BU~UL ROBERT C. CARLSON CNR18TtxE M- CNALE JoNx i. DEAN ROlERTJ. pEIK[ MARY G. DOl~INI* JEFFREY ENG STEfANIE N. GAL€Y QAV{D I.. GRAVEN CORRINE A. HEtNE JAMES S. HOLAiEti DAVID J. lCExNtDY JONN R.LARSON WELLIxGTOx H. LAW November 14, 1990 I a-l ~IOLMES & GRAVEN CHARTERER 170 PilMbury Centsr, MinnesPoils, Minnesota 6f102 (d121337A300 ,1~UE A. LAW4ER CNARt.Ea 1.. LEpEYER6 Fnesimile (d121337A3t0 JONx M. L,;}l:vRE,~R. R01ER7 J. LINOALL LACRA K. MOLLET DAxIEI. R. NR6tioN •AR~ARAL.PORTW000 VYRITER'S DIRECT D(AI. MARY t%RANf.P.F SKALA ' ]AM€s M. 5TROMMEN STtvex M.TALLEN ? ]AMES J. TNOMSON. JR. ~37~207 LARRY M. WLRTNEIN t1i0NNIE L. Wlt.Kltiii OF Ct>tNBEL ROBERT L. OAYIDSON JONN G. HOescHLER Mr. James D. Prosser City Manager City of Richfield 8700 Ford&nd Ave. S. Richfield, MN 55425 lt.e: Procedure for Determiuit~g and Filling Vacancies on City CoemGil Dear Mr. Prosser: You have recently requested that I provide you with information concerning the process for filling the city council positions which will be vacated by Edwina Gsrcia's election to the State Legislature end by Martin Kirsch's election to mayor. The procedure is generally controlled by the City Charter and is sub3ect to the fallowing rules; 2. Upon the resignation of a member of the council, the council should immediately, (a) accept the resignation, anti (b) declare a vacancy to exist. 2. IIpon such declaration the council shall have 30 days to attempt to select a replaicement who wilt serve far the unexpired term of the resigning council member. 3. If the. council cannot agree on the replacement within the 30-tiay period, the mayor must appoint a person to fill the vacancyr. 4. The resigning eouncilmember cannot vote on the selection of his or her rep}.aeement. 5. -The mayor is entitled to participate in fling the vacancy both as a council member and, in the event of a deadlock, as mayor to fiIl the vacancy. 6 ~--c~ Mr. James prosser November 14, 1990 Page 2 6. In the event of a council deadlock, the mayor is not limited to select a candidate which hes previously been considered by the couneff. 7. Because the term of the existing mayor will expire on January 1, 1991, any current eounc~member who wishes that the existing mayor make an appointment (in the case of a deadlock) must tender a resignation which will be eftective soon enough to have the vacancy declared at least 30 days prior to the lest council meeting (regular or special) iri December of this year. Respectfully yours, ' ~, Ja B. Dean , JBD:rsr RCi60rtI02 I ~~ _ .. -