10-27-86 agendaV
• CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Council Letter No. 420
October 27, 1986
Issue Statement:
Ratification of a Resolution of the Southwest Suburban Cable
Commission determining as a matter of policy to permit Rogers
Cablesystems to change channel lineup.
Background:
The Southwest Suburban Cable Commission ( SWSCC) is the joint
powers commission created by agreement between member communities
including Edina, Eden Prairie, Hopkins, Minnetonka and Richfield.
The general responsibility of SWSCC is coordination,
administration and enforcement of the individual franchise
agreements for cable TV.
Rogers Cablesystem has recently requested permission to change
the channel lineup. The change in lineup is a business decision
which they believe will increase viewership. A similar change in
channel lineup in Minneapolis has provided a significant increase
in subscribers. Rogers contends that the Cable Communications
Act of 1974 permits such a modification without approval.
• However, they have nevertheless presented this issue for
consideration by the cable commission.
A change in the channel lineup has two basic impacts upon system
subscribers. First, the community access channels which are
currently on the low band (channels 1 -13); will be shifted to the
high band (channels 32 -49). Access users, notably the education
access users, are opposed to this change not only because they
prefer the low band position, but also because of channel
identification. A second impact is the fact that the change in
alignment will preclude offering free universal, i.e. channel 1-
12 service. After extensive discussions with Rogers, a
compromise position has been developed which could provide the
following:
1. SWSCC agrees to accept the change in lineup for a period of
one year, subject to review after that time.
2. Rogers will retain the universal service tier providing for
viewing of the educational, community, government, lease and
regional access to subscribers without charge.
3. Within 30 days Rogers shall submit a written plan and
include a description as to how it intends to inform
subscribers of the change in channel lineup, incorporate
the retention of the universal (free) service, and develop an
inventory or survey of costs and expenses to be reimbursed
by Rogers for expenses incurred by access users relating to
the change in channel lineup.
• Recommendation:
Ratify the decision of the SWSCC.
Basis for Recommendation:
1. There is some uncertainty regarding whether the cities have
the right to regulate cable companies. Changes in the
federal law regulating cable company's relationship with
municipalities significantly limit our ability to control
operations.
2. Given the change in federal legislation regulating cable
companies, it appears appropriate to permit the companies
to "make it or break it" on their own without regulating
their method of operation.
3. Under the agreement, the city reserves the right to review
the legal basis for Rogers to terminate municipal control
over channel allocation at a later date.
4. If indeed the change in channel lineup improves the
profitability of Rogers, there will be additional money
available for local ,government activities.
5. A plan will be provided to assist local access users with
40 the transition to the new channel.
6. The resolution was endorsed by the Southwest Suburban Cable
Commission.
Alternative Recommendation:
1. Not ratify the resolution of SWSCC. This option would in
all likelihood force the city to institute legal action
against Rogers to stop Rogers from changing the channel
allocation, a position which does not appear to be on firm
legal foundation at this point in time.
Discussion /Decision Mode:
This matter will be presented as a consent agenda item on the
agenda for the October 27, 1986 city council meeting. Unless a
majority of SWSCC members disagree with the Resolution by
November 12, 1986, Rogers will proceed with the channel changes.
Respectfully submitted,
Jam D. Prosser
Cit Manager
• JDP /eja
r
• RESOLUTION
RESOLUTION OF THE SOUTHWEST SUBURBAN CABLE
COMMISSION DETERMINING AS A MATTER OF POLICY
TO PERMIT ROGERS CABLESYSTEMS OF MINNESOTA TO
CHANGE THE CHANNEL LINE -UP CONSISTENT WITH
THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF THIS RESOLUTION
WHEREAS, the Southwest Suburban Cable Commission (hereinafter
"SWSCC ") is a joint powers commission created by agreement bet-
ween its Member Cities including Edina, Eden Prairie, Hopkins,
Minnetonka and Richfield; and
WHEREAS, under the Joint and Cooperative Agreement the SWSCC
is:
"The Commission is established for the pur-
-poses of coordinating administration and
enforcement of the individual Franchises of
the Parties and providing uniformity in that
administration and enforcement to ensure that
the System of the Grantee is constructed,
operated, maintained and upgraded in a manner
• that will, to the extent possible, to be the
maximum benefit of each party. "; and
WHEREAS, the SWSCC in the administration of the Cable
Communications System Franchises of its Member Cities, has
received a request from Rogers Cablesystems of Minnesota
(hereinafter "Grantee ") to change the line -up of the channels
based on the Grantee's interpretation that the Cable
Communications Policy Act of 1984, which permits modifications of
services and prohibits the regulation of rates by franchising
authorities after the end of 1986, constitutes authority for
Grantee to make such modifications and changes in the channel
line -up for the cable communications system serving the Member
Cities of the SWSCC; and
WHEREAS, under the provisions of the Cable Communications
System Franchises of the Member Cities it provides an Article
XII, Section 6:
"Applicable laws and court decisions:
Severability
A. Grantee and City shall, at all times,
comply with all laws, ordinances and regula-
tions of federal, state and city government
. relating to the System and this Franchise.
-1-
• B. Any law, ordinance or regulation shall
require or permit Grantee to perform any ser-
vice or shall prohibit Grantee from performing
any service which may be in conflict with the
terms of this Franchise, then as soon as
possible following knowledge thereof, Grantee
shall notify City of the point of conflict
believed to exist between such law, ordinance
or regulation. "; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to the above cited Article XII, Section 6,
SWSCC has reviewed the request of Grantee and advised Grantee
that it has questions relative to the application of the Cable
Communications Policy Act of 1984 to the requested channel line-
up change; and
WHEREAS, in response to the questions of the SWSCC, Grantee
has proposed a one (1) year temporary channel line -up change,
attached hereto as Exhibit A, which includes a letter dated
October 2,1986 to Adrian Herbst, Administrator of the SWSCC and
an attached Proposed Rogers Cablesystems of Minnesota Southwest
Channel Line -up. Exhibit A is a request that the SWSCC act on
the proposal without regard to the interpretation of the applica-
tion of the Cable Communications Policy Act of 1984 based on the
need of Grantee to implement the channel line -up change to
• improve its revenue and to increase the subscriber penetration;
and
WHEREAS, in response to the proposed modifications based upon
the terms and conditions set forth in Exhibit A, the SWSCC has
undertaken an evaluation of the proposed changes in conjunction
with the allegations of Grantee that such change will improve its
revenue and permit the System to increase the amount of subscri-
bers and in this regard has heard testimony from Grantee as well
as others including representatives of the schools serving the
Member Cities of the SWSCC; and
WHEREAS, the SWSCC finds that the request of Grantee is
reasonable and may improve the financial condition of the System
and increase the subscribership of the System and based upon this
has concluded that as a matter of policy the requested modifica-
tion and change of the channel line -up should be permitted for a
one (1) year time subject to the exceptions set forth in this
Resolution and also subject to the terms and conditions set forth
in this Resolution; and
WHEREAS, under the Joint and Cooperative Agreement entered
into by the Member Cities of the SWSCC the SWSCC is authorized to
make policy decisions and recommendations to the Member Cities
and under this authority the SWSCC intends to implement a policy
decision based upon the following provision of the Joint and
•
-2-
0
• Cooperative Agreement. Article VII, Section 3, Paragraph A,1
provides:
"Policy Decisions and Recommendations. The
Commission shall make policy decisions and
recommendations to parties on the following:
1. Enforcement of Laws. Enforcement of
laws, regulations and ordinances, related to
cable communications, against Grantee and
others."
NOW THEREFORE, the SWSCC in a regular meeting resolves as
follows:
1. To accept a proposed one (1) year temporary change to
the channel line -up as a matter of policy, based on the represen-
tations of Grantee that it will increase its revenues and
improve subscriber penetration, incorporating herein all of the
terms and conditions set forth in Exhibit A which is incor-
porated into this Resolution and made part of it, subject to the
following exceptions and conditions:
A. The Community Access Channels currently using Chan-
nel 3 Educational Access, Channel 7 Community Access, Channel
• 8 Educational Access, Channel 12 Government Access will be
realigned to higher channel numbers but will.be grouped
together.
B. Channel 6 will be reserved as the Regional Channel
as provided for in the Franchises of the Member Cities and
the applicable laws of the State of Minnesota. Further that
during the one (1) year temporary change in channel line -up
programming of Channel 6 may be at the discretion of
Grantee; but subject to the obligation of Grantee to imple-
ment regional channel programming at such time as the now
existing entity created to start programming for such
regional purposes implements and commences the use of
Channel 6 for Regional Programming.
C. The Grantee shall retain the Universal Service
Tier. The services including community programming of all
access channels including educational access, community
access, government access, lease access and regional.channel
6 will be made available to all subscribers without charge.
2. Conditions applicable to the implementation of the
changes.
A. This Resolution shall become effective two (2)
weeks-after its passage by the SWSCC subject to:
-3-
1. Within thirty (30) days after the effective
date, Grantee will furnish to SWSCC a written plan that
includes a description as to how it intends to inform
its subscribers of the channel line -up change, incor-
porate the retention of the Universal Service, and will
reflect an inventory or survey of costs and expenses to
be reimbursed by Grantee for such expenses as may have
been incurred by access users in reliance upon the chan-
nel designations now existing. Also, to further under-
take to contact the access users with regard to these
changes and obtain all such information as necessary to
adequately demonstrate to the SWSCC that the costs for
changing the channel line -up has been fully evaluated
and further that the transition of the channel line -up
change will proceed in an orderly and efficient manner,
in the sole judgment of the SWSCC. Upon approval of the
written plan, Grantee will then be permitted to implement
the change in the channel line -up.
B. At the end of the one (1) year term, which will
begin on the date Grantee is permitted to commence the chan-
nel line -up change, Grantee will furnish to the SWSCC evi-
dence to show the impact of the channel line -up changes on
its revenues and subscriber penetration and further, Grantee
will demonstrate the legal, technical, financial or other
• reasons why, and in conformance with Article XII, Section 6
of the Franchises of the Member Cities the SWSCC should
recommend to its Member Cities a permanent modification as
requested by the Grantee.
C. The Grantee shall indemnify and hold harmless SWSCC
and its Member Cities from all cost, expense, claims or
charges of any nature incurred or brought by reason of the
modifications authorized by this policy decision of the SWSCC.
Dated this day of
1986.
By
Chairman Wayne Courtney
•
-4-
s
•
•
•
WAYNE G. POPHAM
ROGER W.SCHNOSRICH
DENVER KAUFMAN
DAVID S. DOTY
ROBERT A.MINISH
ROLFE A.WORDEN
G. MARC WHITEHEAD
BRUCE D.WILLIS
FREDERICK S. RICHARDS
G. ROBERT JOHNSON
GARY R.MACOMBER
ROBERT S. BURK
HUGH V. PLUNKETT.=
FREDERICK C. BROWN
THOMAS K. BERG
JAMES R.STEILEN
JAMES B. LOCKHART
ALLEN W.HINDERAKER
CLIFFORD M.GREENE
EXHIBIT A
POPHAM, HAIK,SCHNOBRICH, KAUFMAN & DOTY,LTD,
4344 IDS CENTER
MINNEAPOLIS, MINNESOTA 55402
TELEPHONE
612- 333 -4800
PI
O.WILLIAM KAUFMAN
MICHAEL O. FREEMAN
HOWARD SAM MYERS.n1
THOMAS C.D'AOUILA
LARRY D. ESPEL
JANIE S. MAYERON
THOMAS J. BARRETT
JAMES A. PAYNE
DAVID A.JONES
LEE E.SHEEHY
ALAIN FRECON
PATRICIA A. JENSEN
LESLIE GILLETTE
MICHAEL T. NILAN
ROBERT H. LYNN
THOMAS M. SIPKINS
ROBERT C. MOILANEN
THOMAS F.NELSON
THOMAS J. RADIO
TELECO ER DAVID L.HASHMALL
612 -344 -0603 KATHLEEN M MARTIN
1240 AMHOIST TOWER
3AS ST. PETER STREET
SAINT PAU L, MIN NESOTA 55102
TELEPHONE 612- 333 -4878
SUITE 2400
1200 SEVENTEENTH STREET
DENVER.COLORADO 80202
TELEPHONE 303- 893 -1200
TELECOPIER 303 -893 -2194
SUITE 300 SOUTH
1800 M STREET,N.W.
WASHINGTON, D. C. 20036
TELEPHONE 202 -828 -5300
TELECOPIER 202 -828 -5318
DIRECT DIAL NUMBER
344 -0669
JOHN C.CHILOS
DOUGLAS P.SEATON
THOMAS E.SANNER
BRUCE B.McPHEETERS
GARY D. BLACKFORD
SCOTT E. RICHTER
GREGORY L.WILMES
PAUL J. LINSTROTH
SCOTT A. SMITH
ELIZABETH A.THOMPSON
KEITH J.HALLELANO
MARK S. PETERSON
D. RANDALL BOY£R
BRIAN N.JOHNSON
TIMOTHY W. KUCK
JULIE A. SWEITZER
THOMAS C.MIELENHAUSEN
October 2, 1986
Mr. Adrian Herbst
Herbst & Thue
2030 Northwestern Financial Center
7900 Xerxes Avenue South
Bloomington, Minnesota 55431
KATHLEEN A. BLATZ
MICHAEL D.CHRISTENSON
J. MICHAEL SCHWARTZ
LARAYE M.OSBORNE
LOUIS P. SMITH
FRANCIS J. CONNOLLY
BRUCE H. LITTLE
MARK F. PALMA
RUSSELL S.PONESSA
BRYAN L.CRAWFORD
DAVID K.RYOEN
OWEN E.HERRNSTAOT
MATTHEW E. DAMON
OF COUNSEL
FRED L.MORRISON
Re: Realignment of Channels, Rogers' Southwest Suburban
System
Dear Adrian:
Thank you for meeting with Cliff Williams, Liz Anderson and
me Monday morning to discuss the legal implications of the
proposed channel realignment. At that time we discussed the
addition of three new services, the realignment of certain
existing services (including access channels) in order to
accommodate these new services, the possible elimination of
certain tiers of service and certain rate increases which might be
implemented on or after January 1, 1987. Before discussing the
merits of the legal issues, some background information may be
helpful.
Rogers and the Southwest Suburban Commission have enjoyed an
unusually good working relationship. Over the years the Company
and Commission have been able to resolve a number of tough issues
ranging from rate increases to renegotiating the line extension
policy.
19
r
Mr. Adrian Herbst
• October 2, 1986
Page 2
Perhaps the best example of cooperation between the two
parties is the "Relief Agreement" which we concluded in 1985.
This Agreement identified the financial problems facing the
system, provided substantial initial cost savings and gave the
company incentives for additional cost savings while substantially
preserving the system's local programming effort. As a result of
the Relief Agreement, the system has saved considerable amounts
due to reduced franchise fee and programming commitments and
through substantial cost cutting efforts employed by Rogers. The
system has recently been refinanced on more favorable terms and
conditions in an effort to further reduce costs and assist with
cash flow management. The final component of the strategy
underlying the Relief Agreement is to increase revenues. The
proposal which Rogers made to the Operating Committee at its
September 26; 1986 meeting is designed to address this last
critical component.
When the relationship between the Commission and the Company
has broken down it has usually been due to one of two reasons.
Either Rogers has aggressively pursued its rights in light of the
changing legal and regulatory environment governing the cable
industry or the Commission has been unable to respond to Rogers'
request for operational changes in a time frame consistent with
Rogers' business schedule. I am concerned that we are facing an
issue that raises both of these elements and am writing to request
your help in fashioning a solution that will avoid needless
acrimony.
As we discussed Monday, the Cable Communications Policy Act
of 1984 ( "Cable Act "), provides substantial new rights to cable
operators in the areas of packaging and pricing their services.
In addition, recent court decisions have reaffirmed the First
Amendment rights of cable operators -- particularly in the area of
control over programming. Rogers firmly believes that it will
have the right to make all the proposed changes as of January 1,
1987. Rogers also realizes that certain provisions of the Cable
Act may have been subject to more*than, one interpretation. In
situations where the relationship between cable operators and
their regulators has deteriorated, we expect litigation to ensue
as the parties attempt to clarify their respective rights under
the Cable Act. I think we can agree that it is in the mutual
interest of Rogers and the Commission to allow other parties to
experience the acrimony and substantial cost associated with such
litigation. At the same time, for the business reasons that Cliff
discussed with the Operating Committee, Rogers needs to get on
with reorganizing its channel line -up so that it can more
• effectively market new subscribers and increase the satisfaction
of existing subscribers.
dU
W
Mr. Adrian Herbst
• October 2, 1986
Page 3
In light of this background, Rogers makes the following
proposal to the Commission:
1. Rogers and the Commission enter into a one year agreement
under which the Commission would allow Rogers to
implement its new channel line -up and tiering structure
as of November 1. Under this Agreement, the Commission
would take no position as to whether the new line -up and
re- tiering is permissible, but would agree not to
challenge the new line -up and re- tiering or to find
Rogers in violation of its franchise ordinance, the
Relief Agreement or any contract entered into or made a
part thereof. At the end of one year, the Agreement
would be reviewed in light of subscriber satisfaction
with *the changes and in light of the legal and regulatory
decisions during the intervening period. Both Rogers and
the Commission would enter into this agreement without
prejudice to their legal rights or positions.
2. Rogers would add three new services. The Cable Value
Network, a home shopping service produced by COMB; KTMA
• (Channel 23), a UHF independent station new to the Twin
Cities; and a third Rogers pay - per -view channel.
3. Rogers has explored ways in which it could effect the new
channel line -up while continuing to provide service Tiers
1 and 2. Unfortunately it is not technically possible.
In order to ease the financial transition for those
subscribing to the lower priced tiers Rogers would make
the following accommodation: All Tier 1 and 2
subscribers would begin receiving Tier 3 service as of
November 1. As of January 1, 1987 these subscribers
would be billed $6.95 for Tier 3 service. As of
January 1, 1988 this rate would increase to $9.95. These
subscribers would be charged the rate then in effect for
Tier 3 service as of January 1, 1989 and would continue
to be charged at the full-rate thereafter.
4. Rogers understands that area schools have expressed
concern about the proposed realignment since it will
shift educational access channels from channels 3 and 8
to channels 33 and 34. As we discussed, all metropolitan
area cable operators are attempting to realign their
channels so that a common identity will emerge on all
channels, including access channels. This should prove
to be a long term benefit to the educational community.
In the short run, Rogers agrees to undertake a program
0
U
R
Mr. Adrian Herbst
October 2, 1986
Page 4
designed to raise the awareness of our subscribers
concerning educational access generally and to
familiarize subscribers with the new location of
educational access channels on the channel line -up. This
program will include: (a) A printed notice of the
line -up change affecting the educational access channels
to be included in subscriber bills for a period of at
least three months; (b) announcements concerning the
realignment of educational access channels to appear on
the system's alpha numeric channels; (c) inclusion of
programming information for the educational access
channels on Rogers' digital program guide (channel 19);
and (d) Rogers will work in good faith with members of
the educational community to implement other suggestions
to assist in creating subscriber awareness of the newly
positioned access channels. In addition, Rogers renews
its offer to the educational community to provide
complementary educational programming to help fill these
channels. It is understood that such an offer, if
accepted, would serve to fill channel capacity only
during times when the schools are not using the
educational channels. Also, Rogers commits to
interconnect the educational channels of its Southwest
system and Minneapolis system so that the Southwest
schools and Minneapolis schools would have the
opportunity to "trade" programming between the systems.
We feel that this proposal can accomplish the objectives of
all parties concerned. It allows Rogers-the flexibility to.
accomplish its business objectives -- objectives which are
consistent with the underlying intent of the Relief Agreement. It
allows the Commission to reserve its rights as the legal and
regulatory climate involving cable television becomes clearer. It
provides for a financial transition for those subscribing to Tiers
1 and 2. It provides the educational community with substantial
assistance in raising subscriber awareness of educational
programming generally and to the channel realignment. specifically.
Please feel free to contact me after you have had an
opportunity to review this proposal.
DAJ /lkp /4096B
cc Vernon Achber
Cliff Williams
Liz Anderson
Very truly yours,
David A. Jones
A
PROPOSED
ROGERS CABLESYSTE?1S OF MINNESOTA
SOU MEST CHANNEL LINE -UP
Ch
Proposed
26
NICKELODEON
Current
2
KTCA (2)
NICKELODEON
3
CNN
KTCA
4
WCCO (4)
EDUCATIONAL ACCESS
5
KSTP (5)
WCCO
6
SHOWCASE
KSTP
7
ESPN
L.O.* /SHOWCASE
8
C8N
PUBLIC ACCESS
9
KHSP (9)
EDUCATIONAL ACCESS
10
WTBS
K4SP (9)
11
KARE (11)
C -SPAN II
12
USA
KARE (11)
13
WGN
GOVERNMENT ACCESS
14
HBO (Trapped)
KXLI
15
CNN -HN
HBO (Trapped)
16
ARTS b ENTERTAINMENT
KTMA (23)
17
KTC1 (17) /LEARNING CHANNEL
SIN
18
DISNEY (Trapped)
KTCI (17)
19
PROGRAM GUIDE
DISNEY (Trapped)
20
LIFETIME
PROGRAM GUIDE
21
NASHVILLE
WCCO II
22
DISCOVERY
C -SPAN
23
KTMA (23)
WCCO WEATHER
24
FNN /SCORE
DISCOVERY
49
HOME THEATRE NETWORK
RPT PREVIEW
25
TEMPO (SPH)
26
NICKELODEON
TEMPO (SPH)
27
SET
NICKELODEON
28
CABLE VALUE NETWORK * **
REUTERS NEWS
29
KITN (29)
CBN
30
C-SPAN I
KITH (29)
31
C -SPAN II
FNN /SCORE
32
EDUCATIONAL ACCESS
WTBS
33
PUBLIC ACCESS
NASHVILLE
34
GOVERNMENT ACCESS
NGN
35
EDUCATIONAL ACCESS
CNN
36
REUTERS
ARTS b ENTERTAINMENT
37
L.O. /NJT /SILENT NETWORK /BULLETIN BOARD
REU
CNNTNNS
38
VH -I
39
WCCO II
VN -1
40
MTV
ESPH
41
KXLI (41)
MTV
42
WCCO WEATHER
BET
43
PREVIEW CHANNEL
USA
CMTV /TLC
44
RPT I (ppy)
45
RPT II (PPV) *'
RPT (PPV)
46
SHOWTIME
HBO (Zenith)
47
THE MOVIE CHANNEL
SHOWTIME
THE MOVIE CHANNEL
48
CINEMAX
49
HOME THEATRE NETWORK
CINEMAX
DISNEY
Comments /Changes
-Ch 3 Educ. Access, now ch 32
-Ch 6 L.O. moved to ch 37
-Ch 7 was Public Access, now ch 33
-Ch 8 was Educ. Access, now ch 35
-Ch 10 was C -SPAY II, now on ch 31
-Ch 12 was Gov't Access, now ch 34
-Ch 13 was KXLI, now on ch 41
-Ch 15 was KTMA, now on ch 23
-Ch 16 was SIN, now on ch 53
-XTC1 broadcasts partial day
-Ch 20 was MCCO II, now on ch 39
-Ch 21 was C -SPAN, now on ch 30
-Ch 22 was weather, now on ch 42
-Ch 23 new. Discovery on ch 22.
-Ch 24 was RPT Preview, now on ch
43
-Ch 27 Reuters, now on ch 36
-Ch 28 was C9N, now ch a
-Ch 30 was FNN, nosy on ch 24
-Ch 31 was WTBS, now on ch 10
-Ch 32 was Nashville, now on ch 21
-Ch 33 was I(GN, now ch 13
-Ch 34 was CNN, now ch 3
-Ch 35 was A & E, now ch 16
-Ch 37 was CNN -HR. now on ch 15
-Ch 39 was ESPN, now on ch 7
-Ch 41 was BET, now on ch 27
-Ch 42 was USA, now ch 12
-Ch 43 C4TV/TLC, now C.9TY dropped
and TLC on ch 17
-Ch 44 HBO now on 14 only
-Ch 49 duplication of Disney
dropped
Ct� I
-0j
50 RPT III (PPY) RAT (PPY)
51 BRAVO BRAVO
52 AMC AMC
53 SIN HONE THEATRE NETWORK —Ch 53 was MTN, now ch 49
0160198 PTL
1/61199 TBN —TBN now full -time
NOTES; * L.O. Includes NJT, Silent Network, Bulletin Board and system produced programs
New RPT channel brings total PPY channels to 3
* ** New Seryice
C
• CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Council Letter No. 419
Agenda October 27, 1986
Issue Statement:
Request for Pigeon License - Gerald E. Vernon, 6837 Russell
Avenue.
Background:
Mr. Vernon, who is both the property owner and the resident of
the above noted property, has applied for a license to maintain
pigeons pursuant to the Richfield City Ordinance Code 10.05. As
a hobby, the applicant has maintained the loft at his home for
racing pigeons for some period of time. The applicant has been
unaware of the city licensing requirement related to pigeons, and
was informed of the licensing requirement by the Public Safety
Department following a complaint. Mr. Vernon has now applied for
licensure and the Public Safety Department has both reviewed the
license application and inspected the property involved. The
pigeon loft is well maintained and complies with all provisions
of ordinance code requirements.
There is one deficiency in the application which council should
consider. Sub - division 3 of ordinance code 10.05 requires:
• "the application for license shall be accompanied by
the written approval of such application by the
occupants of all privately -owned real estate abutting
the premises for which the license is sought"
Four of the occupants of abutting properties have signed the
license application, but the occupant of the property directly
south of the applicant (6841 - Russell Avenue South), has not
signed the application. The applicant, however, has gained
written permission from other neighbors to support his
application.
Attached for council review of this matter is the application and
accompaning signatures, the license inspection report from the
Public Safety Department and a copy of the ordinance code related
to this matter. Also included are copies of letters from the
Public Safety Director to the applicant and to the occupant of
6841 Russell Avenue South informing them of council consideration
of this matter.
Recommendation:
It is the recommendation of staff that this license application
be denied.
Basis of Recommendation:
• 1. The ordinance code provision related to this matter requires
that occupants of all privately -owned real estate abutting the
premises must approve such application. One of the occupants of
abutting properties has not indicated approval.
..
• Alternative Recommendation:
1. The council could find the
that all occupants of abutting
application.
0
•
application simply deficient in
properties have not signed the
2. The council could recognize the number of other neigthboring
residents who have approved of licensure by signing the
application.
3. The Public Safety Department has notified the occupant at
6841 Russell Avenue South of the time and place of council
consideration of this matter, and of the occupants right to be
heard in relation to council consideration of this applicant.
4. If no opposition is offered during council consideration of
this matter, and based on the foregoing comments, the council
could grant the license as requested.
Decision:
The applicant is currently housing pigeons in violation of city
ordinance code requirements, but enforcement action has been
withheld pending the outcome of the license application process.
It is therefore recommended that this matter be handled in a
timely fashion by city council.
JDP /eja
Respectfully submitted,
Jame D. Prosser
Cit Manager
0
•
PGL 137
CITY OF RICHFIELD 6700 PORTLAND AVE SO.
.vi
AUG 2 91986
RICHFIELD, MIN. DEPUTY 56
55423
RECEIPT NO. LICENSE NO. NEW RENEWAL
APPLICATION FOR A PIGEON LICENSE
Ordinance No. 10.05 Date: 46 FEE: $30.00
For w
.. ............................... ................ ...............................
1
Applicant ����7 E/��%Olif
Address �J�~ �t- l.sj�,E"� f71/' S'•
Phone Number S (o % 417
Are you familiar with the provisions of Ordinance No. .10.05, Subdivision 5,
paragraphs 1 through 11, concerned with licensing of pigeons; construction and
maintenance of the loft and sanitation of the premises?
YES NO
I (we) hereby apply for a pi on license for the term of one year from April 1st
to March 31st of the succee#ng year to keep more than three pigeons but not to
exceed twenty -five (25) in tuber at.apy-r)no time.
Authorized Signature
Signatures of contiguous property owners must accompany the application.
I hereby approve of pi geons on the premises of:
E. V /�-7tW o '% I Address 46
1.
2. �s Se ,
3.
.. ... . . . . .. . .. • . ... . -.. . .... . . .. . .. ... . .. . . . .. . . .. .. . . . .. . .. . .. . . . . .. . . .. . . . . .
• The remaining contiguous non - resident property owner has not signed this.a licati
The person who is presently renting the property has indicated verbally "no concern"
with the existence of the loft. AA See accompanying letter. �"'��
0
City of Richfield
6700 Portland Ave South
Richfield, MN 554238
To: City of Richfield
In addition to the signatures of the three (3) contiguous property owners,
I have also gained the written affirmation of all property owners within
100 feet of the location of the loft. These individuals affirm that the
loft is maintained in accordance with Richfield city regulations, and
they support my hobby of racing homing pigeons. I feel it is important
to point out that racing pigeons are kept in the loft, under sanitary
conditions, released twice daily for short exercise periods, 'and., therefore,
do not cause any problems to anyone's environment. .
I am soliciting your approval of the application for license. Should you
have any questions, please feel free to contact me at:
William A. Johnson Agency
2311 Wayzata Blvd
Minneapolis, MN 55405
377 -4470
or at home 861 -4759.
Sincer ,
2LY
Gerald Vernon
Name
Address
if IF
•
C�
NOTICE
Pursuant to Laws of Minnesota, 1984, . Chapter 502, Article 8, Section 2 (270.72) (Tax
Clearance; Issuance. of Licenses), the licensing authority is required to provide to the
Minnesota Commissioner of Revenue your Minnesota business tax identification num-
ber and the social security number of each license applicant.
Under the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act and the Federal Privacy Act of
1974, we are required to advise you of the following regarding the use of this infor-
mation:
1. This information may be used to deny the issuance or renewal of your ,
license in the event you owe Minnesota sales, employer's withholding or
motor vehicle excise taxes;
2. Upon receiving this information, the licensing authority will supply it only
to the Minnesota Department of Revenue. However, under the Federal
Exchange of Information Agreement the Department of Revenue may
supply this information to the Internal Revenue Service;
3. FAILURE TO SUPPLY THIS INFORMATION MAY JEOPARDIZE OR
DELAY THE PROCESSING OF YOUR LICENSE ISSUANCE OR
RENEWAL APPLICATION.
Please supply the following information and return along with your application to the
licensing authority.
pplicant's L t Name
Z r1aA/
First Name Middle Initial
pplicantu's�Ajddress i, �/ �i/�` Cit Stmt , Zip Ce
Applicant's Social Secur -ty No.
—'s 2`j
Position (Officer, Partner, etc.
Business Name
Business Address
City, State, Zip Code
Minnesota Tax Identification Number
-,7 �(a
- in 4ta Signdlifre Date
0
•
KENNEL LICENSE APPLICATION INSPECTION
Name � /4C� �, yEVA)" .
Address 6 7 Y li ;, C C. L
Number of Animals: dogs ..eats
Breed: re' ACIA 4 P16 tzA — �, 4
Are animals currently licensed? es no
Number of residents occupying dwelling
Is yard enclosed with a fence in good repair? Yes No
Will fence keep animals on owner's property? Yes No
Is yard kept clean and free of animal droppings, etc.?
Yes � No
Is garbage stored in covered metal container? Yes No
Are pets kept for breeding purposes? Yes No
How are pets exercised? (Where - areawise ) A 0/w/A/6 Aph
4116AT 6UJM9C S &E lk w,4 Y9 t ee 17//7`HC P rSf6A)
Are there unpleasant odors present? Yes No
have 311 abutting property owners signed a petition of
approval for a kennel license for this number of animals ?.
Yes�_LNo
not, why not?
:additional Comments: f lbaa US AQf W L LL KEPT ,9-t,)jD
Inspected By AI/�►y'�G1 �' .�b� ��b Date
L
CHAPTER X
PART II. NUISANCES - SPECIFIC PROHIBITED CONDITIONS
10.05 MAINTENANCE OF FOWL AND BIRDS
Subdivision 1. Prohibition. No person owning or keeping chickens, ducks, geese,
pigeons or other fowl or birds shall permit the same to run at large or enter
upon the premises of another without permission, nor shall any such-fowl or birds
be kept, raised or permitted to go on any street, park, lake or public ponding
area.
Subd. 2. Limitation on Number. No more than three such fowl or birds shall be
kept or raised on'any residential property in the city. This limitation shall
not apply to the keeping of pigeons pursuant to a license under the.provisions
of this section. (Bill 1970 -30) 11/23/70
Subd. 3. _Injury or Annoyance to Others. No such fowl or birds shall be kept
or raised in such manner as to cause injury or annoyance to persons on other
property in the vicinity by reason of noise, odor or filth.
Subd. 4. Impounding of Fowl or Birds. Any such fowl or bird at large in vio-
lation of Subdivision 1 may be impounded by the city, and, after being so
impounded for three days or more without being reclaimed by the owner, may be
destroyed or sold. Any person reclaiming any such impounded fowl shall pay the
cost of impounding and keeping the same.
Subd. 5. License Required for Keeping of Pigeons. No person shall keep more
than three pigeons on any premises in the city without first obtaining a license
as provided in this'•subdivision and no person shall keep or harbor pigeons ex-
cept in compliance with this subdivision.
(1) As used in this subdivision the term 'pigeon' includes any and all
varieties of pigeons. The term 'loft' includes any and all quarters in which
pigeons are housed.
(2) Application for a license to keep pigeons shall be made to the city
clerk and shall be accompanied by the specified license fee. The application
shall be investigated by the administrative staff of the city to determine
11/23/70
ORDINANCE CODE 256 CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESO to
t,
compliance with the ordinances -of the city and shall then be referred to the
city council which may grant or deny the license. Licenses shall be issued
on an annual basis. ,
(3) The application for license shall be accompanied by the written approval
of such application by the occupants of all privately -owned real estate abutting
the premises-for which the license is sought.
The license application shall include a plan showing the construction of the
,proposed or existing loft and its location on the property. The loft shall be
regarded as an accessory building and shall conform to the building and zoning.
regulations of the city.
The loft shall conform in design with the principal building on the premises.
(4) The annual license fee is as provided in Appendix D of this Code. The
license'year shall be from April 1 to March 31 of the succeeding year.
(Bill 1977 -16) 8/8/77
(5) Not more than twenty -five pigeons shall be kept at any one time on any
licensed premises. At the time of issuing the license, however, the council
may issue a license for a lesser number. It is a violation of this ordinance
to keep more pigeons on licensed premises than the number authorized in the
license.
(6) All premises on which pigeons are kept and maintained shall be kept
reasonably clean from filth, garbage and any substances which attract rodents,
at all times. The loft and its surroundings must be cleaned daily.
(7) The loft must be constructed and maintained so as to be fly -free and
rodent - proof.
(8) All pigeons shall be fed within ;he confines of the loft on the premises
on which the pigeons are housed. The pigeons shall be confined to the loft ex-
cept for short periods of exercise during which they may be permitted to fly
outside the loft.
(9) All grains and food stored for the use of pigeons on any licensed
premises shall be kept in rodent -free containers. ,
(10) The loft shall be elevated a minimum of six inches and a maximum of
twelve inches above grade to insure freeway beneath the loft. The loft shall
rest upon concrete footings and piers, cement blocks or other suitable foundation
material. The loft shall have a maximum height of nine .feet.
(11) Pigeons shall not be kept in such a manner as to constitute a.nuisance
to the occupants of adjacent property. (Bill 1970 -30) 11/23/70
8/8/77
ORDINANCE CODE 256.1 CITY OF RICHFIELD, BAINNESO rA
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Council Letter No. 418
October 27, 1986
Issue Statement:
Request for an amended offstreet parking permit for the Richfield
Shoppes South development at 66th Street and Nicollet Avenue.
Background:
Lincoln Companies, the owner of the Richfield Shoppes South
development at 66th Street and Nicollet Avenue, has requested an
amended offstreet parking permit to allow expanding on site
parking spaces 117 to 129. This would be accomplished by
removing the landscape strip along the west side of the building
and installing additional angled parking stalls adjacent to the
west side of the building. The parking row adjacent to Nicollet
Avenue would be restriped to have 90 degree compact car parking
stalls. The driving aisle parallel to Nicollet Avenue west of
the building would be designated a one way going south.
Based on the previous use (Old Country Buffet, Gentleman's
Warehouse, and the Hammond Organ store) the site was 16 parking
spaces short of the city's offstreet parking guidelines. This
expansion of parking would reduce that shortage to four.
The usage of the building is changing. Currently the building is
occupied by Old Country Buffet and the Adventures in Video store.
Additional space is proposed to be occupied by a Marty Irvings
Golf Supply store and a Leeann Chin's restaurant. The developer
has applied for a special use permit for the Leeann Chin's
restaurant. The special use permit for the Leeann Chin's
restaurant is scheduled to be considered by the Planning
Commission on October 28th and the City Council in November.
Based on the new usage, 130 parking stalls would be required for
the total development which is one more than the 129 spaces
provided. The applicant has already removed the landscaped area
adjacent to the building.
Staff Recommendation:
Staff recommends that the request for an amended offstreet
parking permit be denied and that the landscaped area adjacent to
the building be restored.
Basis of Recommendation:
1. The 17 foot wide driving aisle west of the building would be
too narrow. It would be difficult for the cars parked in the
90 degree stalls adjacent to Nicollet Avenue to get out of
the parking stalls. City offstreet parking guidelines for 90
degree parking recommend a two way driving aisle and a
minimum driving aisle width of 22 feet. If the parking on
both sides of the driving lane were angled parking, then the
17 foot driving aisle would be sufficient. However, if this
was accomplished, there would be a net loss of total parking
• spaces on the site negating the reason for the requested
change.
•
2. The proposal would result in the loss of the landscaped strip
along the building which is important to soften the
appearance of all the asphalt on the site.
3. Notwithstanding the city's parking requirements, the current
and proposed uses of this center generate the need or
significantly more parking than can be accommodated on site
even if the spaces requested were permitted.
There is a need to look at a more long range, permanent and
safe solution to this problem.
Alternative Recommendation:
The alternative recommendation would be
an amended offstreet parking permit as
suffers from the lack of parking spaces
the Old Country Buffet restaurant. The
additional parking stalls would provide
site which is needed during peak times.
to grant the request for
requested. The site now
because of the success of
installation of the 12
additional parking on the
Decision Mode:
This matter has been scheduled for City Council consideration on
October 27, 1986. City ordinance does not require that this
action be taken at a public hearing; therefore, no mailed notice
or legal notices have been published.
Respectf ly submitted,
James . Prosser
City anager
JDP /eja
I—
z
a
a
I—
W
W
V) �" i) x
O CO -co
IL
O n it
cr
Cf
a _c -w
Y i0 N
f0 N ♦+
a L �
3 CL
W sU
.0
� o
c ). co
3Se3 3aa��S
Q
0 z a
0
0
r°
n
CO
C
C
v Q
Z ma .
Cr
4399
4-•
.i
V
0
r�
0
Z
Z
QI
I,
C
i
Q
a
�
Oi
.i
N
N
4
L
LL.
,r
I—
z
a
a
I—
W
W
V) �" i) x
O CO -co
IL
O n it
cr
Cf
a _c -w
Y i0 N
f0 N ♦+
a L �
3 CL
W sU
.0
� o
c ). co
3Se3 3aa��S
Q
0 z a
0
0
r°
n
CO
C
C
v Q
Z ma .
Cr
4399
4-•
.i
V
0
r�
0
I•
RICHFIELD SHOPPES SOUTH
PREVIOUSLY APPROVED PLAN
LH I I I I I HILL]
Nicollet N
.� w 40� �b
•
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Council Letter No. 417
October 27, 1986
Issue Statement:
Request for Permit to Erect An Illuminated Pedestal Sign in the
Shape of An Anchor at Skippers Restaurant, 6613 Penn Avenue
Background:
City ordinance provides that the city council must approve all
permit applications for illuminated signs. Skippers Restaurant,
has applied for a permit to erect a 6' 1" x 14' 6" pedestal sign
resembling an anchor in front of their restaurant. The total
height of the sign would be 30 feet.
Recommendation:
It is recommended that the city council deny the request.
Basis for Recommendation:
1. City Ordinance allows a maximum height of 27 feet. The
proposed sign will be 30 feet in height.
is 2. City Ordinance 3.47, Subd. 1 (12) requires all sign faces
to be 7 feet above street level. The "spade" on the
proposed sign will be 5' 10" above street level and does
not conform to the clear site pattern set by the city.
3. The City Planner has recommended to Skipper's representa-
tives that they erect an alternative sign.
Alternative Recommendation:
1. Approve the sign permit. However, the sign does not
conform to city ordinances relating to total height and
clear site patterns set by the city.
Discussion /Decision Mode:
This item has been placed on the October 27 city council agenda
for council consideration.
Respect ully submitted,
Jam D. Prosser
• Cit Manager
JDP /eja
' i
:ianage_
• Date
APPROVE Li 1) ENYa :
•
r1
LJ
Planning Department
Date
APPROVE ❑ DENY
Inspector
Date
City Council
Date
Route to above for special approval per code General Signs
APPLICATION FOR' ADVERTISING PERMIT
City of Richfield,• Minnesota
Date Zoning Sign Erected - Yes No X Fee
Address of Sign 660 t 3 Penn Ave. S. Proprietor Name 31::� ( fie, DBA Sllniz
Sign Erector C CC n( Address �T��
Tyne of Sign D Weather Cover Li htin
If .Illuminated
Electrical Contractor
No
Watts
ess 317 Lk). (Qkp 2, Phone
Property Owner or .his Agent Signatsre �(� Phoneme -� T
Est_:ated Cost Sign Width ` ight" Total Square Feet_
Position of the` advertisement structure in relationship to the adiacent buildings, sidew
curbs, roadways, overhead utilit•r lines, vehicle movement lines, or public facilities on
drawing with significant dimensions and attached hereto of major signs. w.inor signs as
defined on page 2.
Two blueprints of the sign, billboard, or outdoor advertising structure construction plans:
including specif icat ions, list of materials, and e:? licit anchoring or fastening details
and a copy of the stress sheets, calculations, color of sign structure.
Does the sign copy relate solely to the business, institution, or activity conducted on
the vremises? e_
the _sign, structure, or billboard restrict any sight distance under, around, or over
I n f afe �g:�s^by �erso�f 4- stined for or passing the subject premises? '10
t•s
_"L r
Title wi
GG Da
Phone Number
Lkt
1985 PLEASE SEE REVERSE SIDE FOR SIGN LOCATION SKETCH
Sivert Hendrickson /Building Official - 866 -5061
Wall
Projecting
Ground
Roof
Pedestal
Changeable
Temporary
Trailer
Single Face
Double Face
Multi -Faced
Aerial /Blimp
Searchlight
Banner /Pennants
Portable Frame:
T 7 A7 Post 7
Clear Le --con Constant
Frosted Le--con Flashing
Plastic Covered Revolving
Shaded Traveling
Neon Zip Lite
Other Other(Expla
Sign Colors B UQ c
I
If .Illuminated
Electrical Contractor
No
Watts
ess 317 Lk). (Qkp 2, Phone
Property Owner or .his Agent Signatsre �(� Phoneme -� T
Est_:ated Cost Sign Width ` ight" Total Square Feet_
Position of the` advertisement structure in relationship to the adiacent buildings, sidew
curbs, roadways, overhead utilit•r lines, vehicle movement lines, or public facilities on
drawing with significant dimensions and attached hereto of major signs. w.inor signs as
defined on page 2.
Two blueprints of the sign, billboard, or outdoor advertising structure construction plans:
including specif icat ions, list of materials, and e:? licit anchoring or fastening details
and a copy of the stress sheets, calculations, color of sign structure.
Does the sign copy relate solely to the business, institution, or activity conducted on
the vremises? e_
the _sign, structure, or billboard restrict any sight distance under, around, or over
I n f afe �g:�s^by �erso�f 4- stined for or passing the subject premises? '10
t•s
_"L r
Title wi
GG Da
Phone Number
Lkt
1985 PLEASE SEE REVERSE SIDE FOR SIGN LOCATION SKETCH
Sivert Hendrickson /Building Official - 866 -5061
fS C4 .
f"INT
FF
j
r
1`NONA% %,
in
or
' -
�i
•a �$ ii � i� ' � •.� Y .+r- 3 x •-.r � 'w r i F E -;`.• � t a tom. �r� � L`L.•i ,zy T a- S -� � #� .pia -r .
*'..�K ,• t �,it'Gi �` '° SS "' a•- v.'�'tr• • t -`.C., y �. �.'JS''► _ -•v: - Ja- �eC' -' 4 ai'!t'� x 4,'x '!4!!. f
�, .0 �. vs 1ti� v tt h+'�' e.4 :4. _: t .t � � a � �• ... - ,�,. _ 'c _ � - � �4�� r ' ,� ,S: ;'+� °�+<�.�i•� . ,. -•, y $ 1.` �• y:
F lL �Y .� �'. �` ` „1 F �r" -3 i }i#s. R•` W t'i''�'d A '' ��•. N . .� .'. •r}- �'-!`^ '4 #. L-:I y t :. � Y �. F �: • -yT..�
6 .� �`'�. t �'.; 15 ....P'y'" £!• _�.'t +r � . ? �... . +'� iTh!'.i �'•.. %�� ,ati .� � it- t '� a =n,s � �.e. :.y }� •
,.� X_A 'r'°`'Y 1n .'..y �s. s v fir. :; e = '. '�ia:i)'� ( .$ ,,,�• a , ?`' ';•�. ".{ �' .,..�__r� r '
71�yLp, � Vfr r 'G. Y „a .�f � o..; .,. •» t e._ 7 v.• 1r '1 , r � .' -��.'" F.7"'r 3
'S' "n a � •K _:. f � .N i. E3',a�'« -, .,r + � �r'6-� -. r .� � t �i •3Yil`,'.+�.t' � ;:tom ek.• ..r,^D^,;�� �e � ' x -•c' `u i•
�'i�':r'!J• +.. xf, • , ,t. _�. „i .,v j •�. �: f "r 'e? •— ,�kre r'4.e N' �*` /• ^� �+,,�. ^ { �i _
�� � r� l� �• ,y�, . yi S jr. "." •s � L w� �'M ,ts � i. ., i'g .i�T �! c t' s R - 'J'•`#jr�� ±iR. �' .i 'i�,.i � i s. ri• �C•�L
4`. ,�, J RS•' .r .i ., tit � � r { x , / �•: �t M' �' <'` �r ti *#fit f`i� 'ae�T�M`��.5:- St�4•�'- '�...x.?i.,.�q�!. °,r .
��! ♦. Z C..# mL �..�y J '4.� ; '1 ;Pt .'Y �}y to 1{ :'� � ,f • 'r. � r � =N•le 1 %.s' r1 '�'„�a �Y � "'#- t~3��'�,",.T ,#.•i�S ��'G•,�":'i"d
4P �y��1. '4 i -y. • 4 1F�i ��' :i 6 5. 1yi ♦. <'{' 1 .`- ,r, m `ti S i S #
<'#T•ati.'/.. •: Cr'L"_ �.. �.. �.�'�- 4LL.._'tr i_ ._ -.,. - �. ..� _..ter. - • s.. ._ � L•r= '•c.,f - $'�.ti..r�1.!��f�`Yrr s.�f. -.� L^+a•�!- r�.
I
I--
{
September 12, 1986
Mr. Ross Yeschek
Skippers, Inc.
8810 Jasmine Lane
Eden Prairie, MN 55344
Dear Mr. Yeschek,
As I'm sure you're aware the City Council recently
approved your special use permit request to renovate
the vacant structure at 6613 Penn Avenue into a
Skippers restaurant. The approval was subject to
the following stipulations:
1. That the wooden fence located to the east of
the property be repaired or replaced to the
satisfaction of city staff.
2. That proper vents be installed to meet all
applicable city codes to prevent food odors
from going into abutting residential properties.
The next step is for you to apply for the building
and sign permits. My sense on the freestanding sign
is that the anchor sign would not be approved. I
would encourage you to use your alternative
freestanding sign design.
If you have any questions, feel free to give me a
call.
Sincerely,
�� J��
Rick Jopke
Richfield City Planner
RJ /dh
telephone: 869 -7521 (612)
an equal opportunity employer
O
N
O
tl•�
LO
■�
C
d)
CU
t0
i
{
September 12, 1986
Mr. Ross Yeschek
Skippers, Inc.
8810 Jasmine Lane
Eden Prairie, MN 55344
Dear Mr. Yeschek,
As I'm sure you're aware the City Council recently
approved your special use permit request to renovate
the vacant structure at 6613 Penn Avenue into a
Skippers restaurant. The approval was subject to
the following stipulations:
1. That the wooden fence located to the east of
the property be repaired or replaced to the
satisfaction of city staff.
2. That proper vents be installed to meet all
applicable city codes to prevent food odors
from going into abutting residential properties.
The next step is for you to apply for the building
and sign permits. My sense on the freestanding sign
is that the anchor sign would not be approved. I
would encourage you to use your alternative
freestanding sign design.
If you have any questions, feel free to give me a
call.
Sincerely,
�� J��
Rick Jopke
Richfield City Planner
RJ /dh
telephone: 869 -7521 (612)
an equal opportunity employer
O
E
■
O
4
CL
■�
C
d)
CU
t0
i
{
September 12, 1986
Mr. Ross Yeschek
Skippers, Inc.
8810 Jasmine Lane
Eden Prairie, MN 55344
Dear Mr. Yeschek,
As I'm sure you're aware the City Council recently
approved your special use permit request to renovate
the vacant structure at 6613 Penn Avenue into a
Skippers restaurant. The approval was subject to
the following stipulations:
1. That the wooden fence located to the east of
the property be repaired or replaced to the
satisfaction of city staff.
2. That proper vents be installed to meet all
applicable city codes to prevent food odors
from going into abutting residential properties.
The next step is for you to apply for the building
and sign permits. My sense on the freestanding sign
is that the anchor sign would not be approved. I
would encourage you to use your alternative
freestanding sign design.
If you have any questions, feel free to give me a
call.
Sincerely,
�� J��
Rick Jopke
Richfield City Planner
RJ /dh
telephone: 869 -7521 (612)
an equal opportunity employer
L
O
4
CL
■�
O
O
t0
{
September 12, 1986
Mr. Ross Yeschek
Skippers, Inc.
8810 Jasmine Lane
Eden Prairie, MN 55344
Dear Mr. Yeschek,
As I'm sure you're aware the City Council recently
approved your special use permit request to renovate
the vacant structure at 6613 Penn Avenue into a
Skippers restaurant. The approval was subject to
the following stipulations:
1. That the wooden fence located to the east of
the property be repaired or replaced to the
satisfaction of city staff.
2. That proper vents be installed to meet all
applicable city codes to prevent food odors
from going into abutting residential properties.
The next step is for you to apply for the building
and sign permits. My sense on the freestanding sign
is that the anchor sign would not be approved. I
would encourage you to use your alternative
freestanding sign design.
If you have any questions, feel free to give me a
call.
Sincerely,
�� J��
Rick Jopke
Richfield City Planner
RJ /dh
telephone: 869 -7521 (612)
an equal opportunity employer
I , 1, —
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Council Letter No. 416
October 27, 1986
Issue Statement:
Request For Special Height Permit For Arbys Pylon Sign At 5th
Avenue And 78th Street
Background:
Franchise Associates, Inc. has requested that the City Council
approve a special height permit to allow them to construct a 34
foot high freestanding pylon sign at their new restaurant
location at 5th Avenue and 78th Street. The city's sign
ordinance indicates that the maximum height for freestanding
signs is 27 feet. The sign ordinance also allows the council to
grant special height permits for signs exceeding 27 feet in
height if a number of conditions have been met. Copies of the
plans for the proposed signs are attached for your review and
consideration.
Staff Recommendation:
Staff recommends that the special height permit for a 34 foot
high sign as shown on the attached plans be granted.
Basis of Recommendation:
Staff's recommendation is based on the following review of the
• proposal against the conditions contained in the sign ordinance:
1. The sign is adjacent to a federal freeway and will not exceed
35 feet in height.
2. The property is located in an industrial zoning district.
3. The site is within 300 feet of a single family residence
property. However, the single family residence property is
on property zoned industrial and a beauty shop is also
operated out of this structure. The nearest single family
residence on single family residentially zoned property is
approximately 1,000 feet away.
4. The sign will not unduly obstruct visibility from neighboring
properties.
5. The height will not exceed the elevation of 204, Richfield
Datum (the sign would have to be 76 feet tall to exceed
elevation 204).
6. The sign will not adversely affect the value of any adjacent
property.
7. The extra height is necessary for the sign to be visible to
traffic on the freeway coming from the west. Visibility of a
27 foot sign would be blocked from the west by the adjacent
Blaylock Plumbing building and the Naegele billboard.
Alternative Recommendation:
The alternative recommendation would be to deny the special
height permit and require the sign not to exceed 27 feet in
height.
Decision Mode:
This matter has been scheduled for council consideration on
October 27, 1986. The sign ordinance does not require a public
hearing. Neither mailed notice or legal notice were required and
none have been published in the Richfield Sun Current Newspaper.
Respectfully submitted,
James . Prosser
ExecLWive Director
9
- 0 -4-- -t,
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Council Letter No. 415
October 27, 1986
Issue Statement:
Council Consideration of a Resolution to Establish a Social
Services Agency Funding Advisory Committee and Appoint Members to
the Committee
Background:
Richfield, like many other communities is faced with an
increasing number of applications from social service agencies
requesting funding assistance for their organizations. These
organizations provide many valuable services to the community and
to the residents, and withdrawal of federal and state program
funding have created a crisis for many of these organizations,
causing them to look for other funding sources, such as the City
of Richfield. The city council allocated $55,000 for social
services agencies for 1987. However, funding requests in excess
of $83,000 have been received.
During the budget hearings on the proposed 1987 budget, and the
• revised 1986 budgets, the city council recognized the need to
examine these funding requests in a non - political, non - partisan
manner through the establishment of a Social Services Agency
Funding Advisory Committee. The purpose of the committee will be
to examine the funding requests of the various agencies and
allocate a set amount of money available from the city to the
agencies.
A resolution to formally establish this committee is attached to
this council letter. The resolution provides that the membership
of the committee shall be comprised of a representative from the
Advisory Board of Health, the Community Services Commission, the
Human Rights Commission, the Human Services Commission and the
Planning Commission. It further provides that terms shall be for
three years and shall be staggered initially for one, two or
three years.
The committee will review funding requests on an annual basis,
and shall meet as often as necessary in order to review the
funding requests. The city council shall determine the total
amount of funding each year. For 1987, this amount will be
$55,000. The resolution further provides that that amount shall
be fixed, and no additional funds shall be available.
The resolution provides that the criteria to receive funding
• shall include, but not be limited to: community benefit and need;
demonstration of collateral support, and alternative financial
support.
•
Recommendation:
It is recommended that the city council approve the resolution
establishing the Social Services Agency Funding Advisory
Committee and make the following appointments to the committee:
Mary Brekke, Advisory Board of Health; Betsy Asher, Community
Services Commission; Darold Luze, Human Rights Commission; Dale
Rusk, Human Services Commission; and Maggi McDermott - Linstrand,
Planning Commission.
Basis for Recommendation:
1. The city council has determined that f
social services agencies be determined
2. The members proposed for the committee
community needs in determining funding
3. The proposed members represent a broad
the community.
Alternative Recommendation:
unding levels for
by a committee.
are sensitive to
allocations.
cross section of
1. Not establish a committee. However, this would leave the
task of allocating funds to social services agencies to
the city council.
Discussion /Decision Mode:
Establishment of a committee at this time will provide an
adequate timeframe for the committee to meet with the agencies
requesting funding prior to January, 1987 so that those agencies
may also determine their financial status for the year 1987.
In future'years, it is recommended that all funding requests be
received by the committee by August 1, so that the committee may
make their recommendations to the city council before the.budget
is adopted in October.
JDP /eja
•
Respec ully submitted,
Ja D. Prosser
Ci Manager
r
• RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING SOCIAL SERVICES
AGENCY FUNDING ADVISORY COMMITTEE
WHEREAS, the City of Richfield, like many other communities,
is faced with an increasing number of applications from social
service agencies for funding of their organizations, and
WHEREAS, these organizations provide many valuable services
to the community and to the residents, and
WHEREAS, withdrawal of federal and state program funding has
caused a crisis for many of these organizations, causing them to
look for other funding sources, such as municipalities.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the
City of Richfield recognizing the need to examine these funding
requests in a non - political, non- partisan manner, has established
the Social Service Funding Advisory Committee. The purpose of
the Committee is to examine the funding requests of the various
agencies and allocate a set amount of money available from the
city to the agencies.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that decisions made by the Committee
will indeed be difficult, but they must be made by persons that
are sensitive to the community needs in an environment which will
• allow for calm deliberation of these issues. While the council
recognizes that this puts a great deal of responsibility on
individuals, it also recognizes the critical importance of this
task.
1. Membership
Membership on this committee shall be comprised of a
representative from the Advisory Board of Health, Community
Services Commission, Human Rights Commission, Human Services
Commission and the Planning Commission.
2. Terms
Terms of office shall be three years and shall be staggered
initially for one, two or three years. Initial terms shall
be determined by drawing lots at the initial meeting of the
committee.
3. Duties and Responsibilities
On an annual basis, the city shall forward to the committee
all requests for contributions from the city to social
service agencies. These requests shall be forwarded to the
committee not later than August 1 of each year. Any
organization requesting funding after that date will be
advised to reapply in subsequent years.
• 4. Meetings
The committee shall meet as necessary in order to review
the funding requests. They may accept written and /or oral
presentations relating to the funding request.
5. Amount of Allocation
On an annual basis, the city shall determine the total
amount of funds to be allocated to social service agencies.
The initial year funding shall be $55,000. The amount
indicated by the city shall be fixed. No additional funds
shall be available. It will, therefore, be the responsibil-
ity of the committee to determine how the fixed amount shall
be allocated to the social service agencies requesting
funding. The committee shall make recommendations relating
to funding of each organization, providing some or no
portion of the total amount available to a requesting social
service agency.
For example, an agency may request funding of $5,000 for a
particular purpose. The committee may determine to give _
the organization the full $5,000; a portion of the $5,000
or no funds at all.
6. Recommended Criteria
The committee shall develop criteria for determination of
recommended funding levels. The criteria shall include,
but not be limited to, the following:
A. Community benefit and need. Has the applicant
adequately demonstrated that the proposed use of
• funds will benefit the City of Richfield and meet
a need for a portion of its residents.
B. Demonstrate a collateral support. Has the agency
demonstrated community support for its efforts,
including funding from other local agencies.
C. Alternative financial support. Has the organization
made valid attempts to locate funding from other
agencies, both locally, regionally, and nationally
if applicable.
The City Council recognizes that the development of more refined
criteria and applications of that criteria will indeed be
subjective. However, the Council also trusts the judgment of the
individuals appointed to the Committee. While it will be very
likely that the Committee will appreciate and support the need
for additional funding for all the agencies that have requested
funds, the limited amount of funding availability must be
distributed wisely.
•
7. Completion Date
The Committee's recommendations will be forwarded to the
City Council no later than October 1 of each year.
Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield this
27th day of October, 1986.
ATTEST:
Thomas Ferber City Clerk
0
John Hamilton Mayor
• CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Council Letter No. 414
October 27, 1986
Issue Statement:
Resolution terminating the city's lease purchase agreements with
Motorola Computer Systems (formerly Four Phase) for computer
equipment and software as of the end of this year.
Background:
During the summer of 1985, the council authorized staff to
request bids for a new computer system, and that the existing
lease purchase agreement for the Four Phase computer should be
terminated at the end of the 1986. This was determined to be the
most cost effective method of meeting the city's growing computer
needs.
The original lease purchase agreement with Four Phase was signed
in January of 1978 and was renewed from time to time during the
past several years. The current cost of the agreement is
approximately $90,000.00 annually. Each major addition of
equipment to the original agreement caused it to be extended for
a period of five years from the date of the expansion.
Consequently, the current term expires in 1989. Minnesota
Statutes governing such lease purchase agreements give the city
the authority to terminate the agreement at the end of any fiscal
year.
Recommendation:
It is recommended that the city council adopt a resolution
directing the city manager to:
1. Notify Motorola Computer Systems that the leasing of all
their computer equipment and software is being terminated at the
end of 1986; and
2. Request that Motorola Computer Systems reclaim and remove
their property promptly after December 31, 1986.
Basis for Recommendation:
1. The Four Phase computer will no longer be used after the
end of this year. The equipment is outdated and does not meet
the city's needs.
2. Terminating the lease purchase agreement at this time will
save the city approximately $90,000.00 annually.
3. Funding for the Four Phase system is not provided for in the
adopted 1987 city budget.
4. Although Four Phase may believe they have legal recourse
against the termination, ourt attorney advises that the city's
action is authorized by Minnesota Statutes, Section 465.71.
Alternative Recommendation:
1. The council could choose to continue the lease purchase
• agreement for one or more years. However, funding for the
continuation of this agreement is not included in the 1987 budget
and the computer would not be used.
2. A second option the council has is to purchase the Four Phase
system. This alternative was considered and rejected by the
council last year for two reasons. First, Four Phase was not
willing to negotiate on the purchase price of the system or to
offer the city an installment payment plan. Second, the purchase
option was more costly than the termination of the lease purchase
agreement. The purchase price of the system was quoted at
$232,195.00 in June, 1985. Staff estimates that the current
purchase price is between $200,000.00 and $225,000.00. Again,
funding for this purchase is not provided for in the adopted 1987
budget.
Discussion /Decision Mode:
Council action on this resolution is requested at the October 27
meeting. This will provide Four Phase with approximately sixty
days notice of our intentions.
JDP /eja
0
I*
Respectfully submitted,
�z
Jaq6q D. Prosser
Ci y Manager
Y
0
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION TERMINATING LEASE WITH MOTOROLA COMPUTER SYSTEMS
FOR COMPUTER EQUIPMENT AND SOFTWARE
WHEREAS, funds for the continued leasing of computer
equipment and software from Motorola Computer Systems, Inc., have
not been authorized in the adopted 1987 city budget; and
WHEREAS, other computer equipment and software has been
purchased and arranged for which will provide the city with
better service at less cost; and
WHEREAS, there is a need for the city to economize to
perform efficiently;
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the
City of Richfield, Minnesota:
1. That the City Manager is authorized and directed to
notify Motorola Computer Systems, Inc., that the leasing of all
equipment is being terminated at the end of calendar year 1986,
which is also the end of the city's fiscal year; and
• 2. That the City Manager is further directed to request
that Motorola Computer Systems, Inc., reclaim and remove their
property promptly after December 31, 1986.
Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield,
Minnesota this 27th day of October, 1986.
ATTEST:
Thomas P. Ferber, City Clerk
John Hamilton, Mayor
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Council Letter No. 413
October 27, 1986
Issue Statement:
Adoption of a Resolution Relating to $900,000 Commercial
Development Revenue Bonds (Corporate Travel Project); Approving
and Authorizing the Execution of a First Supplemental Indenture
of Trust.
Background:
On November 22, 1982, the City Council adopted a resolution
authorizing the sale and issuance of $900,000 Commercial
Development Revenue Bonds for Dacotah Properties (Corporate
Travel) for the development of a 5- story, 61,660 square foot
commercial office building at a site located adjacent to 76th
Street and I35W.
The resolution authorizing the sale and issuance of the
Commercial Development Revenue Bonds also provided that a Letter
of Credit from the First National Bank of St. Paul, securing the
bonds, be made part of the bond proceedings.
On May 5, 1986, Dacotah Properties contacted the City Attorney's
office, requesting that the Letter of Credit provided for in the
• $900,000 Bond Issue from the First National Bank of St. Paul be
removed and substituted with an equal Letter of Credit by the
Marquette Bank Minneapolis. The Letter of Credit issuer is the
entity which stands behind the payment of principal and interest
on the bonds. That request was reviewed by the City Attorney and
was found to be in proper order, leaving the City unaffected.
The City Council subsequently adopted a resolution on May 12,
1986, which gave consent to the substitution of the Letter of
Credit by Marquette Bank Minneapolis, N.A., holding the City
harmless from any costs or expenses incurred due to that
substitution.
Since May 12, 1986, Dacotah Properties and the owners of the
bonds have consented to this change and have prepared the First
Supplemental Indenture of Trust which amends the original
Indenture to provide for the substitution. This Supplemental
Indenture of Trust has been reviewed by the City Attorney's
Office and was found to be in proper form. The City Attorney has
also found that the rights, duties and obligations of the City
under the Indenture are not affected by the change.
Recommendation:
It is staff's recommendation that the City Council adopt the
attached resolution approving and authorizing the execution of a
10 First Supplemental Indenture of Trust relating to $900,000
Commercial Development Revenue Bonds (Corporate Travel Building
Project).
• Basis for Recommendation:
1. The City Council, on May 12, 1986, authorized the Letter of
Credit substitution now under consideration in the form of a
Supplemental Indenture of Trust.
2. Staff of the City Attorney's office have reviewed the
Supplemental Indenture of Trust and find it to be in proper
order and that it will not affect the rights, duties and
obligations of the City.
Alternative Recommendation:
1. As a party to this Indenture Agreement, the City could refuse
to approve the Letter of Credit substitution. In that case,
the original provider of the Letter of Credit would remain.
However, such a refusal may not be in the best interests of
the City. City legal staff has carefully reviewed the pro-
posed changes and finds that the City would not be adversely
affected by the substitution of Marquette Bank Minneapolis
as the issuer of the Letter of Credit.
Discussion /Decision Mode:
It is recommended that the City take immediate action to adopt
this resolution so that the Letter of Credit substitution may be
consummated.
• Respec ully submitted,
James . Prosser
City Manager
JDP:sb
. RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION RELATING TO $900,000 COMMERCIAL
DEVELOPMENT REVENUE BONDS (CORPORATE TRAVEL BUILDING PROJECT);
APPROVING AND AUTHORIZING THE EXECUTION OF A
FIRST SUPPLEMENTAL INDENTURE OF TRUST
BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Richfield,
Minnesota (the City), as follows:
Section 1. Recitals.
1.01. Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 474, as
amended, and an Indenture of Trust, dated as of December 1, 1982
(the Indenture), between the City and First Trust Company, Inc.,
of St. Paul, Minnesota (the Trustee), the City issued its
Commercial Development Revenue Bonds (Corporate Travel Building
Project), Series B, in the aggregate principal amount of $900,000
(the Bonds), to finance the costs of a Project, consisting of the
construction and furnishing of a 61,660 square foot commercial
office facility on certain land within the City. The proceeds of
the Bonds were loaned by the City to Dacotah Properties
Partnership, a Minnesota general partnership (the Partnership),
pursuant to a Loan Agreement, dated as of December 1, 1982,
between the City and the Partnership.
1.02. Representatives of the Partnership have requested
• that the City agree to an amendment of the provisions of the
Indenture to substitute for the irrevocable letter of credit
issued by The First National Bank of St. Paul, an irrevocable
letter of credit issued by Marquette Bank Minneapolis, N.A., in
the same amount and with the same terms. Article Ten of the
Indenture permits amendment of the Indenture upon certain terms
and conditions. The City has requested the Trustee to enter into
a supplemental indenture for this purpose and the Trustee has
given notice of such amendment to the owners of all outstanding
Bonds. The Trustee, a majority in aggregate principal amount of
the owners of all outstanding Bonds and the Partnership have
informed this Council that they consent to the proposed amendment
of the Indenture.
1.03. A form of First Supplemental Indenture of Trust,
dated as of May 1, 1986, proposed to be entered into between the
City and the Trustee (the First Supplemental Indenture), has been
submitted to this Council and is now on file in the office of the
City Clerk.
Section 2. Approval of First Supplemental Indenture.
The form of First Supplemental Indenture referred to in
Section 1.03 is hereby approved. The First Supplemental
Indenture, with such variations, insertions and additions as the
• Mayor and the City Attorney may hereafter deem appropriate, is
directed to be executed in the name and on behalf of the City by
the Mayor and the City Manager or, in the event of their absence
• or disability, the acting Mayor or acting City Manager,
respectively. Execution of the First Supplemental Indenture by
appropriate officers of the City shall be conclusive evidence of
approval thereof in accordance with the terms of this resolution.
This resolution shall become effective immediately upon its
passage and without publication.
Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield,
Minnesota this 27th day of October, 1986.
ATTEST:
Thomas P. Ferber City Clerk
n
LJ
John Hamilton Mayor
E
FIRST SUPPLEMENTAL INDENTURE OF TRUST
between
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
and
FIRST TRUST COMPANY, INC.
•
Dated as of October 1, 1986
$900,000 COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT REVENUE BONDS
(CORPORATE TRAVEL BUILDING PROJECT)
SERIES B
•
TABLE OF CONTENTS
(Not a part of this First Supplemental Indenture)
Page
PARTIES
. .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . .
1
RECITALS
.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . .
1
SECTION
1.
Definitions . . . . . .
. . ... • •
2
SECTION
2.
Representations of Municipality
. . . . . .
2
SECTION
3.
Amendment of Section 1 -1 of
the Original
Indenture . . . . . . . . .
. . . . .
2
SECTION
4.
Amendment of Section 2 -10 of
the Original
Indenture. . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . .
3
SECTION
5.
Severability . . . . .
. . . . . . . .
3
SECTION
6.
Counterparts . . . .
. . . • • • • •
3
SECTION
7.
Effect of First Supplemental
Indenture
3
SECTION
8.
Limitation of Municipality's
Liability
4
SIGNATURES
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . .
4
•
r1
U
• FIRST SUPPLEMENTAL INDENTURE OF TRUST
THIS FIRST SUPPLEMENTAL INDENTURE OF TRUST (the "First
Supplemental Indenture "), dated as of October 1, 1986, by and
between the City of Richfield, Minnesota, a municipal
corporation of the State of Minnesota (the "Municipality "), and
First Trust Company, Inc., a trust company duly established,
existing and authorized to accept and execute trusts of the
character herein set out by virtue of the laws of the State of
Minnesota, with its principal corporate trust office at St.
Paul, Minnesota (the "Trustee ");
WITNESSETH
WHEREAS, pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 474,
as amended (as the same may from time to time be amended or
supplemented, the "Act "), the Municipality has heretofore
issued its Commercial Development Revenue Bonds (Corporate
Travel Building Project), Series B (the "Bonds "), in the
aggregate principal amount of $900,000, pursuant to an
Indenture of Trust, dated as of December 1, 1982 (hereinafter
referred to as the "Original Indenture "), between the
Municipality and the Trustee; and
• WHEREAS, the Municipality has made the necessary
arrangements with Dacotah Properties Partnership, a Minnesota
partnership (the "Partnership "), for the construction and
installation by the Partnership of a 61,660 square foot
commercial office facility (as defined in the Original
Indenture, the "Project "), which will be of the character and
accomplish the purposes provided by the Act, and the
Municipality has entered into a Loan Agreement, dated as of
December 1, 1982 with the Partnership (the "Loan Agreement "),
which provides for the Municipality to finance a portion of the
costs of the Project by making a loan to the Partnership to be
funded from the proceeds of the Bonds; and
WHEREAS, Article Ten of the Original Indenture permits
amendment of the provisions of the Original Indenture upon
certain terms and conditions; and
WHEREAS, it is deemed necessary by the parties hereto
to amend the provisions of the Original Indenture by changing
the definition of the Bank and the Letter of Credit (as defined
therein); and
WHEREAS, the Partnership and the Owners of a majority
in aggregate principal amount of all Outstanding Bonds have
consented to this amendment of the Original Indenture.
•
• NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the premises and
the mutual convenants hereinafter contained, the parties hereto
DO HEREBY AGREE as follows:
Section 1. Definitions. In this First Supplemental
Indenture, the terms defined in the Original Indenture shall
have the same meaning when used herein, unless the context
hereof clearly requires otherwise or except as modified in
Section 3 hereof. In addition, the following terms shall have
the following respective meanings for purposes of this
instrument and the Original Indenture:
First Supplemental Indenture shall mean this First
Supplemental Indenture of Trust.
Original Indenture shall mean the Indenture of Trust,
dated as of December 1, 1982, between the Municipality and the
Trustee, relating to the Bonds.
Section 2. Representations of Municipality_. The
Municipality makes the following representations:
(1) The execution and delivery of this First
Supplemental Indenture by the Municipality have been duly
authorized by the governing body of the Municipality and will
not conflict with, or constitute on the part of the
Municipality a breach of, or a default under, any existing (i)
law, or (ii) provisions of any legislative act, constitution or
other proceeding establishing or relating to the establishment
of the Municipality or its affairs or its resolutions, or (iii)
agreement, indenture, mortgage, lease or other instrument to
which the Municipality is subject or is a party or by which it
is bound.
(2) As of the date hereof and to the best knowledge
of the officers of the Municipality executing this instrument,
the Municipality is not in default in any of its obligations
under the Original Indenture.
Section 3. Amendment of Section 1 -1 of the Original
Indenture. The following definitions in Section 1 -1 of the
Original Indenture are hereby amended to read as follows:
"Bank: Marquette Bank Minneapolis, N.A., a national
banking association and its successors and assigns, in its
capacity as issuer of the Letter,of Credit and, if an Alternate
Credit has been issued and delivered "Bank" shall mean the
issuer of such Alternate Credit, its successors and assigns;
"Indenture: the Original Indenture, as amended and
• supplemented by this First Supplemental Indenture;
-2-
"Letter of Credit: the irrevocable Letter of Credit
No. I dated as of October , 1986, issued by the Bank for
the account of the Partnership in favor of the Trustee in the
amount of $985,000 to pay principal and up to eleven months'
interest on the Bonds;
"Letter of Credit Agreement: the Standby Letter of
Credit Reimbursement and Collateral Agreement, dated as of
October , 1986, between the Bank and the Partnership."
Section 4. Amendment of Section 2 -10 of the Original
Indenture. The first sentence of Section 2 -10 is hereby
amended to read as follows:
The Bonds are subject to mandatory redemption in
whole, but not in part, in the event that a default
has occurred pursuant to Section 7 of the Letter of
Credit Agreement and (i) Bank requests in writing to
the Trustee that the Bonds be redeemed and (ii) Bank
deposits funds with the Trustee in an amount, with
other Protected Funds, equal to the principal amount
of all Bonds then Outstanding plus accrued interest to
the date of redemption."
Section 5. Severability. If any provision of this
• First Supplemental Indenture shall be held or deemed to be or
shall, in fact, be inoperative or unenforceable as applied in
any particular case in any jurisdiction or jurisdictions or in
all jurisdictions or in all cases because it conflicts with any
provisions of any constitution or statute or rule of public
policy, or for any other reason, such circumstances shall not
have the effect of rendering the provision in question
inoperative or unenforceable in any other case or circumstance,
or of rendering any other provision or provisions herein
contained invalid, inoperative, or unenforceable to any extent
whatever.
0
The invalidity of any one or more phrases, sentences,
clauses or paragraphs in this First Supplemental Indenture
contained shall not affect the remaining portions of this First
Supplemental Indenture or part thereof.
Section 6. Counterparts. This First Supplemental
Indenture may be simultaneously executed in several
counterparts, each of which shall be an original and all of
which shall constitute but one and the same instrument.
Section 7. Effect of First Supplemental Indenture.
This First Supplemental Indenture supplements and amends the
Original Indenture and shall be a part and subject to all of
-3-
•
the terms thereof. Except as supplemented and amended hereby,
the Original Indenture shall continue in full force and effect.
Section 8. Limitation of Municipality's Liability.
No provision, covenant or agreement contained in this First
Supplemental Indenture, the Loan Agreement or the Bonds, or any
obligation herein or therein imposed upon the Municipality, or
the breach thereof, shall constitute or give rise to or impose
upon the Municipality or any of its officers, employees or
agents a pecuniary liability or a charge upon the general
credit or taxing powers of the Municipality. In making the
agreements, provisions and covenants set forth in this First
Supplemental Indenture, the Municipality has not obligated
itself except with respect to the Project and the application
of the revenues therefrom as hereinabove and in the Original
Indenture provided.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the City of Richfield, Minnesota
has caused these presents to be signed in its name and behalf
by its Mayor and City Manager, and First Trust Company, Inc.,
of St. Paul, Minnesota has caused these presents to be signed
in its name and behalf by its duly authorized
attested by its and its
J. official seal to be hereunto affixed, all as of the date first
above written.
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
By
Mayor
(SEAL)
And
City Manager
FIRST TRUST COMPANY, INC.
BY
Its
(SEAL)
Attest:
Its _
-4-
ItsCITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Council Letter No. 412
October 27, 1986
Issue Statement:
Adoption of a Resolution Authorizing the City of Richfield to
Enter Into a Contract with Hennepin County for Computerized
Assessing Information Services.
Background:
On June 8,•1978, the City of Richfield and Hennepin County
commenced an agreement which provided for City use of a computer
terminal linked to current property files at the Hennepin County
Assessor's Office. Under this agreement, the City had access to
property tax related information, including current taxes, legal
descriptions, current and pending special assessments, current
payments and the previous year's Market Value for each property
in the City. The hardware installed at City Hall to provide this
information was a computer keyboard with a printer. The current
charge for this equipment and information is $315.00 per month
(with a maximum of 2,500 base inquiries) and $.10 per inquiry
over base. The City, however, has never exceeded the base.
The equipment and service provided through this contract is still
being used by the City and has been an extremely valuable part of
the City's overall assessing operation. This tool has especially
been critical the past few years while the City has functioned
with only one City Assessing employee (Assessment Clerk). The
Assessment Clerk makes daily use of the Hennepin County linked
computer to answer a variety of questions posed by citizens and
customers or to collect and disseminate assessing - related data.
However, while this has been an extremely valuable program, the
equipment is rapidly becoming outdated. For example, the current
terminal does not provide a visual screen for projecting
information. Instead, all inquiries must be printed out.
Further, the County is now in the process of replacing all
outdated equipment countywide with a series of IBM Property
Information System (PINS) Personal Computers.
The new PINS equipment features a personal computer with memory
and a printer. Additionally, all of the information available
under the current system would be retained, with the addition of
prior year's taxes, current year's Market Value, appraisals, and
any other information subsequently added to the system. The most
valuable new feature is the use of a screen. This would allow a
much quicker retrieval of information than the current printer
method. It would also allow two people to get information at the
same time, one via the screen and the other through the printer.
The cost of the new data terminal equipment and service is
$297.54 per month, plus $.0316 per inquiry. Richfield uses
• approximately 1,200 inquiries per month, thus the total monthly
cost would be roughly $336.00. That cost is only $20.00 per
month greater than the cost the City currently pays for the
outdated system. In addition, a one -time cost of $606.00 will
also be required to hook up the new system. All costs of the new
system have already been anticipated and are provided for in the
1986 Revised /1987 Proposed Assessing Budget.
The proposed agreement for the updated computer terminal and
information services replaces Contract #80383, which has been in
effect for the current system since 1978. The proposed agreement
would expire December 31, 1986 and may be renewed annually
thereafter. Either party to that Agreement may cancel upon
giving 60 days written notice to the other party. Rates charged
under the proposed agreement may be changed by the County upon
three months written notice. The City Attorney has reviewed the
proposed agreement and can find no legal objection to the City's
entering into the agreement.
Recommendation:
It is recommended that the City Council adopt the attached
resolution authorizing the City of Richfield to enter into an
agreement with Hennepin County for Computerized Assessing
Information Services.
Basis for Recommendation:
• 1. Access to up -to -date County property tax data is essential to
providing a complete assessing service to Richfield
citizenry.
2. The Hennepin County Agreement is the only viable option
currently available to the City for securing property tax
information.
3. The City Attorney has found the proposed agreement in proper
legal form.
4. The price charged through the proposed agreement appears to
be a fair and reasonable charge for the hardware and
information furnished to the City.
Alternative Recommendation:
1. The City Council could decide not to upgrade to the new
County hardware and information package. However, if the
City does not agree to enter into this Agreement, the City's
contract would expire and City staff would no longer have
effective access to needed County property tax information.
2. The City could explore using its new computer system to try
• and integrate into the County property tax information.
However, the County would not be anxious to support a
hardware system which is not their own. In addition, with
the heavy computer conversion process now facing City staff,
there is no time to properly pursue such an option. Since
the contract can be cancelled with relative ease, such an
option could be explored at a future date to see if it
merited serious consideration.
Discussion /Decision Mode:
Hennepin County is anxious to complete the proposed agreements
with participating municipalities as soon as possible so that
they may proceed with their conversion to the new system.
Richfield would also benefit from prompt action in this matter.
The proposed agreement would give Richfield staff a considerably
more powerful tool to service the public.
JDP :sb
•
•
Resp fully submitted,
Jam s D. Prosser
Cit anager
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE CITY OF RICHFIELD
TO ENTER INTO AN AGREEMENT WITH HENNEPIN COUNTY FOR A
DATA TERMINAL AND COMPUTERIZED ASSESSING DATA SERVICES
WHEREAS, the City of Richfield has had an Agreement with
Hennepin County since June, 1978, wherein said County agrees to
furnish to the City certain real estate and personal property tax
information by means of the County's computer system; and
WHEREAS, Hennepin County believes that the existing computer
equipment providing said real estate and personal property tax
information is outdated and should be replaced with an improved
IBM Property Information System (PINS) Computer network
countywide; and
WHEREAS, the current data services and computer equipment
provided to the City by Hennepin County will no longer be
available; and
WHEREAS, the City of Richfield believes it is essential to
continue to provide readily accessible assessing data to
Richfield citizenry and assessing customers.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Mayor and City
Manager are hereby authorized to enter into an agreement with
Hennepin County on behalf of the City of Richfield for an IBM
PINS computer terminal and associated assessing data services as
listed in Contract #60520.
Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield,
Minnesota this 27th day of October, 1986.
ATTEST:
Thomas P. Ferber City Clerk
John Hamilton Mayor
•
•
0
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Council Letter No. 411
October 27, 1986
Issue Statement:
Consideration of Ordinance Amendment Related to the Sale of
Automobiles. Second Reading.
Background:
Richfield's ordinance code presently prohibits the sale of
automobiles on Sundays and legal holidays. The code is based
an old provision in the state statutes. Several years ago the
state statute was amended to prohibit motor vehicle sales only
Sunday, and to allow sales on legal holidays. An ordinance
amendment has been prepared that would allow the sale of
automobiles on legal holidays in the City of Richfield.
on
on
The city council gave first reading consideration to this matter
at the October 13, 1986 city council meeting and scheduled the
public and second reading for October 27, 1986.
Recommendation:
It is recommended that the city
and pass the attached ordinance
sale of automobiles in the city
council hold the public hearing
amendment which would permit the
on legal holidays.
Basis for Recommendation:
1. Amending the ordinance will bring it into conformance with
state law.
2. Surrounding communities have followed state law and permit
automobile sales on legal holidays.
3. Richfield motor vehicle dealers are presently at a
competitive disadvantage if the ordinance code prohibiting
sales on legal holidays is enforced.
Alternative Recommendation:
1. Not adopt the ordinance amendment. However, this would put
Richfield motor vehicle dealers at a competitive disadvantage
with dealers in surrounding communities.
2. If the ordinance is not adopted, enforcement of the ordinance
may result in litigation, since the present ordinance does
not conform to state law.
• Discussion /Decision Mode:
%- I
A public hearing has been published for October 27, 1986. If the
council approves the ordinance amendment, the ordinance will
become effective 30 days after publication.
JDP /eja
0
•
Respectfully submitted,
--Cp
ZZT
Jam�97 D. Prosser
Ci V Manager
AMENDMENT TO CHAPTER VI,
SECTION 6.07 OF THE ORDINANCE CODE
OF THE CITY OF RICHFIELD
CITY OF RICHFIELD DOES ORDAIN:
Chapter VI, Section 6.07 of the Ordinance Code of the
City of Richfield relating to Motor Vehicle Dealer
licensing and regulation is hereby amended by
amending 6.07, Subdivision 7, Paragraph (1), thereof
as follows:
Subd. 7. Conditions Governing Issuance. The following
conditions are imposed upon all licensees:
(1) Business Hours. The premises shall be closed
and there shall be no transactions relating to
motor vehicles on or adjacent to such premises on
any Sunday, legal holiday or on any other day
between 9:00 p.m. and 8:00 a.m.
•
ATTEST:
Thomas P. Ferber
is
John Hamilton, Mayor
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Council Letter No. 410
Agenda October 27, 1986
Issue Statement:
Request that the Public Hearing for An Amendment to the Final
Development Plan and a Special Height Permit for Signs for the
Hampton Inn Development at 78th Street and Lyndale Avenue be
Continued to November 10, 1986
Background:
The developer of the proposed Hampton Inn at 78th Street and
Lyndale Avenue has submitted designs for proposed signs at this
site. One of the signs exceeds the maximum height of 27 feet
permitted by the city sign ordinance. Therefore, the developer
requested an amendment to the final development plan to include
the signs.
On Friday, October 24, the developer requested that this item be
removed from the October 27, 1986 city council agenda and
considered at a later date.
The hearing could not be removed from the city council meeting
agenda, because a legal notice of a public hearing on October 27,
1986 to amend the final development plan for the Hampton Inn was
published in the official newspaper.
Recommendation:
It is recommended that the city council open the public hearing
and continue it to the November 10, 1986 city council meeting.
Basis for Recommendation:
1. A legal notice has been published, therefore the public
hearing must be acknowledged at the October 27, 1986 city
council meeting.
2. The developer has requested that the hearing be continued.
Alternative Recommendation:
1. Hold the public hearing. However, the developer is not
prepared to attend the council meeting, and a staff report
and recommendation has not been provided to the city council.
Discussion /Decision Mode:
Since a legal notice of a public hearing on October 27, 1986 was
published in the official city newspaper, this hearing has been
scheduled for the October 27, 1986 city council meeting.
Res p c f lly submitted,
Ja
m D� Prosser
Cit Manager
JDP /eja
I - r E4
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Council Letter No. 409
October 21, 1986
• Issue Statement:
Approve the Watershed Management Plan for Richfield - Bloomington
Watershed Management Organization and Recommend Submittal of Plan
to Affected Jurisdictions and Agencies.
Background:
In 1982, the Minnesota State Legislature passed the Metropolitan
Surface Water Management Act. The Act directed the establishment
of Watershed Districts to manage storm water control. Rather
than join an existing watershed district, Richfield and
Bloomington decided it would be more beneficial to form their own
Water Management Organization (WMO). Each city would maintain
control over the WMO with council members as WMO members. The
boundaries of the WMO were approved by the Water Resources Board,
and staff was directed to prepare a plan consistent with the
requirements of state legislation. The plan is now complete and
ready for review. The attached plan is being submitted to
Richfield for review as a member city. A brief overview is
attached.
Recommendation:
Approve the Watershed Management Plan for Richfield - Bloomington
Watershed Management Organization and Recommend Submittal of Plan
to Affected Jurisdictions and Agencies
Basis for Recommendation:
1. The plan provides a good analysis of the drainage to the
area.
2. The Metropolitan Storm Water Management Act requires
review and comment by cities within a WMO.
Alternative Recommendation:
If more information is needed regarding any element of the
Richfield - Bloomington Watershed Management Plan, the city council
may direct staff to investigate and review the matter again at
the November 24, 1986 city council meeting.
Discussion /Decision Mode:
By law, Richfield has 60 days for review and comment. The plan
was submitted for review on October 6, 1986.
Respectf lly submitted,
Jam D. Prosser
Cit Manager
• JDP /eja
� w
Introduction -
APPENDIX A
• The WMO was formed to satisfy the Metropolitan Storm Water
Management Act. Members of the city councils of Richfield and
Bloomington make up the Board of Commissioners, and staff from
both cities are also assigned to the WMO. Many maps are included
in the report to help describe pertinent information.
Physical Environment and Land Use -
A description of the drainage patterns is given and the ponds
listed. The computer program used by each city to model the
flow are described. The modeling of the Richfield drainage
system was done by Orr - Schelen - Mayeron and Associates, Inc. in
1984. A map of the groundwater contours is also included.
Objectives and Policies -
The following objectives and policies are enumerated in the plan.
1. Objective - reduce public expenditures necessary to control
runoffs
Policy - develop storage sites in accordance with the
management plan
2. Objective - prevent or reduce flooding due to severe storms.
Policies: (a)- improve storage sites and construct additional
storm sewers in accordance.with the management plan (b)
• restrict new development below the 100 -year flood elevation
in those locations where one is established (c) encourage
floodproofing of structures existing below the 100 -year
flood elevations.
3. Objective - reduce eroded sediment from leaving construction
sites.
Policy - require installation of construction erosion
control measures, and the inspection and maintenance of them.
4. Objective - promote ground water recharge
Policy - maintain or improve existing ponds.
The Management Plan -
Wilson Pond is listed as a flooding problem. The work done this
year connecting Christian Park pond to Legion Lake allows 100 -
year flood protection of Wilson Pond. The board may wish to
remove the Christian Pond Watershed from the district now that
this area drains to the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District.
Miscellaneous -
A local plan for all of Richfield must be prepared for the entire
city. The local plan may include an erosion control ordinance.
No projects using the WMO's funding is contemplated.
Any future major projects which may require funding through the
• WMO authority to levy property taxes in both cities will require
a 2/3 vote. This means at least one Richfield Council Member
must be in favor of this project.
n
u
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Council Letter No. 408
October 27, 1986
Item Under Consideration: Emergency Repair of Fire Vehicle.
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.
Just over a week ago, the diesel motor on a 1979 fire truck,
unit no. 3782, "froze ". When examined by the city's mechanics,
it became apparent that the emergency repair of the vehicle would
need to be done by an outside vendor. Quotations were received
from Interstate Detroit Diesel Allison, Inc. and from Fleet
Maintenance Inc. Due to the critical nature of the vehicle, the
repairs were ordered immediately.
Recommendation:
It is recommended the city council authorize payment to Fleet
Maintenance Inc. in the estimated amount of $6,519 for the
emergency repair of fire truck unit number 3782.
Basis of Recommendation:
1. The quotation of Fleet Maintenance Inc. was the lowest
estimate received.
2. The fire truck needed to be put back into service as soon as
possible.
Alternative Recommendation:
Due to the emergency situation, no alternative recommendation
is /was available.
Discussion /Decision Mode:
Inasmuch as the work has been ordered and is in process,
authorization for payment should be made as soon as possible.
Respect ully submitted,
(W
Jam D. Prosser
Cit Manager
• JDP /eja
n
LJ
�. AV
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Council Letter No. 407
October 27, 1986
Issue Statement:
Approval of Minutes and Award of Contract for Purchase of Closed
Circuit Television System (CCTV)
Background:
The 1986 Public Safety Department budget (Administration Division
101 -4100, Capital Outlay 1560) provides $20,000 for the
replacement of the existing closed circuit television
surveillance and alarm system. The system presently covers all
Public Safety areas utilized in the detention of prisoners, the
rear parking lot area, entry points to the Public Safety area,
and surveillance alarm systems in both licensing and at the city
hall reception desk. Component parts of the system are over 10
years old and with rapid changes in electronic technology are
simply outdated. Many component parts of the system are not
solid state and have exhausted their useful life.
In accordance with legal requirements, bids were opened on
October 6, 1986. Two bids were received:
• Videotronix, Inc., Burnsville, MN $17,376
ADT Security Systems, Minneapolis, MN $21,578
Recommendation:
It is recommended that the city council approve the bid minutes
and award a contract in the amount of $17,376 to Videotronix,
Inc. of Burnsville.
Basis of Recommendation:
1. The low bid complied in all respects to the specifications
established for the system.
2. Existing system is in need of replacement.
3. The replacement program has been established in the 1986
appropriated Public Safety budget.
4. Surveillance and video recording of prisoner area is a
major concern for Officer protection and for potential
defense and liability claims.
5. Surveillance of Public Safety parking area is important
for vehicle security.
• 6. Video alarm monitoring of the city hall and licensing area
is a significant protection against property loss.
• Alternative Recommendation:
The council could simply choose to not award the bid. However,
this would mean that the factors outlined as the basis of
recommendation would not be addressed.
Decision Mode:
Parts of the existing system are currently not operational and in
some cases replacement parts are no longer available. Therefore,
it is the staff recommendation that the bid be awarded by council
action on October 27, 1986.
JDP /eja
n
U
0
RespeAtfully submitted,
IJa D. P rosser
anager
•
I]
CITY OF RICHFIELD
BID OPENING
October 6, 1986
Department of Public Safety
CCTV Bid Project #86 -11
Pursuant to requirements of Resolution No. 1015, a meeting of the Administrative Staff
was called by Thomas Ferber, City Clerk, who announced that the purpose of the meeting
was to receive, open and read aloud, bids for Department of Public Safety - CCTV Bid
Project #86 -11, as advertised in the official newspaper on September 24, 1986.
Present: Thomas Ferber, City Clerk
Eileen Anderson, City Manager Representative
Thomas Morgan, Public Safety Director
Reynold Freeman, Communications Supervisor
The following bids were submitted and read aloud:
The City Clerk announced that the bids would be tabulated and considered at the
October 13, 1986 City Council Meeting.
Thomas P. Ferber City Clerk
STATEMENT OF
BID BOND,
BIDDER
AFFIDAVIT OF
INTENT TO
CERTIFIED CHECK,
TOTAL BID
NON- COLLUSION
COMPLY EEO
CASHIER'S CHECK?
PRICE $$
ADT SECURITY
SYSTEMS
X
X
5%
21,578
Mpls
VIDEO MIDWEST
X
X
Cashier's
Burnsville
Check
17,376
The City Clerk announced that the bids would be tabulated and considered at the
October 13, 1986 City Council Meeting.
Thomas P. Ferber City Clerk
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Council Letter No. 406
October 27, 1986
•
Issue Statement:
Request for Illuminated Signs at Skippers, 6613 Penn Avenue; St.
Patrick's Guild, Market Plaza Complex; Richfield Bank & Trust,
6625 Lyndale Avenue; Richfield Evangelical Free Church, 1515 E.
66th Street; and B & D Bait and Tackle, 1308 E. 66th Street
Background:
City ordinance provides that the city council must approve all
permits for illuminated signs.
Skippers- Permits have been applied for to erect two illuminated
wall signs. The signs will be blue and white, with one measuring
8' x 216" and the other will be 14' 6" x 4' 511.
St. Patrick's Guild- Permits have been requested to erect an
illuminated blue and white wall sign. The sign will have a size
of 1' 6" x 181.
Richfield Bank & Trust want to install a 26' x 2110" illuminated
wall sign for the 24 hour "Quantum" fast bank.
The Evangelical Free Church wishes to install a double faced
ground sign with constant illumination. The sign would measure
4' x 6'.
B & D Bait and Tackle wish to erect a 6' x 4' doublefaced,
pedestal sign with constant illumination.
Recommendation:
It is recommended that the city council approve the permits for
these illuminated signs.
Basis for Recommendation:
1. The inspection division and the planning division have
approved the signs.
2. The signs conform to all applicable city ordinances.
Alternative Recommendation:
1. Not approve the permits. However, the city has no
alternative design criteria to suggest for substitutes
for these signs.
Discussion /Decision Mode:
This item has been placed on the consent calendar portion of the
October 27 council agenda for consideration. The businesses are
requesting action to complete their sign placement of these new
business establishments.
Respectf lly submitted,
•
Jame D. Prosser
City Manager
cv �.
Customer ET. PAT I? I C.�'—�5 Gq U i lL>
Address
City
Scale
Drawn By
Salesperson
Date i
Revisions
Customer Approval Date
State
J .L
This drawing is the property of
NI SIG4N 1:111 \1;
312 West Lake Street
Minneapolis, MN 8
6 �23.729�1
cz
F
Customer STr RA-M— IC V—'115 cov I L >
AMm!ss
City ��oN
tom,
0
s
r
c
.
Scale Revisions
Drawn By
CAntorm Approval Date
Wte
40
This drawing is the property of
SIGN 1:111 N1;
312 West Lak&reet
Minneapolis. M 55408
61Z-823-7291
`.�v�e��`
Cs�a Date
?lar.Zin3 Depart annc City Council
Dace t F; i.
Dace
Rcu_e to above for special appr -val per code Ga ^eral Signs
: P�ICATIOV FO P °Z`� .5�. 'Agne IC r.
Cit•,T of Richfield, , w.innesoca
Date ; ld Zoning Sign Erected - Yes No Fee j,�•� � .
T 7.12 /f,le�
Address of Sign 75° /J�� r !, /, r Proprietor Name,; _7� �. r !r; DBA
Sign Erector _ %= .,�,�i�,,; �7 'Sir it! Address 2 (,L)r' 1-
T,roe of Sign Design Weather Cover Li,htin$
Wall Single Face Clear Lexcn, Constant
?r0jaC n8 Double Face Frosted Leson Flashing
IGround I Multi -:aced .Plastic Covered Revolving
Roof I Aerial /Bli=p Shaded Traveling
?edestal Saar_..Iigat Neon Zip Liza
Changeable 13a =er / ?_nnants I Other �I 0thar(E:CIa=
Temporar;- Ci ?� , a �r ^�
.r_a e: Sign Colors
I ! Trai' =r I I_ i j Post F7
_f 1_l umi.natad `✓ NO Watts
.?ect =ical Cont =act--r 7 �j Address mp ?!:one
Owner or his�ltzen: Si - at:.=e ?':one
��t_r.aaC CvSt �fJ(� :JCi ±r. :Viit �.,Vr 1, - . ;,t ita� Square °eC 7
..�. 7.
.�C�.S, = oadNaTS, CVer:° ve....4ala = c•Temen 1 �? 1 __.._2
t S, Cr pLDl�C _sC_ S On
.�:.e.ns5 z =s and attac he'". :er2co of =a'Cr SiZ=S . :'�. =:C= Sid ^_S as
de-'4 :ed on page 2.
:vo blsepri:.ts of t o s.;.., ��__oeard, or outdoor ad -mrtis g, s;.= -ccvura cocst- .:c__on plans:
.C_._d - -;-g Szeciz_Cat_CIIs, _:st of =atartal s, and e_ ^iici.. a=c.-.or-_4=g or :ascani g daca4_3
and a ccpy of C e St_3SS s:•.eecs, ca_CL'3tiOAS, C3-1--r of S •:ra.
c ^" _a�a -2 30_a-_ 7 C.^, t :a AL'S-: 255, sc-: zu=_Cm, Cr ac --:T�_
St_.C_..ze , Cr r2St = iCC S:�ht d�SC:C_ u--der, a�Ct:d, Or Over I
Samoa aCCeSS by per50C5 dent_-; =ad .or or passi_3 the Subjec_ .r2:ises?
%� �✓ F �3,�� b )', zH�2
Appiicanc's Signature and Title car -•,.,, Fig
?hcae ;tu=ber J7 ;Z-27 Data
- 7.Z 9 / ,
198 P *.. . Sc R.Vi_iSZ SIDE FOR SIGN LOCAITOY S�'C3
1985 ,
Sivert Llendrickson /Building Of:icial - 366 -5061
� uana•ge: t—.� Inspzctor.
Date Date
APPROVE DENY �L l` )C ' APPROVE 1:1
DENY ❑
Planning De artment City Council
Date fcli� -/Rh Date
Route to above for special approval per code �! General Signs
APPLICATION FOR-ADVERTISING PERMIT
City of Richfield,, Minnesota
Date Zoning Sign Erected - Yes No k Fee 2,
AW
Address of Sign �pb�3r%i) Apt.5. Proprietor Name c, DBA Ste.
Sign Erector C ^ C-01 I y1( Address -
Tyne of Sign D n Weather Cover Lighting
If Illuminated Yes No Watts
Electrical Contractor (' `n I ff Ad ess �1z �. ��(�� �L Phone - r
Property Owner or his Agent Signature �, Phone
Esti.:ated Cost �,L?�fl Sign Width r ight '' _Total Square Feet
?osition of the" advertisement structure in relationship to the ad4acent buildings, sidewalk-
curbs, roadways, overhead utility lines, vehicle movement lines, or public facilities on
drawing with significant dimensions and attached hereto of major signs. Minor signs as
defined on page 2.
Two blueprints of the sign, billboard, or outdoor advertising structure construction plans:
including specifications, list of materials, and explicit anchoring or fastening details
and a copy of the stress sheets, calculations, color of sign structure.
Does the sign copy relate solely to the business, institution, or activity conducted on
the oremises? u2S
"Tl the sign, structure, or billboard restrict any sight distance under, around, or over
to afe s by erso s estined for or passing the subject premises? '1 0
c ht's ig to a and Title with Firm
GG Date
Phone :lumber
SLkt
1985 PLFUSE SUE REVERSE SIDE FOR SIGN LOCATION SUTCH
Sivert Hendrickson /Building Official - 866 -5061
Wall
Projecting
Ground
Roof
Pedestal
Changeable
Temporary
Trailer
X
Single Face
Double Face
Multi -Faced
aerial /Blimp
Searchlight
Banner /Pennants
Portable Frame:
i T❑ A M Post ❑
Clear Lexon Constant
Frosted Lea-con Flashing
Plastic Covered Revolving
Shaded Traveling
Neon Zip Lite
Other Other(Expla
Sign Colors ve c
1
If Illuminated Yes No Watts
Electrical Contractor (' `n I ff Ad ess �1z �. ��(�� �L Phone - r
Property Owner or his Agent Signature �, Phone
Esti.:ated Cost �,L?�fl Sign Width r ight '' _Total Square Feet
?osition of the" advertisement structure in relationship to the ad4acent buildings, sidewalk-
curbs, roadways, overhead utility lines, vehicle movement lines, or public facilities on
drawing with significant dimensions and attached hereto of major signs. Minor signs as
defined on page 2.
Two blueprints of the sign, billboard, or outdoor advertising structure construction plans:
including specifications, list of materials, and explicit anchoring or fastening details
and a copy of the stress sheets, calculations, color of sign structure.
Does the sign copy relate solely to the business, institution, or activity conducted on
the oremises? u2S
"Tl the sign, structure, or billboard restrict any sight distance under, around, or over
to afe s by erso s estined for or passing the subject premises? '1 0
c ht's ig to a and Title with Firm
GG Date
Phone :lumber
SLkt
1985 PLFUSE SUE REVERSE SIDE FOR SIGN LOCATION SUTCH
Sivert Hendrickson /Building Official - 866 -5061
CiL-7 Manager
Date
APPROVE a DENY❑
Planning, De artment
i Date
ll��ll Inspec..o�
Date
APPROVE DENYF] :
City Council
Date
r►
Routh to above for special approval per code General Signs
APPLICATION FOR'ADVERTISING PERMIT
City of Richfield,, Minnesota
h✓
Date �)�� ���,(� Zoning Sign Erected - Yes No X Fee
Address of Sign 3 &An ANe. S , Proprietor Name DBA
Sign Erector , Address
Tv--e of Sign D s, 9 Weather Cover Lighting
X
Wall
Projecting
Ground
Roof
Changeable
Temporary
Trailer
%o
Single Face
Double Face
'Multi -Faced
Aerial /Blimp
.,Searchlight
Banner /Pennants
Portable Frame:
T n (7 Post
Clear Lexon Constant
Frosted Lexon Flashing
Plastic Covered Revolving
Shaded Traveling
Neon Zip Lite
Other r I Other(Explain)
Sig Colors UE c ,� i'j�
IPedestal
�f Illuminated Yes No Watts
Electrical Contractor �e(, 1`� S! ' �Ad ess�?j? �,�. ��� _Phone � -726
'roperty Owner or his Agent Signature'! . t� �',.i, - Phone
Lst:.ated Cost Ito", Sig Width ght ! Total Square Feet
?osi =ion of the advertise=ent structure in relationship to the adjacent buildings, sidewalks,
curbs, roadways, overhead utiii--, lines, vehicle movement lines, or public facilities on
drawing with significant dimensions and attadhed hereto of major signs. Minor signs as
defined on page 2.
Two blueprints of the sign, billboard, or outdoor advertising structure construction plans:
including specifications, list of materials, and explicit anchoring or fastening details
and a copy of the stress sheets, calculations, color of sign structure.
,Does
t he
1
:ha sign copy relate solely to the bus4ness, institution, or activity conducted on
premises? e.
the sign, structure,
"safe cc f:4m, by ersot
or billboard restrict any sight distance under, around, or over
Pstined for or passing the subject premises? '1.0
i�
.apiicant's Sigmature and Title with Firm
l \� Date r
?hone Number Z -7�� ti
Lit
kt PL 3SE SE REVERSE SIDE FOR SIGN LOCATION SKZTCH
Sivert Hendricrson /Building Official - 866 -5061
r
A2 ? RO V D E: rc
P'_arniz3 De�arc�ent
D '
Data
��noOVE I I �E:�'ra
�--= City Council
• ac_ I O Z l �p Date
Rcut_ to above for spacial apo,cval per code 1z »eral Signs
:iP ?L7CATTON FOR' :iDVB3TLSUIG ?ER _':
Clty of Richfield, . wUnnesoca
Date 1011-710 Zoning Sign Erected - Yes Yo Fee .
Address of Sign ?-oorj a *or Yamepwlh" 7145 DBa
Sig^
T:T-,e
PLO d +s� i (o
- reefer � inc. Address 31a W. (.aka.
of S13S1 nPa4 r+
L> t
t,;all S
Single Face C
Clear Laxon X
X C
Constant
( +
}j P
o
Watts L
Elecc__ca1 Cont=act--r IA5T 7v�ky1 �Qt Ii�(. .dd=ass �IL �JI/- (0 -ly-S7 ?''one 02, -372q
C�:.er or his
Est_. tad Czst Z,OOG
_cs_ =icr. of _:e_d•:er__:cce::_
cures ,
--cad-ways,
::__ : s_;r_= __.r._ .._ne »s_, »s and
de_ined on page 2.
NU�1ti ? her e
_a r a_ac_.. »s :_7 ... _ :� adf acen:. mil:____ _S, S --da Ja_:.
ve^ic_a -c•7emenC lines, a public _aci__tias on
actac ad :eretc of Waz0= signs. 'Ai: cr s_� ^.S as
ocar or ouCdcor adrer =_s_ sc= :ct'cra tense= _c__ar. Pia s
.C.:d_.g SpeC___C3tioIIS _ er_a• e•^ _ _
, iS� C' =aC _s, 3: .Licit a�C:C= �� Or _sSt3 »i»g daC3i_S
a:.. a cczy cf C e sz=ass S..e_tS, cal__.- at_ons, ccl_.r C� S "- sZ7UCt..=e.
- =..
+r. t :e s:.g=, St= .:C:_ =3, 7___zcar_ =_s:r_..= a »•I Si3.^t d_S =a =ce -, -.der, a=zu'» d, or over
a' a6 Ss by .ersc ^s deSt_:ed for or ?aSSi:g - e suoJect ;rZ-'sas? hO
WJ
iap:ica :L s ignattlr� a^.c Title Jit a'i�
?h ^e 923" 7Lq/ Dat=
c.. vine=
Lkt
1985 SEE R_7V -ISE SIDE FOR S:G:i LCCAT:ON METC2
Save_ t Hendrickson /Build—:g Of-ficial 366 -3061
C
24 Hour. Lim
LBanking �%A � m wie t
® i 14mr Aff V i .
E
J DENY u :
City Manager
Date
ROVE DENY : r -
r_1 ' Ty
Planning De artment
Date
ute to above for'special approval per code
APPLICATION FOR'ADVERTISING PERMIT .
City of Richfield, , Minnesota
APPROVE
APPROVEF-1
Inspector
Date
DENYD
City Council
..Date
al S
Date 10-8-86 Zoning Sign Erected - Yes XX .
8 No Fee 18.0 0
Address of Sign 1308 E. 66th St. Proprietor Name Pat Bachman .DRAB & D Bait &
ac e
Sign Erector Attracta Sign, Inc. Address . 6417 Penn Ave. So. Richfield, MN
e of
Des
Wall
Projecting
Ground
Roof
Pedestal
Changeable
Temporary
X Constant
Single Face
Double Face
Multi -Faced
Aerial /Blimp
Searchlight
Banner /Pennants
Portable Frame:
XX
Plastic Covered
Revolving
Shaded
Traveling
Neon
Trailer L_J T [] A[] Post E]
If Illuminated - Yes X No Watts
ectrical Contractor
Property Owner
Estimated Cost
Weather Cover
Clear Lexon
X Constant
Frosted Lexon
Flashing
Plastic Covered
Revolving
Shaded
Traveling
Neon
Zip Lite
Other
Other(Explain)
Sign Colors
Black Yellow & Re
Address Phone
or his Agent Signature Phone
1500.00 Sign Width 61 Height 41 Total Square Feet 24
Position of the advertisement structure in relationship to the adjacent buildings, sidewalks,
curbs, roadways, overhead utility lines, vehicle movement lines, or public facilities on
drawing with significant dimensions and attached hereto of major signs. Minor signs as
defined on page 2.
Two blueprints of the sign, billboard, or outdoor advertising structure construction plans:
including specifications, list of materials, and explicit anchoring or fastening details
and a copy of the stress sheets, calculations, color of sign structure.
Does the sign copy relate solely to the business, institution, or activity conducted on
the premises? Yes
Will the sign, structure, or billboard restrict any
for safe access by persons destined for or passing
1
Applicant's Signature and Title with Firm
Phone Number 866 -3047
sight distance under, around, or over
the subject premises? No
Date October 8, 1986
145 PLEASE SEE REVERSE SIDE FOR SIGN LOCATION SKETCH
Sivert Hendrickson /Building Official - 866 -5061
j f
5�
•
M!S
sea•++
i
jI ..i :x >::•i
�`
f A r
L E
/Z,
• evL• U DENY" :
City Manager
Date
'APPROVE DENY❑
APPROVE DENYu
Inspector
Date �� %' /,r i
APPROVE ❑ DENY❑ :
Planning-peBar ment City Council
Z�,:t- �' a�u�v sie-� Date ry ?�` /fib .Date
Route to above for'special approval per code General Signs
Date 10 -9 -86
APPLICATION FOR'ADVERTISING PERMIT
City of Richfield, , Minnesota
Zoning Sign Erected -
Yes X No Fee
18.00
Address of Sign 1515 E. 66th St. Proprietor Name Bob Peterson DBA Evangelical
kree ullurcli er
Sign Erector Attracta Sign, Inc. Address 6417 Penn Ave. So. Richfield
Type of Sign Design Weather Cover Li htin
46Illuminated - Yes X No Watts
ectrical Contractor Address Phone
Property Owner or his Agent Signature
Estimated Cost 2,000.00 Sign Width 4' Height
Phone
6' Total Square Feet 24
Position of the advertisement structure in relationship to the adjacent buildings, sidewalks,
curbs, roadways, overhead utility lines, vehicle movement lines, or public facilities on
drawing with significant dimensions and attached hereto of major signs. Minor signs as
defined on page 2.
T,vo blueprints of the sign, billboard, or outdoor advertising structure construction plans:
including specifications, list of materials, and explicit anchoring or fastening details
and a copy of the stress sheets, calculations, color of sign structure.
Does the sign copy relate solely to the business, institution, or activity conducted on
the premises? Yes
Will the sign, structure, or billboard restrict any sight distance under, around, or over
for sa €e access by persons destined for or passing the subject premises? No
We remove Beacon Book Store sign
New sign will be located in same place.
Applicant's Signature and Title with Firm
Phone Number 866 -3047
fk t
1985
Date 10 -9 -86
PLEASE SEE REVERSE SIDE FOR SIGN LOCATION SKETCH
Sivert Hendrickson /Building Official - 866 -5061
Wall
Projecting
Ground
Roof
Pedestal
Changeable
Temporary
Trailer
Single Face
Double Face
Multi -Faced
Aerial /Blimp
Searchlight_
Banner /Pennants
Portable Frame:
T [] A M Post ❑
Clear Lexon X Constant
Frosted Lexon Flashing
Plastic Covered Revolving
Shaded Traveling
Neon Zip Lite
Other Other(Explain)
Sign Colors
Burgundy, Grey & White
46Illuminated - Yes X No Watts
ectrical Contractor Address Phone
Property Owner or his Agent Signature
Estimated Cost 2,000.00 Sign Width 4' Height
Phone
6' Total Square Feet 24
Position of the advertisement structure in relationship to the adjacent buildings, sidewalks,
curbs, roadways, overhead utility lines, vehicle movement lines, or public facilities on
drawing with significant dimensions and attached hereto of major signs. Minor signs as
defined on page 2.
T,vo blueprints of the sign, billboard, or outdoor advertising structure construction plans:
including specifications, list of materials, and explicit anchoring or fastening details
and a copy of the stress sheets, calculations, color of sign structure.
Does the sign copy relate solely to the business, institution, or activity conducted on
the premises? Yes
Will the sign, structure, or billboard restrict any sight distance under, around, or over
for sa €e access by persons destined for or passing the subject premises? No
We remove Beacon Book Store sign
New sign will be located in same place.
Applicant's Signature and Title with Firm
Phone Number 866 -3047
fk t
1985
Date 10 -9 -86
PLEASE SEE REVERSE SIDE FOR SIGN LOCATION SKETCH
Sivert Hendrickson /Building Official - 866 -5061
-3
22
I hii
CA
I
IN El Opel
-,or. NO M;
—T BE CON,,," MOM ff�M
.3 (o
I
CE:
,4
� 0
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Council Letter No. 405
October 27, 1986
Issue Statement:
Setting Date of Hearing for Renewal of On -Sale Liquor Licenses
Background:
The on -sale liquor licenses for restaurant establishments in our
community will be expiring the first of January, 1987. City
ordinance provides that the city council conduct a public hearing
to consider all liquor license renewals.
Recommendation:
It is recommended that the city council schedule December 8, 1986
as the date to hold public hearings on the renewal of the
following liquor licenses: Chi Chi's, Ground Round, American
Legion Post 435, and the VFW Post 5555.
Basis for Recommendation:
1. Hearings must be scheduled and held before a renewal license
may be considered.
2. The restaurants have applied for renewal of their licenses.
3. Scheduling the public hearings in December will provide for
ample time to complete the licensing process before
January 1, 1987.
Alternative Recommendation:
1. Schedule the hearings for another date.
Discussion /Decision Mode:
The public hearings must be scheduled far enough in advance to
provide for legal publication regulations. Council consideration
of this item at the October 27, 1986 city council meeting will
provide the time needed to complete the licensing process prior
to January 1, 1987.
• JDP /eja
Respectfully submitted,
Jame . Prosser
City anager
• CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Council Letter No. 404
October 27, 1986
Issue Statement:
Setting Date of Hearing for Renewal of Wine Licenses
Background:
The on -sale wine licenses.for restaurant establishments in our
community will be expiring the first of January, 1987. City
ordinance provides that the city council conduct a public hearing
on all wine license renewals.
Recommendation:
It is recommended that the city council schedule November 10,
1986 as the date to hold public hearings on the renewal of the
following wine licenses: The Inn, Millers Fireside Pizza,
Shakey's Pizza, Divanni's, and Frogi's Family Restaurant.
Basis for Recommendation:
• 1. Hearings must be scheduled and held before a renewal license
may be considered.
2. The restaurants have applied for renewal of their licenses.
3. Scheduling the public hearings in November will provide for
ample time to complete the licensing process before
January 1, 1987.
Alternative Recommendation:
1. Schedule the hearings for another date.
Discussion /Decision Mode:
The public hearings must be scheduled far enough in advance to
provide for legal publication regulations. Council consideration
of this item at the October 27, 1986 city council meeting will
provide the time needed to complete the licensing process prior
to January 1, 1987.
Respectfully submitted,
Jam D. Prosser
• Cit Manager
JDP /eja
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Council Letter No. 403
October 27, 1986
Issue Statement:
Request from Fourth of July Chairman to Appear Before the City
Council
Background
Mr. Richard Swedean, Chairman of the Richfield Fourth of July
Committee, has requested to appear before the city council at the
October 27, 1986 meeting to make a brief presentation.
Recommendation:
It is recommended that Mr. Swedean appear before the council on
October 27.
Basis for Recommendation:
1. Mr. Swedean has requested the opportunity to appear before
the council.
• Alternative Recommendation:
1. The council could schedule this presentation to another
council meeting. However, Mr. Swedean has made arrangements
to be present at the October 27 city council meeting.
Discussion /Decision Mode:
Mr. Swedean has indicated that his presentation should take no
more than ten minutes.
JDP /eja
�.J
Respec fully submitted,
Jame D. Prosser
City anager