9-11-89 agenda
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Council Letter No. 214
Agenda September 11, 1989
Issue Statement:
Application fora permanent New and Used Motor Vehicle Dealer
License for Richfield Motors, Inc. DBA Richfield Mitsubishi,
located at 920Y.W. 78th Street for 1989.
Background:
On April 10, 1989 the Richfield City Council approved a temporary
new and used motor vehicle dealer license for Richfield
Mitsubishi. The application that had been received from
Richfield Mitsubishi on April 7, 1989 had not yet been reviewed
by the Public Safety Department or Community Development
Department. Richfield Mitsubishi requested at that time that a
temporary license be granted until staff had an opportunity to
complete the review process.
Since the April 10, 1989 council meeting, the application has
been reviewed by staff in the Public Safety Department and the
Community Development Department. Richfield Mitsubishi has
complied with requests for additional information from the City's
business licensing staff and Community Development personnel..
The applicant has submitted an acceptable landscaping plan as of
August 9, 1989. The plan is required as part of the off-street
parking permit. The plan provides for phased landscaping
improvements contingent upon redevelopment of the ILN area.
It should also be noted that the applicant has obtained the State
of Minnesota Motor Vehicle.Dealer's License for 1989.
Recommended Motion:
Approve the new and used motor vehicle dealer license for
Richfield Motors, Inc. DBA Richfield Mitsubishi.
Basis of Recommendation:
1. The applicant has submitted an acceptable landscaping plan
for the offstreet parking permit.
Alternative Recommendation:
If the offstreet parking plan is not acceptable to ',the City
Council deny the license.
Discussion/Decision Mode:
Consideration of the request for the issuance of a permanent new
and used motor vehicle dealer license for 1989 for ',Richfield,
Motors, Inc. DBA Richfield Mitsubishi is presented'zt this time.
Respect-. 4XW submitted,
Ci
. Prosser
JDP:sae
City of Richfield, Minnesota
Council Letter No. 213
Agenda, September 11, 1989
Issue Statement:
Offstreet parking permit application at 920 West 78th Street.
Background:
Richfield Mitsubishi has requested an offstreet parking permit
for the operation of an auto dealership at 920 West 78th Street.
The property is located in a C-3, high density commercial
district.
This site is part of the property included in the ILN
redevelopment proposal of the Larsen Partners. As a result, the
parking proposal is divided into two phases. The initial phase
would require minimal capital expenditures including minor
alteration to the on-site traffic pattern and the planting of
sod, shrubs and trees along the boulevard areas of the site (Map
A-1).
The second phase would be implemented upon the termination of the
Larsen proposal and would require those improvements which have
been required of other applicable car dealerships. This includes
the redesign of the off-street parking, relocation of the curb
is cuts and additional landscaping (Map A-2).
Recommendation:
Approve the offstreet parking permit for 920 West 78th Street
with the following stipulations:
1) That the submitted landscape plan be implemented for each
phase of the proposal.
2) That a drainage plan for the site be approved by the
City engineers office for phase two of the project prior
to construction.
Basis of Recommendation:
The pending redevelopment proposal was taken into consideration
in the review of the current operation. Minimum capital outlay
has been required but the major neighborhood impacting issues
have been considered. Adequate parking spaces have been
specifically designated for customers and employees. One way
traffic flow has been instituted to deal with the narrow curb
cuts. Cars have been taken off the city boulevards to permit
snow storage and some landscaping added to soften the appearance.
If the Larsen proposal is terminated for any reason, applicant
has agreed to implement our normal requirements which include
more extensive landscaping and redesign of the parking and
drainage.
•
Alternative Recommendation:
Deny the offstreet parking application in the event that a
finding of fact determines that the proposal would have a
negative impact on the area and/or neighbors.
Discussion/Decision Mode:
This item is scheduled for council action at the September 11,
1989 City Council meeting.
ly submitted,
JameO,/D. Prosser
City Manager
JDP:sae
•
PROPOSED
ATTACHMENT A
REQUIRED
Parking
RequiredlArea/Emp/Bays
Area/Emp/Bays
Proposed Parking
1. Richfield Mitsubishi
Showroom 1200 sq. ft. 6 No
individual parking
designation
provided.
Office 200 sq. ft. 1
I
I Service 4 employees 28
I 8 bays
I
I
I Parts/Retail 1 employee 1
I
1000 sq. ft.
I TOTAL 36
I (Not including display cars) I I
( Total
spaces ? 94
Proposed
for
site.
• I
y-3
• I
I I I
I I I
I
I I
I
I I I
I I I
I I I
I I I
I I I
I
*Parking Requirement Based On The Following:
Showroom: 1 space for every 200 s.f. of gross floor area
• Office: 1 space for every 250 s.f. of gross floor area
f
Service: 3 space for every bay and 1 or every
space
employee
Parts: 1 space for every 1000 s.f. of gross floor area
or
1 space for every 1-1/2 employee whichever is
greater
C7
•
•
a ° n v i-- c o u s v a °'
-- a s! , e 8 » - r! i r ?
?y H H 1 H H 1 i rNi H H N 1 N N
XERKES AVE --
WAS
UPTON
I? I
THOMAS l?a I
ooo??? = =-?_- ,moo moo:
SNERIDAN
RUSSELL
Sq 5 f '-1?-
OVEEN
?:1 I L
PENN AV E. OLIVER
NEWTON
MORGAN ?O?I ?oiCO?oCO??jCOCOC
LOGAN ICOCO CoCoCOCOCoooC
KNOX
JAMES
?o`_-ooo?. CoC
IRVING
__-+?•_? --oCOC?COCOC
HUMBOLOT
.IRARO
FREMONT
ooC?
EMERSON
DUPONT U I??\ n o
COLFAX
BRYANT ooCOL 1
ALDRICH OooCl I,??\?".
LYNDALE AVE.
GARFIELD i? J-.?
HARRIET -'?dCC_7 L-:^
GRAND lu •SEF?._.?•;? ?JuUli ?'??n?C_?`??J -
PLEASANT W .?_!____` ?• ::L:•2 ::::••r _-?L
PILLSBURY y,?».,ZF `LL.?._
'
WENTWOBTN C• ?•• J l
I
BLAISDELI 11 • '. o~ II
NICOLLET AVE. I` ?O=.? II??
1a ^ ^IoCO oC
STEVENS
2nd 1 :2: ?I COL
3rd CoC
CLINTON ?. C
d to.
Stn
PORTLAND AVE.
OAKLAND 1 "I AVE. S.
,
PARK I--?
COLUMBUS tr I. f
I!
CHICAGO
ELLIOT I ?C
101n ?.
n ,n I ?? I
2 to ! --_ t 00
u In - LYNDALE AVE. S. oC?oC
a IN
CEDAR AVE
LONGFELLOW
_ ?? r w 1 u
z n t9
A = <
C O
2 ?t
<r
=v
z
-??t I
A A
• 4
> s
n
N
N
r
a?
H
XERXES AVE
II WASHBURN.
VINCENT
UPTON
THOMAS
I
-? SHERIDAN
RUSSELL
QUEEN
it PENN AVE.
OLIVER
7 NEWTON
MORGAN
LOGAN
KNOK
1! JAMES
7111 IRVING
I' HUMBOIOT
II GIRARp
1
FREMONT
I, EMERSON
II DUPONT
I
I' COLFAX
?'1I BRYANT
tl, ALDRICH
I'I
7 LYNDALE AVE.
I
LI I GARFIELD
'II HARRIET
GRAND
I
Ttl PLEASANT
III PILLSBURY
1
I? WENTWORTH
I
II BLAISDELL
?I'11 NICOLLET AVE.
ST EVENS
2%d
3,4
CLINTON
Jldt%
.Stn
PORTLAND AVE.
OAKLAND
PARK
11 COLUMBUS
I!I CHICAGO
j , ELLIOT
10 t%
I
12111
13 t?
Id 111
is t%'
BLOOMINGTON
161%
171%
IB 1%
CEDAR AVE.
LONOFELLOW
1910.
20111
21 ul
22nd
STAN013H
23rd
i
920 W. 78th ST.
ZONING
C-1 NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL MR-1 TWO FAMILY RESIDENCE
C-2 GENERAL COMMERCIAL ?o?eo MR-2 3-16 UNIT RESIDENCES
® C-3 HIGH DENSITY COMMERCIAL
f
I ,
- I I
----a i I I I
I I I I I
I I I I I
I I I i
I I I
I I -_ _ I I
I I i I
I l
•
I
I
I
I
I Q
O
? U
N
R RESIDENCE
R-1 RESIDENCE
W N
> ---
Q LLI
S >
U Q
W
p J
J Q
Q p
Z
J
4
N
IL I
if I
-LHAIII III/
111 1111 1 Ly
920 W. 78th ST.
LAND USE
COMMERCIAL 0 QUASI-PUBLIC
APARTMENT 0 "T PARK
a DUPLEX
;xL?.+ j•- is .?'
I ?
t I? I -
i
? i
?I
I
I
I I I
i
i
I 1 I
1
I I I
I I i i
I
I i I
0
? SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE
® VACANT
Q
N
m
E
r----. .
M---" 1
W
Q
IL
J
Q
0
Z
J
920 W. 78th ST¦
COMPREHENSIVE DEVELOPMENT PLAN
00o MEDIUM DENSITY/BUFFER MULTIPLE RESIDENTIAL
¦; MIXED LAND USE ® INSTITUTIONAL
0 FREEWAY STRIP 1:1 SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL Q
PARK
L ? I' I
I
I . i
---
h---- ?----
------
I ---- --
I --
?
I
i
-4
I
I
1 I
I
I
I
1 I
1
`? I
I
I I
I
I
I
l --
uj 1 LLI I N to
i
C6 I
Q Q > I ? I I I
Z Q Q ----1
Q
w Q O I Q --
¢ o0o W 00, 000 000000 -i 0
N
o0
00
?--
I o0
---?- ?
Loic-
0-27
000
0
o
?o 000
ooo 00
000
0
?ooo
000
o00 0?
000 000
p°°°°O 0000
000 °oo
000
000°0
0000
00 I
•ii
U:
ui
Q
W
J
Q
O
2
J
•
•
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Council Letter No. 212
Agenda September 11, 1989
Issue Statement:
Resolution modifying the number of terms for members of Advisory
Boards and Commissions.
Background:
In February of 1975, the City Council passed a resolution which
established the number of terms a member of a Advisory Board or
Commission could serve. The resolution was passed in an effort
to establish a uniform policy to afford an opportunity for
citizens who had not previously served or may have had some break
in the continuity of services, to be considered for appointment.
It was also stated that it is desirable to have some change in
the membership from time to time, to encourage volunteerism,
facilitate broad community representation, including geographic
considerations, ethnic minorities, women, youth, professional,
business and technical people.
The Resolution 7006, indicated that the term of any Advisory
Board or Commission member be limited to (three consecutive terms
on the same Advisory Board or Commission.....). The phrase,
"three consecutive terms", did not address the situation where an
appointment was made to fill a partial term.
The resolution before the City Council under consideration amends
the current resolution in that it clarifies that for purposes of
the resolution, appointment to serve on a Board or Commission of
time greater than one half of a complete term would be counted as
a full term. Thus, the three consecutive term limit is further
delineated by the resolution.
Recommended Motion:
City Council adoption of the resolution establishing the number
of terms for members of Advisory Boards and Commissions.
Basis of Recommendation:
1. It has been suggested that a partial term of office be
clarified with respect to application of the three
term limit.
2. City Council currently has a resolution in effect limiting
terms of office on Advisory Boards and Commissions to
three terms.
0
Alternative Recommendation:
The City Council could decide not to adopt this resolution and
leave the existing resolution as it stands. That would not
address the specific concern of a partial term.
--?
Discussion/Decision Mode:
It is suggested that this item be considered at the September 11,
1989, City Council meeting, so that the resolution would be in
place before any preliminary work on future Council appointments
to Boards and Commissions is initiated.
Respect ully submitted,
Jam s Prosser
Cit anager
JDP:sae
•
is
7
RESOLUTION NO. 7548
RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING THE NUMBER OF
TERMS FOR MEMBERS OF ADVISORY BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS
•
•
WHEREAS, the City Council has established from time to time
Boards and Commissions to serve in an advisory capacity to the
City Council; and
WHEREAS, annually there are usually more volunteers to serve
on Advisory Boards and Commissions than there are openings to
fill; and
WHEREAS, it is the policy of the City Council to seek and
involve citizens as a way of adding citizen input in the policy
process; and
WHEREAS, Advisory Boards and Commissions are established
with a portion of the membership terms to expire each year to
afford an opportunity for citizens who have not previously served
or may have some break in the continuity of service to be
considered for appointment; and
WHEREAS, it is desirable to have some change in the
membership from time to time to encourage volunteerism and to
facilitate broad community representation including geographic
considerations, ethnic minorities, women, youth, and
professional, business and technical people.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the
City of Richfield as follows:
1. That this Resolution supercedes Resolution No. 7006.
2. That it shall be the policy of the City Council except
as otherwise provided by State Statutes and City
Ordinances to limit the term of any Advisory Board or
Commission Member to three consecutive terms on the same
Advisory Board or Commission unless there are fewer
applicants than positions open. For the purposes of
this resolution, appointment to serve on a Board or
Commission for a period of time greater than one-half of
a complete term shall be counted as a full term. If the
City Council appoints a citizen who has had a break in
continuous service on the same Advisory Board or
Commission, it shall be treated as a first term
appointment.
PASSED by the City Council of the City of Richfield this
11th day of September, 1989.
Steven J. Quam
ATTEST:
Mayor
0 Thomas P. Ferber City Clerk
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING THE NUMBER OF
TERMS FOR MEMBERS OF ADVISORY BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS
WHEREAS, the City Council has established from time to time
Boards and Commissions to serve in an advisory capacity to the
City Council; and
WHEREAS, annually there are usually more volunteers to serve
on Advisory Boards and Commissions than there are openings to
fill; and
WHEREAS, it is the policy of the City Council to seek and
involve citizens as a way of adding citizen input in the policy
process; and
WHEREAS, Advisory Boards and Commissions are established
with a portion of the membership terms to expire each year to
afford an opportunity for citizens who have not previously served
or may have some break in the continuity of service to be
considered for appointment; and
WHEREAS, it is desirable to have some change in the
membership from time to time to encourage volunteerism and to
facilitate broad community representation including geographic
• considerations, ethnic minorities, women, youth, and
professional, business and technical people.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the
City of Richfield as follows:
THAT it shall be the policy of the City Council except as
otherwise provided by State Statutes and City Ordinances to
limit the term of any Advisory Board or Commission Member to
three consecutive terms on the same Advisory Board or
Commission unless there are fewer applicants than positions
open. For the purposes of this resolution, appointment to
serve on a Board or Commission for a period of time greater
than one-half of a complete term shall be counted as a full
term. If the City Council appoints a citizen who has had a
break in continuous service on the same Advisory Board or
Commission, it shall be treated as a first term appointment.
PASSED by the City Council of the City of Richfield this
28th day of August, 1989.
Steven J. Quam Mayor
ATTEST:
0
Thomas P. Ferber City Clerk
?J4-
• CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Council Letter No. 211
Agenda September 11, 1989
Issue Statement:
Consideration of a resolution modifying policies and fees for
City Assessing services.
Background:
As part of?the duties and responsibilities
Division, the assessing staff is contacted
various information to the public. Inquir:
realtors, title companies, and individuals
requesting information which is ultimately
a piece of property, including the special
the property.
of the City Assessing
daily to provide
Les are made by
selling their homes,
used in the listing of
assessment searches of
Listing information requests by the realtors and title companies
include estimated market value of a piece of property, tax
information, the name of the owner or the taxpayer of the
property, legal descriptions, lot size, the year the property was
built, homestead status and so forth. The information is very
extensive and requires a significant amount of time to research
and release. With the large number of home sales that take place
in Richfield annually, these requests for information take up a
large portion of the Assessing Division's time.
• Other types or categories of information which are often
requested are items such as comparable residential property
records, homestead classifications, and listings of property
owners. Comparable residential property records are requested to
assist a property owner who may request to see records of
comparable properties in the City to make a comparison as to
whether the estimated market value on the taxpayer'Is property
seems appropriate when compared to those properties. Homestead
classifications and listings of properties for proposed zoning
changes are also types of information often requested of the
Assessing Division.
The attached resolution identifies the policies, procedures and
fees associated with providing the above-cited information to the
public. The resolution considers the cost of providing these
services as well as data practices requirements. Within the
resolution, the first three sections are identical to the
resolution previously adopted by the City Council in December,
1988. Section IV, however, has been added.
Section IV deals with reviews of comparable commercial,
industrial, and apartment building records. The field cards for
this information contain certain pieces of information which is
classified as confidential. When copies of the card are
• requested by the public, it is necessary to examine each card and
cover confidential information before showing or copying the
data. This process is necessary and is labor intensive.
• Hennepin County uses the same process with respect to commercial,
industrial, and apartment data records and charges $2.00 per copy
to cover costs. Richfield incurs the same labor costs in
duplicating these records for the public upon request. Thus, it
would be appropriate to charge the same fee as does Hennepin
County to recover our costs. Currently, the City charges only
250 per copy for such records.
Recommended Motion:
Adopt the attached resolution modifying policies and fees for
assessing services.
Basis of Recommendation:
1. There is a need to establish and periodically modify
policies, procedures and fees which uniformly treat requests
for information and comply with all aspects of the Data
Privacy Act.
2. The fees and policies contained in the attached resolution
are comparable to those followed by municipalities in the
metropolitan area and Hennepin County for the same
information.
Alternative Recommendation:
1. The City could adopt the policies and procedures, modifying
• them in some manner, or decide to either increase or decrease
the fees proposed therein.
2. The City Council could decide not to adopt the attached
resolution and simply direct staff to continue to operate
under the current practice.
Discussion/Decision Mode:
It would be appropriate for the City Council to consider this
matter at the next Council meeting so that the modifications may
be in effect to assist the Assessing Division in dealing with
requests for information.
Re7D. lly submitted,
Ja Prosser
Ci ger
JDP:ff
0
RESOLUTION NO.
• RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING POLICIES, PROCEDURES, AND FEES FOR
THE ASSESSING DIVISION
WHEREAS, the City Assessing Division provides a variety of
services to the public, to title companies and to realtors, relating to
information necessary for sale and purchase of property; and
WHEREAS, special assessment searches are requested when closing on
purchased properties; and
WHEREAS, listing information is requested when there is an interest in
property sales or purchases; and
WHEREAS, residential property records are requested when comparing
properties for market values; and
WHEREAS, certain specific information, such as special assessment
searches, property listing information, comparable residential property records
and homestead information are regularly sought by realtors, title companies and
homeowners in the sale and transfer of property within the City and homeowners
in the sale and transfer of property within the City; and
WHEREAS, the above list of requests for information constitutes a large
portion of the work load of the City Assessing Division; and
• WHEREAS, it would be desirable to establish policies and procedures, as
well as set fees for the distribution of said information by the Assessing
Division; and
WHEREAS, said policies, procedures and fees must be reviewed and modified
as needed.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council (hereby establishes
the following policies, procedures and fees for dissemination of certain
information in the City's Assessing Division.
I. SPECIAL ASSESSMENT SEARCHES PROCEDURES
Provided, upon receipt of
written request for multi-
ple searches or phone re-
quest for same day pickup
of a single search, by
City Assessing Division
identifying levied and
pending assessments.
Provide verbal update by
phone of previously re-
quested certified City
special assessment
searches.
Provide written request
and $10.00 fee per
Property Identification
Number (PID). Searches
are normally in the
mail 24 hours after
receipt.
Provided the same day
if a single certified
or non-certified search
is requested and if
picked up at the City.
FEES
$10.00 per Property
Identification
Number (PID). The
search is a bill-
ing statement.
Provided free of
charge if a certi-
fied City search
is not requested.
Homeowner may re-
quest a $10.00
search for closing
Provided the following purposes.
• Do not provide additional work day for multiple
billing statements for certified or non-certi-
assessments. fied search requests and
will be available for
pickup after 3:00 p.m.
Verbal verification (up-
date) of City certified
levied and pending
assessments before
closing. After identi-
fying self, caller will
provide property address,
PID number, date and
receipt number of search.
II. LISTING INFORMATION
Provide, upon multiple
written or a single phone
request, printouts.
Printouts include:
•
PID number
Estimated Market Value
Tax information
Owner/taxpayer
Legal Description
Special assessments
and pending)
Lot size
Year built
PROCEDURES
A phone or written re-
quest and receipt of
$2.00.
Allow h hour before
pickup for a single pro-
perty request to prevent
waiting for information.
FEES
$2.00 per PID
number or per
printed sheet.
Homeowners may
request a free
printout.
Allow 24 hours from
receipt of request for
(levied pickup of listing
information on multiple
properties.
Provide verbal updates
by phone of previously
requested City printouts.
Provided free of
charge if printout
is not requested.
Give name, firm, address
of property and PID number
(if available) for
requests.
Three listing inquiries
on the following
accessible information
will be provided by phone
by the City:
•
PID number
Year built
Lot size
School district
Legal description
Taxes
Mill rate for Richfield
Estimated difference
between homestead and
-/
non-homestead tax
• amounts
Fee owner/taxpayer
Market value
Homestead status
Square footage of residen-
tial buldings will not
appear as listing informa-
tion on printouts unless
requested. Square footage
for rental properties are
protected under the Data
Privacy Act; and, there-
fore, will not be given
as listing information.
Special assessments and
square footage of buildings
will not be given by phone.
However, they will be given
at the City office when
requested. Exception:
Homeowners will be given
special assessments and
square footage by phone if
• they provide their social
security numbers. Otherwise,
the owner can request a free
complete listing printout.
Give name, firm, property
address, PID number,
date of printout and
receipt number when
updating printouts.
Requested complete list-
ing information, without
a requested printout,
will be partially supplied
verbally by the Assessing
Division. The Division
will orally supply
special assessments,
next year's market value
(when available),
homestead status, and
property characteristics.
Requesting party will be
allowed to use the
County's terminal screen
• for additional information
(only screens 101, 103,
108 and 109). Inter-
ruptions will occur for
City use. Time limits
on the County's terminal
will be set based on
City's immediate needs.
III.REVIEW OF COMPARABLE PROCEDURES FEES
RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY
RECORDS
Provide a field card Request for more than May request $.25
record of a subject pro- five properties must be per copy for up to
perty and comparable submitted in writing and five comparable
properties. include individual properties.
property addresses (PID
numbers will help cut Free of charge
our response time). when personally
writes information
The individual must supplied by
allow the City to set the Assessing
the time convenient Division.
for the City to
supply information
on a one-on-one basis.
• More than five com-
parable properties,
will be allowed to
view and record
information under
strict supervision
of the Assessing
Division.
The City will not
assemble or analyze
data.
IV. REVIEW OF COMPARABLE PROCEDURES FEES
COMMERCIAL, INDUSTRIAL
AND APARTMENT PROPERTY
RECORDS
Provide partial field Request for more than May request $2.00
card record of a subject five properties must be per copy.
property and comparable submitted in writing and
properties. include individual Free of charge
property addresses (PID when personally
numbers will help cut writes information
our response time). orally supplied by
the Assessing
Because of the Data Division.
Privacy Act, viewing
. the property field cards
will be prohibited.
Confidential, private or
nonpublic data is
protected under the
Data Privacy Act.
The following confidential
data is recorded on the
property field cards:
a. Detailed income and
expense figures;
b. Average vacancy
factors;
c. Verified net rentable
areas or net usable
areas;
d. Anticipated income
and expenses for the
current year; and
e. Projected vacancy
• factor for the
current year.
The above confidential
information will be
blocked out when photo-
copying field cards.
The individual must allow
the City to set the time
convenient for the City to
supply information on a
one-on-one basis.
The City will not
assemble or analyze data.
Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this 11th day of
September, 1989.
Steven J. Quam Mayor
ATTEST:
TPiSmas P. Ferber City Clerk
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
• Council Letter No. 208
Agenda, September 11, 1989
Issue Statement:
Resolution levying a special assessment for nuisance destruction.
Background:
There is aresolution on the September 11, 1989, City Council
agenda certifying a special assessment for nuisance abatement to
Hennepin County. This assessment is for costs incurred by the
City in connection with abatement for nuisances on certain
properties in the City which are not property maintained by their
owners. In each case the owner of the subject property was
notified by the City to correct the nuisance and failed to do so
within a timely limit. Property owners were notified that if the
nuisance is not abated by the property owner within the proper
time limit, the City would take corrective action necessary and
bill the property owner. When the cost of the nuisance abatement
provided by the City is not paid by the property owner, it can be
assessed against the property tax for a one year period.
The attached resolution provides for this assessment against two
properties in the total amount of $980.00.
• Recommended Motion:
Adopt the attached resolution levying a special assessment for
nuisance abatement against the listed property owners in the
total amount of $980.00
Basis for Recommendation:
1. The properties were not maintained by the owners and the City
incurred costs to abate the nuisance.
2. Minnesota State Statutes provide that the City may levy a
special one-year assessment for these costs.
Alternative Recommendation:
1. Do not approve the resolution and have the costs absorbed by
the City.
Discussion/Decision Mode:
This item has been placed on the September 11,
that this assessment may be filed with Hennepin
the other special assessments.
Res
Jame
• City
JDP:sae
1989 agenda so
County along with
ly submitted,
. Prosser
1V-?
0
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION LEVYING SPECIAL ASSESSMENT
FOR NUISANCE ABATEMENT
BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Richfield,
Minnesota as follows:
1. The following described properties are hereby specially
assessed in the following amounts for expense incurred
by.the City in connection with abatement of a nuisance
.health hazard pursuant to provisions of Minnesota
Statutes, Section 145.23, to wit;
PROPERTY ID ADDITION ADDRESS AMOUNT
28-028-24-23-0010 44828
33-028-24-43-0016 44833
6500 Oliver Ave. $ 55.00
7600 Fremont Ave. 925.00
$980.00
2. The above special assessments are to be spread over one
year at no interest.
•
3. That the City Clerk is hereby authorized and directed to
certify a copy of this resolution to the County Auditor
of Hennepin County, Minnesota.
Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota
this 11th day of September, 1989.
Steve Quam
ATTEST:
Thomas P. Ferber City Clerk
Mayor
77
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA,
Council Letter No. ZQ-9,
Agenda, September 11, 1989
• Issue Statement:
Resolution certifying delinquent sewer and water utility accounts
to the County Auditor.
Background:
Chapter VII of the Richfield Ordinance Code provides that unpaid
water and sewer charges may be certified to the County Auditor to
be included in a property owner's annual property tax bill. The
Ordinance Code also authorizes a $20.00 certification fee to be
charged against each delinquent account. By certifying the
delinquent charges to the property taxes of the delinquent
properties, the City is assured of ultimately collecting the
delinquent charges.
In 1988 the City Council certified $67,500.11 of delinquent
charges for 372 properties, an average of $181.45 per account.
The 1989 certification currently under consideration totals
$100,685.95 for 429 properties, an average of $235.00 per
account.
In 1989, the water certifications were significantly increased as
is shown above. Of the total, seven apartment buildings
represent $12,000, five commercial establishments $9,000, and one
nursing home $13,000. The remainder is comprised chiefly of
residential properties.
• Property owners owing water and sewer charges are notified on
their summer quarter water bill that failure to pay the amount
owed will result in certification to the property owners taxes
and result in a $20.00 certification fee.
Recommended Motion:
Adopt the resolution certifying unpaid sewer and water service
charges to the County Auditor to be collected with other taxes on
said properties.
Basis of Recommendation:
1. State Statute and City Ordinance provide that delinquent
utility charges may be collected in this manner.
2. The delinquent accounts must be certified to the County
Auditor in order for the City to collect the charges through
the property tax process.
Alternative Recommendation:
1. Do not approve the resolution. However, the certification
process is the only process the City has to collect these
delinquent charges.
0
Discussion/Decision Mode:
This matter has been placed on the September 11, 1989 City
Council agenda to allow sufficient time for the charges to be
certified to the County Auditor.
•
y submitted,
RespYanager
Jameosser
City JDP:sae
•
U
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION CERTIFYING UNPAID SEWER AND WATER SERVICE
CHARGES TO THE COUNTY AUDITOR TO BE COLLECTED WITH
OTHER TAXES ON SAID PROPERTIES
WHEREAS, Ordinance Code 715 establishes rules, rates and
charges for water service in the City of Richfield; and
WHEREAS, Minnesota Statutes 44.075, subd. 3, provides that
all delinquent water service charges not paid may be certified to
the County Auditor and shall be collected with other taxes on
such property; and
WHEREAS, Ordinance Code 705 established rules, rates and
charges for sanitary sewer service in the City of Richfield; and
WHEREAS, 705.19 thereof provides that all sewer services
charges not paid within fifteen (15) days after the quarterly due
date may be certified to the County Auditor with taxes against
such property, and shall be collected with other taxes on such
property; and
WHEREAS, an assessment roll has been prepared specifying the
amount which shall be certified against each particular property.
• NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the
City of Richfield, Minnesota that:
1. There is hereby determined to be a total uncollected
amount for water and sanitary sewer service of
$100,685.95
2. That a $20.00 certification charge shall be levied
against each delinquent account; such charges totalling
$8,580.00.
3. That such amount be hereby certified to the County
Auditor for collection with other taxes on'said
properties.
4. That a copy of the resolution shall be sent to the
Hennepin County Auditor.
Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield,
Minnesota this 11th day of September, 1989.
ATTEST:
Steven J. Quam Mayor
0 Thomas P. Ferber City Clerk
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
• Council Letter No. 210
Agenda, September 11, 1989
Issue Statement:
Resolution levying a special assessment for weed destruction.
Background:
Each year the City of Richfield hires contractors to cut weeds on
certain properties in the City not properly maintained by the
owners. If the owner fails to cut the weeds in a timely manner
after notification by the City, the City undertakes the weed
destruction and bills the property owner for the service. If the
cost of the weed destruction is not paid by the property owner it
may be assessed against the property for a one year period. The
attached resolution provides for this assessment against the
property for a one year period. The attached resolution provides
for this assessment against three properties in the total amount
of $5,320.00. In addition, the resolution provides for an 8%
penalty.
Recommended Motion:
Adopt the attached resolution levying a special assessment for
weed destruction against the listed property owners in the total
amount of $5,320.00
Basis for Recommendation:
1. The properties were not maintained by the owners and the City
incurred costs to abate the nuisance.
2. Minnesota State Statutes provide that the City may levy a
special one-year assessment for these costs.
Alternative Recommendation:
1. Do not approve the resolution, and have the costs absorbed by
the City.
Discussion/Decision Mode:
This item has been placed on the September 11, 1989',agenda so
that this assessment may be filed with Hennepin County along with
the other special assessments.
Resp ly submitted,
LAV i
Prosser
James Yanager
City JDP:sae
0
RESOLUTION NO.
• RESOLUTION LEVYING SPECIAL
ASSESSMENT FOR WEED DESTRUCTION
BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Richfield,
Minnesota as follows:
1. The following described properties are hereby specially
assessed in the following amounts for expense incurred
by the City in connection with abatement of a nuisance
health hazard pursuant to provisions of Minnesota
Statutes, Section 145.23, to wit:
PROPERTY ID ADDITION ADDRESS AMOUNT
28-028-24-23-0010 44828 6500 Oliver Ave. S 225.00
28-028-24-23-0021 44828 6529 Penn Ave. 150.00
33-028-24-43-0016 44833 7600 Fremont Ave. 4,945.00
$5,320.00
2. The above listed assessment be spread over a period of
one year at the rate of 8% interest per annum.
3. That the City Clerk is hereby authorized and directed to
certify a copy of this resolution to the County Auditor
• of Hennepin County, Minnesota.
Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota,
this 11th day of September, 1989.
Steve Quam Mayor
ATTEST:
Thomas Ferber City Clerk
E
L?
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Council Letter No. 07
Agenda September 11, 199
Issue Statement:
Resolution approving an agreement with the Minnesota Department
of Transportation.
Background:
The Minnesota Department of Transportation (MnDOT) has submitted
an "Agency Agreement" to the City of Richfield. The agreement in
effect appoints the Commissioner of Transportation for the State
of Minnesota as an agent of the City for the purpose of letting
contracts and accepting federal aid. Projects such as roadway
and bridge construction, improvements and maintenance projects
which are partially or completely financed with federal moneys
would fall under the Commissioner's jurisdiction.
Federal Department of Transportation policy now dictates that the
Commissioner of Transportation for the state in which the work is
to be done must apply for and receive federal money. The
agreement simply makes it possible for the state commissioner to
apply for and receive this funding on our behalf.
Recommended Motion:
Adopt the attached resolution authorizing Richfield to enter into
an agreement with MnDOT to designate the Commissioner of
Transportation as our agent for federally funded road and bridge
construction projects.
Basis of Recommendation:
1. The agreement is only effective in the case of federally
funded road and bridge projects.
2. The agreement is required in order to receive federal monies.
Alternative Recommendation:
None.
Discussion/Decision Mode:
This item is scheduled for the September 11, 1989 regular City
Council meeting. Staff is requesting approval at this time in
order to submit the agreement in a timely fashion.
submitted,
James ` Prosser
City ager
JDP/sdr
0
-?/
0 RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE EXECUTION OF A MNDOT
AGENCY AGREEMENT DESIGNATING THE COMMISSIONER OF TRANSPORTATION
AS AN AGENT OF THE CITY WITH RESPECT TO
FEDERALLY FUNDED ROADWAY AND BRIDGE IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS
WHEREAS, the Richfield City Council has determined that it
is advantageous for the Minnesota Commissioner of Transportation
to act as an agent of the City for federally funded local
improvement projects, and
WHEREAS, the Minnesota Commissioner of Transportation
desires to act as an agent of the City for federally funded local
improvement projects, and
WHEREAS, M.S. 161.36 Subdivision 2, requires that the terms
and conditions of the agency be set forth in an agreement,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the
City of Richfield, Minnesota, as follows:
1. The MnDOT Agency agreement appointing the Commissioner
of Transportation an agent of the City for the purpose of
accepting federal aid on the City's behalf, for road and bridge
• construction, and in contracting for the construction,
improvement or maintenance of roads and bridges financed either
in whole or in part with federal moneys is hereby approved.
2. The Mayor and City Clerk of the City of Richfield are
hereby authorized to execute said agency agreement on behalf of
the City.
Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota,
this 11th day of September, 1989.
ATTEST:
Thomas P. Ferber, City Clerk
Steven J. Quam, Mayor
0