10-9-89 agenda
• CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNJSOTA
Council Letter No. 232
Agenda, October 9, 1989
Issue Statement:
Second reading of the rental licensing and point of sale
ordinance.
Background:
The Richfield City Council has previously reviewed the
feasibility of adopting the point of sale and rental property
licensing ordinance. The ordinance would specifically require
periodic inspection of rental housing and point of sale
inspections of owner occupied property. This ordinance has been
discussed at Study Sessions on April 6, 1987, May 4, 1987, and
March 6, 1989. The ordinance was initially presented for first
reading in consideration on June 8, 1987 and tabled at the second
reading held on July 3, 1987.
At the May 8, 1989 Study Session the Council approved the first
reading of the ordinance. The Council commissioned a Committee
representing a variety of city interests to review the ordinance
and present a recommendation to the City Council. The Committee
included representatives from the Chamber of Commerce, Citizens
For Quality Community, a tenant, the HRA, a landlord, the League
of Women Voters, and a number of general community
• representatives. The Committee met on three separate dates
including one public hearing. Testimony at that public hearing
included support and opposition to the proposed ordinance. Based
upon this hearing and the Committee discussion a revised
ordinance was developed. The revisions included changes in the
licensing procedure, renewal and transfer provisions, suspension
and revocation requirements, penalties for falsification of
licenses, application information, and classification of a
provisional license and a number of other related changes. A
copy of the revised ordinance is attached.
The basic intent to the ordinance remains unchanged. Apartments
would be required to be licensed. The City would inspect the
apartments for compliance with existing property maintenance
codes. Failure to comply with the maintenance requirements could
result in forfeiture of the license, forfeiture of the license
would eventually lead to the inability to rent the property.
Owner-occupied homes would be required to be inspected at point
of sale.
Recommended Motion:
Staff recommends approval of the second reading of this ordinance
which will license rental properties, which would include
apartments, multifamily residences, duplexes and point of sale
inspections by building officials, transferring residence to a
new owner. The ordinance would take affect on March 1, 1990.
is The initial license fee for the ordinance is attached.
Basis of Recommendation:
1. Property maintenance building code ordinances requiring
licensing and point of sale inspections have been
successfully implemented in a number of communities as a
method to improve their overall level of property
maintenance in their community.
2. Richfield residents have expressed support for property
maintenance ordinances. This was evident by the community
survey conducted by Decision Resources, Inc.
3. The Housing and Redevelopment Authority has recommended the
adoption of this ordinance. The Richfield Chamber of
Commerce has recommended adoption of the ordinance. The
Committee established by the Council to review this
ordinance has recommended adoption in the revised format
attached.
Alternative Recommendation:
Council could decide to not implement the ordinance.
Discussion/Decision Mode:
This ordinance is presented for public hearing and second reading
at the October 9, 1989, Council Meeting.
U
JDP:sae
submitted,
RespeYanager
Jame osser
City 0
SUMMARY OF THE PROCESS
LEADING TO THE CONSIDERATION
OF A PROPERTY MAINTENANCE ORDINANCE
Reconsidering Feasibility of an Ordinance - HRA
A property maintenance ordinance was considered by the City
Council at several meetings in 1987. The matter was tabled and
not brought up again until late 1988, when Richfield's Housing
and Development Authority requested staff to look into the
feasibility of such an ordinance.
-- October 17, 1988
Housing and Redevelopment Authority
Requested staff to report on the feasibility of a "Truth in
Housing"-type ordinance for rental property. Report back in
90 days.
Staff looked at the proposed property maintenance ordinance and
reported back to the HRA. The HRA recommended its adoption.
• -- January 17, 1989
Housing and Redevelopment Authority
HRA Letter No. 6
As was the request of the Housing and Redevelopment Authority,
staff reported back in 90 days and reviewed the "Truth in
Housing"-type ordinance, BILL NO. 1987 - . Also, the 1988
City Survey indicated overwhelming support for the inspections
of rental housing on a regular basis. The HRA recommended
adoption of the ordinance.
Reconsiderina Feasibilitv of Ordinance - Citv Council
Because of the HRA's recommendation, and apparent community
support, the council took up the matter again at a study session.
The council requested staff to prepare the proposed ordinance for
a first reading.
-- March 6, 1989
City Council
Study Session Letter No. 7 & Minutes
The recent community survey, the HRA's recommendation and the
success which other communities have experienced prompted the
• Council to take up the proposed ordinance again.
The City Council reviewed the property maintenance ordinance
and considered the HRA's recommendation of its adoption. The
. Council had considered such an ordinance several times before:
at study sessions on April 6 and May 4, 1987, and at a council
meeting where it was presented for First Reading consideration
on June 8, 1987. The ordinance was tabled at the Second
Reading on July 13, 1987.
Council directed staff to prepare the ordinance for a First
Reading, and to publicize the proposed ordinance in "Your
City/Your Schools". Staff publicized the ordinance and
received no unfavorable comments.
First Reading of Ordinance - Committee Appointed
A First Reading was held and public comment taken. The council
felt additional consideration was needed and asked staff for
potential committee candidates.
-- May 8, 1989
City Council
Council Letter No. 113
The First Reading of the proposed ordinance was held.
Thirteen members of the public presented comments. The
council voted to direct the City Manager to provide a list of
• citizens for potential committee membership to study the
ordinance. The established committee shall review the
ordinance, receive input, review options and report to the
City Council. The date for the Second Reading of the proposed
ordinance was left unscheduled.
Council reviewed and modified the list of candidates and approved
committee membership of nine members.
-- June 6, 1989
Property Maintenance Committee
Memo to Committee Members (Enclosed)
Committee members are: Thomas Harms, Committee Chair, Jane
Butterfield, Pastor John Chell, Ken Kunz, Ernest Lindstrom,
Matt Little, Bernie Mittelsteadt, Pat Rickert, George Seltz.
A roster is also enclosed. Chairman Harms set the first
meeting for Wednesday, June 6, 1989.
First Meeting of Property Maintenance Committee - Process Set
The process for considering the proposed ordinance was
established at the first meeting of the Property Maintenance
Committee. The Committee would review their charge and the
• proposed ordinance at the first meeting. At the second meeting,
the committee would solicit public testimony and request staff to
provide responses. At the third meeting, the committee would
review the comments and responses.
• -- June 14, 1989
Property Maintenance Committee Members
Meeting Number 1 (Minutes Enclosed)
The committee reviewed the proposed ordinance as well as
ordinances from other cities. Two other meetings were
scheduled. The next meeting would be to invite interested
persons to provide comments, the last meeting would be a
working session to review the ordinance, taking into
consideration the comments from the public testimony. A
summary would then be prepared and circulated to the committee
members. If a fourth meeting were necessary, another date
would be set.
There was a general consensus that some sort of inspection
process was necessary. The largest area of disagreement was
how the cost should be borne.
T
Second Meeting of Property Maintenance Committee - Public Comment
Notices soliciting public comment were published in two editions
of the Richfield Sun/Current.
-- June 21 & 28, 1989
• Richfield Sun/Current Newspaper
Notice of Next Meeting Seeking Public Testimony (Enclosed)
Publication of notice to the public of the meeting on
Wednesday, July 12, 1989, seeking public comment on the
proposed ordinance.
Members of the public gave testimony both in support of and
opposition to the proposed ordinance. The Property Maintenance
Committee requested staff to respond to questions and issues
brought forth in the testimony.
-- July 12, 1989
Property Maintenance Committee Members
Meeting Number 2 (Testimony Summaries Enclosed)
The committee received public testimony from eighteen
interested parties. Summaries of their testimony are
enclosed. The committee directed staff to respond to the
concerns the witnesses brought up, and to forward those
responses to the committee members. Witnesses were mailed a
copy of the roster and the summaries of all the testimony.
Committee members received the questions the witnesses raised
and along with staff's response (also enclosed).
• Article in Richfield Sun/Current
7Z2? .3-
The subject of a property maintenance ordinance and the public's
reactions received press coverage.
-- July 19, 1989
Richfield Sun/Current Newspaper
Article Reviewing the Public Testimony (Enclosed)
The Richfield Sun/Current ran a five column article on the
proposed ordinance and the witnesses who testified. The
article also announced the third meeting date and time.
Third Meeting of Property Maintenance Committee - Consideration
of Comments and Responses
The committee considered the public's concerns along with staff's
responses. The committee review the ordinance section by
section.
-- August 9, 1989
Property Maintenance Committee Members
Meeting Number 3 (Minutes Enclosed)
The committee reviewed the witnesses comments and staff's
responses. There was considerable debate about licensing
versus registration, whether the ordinance would cover point-
of-sale, and the fee structure. Discussion also included
where a license should be displayed, what to do if ownership
changed, and what to do with repeat offenders.
Ernest Lindstrom sent a letter to Chairman Harms at City Hall
and to the other committee members at their homes. Mr.
Lindstrom wanted the ordinance amended to include: A point of
sale certificate issued for single and two family homes; a
registration requirement of detailed information with respect
to ownership of apartment houses and rental homes, to be
updated semiannually; giving the broadest possible inspection
to both the fire and police departments for inspection of
safety requirements.
Reference was made to a letter from Paul Kaiser. Staff did
not receive any letter from Mr. Kaiser.
A memo from Leo M. Lehn was received by staff. Mr. Lehn is
concerned about: treating apartment renters differently than
other citizens; invading privacy rights; accurately justifying
the cost of the program; and the lack of awareness of the
proposed ordinance by other renters.
A letter was received by Chairman Harms and city staff from
John Hamilton, President of the Richfield Chamber of Commerce.
The Chamber supports an ordinance providing for inspection and
• licensing of rental property.
•
U
The committee members wanted a complete packet of information
to circulate through the committee before giving a final
recommendation to the City Council.
0
CITY OF RICHFIELD
Memorandum
DATE: June 6, 1989
TO: Property Maintenance Committee Members
Jane Butterfield
Pastor John Chell
Ken Kunz
Ernest Lindstrom
Matt Little
Bernie Mittelsteadt
Pat Rickert
George Seltz
FROM: Thomas Harms, Property Maintenance Committee Chair
Thank you for agreeing to serve on the Property Maintenance
Committee. The first meeting of this committee has been
scheduled for Wednesday, June 14, 1989 at 7:00 p.m. An agenda
for this meeting is attached.
• I am looking forward to meeting with you.
TH:eja
cc: Jack Erskine, Director Public Safety
41
t
PROPERTY MAINTENANCE COMMITTEE
6/14/89 - 7:00 P.M.
CITY HALL CONFERENCE ROOM
AGENDA
I. INTRODUCTIONS
II. STATEMENT OF PURPOSE (SEE MEMO)
III. WORK PROGRAM AND SCHEDULE (TO BE DISCUSSED AT MEETING)
IV. REVIEW PROPOSED RICHFIELD ORDINANCE
V. COMPARISON AND CONTRAST - RICHFIELD ORDINANCE
VI. NEXT MEETING
• VII. ADJOURNMENT
-,-/ 4/-- /
POINT OF SALE AND RENTAL PROPERTY LICENSING-ORDINANCE COMMITTEE
Meeting - June 14, 1989
ATTENDANCE: Thomas Harms, Chairman -
Jane Butterfield
Pastor John Chell
Ken Kunz
Ernest Lindstrom
Matt Little
Bernie Mittelsteadt
Pat Rickert
George Seltz
City Staff: Jim Prosser, City Manager
Pat Coughlin, Fire Chief
Betsy Christensen, Health Administrator
Linda Vukelich, Administrative Aide
Meeting called to order at 7:05 p.m., Wednesday, June 14, 1989.
Jim Prosser introduced the staff and thanked everyone for
volunteering to be on the committee.
Tom Harms called the meeting to order. He commented that the
City Council is in the process of reviewing the ordinance
regarding the inspection of rental property at the time of sale.
An ordinance has been proposed and is attached. During the
course of the first reading, the Council had raised doubts. The
purpose of the committee which was then formed is to consider
alternatives to the ordinance and whether an alternative is
needed. This committee will review the ordinance and those of
other communities. The second meeting will be to invite anyone
who has interest to the meeting and allow them to speak for no
more than five minutes; also, others from other cities. The
third and final meeting will be a working session to review the
ordinance and take into consideration the comments from the
public hearing and the additions and deletions suggested. A
summary of what the committee did and recommendations will be
prepared and circulated to all of the committee and then sent to
the Council. If the committee feels, after the third meeting,
that another meeting is needed, they would just set a date for
the meeting.
Page Two - Meeting 6/14/89
Comment regarding meeting two. The staff will notify those
interested (those people who have called or indicated to City
Hall that they have an interest) and the committee will set as a
panel to hear their opinions. It was recommended that the staff
be sure to get to all others, including the single dwellings and
duplex owners. Comment made that there is no money available to
publicize the meetings other than in the paper or to other
groups. City Manager Prosser mentioned that it has been put in
Your City/Your Schools, articles also published regarding this in
Sun Current. Question raised as to how many people have
expressed an interested. Manager Prosser responded that
approximately 20 people have asked to be informed of the open
meeting. Question raised as to whether letters could be sent to
interested/concerned people. It was indicated that there are
approximately 115-120 apartment owners in the community,
approximately 500 single homes, and 250 duplexes. That would
mean approximately 500 letters. Prosser stated that this was
discussed before and that the City feels that it is important
that the people know what's happening and feel that they have
taken good steps to se that this has been done. Bottom line is
there is no money available for special mailings. This committee
would not be in lieu of appearing before the Council, only to
give them the opportunity to have input into the City meetings.
• The feeling was expressed that this is just to bring some kind of
united opinion before it goes back to the Council. Feel that
these people would like to have some input to the Committee.
Question from outsider present: If we sent out letters, how many
would live outside of Richfield. Answer: We don't know, but we
have no authority to send out any mailings.
Motion was made to approve the agenda (schedule of meetings).
Seconded and passed.
Chairman asked for suggestions for dates for the second and third
meetings. Since we set the date for the second meeting, we will
send out letters to the interested people, publish an article in
the Sun Current, and if this doesn't seem to be enough, we will
print a display notice (as opposed to a regular notice).
Discussion was held on the date of the second meeting and it will
be Wednesday, July 12 at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers. The
final.meeting will be held on Wednesday, July 26 at 7:00 p.m.
It was then decided to review the ordinance to get the general
idea of what is trying to be accomplished and what alternative
are available to handle this -- to define what the problems are.
Page Three - Meeting 6/14/89
Jim Prosser indicated that several years ago, the City became
aware that they were receiving increasing numbers of comments
regarding property not being maintained. Careful examination of
whether that was a valid perception was made. Chief Coughlin
began to review the types of complaints and the number of
complaints. Typical routine is to receive the complaint, Public
Safety officer verifies and checks out against codes,
communication sent to the owner/tenant and follow-up is made. It
was observed that there was an increase noticed. More than
double in the past five years. Greater number and greater
variety of problems. Garbage homes have occurred in Richfield --
not observable from the outside, but someone from the outside
reports the situation. As a result of this, we looked at other
communities. Many communities across the country experience the
same phenomena. The problems are not necessarily from willful
neglect, but a variety of reasons involving the ability to
maintain older homes. We asked them how to deal with the issue.
The first thought was more aggressive enforcement of codes.
Unless they can actually gain access to the property, there is no
way to see what is occurring. Many of these communities had
adopted an ordinance to inspect at the point of sale. Reaction
was that while it was a significant amount of work, they observed
a change because people became aware of the need to maintain
because they knew they would have to be inspected at time of
• sale. There were a few that didn't want to maintain so they sold
out. They also became aware of the need to correct problems
before they became bigger problems.
Pat Coughlin explained what is looked for in the inspection. He
explained that as Fire Chief, he administers the inspection area.
The problem they ran into was the problem was big but they needed
to be involved in it. They tried an increased inspection to see
what could be spotted from the streets. They got ordinances from
St. Cloud down to Rochester. Couldn't find a way to get people
to complain faster, before the problem got beyond control. They
look for: Every structure is built in accordance to building
code and housing code says it should be maintained in accordance
to the building code at the time the house was built. (1) Water
heater has a temperature and pressure relief valve; (2) In the
main structure, only require that it is maintained the way it
was, for instance the floor. (3) Electrical system -- we look
for extension cords, loose outlets, multiple outlets. If we see
an electrical problem, we recommend that the inspector check. In
an apartment, it is easy to find evidence of problems. It is
mainly to keep the structure in the way it was built and check
lifesaving areas.
0
Page Four - Meeting 6/14/89
• Jim Prosser said that the problem is not unique to Richfield.
The proposed ordinance would be pro-action as opposed to
reaction. It would help maintain property values. Non-homestead
homes have doubled. They tend to be in the main stream of a
city.
Comments:
Citizens for Quality Community -- One of the things we need to do
is to achieve a crime-free, drug-free community. Crime fund and
Neighborhood Watch publicize declining crime rate as well as the
zeal of the community to wipe crime out.
To inspect rental properties without increasing cost to taxpayers
is a problem. We have landlords who wouldn't maintain property,
but also tenants who will trash property and pay their rent so
that the landlord can't do anything about it. The problem is
that we need to deal with the question of how do we assist
landlords when they have a tenant that is trashing a
neighborhood. "I" think that we need to enforce the ordinance
that no more than three unrelated families in one residence.
The Ordinance:
• Pat Coughlin explained the ordinance. City would require anyone
that owns a rental property to apply for a license and condition
is that every 18-24 months, City would go into the property and
enforce the housing code. This would be a condition of
maintaining the license. The fee would pay for the inspectors
needed to maintain the inspections. The first year would
generate about 1'h inspections per year. After the initial
problems are found, it will go down a little bit. Licenses would
have to be renewed annually. He indicated that we have worked
closely with the landlords when the tenant is causing a problem.
It is an insurance for the landlord in case the tenant has caused
a problem. In addition, single family homes that are sold, the
City would go in and inspect. It will take approximately 1h
years to inspect all rental property.
Question: What kind of information will you ask the owner.
Answer: Street address so we can contact them, who they are,
where they are. No question about who is in the property. This
will be answered upon inspection.
Question: Would it be helpful to ask it they have had housing
violations in other cities?
0
Page Five - Meeting 6/14/89
• Answer: No. That could have been for a variety of reason. We
give them a chance to build a track record here. _
If there is a violation of code, we could take the license. They
will be notified and they can notify the tenant in case they want
to be there. The whole idea is to educate them to maintenance of
property. We would give them a time period to correct the
problem and then inspect again.
Question: What if the landlord has a bad tenant?
Answer: Better to work primarily with the owner. We then will
assist the landlord in getting an eviction for "creating a
nuisance". We come in if the landlord feels there is a problem
and this sometimes assists them in getting an eviction.
Question: Have other communities experienced a legal challenge?
Answer: Some cases where the landlord has refused to permit the
inspection and a court order is needed. That is the typical type
of legal action that has been taken. Don't have to get a search
warrant.
Question: What is the difference between the City of Minneapolis
• has you register and come out periodically?
Answer: Unless Minneapolis has changed, they only inspect on a
complaint basis. Comment made that everyone in Minneapolis must
be licensed but an inspection isn't required.
Basic difference is that if someone violates a code, we have
authority to pull the-license until problem is corrected.
Registration would not allow this.
Question: How would we staff?
Answer: First we wanted to do with the staff we have, but we are
running behind. Came up with two full-time positions when we
figured it out.
Prosser: If we are to hire, we can always pull it back.
Coughlin: This is not a revenue producing function. All the
costs are in the proposal.
Question: Is it a condition of sale?
Answer: They couldn't close on the property unless inspection is
signed on the property.
0
?J
Page Six - Meeting 6/14/89
Question: Is the City subjecting itself to any legal problems if
it says the property is O.K. and the new owner finds it isn't
O.K.?
Answer: There is no guarantee that a suit wouldn't be brought on
the City. Our job would be to do the best job we can and the
courts uphold this.
Point was made that if we do find problems upon point of sale, we
wouldn't stop the sale. We get either the seller or buyer to
agree to correct the problem. The certificate must be signed.
Once we find a violation, we have to follow-up to make sure it is
corrected.
Question: Did you feel that there were ordinances that already
took care of this?
Answer: To the contrary. Want to be sure that Police and Fire
have the authority to go into and find problems. As
neighborhoods deteriorate, crime usually goes up in those areas.
The concern is how we get to the problem. It is felt the goal is
to upgrade our community. Felt it is a key issue to making our
community livable. Does it put a problem on the people who don't
have a choice as to putting up with problems are causing a
problem with the landlord.
Prosser: About 20% are in good
there are those in-between. We
helped now before they get bad
for the landlord and the tenant
the 60%. It is necessary to ha,
areas.
shape, 201% in bad condition, and
feel that those in-between can be
-- before they become too costly
can't live there. Will focus on
ve the capability to get to these
Comment: Rental property is not a profitable business. "I'm"
willing to give up some of my rights to allow the Police and Fire
to get into all of my homes. "I'm" afraid of the administrative
part. I need to be convinced that licensing is the way to go.
This is a key part of our community.
Answer: There is a reporting provision in the ordinance (p. 5),
requiring the City Manager to submit a report to the City Council
on the regulatory activities relating to the ordinance. That
would indicate that we are getting our money's worth. In order
to have teeth to stop the problem, there must be a mechanism to
have leverage to accomplish it.
10
-Aa
Page Seven - Meeting 6/14/89
0 Comments
There is approximately 8% vacancy rate in rental property. Can't
rent "my" units in Richfield right now. If I don't have that
revenue, how can I pay the taxes? What do you see is the answer?
I see the need to have them inspected, but I don't need another
tax.
Prosser: Consideration as to where the costs should be borne.
We could not find any community to indicate that there was a need
to inspect. Couldn't identify from outside appearances or
complaints. Our general effort here is to stay as lean as
possible on staff. What we're telling you is there's no other
way to get at this issue -- at the problem before it gets out of
hand.. Where should the tax burden be borne? You may want to
provide another recommendation other than the licensing. The
revenues we receive from the State are necessary to have an
ongoing program. Believe these are separate issues.
Opposition would not be to the process of inspections, but rather
as to who should bear the cost. Problem is the payment and we
can't move from one to the other without taking both into
consideration. Could probably make some changes in the language,
but we need to focus on the cost.
Prosser: If someone keeps having a problem, we reserve the right
to come back to charge that person more.
Question: Maybe the cost should be borne by the entire community
instead of the owners.
Answer: Can't with the present legislation.
Comment: $50 can be charged on single family homes, I don't feel
that is a problem. It is when you get to the apartment
complexes. I'd be more inclined to subdivide these buildings.
Answer: We're only talking about $7.50 per unit for inspection,
plus $50 for the unit.
Question: How much am I going to be hassled as an apartment
owner?
Answer: A notice will be sent out setting up a time for the
inspection.
0
Page Eight - Meeting 6/14/89
Chairman: There are opinions as to how this can be paid for.
The committee could lay out for the Council what we feel are the
options to pay for this:
1. The taxpayers
2. The licensing fee
3. Licensing fee/inspection fee
4. Separate between all of the above
The consensus seems to be that everyone is in agreement that the
inspections are needed, there may be a problem with some of the
wording, but the money area seems to be the problem.
Question: Could individual inspectors be set up outside of
staff, approved by City, paid directly by the seller to the
inspector. Would that have an impact on saving money?
Answer: No. We would have to take a look at their quality
control services capabilities, how they work with the public on
these issues. It is hard to do with private contractors. We may
still have problems but not these types.
Comment: If you total up the list of inspections (page 9-11),
you can see how many we would have to do and the cost.
• Question: What do you do when 20 applicants come in with homes
for sale and inspectors say they can't get to them in three
weeks?
Answer: We will not hold up a point of sale. The real estate
people will work with us, though they may not be in agreement,
and if they will let us know, we will work with them.
Call for other topics.
Chairman Harms: It may not seem that you accomplished what you
wanted to, but I feel a great deal has been done. The goal is
common and it was good to discuss this. We don't have an answer
to the dollars and we can only layout something for the Council.
Prossear': We can stay after the meeting to look at other
ordinances.
Comment: The next meeting with input from the people who have
the problems will be helpful.
We need to strengthen the hands of the landlord by getting the
City in the act if the tenant is part of the problem. "I" think
that it would be a key to this.
r
Page Nine - Meeting 6/14/89
Chairman: Wouldn't want to run up administrative costs by
running to court to testify, but in the report maybe something
could be included confirming the facts. As a practical matter,
we ordinarily do what we can to assist the landlords in this type
of issue.
Prosser: Have seen this ordinance work in other communities.
Getting input from other communities would be helpful.
There is a general recommendation that this type of ordinance is
helpful, but for various reasons might be political.
Question: Is there a vehicle in the ordinance that if a person
does not comply, that the City can hire an outside contractor to
take care of the problem?
Answer: Yes, but we would need to ask the attorney to answer.
Question: Wouldn't it be good to have our attorney at the next
meeting.
Answer: Yes.
Question: Can we go outside the community and have input at the
next meeting?
Answer: Yes. If you know someone whose opinion would be
helpful, they could be there.
Adjournment at 9:00 p.m. The next meeting will be on Wednesday,
July 12, 1989.
Attachments: Copy of Council Letter and
Proposed Ordinance
0
4 ?
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Council Letter No. 113
Agenda May 8, 1989
Issue Statement:
Frst reading rental licensing and point of sale ordinance.
Background:
The Richfield City Council has previously reviewed the
feasibility of adopting a point of sale/rental property licensing
ordinance. The ordinance would specifically require periodic
inspections of rental housing and point of sale inspections for
owner-occupied properties. The ordinance has been discussed at
some length at study sessions on April 6 and May 4, 1987, and on
.March 6, 1989. The ordinance initially was presented for first
reading consideration on June 8, 1987, and tabled at the second
reading held on July 13, 1987. At the March 6, 1989 Study
Session, Council directed staff to:
• Publicize the proposed ordinance in Your City/Your
Schools which was accomplished in the last edition
of that publication.
• Bring back for first reading after that publicity had
occurred.
. The feedback to date related to that publication has been
essentially nohe. Staff has received one anonymous letter
supporting a more vigorous property maintenance ordinance.
The primary reasons for recommending this ordinance for adoption
include the following:
1. Property maintenance and building code ordinances have been
successfully implemented in a number of communities as a
method to improve the overall level of property maintenance
in a community.
2. Richfield residents have expressed support for property
maintenance ordinances. This was evidenced in the recent
community survey conducted by Decisions Resources, Inc.
3. The Housing and Redevelopment Authority has recommended
adoption of this ordinance.
The concerns previously expressed to the City Council include the
following:
• There was a desire to decrease the cost of the
inspections.
• Several property owners indicated there was no need
• for the ordinance since most multi-family units
were generally well kept.
• • Existing property maintenance ordinances are
sufficient to respond to concerns.
• Less frequent inspections for rental units would be
sufficient to achieve the objective.
Summary of responses provided to these objections included the
following:
• The estimate of cost to administer the program was
based on experience of other communities. The
actual cost of the program in Richfield may actually
be less. Staff has developed a conservative estimate
approach so that a fee may be set that would less
likely require ap increase in the near future. Fee
setting was developed on a conservative basis to avoid
criticism that an unrealistically low fee was
initially established in order to get the program
implemented and then staff would plan to increase the
fee after.
• This ordinance generally enforces existing ordinances.
Its primary purpose is to provide the city the
necessary tools to inspect inside properties on a
periodic basis. These inspections are more likely to
cover maintenance problems before they become serious.
Periodic inspections also are more likely to generate
better overall maintenance for rental properties.
Current inspections are limited to complaint
responses, generally.
• This ordinance would provide inspections of rental
property on the average of every one to two years.
Providing less frequent inspections would not provide
optimum effectiveness. A significant portion of this
maintenance inspection relates directly to general
maintenance and housekeeping type issues.. Less
frequent inspections may yield a situation where
problems are more difficult to correct because they
have not been addressed. Less frequent inspections
also yield a result where once every three to four
years the property owner fixes and corrects problems
and then lets general maintenance slide until the next
inspection.
The most significant issue is the experience of other
communities. That experience indicates that
inspections of about every two years yield the results
of improved property appearance.
Designing a program that in some way rewards good
• rental property owners by not requiring as frequent
inspections is quite troublesome. First, it should be
noted that those property owners that do not maintain
• their property well are more likely to be inspected
more frequently in any case. Second, designing a
program that provides less frequent inspection for
well-maintained property may sound good in theory, but
is difficult to implement in practice. Specifically,
the continuum for property maintenance is likely to
indicate that a certain percentage of rental property
owners do maintain their property very well, and a
certain number are extremely lax. The most
significant portion of,rental property would fall in-
between these extremes. It is difficult to design
standards that would be acceptable to those who fall
into this immediate category. Staff and the Council
could become embroiled in frequent controversies
regarding qualifications to enter into this special
category.
• Number of inspections. Staff estimates that the
number of inspections required is based on data
provided by our Community Development Department.
Their information lists 4,575 apartment units, 374
duplexes, and 500 non-homesteaded, single family homes
in the city. Home sales in the city have averaged
about 500 a year, with a range from 200-100.
• Our-inspection experience with current building and
fire inspection indicates that each apartment building
and house will require 1.5 inspections. That is, for
every two inspections that we perform, one will
require that we do a follow-up inspection. For the
apartment unit inspections, we will need 1.2
inspections. The annual total number of inspections
required to enforce this ordinance will be
approximately 7,549.
Staff estimates that on an annual basis, it is
estimated that approximately 2500 hours will be spent
conducting inspections. This is based on the
experience of St. Louis Park where they have a similar
program and this ordinance is similar to the one in
St. Louis Park.
Staff is recommending that to operate this program
with the assumption that inspectors will be devoting
20-30 hours per week doing the work, and the balance
used for report writing, filing, training, lunch
breaks, etc., two inspectors will be required to
implement the program and one administrative clerk.
e Program Costs. Nearly all of the programs cost is
personnel cost. The annual salaries for the positions
other communities who have similar programs. The
amounts reflect the entire cost of each position;
• i.e., salary plus all fringe benefits such as
vacation, holidays, health, life, pension, etc. Also
the amounts are based upon salary ranges from
communities that use a similar system.
Housing Inspectors (2) S 70,000
Clerical (1) 22,000
Administration, office
supplies, forms, etc. 20.000
TOTAL $112,000
• Revenues. The revenues are based on the proposed fee
schedule in the attachment. The schedule considers
the time needed per inspection, point of sale (apart-
ment building and rented houses will take the most
time -- about 45 minutes); therefore, these
occupancies have a higher fee than apartment units
which will take less time.
• Evaluation. Council has directed staff to propose an
evaluation process for this ordinance. There are
two approaches to the evaluation process that
could be used. One could be as described in the
letter from Decision Resources, Ltd., which is
• attached. The other could be something much more
simple to include that staff would simply keep track
of the number of units inspected, the amount of
violations that have occurred, the number of
violations corrected within the time frame given, and
then on reinspection in subsequent years, whether or
not those violations continued to reoccur. It
is staff's belief that once people get used to an
ordinance similar to this, the violations would not
reoccur, but that in fact people would begin complying
and, as such, repeat violations would be 'less
frequent.
Recommendation:
Staff recommends a first reading of an ordinance that will
license rental properties to include apartments, multi-family
residences, duplexes and an ordinance which provides for a point
of sale inspection by city building officials prior to the
transfer of the residence to a new owner and that the ordinances
be scheduled for second reading, public hearing for June 12,
1989.
Basis Of Recommendation:
Council has previously directed staff to prepare this ordinance
for first reading. In that direction, the Council also directed
staff to publicize the proposed ordinance which was done in the
last edition of Your City/Your Schools and staff has received no
unfavorable comments as a result of that. The recent community
survey indicates strong support for reconsideration of this
particular ordinance. The HRA and the Council has also stated
renewed interest in this ordinance.
Alternative Recommendations:
1. The City Council could decide to do nothing; that is, leave
the current ordinances in effect essentially meaning that
staff could only do inspections based on complaints.
2. The Council could direct staff to research additional
ordinances relate'd to this topic.
Discussion/Decision Mode: The revised housing maintenance
licensing ordinance has been submitted for first reading at the
May 8, 1989 Council Meeting.
Y 9er
JDP:sae
Respectf ly submitted,
James Prosser
Cit M a
??-?Y
Description of Ordinance Provision lmtn Ctr Btn LPk Rich
•
PURPOSE STATEMENT
general x x -
specific - character & stability x
- prevent adverse conditions x
- set minimum standards x
- prevent overcrowding x
- reserve value of land/buildings x
INTENT STATEMENT
Permanent mode of protection x
Raises revenue to defray costs x
CERTIFICATE REGISTRATION REQUIREMENT x
ADOPTION OF UNIFORM HOUSING CODE x x
APPLICABILITY STATEMENT
bldg used as residence (single family) x x x
premises used as residence (single fam) x x
accessory structure (single family) x x X
bldg as residence (2 or more families) x x x
rooming houses x x
lodging/boarding houses x x
house trailers x x
other temporary housing x
DEFINITIONS x x x x
MULTI-FAMILY HOUSING
Registration Requirement x x x x x
form provided by city x x x x x
name & address of owner x x x x
telephone number of owner x x
name & address of mutli-dwelling x x x x
number of units x x x
kinds of units x
name & address of maintenance person x x
name & address of owner's agent x x x
other info as council requires x
name/adrss/phone of vendee if K for d eed x x
tenant inquiry/complaint process x
# of bath/toilet facilities shared x
height in number of stories x
construction of exterior x
total floor area of building x
total area of off-street parking x
Annual license registration x (form ) x
Biannual license registration x (code )x
FEES
single family(*=at point of sale) $0 $25 $0 $35* $50
Description of Ordinance Provision
lmtn 0Ctr NBtn PLPk ?Zich
7V 4)V'
duplex-owner occupied (" it ") I $0 I $251 $0 1$35*1$50
duplex-not owner occupied(" " ") $361 $351 $0 $35* $50
apts/townhouses/multifamily Bloomington: $36 for first two
units, $6 each add'1
Brooklyn Ctr: $20 per bldg. &
$5 each add'1 unit
New Brighton: $5.50 per unit with a
$15 minimum
St. Louis Pk: $30 for 1 - 2 bldgs
$60 for 3 - 9 bldgs
$120 for 10+ bldgs
Richfield: $50 per bldg. plus
$7.50 per unit
ANNUAL INSPECTION FEES PER UNIT
3 - 5 units $6.00
6 - 10 units 5.50
11 - 20 units 5.00
21 - 40 units 450
.
41 - 100 units 4
.00
101 - 200 units 3.50
201 & more units 3.00
LATE FEE ON LICENSE Bloomington: $0
Brooklyn Ctr: 5% of fee per day
New Brighton: 100% of fee after
30 days
St. Louis Pk: 10% of fee per month
• Richfield: 10% of fee per month
Posting of License x x x x
License transfer fee $10 $10 yes
Revalidate Suspended License 50% 50%
Revalidate Revoked License 100% 100%
Discrimination Prohibition x
Occupancy Register Required x
Waiting Lists, Vacancies, Complaints x
Posting to Prevent Occupancy x x
Appeals Provision/Process x x
Entry to Inspect x x x x
Search Warrant x x
Code Compliance Mandate x x x
MINIMUM STANDARDS
Toilet x x x
Bathtub/shower stall x x x
Kitchen sink x x x
Garbage containers x x
Garbage removal responsibility x x x
Adequate ventilation x x .
Number of electrical outlets per room x x x
Heat in winter at 68 degrees F x x x x
Lights in public walkways x x x
Sound (weathertight/no rodents)structl re x x
Description of Ordinance Provision lBlmtn
to 6LPk Rich
•
40
Sound interior
Sound foundations
Sound exterior walls
Sound roof
Sound windows, doors & frames
Yards maintained
Common areas maintained
Open spaces maintained
Parking facilities maintained
Outside lights
Snow plowing
Snow shoveling
Fire prevention
Entrance door locks
Security responsibility
Security enforcement
Screen & storm doors & windows
Pest extermination
Rodent harborage prohibition
Rodent food prevention
Sanitary fixtures & facilities
Kitchen cabinets/shelves
Kitchen counter/table
Stove
Refrigerator
Lavatory sink
Stairways, porches & balconies
Handrails
Access to unit
Building entrance locks
1 window per habitable room
60 ampere, 3 wire electrical service
1 branch electric circuit per 600 sq ft
Ceiling lights
Light switches
Rodent proofing
Fence maintenance
Accessory structure maintenance
Safe building elements
Functional facilities components
Grading & drainage
Service discontinuation prohibition
Occupancy per sq ft
One.family per dwelling unit
Ceiling height
Bathroom/sleeping room access
Non-hazardous deficiencies exempt
x I x
x x
x X
x x
x
x x
x
x
X
X
X
x
X
X
X
X
x
X
X
X
X
x
x
x
x
X
x
x
x
x
x
x
X
x
x
X
X
X
X
x
x
X
X
X
x
x
x
X
X
X
CORRECTION OF IMMEDIATE HAZARDS
Heating systems
Water heaters
Electrical systems
Plumbing systems
• Structural systems
x
X
X
x
- x
x
X
X
X
x
x
X
X
X
X X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Description of Ordinance Provision lmtn Ctr Btn LPk ich
Refuse/garbage/waste I x x
Infestation x
Smoke detectors x
Repair/replace to Code x
Code enforcement x x
Shared facilities x
Hot water availability x
Window specifications x x
Bathroom windows x x
Sanitary plumbing x
Bathroom floor surfaces x
Basement window screens x
Basement space made habitable x
Written notice of violations x x x
Posting emergency telephone numbers x
Securing vacated dwellings x
Penalty for non-compliance x
Public authority to remedy non-complian ce x
Alternative sanctions i x
ROOMING HOUSES
License form provided by city I I x
Display permit x
Notice to city of succeeding ownership I x
Annual permit x
Appeals process i i x
Written notice of violations x
1 toilet, sink & tub/shower per 8 pers. I x
Bed linens ! ! x
Sleeping room floor space x
Egress X
Maintenance i x
****If you have questions, suggestions or would like' additional
information, please call Melanie Ault at Richfield City Hall,
869-7521.
CITY OF RICHFIELD
Is Proposed Property Maintenance Ordinance Meeting
July 12, 1989, 7:00 p.m. -
Public Testimony Received
Order of Testimony:
NAME ADDRESS PHONE
Sid Sanford 7000 Portland 869-5576
Deborah G. Olsen 6901 Penn (rental address)
Dorothy Lundquist 7225 Garfield (Lg Women Vtrs) 869-6829
Dean M. Akins P.O. Box 35383, Edina 55435
Dick Ziemer 6229 Xerxes 866-1932
Leo M. Lehn 6901 Penn 861-1935
Kaarin Erickson 2220 E. 66th, #2
Don & Mary Erickson 13660 Pennock Av., AV 55124
Betty Nordstrom 7141 Nicollet 866-5195
Prudence Meyer 8532 Park Knoll Cr,Blm,55438 944-3888
Duane W. Korum (letter)
James D. Picha 7234 - 18th Av. 866-9259
Vern L. Luettinger 7045 - 14th Av. 869-0888
Deborah G. Olsen (see above)
Edward Gerszewski 7426 - 12th Av. 866-6771
Stan E. Dzik 6837 Harriet Av. 866-7480
Paul M. Kaiser 7233 Sheridan Av. S.
.
Jane E. Schoewe 7601 Logan Av. S., #103 861-6919
Leon Lunas 7508 Bryant Av. S. 866-2015
(repeats)
Dean Akins
Dick Ziemer
Ed Gerszewski
Mary Erickson
Sid Sanford
Was concerned about what it would cost to enforce the ordinance,
and the number of inspectors it would take. What kind of
standards will be used? Minnetonka's ordinance has minimum
standards for electrical, plumbing, etc. If this is what is in
mind,'it will be necessary to hire professionals to do the
inspecting, and that will be very costly.
Q: What qualifications will there be for the inspectors?
Q: What standards will appear in the Code?
Q: Will the inspectors be licensed in each area?
Since there are a lot of questions, the ordinance should be set
aside until they are answered. There are a lot of potential
conflicts with State law, and that means litigation is assured.
. Senior citizens would oppose this ordinance. They would see it
as a tax on them.
Deborah G. Olsen
Q: Why are we here?
Q: How did the committee get appointed?
Dorothy Lundquist
Representing the Richfield League of Women Voters. Be aware that
St. Louis Park has had timing problems in inspecting single
family homes before closing dates. The League also looked at a
community similar to Richfield, called Hazelcrest, Illinois.
There, the problems were addressed.before they got too large to
handle.
Dean M. Akins
Is from Excelsior. Has 13 buildings scattered throughout
Richfield; 100+ units. Brought up Bloomington's property
maintenance ordinance. There has been no change in inspections
after the ordinance went into effect, except now it just raises
money for the city. Bloomington charges the businesses, that
way, it keeps the mill rate lower and charges someone else.
Richfield, now, has as good or better inspections than
Bloomington. Richfield should: 1) define the problem; 2) look
at the problem, and 3) come up with a solution to solve the
problem. What's wrong with the job the inspectors now are doing?
Yes, we all want good housing. But! Don't' have 40 people pay
for all of the apartments! If they charge with new inspectors,
taxes should go down by getting rid of the current inspectors.
• City inspectors, and fire inspectors, now inspect annually, plus
each renter inspects the unit at the time of the initial showing.
Don't make it a sham like Bloomington.
Dick Ziemer
Owns a double bungalow and lives in one--half.
Q: Why pattern ourselves after St. Louis Park? He's not
enamored with them; Richfield looks good. Single family
dwellings are the problem, not the owner-occupied rentals. The
proposed ordinance is discriminatory. The same Codes should
apply to all properties. Why single out rental properties as
some sort of stigma? Richfield already has a lot of codes on
maintenance. The people who inspect with them - are they not
doing a good job? Are they doing it poorly? There are flaws in
the current ordinance. The problems are the eyesores, like tent
campers parked on the grass, not the maintenance of buildings and
yards.'-`The ordinance is just another tax and we've had it. The
ordinance is getting too far into our personal lives.
Leo Lehn
Is a tenant. He contributes money in each month's rent which
goes to the property tax bill. Private homes have problems.
Tenants have low and/or fixed incomes. The price of the
ordinance might get to be too much to live in the building. The
situation does not exist (and it's stupid) to pay $500 a month
• and be afraid to tell the landlord to fix something. There are a
number of folks through there to inspect. Because of that, all
is well and up to Code. This ordinance will sock it to 99% of
the rental places for the 1$ that is the problem. He's not-going
to let anyone in to inspect. The inspectors may come back to the
property as salesmen, to rob the place, etc.
Kaarin Erickson
Has been a tenant since April, after finding a place that accepts
kids. There have been many problems, like water leaking then
mildewing because it isn't fixed, sewage leaking onto carpet,
etc. The landlord won't fix the problems though he is there each
month to collect the money. If an inspector were to go through
there and fine the landlord, more power to him! Cars sit
outside, grass has been cut only twice this year, a tree hasn't
been cut...
Don & Mary Erickson
They own two Richfield properties and live in Apple Valley. The
inspections already exist, and requiring more would only be a
duplication. Richfield is only missing out on a money generator!
The current Code covers Kaarin Erickson's problems. A mortgage
company also inspects their properties each year too. Their
tenants want to be left alone, and have no more inspectors. If
there is a problem, they call the Ericksons and they come and fix.
it. Richfield has a contract with Bloomington for townhomes and
rooming house inspections? They've never seen a Bloomington
person! (Ch. 3, subd.2) Richfield already has the ordinance
inspections and the owners are already paying for it. They
• already pay $1,000 per unit, and some are less than 400 sq. ft.
If the ordinance is adopted, they may have to defer making
improvements to their properties-because they will not be able to
afford it. All lose in that situation. They have not raised
their tenants rent in 2h years, yet taxes have risen, as have
water bills, sewer, etc. The ordinance should look only at the
properties that are the problems. Pinpoint those problems and
issue citations. The inspections are already threatening.
Betty Nordstrom
She owns her own property, but favors the ordinance.' All around
her are rental properties and she has trouble with them. They
don't shovel snow, etc.
Prudence Meyer
Lives in Bloomington. Thinks that inspecting all properties
every three years would be sufficient., and only those that need
inspections. Then decide whether you need to go back, if things
are not fixed, and go back the next year, or in two years.
Piggyback the current inspections with the ones in the ordinance
and reduce the amount of inspection. Give advance notice to
landlords and tenants. Let the landlords be able to be with the
inspector. That will give the landlords an opportunity to
discuss any problems with the inspectors so the landlords know
exactly what the inspectors are talking about. Fees should be
spread over all taxpayers because all taxpayers benefit. The
. ordinance fees are too high, higher than other cities. If the
'.3/
feeling is that the fees will be set high so they do not have to
be raised later, that should change. Fees should be set at what
it now costs to do inspections, then let the fees raise as the
costs raise. Inspectors should be experienced and not college
interns. In Bloomington, she suspected they sent a college
intern to a double bungalow, and not an inspector. The intern.
did not know paint from stain. That intern did not want the
landlord there so he could talk to the tenant about the problems.
OK, she can understand that need, but the landlord wants to know
what is wrong. Bloomington also did not inspect a neighbor who
was worse off. Their excuse was that they could not get a hold
of him. Therefore, an Advisory Group should be formed that works
with the inspector, in an ongoing process, to improve the process
each year, step it up, etc. It would also provide a means for
more input.
Jim Prosser
CLARIFICATION
The $70,000 salary is for two (2) people, and includes benefits.
•
Duane W. Korum
(Letter read by Tom Harms.)
If the ordinance is passed, it would be good and enforced. There
is now deteriorating housing, loudness, lots of police calls,
etc. The current ordinances do not go far enough. They do not
address (chronic) behavior problems. A behavior ordinance is not
unenforceable - St. Paul has an ordinance that landlords can't
rent their properties if they rent them to drug dealers. Not all
landlords are responsible people. The ordinance is a good value
as seen through the tenant's eyes.
James D. Picha
Is a property owner. Backs the ordinance 100$. It helps the
City, the staff, and is a good working tool. He is proud of
Richfield, and agrees with the letter by Corwin. The money is a
problem, but it just has to be dealt with. If you own the
property, you have to face that.
Vern L. Luettinger
Is an HRA member, but not speaking on their behalf. Thinks it is
necessary to have a Truth in Housing ordinance. He tried to get
one before, got heat, and it did not go through. Knows of
someone who bought a home, then was in tears because,,everything
had to,be rewired, replumbed, etc. There are plenty of good
landlords, and plenty of not-so-good tenants, and some apartment
owners are in terrible shape. The HRA is helping to keep 100%
occupancy in buildings, and the present inspectors should be
there. The ordinance should be carried out and passed and gone
one step further. The ordinance should cover all point of sale
homes.
Deborah G. Olsen
Owns rental property in Richfield, lives in Edina. If a house
needs to be gutted when the house is old, something is wrong with
the house. The ordinance is discriminatory. All homes should be
inspected. Why should some of the houses be exempted? You could
• be selling dope! Sounds Chicago-y. She just doesn't like it.
One or two inspectors would not be able to inspect all of the
properties in one year. And they would need more secretaries,
filing, desks, space, etc. than what is listed. It would be its
own little bureaucracy within the City's bureaucracy. Next they
will need computer data machines and follow up to make sure it
gets done. The taxing is too hard.
Jim Prosser
CLARIFICATION
The ordinance would enforce the current property Code. But
currently, we do not have the ability to go inside units. The
ordinance would include rental property, owner occupied rental
property, and owner occupied single family homes at point-of-
sale.
Edward Gerszewski
Is an owner of a double bungalow.
Q: Why tax so high for rental properties?
Q: Is the ordinance just a money making tool?
Q: What do we get for it? Nothing says it is guaranteed yearly.
A Brooklyn Park owner is supposed to get inspection yearly. All
he gets is a piece of paper, and only inspected one out of three
bungalows.
Q: Why is there a hookup charge with vacancy? When a tenant
• moves out and the property is vacant for a month, he has to pay
$13 for a customer hookup charge for his water and sewer bill.
There is no charge with Minnegasco. We all should have all homes
inspected every year. The same things (maybe worse) could be
going on in nonrental properties.
Q by Committee to him: How often should inspections be done?
his A: none, or as many as are done on your home.
He does check out his tenants before he rents out to them. He
pays $25 to a rental agency to make sure the tenants are drug-
free, are decent, etc.
Stan Dzik
Backs the ordinance 100%. Backs Truth in Housing 100$. Buyers
should have protection.
Paul M. Kaiser
Support's the point-of-sale portion of the ordinance. Does not
like the interruption of the inspections. Should have current
personnel work out interdepartmental politics.
Jane E. Schoewe
Is for the ordinance. She has no landlord experience but has
tenant experience, both good and bad. Analogizes to passing
seatbelt ordinance. She wore her seatbelt even if the law was
not going to pass. Some landlords are good owners and have
confidence in their renters. Some others need a push, and it may
look like a law to them. All should be happy with the ordinance.
Tenants will get what they can for their rent money. The
ordinance should allow for less frequent inspections based on how
• good the property looks. If it looks good, give them a year off,
but give everyone a first go around. The ordinance should
include a point of sale, too. Give advance notice to-landlords.
and renters when the inspector will be out. Let the landlord go
too so the landlord can know first-hand what the problems are.
Only two inspectors? It may take more the first time through.
More landlords should have been at tonight's meeting. Their
absence says something about them.
Leon Lunas
Is on the Planning Commission. Saw an S&I which included a
listing of complaints regarding renters complaining about their
facilities. Review it and keep it in consideration.
REPEATERS
Dean Akins
Bloomington's ordinance has not addressed their problems. Before
you decide on a solution, define the problem! Yes, there is a
problem with some bad landlords, but he does not know if
Bloomington's ordinance solves the 3 or 10 bad landlords. The
ordinance does not cover some of the things some folks want.
Make the ordinance complaint based. If you get a number of
complaints, come out, and fine the landlord. He should pay.
Penalize that particular landlord. First you need the ordinance
to inspect though. As in Bloomington, it would help him to
register with the city the people who
already files his maintenance manager
purposes. There has been no denial o
like entrance by inspectors even with
are not working the ordinances. Give
so.
live in
with the
f access,
notice.
them the
his building. He
city for emergency
but tenants don't
Current inspectors
authority to do
Dick Ziemer
Charge only the bad landlords. But be careful! Sometimes
landlords are not informed of the problems, and the tenant might
have done it! The landlord has to get rid of the bad tenant.
The city could help by having an ordinance to let the landlord
throw the tenant out after certain problems. The fees become a
financial burden. Taxes cost more than 2 months rent for the
other side of his bungalow, plus his side! He can't get a decent
return on his investment. It is a good idea to know who owns the
buildings, and he has no problem with registering the other
resident. He does discriminate who he rents to because he has to
live next to them. His one year lease specifies the number of
people who can live there. There are loopholes in the current
ordinances regarding: conduct, number of people occupying,
parking, vehicles and exterior appearance.
Ed Gerszewski
Asked for the committee members' and staff's names (Mark Little
not there tonight). Saw a lead paint program on TV. The
46 inspectors go in, there are kids dying of lead paint poisoning,
and the inspectors did not have the proper tools.
Mary Erickson
She is still opposed, but if the inspector comes through, and she
has a one year lease, and the inspector determines that she
should get rid of her tenant, will the city assist with legal
service? Landlords do not have as many rights as do tenants.
Think about this.
9:05 pm Meeting Adjourned.
0
r ."
City of Richfield* 6700 Portland Avenue • Minnesota 55423
City Manager Mayor Council
James D. Prosser Steve Quam Edwina Garcia Ivan Ludeman
Martin Kirsch Michael Sandahl
TO: Julie Holmquist, Editor.
FROM: James D. Prosser, City Manager
DATE: June 16, 1989
SUBJECT: Meeting Notice
Enclosed is a copy of a meeting notice to be published
in the July 5th edition of the Richfield Sun/Current.
0
-*?I'-Jx ?
Telephone 869-7521 (612)
An Equal Opportunity Employer
i
PA
N E W S
James D. Prosser
City Manager
869-7521
Friday, June 16, 1989
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
4
Property Maintenance Committee Seeks Comments
The public is invited to present comments on a proposed
property maintenance ordinance for the City of Richfield. Public
testimony will be received by the nine-member Property
Maintenance Committee on Wednesday, July 12, 1989 at 7:00 p.m. at
the Richfield City Council Chambers, 6700 Portland Avenue South.
The proposed ordinance is to adopt a point of sale/rental
property licensing procedure. The ordinance would require
periodic inspections of rental properties including apartments,
townhouses and duplexes, as well as provide for point of sale
inspections for owner-occupied properties.
A? __3?1'
0
•
2A-Richfield Sun-Current-Wed., June 21, 1989
Meeting on controverisal ordinance set
The public will have a chance
to discuss a controversial city
proposal at a meeting July 12.
A proposed property
maintenance ordinance is being
studied by a committee ap-
pointed by the City Council.
Public testimony will be taken
at 7 p.m. Wednesday, July 12, at
the Richfield City Council
chambers, 6700 Portland Ave. S.
The proposed ordinance would
allow city point-of-sale and ren-
tal property inspections and
licensing procedures.
4A-Richfield Sun-Current-Vbd., June 28, 1989
CO ity seeks comments
. The public is invited to present
comments on a proposed pro-
perty maintenance ordinance
for the city of Richfield. Public
testimony will be received by
the nine-member property
maintenance committee at 7
p.m. Wednesday, July 12, at the
Richfield City Council
Chambers, 6700 Portland Ave. S.
The proposed ordinance is to
adopt a point of sale/rental pro-
perty licensing procedure. The
ordinance would require
periodic inspections of rental
properties including apart-
ments, townhouses-and
duplexes, as well as provide for
point of sale inspections for
owner-occupied properties.
0
opy ' S/
X42-29.
Prooerty Mai?,teha„c
Aadress
Ym _
i
C'r
Y-38?'?
ei4e c,
.
''
T a (? G fI ?. dry
a me:5 -V... - So. ?-C-J? " r2-e /C-/
1?1Gv
a3
T --
j ?..
'C 14
? ?w
tpeakrs
3004
103
o -0
5 ?Z-
X
1 D e a n
Ed e?s?,e-ask i
8 •v o = •c
00 '8 8 •? ° .2 10
0 cc
-a .0 s CO:a cc CL)
?w 9?d c0`o° o •o c % > a,
8$'c.??'c:
occ`s?asi'?
ac HAP .C;'my a
cd
?a)c?
cvaeoG O?
.0 C6
3
:?3?c?• c•?c•??????Sdgo v? ti ,3no
.ti_'oo>c °y, •v'oyga,o.a•° a:s8
:,?p? cc?•c. 49 0,8?.? ao?c 8 °? c? ?W u
0
•a'?i O y '8 Ct?
a? 3 WA - °?
'? 88 s2 ?¢
to
cu
E dS i ` a
A
0?9 y ? I 3E=' 1
ta cc
"?^ u Val
J! 78
4 P. (A A
;xE)Cc 8E
o
lag
75 cc LD -1
y0•? ?0?.,_, Qum °.3 d C? ? ?S o `??
IU.'Ct ONw tom. ?"' y
0 cc
CIS A
`.w' E•?' 3a)a.w
y61s
0.0 vj
cc als 4=1
q. im
'a? ,? ' ' 8 .o uo ao v^ c g g 'n .a a o o a? LI
?.8 8ww?+ a u^ ? SHE0NA.5°0?o La?
V1V_l••^V .Q~°' 3G C? y.CO ...a7w wQ?
?/, ? 8 ? u ? ? U ? 8i ?+ V1 , U o C ._ O . ?, C •,a .? ? F. ?' eE U is £" +-• '? C .? y .°? 7_?",," p U C " y
L2'i z COQ, w U U_._ .+ y
p C W U
? S? 7 O V e?:•, y O c4? .? ' v? C'' sd, tom.. ^p ?O y C w
U O L U U 0 ?= L•++? L
O
L L. ?+ C " O '•' CQ L. '?• +-? cr •S G O S k c x p O .0 y?'c: • ; .., O ..., U' O
?eo c 5d;=, ccvoW ?'-od d•o 83°W 8:90 35.0 a`' 3 cu 0??= 'v, ca?,"'•s_s
?' °' c .?e o ?.? w ?' r..3•• r?q ?, ? c o ? ca •? ? u ,?e s w L `? ? o ? ? ?i c ? ? 'c; u ? c 3 8 3 r_c•• ea
s, •paio o2s
8•0 u ? ° .., s ?u ?° c?i?z"caa?o•go;-,
o o•0 +
"'•? o:.0c,g 8•.,c:?$b' Eaa
°p c3°8a??c8a?od3o 08 ?^-`" odcb
tt 0 0 0 ?? "" >"" c^ c .. o a?_, p$ v S vss y_ 5 c o ET;a c a R.S o0 4; c y o 0
_? ^ 3 c "_ y ? d a? .? s, • es ? c -•. ? c ?, `G. C .-? ?'Q17' ?,. .? e>a> p ;,; ,? ..? C? `° w t/? ? pp O 'C
..+ p v? A C a)
O c ' y .., a) U U s.. c0 L' U cC ? w ?; C y ? •rh p N .rJ' cs ? ? m O G7 ? ?/ G? >,
+ e0 RSW _ tap $ d0C r.. U p y.2? c? a) O e0w cC c s U y?
t .c 3 ?e u oyv.5 x °• ea ?iL c °' a `° u 3 " -c ?, `° '? g• 3 ?' s •_? 8 :•- a; ai
.4 > y a?Q c o °'3 3??'Ca o ca c .°;? ?•? tip.
as s ce°.W °u? °u. ca ca eC0 &c •o. •8 cc cc .0 tv vvi v ?v
eqg s.
O
Ca ? it p >?' a) ? •G' ? CC C ? •LS U L a) r.a
•? s c8,?5 8..v a?"i ?' C t+'_ $ cad o w?" a? a?i_
c.?c y.5 d c c°w o 4' o 00 a° h cs?
m ?O C. C c? ?N c0 'CO.?
y c ?j 3 oS'°
O ._? p G 7 0 C y 'd '? w : as y •0 V V1 O •, O .C O .r1
• L a) O c? U Oi i? w^ L•Oa E o
43 c O cws: S3• i.
i ?, .Q ? cU "''L, ? ? ? a'? a V1 O ? +Or "`L' ? ? ?a C ? ? C a'w,Y,' ? O +A d .fl},,,• O O CO ?
C'L7d> > c,Iy nO^
i U y ?o' y pa^?i o? O O cy I vo 3>as
caw e
y a SA` 83 8 o c
O L+
i •S C? t4 cc
cc °O+ 0?+0 4>, ° U _O .C+ Uy
A 1 ..; ?• tiD G 7 C9 s . 4 R. v1 a w a. GL x s. L. eo >+ p y >, 75
?? 3` 5? ,gu L.y3 5 ?a>i°v° o >.Cacit.3s?ay?c
= c? y8?>o s'ac?r8 G
>??8.•v°s o8.9c 30
tob - .? ca v >, .? o
ca_ d? a c8 •v
3 0cs. cu °d v ?o°o$eow •o ca o 3 bi la
O ac'v r`??j 05 8.5?' c as yea u [ 500
E'°t 4 p _ Gl o O y v OOt4 ° C D V U G) CC e? .? W W '3 ?y C
O 'g >> C >, .y RS o y 0 ?? >
y U p .., U s. U ... cz O eQ 3 y '.I. , t. 00 3 p a. C ? C d? O O
cz 'D
,rte a) c `yC > L
?•>oai¢?io o K L>? oE8?? °•? `?8.fl??'a?i $3 _
v0, at E a.? g?cyn az' °Li
. COMMITTEE RESPONSE TO QUESTIONS
Public Testimony
CITY OF RICHFIELD
Proposed Property Maintenance Ordinance Meeting
July 12, 1989
7:00 P.M.
Sid Sanford
Question: What standards will be used?
Response: The City of Richfield has previously adopted the
State's Uniform Housing Code. This code would be the basis of
. inspections. Inspectors will be trained to administer that code.
If the inspector identifies conditions that require a licensed
inspector (electrical/plumbing), an additional inspection will be
conducted by current, licensed, professional staff.
Question: Cost?
Response: The breakdown on the
of this ordinance is attached.
clarification, they can contact
on our best estimate of cost to
are within range of charges by
cost and fees for administration
Should anybody want
the City staff. Fees are based
administer the program. Our fees
3ther cities (see attached).
40
IS Page 2
Prop. Maint. Mtg. - 7/12/89
Dorothy Lundquist -- Representing the Richfield League of Women
Voters
Question: Timing problems for point of sale inspections.
Support for "proactive" inspections.
Response: The staff will meet with real estate agents to discuss
a protocol which will permit timely inspection for point of sale.
We concur that this ordinance will permit the City to help
landlords and owners address problems before they become too
costly to correct.
is
Dean M. Akins -- Is from Excelsior. Has 13 buildings scattered
throughout Richfield; 100+ units.
Question: Raise money for the City like it does for, Bloomington?
Response: We will not comment on Bloomington's purpose, but only
Richfield's. The revenue generated from the program will only
pay costs to administer the program. No excess in revenues are
anticipated. A separate cost/fee analysis can be prepared to
demonstrate this fact, if directed by the City Council.
.7
Page 3
• Prop.Maint.Mtg. - 7/12/89
Question: The ordinance is a solution to a problem that has not
been identified.
Response: The current ordinance permits us to conduct internal
inspections on a complaint basis. The number of complaint
generated inspections has increased dramatically over the past
few years (additional statistical information will be furnished
at the August 9 meeting). Staff experience indicates many more
problems exist but are not identified. The proposed ordinance
permits us to conduct proactive inspections. These inspections
40 will permit the owners to correct problems before they become too
costly to repair. Generally, this type of ordinance has been
recognized as a necessary element in a program to avoid urban
blight within first ring suburbs.
Question: It is currently a duplication of inspections.
Response: The City conducts three general types of inspections:
fire, HRA and complaint generated. Fire inspections are limited
to common areas and exterior of buildings. No interior
inspections of units are conducted. Fire inspections focus on
fire code violations, such as: blocked fire exits, inoperable
smoke detectors, etc. These inspections are conducted
approximately once every one to two years.
Page 4
Prop. Maint. Mtg. - 7/12/89
HRA inspections are conducted only on HRA units. These
inspections are conducted approximately once a year. HRA
inspections cover only 350 out 4,500 rental units. The proposed
licensing ordinance would permit a more extensive inspection
program than current City programs permit.
Question: Why can't our current inspection staff perform these
inspections?
Response: The current building inspection staff consists of two
• people. The chief building inspector is responsible for plan
review for new construction and remodeling and general building
inspection. The licensed electrical inspector conducts
electrical inspections. Other specialist inspections (such as
plumbing and mechanical) are conducted on a contract basis with
employees from the City of Bloomington. Fire inspections and
some minor building inspections are conducted by firefighters.
The firefighters do not have sufficient available time to conduct
additional inspections. The Code Enforcement Officer and the
Community Service Officer (CSO) provide animal control service
and conduct inspections for exterior code violations. They do
not have time available to conduct interior inspections.
C7
Page 5
• Prop. Maint. Mtg. - 7/12/89
Question: The proposed inspections will be duplicate of
inspections by private insurance and mortgage companies.
Response: Insurance and mortgage company inspections are
generally limited to common areas. Those inspections often
depend upon City inspections for more detailed building analysis.
Dick Ziemer
Question: The ordinance is discriminatory since it does not
apply equally to owner-occupied property-
0
Response: The experience of staff is that generally there are
fewer property maintenance problems with owner-occupied than
rental properties. Our City attorney has advised us that the
current ordinance structure is legal and not legally
discriminatory. It should be noted that the owner-occupied
portion of duplexes would be treated as single family and not
rental.
Question: Why single out rental properties for more frequent
inspections?
-? `
Page 6
Prop. Maint. Mtg. - 7/12/89
Response: (1) Experience indicates that tenants are not likely
to contact the City regarding code violations for a variety of
reasons.
(2) Some tenants claim that the landlords are not
responsive to correcting property maintenance problems.
(3) Some tenants claim that they cannot readily
contact their landlords regarding property maintenance problems.
Question: Why doesn't the City use its Community Service
Officers to perform inspections?
40
Response: Code Compliance Officer and Community Service Officers
function reactively and proactively to animal control complaints
and exterior maintenance complaints, such as long grass, junk
cars and debris. The Code Compliance Officer and Community
Service Officers are not trained building inspectors.
Question: The City should concentrate its efforts on enforcement
of other exterior appearance issues such as RV's, boats and
camper parking.
Response: Current ordinances do permit RV storage and parking in
selected areas. Changes in the ordinances have been suggested to
0 the City Council.
Page 7
Prop. Maint. Mtg. - 7/12/89
Leo Lehn
Question: The cost of this ordinance is too high. Good
landowners are being penalized unnecessarily.
Response: For the vast majority of rental units, the cost of
this ordinance will be $7.50 per unit, per inspection. It is
true that some good landlords will pay for inspections which may
be necessary for their units. However, there is no practical way
to avoid this problem. Inspections are necessary to know that
the units are properly maintained. Good landlords do benefit
from the inspections because the community as a whole will be
improved.
Question: The inspectors may not be honest and may steal items
from the apartments.
Response: Inspectors will be screened by Public Safety staff and
will be properly credentialed. In addition, tenants and/or
landlords will be able to accompany the inspectors. Inspections
will be conducted on an appointment basis.
Kaarin Erickson - Tenant
Question: This ordinance would require landlords to be more
responsive.
111??- 4we
Page 8
Prop. Maint. Mtg. - 7/12/89
Response: Yes, if the complaints of the tenant are related to
property maintenance code issues.
Don & Mary Erickson
Question: Ordinance would be a duplicate.
Response: Previously addressed.
Question: Richfield has contract with Bloomington for some type
of multiple family inspections.
is
Response: Contract is limited to hotel and motel establishments
and doesn't include rental properties.
Question: The ordinance should only look at problem properties.
Response: Absent a complaint, the City does not conduct
inspections of interior units for multiple family properties.
This ordinance would provide the mechanism for that to occur.
The ordinance would permit an opportunity to correct problems
before they become unmanageable.
r-I
LJ
Page 9
• Prop. Maint. Mtg. - 7/12/89
Question: Why are landlords spending $1,000/unit for taxes?
Response: The City receives approximately 20% of property tax
bill. The funds are used to provide police, fire, parks, road
maintenance and other services.
Betty Nordstrom
Question: Generally supports the ordinance.
Prudence Meyer
Question: Suggests less frequent inspections.
Response: Inspections will likely occur once every one to two
years and our staff experience indicates that that frequency of
inspection is required in order for property to be maintained.
Question: Coordinate City inspections.
Response: To the extent possible, City inspections, HRA and fire
will be coordinated.
Page 10
• Prop. Maint. Mtg. - 7/12/89
Question: Give advance notice of inspections.
Response: Landlords will be advised of inspection schedule.
Question: Permit landlords to accompany inspectors.
Response: Landlords will be invited to accompany inspectors.
Question: Cost of program should be borne by general taxpayers
and not owner fees because entire community benefits.
Response: There are insufficient general revenues to permit
payment from general taxes. See attorney's report dated July 10,
1989.
Question: Richfield proposed fees are higher than other cities.
Response: Our analysis indicates that we are within range of
other cities.
Question: Inspectors should be experienced.
Response: The City will hire qualified inspectors to conduct
• these inspections. We do not intend to hire interns.
1? ?y
• Page 11
Prop. Maint. Mtg. - 7/12/89
Question: Advisory Committee should be formed.
E
Response: The City will implement an evaluation component as
part of our inspection program.
Duane C. Korum
Question: The ordinance should deal more with behavioral issues
in rental property.
Response: There are sufficient City ordinances and State
Statutes that deal with these issues, including a recent Statute
that specifically deals with drug dealing and landlords
responsibilities.
James D. Picha -- Not a rental property owner; a property owner
that lives next to rental property
Comment: Supports the ordinance.
Vern L. Luettinger
Question: Generally supports ordinance. Should cover point of
sale.
•
4V-J,-e ?
Page 12
Prop. Maint. Mtg. - 7/12/89
Response: The ordinance does cover point of sale.
Deborah G. Olsen
Question: Ordinance is discriminatory
Response: See previous response.
Question: All homes should be inspected.
Response: See previous response.
Question: The proposal does not include sufficient staff.
Response: An analysis indicates that our proposed staffing level
is appropriate. Inspections will be conducted approximately once
every one to two years. Staffing may need to be reexamined after
a period of time.
Edward Gerszewski
Question: Is the ordinance a money-making tool?
Response: No. Revenues will offset expenses.
0
Page 13
Prop. Maint. Mtg. - 7/12/89
Question: What do we get for it?
Response: Inspections will occur about every one to two years.
Reports will be provided to the landlords.
Question: Why is there a hookup charge?
Response: There is a charge for establishing a new water account
and initial water meter reading.
• Question: All homes should be inspected.
Response: See previous response.
Stan Dzik
Comment: Supports the ordinance.
Paul M. Kaiser
Comment: Supports point of sale portion of ordinance.
Jane E. Schoewe
Question: Give advance notice to landlords.
Response: Advance notice will be provided.
0
• Page 14
Prop. Maint. Mtg. - 7/12/89
Question: Permit landlords to accompany.
Response: They will be permitted.
Question: Ordinance should include point of sale.
Response: It does.
Question: Only two inspectors?
• Response: Staff's opinion that that will be enough at this time.
Question: Less frequent inspections.
Response: See previous response.
Leon Lunas
Question: Listing of complaints regarding renters.
Response: The property maintenance inspection activity report
will be supplied at the August 9 meeting.
Dean Akins
Question: Limit ordinance to problem properties.
0
16?? _ 5-?;
Page 15
Prop. Maint. Mtg. - 7/12/89
Response: (1) It's difficult to identify problem properties
without conducting regular inspections of unit.
(2) Limiting application of ordinance would
compromise its primary purpose which is to prevent problems
before they become too large to manage.
(3) Problem properties will receive more frequent
inspections. Should the problems not be corrected, the City will
seek more appropriate legal actions.
Question: Require tenants to be registered with the City.
0
Response: This provision would place a significant clerical
burden on City staff with uncertain benefits.
Question: Give current inspectors authority to enfoce the codes.
Response: The ordinance would do so. Current inspectors will
not be able to handle the additional inspections, however. Two
additional inspectors are needed.
Dick Ziemer
Question: Charge only the bad landlords.
0
• Page 16
Prop. Maint. Mtg. - 7/12/89
Response: Previously covered.
Question: Revise ordinance to place greater responsibility for
maintenance with the tenants.
Response: Current State law doesn't permit this type of
provision. See attorney's letter dated July 10, 1989.
Question: Current City ordinances should be strengthened.
Response: City will review suggestions for modifying ordinances
as appropriate.
Mary Erickson
Question: Will the City assist with evictions?
Response: No. There are State laws to assist.
0
CITY OF RICHFIELD
Proposed Property Maintenance Ordinance Meeting
August 9, 1989
7:00 p.m.
ATTENDANCE: Thomas Harms, Chairman
Pastor John Chell
Ken Kunz
Ernest Lindstrom
Matt Little
Bernie Mittelsteadt
Pat Rickert
George Seltz
City Staff: Jim Prosser, City Manager
John D. Erskine, Director of Public Safety
Betsy Christensen, Health Administrator
John Dean, City Attorney
Melanie Ault, Administrative Aide
Linda Vukelich, Administrative Aide
110 The meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m.
Chairman Harms stated the purpose of this meeting was to review
the proposed property maintenance ordinance, to consider the
comments from the public hearing, and to consider suggested
additions, deletions and changes.
Ernie Lindstrom suggested the following changes:
- The ordinance should include a point of sale
inspection for individual and two-family homes.
Page 2
• Prop. Maint. Mtg. - 8/9/89
- The ordinance should require registration instead of
licensing. Registration should require disclosure of who's in
charge of property, an occupancy registry, and incorporate
penalty for failure to register.
- If the authority is not already there, make sure
that police and fire have the broadest power of inspection.
He indicated the objections that were sighted at the open meeting
seemed to be to frequency and cost of inspections. Mr. Lindstrom
stated the changes would overcome many of the objections raised
at that meeting.
Chairman Harms stated that the difference in the point of sale
inspection ordinance and the registration is the ability to
revoke license if ordinance compliance is not achieved.
Mr. Lindstrom suggested that inspections could be performed by
independent contractors, avoiding the need to add City staff.
Mr. Lindstrom stated that he has no strong feelings about outside
inspectors, but thinks that $100 would be sufficient.
Page 3
ql?, Prop. Maint. Mtg. - 8/9/89
Chairman Harms questioned whether the quality would be good for
that price.
Mr. Lindstrom emphasized the existing power of the police and
fire to inspect. He indicated the difference is that a license
ordinance would impose a requirement to obtain a license in order
to rent your property.
Chairman Harms said that there is nothing that says every
building has to be checked every year.
-.
Matt Little asked if the registration Mr. Lindstrom is speaking
of is a one-time regulation.
Mr. Lindstrom responded that it would be annual.
Chairman Harms indicated that he does not see the City needing to
inspect every building every time they get a license. He would
like the City to have the right to inspect because of the
appearance, problems, and complaints or safety, but not require
the City to inspect every apartment building and apartment unit
annually.
s
Page 4
Prop. Maint. Mtg. - 8/9/89
Mr. Prosser said that under the registration system, the City
wouldn't have authority to accomplish what the ordinance
intended. The City currently does not have the capability to
determine which units are problem units. In order to find the
problem units, proactive inspections must be conducted. He
indicated the registration suggested wouldn't accomplish this.
He stated the licensing inspection would provide a regular,
periodic inspection process to help assure maintenance of a
building before there are problems that are too expensive to be
corrected.
Chairman Harms commented that there may be a long period of time
between when a license is given and when that property is
inspected. He felt that the ordinance should define that the
license is conditional until the inspection. Then, if upon
inspection the property is not in compliance, the license can be
revoked.
A committee member asked if it is possible to require the
applicant to provide the name of someone that the police and fire
can call to get the list of tenants. This would allow the police
and fire to check with that person if names were required.
•
Page 5
Prop. Maint. Mtg. - 8/9/89
It was indicated that property owners could provide that
information to the City.
Mr. Prosser indicated that to maintain tenant information would
be a time-consuming responsibility for the City.
Mr. Lindstrom commented that he wasn't convinced that the
property creates the problem, but that people do. He stated that
if someone is willing to provide the tenant information, then he
can't see why it is a burden to City Hall.
•
Mr. Prosser indicated that it would be necessary to update the
information every month.
Chairman Harms indicated that it would be good to have that
information but the police would be the ones that need the
information.
Jack Erskine indicated that there are data privacy legal issues
involved in having that information on individuals available.
•
Page 6
• Prop. Maint. Mtg. - 8/9/89
It was discussed that it is not a function of this inspection
program to maintain lisst of tenants, but rather to look at
getting registration information on who owns the property, etc.
Mr. Erskine referred to the handout information. He emphasized
the inspections listed on the front page are complaint-generated.
Mr. Erskine stated that an aggressive approach by Public Safety
in the last few months accounted for part of the increase in
complaints. Increased publicity about property maintenance in
• the Richfield Sun Current and Your City/Your Schools also
generated more calls.
Mr. Erskine noted that most of the complaints are exterior
problems.
A committee member asked, "what happens after you pull the
license when there is a violation?"
Mr. Prosser stated that in other communities, what typically
happens is an inspection is undertaken and a number of areas are
identified that need to be corrected. The owner is invited to be
present during all inspections so that they are aware and see the
Page 7
• Prop. Maint. Mtg. - 8/9/89
problem areas. Written notification would then be given with a
time frame to correct the problem(s). If it is a life-
threatening problem, then immediate action would be required and
a reinspection date would be established. If a violation is not
corrected or there is a refusal to correct, the City would
initiate action regarding that property code item or process to
revoke the license.
Erskine stated that the staff would present the revocation
recommendation to the City Council. If the Council upholds the
• revocation, the property owner could not operate the building
until they correct the problem(s) or sell the building. This
could mean the people occupying the building would have to
vacate.
George Seltz stated that Mr. Sid Sanford, indicated that
Minnesota Statute 326 requires certified electricians. He asked
if the City would have to hire licensed inspectors.
Mr. Prosser stated that the inspector would be trained to
identify a potential electrical problem and refer it to the
licensed electrical inspector. Mr. Prosser said that typical
problems would be electrical extension cords under carpets, open
outlet boxes.
Page 8
• Prop. Maint. Mtg. - 8/9/89
Mr. Erskine indicated that a licensed electrical inspector is on
the Public Safety staff.
George Seltz indicated similar ordinances have provisions that
allow the tenant or person in charge to refuse the inspection and
asked whether such a provision should be included in this
ordinance.
John Dean said that the terms of the owner having the right to
refuse an inspection is not covered in the present ordinance. He
• recommended that no such provision be added. He stated that if
the City encounters a situation like that, he has confidence that
the police would get a search warrant. He indicated that the
owner's right to enter would also be an available method.
Mr. Seltz asked if failure to include the provision would
invalidate the ordinance.
Mr. Dean said that it would not.
Mr. Seltz commented on Subdivision 9, Remedies, indicating that
in some cases each day a violation would constitute a separate
offense.
0
Page 9
Prop. Maint. Mtg. - 8/9/89
Mr. Dean said it may be a good idea to change the language in
that area to include the fact that giving false statements is a
misdemeanor.
Pat Rickert stated that any appeal process should be a function
of the City staff rather than going back to the City Council each
time.
Mr. Erskine indicated it is an infrequent occurrence for an
appeal to go before the Council.
•
A committee member asked how many of the rentals the City has a
problem with.
Discussion was held regarding how many rental properties are
problems.
Mr. Prosser indicated that approximately 20% were problems; 60%
are adequate, but have some problems that may develop into costly
items if not corrected; and 20% with no problems.
Mr. Erskine stated that most owners are very responsible and want
the problems corrected as much as the City.
E
Page 10
• Prop. Maint. Mtg. - 8/9/89
Mr. Rickert asked what type of penalty the City can use to
control the absentee property owner and repeat offender.
Mr. Erskine responded: (1) Prosecute as a criminal offense
(2) Prosecute as a civil case
(3) License revocation.
He indicated the staff understands the concern about the building
staying vacant if the owner is put out of business. He stated
most owners respond quickly when notified to correct problems.
• Mr. Prosser indicated that no follow-up procedure is available
right now. The city is looking at the development of some type
of housing code.
Mr. Rickert asked if the inspections would require substantial
follow-up work.
Mr. Erskine stated that the fee would cover this expense.
Mr. Prosser said that it is built into the estimate cost of the
program, especially during that first year.
0
Page 11
Prop. Maint. Mtg. - 8/9/89
Mr. Little stated that he noticed St. Louis Park has a sliding
scale fee based on the number of buildings and also the number of
units. He asked if there was consideration given to a sliding
fee scale.
Mr. Prosser said that St. Louis Park wasn't real satisfied with
that basis.
Ken Kunz said that the major concern of most building owners is
the cost of $7.50/unit and $50/building. He indicated they would
• like to have input to reduce the cost and a compromise of a two
year inspection.
Chairman Harms stated that the ordinance will be reviewed at this
time and any suggested changes would be voted upon.
Motion and second to amend Subdivision 2 to make registration
required instead of license required.
Mr. Lindstrom said that there would not be a requirement for a
regular inspection, but Police and Fire would have authority to
inspect buildings and to require them to submit same information.
He suggested obtaining the name of the owner and tenants along
is with the registration.
Page 12
Prop. Maint. Mtg. - 8/9/89
Chairman Harms commented that the information about who owns the
property can be obtained through the license application. He
stated that if there is no license, there is no ability to
inspect inside the buildings. He said there is a need to have
the ability to revoke the license.
Mr. Lindstrom said could make it a misdemeanor not to register so
citation can be issued and secondly, the City can inspect whether
license or registration.
Mr. Kunz commented that it puts the burden on the landlord while
it should also be as much the tenants responsibility. He
supported the idea of identifying the tenants so that landlords
have documentation for evictions.
Mr. Prosser emphasized that this would be a change of
philosophical view.
John Chell asked if any other cities have approached,this through
registration rather than licensing.
Mr. Prosser said that Minneapolis does.
is
Page 13
Prop. Maint. Mtg. - 8/9/89
Rev. Chell said that he favors having as much information about
tenants as possible but stated concern about the rights of
tenants. He advocated increased inspections over the existing
program.
Chairman Harms said the fundamental advantage over registration
is that a license can be revoked if there is a problem.
Motion failed 2-7.
Motion and second that in Subdivision 2 language be added to
• indicate that the license issued is conditional, subject to
inspection and if not in compliance with code, license will be
revoked.
Motion carried 8-1.
Subdivision 3 (1):
Motion and second to add "or legally constituted agent" following
the word "owner" in the first sentence.
Motion carried 9-0.
0
Page 14
Prop. Maint. Mtg. - 8/9/89
Subdivision 3 (2):
Motion to add the requirement that application be subscribed and
sworn (notary). After discussion, it was decided that it would
be a violation if false statements are given on the application.
Motion failed for lack of a second.
Mr. Erskine indicated that there is a statute that makes it a
misdemeanor for anyone giving false information at the time of
application for a license.
Q Chairman Harms recommended that the Council review the form of
the application in connection with the ordinance itself.
Motion and second that the following items be included as a part
of the licensing requirements:
A - Include names of partners
B - Corporation shareholders names
C - Names of officers of corporation
D - Name of individuals charged with responsibility
of maintenance and management of the premises
and additionally, that an occupancy registry be
0 part of the registration.
?_.
Page 15
• Prop. Maint. Mtg. - 8/9/89
Mr. Seltz questioned whether it was necessary to have the
shareholders names and stated concern that the registry might be
an invasion of privacy.
Mr. Lindstrom felt the list of shareholders is a way of finding
those who really own the property.
Motion and second to amend the original motion to reflect that
instead of filing a register of tenants, it require the name of
someone who would maintain that information and who could be
0 called.
Mr. Lindstrom indicated that he didn't want City Hall to be in
charge of maintaining the registry but only retain it in a file
to be updated by the owner.
Bernie Mittelsteadt asked if this information would be available
to the public.
Mr. Prosser said that if this was available to the public, the
City would be required by law to furnish the information to
anyone, which may create some problems.
The motion on the floor was called to a vote.
0 Motion carried 7-1 (one abstained).
Page 16
• Prop. Maint. Mtg. - 8/9/89
Vote was then taken on the motion as a whole to include the
amended portion.
Motion carried 8-0 (one abstained).
Subdivision 9:
Motion and second to include the language that "any person who
violates any provisions of this section or makes a knowingly
false statement in the application will be guilty of a
misdemeanor."
I* Motion carried 9-0.
Subdivision 3 (2):
Motion and second to add language to indicate that making a false
statement at the time of application an result in revocation of
license.
Motion carried 9-0.
Mr. Mittelsteadt stated that before issuance of license, a
building official will make sure it complies with the code.
The conditional license is same as a final license except that if
inspection is made while a conditional license, the license could
0 be revoked immediately.
Page 17
• Prop. Maint. Mtg. - 8/9/89
John Dean suggested that staff could investigate a provision to
make it clear that there is no mandate for early inspection.
Subdivision 3 (4):
Motion and second to have the staff make change in language to
make it clear that there need not be inspections each year in
order for licenses to be valid.
Motion carried 9-0.
. Subdivision 6:
Motion to add the language that license should be conspicuously,
prominently and publicly displayed in the building.
Mr. Kunz said there could be a problem of the license being
constantly knocked down or taken off. Mr. Prosser said that the
City wants the license to be readily available.
Motion failed for lack of a second.
Subdivision 7 - FEES:
Mr. Seltz remarked that landlords have problems with real estate
taxes, costs to maintain the buildings and now the costs of this
necessary and important ordinance. How do we do this without
0 burdening the landlord?
Page 18
Prop. Maint. Mtg. - 8/9/89
Mr. Mittelsteadt asked the difference between what the City gets
on taxes on non-homestead property vs. homestead property.
Mr. Prosser said that non-homestead would pay more in taxes than
homestead, but the City doesn't receive more.
Mr. Lindstrom said the problems are largely in single family
homes rather than multiple unit buildings. He suggested the use
of the Police Auxiliary to perform inspections.
Mr. Little said that fees are predicated on the staff estimates
of cost and it's not a profit making ordinance. He asked how can
we have passed everything else and not agree on the inspection
fees.
Mr. Prosser said the fees are based on an average of one
inspection every year.
Chairman Harms indicated that the real concern is the cost. If
the committee favors the ordinance, there is a way to generate
fees, either out of general tax or assessing the landlords.
0
Page 19
Prop. Maint. Mtg. - 8/9/89
Mr. Seltz commented that the ordinance is a benefit to the entire
community and the cost should be passed on to the entire
community.
Mr. Prosser said the State limits our taxing ability. He
indicated the City dos not have the tax capacity to support this
program.
Mr. Mittelsteadt commented that the Fire Department is currently
conducting inspections.
• Mr. Erskine responded that the Fire Department inspects for fire
code violations and are not qualified to do other code
violations.
John Chell asked how it is to be monitored.
Chairman Harms said that a subdivision of the ordinance requires
the Council to receive a report on activities.
Mr. Prosser added that the city would audit and do an analysis of
charges to determine that fees are appropriate.
0
Page 20
16 Prop. Maint. Mtg. - 8/9/89
Mr. Prosser indicated the real issue is whether or not to try to
pay for this out of general property taxes or a fee. He stated
the fee has to be set to recover the costs of the service.
Mr. Kunz said that the Brooklyn Center fees are for a two year
license.
Motion and second to use the Brooklyn Center fee schedule.
Motion failed.
• Chairman Harms indicated that he was against choosing fees from
another city when the staff have proposed a schedule according to
our needs.
Subdivision 10 - REPORT:
Motion and second that the report due date change from January 1,
1995, to January 1, 1992.
Motion carried 9-0.
0
Page 21
Prop. Maint. Mtg. - 8/9/89
Part II, Subdivision 3 - ISSUANCE OF CERTIFICATE.
A comment was made that when police and fire are in the building,
they will look for other violations.
It was recommended to City Council to have inspectors look for
every violation.
Mr. Erskine said that if the inspector observes violations not
related to this ordinance, the city can return but may have to
• get a warrant.
Part I, Subdivision 1 (5) - "Housing Code":
Motion and second to add the following words to end of sentence:
"_...and shall also mean for the purposes of this section all
other codes and regulations of the City pertaining to the use and
occupancy of the licensed premises."
Motion carried 9-0.
The committee recommended to the City Council that consideration
be given to a greater distribution of the program costs to be
0 born by the point of sale fee.
xerl"
Page 22
• Prop. Maint. Mtg. - 8/9/89
Chairman Harms stated that the staff will prepare a proposed
ordinance that incorporates the committee's changes and prepare
minutes of the meetings. These will be circulated to the members
of the committee before submission to Council. If the committee
wants to meet again to go over these things, it should.
Otherwise, Chairman Harms will put a cover letter on these
materials and circulate comments that the committee would like to
include. After circulation, a single report will be prepared.
Mr. Prosser indicated that the earliest possible Council meeting
would be September 11th. It would most likely be the 25th of
September.
0
RICHFIELD
CHAMBER of
COMMERCE
6637 LYNDALE AVENUE SO.
RICHFIELD, MINN 55423
August 25 , 1989 Telephone: 866.5100
Mr. James Prosser city manager
Richfield city hall
6700 Portland Ave.
Richfield, Mn. 55+23
Dear Mr. Prosser:
The board of directors of the Richfield Chamber of Commerce-at the
board meeting of August 16, 1989,by unanimous vote, passed a motion
in favour of the adoption by the city of Richfieldof an ordinance
amendment that provides for the inspection and licensing of apart
-ment buildings and rental,houses, both multiple family and single
family.
The Chamber of Commerce thinks that an. ordinance amendment of this
nature will be effective in assuring a reasonable quality of maint
-tainence of properties and will be a safeguard against the deterier
?t3on of the community.
Cordially
John Hamilton, President
Richfield Chamber of Commerce
JH/j k
•
• RICHFIELD
CHAMBER of
COMMERCE
6637 LYNDALE AVENUE SO.
RICHFIELD, MINN 55423
August 25 1989 Telephone: 866-5100
Thomas H arms
Chair, Richfield property maint. comm.
6+00 Morgan ave. So.
Richfield, Mn. 55+23
Dear Mr. Harms:
The board of directors of the Richfield Chamber of Commerce at the
board meeting of August 16, 1989,by unanimous vote, passed a motion
in favour of the adoption by the city of Richfieldof an ordinance
amendment that provides for the inspection and licensing of apart
-ment buildings and rental.houses, both multiple family and single
family.
The Chamber of Commerce thinks that an. ordinance amendment of this
nature will be effective in assuring a reasonable quality of maint
-tainence of properties and will be 'a safeguard against the deterior
-Ation of the community.
Cordially
? ohn amilton, President
Richfield Chamber of Commerce
J71 j k
0
SEP 26 '89 14:21 HOLMES & GRAVEN
BILL NO. 1989
AMENDMENT TO CHAPM IV,
PART III OF THE ORDINANCE CODE
OF THE CITY OF RICHFIELD
CITY OF RICHFIELD DOES ORDAIN;
P. 2??
9/25/89
Chapter IV of the Ordinance Code of the City of Richfield entitled
"Building, Housing and Construction Regulations" is hereby amended in the
fallowing respect:
L The City Code is amended by adding new subsection 405.25 to read: .
405.25. INSPECTION AND LICENSING OF APARTMENT HOUSES
AND RENT HO.
Subd. 1. DEFINITIONS. For the purposes of this subsection and
subsection 485.26 the terms ed wed herein have the following meanings:
(1) "Apartment house" means a building containing three or
more dwelling units.
(2) "Apartment", "apartment unit" or "dwelling unit" means
a room or group of rooms located within a building.and forming a
single habitable unit with facilities which are used or intended to be
used for living, sleeping, cooking and eating by persons other than the
owner.
(3) "Rental home" means a one or two-family dwelling
which is occupied by persons other than the owner.
(4) "Family" -means one or more persons
0
dwelling unit and living as a single, nonprofit housekeePpin g u uxnit?, as
distinguished from a group occupying a hotel, club, fraternity or
sorority house. The term "family" does not include a group of
individuals, exceeding three in number, not related by blood,
marriage or adoption. The term "family" includes necessary
employees.
(5) "Housing Code" means 'subsections 405.01 through
405.23 of this code together with the Uniform Housing Code as
adopted by subsection 400.03 of this code, and shall also mean all
other codes and regulations of the City pertaining to the occupancy
and habitability of the licensed premises.
(8) All other definitions contained in subsection 405.01,
subdivisions 1-20 are incorporated in this subsection by reference and
made a part hereof.
n
U
SEP 26 '89 14:21 HOLMES & GRAVEN P.3 O "
(7) "Owner" means, with respect to all matters involving
the making of applications and the giving of notices$ the individuals
or entities holding legal and equitable title to the premises, or the
legally constituted agent designated by the Owner for such purposes.
Subd. 2.' LICENSE REQIIIRED.
(1) General Rule. It is unlawful for any person who is an
owner of an apartment tt house or an owner of a rental home to operate
such apartment house or rental home without first having obtained a
license under the provisions of this subsection.
(2) Exceptions . Apartment houses and rental homes which
are existing and in operation prior to March 1, 1990 may continue to
operate notwithstanding the requirement of paragraph (1) of this
Subdivision, provided a complete application therefor has been
submitted to the City prior to March 1, 1990 in accordance with
paragraph (1) of Subdivision 3 of this subsection. Such operation may
continue until a final determination is made by the City not to issue a
license.
Subd. 3. LICENSING PROCEDURE.
40
(1) lication: When Made. Prior to March 1, 1990, the
Owner of an apartment house or owner of a rental home shall apply to
the director of public safety for the license required by subdivision 2
of this subsection. Application shall be made on forms provided by
the city and accompanied by the initial fee required by subdivision 7
of this subsection. The owner of an apartment house or rental home
constructed after said date shall submit a license application prior to
actual occupancy of any apartment unit or rental home.
(2) Ac} lp ication: Contents. The application shall contain
the following i orma on together with such other information as the
director of public safety may require to assess compliance with the
housing code and this subsection.
(a) If the applicant is a partnership, the names and
addresses of each partner,
(b) If the applicant is a corporation, the names and
addresses of the majority shareholder, and the names
and addresses of the officers.
- - = - - - (c) The names, addresses and telephone numbers of
individuals responsible for the maintenance and
management of the premises.
(d) The names, addresses and telephone numbers of the
individuals responsible for keeping and maintaining the
tenant registers.
0
SEP 26 '89 14:22 HGLMES & GRAVEN
P.4
(3)- Issuance of Licenses. - If the director of public safety
• concludes as a result o t e ormation contained in the application
and other information available to the director of public safety, that
an apartment house or rental home appears to comply with
requirements of the housing code and this subsection, the director of
public safety shall issue the license. if the director of public safety
concludes as a result of the information contained in the application
and other information available to the director of public safety, that
an apartment house or rental home appears not to be in compliance
with the housing code and this subsection the director of public
safety shall order an immediate inspection to determine compliance.
If the immediate inspection discloses noncompliance, the applicant
shall have a 60 day period from receipt of notice of noncompliance to
correct the defects specified in the notice, .but only if the defects do
not create an imminent hazard. The director of public safety may, in
his discretion, authorize additional time for compliance. From the
date that the director has ordered an immediate inspection, no
occupancy of dwelling units then vacant, or which become vacant, is
permitted until a license has been issued. Apartment units within an
unlicensed apartment house for which a license application has been
made and which units are determined, based upon a review of the
application, and other information available to the director of public
safety, to be in compliance with the housing code may be occupied
provided that non-complying units within the apartment house do not
create an imminent hazard to the health and safety of persons in
occupied units. Such occupancy. may continue until a final
determination on the granting or denial of the license is taken by the
city.
(4) Denial: _ _Aooeal. In. any instance where the director of
public safety has denied an application for a license, the applicant
may appeal the decision to the city manager by delivering to the
manager a notice of appeal within ten (10) days of receipt by the
applicant of notice of the director of public safety's decision. In the
event the decision of the city manager sustains the decision of the
director of public saf ety in whole or in part, the applicant may appeal
such decision to the city council by delivering to the city clerk a
notice of appeal within ten (10) days of receipt by the applicant of
notice of the. city manager's decision. The decision of the city
council or any decision by the director of public safety or the city
manager which is not appealed in accordance with this paragraph
shall be deemed a final determination by the city.
Subd. 4. LICENSE: RENEWAL: TRANSFER. The term of a
license granted under this subset on one year from the date of issuance.
The licensee shall report to the director of public safety any material
changes in the identity of the Owner, including a change in the majority
shareholder or shareholders and officers in the case of corporations. The
license must be renewed annually thereafter. The license is transferable
upon application to. the director of public safety, and payment of the license
transfer fee by the prospective owner, provided that the apartment house or
rental home is in compliance with the housing code. The license shall
3
SEP 26 '89 14:23 HOLMES & GRAVEN
P.5
terminate if renewal or application for transfer is not made within 30 days
after transfer of ownership of the apartment house.
Subd. 5. LICENSES: SUSPENSION: REVOCATION. A license
issued or renewed un er his su ec on may 64 suspen upon a finding of
noncompliance with this subsection by the director of public safety, and
written notice to the licensee. Noncompliance shall include a determination
by the director of public safety, following inspection, that the premises are
in violation of the Housing Code. Upon faiLure of the licensee to comply
with the notice of violation, the license may be revoked or suspended in the
manner provided by subsection 1005.21 of this code. The license may also
be revoked or suspended upon a finding that the licensee made a materially
false statement in the application. Reinstatement of a suspended license
shall be accompanied by an amount equal to 506 of the license fee.
Issuance of anew license after, suspension or revocation shall be made in the
manner provided for obtaining an initial license.
. Subd.6. LICENSES: DISPLAY. Licenses issued under this
subsection shall be displayed on the premises of the apartment house or
rental home, wherever feasible and produced upon demand of a prospective
tenant, the director of public safety or his . authorized representative.
Except as otherwise provided in this subsection all provisions of subsections
1005.11 to 1005.23 of this code are applicable to licenses issued under this
subsection.
Subd.7. TENANT REGISTER. The licensee shall, as a
continuing obligation o its license, maintain' a current register of tenants
and other persons who have a lawful right to occupancy of apartments
within the apartment house. In its application, the licensee shaIl designate
the person or persons who will have possession of the register; and shall
promptly notify the director of public safety of any change of the identity,
address or telephone numbers of such persons. The register shall be
available for inspection by the director of public safety, or his designate, at
all times.
Subd. 8. INSPECTION. The licensee shall permit the director of .
public safety or his designate to enter upon the licensed premises for the
purpose of conducting inspections to verify compliance with the housing
code. Said inspections shall be made at such frequencies as the director of
public safety shall, in his sole judgment, deem appropriate and necessary.
Sabd. 9. FEES. The fees for licenses required by this subsection
are in the amounts estaMhed in Appendix D of this code. A license fee, .or
license transfer fee which is not paid on the date due shall be increased by a
106 penalty for each month or portion thereof during which said fee
remains unpaid.
Subd. 10. COMPLIANCE WITH MINNESOTA STATUTES. Nothing
in this subsection is intended to mode y or abrogate the rights o tenants of
apartments units or owners of apartment houses granted by Minnesota
Statutes Sections 566.18 to 566.33. The . city manager may e-Fgnate,
subject to city council approval, administrators to carry out the duties
assigned by the court pursuant to said statutes.
4
SEP 26 '89 14:23 HOLMES & GRAVEN
P.6
Subd. 11. REMEDIES. Any person who violates the provisions of
this - subsection or who a materially false statement in the
application, is guilty of a misdemeanor. In addition, the city may enforce
the provisions of this subsection in any court of competent jurisdiction in
law or equity.
Subd. 12. REPORT. Prior to January 1, 19922 the city manager
shall submit to the a tyy eounc:l a report on regulatory activities of the city
undertaken pursuant to this subsection. The report shall include: the
number of licenses granted; the number of rental homes, apartments and
apartment units licensed; recommended amendments to the ordinance;
recommended adjustments to city staff to ensure satisfactory enforcement;
a summary description of enforcement activities undertaken to enforce the
provisions of this subsection; and any other information or comments
deemed by the manager to be appropriate.
IL The eity code is amended by adding new Subsection 406.26 to read:
405.26. CERTIFICATE OP HOUSING MAINTENANCE COMPLIANCE
FOR SINGLE ANIY w w A Y H MOS.
Subd. 1. CERTIFICATE REQUIRED.
(1) No single or two family structure or dwelling unit which
is a part of a multiple dwelling located within the city may be
voluntarily conveyed for consideration by deed or contract for deed
after January 1, 1990, unless the person relinquishing ownership or
the agent of such person has first applied for and secured a
certificate of housing maintenance compliance.
(2) This subsection shall not apply to any apartment house
or rental home licensed under subsection 405.25 of this code, and
shall have no effect upon the provisions of law or other ordinances
related to the issuance of building permits.
Subd. 2. APPLICATION AND DMPECTION.
(1) Application for the certificate of housing maintenance
compliance shall be executed upon forms provided by the city and
accompanied by the initial fee established in Appendix D of this code.
(2) Upon receipt of a properly executed application the
director of public safety shall cause an inspection to be made of the
premises to ensure that the structure is in compliance with applicable
provisions of subsections 405.01 through 405.23 of this code (the
housing maintenance code).
Subd. 3. ISSUANCE OF CERTIFICATE. If the structure is in
compliance with the req rements o the ou g maintenance code, a
certificate shall be issued to the person relinquishing ownership or the agent
thereof, stating that the structure has been inspected and is in compliance
with the housing maintenance code. During the period of one year following
5
SEP 26 '89 14:24 HOLMES & GRAVEN P,7 ?l0 U
Its issuance, a certificate may be accepted by the city in satisfaction of the
• requirements of this subsection without the need for a second inspection.
Subd. 4. OCCUPANCY PROHIBUED. The person relinquishing
ownership or their d gnated agent sh obtain the certificate from the
city prior to transfer of ownership. The prospective owner shall not occupy
the structure prior to issuance of the certificate, except pursuant to
subdivision 5.
Subd. S. OCCUPANCY. A person may be granted permission to
occupy a dwelling prior to issuance of the certificate upon the approval of
the director of public saf ety. . The approval shall be based upon undue
hardship or other extraordinary or exceptional circumstances, provided that
no such occupancy constitutes an immediate hazard. Approval shall not be
given until the prospective owner or designated agent has filed on forms.
supplied by the city, a statement of intent to cornply with the housing
maintenance code. Compliance dates in the statement of intent to comply
shall be established by the director of public safety. Fad.ure to make the
required corrections by the compliance dates shall constitute a violation of
this code and shall render void any approval given pursuant to this
subdivision.
Subd. 6. ADDITIONAL INSPECTIONS. If following the issuance
of a certificate, the ty finds by complaint or otherwise that the structure
may be maintained in a substandard manner, a new inspection will be
required in order to satisfy the requirements of this subsection.
• Subd. 7. NO WARRANTY BY. CITY. By enacting and
undertaking to enforce. t su ection neither t -fie city nor its council,
agents or. employers warrant or guarantee the safety, fitness or suitability
of any dwelling in the city, _and any representation to the contrary by any
person is a misdemeanor.. Purchasers or occupants should take whatever
steps they deem appropriate to protect their interests, health, safety.and
welfare prior to purchase or occupancy of the dwelling, without reliance on
this certificate. A warning in substantiaIIy the foregoing language shall be
printed on the face of the. certificate.
Subd. 8'. REPORT.. Prior to January 1,. 19927 the city manager
shall submit to the c? eo'ty uncil s report on the regulatory activities of the
city undertaken pursuant to this subsection. The report shall include: the
number of certificates issued; recommended amendments to the ordinance;
recommended adjustments to city staff to ensure adequate enforcement; a
summary description of enforcement activities undertaken to enforce the
provisions of this section; and any other information or comments deemed
by the manager to be appropriate.
Subd. 9. REMEDIES. Any person who violates the provisions of
this subsection, or who makes a knowingly false statement in the
application, is guilty of a misdemeanor. In addition, the city may enforce
the provisions of this section in any court of competent jurisdiction in law or
equity.
i M. This ordinance is effective on March 1, 1990.
t
RC145-938
6
•
Inspection Fee Schedule for Rental Licensing
and Point of Sale Ordinance
Type Number Fee Revenue
%Apartment Buildings 200 $50.00 $ 4,000.00*
(the building itself,
laundry, storage,
furnace rooms, cor-
ridors, stairs)
Apartment Units 4575 7.50 34,312.00
Duplexes 374 50.00 18,700.00
1-Family 500 50.00 25,000.00
1-Family 500 50.00 25,000.00
(Point of sale)
TOTAL $107,012.00
• *The first four apartment units would be included in this
fee, so that am ount is deducted here and included in the
next figure.
I1
SEP 26 '89 14:21 HOLMES & GRAVEN P.2
9/25/89
BILL NO. 19$8
AMENDMENT TO CHAPTER IVf
PART III OF THE ORDINANCE CODR
OP THE CITY OF RICHFIELD
CFTY OF RICHFIELD DOES ORT?AINi
Chapter IV of the Ordinance Code of the City of Richfield entitled
"Building, Housing and Construction Regulations" is hereby amended in the
following respect:
L The City Code Is amended by adding new subsection 405.25 to read: .
405.25. INSPECTION AND LICENSING OF APARTMENT HOUSES
AND RENTA HO .
Subd. 1. DEFINITIONS. For the purposes of this subsection and
subsection 405.26 the terms de med herein have the following meanings=
(1) "Apartment house" means a building containing three or
more dwelling units.
• (2) "Apartment", "apartment unit" or "dwelling unit" means.
a room or 'group of rooms located within a budding and forming a
single habitable unit with facilities which are used or intended to be
used for living, sleeping, cooking and eating by persons other than the
owner.
(3) "Rental Home" means a one or two-family dwelling
which is occupied by persons other than the owner.
(4) "Family" .means one or more 'persons occupying a
dwelling unit and living as a single, nonprofit housekeeping unit, as
distinguished from a group occupying a hotel, chub, fraternity or
sorority house. The term "family" does not include a group of
individuals, exceeding three in number, not related by blood,
marriage or adoption. The term "family" includes necessary
employees.
(5) "Horsing Code". means subsections 405.01 through
405.23 of this code together with the Uniform Housing Code as
adopted by subsection 400.03 of this code, and shall also mean all
other codes and regulations of the City pertaining to the occupancy
and habitability of the licensed premises.
{$) All other definitions contained in subsection 405.01,
subdivisions 1-20 are incorporated in this. subsection by reference and
made a part hereof.
SEP 26 189 14:21 HOLMES & GRAVEN P.3 C
(7) "Owner" means, with respect to all matters involving
'the making of applications and the giving of notices, the individuals
• or entities holding legal and equitable title to the premises, or the
legally constituted agent designated by the Owner for such purposes.
Subd. 2. LICENSE RERUIRED.
(1) General Rule. It is unlawful for any person who is an
owner of an apartment house or an owner of a rental home to operate
such apartment house or rental home without first having obtained a
license under the provisions of this subsection.
(2) Exce tions. Apartment houses and rental homes which
are existing and in operation prior to March 1, 1990 may continue to
operate notwithstanding the requirement of pari agraph (1) of this
Subdivision, provided a complete application therefor has been
submitted to the City prior to March 1, 1990 in accordance with
paragraph (1) of Subdivision 3 of this subsection. Such operation may
continue until a final determination is made by the City not to issue a
license.
Subd. 3. LICENSING PROCEDURE.
(1) . Application: When Made. Prior to March 1, 1990, the
owner of an apartment house or owner of a rental home shalt apply to
the director of public safety for the license required by subdivision 2
of this subsection. Application shall be made on forms provided by
• the city and accompanied by the initial fee required by subdivision 7
of this subsection. The owner of an apartment house or rental home
constructed after said date shall submit a license application prior to
actual occupancy of any apartment unit or rental home.
(2) ieation: Contents. The application shall contain
the following information together with such other information as the
director of public safety may require to assess compliance with the
housing code and this subsection.
(a) If the applicant is a partnership, the names and
addresses of each partner,
(b) If the applicant is a corporation, the names and
addresses of the majority shareholder, and the names
and addresses of the officers.
-. -- - - = - -- - (c) The names; addresses and telephone numbers of
individuals responsible for the maintenance and
management of the premises.
(d) The names, addresses and telephone numbers of the
individuals responsible for keeping and maintaining the
tenant registers.
.7
SEP 26 '89 14:22 HOLMES & GRAVEN P.4
W- Usuance of Licenses. If the director of public safety
concludes as a result o e orrnation contained in the application
and other information available to the director of public safety, that
an apartment house or rental home appears to comply with
requirements of the housing code and this subsection, the director of
public safety shall issue the license. If the director of public safety
concludes as a result of the information contained in the application
and other information available to the director of public safety, that
an apartment house or rental home appears not to be in compliance
with the housing code and this subsection the director of public
safety shall order an immediate inspection to determine compliance.
If the immediate inspection discloses noncompliance, the applicant
shall have a 60 day period from receipt of notice of noncompliance to
correct the defects specified in the notice, .but only if the defects do
not create an imminent hazard. The director of public safety may, in
his discretion, authorize additional time for compliance. From the
date that the director has ordered an immediate inspection, no
occupancy of dwelling units then vacant, or which become vacant, is
permitted until a license has been issued. Apartment units within an
unlicensed apartm ent 'house for which a license application has been
made and which units are determined, based. upon a review of the
application, and other information available to the director of public
safety, to be in compliance with the housing code may be occupied
provided that non-complying units within the apartment house do not
create an imminent hazard to the health and safety of persons in
occupied units. Such occupancy , may continue until a final
determination on the granting or denial of the license is taken by the
city.
(4) Denial' &2-.al. In any instance where the director of
public safety hashed an application for a license the applicant
may appeal the decision to the city. manager by delivering to the
manager a notice of appeal within ten (10) days of receipt by the
applicant of notice of the director of public safety's decision. In the
event the decision of the city manager sustains the decision of the
director of public safety in whole or in part, the applicant may appeal
such decision to the city council by delivering to the city clerk a
notice of appeal within ten (10) days of receipt by the applicant of
notice of the. city manager's decision. The decision of the city
council or any decision by the director of public safety or the city
manager which is not appealed in accordance with this paragraph
shall be deemed a final determination by the city.
Subd. 4. LICENSE: RENEWAL: TRANSFER. The term of a
license granted under this subsection Is one year from t e date of issuance.
The licensee shall report to the director of public safety any material
changes in the identity of the Owner, including a change in the majority
shareholder or shareholders and officers in the case of corporations. The
license must be renewed annually thereafter. The license is transferable
upon application to the director of public safety, and payment of the license
transfer fee by the prospective owner, provided that the apartment house or
rental home is in compliance.with the housing code. The license shall
•
3
SEP 26 '89 1423 HOLMES & GRAVEN P.5?
terminate if renewal or application for transfer is not made within 34 days
after transfer of ownership of the apartment house.
• Subd. S. LICENSES: SUSPENSION: REVOCATION. A license
issued or renewed un er s su a on may suspen upon a finding of
noncompliance with this subsection by the director of public safety, and
written notice to the licensee. Noncompliance shall include a determination
by the director. of public safety, following inspection, that the premises are
in violation of the Housing Code. Upon failure of the licensee to comply
with the notice of violation, the license may be revoked or suspended in the
manner provided by subsection ' 1005.21 of this code. The license may also
be revoked or suspended upon a finding that the licensee made a materially
false statement in the application. Reinstatement of a suspended license
shall be accompanied by an amount equal to 50% of the license fee.
Issuance of anew license after suspension or revocation shall be made in the
manner provided for obtaining an initial license.
. Subd. 6. LICENSES: DISPLAY. . Licenses issued under this
subsection shall' be displayed on the premises of the apartment house or
rental home, wherever feasible and produced upon demand of a prospective
tenant, the director of public safety or his authorized representative.
Except as otherwise provided in this subsection ail provisions of subsections
1045.11 to 1005.23 of this code are applicable to licenses issued under this
subsection.
Subd. T. TENANT REGISTER. The licensee shall, as a
• continuing obligation o its cease, maintain a current register of tenants
and other persons who have a lawful right to occupancy of apartments
within the apartment house. In its application, the licensee shall designate
the person or persons who will have possession of the register; and shall
promptly notify the director of public safety of any change of the identity,
address or telephone numbers of such persons. The register shall be
available for inspection by the director of public safety, or his designate, at
all times.
Subd. 8. INSPECTION. The licensee shall. permit the director of .
public safety or his designate to enter upon the. licensed promises for the
purpose of conducting inspections to verify compliance with the housing
code. Said inspections shall be made at such frequencies as the director of
public safety shall, in his sole judgment, deem appropriate and necessary.
Subd. •9. FEES. The fees for licenses required by this subsection
are in the amounts estal shed in Appendix D of this code. A license fee, or
license transfer fee which is not paid on the date due shall be increased by a
10% penalty for each month or portion thereof during which said fee
remains unpaid.
Subd. 10. COMPLIANCE WITH MINNESO'T'A STATUTES. Nothing
in this subsection is intended to moll y or abrogate the iqgfig o tenants of
apartments units or owners of apartment houses, granted by Minnesota
Statutes Sections 566.18 to 566.33. The . city manager may e?gnate,
iu_ jec to city council approval, administrators to carry out the duties
assigned by the court pursuant to said statutes.
4
I
SEP 26 '89 14:23 HOLMES & GRAVEN
P. 6 A ( ,?
Subd. 11. REMEDIES. Any person who violates the provisions of
this ' subsection or who makes a materially. raise statement in the
application, is guilty of a misdemeanor. In addition, the city may enforce
the provisions of this subsection in any court of competent jurisdiction in
law or equity.
Subd. 12. REPORT. Prior to January 1, 1992, the city manager
shall submit to the a ty couneil a report on regulatory activities of the city
undertaken pursuant to this subsection. The report shall include: the
number of licenses granted; the number of rental homes, apartments and
apartment units licensed; recommended amendments to the 'ordinance;
recommended adjustments to city staff to ensure satisfactory enforcement;
a summary description of enforcement activities undertaken. to enforce the
provisions of this subsection; and any other, information or comments
deemed by the manager to be appropriate.
IL The city code is amended by adding new Subsection 405.26 to read:
405.25.
OF
Subd. 1. CERTIFICATE REQUIRED.
(1) No single or two family structure or dwelling unit which
is a. part of a multiple .dwelling located within the city may be
voluntarily conveyed for consideration by deed or contract for deed
after January 1, 1990, unless the person relinquishing ownership or
the agent of such person has first applied for and secured a
certificate of housing maintenance compliance.
(2) This subsection shall not apply to any apartment house
or rental home licensed under subsection 445.25 of this code, and
shall have no effect upon the provisions of law or other ordinances
related to the issuance of building permits.
Subd. 2. APPLICATION AND INSPECTION.
(1) Application for the certificate of housing maintenance
compliance shall be executed upon forms provided by the city and
accompanied by the initial fee established in Appendix D of this code.
(2) Upon receipt of a properly executed application the
director of public safety shall cause an inspection to be made of the
premises to ensure that the structure is in compliance with applicable
provisions of subsections 445.01 through 405.23 of this code (the
housing maintenance code).
Subd. 3. ISSUANCE OF CERTIFICATE. ' If the structure is in
compliance with the req cements o the u g maintenance code, a
certificate shall be issued to the person relinquishing ownership or the agent
thereof, stating that the structure has been inspected and is in compliance
with the housing maintenance. code. During the period of one year following
5
SEP 26 '89 14:24 HOLMES & GRAVEN
P.?
Its Issuance, a certificate may be accepted by the city in satisfaction of the
requirements of this subsection without the need'for a second inspection.
Subd. 4. OCCUPANCY PROHIBITED. The person relinquishing
ownership or their de grated agent sfiall a air the certificate from the
city prior to transfer of ownership. The prospective owner shall not occupy
the structure prior to issuance of the certificate, except pursuant to
subdivision 5.
Subd. S. . OCCUPANCY. A person may be granted permission to
occupy a dwelling prior to issuance of the certificate upon the approval of
the director of public safety. The approval shall be based upon undue
hardship or other extraordinary or exceptional circumstances, provided that
no such occupancy constitutes an, immediate hazard. Approval shall not be
given until the prospective owner or designated agent has filed on forms
supplied by the city,,- a statement of intent to comply with the housing
maintenance code. Compliance dates in the statement of Went to comply
shall be established by the director of public safety. Failure to make the
required corrections by the compliance dates shall constitute a violation of
this code - and shall render void any approval given pursuant to this
subdivision.
Subd. 6.' ADDITIONAL INSPECTIONS. If following the issuance
of a certificate, the ty finds by complaint or otherwise that the structure
may be maintained in a. substandard manner, a new inspection will be
required in order to satisfy the requirements of this subsection.
• Subd. 7. NO WARRANTY BY. CITY. By enacting and
undertaking to enforce. t subsection neither the city nor its council,
agents or. employers warrant or guarantee the safety, fitness or suitability
of any dwelling in the city, .and any representation to the contrary, by any
person is a misdemeanor.. Purchasers or occupants should take whatever
steps they deem appropriate to protect their interests, health, safety.and
welfare prior to purchase or occupancy of the dwelling, without reliance on
this certificate. A warning in substantially the foregoing language shall be
printed on the face of the. certificate.
Subd. 8. REPORT.. Prior to January. 1,. 199% the. city manager
shall submit to the c?'t'ty""-douncil a report on the regulatory activities of the
city undertaken pursuant, to this subsection. The report shalt include; the
number of certificates issued; recommended amendments to the ordinance;
recommended adjustments to city staff to ensure adequate enforcement; a
summary description of enforcement activities undertaken to enforce the
provisions of this section; and any other information or comments deemed
by the manager to be appropriate.
Subd. 9. REMEDIES. Any person who 'violates . the provisions of
this subsection, or who makes a knowingly false statement. in the
application, is guilty of a misdemeanor. In addition, the city may enforce
the provisions of this section in any.court of competent jurisdiction in law or
equity.
M. 'I'ltis ordinance is effective on March 1, 1990.
RC145-838
6
LIST OF PEOPLE WHO SPOKE AT THE 9/25/89 CITY COUNCIL MEETING ON
' THE CREDIT UNION REZONING ISSUE.
KEN COLMARK 6512 21ST AVE. SO.
MICHELLE MCDONALD ATTORNEY REPRESENTING 2224-2228 E. 66TH ST.
ESTELLE OBERMEYER OWNER OF 2224-2228 E. 66TH ST.
RICHARD ANDERSON 6524 23RD AVE. SO.
GEORGE WILHARM OWNER OF 6517-19 22ND AVE. SO.
SHERRY SPICZYNSKI 6529 STANDISH AVE. SO..
DENISE LEEZER 2224 E. 66TH ST.
JEAN ASLESON 6511 20TH AVE. SO.
JOHN KENEALEY 6400 BLAISDELL AVE. SO.
MIKE GALLAGHER 6313 20TH AVE. SO.
JUDY BERGREN 6506 23RD AVE. SO.
LAWRENCE WOZNICZKA 6744 WENTWORTH AVE. SO.
DICK FRANZMEIER 7532 GARFIELD AVE. SO. RICHFIELD CREDIT UNION
0
LIST OF PEOPLE WHO SPOKE AT THE 9/25/89 CITY COUNCIL MEETING ON
Is THE CREDIT UNION REZONING ISSUE.
KEN COLMARK 6512 21ST AVE. SO.
MICHELLE MCDONALD ATTORNEY REPRESENTING 2224-2228 E. 66TH ST.
ESTELLE OBERMEYER OWNER OF 2224-2228 E. 66TH ST.
RICHARD ANDERSON 6524 23RD AVE. SO.
GEORGE WILHARM OWNER OF 6517-19 22ND AVE. SO.
SHERRY SPICZYNSKI 6529 STANDISH AVE. SO..
DENISE LEEZER 2224 E. 66TH ST.
JEAN ASLESON 6511 20TH AVE. SO.
JOHN KENEALEY 6400 BLAISDELL AVE. SO.
MIKE GALLAGHER 6313 20TH AVE. SO.
JUDY BERGREN 6506 23RD AVE. SO.
0 LAWRENCE WOZNICZKA 6744 WENTWORTH AVE. SO.
DICK FRANZMEIER 7532 GARFIELD AVE. SO. RICHFIELD CREDIT UNION
E
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Council Letter No. 230-A
Agenda, October 9, 1989
Issue Statement:
Second reading consideration of an ordinance to rezone the
property located at 2232-2236 East 66th Street to "C-2" general
commercial district.
Background:
Richfield Credit Union has requested the rezoning of 2232-2236
East 66th Street to "C-2" general commercial district, in order
to allow the construction of a financial institution. Currently,
the eastern two parcels are vacant and a small single family home
is located on the western parcel.
Petitions in favor of the rezoning have been submitted; however,
a number of property owners have also expressed opposition to the
rezoning.
The Planning Commission recommended approval of the Credit Union
request on July 25, 1989.
On September 25, 1989 the City Council gave first reading to an
ordinance rezoning the Credit Union property and scheduling the
second reading and public hearing for October 9, 1989. Approval
• given on the first reading was conditioned upon an opinion by the
City Attorney considering the sufficiency of the petition which
initiated the rezoning in this case. The City Attorney's written
opinion, which is attached, indicates that the petition was
insufficient. The petitioner, Richfield Credit Union, was
advised of this insufficiency. The Credit Union has submitted a
petition with additional signatures to satisfy the ordinance
requirements.
Recommended Motion:
Conduct a public hearing for an ordinance to rezone the property
at 2232-2236 East 66th Street to "C-2", general commercial
district and approve second reading of the ordinance.
Basis of Recommendation:
1. The Planning Commission voted 7-1 to recommend approval.
(The Council letter dated September 25, 1989, incorrectly
stated a 7-0 vote.)
2. Two of the three lots have been vacant for some period of
time as residentially zoned property.
3. The 66th Street corridor has been planned as a medium
density buffer across the entire city. Changes that have
occurred on 66th Street in the past several years have all
increased density or intensity of use. Some of these
changes west of Cedar include the chiropractic office and
the doll museum west of 18th Avenue and the apartment
building at the Mount Calvary Church. The CDP building and
the City liquor store also influence the change.
4. The site is located immediately west of MAC property. To
the south are athletic fields and southwest is the golf
course of the City. To the west of the site are two
fourplexes and to the north is a single family home owned
or optioned by the Credit Union. The Richfield Evangelical
Free Church is located just west of TH77 on 66th Street.
In the next block, there are two commercial buildings that
housed NECO and North Star Bumper Exchange. At least part
of this is now for lease. Mike's Frame Service was
approved at 1916 E. 66th Street in 1985 but does not appear
to be in business at this time. The next several blocks on
66th include apartment buildings and two single family
residences. The remainder of NFT is generally single
family. A proposal to permit a heating/air conditioning
business as a home occupation at 20th Avenue and 65th
Street was rejected in 1989.
5. On 66th Street east of TH77, there are several different
zoning designations. The westerly two blocks are zoned
commercial and the remainder is MR, MR-2 and single family
residential. The two lots west of the subject site are
zoned MR-2.
• 6. Several plans and developments impact this area. The
mega mall will substantially increase traffic on TH77 and
the state has a plan in progress looking at needed changes
to accommodate such. The Transportation Guidelines for
the City show 66th Street and Standish Avenue.as a minor
arterial. This is less than a half block from the subject
site. The various airport studies have no short term
effect on this property. Such proposals as the N-S runway
and the Met Council chairman's statement that the whole
City could be taken for the airport are totally rejected by
the City as unfounded. The TH77/New Ford Town Study Area
plan suggests non residential use for NFT but has not been
officially adopted by the City Council. The present
Comprehensive Plan indicates a medium density buffer use
for this area. That does not include C-Z uses.
7. A special survey form has gone out to all residents of NFT
and the results should be available in the next several
weeks. Expressed sentiment at the public meetings and by
phone and letter to planning staff has been directed in
large part against aircraft noise and its impact on the
living environment.
8. Current noise exposure maps indicated that the subject site
is in the 70-74 Ldn category. (Ldn means the day-night
average level, or the 24-hour equivalent continuous sound
\S level from midnight to midnight, obtained after the
addition of 10 dBA to sound levels measured from 10 p.m.
to 7 a.m.) Single family, multiplex with individual
entrances and mobile homes are considered to be
incompatible uses in such noise zones. Office, commercial
and retail is considered consistent provided noise
reduction is built in during construction.
9. Buffering and screening is provided on the north and west
sides of the property including an 8 foot privacy fence.
There are numerous mature trees on the site in variable
condition. Applicant proposes to maintain as many trees
as possible and adding considerable plantings and shrubs
on all sides of the property. Staff has approved the
landscaping plan.
10. Objectors have noted that there will be increased traffic
at the end of 66th Street and immediately adjacent to the
apartment building. At this time, the only use of this
deadend road are the ball fields and archery range which
are heavily used only in the summer. Applicant has
indicated that most of their business is carried on
through the mails and that people who transact business
in person will probably continue, in large part, to utilize
the facility at Central School because of its convenience
to school personnel. The Central School site will stay
open. The parking lot will be located to the east along
the MAC side and the only traffic along the apartment
. building will be to the drive-up windows which are located
at the southwest corner of the building. An 8 foot fence
and other landscaping is provided as a buffer but cannot
totally screen all noise. A tenant with a young child
living in the apartment building suggested that a safety
hazard may be created because her child plays in the south
yard of the apartment building in the absence of any
playground on the property. Consideration should be given
to using an open weave type fence near the sidewalk in
place of the proposed solid four feet high fence at this
location even though there is ten feet between the fence
and the curb cut.
Alternative Recommendation:
Do not give second reading consideration to the proposed rezoning
ordnance. The denial would be based on the fact that most of the
properties on the block are single family residential uses.
Therefore, the proposal would be incompatible with the
neighborhood and the existing Comprehensive Plan.
'10
Discussion/Decision Mode:
Second reading and public hearing is scheduled
1989. Notice was published and mailed to the
owners per requirements.
Ci
JDP:sae
r1
U
for October 9,
adjoining property
submitted,
. Prosser
s
SEP 28 ;89 11:02 HOLMES & GRAVEN
MEMORANDUM
•
TO: Mayor and Council Members
FROM: BBD
DATE: September 27, 1989
RE: Richfield Credit Union Petition to Rezone Property
P. .2
At the September 25, 1989 City Council meeting I was directed to render
my legal opinion based upon the following facts:
1. Richfield Credit Union ("Applicant") is the owner of three contiguous
tracts of land having street addresses of 2232, 2234 and 2236 East 66th Street (the
"Land").
2. The Land is currently zoned "R": and was so zoned when neanired by
Applicant.
3. The Applicant wishes to construct a building on the Land to house its
activities. The proposed use may be conducted only in the C-2 districts of the
city.
4. The Applicant has tiled a petition seeking to rezone the Land from R
to C-2.
5. The petition was signed by Applicant and contained the signatures of
a number of the owners of property within 300 feet of the Land. However, the
petition was not signed by the owners 5096 of the property located within 300 feet
of the Land.
SEP 26 '89 11:02 HOLMES & GRAVEN P.3
Richfield Mayor and Council Members
September 27, 1999
Page 2
6. Subsection 545.11 subdivision 4 of the Richfield Ordinance Code
reads in relevant part:
Subd. 4. Initiation. An amendment to this code may be initiated by
the council, planning commission, or by the petition of the owners of
not less than fifty percent of the land proposed to be rezoned and by
the ownon. of at least fifty percent of the land within three hundred
feet of the land proposed to be rezoned. Properties owned by
federal, state, municipal entities or other political subdivisions shall
be excluded from any computation of the percentage of landowners
necessary for rezoning petitions initiated by landowners.
The question posed is whether the petition for rezoning is defective for
failure to comply with the requirements of the above quoted ordinance.
Discussion
Under any clear reading on the ordinance the petition is defective for
• failure to contain the requisite signatures. The petition can survive only if it is
determined that the requirement, itself, is improper.
A. Statutory Authority.
Minnesota Statutes, Section 462.557 subd. 4 contains the grant or authority
to cities to amend their zoning regulations. That section reads in relevant part:
Subd. 4. Amendments. An amendment to a zoning ordinance may be
initiated by the governing body, the planning agency, or by petition of
affected property owners as defined in the zoning ordinance.
(emphasis supplied)
Subsection 545.11 subd. 4, in effect, defines affected property owners to
mean the owners of the land sought to be rezoned and the owners of land within
300 feet of the land sought to be rezoned. Consequently, the city has, in
accordance with the authority granted it is the statute, defined the area of land
affected by rezonings.
SEP 28 '89 1103 HOLMES & GRAVEN. P>4
Richfield Mayor and Council Members
September 27, 1989
Page 3
B. Delegation.
If the requirement that the petition must be signed by the owners of at least
-50% of the land within 300 feet of the land sought to be rezoned is seen as a
delegation of the council's legislative power, then the requirement is improper. It
is a well settled principle in zoning law that a council may not base its land use
decisions on either the objections or the support of the neighborhood. (See, for
example, Minnetonka Congregation of Jehovah's Witnesses v. Svee, 226 N.W.2d 306
(197.5))
The Minnesota Supreme Court has twice had the opportunity to examine
petition requirements which are similar in nature to the provision contained in the
Richfield Code.
• In the first case, State v. City of Minneapolis, 97 N.W.2d 273' (1959) the
could voided a statutory "consent" provision which had been used by Minneapolis in
consideration of zoning matters. The provision required that rezoning initiated by
petition must include the written consent of the owners of 2/3rds of the property
within 100 feet of the property to be rezoned. The court's decision is contained in
the following language from the opinion:
We are of the opinion that the consent clause of S 462.18, as a
prerequisite to the exercise of the city council's legislature authority
to amend the comprehensive zoning ordinance, constitutes an
unlawful delegation of power to impose restrictions on real property,
and renders this provision of the statute invalid...; and that it is an
unreasonable exercise of the police power to rest control of property
uses in the hands of the owners of other property."
In the second cases O'Brien v. City of St. Paul, 1?3 K.W.2d 462 (1969), the
court took the opposite position and upheld a nearly identical provision contained in
the St. Paul ordinances. The court in O'Brien took the position that restrictions on
i
the use of land imposed through zoning benefit the surrounding property, and that
SEP 28 '89 11:03 HOLMES & GRAVEN P•5
Richfield Mayor and Council Members
September 27, 1989
Page 4
the consent merely serves as an indication by the owners of surrounding property of
their willingness to waive those benefits if the property is rezoned. Consequently,
according to the O'Brien court:
"(The ordinance provisions] do not vest in adjoining property owners
the power to legislate or impose restrictions but confer the right to
waive restrictions which have already been established by the city."
The Minnesota Supreme Court has had no further opportunity to consider
"consent" ordinances since the O'Brien decision. The Court did, however, in Luger
v. City of Burnsville, 295 N.W.2d 609 (1980) make the following observation:
"The [United States Supreme Court) in City of Eastlake
distinguished earlier cases in which it held that legislature power may
not be delegated 'to a narrow segment of the community' such as
those whose property abutted city streets or those who owned
. property within 400 feet of a proposed variant land use."
Whether this suggests that our court might overrule O'Brien in the next case
to come before it is sheer speculation. It is also very difficult to articulate any
meaningful distinction between the two cases which our court has decided on this
topic. As one commentator described it "some challenges have been successful,
some not."
The O'Brien case articulated several factors which were important to the
decision.
1. The consent requirement was authorized by statute.
2. The _property owner seeking rezoning purchased the land under its
existing zoning classification with no expectation that it could be changed.
3.- The consent requirement was a precondition to consideration of the
petition rather than a condition placed upon actual approval.
? l
put great reliance on that factor. It really does not seem to have much to do with
the "consent - waiver" issue.
C. onclusion
On the basis of the foregoing, it is my legal opinion that the provision
contained in subsection 545.11 subdivision 4 of the Code requiring that owner
initiated petitions for rezoning be signed by the owners of 5096 of the land sought
to be rezoned and the owners of $096 of the land within 300 feet Is valid and
enforceable. Consequently, it is further my opinion that the Credit Union petition,
which does not contain the requisite number of signatures is defective as an owner
initiated petition for rezoning.
It is important to note, however, that this opinion does not touch on the
merits of a rezoning of the Land, nor should it be construed to preclude
consideration of rezoning following a proper initiation in accordance with the
provisions of subsection 545.11 subdivision 4.
RC160-1
RICHFIELD
CHAMBER of
COMMERCE
6637 LYNDALE AVENUE SO.
RICHFIELD, MINN 55423
Telephone: 866.5100
TO: Mayor Quam, Counciloersons and City Manager
FROM: John Kenealey, Executive Secretary
RICHFIELD CHAMBER OF COMMERCE
DATE: September 25, 1989
The Board of Directors of the Richfield Chamber of Commerce passed
a resolution at their September 20th meeting recommending the
approval of the rezoning of three lots at 2232-2236 East 66th to
general commercial zoning to permit the construction of a new
facility by Richfield Schools Credit 'Union.
It is the position of the Chamber of Commerce that tPits would
permit a logical and reasonable development of this property.
•
61?hn Kenealey
Executive Secretar
Richfield Cham bee of Commerce
JK:ks
0
- I %, 0-// 1
REQUEST FOR REZONING FROM
MR-2
TO C-2
FOR PURPOSE OF ZONING CHANGE
Street Address: 2232-2236 East 66th Street
Legal Description: Lots 12, 13 and 14, Block 7, New Ford Town, together
with the South 1/2 of the vacated alley accruing thereto.
We, the undersigned, being owners of land within 300 feet of the
land described above, do hereby concur in this rezoning request.
Signature of
.l
Address
n
\J
Zvi.
*For purposes of determining i'
number of signatures to intit;
signatures may not be removed
returned to the Planning Divi;
6SJ3s4
E petition contains the proper
ate the rezoning process,
once a petition is signed and
aion.
5
REQUEST FOR REZONING FROM MR-2 TO f'-2
FOR PURPOSE OF ZONING CHANGE
Street Address: 2232-7236 66th StrpPt RAR
Legal Description: hots 12, 13 and 14, Block 7, New Ford Town, together
with the South 1/2 of the vacated alley accruing thereto.
We, the undersigned, being owners of land within 300 feet of the
land described above, do hereby concur in this rezoning request.
Signature of Owners*
Address
's a-
33
Sl
1]
*For purposes of determining if petition contains the proper
number of signatures to intitate the rezoning process,
signatures may not be removed once a petition is signed and
returned to the Planning Division.
REQUEST FOR REZONING FROM mg-2 TO C-2
FOR PURPOSE OF 7CNIN(, CHA TC7:
Street Address: 2212-2211 66th Strp-pt RaGt
Legal Description: Lots 12, 13 and 14, Block 7, New Ford'Town, together
with the South 1/2 of the vacated alley accruing thereto.
We, the undersigned, being owners of land within 300 feet of the
land described above, do hereby concur in this rezoning request.
Signature of Owners*
a.
0
Address
t-oo- L<
>?
C 516
*For purposes of determining if petition contains the proper
number of signatures to intitate the rezoning process,
signatures may not be removed once a petition is signed and
returned to the Planning Division.
U
H ?
aW
U
ON
J M
N
N
0
N N N N M N =
W
P1 fZ G
Nf IpNt15 ?' I > ? O
Ne N - M N N N N M N ?Y =
7nt 09037 'JAW Yt033
401401 I i •. ^'•, .'::. ..• ?i - -. A rl fl
46 4,41
40191 ?-?? •,?,••,?:•,••,'?••.• ? ?-?---? I Y. tl
vlrl r?l ? :.?+„?..r,„?r.,''?.r.,•.?..,r.,l?,.?.:? !?.-...? ? 401401
44 cl
------- - ---- -
At 21
"a Ol
101117 ' _ •'•,••••• -- 100i 3
sn?wnlo7 ??? ? ? II •: ;.}•. ?- i o9r71117
??? _ ? I tnawmp7
Vol
7IYI I ?.-. C= 7140 tI
ONt1rt0 I -. ..--
3At ONt11Y0. - j Owtlrt0
II 3AT Owt1A400.
Y'f AV HSIGN S
401 ? J ^.
Ylr
M
1011117 IEE It
• MO1 11,7
r.$ 1A1. --
1 r' S
WZ ,r _- ' 4040=
Sw3A31S ?° -•- 1 I
,r, 'S '3AV aN 043AI1S
]AV 13110711 7At 13110011
1130SItL ( _?' I 11 3 0 111140
w1Y041NI4 I•'????? 1
111.041N34
IYn40f1111 ?-_?. ? AYn YS111.
INYSt31..:?? . _ _ - - - - S '3Ad 1SLZ - -_ = lwtst31a
awwwo
ONtYO
1314040.1 '
131rrtw
0131lYt9
3AV
w71400,t C.[\-
1NtAN: ---Sid. , -`= =-- `\, N71Y01t
11 T ,[?, \ \ >v, ?C 1, 1NtA400
.013
1NOIna
Lmpt3w
?Ort4019
_ -- )rd - - lOloYwnN
110MY
1 p,
t9
wt9YOw __ -
1.9row
Y3A110 = 1.11 M0147M
Z
403A110
]AV fthle ]AT Wall*
NI3no
113SSnY ___ -i. --•-•? w73no
Ntp1Y311S _. - - - ? Nt 01Y7M$
StwoM1 it St
MOl.n I- - _- _ _ wOwl
Lftj)hllA
MYnOwSt4
3At 53:40771
-- - - - - - - - - 3Ar S311N1v
N N N N N N N N N , -. „ ,A N N N _
N N P
G O V O J ? W O ..P1 . . _ . . ? ? ? w O- -
J
a
2232 E. 66th ST.
COMPREHENSIVE DEVELOPMENT PLAN
INSTITUTIONAL
® MIXED LAND USE El
DMEDIUM DENSITY/BUFFER El PARKS
SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE N
•• • •" ?• ?•:.?* .a E. 6380 ST.
I
I I
I I
I I
I I
I i
I I
i 1
I I
? I
aT
E. 65T H ST
I rn N
6. I 61J >
> I > c
Y` I v
ii t t
E. 66TH ST.
T
1
(
1
1 1
T.
i 1
H
4t ?
> 1 N
3 >
0 1 Q
r
W p?
66
z 1
0 Eld Mll
I
4 1
?.Y
.r l ?.
1 ?
1
COMMERCIAL
WJVACANT
19 QUASI-PUBLIC
F• :.4
1
1
1
I
1
I
I
1
1
I
2232 E. 66th ST.
LAND USE
0 APARTMENTS El PARKS
DUPLEX Q?
SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE
N
T.
•
•
N
y
a
S
a
C
U
a a
I
?
?D r
A
I H
m
I
1
I
r
I
-i,?
I I
_ I I
r--- I
I i
I
I
I '11,~1; l• 'I R?s?,
rri
> I Nf 1 N
a I W .
o I a - a
W r
O? ?
O
N
=
0 1 ?_ 1 34 s,
I i I--
N ? N ?-
I
V'
-V AL
66TH ST.
2232 E. 66th ST.
ZONING
® C-2 GENERAL COMMERCIAL
1 INDUSTRIAL
El R RESIDENCE
E. 63RD ST.
I {
I I
I I
64TH ST.
lkft
I I xx
?Y
I ?
I 1 Y
I ?
I y
5TH ST.
I H
N H
W I W
' Q { Q
Q
S
" I m Q
W
U
ME
E. 66TH ST.
T
El MR MULTIPLE DWELLING
'? MR-1 2 FAMILY RESIDENCES
EIMR-2 3-16 UNIT RESIDENCES N
i
i
-- 1
1
f
V1
Q Uf 1 V7 t/f
LLI
l
UJ%
04 z
2
l
'S '3AV Pa£Z
aZ
1N3W18VdV llNn 9
1N3W1HVdV llNll 4
"S "3AV HSIONVIS
1N3W1HVdV 11Nn b m
1N3W1HVdV llNn v m
ION301S38 AIIWV3 3I9NIS -- {
3ON30IS38 AIIWV3 319NIS
1NVOVA
'S "3AV PuZZ
1N3W18VdV IINn 91
1N31N1HVdV iINn 91
'S '3AV istZ
30N90IS38 AIIWV3 3I9NIS
1N3W1HVdV llNn St
'S '3AV 410Z
3snOH38VM
ON1011f19 IVIO83WWOO 1NVOVA
'S '3 AV 416t
HOdnHO 3383 IVOI13JNVA3 013138 18
r
m
Cw
0?o
_Q
?] W W
(L J
L.L
0 Lu
LL J J
Wtm
z J
O?
w
O
U
LL
J
O
O
w
m
u
Q
S
U
it
2232 E. 66th ST.
PETITION SIGNATURES
PROPERTY OF OWNERS WHO SIGNED
PROPERTY OF OWNERS WHO DID NOT SIGN
LD 1=?b
24 116
2 \GA?
u? 23 o? o
``
3 22
21
20 1 ,
19
7
16
ff
e 17
ski 16 1
;0 15
11 Y 14 v
:2 0 13
„n z
2 `I\ to v 22 N 1 o
3 21 ??•
4 2o
5 ?. 191d.
?r1???1 Jam. .
• 241 g5,
o fy) 2 23±a?1o
3 22
?J) 4 21
5 20Cg1
18
6 17
16
10 j .) I s
11 ?5) 14
of ?? i2 0 (441 13
Lrl
° 2 41)4 1?4)23
3? (yp) 22 l
4 ?aq) 21 X11)
5 v# T 20
6 v t 9
1061) 7 18 Vgtt
?101? 8 17 ?t"):
to -)s --y
1 I
4
1
t
"- z
1
771
4 ?
5?
6 r ?\
7
ZJ ..5
8 I .Z
9
IO
r ?
° 12 V--
STREET
?
I wi J23
2 °i 22•x'\
21 t',4?
4 20'`4)1
1 5 t9 i ?ti
.? 10 I 1 12 , .?{???}. .(X..?•
7 i::' r-; 17fq), N
t3 16 1 ?)
9 0 15
i[ M rt:
? ?v I bv.b
11 12 R 1e
? J
1
•
2 ??? ? - 2-2 - o l 2J
1
H 6'?w ,. J%1to
J 7
4 17 ? 6
?, ? N
Go r10 1 11 12 l3 ' i4\ Go ?"-,10 *? I I i2 I3
24
.r ?
22 %J
?o
/ Q
j e-
• ,Li w
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
• Council Letter No. 231
Agenda, October 9, 1989
Issue Statement:
First reading consideration of an amendment to the Zoning
Ordinance which would permit transitional activities in the C-3
district.
Background:
The City Council created and adopted a new C-3 high density
commercial zoning district on June 22, 1987. The general goals
cited at that time included the following:
- Creating a favorable environment to foster the growth of
appropriate businesses.
- Minimizing or eliminating the conflicts between the
residential and commercial areas.
- Broadening the tax base providing for economic growth and
employment opportunities.
Most of the buildings in the district became nonconforming and
limitations were imposed on the expansion of such structures.
Similarly, existing uses which rely on outdoor storage were made
• nonconforming uses and could not be expanded to occupy additional
land area.
The C-3 district has been effective in helping to attract a
potential developer to the area. It is, however, recognized that
an extended period of time may still be required to fully develop
the entire area. In the interim, it is necessary to permit
businesses to remain viable. To that end, activities with respect
to the land, structures or uses would be permitted which would
not have the effect of either delaying the transition or
increasing the public costs. Control over such activities is
necessary to avert any adverse impact.
Recommended Motion:
Approve first reading of an amendment to the Zoning Ordinance
to add: Transitional Activity Permits - C-3 District and
schedule the public hearing and second reading for the November
13, 1989 City Council meeting.
Basis of Recommendation:
1. The Planning Commission reviewed and, with revisions,
recommended the amendment permitting transitional
activities in the C-3 district.
2. The City Attorney suggested the proposed amendment and has
reviewed and clarified the changes in the recommendation
of the Planning Commission.
. 3. The proposed permit system defines the allowed activities,
imposes controls, allows the imposition of conditions as
well as time limitations and provides for revocation.
4. Certain property owners and business interests have
requested the ability to further utilize properties in ways
that would not impede long term development.
Alternative Recommendation:
1. The City Council could decide not to adopt the amendment
permitting transitional activities on the basis that the
existing C-3 district requirements have been effective in
controlling use of property.
2. The City Council could modify the amendment setting
time limits or scope of activity.
3. The City Council could refer the amendment back to the
Planning Commission with instructions.
Discussion/Decision Mode:
The next Council meeting which will allow the proper legal
notice to be published for the public hearing and second reading
is November 13, 1989.
Respec u ly submitted,
0
JDP:sae
James 0. Prosser
City M
11
• SUBJECT: Transitional Activity Permits - C-3 District
1. At SS520.31, subd. 3, add a new paragraph (g) which
would read:
(g) uses permitted in accordance with the terms of
a current and valid Transitional Activity
Permit issued pursuant to subsection 520.55.
2. Add a sentence to SS520.33 to read:
The expansion of a nonconforming structure permitted
in this subsection shall not require the issuance of
a Transitional Activity Permit under subsection
520.55.
3. (Change the title of subsection 520.33 to
"Nonconforming Structures.")
4. Add subsection 520.22 as follows:
520.55 Transitional Activity Permits
Subd. 1. Purpose. The City Council recognizes that the
development potential within the C-3 district may require
an extended period of transition to be fully realized. The
• City Council further recognizes that it may be appropriate
and desirable to permit, subject to the conditions and
limitations of this subsection, the owners of lands within
the C-3 district to engage in certain activities with
respect to the land, the structures or the uses during
the transition period which will both permit commercial
enterprises within the C-3 district to remain viable
but which will not have the effect of either delaying
the transition or increasing the public costs connected
with such transition. This subsection is intended to
establish the circumstances under which certain
transitional activities may take place and to set forth
the regulations, limitations and conditions applicable to
such activities.
Subd. 2. Transitional Activities. The extension or
expansion of a nonconforming use or structure or the development
or a nonconforming parcel shall be referred to as transitional
activities.
Subd. 3. Permit Required. It shall be unlawful for the
owner or occupier of any land within the C-3 district to engage
in any transitional activity without having first obtained a
permit to do so. It shall be unlawful for the owner or occupier
of such land to engage in any transitional activity in
contradiction to the terms and conditions of any issued
• transitional permit.
• Subd. 4. Application for a Transitional Activity Permit
shall be made to the director on forms provided by the City and
shall contain or be accompanied by the following:
(a) a site plan drawn to scale showing the dimensions of
the parcel and the dimensions and locations of all
structures;
(b) in instances where the site is to be utilized in
connection with a use or structure located on a
contiguous parcel, the site plan shall contain the same
detail for the contiguous parcel;
(c) the proposed uses;
(d) the proposed modifications, alterations, renovations or
improvements to be made in connection with the
transitional activity, and the estimated cost of each;
(e) the time for completion of all modifications,
alterations, renovations or improvements;
(f) evidence of ownership or interest in the property;
(g) estimated change in market value;
0(h) location and description of any signs proposed
to be located on the site; and
(i) the fee specified in Appendix D of this Code.
Subd. 5. Public Hearing. The provisions of subsection
520.35, subd. 5 shall be applicable to public hearings concerning
the issuance of Transitional Activity Permits.
Subd. 6. Criteria and Standards. A Transitional Activity
Permit shall not be granted unless the City Council makes the
following findings:
(a) the transitional activity is in connection with an
existing use or structure allowable in the district as
either a permitted or nonconforming use or structure;
(b) the transitional activity will maintain the
continued vitality and economic success of the
applicants business during the transition period of the
C-3 district;
(c) the transitional activity will not have an adverse
impact upon development of land within the C-3 district
in the manner intended for the district under the
. City's land use regulations or its comprehensive plan;
• (d) the transitional activity will not materially increase
the potential public cost of development within the
C-3 district.
(e) the transitional activity will be compatible with
surrounding uses, will have no adverse impact upon
surrounding properties, and will be in full compliances
with all standards and requirements contained in this
code applicable to sites and structures in C-2
districts.
Subd. 7. Duration of Permit. Any Transitional Activity
Permit granted by the City Council shall state on its face
the expiration date of such permit. A request for a new
Transitional Activity Permit may be made during the last
six months of an existing Transitional Activity Permit.
The request shall be in the form of the application as
required by Subd. 4. of this subsection and shall be
reviewed and subject to all the requirements for
Transitional Activity Permits contained in this subsection.
Subd. 8. Conditions. In approving a Transitional Activity
Permit, or any extension thereof, the Council may place
conditions and limitations upon the permit which, in the
Council's discretion will assure:
0 (a) that the transitional activity will be compatible with
surrounding uses;
(b) that the activity is merely of a transitional nature
and will not impede the orderly development of the C-3
district; and
(c) that the public costs occasioned by the ultimate
development of the C-3 district will not be materially
increased as a result of the transitional activity.
Subd. 9. Revocation. The City may revoke any Transitional
Activity Permit granted under this subsection. The procedure to
be followed in considering such action shall be the same as the
procedure described in Subsection 545.09,.subdivision 7 of this
code.
Subd. 10. Permit Not Assignable. The right to engage in
Transitional Activities shall be the personal right of the
permittee names on the permits; and may not be transferred or
assigned to another even though such other person or entity may
succeed to permittee's interest in the land. The permit shall
terminate upon such transfer or assignment, and permittee's
successor in interest in the land shall not engage in any
transitional activity until such successor has obtained a new
Transitional Activity Permit.
• P89-3-0023D
77 ?
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Council Letter No. 230
Agenda October 9, 1989
Issue Statement:
40 Second reading consideration of an ordinance to rezone the
property located at 2232-2236 East 66th Street to "C-2" general
commercial district.
Background:
Richfield Credit Union has requested the rezoning of 2232-2236
East 66th Street to "C-2" general commercial district, in order
to allow the construction of a financial institution.
On September 25, 1989, the City Council gave first reading to an
ordinance rezoning the Credit Union property and scheduling the
second reading and public hearing for October 9, 1989. The
approval given at first reading was conditioned upon an opinion
by the City Attorney concerning the sufficiency of the petition
which initiated the rezoning in this case. The City Attorney's
written opinion, which is attached, concludes that the petition
would require signatures from owners of 50% of the land within
300 feet of the land proposed to be rezoned. The petitions
submitted as of October 6, 1989 represent only 49.6% of the.land
within 300 feet of the proposed area to be rezoned.
Consequently, the City Council at this time lacks the authority
to give second reading to the proposed ordinance.
The Credit Union has been informed of the insufficiency of its
petition. The Credit Uniion has stated that they may have an
additional signature on a petition prior to Council action on
October 9, 1989.
Recommended Motion:
Adopt the opinion of the City Attorney as attached.
Basis of Recommendation:
The City Attorney in an opinion dated September 27, 1989 states
that "the Credit Union petition, which does not contain the
requisite number of signatures is defective as an owner initiated
petition for rezoning".
Alternative Recommendation:
The petitioners stated that they would present the Council with
an additional signature at the Meeting on October 9, 1989. The
attached letter (230-A) is presented if additional signature are
presented.
Discussion/Decision Mode:
Legal notice of a public hearing was published in the Sun Current
and notices were mailed to property owners within 350 feet as
required. If the opinion of the City Attorney is adopted by the
Council, then the City Council will not be in a position to give
second reading to the ordinance and, consequently, there will be
no purpose served by a public hearing.
Re fully submitted,
Jam s . Prosser
Cit anager
' SEP 28 '89 11:02 HOLMES & GRAVEN P.2
MEMORANDUM
0
TO: Mayor and Council Members
FROM: JBD
DATE: September 27, 1989
RE: Richfield Credit Union _ Petition to Rezone Property
At the September 25, 1989 City Council meeting I was directed to render
my legal opinion based upon the following facts:
1. Richfield Credit Union ("Applicant") is the owner of three contiguous
tracts of land having street addresses of 2232, 2234 and 2236 East 68th Street (the
"Land").
2. The Land is currently zoned "R": and was so zoned when aeouired by
Applicant.
3. The Applicant wishes to construct a building on the Land to house its
activities. The proposed use may be conducted only in the. C-2 districts of the
city.
4. The Applicant has filed a petition seeking to rezone the Land from R
to C-2.
5. The petition was signed by Applicant and contained the signatures of
a number of the owners of property within 300 feet of the Land. However, the.
petition was not signed by the owners 5096 of the property located within 300 feet
of the Land.
0
SEP 28 '89 11:02 HOLMES & GRAVEN P.3 10
ON Richfield Mayor and Council Members
September 27, 1989
Page 2
8. Subsection 545.11 subdivision 4 of the Richfield Ordinance Code
reads in relevant part:
Subd. 4. Initiation. An amendment to this code may be initiated by
the council, planning commission, or by the petition of the owners of
not less than fifty percent of the land proposed to be rezoned and by
the owners. of at least fifty percent of the land within three hundred
feet of the land proposed to be rezoned. Properties owned by
federal, state, municipal entities or other political subdivisions shall
be excluded from any computation of the percentage of landowners
necessary for rezoning petitions initiated by landowners.
The question posed is whether the petition for rezoning is defective for
failure to comply with the requirements of the above quoted ordinance.
Discussion
Under any clear reading on the ordinance the petition is defective for
• failure to contain the requisite signatures. The petition can survive only if it is
determined that the requirement, itself, is improper.
A. StatutorX Authority.
Minnesota Statutes, Section 462.357 subd. 4 contains the grant or authority
to cities to amend their zoning regulations. That section reads in relevant part:
Subd. 4. Amendments. An amendment to a zoning ordinance may be
initiated by the governing body, the planning ageney, or by petition of
affected property owners as defined in the zoning ordinance.
(emphasis supplied)
Subsection 545.11 subd. 4, in effect, defines affected property owners to
mean the owners of the land sought to be rezoned and the owners of land within
300 feet of the land sought to be rezoned. Consequently, the city has, in
accordance with the authority granted it is the statute, defined the area of land
affected by rezonings.
. y
SEP 28 89 11:03 HOLMES & GRAVEN
Richfield Mayor and Council Members
September 27, 1989
Page 3
P. 4-
B. Deletration.
It the requirement that the petition must be signed by the owners of at least
50% of the land within 300 feet of the land sought to be rezoned is seen as a
delegation of the council's legislative power, then the requirement is improper. it
is a well settled principle in zoning law that a council may not base its land use
decisions on either the objections or the support of the neighborhood. (See, for
example, Minnetonka Congregation of Jehovah's Witnesses v. Svee, 226 N.W.2d 306
(1.975))
The Minnesota Supreme Court has twice had the opportunity to examine
0
petition requirements which are similar in nature to the provision contained in the
Richfield Code.
In the first ease, State v. City of Minneapolis, 97 N.W.2d 273 (1959) the
could voided a statutory "consent" provision which had been used by Minneapolis in
consideration of zoning matters. The provision required that rezoning initiated by
petition must include the written consent of the owners of 2/3rds of the property
within 100 feet of the property to be rezoned. The court's decision is contained in
the following language from the opinion:
We are of the opinion that the consent clause. of S 462.18, as a
prerequisite to the exercise of the city council's legislature authority
to amend the comprehensive zoning ordinance, constitutes an
unlawful delegation of power to impose restrictions on real property,
and renders this provision of the statute invalid...; and that it is an
unreasonable exercise of the police power to rest control of property
uses in the hands of the owners of other property."
In the second case, O'Brien v. City of St. Paul, 173 N.W.2d 462 (1969), the
court took the opposite position and unheld a nearly identical provision contained in
• the St. Paul ordinances. The court in O'Brien took the position that restrictions on
the use of land imposed through zoning benefit the surrounding property, and that
7
SEP 28 '89 11:03 HOLMES & GRAVEN P.5
b
. Richfield Mayor and Council Members
September 27, 1989
Page 4
the consent merely serves as an indication by the owners of surrounding property of
their willingness to waive those benefits if the property is rezoned. Consequently,
according to the O'Brien court:
"[The ordinance provisions] do not vest in adjoining property owners
the power to legislate or impose restrictions but confer the right to
waive restrictions which have already been established by the city."
The Minnesota Supreme Court has had no further opportunity to consider
"consent" ordinances since the O'Brien decision. The Court did, however, in Lutter
v. City of Burnsville, 295 N.W.2d 809 (1980) make the following observation:
"The [United States Supreme Court] in City of Eastlake
distinguished earlier cases in which it held that legislature power may
not be delegated 'to a narrow segment of the community' such as
those whose property abutted city streets or. those who owned
property within 400 feet of a proposed variant land use."
Whether this suggests that our court might overrule O'Brien in the next case
to come before it is sheer speculation. It is also very difficult to articulate any
meaningful distinction between the two cases which our court has decided on this
topic. As one commentator described it "some challenges have been successful,
some not."
The O'Brien case articulated several factors which were important to the
decision.
1. The consent requirement was authorized by statute.
. 2. The.property owner seeking rezoning purchased the land under its
existing zoning classifieation with no expectation that it could be changed.
3.- The consent requirement was a precondition to consideration of the
petition rather than A condition placed upon. actual approval.
so
put great reliance on that factor. It really does not seem to have much to do with
the "consent waiver" issue.
C. Conclusion
On the basis of the foregoing; it is my legal opinion that the provision
contained in suNection 545.11 subdivision 4 of the Code requiring that owner
initiated petitions for rezoning be signed by the owners of 50% of the land sought
to be rezoned and the owners of 50% of the land within 300 feet is valid and
enforceable. Consequently, it is further my opinion that the Credit Union petition,
which does not contain the requisite number of signatures is defective as an owner
initiated petition for rezoning.
It is important to note, however, that this opinion does not touch on the
merits of a rezoning of the Land, nor should it be construed to preclude
consideration of rezoning following a proper initiation in accordance with the
provisions of subsection 545.11 subdivision 4.
i
RC160-1
r
l
0
RICHFIELD
CHAMBER o1
COMMERCE
6637 LYNDALE AVENUE SO.
RICHFIELD, MINN 55423
Telephone: 866-5100
TO: Mayor Ouam, Councilpersons and City Manager
FROM:. John Kenealey, Executive Secretary
RICHFIELD CHAMBER OF COMMERCE
DATE: September 25, 1989
The Board of Directors of the Richfield Chamber of Commerce passed
a resolution at their September 20th meeting recommending the
approval of the rezoning of three lots at 2232-2236 East 66th to
general commercial zoning to permit the construction of a new-
facility by Richfield Schools Credit Union.
It is the position of the Chamber of Commerce that this would
permit a logical and reasonable development of this property.
John Kenealey
Executive Secretar
Richfield Chamb of Commerce
JK:ks
11
REQUEST FOR REZONING FROM MR-2 TO C-2
FOR PURPOSE OF ZONING CHANGE
• Street Address: 2232-2236 East 66th Street
Legal Description: Lots 12, 13 and 14, Block 7, New Ford Town, together
with the South 1/2 of the vacated alley accruing thereto.
We, the undersigned, being owners of land within 300 feet of the
land described above, do hereby concur in this rezoning request.
Signature of Owners* Address
,!19 /
?r3 ? 3 ???
WPD ie?
6 6-13 spa d ? -5 k
• *For purposes of determining if petition contains the proper
number of signatures to intitate the rezoning process,
signatures may not be removed once a petition is signed and
returned to the Planning Division.
J
W</-g
REQUEST FOR REZONING FROM MR-2 TO C'_2
FOR PURPOSE OF zCNTNG cHANm
Street Address: 2212-2236 66th StrPPt Past
Legal Description: Lots 12, 13 and 14, Block 7, New Ford-Town, together
with the South 1/2 of the vacated alley accruing thereto.
We, the undersigned, being owners of land within 300 feet of the
land described above, do hereby concur in this rezoning request.
Signature of Owners* Address
\-V
01 *For purposes of determining if petition contains the proper
number of signatures to intitate the rezoning process,
signatures may not be removed once a petition is signed and
returned to the Planning Division.
&)2
i
Ll
REQUEST FOR REZONING FROM mg-2 TO r_2
FOR PURPOSE OF 20NTNC; CgANC;E
Street Address: 2212_2216 66th st-rF-?et RaSt
Legal Description: Lots 12, 13 and 14, Block 7, New Ford'Town, together
with the South 1/2 of the vacated alley accruing thereto.
We, the undersigned, being owners of land within 300 feet of the
land described above, do hereby concur in this rezoning request.
Signature of Owners*
0 V.1
n Co Sl A.' C50
Address
*For purposes of determining if petition contains the proper
number of signatures to intitate the rezoning process,
signatures may not be removed once a petition is signed and
returned to the Planning Division.
N N N ? N N N Mj
?1 f2 W z
NSIONYLS U
It 12 f }- J
W
N
it 7?7I I N N N N N N N N
M402 I_ Lr a v ?_ W_
v/61 J_ x w ea
w?
?IOll3lO"Ol : • • • •• • • • _ _ _
•'r. :•11?:Jr??1?.... _ _ _ _ _- _ _ _ _ _ _ - O!13a9N01
3AY Yt03]?-(_ M trz^-ti?•t __ _ - - - - - u 'a _ - - - -
44 91 r"'__ `?Y i?+•±Y ;i'•'i'•.• .?> _ _ _ __ -ter. I 41 91
YI it '1.3..J?_ a•..••?.•:•,.?i?,?:tyy;:.?:yti?t.•. •y'••?.?•. ••.••.: ???--?_????? 1Il Y1 S1
41 v
I ; j+' '?'?'.'?.•v,•,., ,111 `
Yl it lam. ?. ??", ,• ? ?' ???- ? 11 Vl fl
44 21
41 1
46 '1.
41 OI I F^^r: , 4+ O1
101113 i i C , •3^? -- 1011,13
snannioo
MY1d
r. _. \ -. MYtd
0Nt1M?0 ? r _.-. ,
3AT ON/11YOd , ONt 1"10
I •- 3A1 ONt11mod
09:AVHSIGNIS' 41s
vlr ?;
¦ 1 YI
NO1N113 tl NOI NII]
04 ? I =-, ? ?uZ
SN3A312S 'Ir SN3A31S
'JA GNZ7, 3At 1311021" 3At 13110]114
113 0 5 1119 11 3 0 51119
N1YOM 1143" ? I' `- ? •?i
14190"1143"
AYn951111 •'''' - - - _ - r e - -_
j'Atln9Sllld
1Nts131e •' S 3At/ 1SlZ 1N1S131d
ON1tl0
131YYtN
131 YYvN
Li 0,131juvo
3A1 31toNAl
3At 3190NA1
N]Iral1 a ?..4f ???=-\ 14]1x011
J / xta103 V i xta103
N 1NOdn0 Imodne
NOStl3w3
1N0w3Ya , -..• - 1 •'?•1 ?•,? ,--fir-i NOSY3w3
OYIYIO ::.
- 17
loloemn
ONIAMI
S3wR r^r __ _ _ I- I ?:
S3w1f
xONII
N 1001
N10YOw 141901
NO1M3N I -^I _- I?^r^?. I^
Y3All0 •? -_-_. ?`_^_- --_ __ -._- ^-• ? ? 1!I NOl M3N
03A110
3A1 NN3d ._ - -- -- __ - _ __ ?- ?•
N33n0 3A1 NN3d
113SSnY N33n0
1135Sn"
Nt01Y3w5 Y 34S
51w0141 ii
_ -- - - StwONi
NOldn .?-
1N3JNIA ; -- --- -_--- `--?--, 1N3JNIA
144$n91451M
]n1 S7xY3x
3At S3xdlx
-Z z
0
2232 E. 66th ST.
COMPREHENSIVE DEVELOPMENT PLAN
® MIXED LAND USE
E3 MEDIUM DENSITY/BUFFER
SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE
E. 66TH ST.
N
Q
U
•
•
INSTITUTIONAL
El PARKS
N
i
i
4 `
N
W
O
J
W
c?
z
O
a?a
d
I vs
T
? 1 1
Q
=:1 v.
COMMERCIAL
VACANT
QUASI-PUBLIC
2232 E. 66th ST.
LAND USE
® APARTMENTS El PARKS
DUPLEX
SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE
N
T.
N
y
Q
S
Q
C
W
U
v I H
W I W
Q
? H h
_ I
I I
I
i
I
I
74,E
E. 66TK ST.
T
ti
ti
•
•
vi
W , N
< ? W
3 >
O ? Q
J ?
W pt
W
2
O
r W ---
0-F l
O N
i
i
f ? V: r-
2232 E. 66th ST.
ZONING
ED C-2 GENERAL COMMERCIAL
I INDUSTRIAL
a R RESIDENCE
6
I M-j
I
I
I
E2A
?x
( Y
t <
Y ?(
!
OEM"
N
W
1
Q
Q
Q
W
U
t%ft
El MR MULTIPLE DWELLING
El MR-1 2 FAMILY RESIDENCES
El MR-2 3-16 UNIT RESIDENCES
4
N
I
I
1
N N 1 N N I N
W 1L7 LLI ?: LLJ 1 W
H 1
••:::
LL. I
N N ??•
•'••
•
'
2
1 .
.
. Z
I
I
I I
I I 1
E. 66TK ST.
-4'
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Council Letter No. 229
Agenda October 9, 1989
• Issue Statement:
Award of Contract for 1989 Storm Sewer Improvement Project at
66th Street/Fourth and Fifth Avenues.
Background:
On October •2, 1989, a formal bid opening was held for this
project with the following results:
S.M. Hentges & Son, Inc. $65,000
F.F. Jedlicki 65,180
Brown & Cris, Inc. 69,074
J.P. Norex, Inc. 72,635
The engineer's estimate on this project was $67,000. The
estimate takes into account the fact that this is a small storm
sewer job, and late in the construction year for this work.
The project calls for a new pipe to be installed to Milner Pond
from the low spot in the alley south of 66th Street between
Fourth and Fifth Avenues. The present arrangement of pipes in
66th Street allows occasional flooding in the alley. This site
was a priority area in the recent storm water drainage study.
This project was bid earlier this fall along with the work on
Newton Avenue, north of 66th Street. Hennepin County rejected
• our plan to open cut 66th Street. So, the pipe is proposed to be
jacked (tunneled) under 66th Street. Easements are needed from
6401 Fourth Avenue and 6600 Fifth Avenue to perform the work.
The property owners have been contacted.
Recommended Motion:
Approve an award of contract to S.M. Hentges & Son, Inc., in the
amount of $65,000.
Basis of Recommendation:
1. S.M. Hentges & Son, Inc. submitted the lowest responsible
bid.
2. The work is a priority as previously directed by the City
Council.
Alternative Recommendation:
None.
Discussion/Decision Mode:
This item is on the October 9, 1989 Council agenda. Staff is
asking for approval at this time in order to facilitate timely
completion of this project.
City Ma ag
Respe f submitted,
James D. Prosser
JDP/sdr
E
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Bid Opening
October 2, 1989
11:00 A.M.
Storm Sewer Installation, Street Reconstruction
and Appurtenant Work
Bid No. 89-24
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 storm sewer installation, street
reconstruction and appurtent work, bid no. 89-24, as advertised
in the official newspaper on September 13, 1989.
Present: Thomas Ferber, City Clerk
Donald Fondrick, Community Services Director
Cheryl Krumholz, City Manager Representative
CJ
The following bids were submitted and read aloud:
VENDOR BID TOTAL
SECURITY
F.F Jedlicki, Inc. 5% Bid Bond $65,180.00
Eden Prairie, MN
Brown & Cris, Inc. 5% Bid Bond $69,074.00
Lakeville, MN
J.P. Norex, Inc. 5% Bid Bond $72,635.00
Chanhassen, MN
S.M. Hentges & Sons, Inc. 5% Bid Bond $65,000.00
Shakopee, MN
The City Clerk announced that the bids would be tabulated and
considered at the October 9, 1989 City Council Meeting.
Thomas P. Ferber City Clerk
0
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Council Letter No. 228
Agenda, October 9, 1989
• Issue Statement:
In July, 1985, the City Council passed an ordinance which changed
the way the city reviewed zoning ordinance variance requests.
The ordinance created a Committee of Hearing Examiners which
constituted a special committee of the Board of Adjustments and
Appeals. The hearing examiners were given the power to make
variance decisions, although a denial could be appealed to the
City Council.
Prior to this ordinance change, variances were reviewed by the
Planning Commission and then granted or denied by the City
Council acting as the Board of Adjustments and Appeals.
Connie Murray and Vern Luettinger were=,appointed by the Council
to act as hearing examiners. The ordinance creating the hearing
examiner process has been extended annually.
Extension Background: of Hearing Examiner process for reviewing variances.
A resolution providing for an additional extension is attached to
this Council letter. This process is one of the items being
currently reviewed as part of the comprehensive review of the
Zoning Ordinance by the Planning Commission which started in
August.
• Recommended Motion:
Adopt the attached resolution extending the hearing examiner
process for one year.
Basis of Recommendation:
The hearing examiner process has worked well from staff's
perspective, allowing routine variance matters to be handled
expediently.
Alternative Recommendation:
Not pass the resolution and allow the process to revert back to
the previous process requiring Planning Commission and City
Council approval.
Discussion/Decision Mode:
This matter is scheduled for Council action on October 9, 1989.
Without Council action, the variance process will revert back to
the previous process requiring Planning Commission and City
Council action.
y submitted,
Resra?nager
Jamosser
• Cit JDP:sae
J-v
•
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION EXTENDING HEARING EXAMINER
PROCESS FOR ZONING ORDINANCE VARIANCE REVIEW
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Richfield,
Minnesota established a hearing examiner process for zoning
ordinance variance review; and
WHEREAS, this process expired on September 12, 1989; and
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Richfield,
Minnesota has reviewed the process and determined that the
hearing examiner process has worked well and it is desirable to
continue it.
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the
• City of Richfield, Minnesota that the hearing examiner process
established in Section 545.01 - 545.07 of the ordinance is hereby
extended for an additional one year period and will expire at the
end of this additional year unless the City Council, by
resolution, extends it for an additional period or periods.
Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield,
Minnesota this 9th day of October, 1989.
Steven J. Quam, Mayor
ATTEST:
Thomas Ferber, City Clerk
U
???
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Council Letter No. 227
Agenda, October 9, 1989
Issue Statement:
Authorization to enter into Third Party Agreements to implement
Community Development Block Grant for H.O.M.E. and GMDCA Child
Daycare programs.
Background:
Third Party Agreements have been prepared by Hennepin County
which are required by HUD in each instance where a local unit of
government has an agency other than itself implement a CDBG
activity. Before Hennepin County may disperse any Year XV CDBG
funds, the agreement must be signed between Hennepin county, the
recipient, and the City of Richfield.
Recommended Motion:
Execute the attached Third Party Agreements.
Basis Of Recommendation:
The Year XV CDBG Program has previously been approved by the City
Council in the amount of $34,100, and the execution of the Third
Party Agreements would allow Hennepin county to disperse the
funds.
Alternative Recommendation:
None
Discussion/Decision Mode:
The resolution must be acted upon at the October 9, 1989 meeting
to meet Hennepin County processing deadlines.
Respectfully submitted,
Jam Prosser
Cit anager
JDP:sae
0
•
ATTACHMENT TO HOME-GMDCA
served through 1989)_
Day Care - 9 Families served January 1, - September 1989.
(approximately 9 families were anticipated to be
served through 1989).
The following is a summary of those served by the H.O.M.E. and
Day Care programs.
H.O.M.E. - 122 Households served January 1, - June 30, 1989.
(approximately 178 households are anticipated to be
r?
U
THIRD PARTY AGREEMENT
URBAN HENNEPIN COUNTY
• COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK
GRANT PROGRAM
This agreement made and entered into by and between the City of Richfield
(City) and the Greater Minneapolis Day Care Association (Provider).
WITNESSETH:
WHEREAS, the City is a cooperating unit in the Urban Hennepin County
Community Development Block Grant Program (CDBG) by virtue of a joint coopera-
tion agreement executed between the City and Hennepin County pursuant to MSA
471.59, and
WHEREAS, the City has executed a subrecipient agreement with Hennepin County
which allocates $20,000 from the Year XV (FY 1989) Urban Hennepin County CDBG
program for the purpose of supporting the activity as identified in Exhibit
1, attached and a part of this agreement, hereinafter referred to as "activ-
ity.
NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual covenants and promises contained
in this Agreement, the parties hereto mutually agree to the following terms
and conditions:
1. The Uniform Administrative Requirements in 24 CFR 570.502 issued by
• the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD),
shall apply to activity.
2. The Provider shall be responsible for procurement of all supplies,
equipment, services, and construction necessary for implementation
of the activity. Procurement shall be carried out in accordance
with the OMB Circular A-110. The Provider shall prepare, or cause
to be prepared, all advertisements, negotiations, notices, and
documents; enter into all contracts; and conduct all meetings,
conferences, and interviews as necessary to insure compliance with
the above described procurement requirements.
3. The Provider shall be responsible for carrying out any acquisi-
tions of real property necessary for implementation of activity.
The Provider shall conduct all such acquisitions in its name and
shall hold title to all properties purchased. The Provider shall be
responsible for preparation of all notices, appraisals, and documen-
tation required in conducting acquisition under the latest appli-
cable regulations of the Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real
Property Acquisition Act of 1970 and of the CDBG Program. The
Provider shall also be responsible for providing all relocation
notices, counseling, and services required by said regulations.
4. The Provider shall comply with the acquisition and relocation
requirements of the Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property
Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 as required under 24 CFR 570.606(a)
• and HUD implementing regulations at 24 CFR Part 42; the requirements
?J-C_:3
in 24 CFR 570.606(b) governing the residential anti-displacement and
relocation assistance plan under section 104(d) of the Housing and
• Community Development Act of 1974 (the Act); the relocation require-
ments of 24 CFR 570.606(c) governing displacement subject to section
104(k) of the Act; and the relocation requirements of 24 CFR
570.606(d) governing optional relocation assistance under Section
105(a)(11) of the Act, as pertaining to the activity.
5. The Provider shall maintain records for the expenditure of all CDBG
funds it receives, such records to be maintained in accordance with
OMB Circular A-110 and A-122, as applicable. All records shall be
made available, upon request of the City for monitoring by the City.
The City shall have authority to review any and all procedures and
all materials, notices, documents, etc., prepared by the Provider in
implementation of activity, and the Provider agrees to provide all
information required by any person authorized by the City to request
such information from the Provider for the purpose of reviewing the
same.
6. The Provider shall take all necessary actions required to implement
activity and to comply with any related requests by the City, it
being understood that the City has responsibility to Hennepin County
for insuring compliance with such requirements. The Provider also
will promptly notify the City of any changes in the scope or
character of activity.
7. The Provider does hereby agree to release, indemnify, and hold
0 harmless the City from and against all costs,. expenses, claims,
suits, or judgments arising from or growing out of any injuries,
loss or damage sustained by any person or corporation, including
employees of Provider and property of Provider, which are caused by
or sustained in connection with the tasks carried out by the
Provider under this Agreement.
8. The City agrees to provide the Provider with CDBG funds in such
amounts as agreed upon in this Agreement to enable the Provider to
carry out activity. It is understood that the City shall be held
accountable to Hennepin County for the lawful expenditure of CDBG
funds under this Agreement. The City shall therefore make no
payment of funds to the Provider and draw no funds from Hennepin
County on behalf of a Provider, prior to having received from the
Provider a request for reimbursement including copies of all
documents and records needed to insure that the Provider has
complied with all appropriate requirements.
9. The City shall be responsible for the preparation of all requests to
Hennepin County for HUD wage rate determinations on activity. The
Provider shall notify the City prior to initiating activity,
including advertising for contractual services which will include
costs likely to be subject to the provisions of Federal Labor
Standards and Equal Employment Opportunity and related implementing
regulations.
Aj?,,e4( ?
10. The City agrees to provide technical assistance to the Provider in
the form of oral and/or written guidance and on-site assistance
. regarding CDBG procedures and project management. This assistance
will be provided as requested by the Provider, and at other times,
at the initiative of the City, when new or updated information
concerning the CDBG Program is received by the City from Hennepin
County and deemed necessary to be provided to the Provider.
11. In accordance with the provisions of 24 CFR 85.43, suspension or
termination of this.Agreement may occur if the Provider materially
fails to comply with any term of this Agreement. This Agreement
may be terminated for convenience in accordance with 24 CFR 85.44.
The Agreement may be terminated with or without cause by either
party hereto by giving thirty (30) days written notice of such
termination. CDBG funds allocated to the Provider under this
Agreement may not be obligated or expended by the Provider following
such date of termination. Any funds allocated to the Provider under
this Agreement which remain unobligated or unspent following such
date of termination shall automatically revert to the City.
12. Any material alterations, variations, modifications or waivers of
provisions of this Agreement shall only be valid when they have
been reduced to writing as an amendment to this Agreement approved
by Hennepin County through its Office of Planning and Development
and properly executed by the authorized representatives of the
parties. All amendments to this Agreement shall be made a part of
this Agreement by inclusion in Exhibit 2 which shall be attached at
the time of any amendment.
• 13. All data collected, created, received, maintained or disseminated
for any purpose by the Provider in the performance of this Agreement
is governed by the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act, Minne-
sota Statutes, Chapter 13, and all other statutory provisions
governing data privacy, the Minnesota Rules implementing such act
now in force or hereafter adopted, as well as federal regulations on
data privacy.
14. During the performance of this Agreement, the Provider agrees to the
following: In accordance with the Hennepin County Affirmative
Action Policy and the County Commissioners' Policies Against
Discrimination, no person shall be excluded from full employment
rights or participation in, or the benefits of, any,program, service
or activity on the grounds of race, color, creed, religion, age,
sex, disability, marital status, affectional/sexual preference,
public assistance status, ex-offender status, or national origin;
and no person protected by applicable federal or state laws against
discrimination shall otherwise be subjected to discrimination.
15. The effective date of this Agreement is July 1, 1989. The termina-
tion date of this agreement is December 31, 1990, or at such time
as activity is satisfactorily completed prior thereto. Upon expira-
tion, the Provider shall relinquish to the City all program funds
unexpended or uncommitted for the activity.
0
16. Any program income as a result of the activity shall be returned
immediately to the City upon receipt and the provisions of 24 CFR
• 570.504 shall apply.
17. Any real property acquired or improved as a result of activity, in
whole or in part, using CDBG funds in excess of $25,000 shall either
be:
a. Used to meet one of the national objectives in 24 CFR 570.208
until five years after expiration of this Agreement;
b. Disposed of in a manner that results in the City being
reimbursed in the amount of the current fair market value of
the property less any portion of the value attributable to
expenditures of non-CDBG funds for acquisition of, or
improvement to, the property.
18. The following standards shall apply to real property acquired or
improved as a result of activity, in whole or in part:
a. The Provider shall inform the City at least thirty (30) days
prior to any modification or change in the use of the real
property from that planned at the time of acquisition or
improvements, including disposition.
b. The Provider shall reimburse the City in an amount equal to the
current fair market value (less any portion thereof attribut-
able to expenditures of non-CDBG funds) of property acquired or
improved as a result of activity that is sold or transferred
for a use which does not qualify under the CDBG regulations.
Said reimbursement shall be provided to the City at the time of
sale or transfer of the property.
19. The Provider agrees to provide City with an annual audit report
consistent with OMB Circular A-110, Uniform Requirements for Grants
to Universities, Hospitals and Non-Profit Organizations and OMB
Circular A-122 Cost Principles for Non-profit organizations.
a. The audit report is to be provided to City on July 1 of each
year this Agreement is in effect and any findings of non-
compliance affecting the use of CDBG funds shall be satisfied
by Provider within six (6) months of the provision date.
b. The audit may not be paid from CDBG funds.
C. City reserves the right to recover from Provider the full
amount of any CDBG funds found to be improperly expended or
otherwise disallowed.
20. The Provider shall comply with the general condition of 24 CFR
570.200, particularly sections; (f) (Means of Carrying Out Eligible
Activities); and (j) (Constitutional Prohibitions Concerning
Church/State Activities).
21. The Provider as appropriate shall comply with the Lead-Based Paint
notification, inspection, testing and abatement procedures estab-
lished in 24 CFR 570.608.
Provider, having signed this Agreement, and the City of Richfield having
duly approved this Agreement on , 19 _, and pursuant
to such approval the parties hereto agree to be bound by the provisions herein
set forth.
IN TESTIMONY WHEREOF, the parties hereto have set their hands and
affixed their seals this day of 1989.
Upon proper execution, this Agreement will be legally valid and binding.
CITY OF
STATE OF MINNESOTA
By
Mayor
and
Its
0
PROVIDER
By
Its ?-
tt-
and _
Its
THIRD PARTY AGREEMENT
URBAN HENNEPIN COUNTY
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
BLOCK GRANT PROGRAM
EXHIBIT 1.
STATEMENT OF WORK
The following activity shall be carried out by the Provider under the terms of
this Agreement and the details and processes set forth below:
1. ACTIVITY: Child Day Care
2. LOCATION: ADDRESS: Citywide
CENSUS TRACT:
3. NUMBER: 084
4. BUDGET: $20,000
5. BENEFIT: L/M (Limited Clientele)
6. DESCRIPTION:
• Provide child daycare assistance for Section 8 income eligible households
utilizing a sliding fee scale through an agreement with the Greater
Minneapolis Day Care Association.
7. GENERAL REQUIREMENTS: Requirements with an "X" are applicable to this
activity.
[ J Supplemental Agreement
[ J Non-Profit Agency
[ ] Public Agency
[ ] Other
An agreement must be executed with any other agency providing a service
or implementing an activity on behalf of Provider. Said agreement must
contain all pertinent sections contained in Third Party Agreement and
such other requirements as are identified herein.
[X] Schedule
Activity must be implemented in a timely manner and completed by December
31, 1990.
%_-2e-C- / ?
W2 -! v
[X] Environmental Review Record
• Per 24 CFR Part 58 Subpart E the environmental review status for this
activity has been determined as follows:
[ j Exempt (EX)
[ J Categorically Excluded (CE)
[X] Categorically Excluded/Exempt (CE/EX)
[ ] Assessment Required (AR)
[ ] Funds Released (FR) Date:
[ ] Labor Standards/Equal Employment Opportunity
All construction projects of $2,000 or more and financed in whole or part
with federal funds shall comply with the provisions of the Davis-Bacon
Act (prevailing wage), the Contract Work Hours and Safety Standards Act
and the Copeland (Anti-Kickback) Act.
All federally funded or assisted construction contracts or subcontracts
of $10,000 or more shall comply with Executive Order 11246, Equal
Employment Opportunity, as amended, and the regulations issued pursuant
thereto, 41 CFR Part 60.
[ ] Procurement
Standards and guidelines are established in 24 CFR Part 85.36 for the
• procurement of supplies, equipment, construction and services for
federally assisted programs. All procurement shall be made by one of the
following methods. The method used shall be adequately documented and
contracts shall contain standard conditions as appropriate.
- Small Purchase. (Informal Method) To be followed for the purchase
of services, supplies or other property costing in the aggregate not
more than $25,000. If small purchase procurement is used, written
price or rate quotations must be obtained from an adequate number of
qualified sources.
- Competitive Sealed Bids. (Formal Advertising) To be followed when
the purchase/s, costing in the aggregate, exceeds $25,000. Sealed
bids shall be publicly solicited and a firm fixed-price contract is
to be awarded to the lowest responsible bidder. This method is
preferred for soliciting construction bids.
- Competitive Proposals. This method is normally used when more than
one source submits an offer, and either a fixed-price or cost-
reimbursement type contract is awarded. This method is typically
used for procuring professional services.
[ ] Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition
The standards described in 49 CFR Part 24 shall apply to activity that
involves the acquisition of real property or the displacement of persons,
including displacement caused by rehabilitation and demolition.
[ ] Residential Antidisplacement and Relocation Assistance
• All occupied and vacant occupiable low-moderate income dwelling units
demolished or converted to another use as a direct result of activity
shall be replaced and relocation assistance shall be provided to each
displaced low-moderate income household in accordance with the Urban
Hennepin County CDBG Program Anti-displacement and Relocation Assistance
Policy, pursuant to Section 104(d) of the Housing and Community Develop-
ment Act of 1974, as amended.
[ ] Property Management
The standards described in 24 CFR Part 570.505 Subpart J shall apply to
all real property which was acquired or improved in whole or in part
using CDBG funds in excess of $25,000. These standards apply for a
period. of five (5) years after the termination of this agreement.
[X] Low and Moderate Income
Using the applicable Section 8 income limits established by HUD, it shall
be demonstrated that a low- and moderate-income activity so indicated in
5. Benefit, above, meets one of the four criteria of 24 CFR Part 570.208,
relating to:
[ ] Area Benefit
[X] Limited Clientele
• [ ] Housing
[ ] Job Creation or Retention
[ ] Prevention or Elimination of Slums and Blight
It shall be demonstrated that a slum and blight activity so indicated in
5. Benefit, above, meets one of the following criteria:
[ ] Area Determination. The boundaries of the slum or blighted area
must be defined and meet the requirements of 24 CFR Part 570.208
(b)(1)•
[ ] Spot Basis. The specific conditions of blight or physical decay not
located in a slum or blighted area must be described.
[ ] Urgent Community Need
It shall be demonstrated that an urgent need activity, so indicated in 5.
Benefit. above, is designed to alleviate a recent (within 18 months)
condition which poses a serious and immediate threat to the health or
welfare of the community.
[ ] Other Requirements
0
? THIRD PARTY AGREEMENT
URBAN HENNEPIN COUNTY
0 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK
GRANT PROGRAM
This agreement made and entered into by and between the City of Richfield
(City) and the South Hennepin Human Services Council (Provider).
WITNESSETH:
WHEREAS, the City is a cooperating unit in the Urban Hennepin County
Community Development Block Grant Program (CDBG) by virtue of a joint coopera-
tion agreement executed between the City and Hennepin County pursuant to MSA
471.59, and
WHEREAS, the City has executed a-subrecipient.agreement with Hennepin County
which allocates $14,100 from the Year XV (FY 1989) Urban Hennepin County CDBG
program for the purpose of supporting the activity as identified in Exhibit
1, attached and a part of this agreement, hereinafter referred to as "activ-
ity.
NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual covenants and promises contained
in this Agreement, the parties hereto mutually agree to the following terms
and conditions:
1. The Uniform Administrative Requirements in 24 CFR 570.502 issued by
the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD),
is shall apply to activity.
2. The Provider shall be responsible for procurement of all supplies,
equipment, services, and construction necessary for implementation
of the activity. Procurement shall be carried out in accordance
with the OMB Circular A-110. The Provider shall prepare, or cause
to be prepared, all advertisements, negotiations, notices, and
documents; enter into all contracts; and conduct all meetings,
conferences, and interviews as necessary to insure compliance with
the above described procurement requirements.
3. The Provider shall be responsible for carrying out any acquisi-
tions of real property necessary for implementation of activity.
The Provider shall conduct all such acquisitions in its name and
shall hold title to all properties purchased. The Provider shall be
responsible for preparation of all notices, appraisals, and documen-
tation required in conducting acquisition under the latest appli-
cable regulations of the Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real
Property Acquisition Act of 1970 and of the CDBG Program. The
Provider shall also be responsible for providing all relocation
notices, counseling, and services required by said regulations.
4. The Provider shall comply with the acquisition and relocation
requirements of the Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property
Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 as required under 24 CFR 570.606(a)
and HUD implementing regulations at 24 CFR Part 42; the requirements
in 24 CFR 570.606(b) governing the residential anti-displacement and
relocation assistance plan under section 104(d) of the Housing and
Community Development Act of 1974 (the Act); the relocation require-
ments of 24 CFR 570.606(c) governing displacement subject to section
104(k) of the Act; and the relocation requirements of 24 CFR
570.606(d) governing optional relocation assistance under Section
105(a)(11) of the Act, as pertaining to the activity.
5. The Provider shall maintain records for the expenditure of all CDBG
funds it receives, such records to be maintained in accordance with
OMB Circular A-110 and A-122, as applicable. All records shall be
made available, upon request of the City for monitoring by the City.
The City shall have authority to review any and all procedures and
all materials, notices, documents, etc., prepared by the Provider in
implementation of activity, and the Provider agrees to provide all
information required by any person authorized by the City to request
such information from the Provider for the purpose of reviewing the
same.
6. The Provider shall take all necessary actions required to implement
activity and to comply with any related requests by the City, it
being understood that the City has responsibility to Hennepin County
for insuring compliance with such requirements. The Provider also
will promptly notify the City of any changes in the scope or
character of activity.
7. The Provider does hereby agree to release, indemnify, and hold
harmless the City from and against all costs, expenses, claims,
40 suits, or judgments arising from or growing out of any injuries,
loss or damage sustained by any person or corporation, including
employees of Provider and property of Provider, which are caused by
or sustained in connection with the tasks carried out by the
Provider under this Agreement.
8. The City agrees to provide the Provider with CDBG funds in such
amounts as agreed upon in this Agreement to enable the Provider to
carry out activity. It is understood that the City shall be held
accountable to Hennepin County for the lawful expenditure of CDBG
funds under this Agreement. The City shall therefore make no
payment of funds to the Provider and draw no funds from Hennepin
County on behalf of a Provider, prior to having received from the
Provider a request for reimbursement including copies of all
documents and records needed to insure that the Provider has
complied with all appropriate requirements.
9. The City shall be responsible for the preparation of all requests to
Hennepin County for HUD wage rate determinations on activity. The
Provider shall notify the City prior to initiating activity,
including advertising for contractual services which will include
costs likely to be subject to the provisions of Federal Labor
Standards and Equal Employment Opportunity and related implementing
regulations.
C.
rjyJ, ?.z
10. The City agrees to provide technical assistance to the Provider in
the form of oral and/or written guidance and on-site assistance
regarding CDBG procedures and project management. This assistance
will be provided as requested by the Provider, and at other times,
at the initiative of the City, when new or updated information
concerning the CDBG Program is received by the City from Hennepin
County and deemed necessary to be provided to the Provider.
11. In accordance with the provisions of 24 CFR 85.43, suspension or
termination of this Agreement may occur if the Provider materially
fails to comply with any term of this Agreement. This Agreement
may be terminated for convenience in accordance with 24 CFR 85.44.
The Agreement may be terminated with or without cause by either
party hereto by giving thirty (30) days written notice of such
termination. CDBG funds allocated to the Provider under this
Agreement may not be obligated or expended by the Provider following
such date of termination. Any funds allocated to the Provider under
this Agreement which remain unobligated or unspent following such
date of termination shall automatically revert to the City.
12. Any material alterations, variations, modifications or waivers of
provisions of this Agreement shall only be valid when they have
been reduced to writing as an amendment to this Agreement approved
by Hennepin County through its Office of Planning and Development
and properly executed by the authorized representatives of the
parties. All amendments to this Agreement shall be made a part of
this Agreement by inclusion in Exhibit 2 which shall be attached at
the time of any amendment.
13. All data collected, created, received, maintained or disseminated
for any purpose by the Provider in the performance of this Agreement
is governed by the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act, Minne-
sota Statutes, Chapter 13, and all other statutory provisions
governing data privacy, the Minnesota Rules implementing such act
now-in force or hereafter adopted, as well as federal regulations on
data privacy.
14. During the performance of this Agreement, the Provider agrees to the
-following: In accordance with the Hennepin County Affirmative
Action Policy and the County Commissioners' Policies Against
Discrimination,.no person shall be excluded from full employment
rights or participation in, or the benefits of, any program, service
or activity on the grounds of race, color, creed, religion, age,
sex, disability, marital status, affectional/sexual preference,
public assistance status, ex-offender status, or national origin;
and no person protected by applicable federal or state laws against
discrimination shall otherwise be subjected to discrimination.
15. The effective date of this Agreement is July 1, 1989. The termina-
tion date of this agreement is December 31, 1990, or at such time
as activity is satisfactorily completed prior thereto. Upon expira-
tion, the Provider shall relinquish to the City all program funds
unexpended or uncommitted for the activity.
0
16. Any program income as a result of the activity shall be returned
immediately to the City upon receipt and the provisions of 24 CFR
570.504 shall apply.
17. Any real property acquired or improved as a result of activity, in
whole or in part, using CDBG funds in excess of $25,000 shall either
be:
a. Used to meet one of the national objectives in 24 CFR 570.208
until five years after expiration of this Agreement;
b. Disposed of in a manner that results in the City being
reimbursed in the amount of the current fair market value of
the property less any portion of the value attributable to
expenditures of non-CDBG funds for acquisition of, or
improvement to, the property.
•
18. The following standards shall apply to real property acquired or
improved as a result of activity, in whole or in part:
a. The Provider shall inform the City at least thirty (30) days
prior to any modification or change in the use of the real
property from that planned at the time of acquisition or
improvements, including disposition.
b. The Provider shall reimburse the City in an amount equal to the
current fair market value (less any portion thereof attribut-
able to expenditures of non-CDBG funds) of property acquired or
improved as a result of activity that is sold or transferred
for a use which does not qualify under the CDBG regulations.
Said reimbursement shall be provided to the City at the time of
sale or transfer of the property.
19. The Provider agrees to provide City with an annual audit report
consistent with OMB Circular A-110, Uniform Requirements for Grants
to Universities, Hospitals and Non-Profit Organizations and OMB
Circular A-122 Cost Principles for Non-profit organizations.
a. The audit report is to be provided to City on July 1 of each
year this Agreement is in effect and any findings of non-
compliance affecting the use of CDBG funds shall be satisfied
by Provider within six (6) months of the provision date.
b. The audit may not be paid from CDBG funds.
C. City reserves the right to recover from Provider the full
amount of any CDBG funds found to be improperly expended or
otherwise disallowed.
0
20. The Provider shall comply with the general condition of 24 CFR
570.200, particularly sections; (f) (Means of Carrying Out Eligible
Activities); and (j) (Constitutional Prohibitions Concerning
Church/State Activities).
21. The Provider as appropriate shall comply with the Lead-Based Paint
notification, inspection, testing and abatement procedures estab-
lished in 24 CFR 570.608.
Provider, having signed this Agreement, and the City of Richfield having
duly approved this Agreement on 19
_, and pursuant
to such approval the parties hereto agree to be bound by the provisions herein
set forth.
IN TESTIMONY WHEREOF, the parties hereto have set their hands and
affixed their seals this day of , 1989.
Upon proper execution, this Agreement will be legally valid and binding.
CITY OF
STATE OF MINNESOTA
By
Mayor
and
Its
PROVIDER
South Hennepin Human Services Council
By = - - _
Its Executive "Director
and i V k-6t?N-4)
Its Board Cha'jr
0
THIRD PARTY AGREEMENT
URBAN HENNEPIN COUNTY
• COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
BLOCK GRANT PROGRAM
EXHIBIT 1.
STATEMENT OF WORK
The following activity shall be carried out by the Provider under the terms of
this Agreement and the details and processes set forth below:
1. ACTIVITY: Household and Outside Maintenance for Elderly (H.O.M.E.)
2. LOCATION: ADDRESS: Citywide
CENSUS TRACT:
3. NUMBER: 086
4. BUDGET: $14,100
5. BENEFIT: L/M (Limited Clientele)
6. DESCRIPTION:
• Provide routine home maintenance/repairs and homemaker services through
the H.O.M.E. program to the elderly and handicapped. This is a program
of the South Hennepin Human Services Council.
7. GENERAL REQUIREMENTS: Requirements with an "X" are applicable to this
activity.
[ ] Supplemental Agreement
[ ] Non-Profit Agency
[ ] Public Agency
[ ] Other
An agreement must be executed with any other agency providing a service
or implementing an activity on behalf of Provider. Said agreement must
contain all pertinent sections contained in Third Party Agreement and
such other requirements as are identified herein.
[X] Schedule
Activity must be implemented in a timely manner and completed by December
31, 1990.
0
.?2 e-/,/,
[X] Environmental Review Record
• Per 24 CFR Part 58 Subpart t the environmental review status for this
activity has been determined as follows:
[X]
II
II
II
II
(CE/EX)
[ ] Labor Standards/Equal Employment Opportunity
All construction projects of $2,000 or more and financed in whole or part
with federal funds shall comply with the provisions of the Davis-Bacon
Act (prevailing wage), the Contract Work Hours and Safety Standards Act
and.the.Copeland (Anti-Kickback) Act.
All federally funded or assisted construction contracts or subcontracts
of $10,000 or more shall comply with Executive Order 11246, Equal
Employment Opportunity, as amended, and the regulations issued pursuant
thereto, 41 CFR Part 60.
[ ] Procurement
Standards and guidelines are established in 24 CFR Part 85.36 for the
procurement of supplies, equipment, construction and services for
• federally assisted programs. All procurement shall be made by one of the
following methods. The method used shall be adequately documented and
contracts shall contain standard conditions as appropriate.
- Small Purchase. (Informal Method) To be followed for the purchase
of services, supplies or other property costing in the aggregate not
more than $25,000. If small purchase procurement is used, written
price or rate quotations must be obtained from an adequate number of
qualified sources.
- Competitive Sealed Bids. (Formal Advertising) To be followed when
the purchase/s, costing in the aggregate, exceeds $25,000. Sealed
bids shall be publicly solicited and a firm fixed-price contract is
to be awarded to the lowest responsible bidder. This method is
preferred for soliciting construction bids.
- Competitive Proposals. This method is normally used when more than
one source submits an offer, and either a fixed-price or cost-
reimbursement type contract is awarded. This method is typically
used for procuring professional services.
[ ] Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition
The standards described in 49 CFR Part 24 shall apply to activity that
involves the acquisition of real property or the displacement of persons,
including displacement caused by rehabilitation and demolition.
•
Exempt (EX)
Categorically Excluded (CE)
Categorically Excluded/Exempt
Assessment Required (AR)
Funds Released (FR) Date:
[ ] Residential Antidisplacement and Relocation Assistance
All occupied and vacant occupiable low-moderate income dwelling units
demolished or converted to another use as a direct result of activity
shall be replaced and relocation assistance shall be provided to each
displaced low-moderate income household in accordance with the Urban
Hennepin County CDBG Program Anti-displacement and Relocation Assistance
Policy, pursuant to Section 104(d) of the Housing and Community Develop-
ment Act of 1974, as amended.
[ ] Property Management
The standards described in 24 CFR Part 570.505 Subpart J shall apply to
all real property which was acquired or improved in whole or in part
using CDBG funds in excess of $25,000. These standards apply for a
period of five (5) years after the termination of this agreement.
[X] Low and Moderate Income
Using the applicable Section 8 income limits established by HUD, it shall
be demonstrated that a low- and moderate-income activity so indicated in
5. Benefit, above, meets one of the four criteria of 24 CFR Part 570.208,
relating to:
[ ] Area Benefit
[X] Limited Clientele
[ ] Housing
• [ ] Job Creation or Retention
[ ] Prevention or Elimination of Slums and Blight
It shall be demonstrated that a slum and blight activity so indicated in
5. Benefit, above, meets one of the following criteria:
[ ] Area Determination. The boundaries of the slum or blighted area
must be defined and meet the requirements of 24 CFR-Part 570.208
(b)(1).
[ J Spot Basis. The specific conditions of blight or physical decay not
located in a slum or blighted area must be described.
[ ] Urgent Community Need
It shall be demonstrated that an urgent need activity, so indicated in 5.
Benefit. above, is designed to alleviate a recent (within 18 months)
condition which poses a serious and immediate threat to the health or
welfare of the community.
[ ] Other Requirements
0
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Council Letter No. 226
Agenda October 9, 1989
•
•
0
Issue Statement:
Payment to the League of Minnesota Cities Insurance Trust
Administrator in excess of $5,000.
Background:
The City purchases general liability insurance from the League of
Minnesota Cities Insurance Trust with GAB Business Services as
Administrator. The City's insurance policy has a $50,000
deductible for liability claims. In 1986, the City significantly
reduced its premium by having a large deductible. The premium
savings and additional monies have been used to create a Self-
Insurance Fund to cover payments made which are under the
deductible as claims arise.
On June 2, 1988, a single motorcycle accident occurred at the
intersection of First Avenue and 68th Street. The passenger,
Todd Pullium, died as a result of personal injury sustained
during the course of the accident. The estate filed a suit
claiming the City caused the accident to occur by failing to post
a sign warning that First Avenue ended in a T intersection.
The City's insurance carrier and legal representation settled the
claim in the amount of $1,000. The settlement was based on a
purely economic basis. The cost to defend and adjudicate the
claim would have been more costly than the nominal settlement.
In addition to the settlement cost, the City incurred $5,546 in
defense costs. Since the settlement and defense costs fall
within our deductible limit, the City is directly responsible for
this payment.
Recommended Motion:
Approve the payment to GAB Business Services in the amount of
$6,546.00
Basis of Recommendation:
1. The City's insurance policy provides that the Insurance
carrier shall, at its discretion, investigate, settle, or
defend any claim or suit against the City. The insurance
carrier and its attorneys have settled this claim.
2. Funding is provided for defense or payment of claims
costing less than the $50,000 deductible.
Alternative Recommendation:
None.
Discussion/Decision Mode:
This item is on the October 9, 1989 regular City Council
meeting consent calendar.
ully submitted,
Resp
7? I
Jame . Prosser
City nager
RECEIVED SEP 2 61989 ?"2.,8
0
DYER A CENTURY OF SERVICE
it
7 - Z ?- g?
INSURED: C(ty of Rf 40eld
CLAIMANT: Vdd PaWOM
GAB FILE NO.: 5652,7- (i?QZ
DATE OF CLAIM: 6- 2,-
WE HAVE CONCLUDED THE SETTLEMENT OF THE ABOVE CLAIM(S)
WHICH OCCURRED TO rjOdd Pat (AA
PLEASE BE ADVISED THAT THE CONTRACT THAT YOU HAVE WITH
THE LEAGUE OF MINNESOTA CITIES TRUST DOES HAVE A DEDUCTIBLE
ON THE INVOLVED CLAIM(S).
•
PLEASE ISSUE A DRAFT FOR $ ? 7 60 6 PAYABLE TO GAB
BUSINESS SERVICES.INC. AND FORWARD IT TO OUR OFFICE.
SHOULD YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS. PLEASE CONTACT OUR OFFICE.
SINCERELY.
A W ?ooa 0
ADJUSTER
GAB Business Services Inc
9531 West 78th Street Suite 220
Eden Prairie, Minnesota 55344
Telephone 612-942-9818
Branch Office
d?f? o Ravel ???f
?'Nc(? ?R?? caPi ?S
AT Ty
(1 006 ( 00
?r 516, 60
??1
U
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
• Council Letter No. 225
Agenda October 9, 1989
Issue Statement:
Adoption of a resolution to increase residential refuse hauler
license fees and authorization for the Mayor and City Manager to
enter into contracts with residential waste/recyclables
collectors.
Background:
Hennepin County reimburses cities for up to 80% of recycling
expenses. Richfield has chosen to participate in the recycling
grants program as long as Hennepin County continues to subsidize
municipal programs and as long as Richfield residents are paying
into the county recycling fund. Given our current program and
corresponding high participation rates, Richfield will qualify
for 80% reimbursement.
Contracts with service providers are necessary in order to
receive Hennepin County funding. As indicated during the April
Study Session and May Public Hearing, the City will enter into
contracts with the residential waste haulers to partially
reimburse them for recycling expenses. The proposed contract
would reimburse haulers $1.85 per household per month (HH/M) and
the term of the proposed contract would be July 1 through
• December 31, 1989. The $1.85 HH/M amount falls mid-range among
rates paid by other Hennepin County municipalities. Without
reimbursement by the City, these costs would be passed directly
to residents and Richfield would not be able to take full
advantage of the County's recycling grant program. Haulers are
aware that in order for them to receive the $1.85 HH/M, they must
contribute the portion for which the City will not be reimbursed.
On the basis of each household per month, this amounts to:
370 covers City's portion of collection costs
+ 100 (for one year) covers City's portion of container costs
470 HH/M TOTAL
These fees would be in addition to the "per truck" license fee
charges currently in place and would be accounted for separately.
The 470 HH/M will be retroactive to July 1, 1989. We will try to
work out an arrangement whereby payments would be due
approximately the same time as reimbursement payments would be
made to haulers. Periodically, license fees will need to be
adjusted due to changes in Hennepin County funding.
Recommended Motion:
Adopt the attached resolution increasing residential haulers
license fees by 470 per household per month and authorize the
Mayor and City Manager to enter into contracts with residential
waste haulers.
0
Basis of Recommendation:
• County recycling monies can only be distributed to haulers
through the cities. Hennepin County requires cities to have
contracts with recyclables collectors in order to receive
reimbursement for collection expenses. Without a reimbursement
to haulers, Richfield residents would pay more for trash
collection service and the City would not be taking full
advantage of the County's grant program.
Alternative Recommendation:
1. Council could choose not to increase license fees and have
the City incur that portion of recycling expenses not
reimbursed by Hennepin County; however, the City has no
identified funding source at this time.
2. Council could choose not to increase license fees and not
to participate in the County's recycling grant program;
however residents would continue to pay into the County's
recycling fund and receive no benefits in return.
Discussion/Decision Mode:
Adoption of the resolution is recommended at this time so that
tonnage documentation as well as invoices can be compiled and
processed in a timely manner.
•
JDP/sdr
Respectf ly submitted,
James Prosser
City M nagger
0
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION INCREASING LICENSE FEES
FOR RESIDENTIAL WASTE HAULERS
WHEREAS, Richfield will participate in Hennepin County's
recycling grants program as long as the County continues to
subsidize these programs and as long as Richfield residents must
pay into the recycling fund; and
WHEREAS, Hennepin County reimburses cities for up to 80% of
recycling expenses, the majority of recycling costs being
collection service; and
WHEREAS, in order for the City to receive grant money to
reimburse recyclables collectors, it must incur that portion of
expenses not reimbursed by Hennepin County; and
WHEREAS, the City will pass these costs to recyclables
collectors through an increase in license fees.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the
City of Richfield as follows:
1. That retroactive to July 1, 1989, license fees for
residential waste haulers be increased by 47(? per household per
month.
2. That the funds generated by the license fee increase be
used solely to cover the City's share of recycling expenses.
3. That any change in County funding policy will affect the
City's reimbursement amount thereby requiring a review of the
license fee.
PASSED by the City Council of the City of Richfield this 9th day
of October, 1989.
Steven J. Quam Mayor
ATTEST:
Thomas P. Ferber City Clerk
?--1
L_J