Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
11-28-88 agenda
~. °~/ CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA. Council Letter No. 302 November 28, 1988 Agenda Issue Statement: Authorization to sell City owned property at 6315 Portland Avenue to the HRA. Background• The HRA will be participating with South Hennepin Vocational Technical School (Vo-Tech) in a house remodeling project for the school year 1989-90. To initiate the Vo-Tech project, the HRA must provide a structure for relocation and remodeling. The city owned structure at 6315 Portland. Avenue has been identified for this purpose. This letter describes past activities regarding the property, summarizes the acquisition agreement with the Community Services Department and requests authorization to execute the acquisition agreement. In 1986, the City Council authorized Community Services to acquire the property at 6315 Portland Avenue to accommodate park expansion. The building is presently vacant. In August of 1987, the HRA acquired the. property at 7000 Oakland Avenue (also known as 619 E. 70th Street). The site was identified for a rehabilitation project and cleared to accommodate the relocation of a structure. The structure at 6315 Portland Avenue is available and has been approved for relocation by the inspection division. The HRD staff have worked with Vo- Tech to develop plans for remodeling. On November 21st t'ne HRA authorized: 1. Execution of an acquisition agreement with the City for the structure located at 6315 Portland Avenue. 2. Execution of a rehabilitation contract with Vo-Tech for 1989-90, contingent upon utilization of the structure presently located at 6315 Portland Avenue to be moved to 7000 Oakland Avenue. Community Services and Community Development staff have negotiated the purchase of the structure. The HRA would pay the following amounts which are consistent with informal bids received from house movers. $1,000 for the structure $1,100 for foundation removal and site clearance by a City crew $2,100 Total The agreement requires the relocation of the structure by May, 1989. ~~/-/ Recommended Motion: Authorize an agreement to sell 6315 Portland Avenue to the HRA for $2,100. Basis for Recommendation: 1. The site at 6315 Portland Avenue must be cleared to accommodate park expansion 2. The HRA is in need of a structure to initiate the 1989-90 vo-Tech project. 3. A purchase price of $2,100 has been negotiated and agreed upon. 4. The HRA authorized execution of the purchase agreement on November 21, 1988. Alternative Recommendation: Not authorize execution of the purchase agreement for 6315 Portland Avenue. This would delay the 1988-89 Vo-Tech remodel project as it would be difficult to find another suitable house. Discussion/Decision Mode: A decision at the November 28th meeting would allow the 1989-90 Vo-Tech remodel project to proceed and help ensure structure removal and site clearance at 6315 Portland Avenue by May, 1989, and permit park improvement activities to stay on schedule. Respectfully submitted, James Prosser City anager JDP:sae ~~ CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Council Letter No. 301 Agenda November 28, Y~88 Issue Statement: Setting date of hearing for renewal of on-sale liquor licenses. Background: The on-sale liquor licenses for restaurant establishments will expire on January 1, 1989. City ordinance provides that the City Council conduct a public hearing to consider all liquor license renewals. Recommended Motion: Schedule December 12, 1988 as the date to hold public hearings on the renewal of liquor licenses for Chi Chi's Mexican Restaurante; The Ground Round; American Legion Post No. 435; VFW Post No. 5555; and Champp's of Richfield. Basis for Recommendation: 1. Hearings must be scheduled and held before a renewal license may be considered. 2. The renewal process has been initiated. 3. Holding the public hearings on December 12 will provide ample time to complete the licensing process before January 1, 1989. Alternative Recommendation: 1. Schedule the hearings for another date. However, this may delay the licensing process. Discussion/Decision Mode: Action to schedule the public hearings on November 28, 1988 will provide sufficient time for legal publication of the hearings. Respectfully submitted, James Prosser City Manager JDP/eja ~/y CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Council Letter No. 300 Agenda November 28, 1988 Issue Statement: Adoption of resolutions making adjustments in compensation of employees covered in the General Services, Management and Specialized Pay Plans. Background: Section 2.33, Subd. I of the municipal code requires the City Manager to submit a formal recommendation for pay plan and benefit adjustments for non-unionized City employees to the City Council. The purpose of this letter is to make recommendations for 1989 adjustments in the General Services, Management and Specialized Pay Plans, which cover City employees who are not represented by organized bargaining units. A council letter and resolution covering benefit adjustments for eligible non- unionized employees is also being presented to the City Council at this Council meeting. The General Services Pay Plan includes the City's office, clerical and technical personnel. This pay plan consists of approximately 60 predominantly non-supervisory personnel. The second pay plan under consideration is the Management Pay Plan, which includes approximately 33 management and supervisory personnel, ranging from first line Supervisors to Department Director positions. The third pay plan under consideration is the Specialized Pay Plan. The Specialized Pay Plan includes all the City's seasonal and non-permanent part-time employees. The total number of employees covered by this pay plan varies from month to month and time of year. However, during the course of the summer months, several hundred part-time employees may be paid from this pay plan. The Instructor's range, which is part of the Specialized Pay Plan, has been increased to reflect the market rates paid to various instructors. This has not been adjusted since 1979. The range maximum was changed from $15.00 per hour to $50.00 per hour. This was done to properly include certain specialized instructor rates, such as those typically charged by golf instructors. Previously, the instructor pay range was not adequate to address special positions such as the one noted. Most instructor rates, however, will remain relatively unchanged from those paid the previous year. Instructor costs generally are covered by program fees. All other City employees not covered by the three pay plans covered in this letter are represented by organized bargaining units. Interface With Comparable Worth Plan: The pay plans presented here will interface completely with the City's Comparable Worth Plan adopted last year. It should be /~-~ noted that some employees whose current salaries are in excess of the comparable worth pay corridor would receive a 2~ pay increase. As presented in the City's Comparable Worth Plan, this 2~ limit would be applicable until such time as the pay grades catch up to the affected employee's salaries. At that time, the yearly pay adjustment would return to normal for such employees. IRS Code Section 89 Implications: IRS Code Section 89, which is part of the Tax Reform Act of 1986, goes into effect on January 1, 1989. This section will have an impact upon the City of Richfield. The purpose of Section 89 is to require comparable treatment by an employer to all employees who work in excess of 17 1/2 hours per week with respect to benefits provided. While the law requires a complex testing procedure for the employer's benefit program to insure that they are equitably distributed, the guidelines for such testing have not been developed by the Internal Revenue Service. At the present time, there is no firm guidance available to insure compliance with the section as the IRS intended. The issue of testing will be approached by the City of Richfield and other municipalities as soon as possible. In fact, some testing will be undertaken by the City of Richfield prior to issuance of regulations. As a measure for 1989, the Management Pay Plan Grade M-5 has been adjusted slightly in excess of the 4v to provide a cushion in the event of benefit taxability for certain employees. Recommended Motion: It is recommended that the City Council adopt the attached resolutions providing for a 4.0~ pay structure adjustment for the Management, General Services and Specialized Pay Plans. Basis of Recommendation: 1. The recommendation of 4.0~ is based on a thorough survey of surrounding communities with respect to non-unionized personnel. Pay increases from city to city varied, but were all in the 4.0~ to 5.0~ range. Many comparable cities indicated a tendency to grant 4.0~ increases. 2. The budget provides for a total of 4.Oo for salary adjustments and any comparable worth adjustments, which may be made during the course of 1989. Thus, there is funding provided for the 4.0~ pay increase. 3. In arriving at a 4.0~ pay structure recommendation, other factors, such as internal employee equity and similar positions, in other communities were considered. Alternative Recommendation: 1. City Council could decide not to grant any pay adjustments for non-unionized City employees. 2. The City Council could delay granting pay structure increases for the City's non-unionized employees. ~% ~'~. 3. The City Council could decide to grant either a higher or lower percentage adjustment to the City's non-unionized employee groups. Discussion/Decision Mode: In order to allow the City's accounting personnel to modify payroll records in a timely fashion for January 1, 1989, it is recommended that the City Council act on November 28, 1988, to adopt the attached resolutions providing for pay structure adjustments effective January 1, 1989. Respectfully submitted, Jame Prosser Cit anager JDP:eja ~~~-~ RESOLUTION NO. XXXX RESOLUTION RELATING TO THE 1989 MANAGEMENT SALARY COMPENSATION PLAN WHEREAS, the municipal code of the City of Richfield provides for the adoption of a pay plan for Management employees from time-to-time, and WHEREAS, the city administration has prepared a 1989 pay plan for position classifications for management employees. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City council do and hereby H does establish for the year 1989 the following pay plan, which is to be effective January 1, 1989, and subject to all applicable provisions of the city code: MANAGEMENT COMPENSATION PLAN PAY GRADE MINIMUM MID-RANGE MAXIMUM M-NE YR 26,145.60 31,262.40 36,587.20 MO 2,178.80 2,605.20 3,048.93 BW 1,005.60 1,202.40 1,407.20 HR 12.5700 15.0300 17.5900 M-1 YR 28,121.60 33,633.60 39,332.80 MO 2,343.47 2,802.80 3,277.73 BW 1,081.60 1,293.60 1,512.80 HR 13.5200 16.1700 18.9100 M-2 YR 31,761.60 38,001.60 44,449.60 MO 2,646.80 3,166.80 3,704.13 BW 1,221.60 1,461.60 1,709.60 HR 15.2700 18.2700' 21.3700 M-3 YR 35,900.80 42,931.20 50,232.00 MO 2,991.73 3,577.60 4,186.00 BW 1,380.80 1,651.20 1,932.00 HR 17.2600 20.6400 24.1500 M-4 YR 40,560.00 48,505.60 56,763.20 MO 3,380.00 4,042.13 4,730.27 BW 1,560.00 1,865.60 2,183.20 HR 19.5000 23.3200 27.2900 M-5 YR 46,654.40 55,785.60 65,270.40 MO 3,887.87 4,648.80 5,439.20 BW 1,794.40 2,145.60 2,510.40 HR 22.4300 26.8200 31.3800 ~/9- ~ Normal Progression Throu h Mana ement Com ensation Plan Salary Increase Amounts. Individual salary increases will normally be made effective when the salary range structure changes and will vary in size, depending on the individual's performance rating and current position in the salary range in line with the following criteria. PER~RMANCE RATING Outstanding Above Satis- factory Satisfactory Needs Improve- ment Unsatisfactory POSITION IN SALARY RANGE UNDER 95o MIDPOINT 95-105 OF MIDPOINT OVER 105 OF MDPT Range Adj.+4.1-6.0~ Range Adj.+2.1-4.0~ Range Adj.+1.0-2.0~ Range Adj.+2.1-4.0~ Range Adj,+1.0-2.0~ Range Adj.+1.0.2.Og ~ of Range Adj. of Range Adj. Range Adj.-1.0-2.0~ No increase until performance improves. ~ of Range Adj . Range Adj.-1.0-2.0~ Range Adj.-2.1-4.0~ Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this 28th day of November, 1988. Steven J. Quam ATTEST: Mayor Thomas P. Ferber City Clerk ~j~, ~' MANAGEMENT POSITION CLASSIFICATION STRUCTURE RANGE POSITION CLASS M-NE Foreman Non-Exempt Shop Foreman Non-Exempt Senior Engineering Technician Non-Exempt Turf Supervisor Non-Exempt M-1 City Clerk Exempt Community Center Manager Exempt Golf Course Manager Exempt Health Administrator Exempt Ice Arena Manager Exempt Liquor Store Manager Exempt Nature Center Manager Exempt Recreation Manager Exempt M-2 Asst. Fire Chief/Fire Marshall Exempt Building Superintendent Exempt Chief Building Inspector Exempt City Planner Exempt Data Processing Manager Exempt Maintenance Superintendent Exempt Utility Superintendent Exempt M-3 City Engineer Exempt Finance Manager Exempt Housing & Redevelopment Coordinator Exempt Operations Coordinator Exempt Personnel Manager Exempt Recreation Program Coordinator Exempt M-4 Liquor Operations Director Exempt M-5 Administrative Services Director Exempt Community Development Director Exempt Community Services Director Exempt Public Safety Director Exempt ~/9 ~ RESOLUTION N0. XXXX RESOLUTION RELATING TO THE 1989 GENERAL SERVICES SALARY COMPENSATION PLAN WHEREAS, the municipal code of the City of Richfield provides for the adoption of a pay plan for General Services employees from time-to-time, and WHEREAS, the City administration has prepared a 1989 pay plan for position classifications for general services employees. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council do and hereby does establish for the year 1989 the following pay plan, which is to be effective January I, 1989, and subject to all applicable provisions of the city code: GENERAL SERVICES COMPENSATION PLA Step 1 2 3 4 MERIT RANGE Range GS1 YR 15,995.20 16,785.60 17,659.20 18,532.80 20,446.40 MO 1,332.93 1,398.80 1,471.60 1,544.40 1,703.87 BW 615.20 645.60 679.20 712.80 786.40 HR 7.6900 8.0700 8.4900 8.9100 9.8300 GS2 YR 17,659.20 18,532.80 19,468.80 20,446.40 22,568.00 MO 1,471.60 1,544.40 1,622.40 1,703.87 1,880.67 BW 679.20 712.80 748.80 786.40 868.00 HR 8.4900 8.9100 9.3600 9.8300 10.8500 GS3 YR 19,468.80 20,446.40 21,486.40 22,568.00 24,897.60 MO 1,622.40 1,703.87 1,790.53 1,880.67 2,074.80 BW 748.80 786.40 826.40 868.00 957.60 HR 9.3600 9.8300 10.3300 10.8500 11.9700 GS4 YR 21,486..40 22,568.00 23,712.00 24,897.60 27,497.60 MO 1,790.53 1,880.67 1,976.00 2,074.80 2,291.47 BW 826.40 868.00 912.00 957.60 1,057.60 HR 10.3300 10.8500 11.4000 11.9700 13.2200 GS4E YR 22,672.00 23,816.00 25,001.60 26,291.20 28,995.20 MO 1,889.33 1,984.67 2,083.47 2,190.93 2,416.27 BW 872.00 916.00 961.60 1,011.20 1,115.20 HR 10.9000 11.4500 12.0200 12.6400 13.9400 GSS YR 23,712.00 24,897.60 26,145.60 27,497.60 30,326.40 MO 1,976.00 2,074.80 2,178.80 2,291.47 2,527.20 BW 912,00 957.60 1,005.60 1,057.60 1,166.40 HR 11.4000 11.9700 12.5700 13.2200 14.5800 GS5E YR 25,001.60 26,291.20 27,601.60 28,995.20 31,990.40 MO 2,083.47 2,190.93 2,300.13 2,416.27 2,665.87 BW 961..60 1,011.20 1,061.60 1,115.20 1,230.40 HR 12.0200 12.6400 13,2700 13.9400 15.3800 ~/ lr GS6 YR 26,145.60 27,497.60 28,870.40 30,326.40 MO 2,178.80 2,291.47 2,405.87 2,527.20 BW 1,005.60 1,057.60 1,110.40 1,166.40 HR 12.5700 13.2200 13.8800 14.5800 GS6E YR 27,601.60 28,995.20 30,451.20 31,990.40 MO 2,300.13 2,416.27 2,537.60 2,665.87 BW 1,061.60 1,115.20 1,171.20 1,230.40 HR 13.2700 13.9400 14.6400 15.3800 35,152.00 2,929.33 1,352.00 16.9000 37,107.20 3,092.27 1,427.20 17.8400 Normal Pro ression Through General Services Compensation Plan a. Step 1 - Start b. Step 2 - One year from anniversary date c. Step 3 - One year since last increase d. Step 4 - One year since last increase e. Merit Ran e - One year since last increase for those rated Above Satisfactory or Outstanding. Satisfactory and Needs Improvement performers may not advance to or within the Merit Range. Salary increases in the Merit Range will be determined by the supervisor and may range between 3~ - 8~. f. Employees whose competency level and/or performance are rated Unsatisfactory may not advance to the next step until their performance improves. Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this 28th day of November, 1988. Steven J. Quam ATTEST: Mayor Thomas P. Ferber City Clerk GENERAL SERVICES POSITION CLASSIFICATION STRUCTURE GRADE POSITION TITLES CLASS 1 Clerk Typist Non-Exempt Data Entry Operator Non-Exempt Liquor Clerk Non-Exempt Support Aide Non-Exempt Switchboard-Receptionist Non-Exempt 2 Arena Operations Assistant Non-Exempt Communications Aide Non-Exempt Community Development Intern Non-Exempt Community Service Officer Non-Exempt Custodian Non-Exempt Lead Liquor Clerk Non-Exempt Licensing Clerk Non-Exempt Liquor Clerk/Cashier Non-Exempt Senior Clerk Typist Non-Exempt Transportation Specialist Non-Exempt 3 Accounting Clerk Non-Exempt Accounting Technician Non-Exempt Accounts Payable Clerk Non-Exempt Assistant Turf Supervisor/Mechanic I Non-Exempt Central Services Technician Non-Exempt Code Compliance Officer Non-Exempt Dispatcher Non-Exempt Leased Housing Assistant Non-Exempt Liquor Account Clerk Non-Exempt Police Aide Non-Exempt Secretary Non-Exempt Utility Billing Clerk Non-Exempt 4 Assessment Clerk Non-Exempt Computer Operator Non-Exempt Energy Technician Non-Exempt Engineering Technician Non-Exempt Licensing Leadworker Non-Exempt Recycling Specialist Non-Exempt Social Services Supervisor Non-Exempt 4E Administrative Aide Exempt Payroll Accountant Exempt 5 Assistant Building Superintendent Non-Exempt Assistant Turf Supervisor/Mechanic II Non-Exempt 5E Assistant Liquor Store Manager Community Center Programmer Community Development Aide Data Processing Technician Leased Housing Agent Naturalist 6 Building Inspector 6E Accountant Administrative Assistant Communications Supervisor Housing Specialist Programmer Analyst Recreation Supervisor Recreation Supervisor/Designer Exempt Exempt Exempt Exempt Exempt Exempt Non-Exempt Exempt Exempt Exempt Exempt Exempt Exempt Exempt /y-~ ~/~ ~ RESOLUTION NO. XXXX RESOLUTION RELATING TO THE 1989 SPECIALIZED PAY PLAN WHEREAS, Section 310.17 of the Ordinance Code of the City of Richfield provides that the pay grades, the number of steps or range of each pay grade, the compensation rates in each pay grade, and the method of normal progression through the pay grade be established by council resolution; and WHEREAS, the city administration has prepared a 1989 pay plan for the positions for which there are no essentially similar position classifications in other regular pay plans. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council do and hereby does establish for the year 1989 the following pay plan, which is to be effective on January 1, 1989, and subject to the provisions of_ the personnel rules and regulations ordinance: SPECIALIZED PAY PLAN INTERMITTENT AND SEASONAL Comp Code A B C D E Step 1 2 3 4 5 SPl-E HR 3.7696 3.9580 4.1576 4.3572 4.5789 SP2-E HR 4.1909 4.3793 4.6122 4.8339 5.0778 SP3-E HR 4.5124 4.7341 4.9781 5.2219 5.4880 SP4-E HR 4.8782 5.1222 5.3882 5.6432 5.9204 SP5-E HR 5.2552 5.5213 5.8095 6.0867 6.3860 SP6-E HR 5.6876 5.9758 6.2752 6.5856 6.9183 SP7-E HR 6.1421 6.4304 6.7630 7.1067 7.4615 SP8-E HR 6.6410 6.9737 7.3063 7.6832 8.0602 SP9-E HR 7.1622 7.5169 7.8828 8.2931 8.7032 SP10-E HR 7.7386 8._1267 8.5369 8.9582 9.4128 SP11-E HR 8.3595 8.7698 9.2133 9.6678 10.1446 SP12-E HR 9.0137 9.4683 9.9339 10.4328 10.9539 Instructor's Range: $5.00 - $50.00 R.Y.E.S. Home Service Worker: $3.48 /~"- /~ Normal Progression Through the S ecialized Pay Plan Individual employees will be eligible to receive increases to the next higher grade step based on individual performance and the following progression: a. Step 1 - Start b. Step 2 - One year from anniversary date c. Step 3 - One year from last increase d. Step 4 - One year from last increase e. Step 5 - One year from last increase Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this 28th day of November, 1988. Steven J. Quam ATTEST: Mayor Thomas P. Ferber City Clerk ~~9 ~/ SPECIALIZED POSITION CLASSIFICATION STRUCTURE Grade Position Titles Grade Position Titles 1 Driving Range I Assessment Clerk Pool Attendant Center Program Supervisor Concession Operator 2 Arena Cashier (Golf Course) Arena Concession Worker Licensing Clerk Field Attendant I Maintenance Laborer III Ice Guard Naturalist I Pool Cashier Projectionist 7 Adaptive Team Coordinator Construction Specialist 3 Basketball Scorer/Timer Golf Course Technician Bike Patrol Officer Naturalist II Concession Stand I Playground Coordinator Driving Range II Teen Center Coordinator Field Attendant II Tennis Coordinator Men's Activity Night Attendant 8 Assistant Golf Course Pool Night Watchman Manager Tennis Center Attendant Construction Inspector Volleyball Attendant Greens Foreman Warming House Attendant Winter Sports Technician Waterslide Attendant 9 Community Development 4 Custodian I Technician Dance Coordinator Pool Supervisor Lifeguard (No WSI or Cert.) Residential Energy Maintenance Laborer I Conservation Assistant Playground Leader Ranger 10 Engineering Aide Skating School Coordinator Starter 11 None Video Production Assistant 12 None 5 Adaptive Program Leader Clerk Typist - Int. & Sub. Inst. Baton Concession Stand II Belly Dancing Custodian II Cross Country Ski Driving Range Supervisor Figure Skating Intern Golf Professional Lifeguard (WSI or Cert.) Hockey Liquor Clerk Housing & Redevelopment Maintenance Laborer II Tech. Playground Specialist Self Defense Pro Shop Supervisor Slimnastics Senior Playground Leader Sports Official Special Events Supervisor Tap and Ballet Substitute Naturalist Tennis I Substitute Van Driver Tennis II Survey Crew Person WSI Teen Center Leader Warming House Supervisor Building Inspector Winter Sports Attendant Zamboni Operator Other Home Service Worker 6 Accounting Clerk Adaptive Program Supervisor /y- /~ CITY OF RICHFIELD Memorandum DATE: October 25, 1988 __ ___ __ _. _____ T0: Steven Devich, Administrative Services Director FROM: ~~HowardRowland, Personnel Manager °~ SUBJECT: Budgeted Non-Union Wage Increases A survey of metropolitan suburban communities was done at the recent TUG meeting on budgeted or approved wage increases for non-union employees: Golden Valley 5% Eden Prairie 4% Maplewood ~ 4% Maple Grove 4% Hopkins 5% Woodbury 4-5% Robbinsdale 4.5% Prior Lake 4% Brooklyn Park 4% Apple Valley 4% Blaine 4% Anoka 3.5% Burnsville 4% Fridley - Lakeville 4% Brooklyn Center 5% Crystal 4% Shoreview 4% Roseville 4% HJR : fmf ~/~ CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Council Letter No. 299 Agenda November 28, 1988 Issue Statement: Resolution designating City's contribution toward health, term life and dental insurance premium for General Services and Management employees. Background: At the present time, the City contributes to the cost of premiums for four kinds of insurance coverages available to City employees. General Services and Management employee contributions are discussed within this letter. Other employees are covered under terms of labor agreements. A $10,000 term life insurance policy is provided for all General Services and Management employees. The $10,000 limit was first implemented in 1985, and is recommended to remain at that level through 1989. The City now pays the full premium for this insurance, which was $1.80 per month per employee for 1988. Premium rates for term life insurance will remain the same for 1989. The second type of insurance provided to General Services and Management employees is a self-funded group dental insurance. In 1988, the City contributed $14.50 per month per employee for the total cost of employee (not dependent) coverage. Employees who desire dependent coverage must pay the full cost of such additional premium, which for 1988 was $18.75. Inasmuch as dental insurance is self-funded, the City establishes the dental rates from year to year internally, based upon administrative and benefit pay-out cost data. For 1989, the estimated cost of employee coverage is $15.00. While the City does not contribute to dependent coverage for dental insurance, for informational purposes, the rate the employee will pay will be increased to $19.50 per month. The third type of insurance coverage available to Management and General Services employees is group health coverage. Employees may select among three optional plans available through the LOGIS Health Insurance Program. The City pays the full individual employee premium per month and provides an additional contribution toward dependent coverage up to a specified maximum insurance premium. The 1988 and 1989 monthly premium costs of the health plans are: 1988 Rate 1989 Rate ~ Increase Group Health Plan Individual $ 75.95 $ 93.34 23~ ~,~~-~ Family MedCenter Health Plan Individual Family Physicians Health Plan Individual Family 204.65 254.70 24~ 78.40 97.85 25~ 238.55 291.25 23~ 104.55 115.00 10~ 221.62 266.00 20% In 1988, the City contributed up to a maximum of $160.00 per month per employee for employee and dependent coverage for eligible General Services and Management employees. In 1989, the City contribution for Management and General Services employees would be increased by $10.00, to $170.00. This would help offset increases in dependent premiums of the plans. The fourth type of insurance provided to General Services and Management employees is disability insurance. Short-term disability insurance is self-funded out of the current operating budget, similar to the manner in which sick leave costs are covered. Long-term disability insurance (LTD) is provided through a group LTD policy secured by the City. Currently, the City pays a premium rate of 55¢ per $100 of salary for covered employees. The LTD premium rates will remain the same for 1989. The average monthly premium cost projected for 1988 are $10.41 per month for General Services employees, and $18.21 per month for Management employees. Recommended Motion: It is recommended that the following actions be taken with respect to the City"s insurance contributions for Management and General Services employees: A. Life Insurance That the City contribution rate remain at $1.80 per month per employee for 1989. B. Dental Insurance That the per employee per month contribution be increased from $14.50 to $15.00. As in the past, employees who desire dependent coverage would pay the full cost of such additional premium. C. Long-Term Disability Insurance That the City contribution rate remain the same at $.55 per $100 of salary. D. Group Health Insurance That the City contribution be increased from a maximum of $160.00 per month to $170.00 per month per employee for dependent coverage. /~'-~ Basis of Recommendation: 1. To provide adequate insurance protection for the Management and General Services employee groups, which are comparable to other City employee groups, as well as employees performing similar jobs in comparable communities. 2. The 1989 budget includes the funding necessary to provide for premium contribution increases recommended. 3. Premium rates for the term life insurance and the disability insurances have remained the same, thus no increases have been recommended. Additionally, the coverage has been determined to be comparable and adequate for 1989. Alternative Recommendation: 1. The Council may take no action to increase the insurance premiums beyond the 1988 funding level. Discussion/Decision Mode: The City should implement the premium increases for coverages by January 1, 1989, the beginning of the new insurance coverage period. Respectfully submitted, James D rosser City Manager JDP:eja cc: Administrative Services Director Personnel Manager ~/~~ RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION DESIGNATING CITY'S CONTRIBUTION TOWARD HEALTH, TERM LIFE AND DENTAL INSURANCE PREMIUM FOR GENERAL SERVICES AND MANAGEMENT EMPLOYEES WHEREAS, the hospital-medical/surgical group health insurance plan is available from the LOGIS Health Insurance Program for City employees and their families, and WHEREAS, a term life and accidental death and dismemberment insurance plan is available from the Hennepin County Cooperative Purchasing Organization for City employees, and WHEREAS, a self-funded group dental insurance plan is available to City employees and their families, and WHEREAS, a group short-term and long-term disability program is available to City Management and General Services employees, and WHEREAS, the City Council is required to determine by resolution the City's contribution toward the premium for employee group insurance coverages. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that commencing January 1, 1989, the City shall contribute a maximum of $170:00 per month toward an employee health insurance premium for all eligible non- unionized employees; in any event said contribution shall not exceed the cost of single coverage for employees selecting that option. The City shall also pay the $15.00 monthly premium for the employee dental insurance plan and the $1.80 monthly premium for the term life and accidental death and dismemberment insurance plan for City employees for a total possible maximum insurance premium contribution of $186.80 per month. Such contributions shall be for coverage effective January 1, 1989. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City shall contribute the full cost of long-term disability insurance for the General Services and Management employees' coverage. Such contribution shall be based upon a premium rate of $.55 per $100 of monthly coverage. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Council shall determine the City's contribution toward insurance premiums for all organized employee groups by the adoption of the appropriate resolutions concerning labor contracts with the respective organized employee groups. Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this 28th day of November, 1988. Steven J. Quam Mayor ATTEST: Thomas P. Ferber City Clerk /% CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Coundil Letter No. 298 November 28, 1988 Agenda Issue Statement: Public hearing and adoption of resolution approving the establishment of the 70th Street and Penn Avenue Redevelopment Project and Plan. Background: On November 14, 1988, the City Council set the date of public hearing and consideration of the attached resolution for November 28, 1988. Notice of the public hearing was published in the Sun- Current on November 16, 1988. This proposal is consistent with all the previous actions of the Planning Commission, HRA and City Council. However, it is necessary to establish a redevelopment project to permit the HRA to purchase the tax forfeited property from Hennepin County and sell it to Dr. Johnson. Dr. Johnson would then redevelop the property. A 3,800 square foot one story professional office building would be constructed on the site during 1989. (See attached elevation). ' Recommended Motion: Adoption of the attached resolution approving the establishment of the 70th and Penn Avenue Redevelopment Project and Plan. Basis of Recommendation: 1. The HRA approved the redevelopment plan and project on October 17, 1988, and also requested City Council approval of same. 2. The Planning Commission found the proposed redevelopment plan and project to be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan on September 27, 1988. 3. The City Council and Planning Commission in consultation with the neighborhood approved rezoning of the site to C-l, limited business in 1987. 4. The HRA in consultation with the neighborhood approved a Contract For private Development with Dr. Johnson on August 29th, 1988. Two issues concerned the neighbors and were resolved by a restrictive covenant in the deed which prohibits retail uses and modifications to the building exterior, and with respect to drainage, the "City Engineer will require due diligence to be used in the formulation of a drainage plan which will not adversely affect neighboring properties". 5. All legally established procedures and policies have been followed. ~''/ %'/ 6. The redevelopment of this parcel will eliminate a blighted property in our community and generate total real estate taxes projected between $14,000 and $19,000. 7. The developer is paying the entire cost of making this property available for redevelopment; land cost, staff time, soil analysis for example. Alternative Recommendation: 1. Do not adopt the resolution. 2. Delay adoption of the resolution. Discussion/Decision Mode: Adoption of the resolution will make it possible for the redevelopment process to proceed. Respectfu y submitted, James Prosser City M nager JDP:sae ~ / ~ ~, RESOLUTION N0. THE CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA RESOLUTION APPROVING THE 70TH STREET AND PENN AVENUE REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AND REDEVELOPMENT PLAN RELATING THERETO WHEREAS, the Housing and Redevelopment Authority in and for the City of Richfield, Minnesota (HRA) on its own initiative has prepared a Redevelopment Plan (Redevelopment Plan) for the 70th Street and Penn Avenue Redevelopment Project (Redevelopment Project) in accordance with Minn. Stat., Sec 469.001 to 469.047, inclusive, as amended: and WHEREAS, the Redevelopment Plan, dated October 17, 1988, is now on file with the City Clerk; and WHEREAS, The Redevelopment Plan has been, in accordance with Minn. Stat., Sec. 469.028, Subd. 1, referred to the City Planning Commission by which action taken on September 27, 1988, has commented on the Redevelopment Plan and has found that it conforms to and is not in conflict with the City as a whole; and WHEREAS, the HRA by resolution of October 17, 1988 approved the undertaking of the Redevelopment Project, approved the Redevelopment Plan relating thereto, and referred it to this Council for public hearing and consideration as provided by Minn. Stat., Sec. 469.028, Subd. 1; and WHEREAS, this Council has fully reviewed the contents of the Redevelopment Plan. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of Richfield as follows: l.) That it is found that the public interest requires neighborhood replanning to redevelop and remedy conditions of underutilized land. 2.) That in order to foster and facilitate the growth of the city's commercial base, it is necessary to encourage private enterprise to engage in the redevelopment of land which is to be constructed in accordance with a comprehensive community plan. 3.) That public intervention is necessary in the Redevelopment Project area in order to convey tax-forfeited land to remedy conditions of underutilized land and physical blight which the private market has not been willing and/or able to accomplish independently. 4.) That the Redevelopment Plan for the Redevelopment Project will afford maximum opportunity, consistent with the sound needs of the city as a whole, for the redevelopment of the Redevelopment Project by private enterprise. ~ / /-~ 5.) That the Redevelopment Plan conforms to the general development plan of the city as set forth in the comprehensive municipal plan. 6.) That the findings in this section are made in compliance with Minn. Stat., Sec. 469.028, Subd. 2 for the purpose of showing the city's intent to exercise, in conjunction with the HRA, the powers granted to the city and the HRA by Minn. Stat., Chap. 469 in order to achieve the objectives set thereto. 7.) That the undertaking of the Redevelopment Project and the Redevelopment Plan relating thereto are hereby approved. 8.) The geographic boundary of the Redevelopment Project is described in the Redevelopment Plan which document is adopted herein by reference. 9.) The City Clerk is authorized and directed to transmit a certified copy of this resolution to the HRA. Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield this 28th day of November, 1988. Steven J. Quam, Mayor ATTEST: Thomas Ferber, City Clerk `1 v ~' / /'T vO D_ `jam • r .7?_ I I • ~ ~?\~.~~ ~ i/ ,III _~.._3i.=_.1_'-ry1 ~7 ~ ~ ;,, I~~~F `'"i 111 ~_J•_F ~7~ ~ ~~~a~ ~~~~• ~ 1 VIII I~~Ill,~r~...! !' -~, ~~~~`~\~. G M ~-." III ~Ij1 1 a j~~ I _ _ • . ~O~t~.S~:~~ Ii~C I 1 1, ::„,,,r:: ;~~:.1, ,~ , . ~;,.~ tr~G II ;, , , :4r I 1 011,~'ll) 11 ~I~r!L..~;II~I~~ 1 1 ,~ Y~1,r+ `~ I.1l~l.lf•I') •~'~I`1 •~i•!t, cao•+s~ ••,~ ;I ,~ i~ St`~~~~; \`~`S~ I' `II,~II1I~ ~II `~iIF ~:= ao :y~ ~ ~~,~;'t;~ I\T~S i`1 ~I ~ II i II •--~ O~ • M 1 1 • 1 ~I\\~ ~II II. 11 II1~ i!;II• s ,. i •• '~l,i,.(w~+1~~, l Il;lt `III II~ I I ~,tihi11.7^ ;" q •~• •*;i~\~ l~ fl,tia ~11~'~•I~III ~'1; +I ~Illi~ ~:~ „~ ~~, .1 '~i.at~R~~~~t~~ II+I`I~i~ If ~III~'1 I ~II~~,I~ rjlii~ l '. .:" !i \l~`\;~•~~ ~\~ •I1, .III 1 ~.I r I ~ 1 ;:;~••,{{~~'+~i ~;, 1:,-y. 1 ~• ;tttrl ~ ~ ~,\~ ~'In III 1 ~~ I ~Ii~a:Jl%jl 1~, l~ ~ \ l I'~,I~I1111~ ~''1~~~, I • Ilwl, ~;~:~ 1 it ~~~ / 1,1 ~:,'h%~~ ~~~1 !•1111. +.~1 1 ~» .,':~ ~`,~ . r• ~ 1111 ! '°~''1 ~..T l~1tl`l+11I,+ 1 .I'~I ~)r~ I ,~+. i+ 1~ ~ d „ ~' - ~ • y O C• ~ ~ ~ . ~ , g~ ~°~ ~~ ~ ~"'1 • ~ Y ~ ~_ ~~ G e ~~ ~\ ~~ ~ ~~ a` ~I~rS ~ 'O~d~, A~~ ~V ~ ~. 1 j 11.1 _..._,._'I .~"'.: ~~~ , ,.~. -~ 11,~•~ , + 111 ~ ~J_~~~= ~~f ..~••~ -~~t 1 1 to - .~~' ~' .~.:y . I 3 - ~. r ~3 ~ ~ S ~`~ ~~ '~ "_~ 1,~; ~ , a ..~._;~~~, •' fit', ~.~~: ~~i~- • ~ •• i ~ / ~_~ The Housing and Redevelopment Authority in and for The City of Richfield Redevelopment Plan for the 70th Street and Penn Avenue Redevelopment Project (Minnesota Statutes, Sections 469.001 to 469.047, inclusive) As Adopted by the HRA on October 17, 1988 Prepared by: The City of Richfield Department of Community Development Housing and Redevelopment Division 6700 Portland Avenue South Richfield, MN 55423 ~'""// ~ MAYOR Steven J. Quam CITY COUNCIL Martin Kirsch Edwina Garcia Ivan Ludeman Michael Sandahl HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY Thomas Harms, Chair Joan Helmberger Donald Hassenstab Vern Luettinger Ivan Ludeman PLANNING COMMISSION Connie Murray, Chair Nancy Edwardson Barbara Kritzman Robert Jensen Charles Kauth Russell Kennedy Leon Lunas Robert Nelson Thomas Ohnesorge CITY MANAGER/EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR James Prosser ie TABLE OF CONTENTS Redevelopment Plan for the 70th Street and Penn Avenue Redevelopment Project A. B. C. D. E. F. G. H. I. J. PAGE Statement. of Public Purpose ......................... 1 Statutory Authority ................................ 1 Description of Redevelopment Project Area .......... 1 Statement of Goals and Objectives .................. 2 Development Activities and Agreements .............. 2 Proposed Land Use .................................. 4 Acquisition, Relocation and Rehabilitation Activities ...... ............ ................... 4 Environmental Considerations ....................... 4 Redevelopment Plan Modification .................... 5 Administration of Redevelopment Project ............ 5 Appendix A: Budget 6 T' / / O Redevelopment Plan for The 70th Street and Penn Avenue Redevelopment Project A. Statement of Public Purpose It is found that the public interest requires neighborhood replanning to redevelop and remedy conditions of underutitlized land; that in order to foster and facilitate. the growth of the City's commercial base, it is necessary to encourage private enterprise to engage in the redevelopment of land which is to be constructed in accordance with a comprehensive community plan. The Housing and Redevelopment Authority in and for the City of Richfield, Minnesota (HRA), and the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota (City), have determined that public intervention is necessary in the 70th Street and Penn Avenue Redevelopment Area for the conveyance of tax-forfeited land to remedy conditions of under-.utilized land_and physical blight which the private market has not been willing and/or able to accomplish independently. B. Statutory Authority The statutory authority for the undertaking of a redevelopment project in the 70th Street and Penn Avenue Area and the redevelopment activities proposed in the redevelopment plan relating thereto is conferred upon the HRA pursuant to and in accordance with the Economic Development Act, Minn.Stat., Sec. 469.001 to 469.047, inclusive, as amended. Specifically, Minn. Stat., Sec. 469.027 establishes the requirements for redevelopment plan preparation by an HRA prior to undertaking property acquisition and redevelopment. C. Description of -the Redevelopment Project Area In order to guide the development and redevelopment in the 70th Street and Penn Avenue Area, the HRA has created this redevelopment plan. Pursuant to Minn. Stat., Sec. 469.002, sub. 12, the proposed project meets the definition of a redevelopment project, defined in Minn. Stat., Sec. 469.002, subdivision 14, and will henceforth, be referred to as the redevelopment project. The redevelopment project area boundary encompasses all that real property within an area described as follows: The parcel boundaries for Lot 13, Block 10, Tingdale Brothers Lincoln Hills Second Addition and Lot 10, Block 10, Woodlake Highlands Addition, except the coterminous boundary line which separates the two lots. -1- ~ / /.~ / D. Statement of Goals and Objectives The HRA determines that it is necessary, desirable, and the public interest to undertake a redevelopment project in City pursuant to the provisions of Minn. Stat., Chapter 469. HRA determines that the funding of the necessary activities improvements in the redevelopment project area shall be accomplished through the use of a private lending source by developer and application by a governmental. subdivision for conveyance of tax-forfeited lands. (Refer to Budget.) in the The and the The following goals and objectives are intended to serve as a basis for guiding the development/redevelopment of the proposed redevelopment project area: 1. To acquire land or space which is vacant, unused or underused. 2. Utilize the vacant, tax-forfeited land more intensively. 3. Facilitate the redevelopment of land for a contemporary professional office building. 4. To achieve a high level of design and landscaping quality to enhance the physical environments. 5. To .create effective transitional planning between residential and non-residential uses. 6. Eliminate an impaired condition which could detract from the health of the community. 7. To improve the property tax base of the City and other taxing jurisdictions. 8. To provide increased employment opportunities and improve the income tax base of the state. 9. To provide maximum opportunity, consistent with the needs of the city and other local jurisdictions, for development by private enterprise. E. Development Activities and Agreements The objectives of this Redevelopment Plan will be accomplished pursuant to the authority granted to the HRA by the Economic Development Act, Minn. Stat., Sec. 469.001, et seg. Redevelopment within the project area must be financially feasible, marketable and compatible with long range development plans of the City and HRA. -2- n / /-iv 1. Description of Anticipated Private Development Activities The proposal for redevelopment of the project area calls for the construction of a new office building and related surface parking to be situated on vacant, tax-forfeited land which has been underutilized for a number of years. Specifically, the Housing and Redevelopment Authority would acquire the tax-forfeited land from the County and convey the land to a private developer. The anticipated construction will be initiated and completed during 1989. The office building will be utilized for non-retail office purposes, approximating 3,800 square feet. Landscaping will be utilized to increase the aesthetic appeal of the office building and protect the neighboring residential area. Any and all proposals by the developer will be reviewed by the HRA to determine conformance with the redevelopment plan and applicable municipal ordinances and codes. To facilitate this effort, the following documents may be requested for review and approval: site plan; construction, mechanical, and electrical system drawings; landscaping plan; grading and storm drainage plan; signage system plan; and any other drawings or narrative deemed necessary by the HRA to demonstrate the conformance of the development with the redevelopment plan. Land acquired by the HRA will be subject to a contract for sale upon disposition to the developer. The general requirements to be imposed upon the developer by the contract for sale are: 1. To redevelop the land purchased in accordance with this redevelopment plan; 2. To commence and complete the building of improvements on the land within specified periods of time; 3. Not to resell the land before improvements are made without the prior consent of the HRA; and 4. Not to discriminate on the basis of race, color, sex, creed, or national origin on the sale, lease, transfer, or occupancy of the land purchased from the HRA. 2. Description of Anticipated Public Development Activities The proposed public development activities in the redevelopment project area would be undertaken by the HRA and City in order to support the private development activities and facilitate redevelopment of the area in a manner suitable to overall development plans. These activities include acquisition of the tax-forfeited land by the HRA from the County and conveyance to the developer contingent upon mutual agreements set forth in the Contract for Redevelopment. -3- '"" / ~' ~/ F. Proposed Land Use An ordinance providing for the rezoning of the proposed redevelopment project area to C-1, Neighborhood Business District will become effective 30 days after publication of the rezoning ordinance in a newspaper of general circulation for the area. G. Acquisition, Relocation and Rehabilitation Activities 1. Acquisition The HRA proposes to acquire the following tax-forfeited property in order to convey the land to the developer for redevelopment according to objectives set forth in this plan: Parcel Identification Address: 6941-45 Penn Avenue PINS~~ 28-028-24-33-0159 Legal Description Lot 13, Brock 10, Tingdale Brothers Lincoln Hills Second Addition, Hennepin County, according to the recorded plat thereof; and . Lot 10, Block 10, Woodlake Highlands Addition, Hennepin County, according to the recorded plat thereof. 2. .Relocation No relocation or displacement will occur as a result of .the proposed development project. 3. Rehabilitation Program No rehabilitation is intended in the Redevelopment Project Area. H. Environmental Considerations It is anticipated that the proposed redevelopment project will not present any permanent environmental problems. All municipal actions, public improvements, and private development shall be carried out in a manner that will enhance, rather than detract, from the natural environment. All necessary environmental permits and clearances will be obtained. -4- I. Redevelopment Plan Modification Pursuant to Minn. Stat., Sec. 469.029., subd 6, a redevelopment plan may be modified at anytime provided that the HRA and City Council adopt such modifications upon the notice and after the public hearing .required for the original adoption of the redevelopment plan. If the HRA determines the necessity of changes in an approved redevelopment plan or approved modification thereof,. which changes do not alter or affect the exterior boundaries, or do not substantially alter or affect the general land uses established in such plan, then such changes shall not constitute a modification of the redevelopment plan nor require approval by the governing body of the political subdivision in which the project is located. J. Administration of Redevelopment Project The Redevelopment Project will be administered by the HRA.. -5- n / /~~- PENN AND 70TH BUDGET Administrative (staff time, legal counsel) $ 6,287 Soil Borings 2,750 Land Acquisition/Closing Costs 25,802 Total $34,839 -6- ~/~ CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA City Council Letter No. 297 November 28, 1988 Agenda Issue Statement: Adoption of resolution requesting County Board conveyance of tax- forfeited land at 6941-45 Penn Avenue (70th Street and Penn Avenue redevelopment Project). Background: Hennepin County procedures require the adoption of a resolution containing certain findings when tax-forfeited property is to be sold to an HRA. On November 21, 1988, the HRA adopted such a resolution. It also requested the City Council to adopt a similar resolution. Recommendation- Adopt the resolution which requests the Hennepin County Board of Commissioners to sell certain tax-forfeited land to the HRA. Basis of Recommendation: 1. Requirement by Hennepin County Board of Commissioners, Resolution No. 82-8-612 (August 10, 1982. 2. Consistent with previous actions of the Planning Commission, HRA and City Council to redevelop this property with a professional office building. Alternative Recommendation: 1. Delay adoption of the resolution. 2. Refuse to adopt the resolution. Discussion/Decision Mode: Approval of the resolution will permit the timely processing of conveyance of the tax-forfeited property. Respectfully submitted, James Prosser City anager JDP:sae /~~/ RESOLUTION N0. THE CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA RESOLUTION REQUESTING THE HENNEPIN COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS TO SELL CERTAIN TAX .FORFEITED LAND TO THE RICHFIELD HRA iiHEREAS, any tax forfeited lands may be sold by the county board to any organized or incorporated governmental subdivision of the state for any public purpose for which such subdivision is authorized to acquire property or may be released from the trust in favor of the taxing districts upon application of any state agency for any authorized use at not less than their value as determined by the county board, pursuant to Minn. Stat. Sec. 282.01; and WHEREAS, the Hennepin County Board (County Board), by Resolution No. 82-8-612, dated August 10, 1982, (County Board Resolution) adopted a general policy to encourage the return of tax forfeited lands within the county to private ownership and the tax rolls; and WHEREAS, pursuant to the County Board Resolution, the acquisition of tax forfeited land by a governmental subdivision (except Housing and Redevelopment Authorities and other governmental subdivisions of the state expressly authorized by the law to resell, lease or transfer property) for resale shall not be approved by the Board; and WHEREAS, pursuant to Minn. Stat. Sec. 282.01, sud. 1, a sale, lease, transfer or other conveyance of such [tax forfeited] lands by a housing and redevelopment authority as authorized by Minn. Stat. Sec. 469.001 to 469.047, inclusive, as amended, shall not be an abandonment of such use and such lands shall not be reconveyed to the state nor shall they revert to the state; and WHEREAS, the real property located at 6941-45 Penn Avenue South (PID No. 28-028-24-33-0159), is land forfeited to the state for nonpayment of 1980 taxes on July 17, 1984, and is legally described as: Lot 13, Block 10, Tingdale Brothers Lincoln Hills Second Addition, Hennepin County, according to the recorded plat thereof; and Lot 10, Block 10, Woodlake Highlands Addition, Hennepin County, according to the recorded plat thereof. WHEREAS, the property is currently vacant, approximates 14.952 square feet in size, and is zoned MR-2, Multiple Residence. ~`~'/~-~ NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of Richfield, Minnesota as follows: 1. That the County Board is requested to convey the tax forfeited property to the Housing and Redevelopment Authority in and for the City of Richfield, Minnesota (HRA) for an amount equal to the appraised value, 3% assurance fee State deed tax, State deed fee, and filing fee pursuant to Minn. Stat. Sec. 282,01, subd. 1 and 3. 2. That the land is being acquired for the public purpose of remedying conditions of under-utilized land and physical blight which the private market has not been willing and/or able to accomplish independently. 3. That the land will be sold and developed in accordance with a development contract by the HRA and a private developer. 4. That private development will be part of the 70th Street and Penn Avenue Redevelopment Project, adopted by the HRA on October 17, 1988 and approved by the City Council on November 28, 1988, pursuant to Minn. Stat. Sec. 469.001 to 469.047, inclusive as amended. 5. Rezoning of the property to C-1, Neighborhood Business District, will become effective 30 days after publication of the rezoning ordinance in a newspaper of general circulation for the area. 6. That the construction of the improvements on the land are anticipated to commence and be completed during 1989. 7. That the property is anticipated to be returned to the tax rolls by no later than taxes payable 1991. 8. That the description for the undertaking of the Redevelopment Project is described in the Redevelopment Plan. Passed by the Richfield City Council this 28th day of November, 1988. Steven J. Quam, Mayor ATTEST: Thomas Ferber, City Clerk /,~ CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Council Letter No. 296 Agenda November 28, 1988 Issue Statement: Set a public hearing and authorize staff to make application for a Celebrate Minnesota 1990 grant for improvements at Veterans Memorial Park of Richfield and to apply for official Celebrate Minnesota 1990 membership. Background: In preparation for the 1990 Olympic Festival, Governor Perpich has proclaimed Celebrate Minnesota 1990. To join Celebrate Minnesota 1990, communities must: 1. Become an official member. Official members are eligible for special highway entrance signs, use of Celebrate Minnesota 1990 logos and listings in Celebrate Minnesota 1990 publications. The membership must be approved by the City Council in 1988. There is no fee for membership. 2. Official membership requires that a project, or projects, be identified in 1988 and completed in 1989. The plans for the project need not be in final form but a goal must be established. 3. Grants are available at a ratio of $3-$l. That is, for every $3 a community expends, there is a $1 grant. Maximum grant is $25,000. Local match dollars can include in-kind services such as volunteer labor, donation of equipment time, and materials and services. The amount of the grant request must be in addition to the amount originally budgeted for the project. One of the requirements of a grant is that it be coordinated with a planned, locally sponsored celebration to be held in 1990; for example, the Fourth of July Celebration. Grant applications must provide for public comment through a public hearing on the proposed Celebrate Minnesota 1990 project. The hearing must be conducted in the evening, describe the proposed project and solicit citizen comments. Grant applications must be delivered by Friday, December 16, 1988. Grants will be awarded in February, 1989. Projects eligible for grants include: - Demolition, clearance of material and debris - Site cleanup, preparation and grading - Seeding, sodding, planting trees and shrubs - Landscaping timbers, planting islands - Repair of roofs, foundations - Siding, windows, doors, paint, lighting - Sidewalk repair or construction - Exterior and interior rehabilitation of historic structures - Picnic tables and grills - Restrooms, walkways, parking - Fencing, signs - Drinking fountains - Outdoor lighting - Flag posts and kiosks Each project must support one of the three goals - cleanup, beautification and/or community improvement projects. 'T/~ ~/ Suggested projects at Veterans Memorial Park of Richfield to be discussed at a December 12, 1988 public hearing include: 1. Complete majority of trail system by: Blacktopping trail Installing two bridges 2. Construct large play feature 3. Additional landscaping (trees, shrubs, seed, sod, grading) Construct small picnic shelter Benches, tables, grills Construct small play feature 4. Construct Portland Avenue parking' lots including landscaping $ 75,000 $ 25,000 Total $100,000 Total $100,000 $ 15,000 $ 25,000 $ 8,000 $ 52,000 Total $100,000 Total $100,000 Recommended Motion: Set a public hearing for December 12, 1988 and authorize staff to 1) apply for Celebrate Minnesota 1990 membership and 2) apply for a Celebrate Minnesota 1990 grant of $25,000 based on a $100,000 improvement to be made at Veterans Memorial Park of Richfield. Basis of Recommendation: 1. Becoming an official Celebrate Minnesota 1990 member allows the City publicity and use of the logos which will enhance the community's image. 2. Applying for the grant provides a potential $25,000 in additional funds to accelerate and enhance the development of Veterans Memorial Park of Richfield. 3. As the site of the Fourth of July Celebration, improvements at Veterans Memorial Park of Richfield would enhance the participants.' experience and increase the positive image of Richfield as a good place to live. 4. The public hearing must be held prior to application of the grant to insure citizen input and participation. Alternative Recommendation: Do not authorize application for the grant thereby negating the need for the public hearing. Discussion/Decision Mode: Because the deadline for application is December 16, 1988 and the public hearing must be held prior to the application, a decision must be made at the November 28, 1988 City Council meeting. Respectfully submitted, James Prosser City nager JDP/eja /~`.~~ RESOLUTION N0. RESOLUTION APPLICATION AND PRIMARY CONTACT PERSON FOR PARTICIPATION IN THE CELEBRATE MINNESOTA 1990 BE IT RESOLVED that the City of Richfield act as sponsoring unit for the project identified as Veterans Memorial Park of Richfield beautification and improvements to be conducted during the period March 1, 1989 through December 31, 1989. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the amount of the grant request is in addition to the amount originally budgeted for the project. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that Donald Fondrick, Director of Community Services, is hereby authorized to apply to the Minnesota Department of Trade and Economic Development for funding of this project on behalf of the City of Richfield. PASSED by the City Council of the City of Richfield this 28th day of November, 1988. Steven J. Quam Mayor ATTEST: Thomas Ferber City Clerk ~ ~~ CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Council Letter No. 295 Agenda, November 28, 1988 Issue Statement: Council consideration of a resolution opposing the adoption of an Metropolitan Council MSP Adequacy task force recommendations. Background: The Metropolitan Council has established a task force to determine the adequacy of MSP airport. The task force was also to provide recommendations to enable the airport to meet capacity requirements. The recommendation which was developed detailed a dual strategy. The dual strategy included development of a north/south runway and landbanking for a future airport site. The north/south runway would require the effective condemnation of 450 homes within the City of Richfield and would add significantly to the noise impact for the surrounding residential property. According to the Metropolitan Council projections the new runway would meet airport needs for 10-15 years. The recommendation is to be considered by the Metropolitan Council on December 15, 1988 and forwarded to the Legislature for their action. Legislation would apparently be required to enact this recommendation. Recommended Motion: Approve the resolution opposing the adoption of the task/force recommendation. Basis for Recommendation: 1. The recommendation does not consider the significant negative impact that construction of the north/south runway would have upon the City of Richfield. 2. The recommendation does not provide a effective strategy for providing for future airport capacity. 3. The recommendation does not include a careful consideration of the airport capacity requirements. 4. The recommendation does not completely consider all available options for meeting airport capacity requirements. Alternative Recommendation: The Council may choose to alter sections of this resolution or may choose to not approve the attached resolution in favor of other measures which express their opinion regarding this matter. Discussion/Decision Mode: This matter will be presented Council meeting. at the November 28, 1988 City Respe ly submitted, James D ` Prosser City M~~iager JDP:sae ~' /`/'/ RESOLUTION N0. RESOLUTION OPPOSING ADOPTION OF METROPOLITAN COUNCIL TASK FORCE AIRPORT RECOMMENDATIONS WHEREAS, the Metropolitan Council, M5P Airport Adequacy Taskforce, has issued their final report regarding the .future of MSP airport, and WHEREAS, the final recommendation includes a dual track approach to address adequacy needs at MSP, and WHEREAS, the dual track approach includes construction of a North/South runway and land banking for a future airport site, and WHEREAS, task force members from Richfield and Bloomington have raised issues which .were not properly addressed or resolved in the final report, and WHEREAS, the recommendation for development of the north/south runway was at least partially based upon an incomplete cost/benefit analysis, and WHEREAS, the dual track approach would have a significantly negative impact upon Richfield, including, but not limited to -the dislocation of 450 homes within our community -the increase in noise for many homes who have not previously experienced noise -would relegate the MSP airport to a "temporary" airport status, -and would significantly impair the ability of the City to provide adequate services to our residents. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED as follows: Section I - The Mayor and City Council, the City of Richfield urge the Metropolitan Council, the State of Minnesota State Legislature, and the Governor to vigorously oppose the dual track option recommended by the Metropolitan Council Metropolitan Task Force. Section II -That more careful consideration be given to development of adequate projections indicating the need for additional need for airport capacity. Section III- If additional capacity is determined to be necessary, other options which would not require the wholesale destruction of neighborhoods be considered. //~ Section IV- That general environmental impacts for development of the north/south runway, be considered as part of the preliminary analysis of options. PASSED by the City Council of the City of Richfield this 28th day of November, 1988. Steven J. Quam, Mayor ATTEST: Thomas P. Ferber, City Clerk /.3 CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Council Letter No. 294 Agenda November 28, 1988 Issue Statement: Council Consideration of a resolution approving the Social Services Agency Committee Report and Recommendation, and authorizing the City Manager to execute agreement for services with those agencies funded by the City. Background: In 1986, the City Council established the Social Service Agency Committee to review the requests of the various agencies seeking funding assistance from the city. The Committee is comprised of a representative of the Advisory Board of Health, Community Services Commission, Human Rights Commission, Human Services Commission, and the Planning Commission. This year, the committee was provided with a total grant amount of $8,060. This amount was approved by the City Council in a lump sum as part of the 1989 budget process. The 1989 funding amounts for The Storefront/Youth Action, Inc., and South Hennepin Human Services Council was also approved in the budget adoption process. On November 10, 1988 the committee interviewed the five agencies who submitted funding requests. The minutes for that meeting are attached. Recomunended Motion: Approve the resolution providing funding of social service agencies in the following amounts: VEAP Shared Tra Share-A-Home Senior Outreach Cornerstone United Battered zsportation $2,800 500 Services 2,300 1,230 Families 1,230 TOTAL $8.060 and authorize the City Manager to execute agreement for services with the funded agencies. Basis for Recommendation: 1. The committee carefully considered the individual requests of each agency, and has assessed the relative needs and community impact and merit of each request in providing the final recommendations. The committee was specifically selected for their sensitivity to community concerns and awareness of community social service needs, and their recommendation should be followed. ~, ~~ Alternative Recommendation: 1. Reject the recommendation of the committee. The City Council would then make their own determinations. Discussion/Decision Mode: This matter will be presented Council meeting. at the November 28, 1988 City Jam D. Prosser Cit Manager Respec ully submitted, JDP/eja ~j~ -~ RESOLUTION N0. RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING A REVISION OF 1989 BUDGET FOR OTHER AGENCIES DIVISION WHEREAS, Resolution 7457 adopted a budget for 1989 appropriating funds for personal services and other expenses and capital outlays for each department of the city for the year 1989, and WHEREAS, the City Manager has requested a revision of the 1989 budget appropriation in accordance with charter provisions for determining the specific allocation of $8,060 of unallocated funds in the Legislative Department - Other Agencies Division of the General Fund. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of thee City of Richfield as follows.: 1. That the 1989 appropriation of $8,060 of unallocated funds for the Legislative Department - Other Agencies Division of the General Fund be revised as follows: VEAP Shared Tra Share-A-Home Senior Outreach Cornerstone United Battered nsportation $2,800 $ 500 Services $2,300 $1,230 Families $1,230 TOTAL $8,060 BE IT FUTHER RESOLVED that the City Manager be authorized to execute contractual agreements with the above named agencies summarizing services to be provided to Richfield residents. PASSED by the City Council of the City of Richfield this 28th day of November, 1988. Steven J. Quam, Mayor ATTEST: Thomas P. Ferber, City Clerk ~'`/~-~ 1989 AMOUNT 1989 AMOUNT 1988 FUNDS AGENCY RECOMMEND. REQUESTED RECEIVED VEAP SHARED TRANSPORTATION $2,800 $2,800 $2,000 SHARE A HOME $ 500 $6,000 --0-- SENIOR OUTREACH $2,300 $3,315 $2,500 CORNERSTONE $1,230 $5,000 $2,250 UNITED BATTERED FAMILIES $1,230 $6,960 $ --0-- TOTAL $8,060 $24,075 $6,750 /~-~' SOCIAL SERVICES FUNDING COMMITTEE MEETING NOVEMBER 15, 1988 The meeting was called to order at 6:30 p.m. in the lobby conference by Chair Gordon Anderson. PRESENT: James Clinite, Jacquelyn Lockman, Gordon Anderson, Larry Oppold, Jim Prosser and Eileen Anderson. ABSENT: Robert Nelson Members noted that the list of agencies requesting funds included two similar agencies, Cornerstone and United Battered Families. For the benefit of the committee members, Larry Oppold, Executive Director South Hennepin Human Services Council, described the services of both of these agencies. Mr. Oppold advised that both agencies provided basically the same services, and that their differences were mainly in the manner in which the services were provided. Members discussed the method to be used for interviewing agencies. They agreed that each agency would be asked to give a ten minute presentation, followed by a ten minute question/answer period. The committee interviewed representatives from Senior Outreach, Share-A-Home,.United Battered Families Network, VEAP Shared Transportation, and Cornerstone. At the conclusion of the interview process, members reviewed the funding requests, and discussed funding alternatives. Committee members expressed a desire to fund VEAP Transportation at the full amount requested ($2,800); to provide some funding to the Share-A-Home agency to indicate community support for the concept; and to provide funding to both the United Battered Families and Cornerstone agencies. The funding provided to Senior Outreach was reduced from the amount allocated in 1988. The committee noted that this agency has been able to secure funding from other sources, and is in the position of being able to add a three-quarters time outreach worker, even without Richfield's contribution. Motion Clinite/Lockman that the $8,060 available for distribution be allocated as follows: VEAP Shared Transportation $2,800 Share a Home 500 Senior Outreach 2,300 Cornerstone 1,230 United Battered Families 1,230 $8,060 Committee members were advised that Council consideration of these recommendations would be placed on the November 28, 1988 City Council agenda. Meeting adjourned 9:15 p.m. i i ~ ~i CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Council Letter No. 293 Agenda November 28, 1988 Issue Statement: Public hearing and second reading of an ordinance amending CATV Relief Ordinance 1985-12. Background: Rogers Communications, Inc. has agreed to sell all interests and holdings in its U.S. cable systems to KBL Cable, Inc., a Texas corporation. The transfer from Rogers to KBL Cable shall be effectuated through the transfer of the controlling stock interest in the RCA Cablesystems Holding Co., the parent corporation of the Grantee. The City previously granted relief to Rogers under the CATV Relief Ordinance 1985-12. Rogers has requested that this relief be extended to the new owners. A Stipulation of Settlement with Rogers and Grantee, Exhibit A ("Stipulation") and a Resolution of Approval of Settlement, Exhibit B ("Resolution"), are attached. The Stipulation and Resolution provide a description of requirements and conditions and are made part of this ordinance by reference. The ordinance will be effective only if the Stipulation and Resolution are satisfied and the Proposed Transferee agrees to be bound by the terms of this ordinance as part of its acceptance of the transfer of the ownership. Recommended Motion: Hold the public hearing and approve second reading of an ordinance amending CATV Relief Ordinance 1985-12. Basis for Recommendation: 1. The Southwest Suburban Cable Commission has reviewed this request and has recommended extending certain portions of the CATV Relief Ordinance to the new owner. Alternative Recommendation: 1. Not approve the ordinance. However, the SWSCC has recommended this approval, and no action may result in a delay in the sale of the cable company. Discussion/Decision Mode: This item is scheduled for Council action at the November 28, 1988 City Council meeting. If the Council approves the ordinance on November 28, it will become effective 30 days after publication in the official newspaper. Respectfu y submitted, James D Prosser City Manager JDP/eja ~%~ ORDINANCE NO. EXHIBIT CC An Ordinance Amending CATV Relief Ordinance, Ordinance No. 1985-12, Providing Modifications in Contemplation of a Transfer of Ownership of the City~s Cable Communications Franchise and Permitting Continuance of Relief to the Transferee of the Franchise in Accordance with this Ordinance. The City Council of the City of Richfield ordains as follows: Section i. Short Title. This Ordinance shall be known as the "CATV Relief Ordinance Amendment." Section 2. Background and Purpose. Rogers Communications, Inc. ("Rogers") has agreed to sell all interests and holding in its U.S. cable systems to KBL Cable, Inc., a Texas corporation ("Proposed Transferee"). The transfer from Rogers to the Proposed Transferee shall be effectuated through the transfer of the controlling stock interest in RCA Cablesystems Holding Co., the parent corporation of the Grantee. The City previously granted relief to the Grantee under the Franchise by Ordinance known as the CATV Relief Ordinance. Rogers has requested relief from the Franchise to be extended after the Closing, irrespective of the requirement in the CATV Relief Ordinance that the CATV Relief Ordinance terminates upon transfer of ownership and control of Grantee of the Franchise to a new owner. The Southwest Suburban Cable Commission ("SWSCC") has reviewed the request of Rogers and recommended extending certain portions of the CATV Relief Ordinance to a proposed new owner. This recommendation is based upon compliance with certain conditions by the Grantee and acceptance of requirements including this Ordinance, by the Proposed Transferee of the Franchise. A Stipulation of Settlement with Rogers and Grantee, Exhibit A ("Stipulation") and a Resolution of Approval of Settlement, Exhibit B ("Resolution"), are attached. The Stipulation and Resolution provide a description of requirements and conditions and are made part of this Ordinance by reference. This Ordinance will be effective only if the Stipulation and Resolution are satisfied and Proposed Transferee agrees to be l ~ ~~~ ~' bound by the terms of this Ordinance as part of its acceptance of the transfer of the ownership of Grantee. Section 3. That Section 4 of the Relief Ordinance is hereby amended to read as follows: SECTION 4. DEFINITIONS. Subdivision 1. The definitions in the Franchise also apply to this ordinance. Subdivision 2. In addition, the following wards and phrases shall have the meanings given them: [(1) "Existing indebtedness" means an $18,000,000 loan made to Grantee to Toronto Dominion Bank of Toronto, Canada under loan documents dated April 1, 1982.] 1„11 [(2)] "Franchise" means the Cable Communications Ordinance as now or hereafter amended. [(3)] "Local Programming Obligations" means, for the purpose of this ordinance, Grantee's obligations under the Franchise and the Offering for cablecast access, community access and local origination programming. 13L [(4)] "Performance Agreement" means a contractual agreement between Grantee, City and. SWSCC providing a means for monitoring Grantee's financial condition, assuring an adequate level of local programming, and providing for certain other matters related to Grantee's requested relief [.],s. as amended. Section 4. That Section 5 of the CATV Relief Ordinance is amended to read as follows: SECTION 5. RELIEF GRANTED. While this Ordinance is in effect the obligations of Grantee are modified to the extent provided in this section. ~~, Subdivision 1. Franchise Fees - Percentage. iJntil the effective date of this Ordinance, the annual franchise fee shall be 3$ of gross revenues. Commencing with [Grantee's fiscal year 1985] #~€ effective date of this ordinance the annual 2 franchise fee is [reduced from] 5$ of Gross Revenues [to 3$]. Such annual fees shall be paid to City in equal quarterly payments on or before the first day of each of the months of November, February, May and August next following the end of Grantee's fiscal year. [If this ordinance terminates during any of Grantee's fiscal years, the franchise fee shall be restored to the rate of 5$ of Gross Revenues at the end of the calendar month in which termination occurs. The restored rate of 5$ and the reduced rate of 3$ shall be applied respectively to the Gross Revenues collected only in the months during which each rate was in effect. The fees accruing at the restored rate shall be paid in accordance with the terms of the Franchise. The fees accruing at the .reduced rate shall be paid in equal quarterly installments in accordance with the terms of this ordinance.] [Subd. 2. Past Due Franchise Fees. The 1984 franchise fee in the amount of $57,253 payable on or before November 1, 1984 shall be deemed fully discharged and paid if, but only if, Grantee pays the sum of $34,352 to the City, in four equal payments on or before June 1, June 15, August 15 and October 15, 1985.] Subd. [3.] 2 Letters of Credit. .The City Council may by resolution reduce the required amount of the Letter of Credit below $50,000 if in its sole discretion it determines that a lesser amount is reasonable and adequate to protect the public. It may thereafter, by resolution, require the amount of the Letter of Credit to be increased or fully restored to the amount of $50,000. Grantee shall comply with this requirement within sixty days after written notice has been given by the City. Subd. [4.] 3 Performance Bond. The Grantee may dispense with the $300,000 performance bond required by the Franchise. The City Council may thereafter by resolution require that such bond, or a similar bond in a lesser amount, be provided by Grantee. Grantee shall comply with this ,,, requirement within sixty days after written notice has been given by the City. Subd. [5.] 4 Local Programming Obligations. Grantee shall expend at least 1$ of its annual 3 /~-~ Gross Revenues each fiscal year in fulfilling its Local Programming Obligations under the Franchise for public, governmental, and educational access, but it shall not be obligated to expend more than that amount for such access. That amount shall not include any costs of operation, capital for, access be maintained and replaced. or administration not directly related to the provision of local programming. This expenditure shall be in complete satisfaction of Grantee's. total Local Programming Obligations during the period of this ordinance. Section 5. That Section 6 of the Relief Ordinance is hereby amended to read as follows: SECTION 6. AUTOMATIC TERMINATION OF RELIEF ORDINANCE PROVISIONS. The provisions of this ordinance, and the relief herein granted, shall cease to be effective, automatically, upon the occurrence of the earliest of any of the following events: [Subdivision 1. Failure of the Grantee to complete refinancing its Existing Indebtedness by December 31, 1987 in accordance with Article II, Section 4 of the Franchise.] [Subd. 2. The end of the next month after Grantee has collected cumulative Gross Revenues in the amount of one hundred million dollars as measured from September 1, 1984 . The determination of cumulative Gross Revenues shall be based upon audited financial statements for periods for which they are available and upon Grantee's operating reports for period for which audited statements are not then available. Grantee shall provide City with its financial statements and financial operating reports promptly after they are prepared.] [Subd. 3.] Subdivision 1. March 1, 1992. . [Subd. 4. Payment, discharge, or satisfaction of the Existing Indebtedness, except through refinancing as provided in Article II, • Section 4 of the Franchise.] . 4 ~ ac ~ o. [Subd. 5. Payment, discharge, or satisfaction of the indebtedness arising from the refinancing provided in Article II, Section 4 of the Franchise.] [Subd. 6.] Subdivision 2. Failure of the Grantee to restore or replace the full required amount of the Letter of Credit as provided in Article VIII, Section 4, paragraph H of the Franchise. [Subd. 7. Failure of the Grantee to pay the fees as required in Section 5, Subd. 2 of this ordinance.] [Subd. 8.] Subdivision 3. Failure of the Grantee to restore, replace or increase either a Letter of Credit or bond within sixty days of written notice by the City, as provided in Section 5, Subdivisions [3 and 4] 2 and 3 of this ordinance. [Subd. 9.] Subdivision 4. A holding or determination by any court or agency that any term, condition or provision of this Relief Ordinance is invalid or unenforceable, as a result of any action taken by Grantee or anyone acting on Grantee's behalf seeking such determination. [Subd. 10. Sale or transfer of all or substantially all of the System to a person or entity other than a parent, subsidiary, related corporation, affiliated corporation, partner or joint venturer of Grantee or any parent of Grantee.] [Subd. 11.] Subdivision 5. Termination of the Franchise. Section 6. That Section 7 of the Relief Ordinance is amended to read as follows: SECTION 7. OTHER TERMINATIONS. .~ This ordinance may also be terminated for cause, under the same procedures for termination as are contained in the Franchise, for the following reasons: Subdivision 1. All grounds for termination provided in the Franchise, includinct the Relief Ordinance as amended, except to the extent that 5 / .L - ~s Grantee's performance obligations are modified in this Ordinance. [Subd. 2. The purchase by Grantee, its general partner, or any parent, subsidiary, affiliate or other related corporation of Grantee or its general partner, of a cable communications system or any part thereof or interest therein, located within the seven-county metropolitan area as defined in Minnesota Statutes, .Section 473.121, Subd. 2. For this purpose the definition of a cable communications system shall be as that term is currently defined by the Board. Such a purchase shall not be grounds for termination of this ordinance, however, if the Grantee demonstrates to the reasonable satisfaction of the City that the purchase (1) will not impair the operating cash flow or financial position of Grantee and (2) will involve independent financing of the purchase without resort to the assets of the System.] [Subd. 3.] Subdivision 2. Failure of the Grantee to comply with any of the provisions of the Performance Agreement. Section 7. Effective Date. This ordinance shall be effective upon passage and adoption by City and upon satisfaction of all of the following conditions: (1) Publication of this Ordinance; (2) Passage and adoption by each of the Member Cities of the SWSCC of an Ordinance similar to this Ordinance within 45 days of the adoption of this Ordinance; (3) Conformance by Grantee with all the terms and conditions of the Resolution, Exhibit B and of the Stipulation, Exhibit A, and of the Amendment to the Performance Agreement, Exhibit DD to the Stipulation, Exhibit A; (4) Acceptance by Grantee in conformance with Section 8 of this Ordinance; ~,_, (5) Closing of the transfer o Proposed Transferee withi hereof and notice thereof SWSCC. f ownership from Rogers to n one (1) year from the date to the Member Cities of F~ ~~~"~ (6) Execution and delivery by Proposed Transferee of a guarantee agreement as required by Paragraph 5 of the Stipulation. Section 8. Acceptance of the Relief Ordinance as amended; Providing of Guarantees. Except as otherwise provided herein, this effective in accordance with the provisions of Franchise including delivery to the City of the opinion of legal counsel, guarantees and other required by said Article XIV. Passed by the City Council of the City of Minnesota this day of Ordinance shall be Article XIV of the a acceptance, documents as Richfield 1988. City Mayor Action on above ordinance: Date of first reading: Date of second reading: Motion for Adoption: Seconded by: Voted in favor: Voted against: Abstained: Absent: Ordinance adopted. Date of publication: SW2/ORD2 11/7/88 '. ~. 7 /~-` EXHIBIT DD AMENDMENT TO PERFORI+IANCB PiGREEMF.~I'1' THIS AGREEMENT dated the day of , 1988, by and between ROGERS CABLESYSTEMS OF THE SOUTHWEST, INC., ("Grantee"), a Minnesota corporation, its successors or assigns, ROGERS U.S. CABLESYSTEMS, INC. ("Parent"), a Delaware corporation, its successors or assigns, the CITY OF Richfield , MINNESOTA ("City"), a municipal corporation, and the SOUTHWEST SUBURBAN CABLE COMMISSION ("SWSCC"), a joint powers organization created by the Cities of Eden Prairie, Edina, Hopkins, Minnetonka, and Richfield, Minnesota ("Member Cities") to amend a Perfonaance Agreement entered into by them (hereinafter "Performance Agreement") to be consistent with Ordinance No. 1985-12 (hereinafter "CATV Relief Ordinance") as amended by Ordinance No. hereby agree as follows: WHEREAS, City has adopted a Resolution, approving this Agreement; WHEREAS, in accordance with the Resolution and the terms and conditions therein, certain modifications in relief previously provided in the CATV Relief Ordinance are required; and WHEREAS, acceptance of this Agreement and of the changes provided for herein are required in order to satisfy the conditions of the Resolution. NOW, THEREFORE, based upon the consideration of each of the parties herein and the mutual understandings of them, the following changes to the Performance Agreement are hereby mutually agreed to: 1. Section 2 is amended to read as follows: Section 2. Definitions. The words and phrases used in this Agreement shall have the meanings given to them in the Franchise and CATV Relief Ordinance. "CATV Relief Ordinance" as used herein, in the Contract for Local Programming Facilities, the Contract for Public, Educational, and Government Access Services, and all agreements related thereto, shall ~~~~ 1~he CATV Relief Ordinance (Ordinance No. ) as amended by Ordinance No. ~~ 1 /~- ~ 2. Sc+~tinn d_04 i~ amended to read as follows: 4.04. The City agrees to pay, to assist in providing local programming, up to, but not in excess of one- fifth (1/5) of the five percent (5$) annual franchise fee actually received by the City pursuant to the CATV Relief Ordinance, as amended, on the following terms and conditions: (Paragraphs A through B are unchanged) C. Grantee shall deduct up to one-fifth (1/5) of the quarterly franchise fee payment made to City. The actual amount to be deducted shall be based upon the access budget prepared by Grantee and approved by the SWSCC each year. The amount deducted in accordance with the access budget shall be identified by Grantee with each payment of the franchise fee. If Grantee's required payment for local programming of one percent (1~) of gross revenues is not fully expended in the performance of the Facilities Contract, then the remaining amounts will be expended by Grantee for local programming or used to reduce the amount payable under this paragraph pro rate among the Member Cities on the basis of the contribution of each, in the discretion of SWSCC. (Paragraphs D through H are unchanged) 3. Section 5 is amended by adding a new Section 5.07 as follows• 5.07. Pursuant to the report and recommendations issued under Section 5.04 above, development of an institutional network shall be deferred for the longer of: 1) five (5) years from the date of this Agreement, or 2) until the SWSCC reconvenes and/or reappoints SWING and SWING determines pursuant to this agreement that the institutional network is economically viable and that the construction of the network would not have an adverse impact on the financial condition of Grantee and residential subscriber rates. 2 ~i/~, ~~ 4. This Agreement shall be effective only upon Ordinance No. becoming effective and four parallel ordinances for all Member Cities becoming effective and upon completion of the purchase of the common stock of RCA Cablesystems Holding Co. by KBL Cable, Inc., a Texas corporation, and compliance by KBL Cable, Inc., with all of the requirements of Closing including signing and delivering a guarantee agreement required by paragraph 5 of the Stipulation of Settlement and Release between the City, Grantee, Rogers Communications, Inc., and Rogers Cablesystems of America, Inc. 5. Except as specifically modified herein, all other requirements of the Performance Agreement shall remain in full force and effect. CITY OF Richfield By Its SOUTHWEST SUBURBAN CABLE COMMISSION By Its ROGERS CABLESYSTEMS OF THE SOUTHWEST, INC., a Minnesota corporat on By Its ROGERS U.S. CABLESYSTEMS, INC. its succes or assi ' By Its w ~. SW3/AMEND2 . SW 11/7/88 3 ~/~ - ~/ STATE OF MINNESOTA) ss COUNTY OF HENNEPIN) The foregoing instrument was subscribed and sworn to before me this day of , 19 , by , the of the CITY OF , a Minnesota municipal corporation, on behalf of said corporation. STATE OF MINNESOTA) ss COUNTY OF HENNEPIN) Notary Public The foregoing instrument was subscribed and me this day of 19 by the of the SOUTHWEST SUBURBAN CABLE behalf of said corporation. STATE OF MINNESOTA) ss COUNTY OF HENNEPIN) sworn to before COMMISSION, on Notary Public The foregoing instrument was subscribed and sworn to before me this day of ,<<.:~ ~ r}; ~• , 19~, by x ' r l~i~ tJ _ ~ ` ,'' . the `_, ..; `, ~ : _;~'f'!": J6f ROGERS CABLESYSTEMS OF THE SO THWEST, I INC. , a Minnesota corporation, on behalf of said corporation. STATE OF MINNESOTA) ss COUNTY OF HENNEPIN) ~~, ~-- N©tBryAQPt~bA ~~~~A~~m,AAAAAAA9 xaAn~AA~~ LEEANP~ K. PETERSON ~ _ ~ ~~-~.i~ NGTARY PUE! i~ - Mli'?~S^~TA %`=~~ ~ HENN=FiN GCiiNTY ,~, ~~: 19x9 a X n y CMG ',v~,rr~n,~r~~row~ tt .The foregoing instrument was subscribed and sworn to before me this ~'Y~ day of ~~'~/.= ~ C~ ~ ,~~` ~ , 19 ~sL., by /-Jl; • r~-~ 1; . L ~ ~ f~ , the ~'/t +, ~"f - ; -~: ~ of ROGERS U. S . CABLESYSTEMS, INC. , Its successors or assigns, on behalf of said corporation. (\ ,- .~ -.~ . ~. SW3/AMEND.SW - 10/19/88 N~bt'ary Public X AAAAAAAQAAAA EMOAAAAfa6+~~aAAAAAAAAAA.Q~A 7( ~ .::~a:,. LEEANN K. PETERSON ~~"~~~t. NGTARY PUC~IC - P,riN!~±ESOTA t a :.; ~ ~ ~~~ F HENNEPIN CCUNTY v ~ `'~-~ Ny Cemmiss?cn Expires Feb. 7, 1959 ~ }(W CCntl~4GC~tl 19F~~GG~GMG!!'!! GV9~~~'Htl~% !S 4 ~/a - ~-~ 87~IBIT BB WAIVER OF COMPLETION OF MINOR FRANCHISE OFFERINGS 1. The cable company provided for inter-city connection via ultra high performance bi-directional trunks utilizing feed- forward amplifiers and three-quarter or one-inch size low loss cable. The 270 MHz Mid-Split Channel Capacity would provide 17 forward and 17 reverse channels. (Form I, p. 22) Such waiver does not extend to the Proposed Transferee. 2. The cable company provided that 55 miles of PVC conduit would be installed in areas of underground construction undertaken during the initial construction period. The use of the conduit would provide for future expansion of the system to a dual cable network should the need for additional channel capacity arise. (Form I, p. la) In constructing the system, Rogers found that over 200 miles of underground plant were required. Rogers built the system using conduit under all streets and highways but not for other construction. It is the intent of the parties to this Stipulation that this policy would be continued by the Proposed Transferee. 3. Cable company was to provide 20 modulators at 20 locations throughout the joint system in addition to those provided to educational institutions. (Article IV, Sec. 1 C5) The policy of the cable company has been to provide modulators on an "as needed" basis. It is the. intent of the parties to this Stipulation. that this policy would be continued by the Proposed Transferee. AM2 10/19/88 ~• .. ~ /~ CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Council Letter No. 292 Agenda November 28, 1988 Issue Statement: Public Hearing and Second Reading of an ordinance to support enforcement of off-street parking permits for automobile dealerships. Background: City ordinances currently regulate the parking of vehicles for all commercial establishments by means of an offstreet parking permit process. Frorn time to time the City has experienced difficulty with enforcing provisions of the offstreet parking permit. In order to simplify the enforcement procedure, an ordinance has been developed by the City Attorney. The ordinance would specifically indicate that motor vehicles being purchased or sold by the licensee and customer vehicles could not be parked on the boulevard adjacent to licensee's premises unless an agreement has been reached between the City and the licensee. An example of the agreement referred to would be the offstreet parking permit. It is important to know that this is really not a new restriction for car dealership operations. Rather, it is a clarification of the existing intent of offstreet parking permits. At the October 24, 1988 City Council meeting, the City Council approved first reading of this ordinance, and scheduled the public hearing for November 28, 1988. All of the car dealerships have been notified of the hearing, and have been forwarded copies of the proposed ordinance. Recommended Motion: Hold the public hearing and approve the ordinance amending Section 1155 of the Richfield City Code entitled Motor Vehicle Dealers. Basis for Recommendation: 1. To clarify the requirements to comply with offstreet parking permits. 2. Parking of vehicles on boulevards can cause the following problems: -Site obstruction make cause danger to other vehicles in the area. -Snow removal activities can be hindered. -Emergency access to businesses can be hindered. Alternative Recommendation: 1. The Council could choose not to enact this ordinance. In that case the City would be in the position of using more complex enforcement procedure, by seeking enforcement of the offstreet parking permit or a revocation of the conditional use permit. ~~~/ Discussion/Decision Mode: If the ordinance amendment is approved at the November 28 City Council meeting, the ordinance would become effective 30 days after publication in the official newspaper. Respectfully submitted, Jame Prosser City anager JDP/eja ~j/ CITY OF RICHFIELD AMENDMENT TO SECTION 1155 - OF THE RICHFIELD CITY CODE OF 1987 THE CITY OF RICHFIELD DOES ORDAIN: Section 1155 of the Richfield City Code of 1987 entitled: Motor Vehicle Dealers is hereby amended in the following respects: I. By adding thereto the following new Subsection 1155.02: 1155.02. Definitions. For the purposes of this section, the terms defined have the means given them. (a) "street" or "alley" means the entire width between the boundary lines of any way or place when any part thereof is open to use by the public, as a matter of right, for the purposes of vehicular traffic. (b) "roadway" means that portion of a street or alley which is improved, designed and ordinarily used for vehicular traffic . (c) "boulevard" means that portion of a street or alley - which lies between the outer edge of the roadway and the boundary line of .the street or alley. II. By amending Subdivision 6 of Subsection 1155.09 thereof to read as follows: Subd. 6. Vehicle parking. Motor vehicles being purchased or sold by the licensee may not be parked on ~l~e-s~~ee~ err #a-ems ~1.3.~ any roadway adjacent to the licensed premises. Driveways;-~~e~s-~~-~=^ may not be blocked by parked motor vehicles. No motor vehicle being purchased or sold by the licensee and no motor vehicle of any customer of licensee may be parked on a boulevard adjacent to the licensed premises unless the licensee and the City have entered into a written agreement pex~itting such parking. ~~ ~~~ Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this day of 1988. Steven J. Quam, Mayor ATTEST: Thomas Ferber, City Clerk 0055RE15.E14 2 ~~ CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Council Letter No. 288 Agenda November 28, 1988 Issue Statement: Renewal of 1989 On-Sale Wine and Non-Intoxicating Malt Liquor Licenses for Davanni's Inc. d/b/a Davanni's Pizza and Hot Hoagies, 2312 W. 66 Street. Background- On October•18, 1988, the city received the renewal applications and other required documents for the on-sale wine and 3.2 beer licenses for Davanni's Pizza and Hot Hoagies. The required license fees have been paid. The corporate structure of the organization remains unchanged. Mr. Gladstone M. Stenson continues to 'serve as Corporate President; Mr. Roger Schelper serves as Vice-President and Secretary; and Mr. Robert W. Carlson serves as Treasurer. During 1988 Ms. Constance Zweber replaced Ms. Gail Webster as manager of the Richfield restaurant. None of these individuals has any known criminal record. The background investigation conducted by the Public Safety Department has determined that all 1988 real estate, state withholding and sales taxes have been paid and are current. The building and property continue to be owned by Hwy. #52 Embers Inc., and the lease agreement between the applicant and the landlord continues to be in effect with all payments current. The required $5,000 surety bond has been submitted and indicates that Transamerica Insurance Company is the carrier of the bond. The applicant has supplied a certificate of insurance detailing the required liquor liability insurance coverage. The certificate lists the Transcontinental Insurance Company as affording the required coverage. An accountant's statement has been prepared and submitted by Mr. Robert J. Stupka, C.P.A. This statement covers the period from September 28, 1987 to September 11, 1988 and is as follows: Total Sales $661,643 Food Sales $602,238 91~ Beverage Sales $59,405 9~ From December of 1987 through October of 1988 there were seven Public Safety contacts with Davanni's as compared to five contacts for the previous year. Two calls were of a criminal nature, both involving minors in possession of alcohol. In each of these incidents, an employee of Davanni's called for police assistance in dealing with minors who were drinking outside the establishment and causing a disturbance. The applicant was cooperative during each contact. %/ Recommended Motion: Approve the renewal of 1989 On-Sale Wine and Non-Intoxicating Malt Liquor Licenses for Davanni's Inc. d/b/a Davanni's Pizza and Hot Hoagies, 2312 W. 66 Street. Basis of Recommendation: 1. The applicant has complied with the provisions of both the state statutes and city ordinances pertaining to on-sale wine and 3.2 beer licenses. 2. Based upon the information supplied by the applicant and the investigation conducted, there appears to be no reason to deny the renewal of the licenses requested. 3. The applicant has demonstrated that the business is an asset to the community. Alternatives 1. The council could decide to continue the hearing. If, however the hearing is continues beyond January 1, 1989, the council must grant license extensions to allow the applicant to continue to sell wine and beer until the rescheduled hearing can be conducted. 2. The council could decide to suspend or revoke the licenses. Any suspension or revocation must, according to Minnesota State Statutes 340 A.415, be based upon a finding that the licensee has failed to comply with an applicable statue, rule or ordinance relating to alcoholic beverages. The council must also note that no revocation or suspension takes effect until the licensee has been afforded an opportunity for a hearing under Sections 14.57 to 14.70 of the Administrative Procedure Act.. The council must also not issue any license to any applicant that has failed to pay appropriate taxes. It is the opinion of the Public Safety Department that the licensee has not committed any violation relating to alcoholic beverages, that the licensee has paid all appropriate taxes and therefore, it is recommended that the licenses not be revoked or suspended. Decision/Discussion Mode: The public hearing to consider the requests for the renewal of all on-sale wine and 3.2 beer licenses has been scheduled for November 28, 1988. These licenses expire January 1, 1989. Therefore, if the council decides to continue the hearing beyond November 28th, any subsequent hearing should be held before the licenses expire. Respect ully submitted, James Prosser City anager r CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Council Letter No. 289 Agenda November 28, 1988 Issue Statement: Renewal of 1989 On-Sale Wine and Non-Intoxicating Malt Liquor Licenses for Miller's Fireside Pizza Inc., 6736 Penn Avenue. Background: On October 31, 1988 the city received the renewal applications and other required documents for the on-sale wine and 3.2 beer licenses for Miller's Fireside Pizza. The required license fees have been paid. The corporate structure of the organization remains unchanged. Mr. David Miller continues to serve as Corporate President, Treasurer and Manager; while his mother Lucille Miller, serves as Corporate Vice-President and Secretary. Neither of these individuals has any known criminal record. The background investigation conducted by the Public Safety Department has determined that all 1988 real estate, state withholding and sales taxes have been paid and are current. The building and property continue to be owned by the Millers. The required $5,000 surety bond has been submitted and indicates that the United Fire and Casualty Company is the carrier of the bond. The applicant's insurance agent has indicated that they are in the process of receiving liquor liability quotes from two companies and that the liquor liability insurance coverage and certificate will be issued before December 31, 1988. The City will receive a certificate of insurance. An accountant's statement has been prepared and submitted by Mr. Richard Ellsworth of the ueorge M. Hanson Company, P.A. This statement covers the period from October 1, 1987 to September 1, 1988 and indicates that food sales accounted for 92~ of the total sales, while beer and wine sales accounted for 8~ of the total sales. From December of 1987 through October of 1988 there were five Public Safety contacts with Miller's as compared to three contacts for the previous year. Of these five contacts, two were of a criminal nature, one a burglary, and the other a theft. Recommendation: Approve the renewal of the 1989 on-sale wine and non-intoxicating malt liquor licenses for Miller's Fireside Pizza Inc., 6736 Penn Avenue. ~~ / Basis of Reconunendation: 1. The applicant has complied with the provisions of both the state statutes and City ordinances pertaining to on-sale wine and 3.2 beer licenses. 2. Based upon the information supplied by the applicant and the investigation conducted, there appears to be no reason to deny the renewal of the licenses requested. 3. The applicant has demonstrated that the business is an asset to the community. Alternatives: 1. The council could decide to continue the hearing. If, however the hearing is continued beyond January 1, 1989 the council must grant license extensions to allow the applicant to continue to sell wine and beer until the rescheduled hearing can be conducted. 2. The council could decide to suspend or revoke the licenses. Any suspension or revocation must, according to Minnesota State Statutes 340 A.415, be based upon a finding that the licensee has failed to comply with an applicable statue, rule or ordinance relating to alcoholic beverages. The council must also note that no revocation or suspension takes effect until the licensee has been afforded an opportunity for a hearing under Sections 14.57 to 14.70 of the Administrative Procedure Act. The Council must also not issue any license to any applicant that has failed to pay .appropriate taxes. It is the opinion of the Public Safety Department that the licensee has not committed any violation relating to alcoholic beverages, that the licensee has paid all appropriate taxes and therefore, it is recommended that the licenses not be revoked or suspended. Decision/Discussion Mode: The public hearing to consider the requests for the renewal of all on-sale wine and 3.2 beer licenses has been scheduled for November 28, 1988. These licenses expire January 1, 1989. Therefore, if the Council decides to continue the hearing beyond November 28th, any subsequent hearing should be held before the licenses expire. Respectfully submitted, James Prosser City M ager JDP/eja ~y CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Council Letter No. 290 Agenda November 28, 1988 Issue Statement: Renewal of 1989 On-Sale Wine and Non-Intoxicating Malt Liquor Licenses for Richfield Management Company d/b/a Paesano's, located at 500 East 78th Street. Background: On November 2, 1988, the city received the renewal applications and other required documents for the on-sale wine and 3.2 beer licenses for Paesano's. The required license fees have been paid. The corporate structure of the organization remains unchanged, although the names of both the parent company and the business have changed. Northstar Pizza is now Richfield Management Group and Shakey's is now Paesano's. Mr. Richard M. Lupu continues to serve as Corporate President/Director and Manager, while his wife Jerilyn continues to serve as Corporate Vice-President/Director. Neither of these individuals has any known criminal record. The background investigation conducted by the Public Safety Department has determined that all 1988 real estate, state withholding and sales taxes have been paid and are current. The building and property continue to be owned by A. G. Bogen Company, and the lease agreement between the applicant and the landlord continues to be in effect with all payments current. The required $5,000 surety bond has been submitted and indicates that Continental Insurance Company is the carrier of the bond. The applicant has indicated that proof of liquor liability insurance coverage will be supplied by the applicant's insurance agent, John Crowther, before January 1, 1989. An accountant's statement has been prepared and submitted by Mr. Earl K. Jensen, office manager. This statement covers the period from November 1, 1987 through October 31, 1988 and is as follows: Total Sales $701,592 Food Sales $673,554 96~ Beverage Sales $28,038 4~ From December of 1987 through October of 1988 there were 14 Public Safety contacts with Paesano's as compared to 9 contacts for the previous year. Of these 14 contacts 7 were of a criminal nature. Recommended Motion: Approve the renewal of 1989 On-Sale Wine and Non-Intoxicating Malt Liquor Licenses for Richfield Management Company d/b/a Paesano's, located at 500 East 78th Street, provided the applicant supplies proof of liquor liability insurance coverage before January 1, 1989. ~y~ Basis of Recommendation: 1. The applicant has complied with the provisions of both the state statutes and city ordinances pertaining to on-sale wine and 3.2 beer licenses. 2. Based upon the information supplied by the applicant and the investigation conducted, there appears to be no reason to deny the renewal of the licenses requested. 3. The applicant has demonstrated that the business is an asset to the community. Alternatives: 1. The council could decide to continue the hearing. If, however the hearing is continued beyond January 1, 1989, the council must grant license extensions to allow the applicant to continue to sell wine and beer until the rescheduled hearing can be conducted. 2. The council could decide to suspend or revoke the licenses. Any suspension or revocation must, according to Minnesota State Statutes 340 A.415, be based upon a finding that the licensee has failed to comply with an applicable statue, rule or ordinance relating to alcoholic beverages. The council must also note that no revocation or suspension takes effect until the licensee has been afforded an opportunity for a hearing under Sections 14.57 to 14.70 of the Administrative Procedure Act. The council must also not issue any license to any applicant that has failed to pay appropriate taxes. It is the opinion of the Public Safety Department that the licensee has not committed any violation relating to alcoholic beverages, that the licensee has paid all appropriate taxes and therefore, it is recommended that the licenses not be revoked or suspended. Decision/Discussion Mode: The public hearing to consider the requests for the renewal of all on-sale wine and 3.2 beer licenses has been scheduled for November 28, 1988. These licenses expire January 1, 1989. Therefore, if the council decides to continue the hearing beyond November 28th, any subsequent hearing should be held before the licenses expire. Respect y submitted, James Prosser City nager JDP/eja ~~/v CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Council Letter No. 291 Agenda November 28, 1988 Issue Statement- Renewal of 1989-On-Sale Wine and Non-Intoxicating Malt Liquor Licenses for Richfield Inn Land Company, d/b/a Park Inn International, located at 7640 Cedar Avenue South. Background: On November 2.1, 1988, the city received the renewal applications and other .required documents for the on-sale wine and 3.2 beer licenses for Park Inn International. The required license fees have been paid. The corporate structure of the organization remains unchanged, although the name of the parent company has changed. Prest Motor Inns, Inc. is now Richfield Inn Land Company. John M. Prest continues to serve as Corporate President/Treasurer, while his wife Sara Prest serves as Corporate Vice-President/Treasurer. Both John and Sara Prest currently reside in Florida. The current manager is Mr. Ron Curtin who replaced Ms. Robin Boller. None of these individuals has any known criminal record. The background investigation conducted by the Public Safety Department has determined that general real estate taxes amounting to $44,709.70 remain unpaid as of November 21, 1988. In addition, the Public Safety Department has been informed by the Minnesota Department of Revenue that state sales and withholding taxes have not been paid since July of 1988. The Revenue Department is in the process of sending the city Notices of Requirement for Tax Clearance for these unpaid taxes. Public Safety personnel will continue to work with Department of Revenue personnel to resolve this tax matter. The applicant has been informed that if the unpaid taxes are not paid before January 1, 1989, their wine and beer licenses will not be issued. In addition, these unpaid taxes could result in the motel/hotel and restaurant licenses not being issued. The required $5,000 surety bond has been submitted and indicates that Western Surety Company is the carrier of the bond. The applicant has supplied proof of liquor liability insurance coverage. This coverage indicates that Transcontinental is affording the required liquor liability insurance coverage. An accountant's statement has been prepared and submitted. This statement covers the period from November 18, 1987 through November 18, 1988 and is as follows: Total Sales $243,262.00 Food Sales $228,830.00 94~ Beverage Sales $14,432.00 6~ From December of 1987 through October of 1988 there were 47 Public Safety contacts with Park Inn International as compared to 21 contacts for the previous year. Of these 47 contacts 2~ w~re of a criminal nature. A majority of the criminal contac-~s ea t with theft and related crimes. In addition, it would appear a majority of the criminal contacts involved the motel operation and not the restaurant. T, / v Recommended Motion: Approve the renewal of 1989 On-Sale Wine and Non-Intoxicating Malt Liquor Licenses for Richfield Inn Land Company, d/b/a Park Inn International, located at 7640 Cedar Avenue South, with the stipulation that the license will not be issued unless all state sales, withholding and general real estate taxes are paid before January 1, 1989. In the event these fees are not paid by January 1, 1989 staff is directed not to issue the on-sale wine and non- intoxicating malt liquor license and Park Inn is directed to cease sales of wine and non-intoxicating beverages. Basis of Recommendation: 1. The applicant has failed to pay state sales and withholding taxes since July of 1988 and still owes general real estate taxes amounting to over $44,000.00. 2. The licensee has not committed any violation relating to alcoholic beverages. Alternatives: 1. The council could decide to continue the hearing. If, however the hearing is continued beyond January 1, 1989, the council must consider license extension issues and the impact on the license requests in regard to any unpaid taxes. 2. The council could decide to suspend or revoke the licenses. Any suspension or revocation must, according to Minnesota State Statutes 340 A.415, be based upon a finding that the licensee has failed to comply with an applicable statue, rule or ordinance relating to alcoholic beverages. The council must also note that no revocation or suspension takes effect until the licensee has been afforded an opportunity for a hearing under Sections 14.57 to 14.70 of_ the Administrative Procedure Act. It is the opinion of the Public Safety Department that the licensee has not committed any violation relating to alcoholic beverages, but that the licensee has not paid all appropriate taxes. Decision/Discussion Mode: The public hearing to consider the requests for the renewal of all on-sale wine and 3.2 beer licenses has been scheduled for November 28, 1988. These licenses expire January 1, 1989. Therefore, if the council decides to continue the hearing beyond November 28th, any subsequent hearing should be held before the licenses expire. Respect ly submitted, Jam D. Prosser Cit Manager JDP/eja ~~ CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Council Letter No. 287 November 28, 1988 Agenda Issue Statement: Public hearing on a conditional use permit request at 6529 Penn Avenue. Background: Mr. Ray M. Tharp has requested a conditional use permit for a sit-down restaurant with a drive-thru window at 6529 Penn Avenue South. The applicant proposes to lease the (Old Arby's) building for a Middle Eastern restaurant. The existing building would be remodeled and a 4.3 foot solarium added. A variance was granted on 10/11/88 to allow the construction of the solarium within the setback area. (See attachments.) In 1982, a special use permit for a drive-thru window was approved but it was never built. Since then, an ordinance was adopted by the City which precludes such drive-thru windows within 150 feet of any residentially zoned property. The subject site abuts an MR-2 district. The property is zoned I, general industrial district and a restaurant is allowed with a conditional use permit. Although a number of commercial users have shown an interest in the property, the building has remained vacant for approximately seventeen months. The proposal involves substantial interior remodelling, a facelift and landscaping which would be an improvement over the present condition. Recommendation: Recommend approval of the conditional use permit for a sit-down restaurant with the following stipulations: 1. The drive-thru window be excluded from the plan. 2. The site be landscaped along Penn Avenue and sufficiently screened from the abutting residential property to the east by features such as fencing and landscaping as approved by staff. (See attachments,) 3. An underground sprinkler system be installed in the landscaped area as per staff approval. 4. Perimeter curbing be provided on the site including the alley from 66th Street. 5. All signage on the property meet the City's sign regulations. 6. The improvements meet all building and fire codes. ~~_ ~ 7. A cash escrow in the amount equivalent to the cost of total landscaping be provided for a period of one year to ensure that the landscaped area is adequately maintained. 8. The alley from 66th Street to the southeast corner of the site be repaired to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. 9. All improvements must be completed prior to the issuance of an occupancy permit. Basis of Recommendation: 1. A special use permit for a drive-thru window was approved on May 10, 1982, but such was never built. As a result, the permit expired and applicant retains no rights under such and acquired no legal nonconforming use rights. The current ordinance precludes approving a drive-thru window now at this location. 2. The Planning Commission unanimously recommended approval of the sit down restaurant. The drive-thru window was included in their recommendation as a nonconforming use. Review by staff has clarified the fact situation regarding the drive- thru window. 3. The new restaurant would have a seating capacity of 74 seats and would require at least 25 parking spaces. The 26 parking spaces for the proposed use is adequate. The curb cuts meet the City's minimum width requirement of 2& feet and the driving`isle width is adequate. 4. The applicant has agreed to the recommended landscaping conceptual plan. The fence at the rear of the property would be repaired or replaced if necessary. 5. The alley from 66th Street to the site is in poor condition and unsightly. The applicant has indicated that the alley would be repaired to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. 6. The City Engineer has reviewed the on site drainage and approved the drainage plan including the perimeter and alley curbing. 7. The Fire Department staff indicated that the proposed addition might require the building to be sprinklered. The applicant has been made aware of the issue. Alternative Recommendation: 1. Deny the conditional use permit for a sit-down restaurant with a drive-thru window on the basis that the proposal in its present form does not comply with the City's ordinance. It has been the City's policy to bring all improvements into compliance with the City's present ordinance requirements. ~~--L 2. Amend Section 520.21, subdivision 10, which precluded a drive-thru service window within 150 feet of residentially zoned property. Then approve the sit down restaurant with a drive-thru window. 3. Continue the public hearing in order to allow time to redraft a site plan excluding the drive-thru window. Discussion/Decision Mode: A public hearing is scheduled at 7:00 p.m., Monday, November 28, 1988. Notices have been mailed to property owners within 350 feet of the site. Legal notice was also published. Respectf ly submitted, Jame Prosser. City anager JDP:dkh k ~~~ Ordinance Requirements: 1. Section 525.09, outlines the requirement in an I district. 2. Section 520.21, subdivision 10, provides that the City Council shall not approve a conditional use permit for a restaurant with a drive-up service window located within 150 feet of any residentially zoned property. 3. Section 510.05, subdivision 4, provides that a nonconforming structure may be expanded if the expansion meets all applicable City ordinance requirements. 4. Section 545.09, outlines the conditions governing the conditional use permit. 5. Section 545.09, subdivision 8, states that a conditional use permit (previously called special use permit) expires one year after issue unless the use is commenced or the permit is extended. b. Section 800.23 of the Richfield Code requires that a parking area abutting residential property have at least a 15 foot wide landscaped area. #G-~ 2000 First 88nk Place West Minneapolis MinneBOte 65402 Telgpttone 18121333.0543 TsIeCOpier (8121 :i33-i>54U J. Dennis p'F3rien Jotxr E. prewz Davirl.l. Kenntsdy Joseph E tiarnilton John B. peen 31enn E, Purdue 4icherd J, Schiefier ~harles L. LeFevere lames J, Ttlurtt&un, Jr. f'tt[xrraa R. GaR Steven 8. Schmidt John G. Kreasal Isms M. Strommen toneld H. Batty 'Uitiia?m P, Jordan Vilr' -+ R. Skallervd :C A. Heine )Awe} D. Br:rairrlnin iteven M. TaNPn Agry Fr8nCe3 SK818 ealie M. Altman imothy J. Pawlenty iotf A. Sponheim ulie A. Bergh larcy L. Hire~ntGn lavid C. Roland wren A. Chertterlik aul D, Baertschi ~ttlen Fritt Iaytpn L. LeFevere, Retired erbert P. lsfler, Retired LeFcverc I..ef Icr kenncd~, !lyd~vr ~ t'rufessional A cwtciarinn ~tovember 22, 1988 Mr. Byron Wallace Community Development Director city of Richfield 6700 Portland Ave., S. F,ichfield~ MN 55423 Re: 6529 Penn Avenue South pear Byron: an August 17, 1.988, our firm provided your department with a Legal opinion concerning whether a-new operator of the restaurant at 6529 Penn Avenue South could provide service at a drive-up window. Our opinion was based upon certain facts and circumstances which were described i.n that letter. Since August 17, 1988, your department has continued to rPView the background of the property and has determined the following: 1. Arby's commenced restaurant activities on the s~.te in approximately 1967 under a restaurant special use permit. 2. In 19$2, Arby's was granted an additional special use permit which was granted for the single purpose of permitting a drive~up window on the site. 3. The drive~up window was never constructed. You have asked whether these additional factors would change our opinion. the answer is yes. First, the action of the city council in 1982 (approval of drive~up window special use permit) indicates that the pre-existing restaurant special use permit did not include the authority to operate a drive-up window. Any right to operate a drive~up window on the property. flows from the 1982 council action. ~fp -.,5' Mr. Byron Wallace November 22, 1988 Page 2 Second, et the time the 1982 special use permit was issued, the ordinance code provided Land still does) that the special use permit ex~~res one year after it has been issued "unless the use- for which the pe"miold Section granted has commenced within such year ... 3.41, subd. y; current Subsection 545.09, subd. 8). Under the previous and current code, the action of the council. in approving a special or. conditional use permit constitutes its "issuance." Therefore, the special use permit issued in 1982 to permit a drive-up window termi- nated in 1983; and with it any vested or inherent authority to construct or operate a drive-up window. Having concluded that there is no present authority to establish a drive-up window on the site, the remaining issue is whether the council can issue a new conditional use permit tas it did in 1982) for that purpose. My xesponse is that the council may not issue such a condi- tional use permit because of the limitation found in subdivision 10 of Subsection 520.21. This limitation was enacted long after the 1982 action. An analysis of that provision was contained in my October 28, 1988, letter to Mr. Kazi. Respectfully yours, ., oh B. Dean ~TBD : rsr r Q D r m a o~ w 0 r N ~ A C'7 p G Z r '9 A C Z ~ D ~ z m 0 m v ~~ I~ '~ '~ N m v ~ 15' v a 0 Z 4i + i + ' ~" 20'_ a m AI ~ ~ t ~ ~ A m ~ ~"> w c o EXISTING BUILDING N 17' r c D m V ~ A A ~, A N S t I i ~- 7 to nm ~m >v ;m 'D n. ~r 7~ ~ N 7- 7 7 7 Z Z a mm Om O mn Zr m~ v~ r D Z v D m N Oo O N ° nm ~m mD Cr m~ N~ r D 2 3 3 :ci R s d .~ .~ 1 { I ~ O w ~ O ~ ~ w p s w t~ ~ ~ s h p- ~ ~ ~ C[ ~ ~ Z .. Q N a ~ ~+ ~ .,, , ~~ ~ gag y~~s~r~si ~ gyp. t~~;~w~i~ e+ ~ fir.:i.~• { ' •=~ ~u 'fin++y~,'~f~N ~. ~ tt li ~~; =~t~ a~ 1r ~~ ~• ~~ ,. n•e if, s ~Ot !~~ i ~ e O QQ ~ e Y • i ~ r ~~ :;~~: ~~ ~. * ^ ' -B ~~ ,. ~' ~ ~ ~ U£ :. ~ 3 ~7ty Niz p+1!P1 O n~• >I'[ -•- w w~- - - - -~N~~~ s-i~~~~jy~w.e !w ~. T Imo ~1 s j ~i :~ :~ J I ° ~ ~ ~ ; E~; `~T v i`~: E ,j,,i ; ~rI ~~z~ ~ ~ Iwl' ~. T ~ ~o~3 t . f~~l ~ ~ It..E n~ ff~i ! ~ ~ ~ V!Si~!e~\ i ~+1 n ;y nl~~~~f, RiV, ~ r ~ j' ~ ~ J m C i •~ : z i I i ' ' j ~ ~ ; ; aI.I~'d ~` `T ~ I ~/~ ~~,~' ' i' • ~ ~ l r , li ~~ a-. ~L C~-{~N ~ V OIL s r', I ~: a L n ; ~A, ~ ~ '~ - W WIV .. -i- - N 9 O J i ~ ~ ~, = ~ ~~~ . L/1 Z ~ ~ a ~~ ~ p F ~ •: ~ ~ ~ aid. R1 F ~ ~~ ~,n ~~~,n- ~~ R i<ti F;k~ i ~' n ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ is #. }n ,~ d! i ~ i m ~ 1 r /• i I ~ + ~ ~ I I I. ~ i ~~- rah V ^ N rn z Z C rn O 'v O N m v r O O r a z z O r a c ~; c.i _ ,- s..c., ara, a.,. :~f~_ !~ City of Richfield • 6700 Portland Avenue • Minnesota 55423 City Manager Mayor Council James D. Prosser Steve t?uam Edwina Garcia Ivan Ludeman Martin Kirsch Michael Sandahl November 8, 1988 Towhid Kazi City of Richfield 6700 Portland Avenue Richfield, MN 55423 Subject: 6529 Penn Avenue South Dear Mr. Kazi: I concur with the staff recommended landscape plan for 6529 Penn Avenue South as shown on the attached sheet 1 and 2. Sincerely, -~ - rn_ Ray Tharp Property Owner Telephone 869-7521 (612) An Equal Opportunity Employer N 2 rn m r O m n r a; T~ a "I p~ ~I =p~++mvAma ~+NOD ~ r~,11~p N V~TaLNLL r =~~oco~ccZ ~opoozazz° c~O~~~vm °m~ommmmz °~mz:~~~v ~ °- v ~_~~ ~r^~On tip ~vm~~D~mz cNc~a~c~ov =<z O~N-1 a ~ z = ~ ~ ~m c ~ ~ ~~ rn~ ~ V v ~ z r a Z v N n a Z v a r N a .r 1 r Z i ~_ ;,~ ~~ ~ ,. - w ~. ~ ~' v } j ~~ rn ~,, ~v ~ ~C v ~~ c0 ~ .v -ern ~ o R1 Z 1 i ZQ ~i . zm ~a° ° r ~N rn ,~ v ~ ~Z . v I ~ n ~~ N rn -v . v v~ W ~~rr 1~1 '~i -~ ~~ N iv im .D i~ ~w D r m ~~ 0 a v m z r n c r n O z c r m ~~-/~ N -v rn z z a rn rn n m z v v r z v n rn r z v m n r u~ Z i i 0'-0" ZONING 6529 PENN AVE. S. ~~ C-t NEIGHBORHOOD BUSINESS ;;?;: MR MULTIPLE DWELLING ® C-2 GENERAL COMERCIAL ~ MR-1 TWO FAMILY RESIDENCES 1 INDUSTRIAL ~ MR-2 3-16 UNIT RESIDENCES ~~ i~ ® R-1 RESIDENCE PMR PLANNED MULTIPLE RESIDENCE 0 N - ~,~~ ., ~ , ~ ~ i N v ~ ui '~ - - _ a a a - Z N -- -- O - o ~~~ ~~~~~ ~~f LAND USE 5529 PENN AVE. S. pp~ COMMERCIAL t'X`~ INDUSTRIAL SCHOOL QUASI-PUBLIC APARTMENT a DUPLEX 'I I I . ~ dl I ~ N N N '--- uj W ~ j '-- > Q Q Q --- Q Z Q W _ O O N ~ N PARK t VACANT ~~,~ .~~x:;~- ~ --- ---- ---- ~, :~r~ .ti, ~.~r„~s, ~~;~~~ ,~.,, ~,• ~~ COMPREHENSIVE DEVELOPMENT PLAN~~~~~ 6529 PENN AVE. S. Q MEDIUM DENSITY/BUFFER ® MIXED LAND USE INSTITUTIONAL PARK N ._ . ~ ~ 'r •• 1 . ~~ : t!f N N . N ---- LLJ LU ~ W '-- a a a a Z 2 Q J O ~ _ W ~ O N x ~ = _ N ---- + ~~ V N: __ ~~ ~~~ ti> f' ~ - i,~ City of Richfield • 6700 Portland Avenue • Minnesota 55423 City Manager Mayor Council James D. Prosser Steve Quam Edwina Garcia Ivan Ludeman Martin Kirsch M-chael Sandah/ Variance Request CASE N0. 88-V-7-VL-3 APPLICANT: Ray M. Tharp PROPERTY LOCATION: 6529 Penn Avenue South HEARING EXAMINER: Vern Luettinger HEARING DATE: September 29, 1988 APPEARANCES: Mr. Ray Tharp, 3732 Lyndale Ave S, Mpls, MN 55409 Mr. Kevin Tharp, 3738 Lyndale Ave S, Mpls, MN 55409 Mrs. Boshra Sonbol, -1420 Fairlawn Way, Golden Valley, MN 55416 Mr. Walleed Sonbol, 1420 Fairlawn Way, Golden Valley, MN 55416 Judith Burdick, 6286 Sandpiper Court, Edina, MN 55436 Based upon the evidence presented at the hearing,. the undersigned makes the following findings of fact, conclusions and decisions. A. FINDINGS OF FACT: 1. Notice of public hearing was proper. Notice was mailed to property owners within 350 feet of the site in question as required by city ordinances. The ten day notice requirement was also met. 2. The street address and legal descriptions of the property in question are as follows: N 17 ft of S 175 ft of W 133 ft of SW 1/4 of NW 1/4 and that part of W 166 ft of SW 1/4 of SW 1/4 of SW 1/4 of NW 1/4 lying N of S 175 ft thereof excluding highway. Street Address: 6529 Penn Avenue South 3. The zoning of the site in question is I, general industrial district. 4. The variance requested is to reduce the front yard setback from the required 40 feet to 10.5 feet. for the construction of glazed solarium. 5. The reason for the request is to allow the construction of a 4.3 foot solarium addition on the northerly, westerly and southerly portion of the building. Telephone 869-7521 (612) M Equal Opportunity Empbyer ~~- i~" B. CONCLUSIONS Minnesota Statutes Section 462.357, subdivision 6 provides for the granting of variance to the literal. provisions of the zoning regulations in instances where their strict enforcement would cause undue hardship to the owners of the property under consideration. In determining whether to grant or deny the requested variance, I specifically make the following conclusions: 1. Is the granting of the variance necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of substantial property rights? I conclude it is on a limited basis. 2. Are there special circumstances or conditions affecting the particular land or building referred to in the application, not caused by the property owner, which are not common to other properties in this or similar districts? I conclude there are special circumstances affecting this parcel based on the following: In 1971 the City granted a variance reducing the setback from 25 feet to 19 feet. Due to County improvements on Penn Avenue, the setback of 19 feet was further reduced to 10.5 feet. In addition to this reduced setback a center median was installed on Penn Avenue, limiting traffic to this site from one direction only. Other interested parties have looked at this site over the past 17 months, but due to unknown reasons have not accepted this location. 3. Will the granting of the variance alter the essential character of the neighborhood or locality? I conclude it will not. 4. Are there any conditions which must be attached to the granting of the variance to ensure compliance and to protect adjacent properties? I conclude there are none. "'~~/G C. DECISION Based upon the foregoing, the undersigned determines that the request be GRANTED. DATED: 10/11/88 ~/ -- _ 7~ v L Baring Examiner `-- City of Richfield , ~~_ i7 DELECATESSEN FOOD ,Inc. 1420 FAIRLAWN WAY GOLDEN VALLEY,MN 55416 MR. TAWHID KAZI CITY PLANNER CITY OF RICHFIELD,MINNESOTA. SUBJECT; Conditional use permit. Dear Mr. Kazi, Please find enclosed is my application f or a conditional use permit for the property located at 6529 Penn ave. south,Richfield,Minn. Also included are proposed plans to start a new fast food resturant serving middle eastern food at the mentioned site. The site in consideration served as the first Arby's store in the twin cities for over 18 years. In 1982,-and in order to stay with the fast food industry standards, they requsted, and was granted, to put in an addition to their dinning area as well as a drive thru. window. However, for reasons of their own they did not go ahead with it,and instead comletely closed there due to construction on Penn ave. For the same reasons, and to change the image,create a pleasant atmospherere,stay parallel with TO-DAY'S fast food industry standards, I was strongly advised by industry experts to go the same route in order to have a successful place. The plans I am submitting will remedy the situation and will conform to all city requirements except for the following; -The required 40 feet setback from Penn ave. will do away almost totally with the new proposal, and thus render the place useless for my purpose. the property owner will concurrently ask for a variance which I indeed hope will be granted -The existing building rear setback f rom the rear property line,and after allowing for traffic requirements, will limit the rear green stip to a maximum width of not more than 8-9 feet. I am kindly asking that the city grant me a waiver. I have been successfully selling my food for 15 years in the Minnesota State Fair with an annual growth of about 20 'k. most of my customers are repeat business by now, and wondering why I do not have a resturant.. I am quite positive that "THE OASIS" will be a good addition to the city and will serve its people very well. Our business will be strictly oriented towards the working people, families and the neighbours. z`~-/~ Our working hours will be from 9 AM Our staff will be between 4-7 empl~ always have an attending manager in Had I missed any thing, please correct the situatuion promptly. My THANK YOU VERY AAUCH. to 11 PM, seven days a week. ~yees per shift, and we will the place. feel f ree to call on me to phone #t is 533-0480. Sincerely, Ahmed A. Sonbol, president (Delecatessen Food, Inc.) ;a y .. ~ t ~~. _ ~; k S ~ 9 C ~r 71~: ai3~,g~~ O D f YE # ~ t ~~ p K 1 i 0 ~tl~'. li 'il _~~~~~~~ ~,f ~r 8 °J /o 3 L . ~1 ~ 9, P E T I T I O N I, Ray M. Tharp, am the owner of the property located. at 6529 Penn Avenue South, Richfield, Minnesota, known as the ARBY'S SITE. I, along with Mr. A. Sonbol, are requesting approval from the.City of Richfield to reopen the restaurant under the name of "OASIS". It will be a fast-food restaurant and we are requesting approval for two solarium additions on the worth and south. side of .the building as well as a drive-up window and site. improvements including landscaping aad green areas. If you are agreeable to the above, would you please sigs'~thispetition. Sincerely, Ray M. Tharp Owner NAMES ADDRESS TELEPHONE 1 ~~~•~^ 9.~ 2 ~ r 5~ `, ~.~ , • ~ ' Z _ ~ r ~o ~0 6~°wr ~.,~5 ~8 g~~-~1~ ~ . ~ a . ~` 8,G 9 -.s z G,~ ~ u k k / ~~ ~' "~~~ 4d ~o~'~o ~ ,~,t~ ~~~ 8~e6~~ _ ~c i~ `~ 7 ~s y~ay~:/d ~'~ /i'O . ~~ /y~ J 3 ~~~ i ~yy/ / ~J fI ~(- ~~j VjY /(-+ 7 w~~:. r.yF. ~19h, ~._ ~`- ~ ~_~~~. a:~~ as B 5 PETITION ~~~~ I, Ray M. Tharp, am the owner of the property located at 6529 Penn Avenue South, Richfield, Minnesota, known as the ARBY'S SITE. I, along with Mr. A. Sonbol, are requesting approval from the City of Richfield to reopen the restaurant under the name of "OASIS". It will be a fast-food restaurant and we are requesting approval for two solarium additions on the north and south Bide of the building as well as a drive-up window and site improvements including landscaping and green areas. If .you are agreeable to the above, would you please sign this petition. ~_Sincerely, - ~ ~ ~--i~ Ray M. Tharp. 9wner ~~ ~=~ CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT ENGINEERING DIVISION CONSTRUCTION REPORT AND MONTHLY ESTIMATE DATE November -15. 1988 CITY PROJECT NO. C.P. 838 CONTRACT NO. 2469 ESTIMATE NO. ~ 2 & Final CLASS OF WORK Retaining Wall Reconstruction To the City Council of Richfield: _._This- is -to certify -that the following work has been performed on the above project in accordance with the plans and specifications which govern this project and. including previous estimates. CONTRACT DATE: WORK STARTED: WORK COMPLETED: STATEMENT OF WORK PERFORMED UNIT CONTRACT TOTALS TO DATE TEM NO. CONTRACT ITEM UNIT PRICE UANTITY AMOUNT GANTITY AMOUNT sec. Prov Remove Retaining Wall Sq.Ft. .75 2.405 $ 1803.75 3757 $ 2.817.75 sec. Prov Construct Wisconsin Lannon Stone Retaining Wall Sq.Ft. 12.9.5 2,405 $ 31144.75 2929 $ 37.930.55 ERTIFIED CORE T BY TOTALS $32,948.50 $ 40.748.30 / i/ H, - -~~~ ~'~' ~ v 2 ,g -.~ ; ;, ., GIB. ~%~-~,: ;,- -? ,~,~.~ DATE % ~"'/G. .~;! ~.;, Sr. Engineering Tech. !' ~ j / ;~..~ DATE ( ~ ~u Engineer ~-` CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA COMMUNITY SERVICES DEPARTM~:NT ENGINEERING OlUIS10N DATE : November 15 . • 19c38 CITY PROJECT N0. C.P. 838 REPORT N0. 2 & Final CONTRACT N0. 2469 WORK COMPLETED LOCI ~ CLASS OF WORK:. Retaining Wall Reconstruction T0: CITY COUNCIL Submitted herewith is statement of payments to be made on this project. I. TOTAL OF CONTRACT ITEMS TO DATE $ 40.748.30 2.' RETAINED PERCENTAGE - (_ ~~ $ O 3. TOTAL ALLOWABLE PAYMENT TO DATE $ 40.748.30 4. TOTAL PAYMENTS INCLUDING ALL PREVIOUS REPORTS $ 19.105.87 5. TOTAL PAYMENT TO CONTRACTOR THIS REPORT $ 21.642.43 b. TOTAL FUNDS ENCUMBERED $ 32.948.50 7. AVAILABLE FUNDS 6ROUGHT FORWARD -~' $ 13,842.63 8, ADDITIONS OR DEDUCTIONS $ 0 9. BALANCE NOW AVAILABLE $ 13.842.63 10. APPROVED FOR PAYMENT THIS REPORT $ 21,642.43 ll. BALANCE CARRtEO FORWARD $ 7,799.80 This is to certify that: The amount of $ 21.642.43 ;s due and payable to Outdoor Environments. Inc. .' Contractor Certified Correct by Title ~- _ __ __ __ CITY OF RICHFIEt_D 6700 Portland Rve. So. R~chtield~, Minnesota. An Equal Opportunity Employer. 612-869-?521 ~ Outdoor Environments, Inc. • ~~"~ M N NEAO OA yANAO6R OAT[. TN6 CITY If 6XLMT /RO11 MYM[NT OF ALL iE0[RAL [XCIfE TAKEf (F[O6RAL CERTI/ICAT6 AfffT271 ANO fTAf[ fALEf TAK (ACCT. M0. ~Ol~~IT~. Ou N. UNIT O[fCR11T1ON {IINf RIMC6 pfCOYNT AMOYNT 0006 AMOUNT Final payment for CP838 Retaining Wall Reconstruction 21,642.43 __ _ 3wre~ FUNO 0[-T. fU~. f.l. Rtf. t. ~r CA. LNC/RV YtNOOR MOS. • AMOUNT -3 v0 ~3~0 //3/ .207 oUOOG s d a/, Y. AY OF CNECIt 21,642.43 . OATL 11/28/88 CIIlCK M0. oEr/EA A.I.A. ... - ,DECEIVED ~r~~~ a o teas ~~-- `~ .- ~~~~~~ ~~ ~o~A~~~oo~~Aa DATE 4 Nov. 88 PRO,. 8628 C-2 TO: Sister Diary Taal ter Duval Academy of the Holy Angels 6600 Nicollet Ave. S. Richfield, MN 55423 __ __ ~' Phase II -Fire and Life Safety Renovations Academy of the Holy Angels . 6lIE ARE SEPlQING Ytk! SH01' OA.41At:NGS ^ ATTACHED ~x POINTS ^ UNDER SEP. COVER ^ OTHER ~ VIA ^ FOR APPROVAL ^ APPROVED AS NOTED O REVISE Jy RE5U8MI T ^ SPIES OATS 2 9/28/88 2 10/19/83 DESCRIPTION Application for Payment No: 3- Perio` d from-8f3E}/8~~ 9/23/88 wham-Oi en P~lechani calf Amount $20,041.20 Application for Payment No. 4 _Peri2d_.f~Q~n 9/24/88 to 10/14/88 aorham-Oi en P~lec i cal Amount $7,834.5 Application for Payments No. 3 and No. 4 approved per job in- spection and certification of Emanuelson-Podas, Inc. confirmation received 4 Nov 88. COPIES TO: OMINER ^ GEN . CONT. ^ A1ECH. E-Podas ^ ~ ELEC. Cont. ^ 1 ~ ~ OTMEfi ^ SIGNED- '" ~ T. Piarti neon ,. '~~ '_ ~ ~ ~ ' Sr: F: Kal enze THOMAS H. STAHL, INC. ARCHITECTS 612-881-5610 200 WEST OLD SHAKOPEE ROAD BLOOMINGTON, MN 55420 ~~. ~' _~'i i ~, __ i .~ . -- _- - - _ _ _ - ------------r CITY OF RICHFIEt_D 6700 Portland Ave. So. R~chfield~, Minnesota. An Equal Opportunity-Employer. 612-869-7521 ~ Gorham-Oien Mechanical • • ~'~- 'Y M N NEAO OA IIANAq[R oetc TN[ CITY Ni [XEINT FROM MYIKNT Of ALL F[OERAL [XCi![ TAX[! (Ft0[RAL CERTI/ICAT[ A1!lTiT) AMO lTAT[ lALt! TAX (ACCT. NQ ~OlI~IT). DU K UNIT OLlCRI-TION DINT IIRC[ 01lOOYNT AMOUNT CODE AMOUNT Estimate ~~s Fire & life 3&4 payment for AHA CP79 Safety Renovations 27,875.70 3wre~ FUNO OE~T. W!. l.L. Rif. t. ~~ CA. [NC/RV YtNOOR FROe. • AMOUNT ;.~I 7y~tra ~ ~ 9a ~ d~U . 0 2s r s 7 8~s, ~o Ar . or eN~eX 27,875.70 a-T[ 11/28/88 ~II[clc Na •ErtER A.I.A. ~_ - l ~ ~~~9/i~l~Yr'W -Y~W F~ 1 ~ ~yllSE • ~~~~~~ ~~-~o~A~~~o~~Aa DATE Nov : 4 , 1988 PRO,- 8628 C-2 TO: Sister Marv ~:al ter Duval Academy of the Poly Angels 6600 Nicollet Ave. S. Richfield, MN 55423 __ ~~ Phase II -Fire and Life Sa fety Renovations Academy of the Holy Angels ipE S€N03NG TOI: SHt~' OR.Afl~ltw ^ PAINTS ^ OTHER x cox AT3AC?iE0 x~ UNDER SEP. COVER ^ VIA ^ FOA APPROVAL ^ APPROVED AS NOTED REVISE d RESUBMIT ^ COPIES DATE 2 I 1 Nov 88 OESCAIPTION Application for Payment-No.- 4 Per' 10/31/88 1etro Bui l:di ng Systems Amount X37,099.80 Application for payment No. 4 approved per fob inspections SIGNED: ~ / V - I ~ __ _ . THOMAS H. STAHL, INC. Z00 WEST OLD SHAKOPEE ROAD COPIES TO: OM-NER ^ GEN . CONT. ^ 1-IECH. ^ ELEC. Cont. ^ OTHER ^ T. P•1arti nson ' Sr.'F.'Kalenze ARCHITECTS 612-881-5610 BLOOMINGTON, MN 55420 9 _ ~~ ~~ i. ,; i' .~ ii __~_ CITY OF RICHFIELD 6700 Portland Rve. So. Richfield, Minnesota. An Equal Opportunity Employer. 612-869-7521 ~ Metro Building Systems • ~~'-~ M N NEAO OA WINAKR 011T[ TNt CITY p< [X[NPT FR011 MTM[NT Of ALL PEOERAL [XCIf[ TAX[f (R[OERAI C[RTIFICAT! AfNTlT) ANO fTAT[ fAl[f TAX (ACCT. N4 f0l~flT). OU N. UNIT 0[iC111-TION UNIT PIMC[ OIfCOYNT AYOYNT C00[ AYOUMT Estimate ~~4 Fire & Life payment for AHA CP799 Safety Renovations 37,099.80 3e~a~ FUNO O[PT. fUf. f.l. R[/. [. ~~ CA. LIIC/R11 1KNOOR PIIOf. • AYOUMT AY 0/ CNtCIt 37,099.80 OAT[ 11/28/88 CII[CX N0. ~~~ CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Council Letter No. 286 Agenda November 28, 1988 Issue Statement• Purchase in excess of $5,000 for Two Check Valves for High Service Pumps at Richfield Water Plant. Background: The City Council policy resolution on purchasing provides that when the purchase of merchandise, materials, equipment or construction exceeds the amount of $5,000, authority to purchase shall be submitted to the City Council for consideration. The 1989 Water Maintenance Budget contains $22,000 for the replacement of High Service Pump No. 3. The replacement includes not only the valve itself but other incidental parts and labor costs. This is the third of four pumps to be replaced on a four year plan_ The high service pumps, the heart of our water system, pump water to the water towers and to individual homes. Staff received quotes from two distributors for two electrically operated check valves for the pumps. The valves allow the pumps to start and open slowly thereby avoiding a pressure surge on the water system. The quotes received are as follows:. Water Products Company $10,980 R.E. Mooney & Associates, Inc. $10,840 Recommended Motion: Authorize the purchase of two Golden Anderson Electric Check Valves from R.E. Mooney & Associates, Inc. in the sum of $10,840. Basis of Recommendation: 1. R.E. Mooney & Associates met all specifications as written and submitted the lowest quotation. 2. Funding is available in the 1989 Budget for this purchase. Alternative Recommendation: Council may choose to reject the bids received and direct staff to request new quotations. However, staff does not believe we will be able to obtain a better price. Discussion/Decision Mode: Staff is asking for approval of this purchase at this time in order to assure a timely delivery date in early 1989 for receipt of this equipment. Respectfully submitted, James Prosser City anager JDP/eja /~ ~ "rl" CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Council Letter No. 285 Agenda: November 28, 1988 Issue Statement: Purchase in excess of $5,000 for 1989 Trash Pick-up Services at City Owned Facilities. Background: Trash pick-up is required at all City facilities on a regular basis. The Community Services Department requested quotations on an informal basis from licensed haulers for monthly and extra trash pick-ups at all City owned facilities, excluding the Liquor Stores, for the 1989 calendar year. Six quotes were received. VENDOR Buckingham Disposal, Inc. Waste Management, Inc. Red's Rubbish Service, Inc. BFI Waste Systems Quality Waste Control, Inc. Metro. Ref use, Inc. 1989 ESTIMATED ANNUAL AMOUNT $10,992.00 $12,939.75 $14,136.00 $21,522.00 $22,005.00 $ No Bid The various sites budget for their portion of the service. Due - to the variety of needs, costs will vary from site to site; i.e., city hall will have more frequent pick-ups than fire station #2. Due to seasonal demands, costs may vary from month to month at an individual site; i.e., the golf course has more frequent pick-ups during golfing season. The following is a generalized comparison of quoted monthly costs for 1985 - 1989 without regard for the variations indicated above: VENDOR AVERAGE MONTHLY AMOUNT 1985 Expert Disposal, Inc. $ 572.50 1986 Expert Disposal, Inc. $ 752.83 1987 Buckingham Disposal, Inc. $ 728.19 1988 Buckingham Disposal, Inc. $ 795.81 1989 Buckingham Disposal, Inc. (recommended) $ 946.00 Land fill tip fees are scheduled to increase in 1989 which accounts for the increase in the monthly and annual estimated fees which were quoted. Recommended Motion: Approve a 1989 Master Purchase Order in the estimated sum of $10,992.00 with Buckingham Disposal, Inc. for 1989 trash hauling services at all City owned facilities except the liquor stores. Basis of Recommendation: 1. Buckingham Disposal, Inc. submitted the low quotation and is a reputable, licensed hauler. n ~ "l7"/ 2. Adopted 1989 budgets include funding for this service. Alternative Recommendation: Council could reject all proposals and direct staff to obtain new quotations. However, staff does not believe we could obtain better prices. Discussion/Decision Mode: Council may choose to delay action on this until the December 12, 1988 council meeting; however, staff is fully satisfied with the services performed by Buckingham Disposal, Inc. in the past two years and does not see a need for delay. Respectf lly submitted, James Prosser City Manager JDP/eja ~ vZ CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Council Letter No. 284 Agenda November 28, 1988 Issue Statement: Staff report on process to be used to update Richfield's Master Park Plan. Backclround As previously discussed with the City Council, the Brauer Group will be working with the city staff in the collection/inventory, analysis and projection of data which will include such items as: Community and Parks/Recreation Characteristics Population/Demographics Land Uses..Assessed Values Revenues..Expenditures A 1988-2000 Projection Available Sites and Facilities Natural and Developed Open Space Resources Urban Shaping Elements and Opportunities Developed and Planned City Special Facilities Developed and Planned City Park and Recreation Sites School Sites and Facilities Used for City Programs Private Sites and Facilities Used for City Programs Other Sites and Facilities Used for City Programs Investments/Funding for Sites and Facilities Sites and Facilities System Analysis Current Programs and Operations City and Related Park/Recreation Programs City Related Park/Recreational Operations School Programs and Operational Support Private Programs and Operational Support Potential Programs and Operations Support Investments/Funding for Programs and Operations Related Policies/Projects Affecting Programs & Operations Future Programs and Operations Requirements and Trends Community participation in the process will have the Community Services Commission hosting two city wide public meetings. The data collected, including trends and projections, will be reviewed at the first meeting. The public will be asked for input into determining operations and program priorities as well as sites and facilities priorities. The second meeting will capsulize the material gathered at the first meeting and will be used to confirm that the proposed Plan reflects an accurate interpretation of public wishes. Conclusions and recommendations of the consultant, based on data collected and citizen input, will then be placed into the Plan proposal. This Plan will include City and related sites and facilities as well as City programs and operations. ~~ ~~ The proposal for updating the Master Park Plan would then be presented to the Community Services Commission and the Planning Commission. The recommendation of the Community Services Commission will be carried forward to the City Council for ultimate action related to the Master Park Plan update. Recommended Motion: None required. the presentation is for Council Members and public information. If Council Members desire additional information regarding the planning process the City Manager should be advised. Basis of Recommendation: The City Council has authorized a contract with The Brauer Group who will act as consultant for updating Richfield's Master Park Plan. This item is brought before the Council to confirm the process to be used in that update. Alternative Recommendation: None. Discussion/Decision Mode: Donald Fondrick, Community Services Director, and Donald Brauer, consultant, will be present at the November 28, 1988 City Council meeting to answer any questions the Council may have related to the process for updating Richfield's Master Park Plan. Respectfully submitted, James Prosser City Manager JDP/eja CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Council Letter No. 283 Agenda November 28, 1988 Issue Statement• Presentation of•Certificates of Appreciation to the volunteers and staff at the Wood Lake Nature Center for an outstanding Halloween program. Background: For the past several years, the Wood Lake Nature has prepared special Halloween programs and activities. These programs have been immensely popular with adults as well as children. At the November 28 City Council meeting, some of the staff and volunteers will be present in costume to highlight some of the programs and activities and to receive certificates of appreciation. Recommended Motion: Present certificates of appreciation to the staff and volunteers for an outstanding Halloween program. Basis for Recommendation: 1. The staff and volunteers work very hard to provide an enjoyable, educational and exciting Halloween program for participants. It is appropriate recognize them for outstanding performance. Alternative Recommendation: 1. Hold the presentation at another time. Discussion/Decision Mode: This item has been scheduled under the Presentation Section of the November 28, 1988 City Council agenda. Wood Lake staff and volunteers will be present at that time. Respectfully submitted, James D. Prosser City Manager JDP/eja CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Council Letter No. 282 Agenda November 28, 1988 Issue Statement: Presentation of results of community survey. Background: Earlier this fall the firm of Decision Resources, Ltd., conducted a community survey for the City of Richfield. Bill Morris and Diane Traxler of that firm, have analyzed the survey results, and will be present at 5:30 p.m. on November 28 to discuss the survey with the City Council. Recommended Motion: Hear the presentation by Decision Resources, Ltd., and accept the survey report. Basis for Recommendation: 1. The survey was approved by the City Council. 2. A review of the survey results with Decision Resources, Ltd. will provide an opportunity to have questions answered, and to clarify certain issues. Alternative Recommendation: 1. Do not review the survey with Decision Resources. Discussion/Decision Mode: This item has been scheduled for 5:30 p.m. to give Council Members and staff ample time to discuss the survey results. Respectfully submitted, Jam D. Prosser Cit Manager JDP/eja