Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
09-22-86 agenda
• CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Council Letter No. 372 September 22, 1986 Issue Statement: Adoption of the Revised Joint Powers Agreement Between The Cities of Eden Prairie, Edina, Richfield, and Bloomington Related to the South Hennepin Human Services Council Background: On August 11, 1986, the city council considered a request from the South Hennepin Human Service Council to approve a revised Joint Powers Agreement. The revisions in the agreement were characterized as "housekeeping" items since the original agreement adopted in 1971 had not previously been changed. During council discussion of this matter, staff reported that the revised agreement, while generally of a "housekeeping" nature, did provide some significant changes from the original agreement. Basically these involved: 1. Operational control of South Hennepin was to be transferred from the four member city councils to the Board of Directors of the agency. • 2. A provision had been added which would allow the agency to apply for and receive financial support in the form of loans from any organization or agency. 3. Member city councils had no control over the budget developed by the agency other than withdrawing from the Joint Powers Agreement. Based on these changes the council took no action with regard to the proposed revision of the agreement and directed staff to resolve the issues related to the major changes the new agreement proposed. The Public Safety Director has met with the Bloomington City Attorney's office and a representative from the Edina City Manager's office. The result of these meetings is a new revised Joint Powers Agreement which addresses the issues concerned in the following way. 1. Total control of new program activities has been returned to the four member city councils. Additionally, a "sunset" provision has been added requiring the agency to spin off any approved new program within a two year period, unless continuation of such program is specifically authorized by the four member city councils. 2. The authority for the agency to apply for and receive loans • has been removed. • 3. A provision has been added requiring that the agency budget be approved by the four member city councils. This matter was scheduled for council consideration on September 8, 1986. The City of Bloomington had, at that time, adopted the new revised Joint Powers Agreement. Council consideration of the issue was deferred because the South Hennepin Human Service Council staff had requested Bloomington to reconsider their action and was proposing some additional language changes. The Bloomington City Council chose not to reconsider the agreement, and the matter is now before the Richfield City Council for consideration. Attached for council information is a copy of the revised Joint Powers Agreement developed by staff. Additionally, for background information, attached are council letters 307 and 357, which relate to this issue. Staff Recommendation: Approved attached revised Joint Powers Agreement which provides the required "housekeeping" changes and retains agency control with the four member city councils and authorize the Mayor and City Manager to execute said agreement. Basis of Recommendation: • 1. The existing Joint Powers Agreement adopted in 1971 does need "housekeeping" changes to accurately reflect current status of the agency operation. 2. The revised Joint Powers Agreement submitted by the South Hennepin Human Service Council has been amended by staff to reflect issues of council concern. 3. The Bloomington City Council has adopted the revised agreement as herein presented. 4. The agreement is necessary if the city wishes to continue financial support to the agency. Alternatives: 1. If the existing agreement is not updated it will not accurately reflect the relationship between the agency and the four cities. 2. Not adopting the revised agreement, if in fact, the three other member cities do adopt the agreement, will in effect force Richfield's withdrawal from the agency. 3. Withdrawal of Richfield from the agency may cause the city to loose participation in agency human service programs which have been provided to our residents over a period of years. Decision Date: • It is recommended that council take action at the September 22, 1986 city council meeting to adopt the revised Joint Powers • Agreement discussed herein so that the Edina and Eden Prairie City Councils will have a basis to consider and act on this matter. JDP /eja is • Respectfully submitted, Jame D. Prosser City Manager �i3_z • SOUTH IzENNEPIN HUMAN :,ERVICES WUNCII, The parties to this Agreement are governmental units of the State of Minnesota. This Agreement is ;i-tade pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Section 471.59 and supercedes all previous agreements between the parties relating to the organization created by this agreement. Section 1. The general purpose of this agreement is to provide an organization through which the parties may jointly and cooperatively coordinate the providing of human services, both publicly and privately, in the territory of the respective parties. Section 2. The organization formed by this Agreement, being governmental in nature, shall not be used or operated for the pecuniary . gain, directly or indirectly, of any party or any member of its board. The organization shall not participate or intervene in a political campaign on behalf of any candidate for public office. ARTICL% II. DLFINITIGNS Section 1. For the purposes of this Agreement the terms defined in this section have the -meanings given them. Section 2. "South Hennepin Human Services Council "., or "Council", means the organization created pursuant to this Agreement, which is formally known as the "South Hennepin Human Services Council ". Section 3. "Board" means the board of directors of the Council. Section 4. "City Council" means the governing body of a party. Section S. -Party- weans a governmental unit which enters into this seCtiou. • Section h. "Governmental unit- weans a city, however organized. :section 7. ouman services" includes but is not limited to services alld lac.ilities to deal with and serve human needs. ARTICLE III. PARTIES Section I. The initial parties to this Agreement are the following governmental units: City of Bloomington City of L:den Prairie City of Edina City of Richfield ARTICLE IV. GOVERNING BODY Section 1. The governing body of the Council is the board. Each party is entitled to four directors. A director has one vote; there is no proxy voting. The city council of each party shall appoint its four directors for terms of two years, who shall remain until such directors' successors are selected and qualified. The city council may also, at its discretion, • rescind such appointment. In January of each year each city council shall make two regular appointments of directors whose terms shall be for two years, commencing on the following February 1. Directors serve without compensation from the Council. Section 2. A quorum of the board consists of nine directors with one director from each party. Section 3. A vacancy in the office of directors is filled by the council of the city appointing; the director. In the event the director whose position becomes vacant was also an officer, the board shall fill the vacancy in that office. ;section 4. In appointing; members of the board each city council will appoint one member from the city council, and dive co►►siderat. ion to health professionals, administrative officials, senior citizens, young adults of • voting age, persons ent; ;►ged in law enforce: ;,rnt, members -)t the cler y representatives of business and labor and others with special concerns related to council activities so that the board :uay be a representative sampling of the population of all of the parties. The city councils should endeavor to avoid having more than one -half of the directors from any one ;Troup, profession or interest. The board shall advise the parties of the names and occupations of each of its directors. The council of a party, however, shall have complete authority to appoint and to remove, at any time, a director appointed by it. Such appointments may be made by a council pursuant to such restrictions and requirements as the city council may require. If the city council does impose restrictions or requirements on its directors, the directors must inform the board of those restrictions or requirements. ARTICLE V. bEETINGS - ELECTION OF OFFICERS a secretary and a treasurer. Section 2. In February of each year, the board of directors shall adopt or amend rules and regulations governing its procedures, including the time, place and frequency of its regular meetings and the manner of calling special meetings. Such rules and regulations must provide for an annual meeting of the Council. The rules and regulations may be amended from time to time subject to .the provisions of this Agreement. Section 3. The board may create an executive committee and other committees as it may deem necessary pursuant to its by -laws. The executive committee shall include at lease one director from each of the cities and the board may authorize it to exercise specified powers of the board of • directors between board meetings, subject to the limitations imposed upon it by t he board. 9 Section .1. At the organizational meeting of the board, and in February of each year, the board shall elect from its membefs a chair, a vice - chair, a secretary and a treasurer. Section 2. In February of each year, the board of directors shall adopt or amend rules and regulations governing its procedures, including the time, place and frequency of its regular meetings and the manner of calling special meetings. Such rules and regulations must provide for an annual meeting of the Council. The rules and regulations may be amended from time to time subject to .the provisions of this Agreement. Section 3. The board may create an executive committee and other committees as it may deem necessary pursuant to its by -laws. The executive committee shall include at lease one director from each of the cities and the board may authorize it to exercise specified powers of the board of • directors between board meetings, subject to the limitations imposed upon it by t he board. 9 0 ARTICLE V1. POWERS AND DUTIES OF 'ftt:: COUNCIL Section I. The powers and duties of the cuuncil acting through the board include the powers set forth in this section. Section 2. It may employ a person to act as executive director of the Council. Section 3. It may make such contracts as are necessary to effectuate the purposes of this Agreement. Section 4. It may employ such other persons as it deems necessary to accomplish its powers and responsibilities. Persons may be employed on a full -time, part -time or consulting basis, as the board determines. Section S. It may conduct research and investigation regarding existing and possible future human services facilities and programs and may • develop a proposed plan for providing and coordinating of human services in any or all' of the areas of (a) mental health, (b) mental retardation, (c) drug and alcohol abuse, (d) family counseling, and (e) other related or similar problems. Section 6. It may prepare an inventory of human service facilities, services and agencies, both public and private, available to persons residing in the cities. It may make a cost analysis of any existing or proposed human services programs, may call attention to human service needs and human services programs and may undertake to coordinate human service programs, public and private, within the territory of the cities. Section 7. It may apply for and receive financial support in the form of grants from any ortianizatiou or agency in order to accomplish its purposes and may enter into the agreements necessary to obtain that support. 4 Section 8. It may invest and reinvest funds not needed for current Operating expenses, if any, in the ;canner applicable by law to statutory cities. The council may not incur obligations in excess of funds available to it. Section 9. It may contract for space, material and supplies. Section 10. It must make a financial accounting and report to the parties at least once each year. Its books and records shall be available and open to examination to authorized representatives of the parties at all reasonable times. Section 11. It may provide for the indemnification of directors, officers and employees against reasonable costs and expenses incurred by those persons in connection with any action, suit or proceeding in which the person may be involved by reason of being a director, officer, or employee, except amounts paid or payable to the board itself, and except in relation to matters as to which the person shall be finally adjudged in any action, suit or proceeding to have been derelict in the performance of duties as such director, officer or employee. The indemnification need not be exclusive of other rights to which any such person would otherwise be entitled as a matter of law. Section 12. It may conduct human service programs within the territory of the parties, provided that the undertaking of any such program shall first have been approved by the council of each of the parties, and provided that it transfers control and direction of the program to another entity within two years, unless otherwise authorized by the parties. Any such program may be submitted to the parties in conjunction with the annual budget of the organization, or it may be submitted between budgets at any time. • Section 13. It may exercise any other power necessary and convenient to the implementation of its powers and duties under the provisions of this Agreement. Section 14. No director may on the basis of sex, race, creed,_ national origin, color, religion, age, or disability, be excluded from the partici- pation on all decisions of the board. Nor may a director be treated differently from the other directors. All directors shall have the same voice on the board. ARTICLE VII. FINANCIAL MATTERS Section 1. Council funds may be expended by the board in accordance with the procedures established by law for the expenditure of funds by statutory cities. Orders, checks and drafts shall be signed by the chair or vice -chair or other officers as the bylaws may designate. Other legal instruments shall be executed on behalf of the Council as provided in the bylaws. Section 2. Contracts shall be let and purchases made in conformance with the legal requirements applicable to contracts and purchases of optional Plan B cities and for such purposes the executive director, if any, shall be deemed to occupy a position equivalent to that of a city manager. Section 3. The parties are not required to provide funds to the council, but any parties may do so. The board (1) is strictly accountable for all funds received and for all funds expended by it, (2) must have an annual audit of its books, and (3) must make an annual report of all of its receipts and disbursements to each of the parties. Section 4. A proposed annual budget must be formulated by the board and must be submitted to the parties on or before August I for their approval. The budget shall be deemed approved by a party unless, prior to October 17 of the year involved, the party rives notice in writing to the • Council that it does not approve the budget. The budget shall be revised and resubmitted to the parties until it is approved. Final action adopting an annual budget year shall be taken by the board on or before November 30. Section 5. Lxcept as authorized by law, no member of the board or other public officer of the organization who is authorized to take part in any manner in the making of any sale, lease or contract may voluntarily have a personal financial interest in such transaction or personally benefit financially therefrom. A director may not be employed to perform or be compensated for the performance of services for the Council. Section 6. The fiscal year of the Council is the calendar year. ARTICLE VIII. DURATION Section 1. The council shall continue from year to year unless the number of parties is less than three. • Withdrawal of a party member at the end of January of any year may be accomplished by that city's filing a written notice thereof with the board by November 1 of the preceding year, giving notice of withdrawal as of the following January 31. The withdrawing party shall continue to be a party to this Agreement until the effective date of such notice of with- drawal. The South Hennepin Human Services Council may also be terminated by mutual agreement of all of the parties at any time. Section 2. If a party withdraws from the council before the termination of the council, the party has no claim to the assets of the council. If the council is terminated by mutual agreement of all of the parties to the Agreement, surplus monies of the council shall be returned to the parties in proportion to their respective contributions. If there have 6 77� -/X/,g /a • been no such contributions by such ,parties, surplus monies of the counciL shall, upon termination of the council, be returnt:d to the parties in equal shares. ARTICLE IX. EFFECTIVE, DATE Section 1. This Agreement is effective on the date on which a fully executed copy of this Agreement, together with a certified copy of a city council resolution of each of the parties authorizing its execution, is filed with the City Clerk of each city. This Agreement may be executed in any number of counterparts each of which . may be considered an original copy. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned parties have caused this Agreement to be signed by their duly authorized officers as of the date indicated after their respective executives. CITY OF BLOOMINGTON • By. Its Mayor DATED: By: Its Manager CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE By: Its Mayor DATED: By: Its Manager CITY OF EDINA By: Its Mayor DATED: By: Its Manager CITY OF RICHFIELD By: Its Mayor oy,: Its Manager • CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Office of City Manager The Honorable Mayor and Members Of The City Council City of Richfield Council Letter No. 307 Agenda August 11, 1986 Subject: Revised Joint Powers Agreement South Hennepin Human Services Council Council Members: Background: For the past several months the Board of Directors of the South Hennepin Human Services Council has been in the process of • updating the Joint Powers Agreement signed by the cities of Eden Prairie. Edina, Bloomington, and Richfield in 1971. A number of "housekeeping" modifications to the Agreement are necessary to reflect changes in law which have occurred over the past 15 years. Attached for council review. is the proposed revised Joint Powers Agreement. The Public Safety staff has reviewed the proposed Agreement, particularly as it relates to changes from the original Agreement. Most of the changes are not substantiative in nature with two exceptions. Proposed Revisions: The first change which the council may wish to consider relates to the membership appointments to the SHHSC Board of Directors. The city councils of the four participating members of the Joint Powers Agreement each appoint four members to the Board of Directors. The original Agreement was not restrictive in relation to the appointments made to the Board, but suggested human service areas which Board members might represent. In this regard, the original Agreement provided that in making appointments the city councils will "give consideration to members of their councils." The new Agreement however, provides that "in appointing members of the Board each city council will appoint one member from the city council.* This may not be of concern to the • Richfield City Council, since Council Member Ludeman presently represents Richfield as one of the four Directors from our community. The other directors are Lia Ozols and Sgt. John Nelson. The fourth director, Myrna Hammer, recently resigned and this position has not yet been filled. The other revision is a very significant change between the original Agreement and the proposed revised Agreement. This deals with the authority granted to the Board by the member communities. The power given to the Board.in the original contract provided: It may conduct human service programs within the territory of the parties provided that the undertaking of any such program shall first have been approved by the council of each of the parties. The revised Agreement has been changed in relation to the authority granted the Board by the following provision: It may conduct human service programs within the parties, provided that it first inform the city council of each of the parties of the intent to provide such services. This proposed change seems to eliminate city council control, other than through budget appropriations, of SHHSC programming activity. The change means that the SHHSC Board, not the city councils, will decide such issues as new program development or developing direct service activities. It would seem to allow SHHSC to generally operate as an independent organization., apart from the city council control which exists in the original Agreement. It is clearly a very different direction than the original concept which provided basically for coordinating control of existing human service activities in the four member cities. Based on past council concerns about operating activities of SHHSC, particularly as they relate to the provision of direct services, the council may wish to consider whether this change reflects current feelings with regard to this program activity, Recommendation: The proposed revised Agreement has been approved by the city councils in Edina and Eden Prairie. If the Richfield City Council is not.concerned about the proposed change in the Board authority, it is the recommendation of the Public Safety Director, that the council authorize the Mayor and the City • Manager to execute the new Agreement. If, on the other hand, the council does not wish to endorse this change, it is recommended that staff develop a letter for the Mayor to send to the Mayors and City Managers of the other participating cities expressing Richfield's concern with the change and attempt to resolve this issue through negotiations. The Executive Director of the South Hennepin Human Services Council, Larry Oppold, will be present at the August 11, 1986 meeting to discuss .this matter 4Acti ity council. ully s mitt d, • . Devich ity Manager SD /eja n U ,. -*Ig -/�/ � CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Office of City Manager Council Letter No. 357 Agenda September 8, 1986 The Honorable Mayor and Members Of The City Council City of Richfield Subject: Revised Joint Powers Agreement Between the Cities of Eden Prairie, Edina, Bloomington and Richfield and the South Hennepin Human Services Council Council Members: Background: On August 11, 1986 the city council considered a request from the South Hennepin Human Services Council to approve a revised Joint Powers Agreement. During discussion of this matter, staff reported that the revised agreement provided a major change from the existing agreement and that the operational control of South Hennepin was to be transferred from the four member city councils to the Board of Directors of the South Hennepin Human Service Council. Based upon this change, the council took no action with regard to the proposed revision of the agreement, and directed staff to resolve the control issue and retain the operational authority for the agency with the four member city councils. Attached for council reference is a copy of the August 11, 1986 Council Letter No. 307. Proposed Revisions: The Public Safety Director has met with the Bloomington City Attorney's office and a representative from the Edina City Manager's office. The result of the meetings is a new revised Joint Powers Agreement which addresses the control issue which had been of concern to the city council. A copy of this proposed agreement is attached. Basically, changes have been made to Article VI, which clarifies the ability of South Hennepin to enter into contractual arrangements and removes the authority for the Board to apply for and receive loans. This Article has further been amended to deal with tho operational control of the South Hennepin Human Services Council by returning the original language to the agreement which made the four city councils jointly responsible for operations. This section was also further amended to include a "sunset provision for any direct service activity in which South Hennepin might be involved. This new language included in Section 12 of Article VI now provides the following: It may conduct human service programs within the territory of the parties, provided that the undertaking of any such program shall first have been approved by the council of each of the parties, and provided that it transfer control and direction of the program to another entity within two.years, unless otherwise authorized by the parties. The final change in the revised contract provides for total budget control of the agency by the four member cities. Recommendation: The Bloomington City Council has already adopted the new revised Joint Powers Agreement. The agreement, as presented herein, addresses all of the concerns which had been expressed by members of the council. It is recommended that the city council authorize the Mayor and the City Manager to enter into'the new revised Joint Powers Agreement related to the South Hennepin Human Services Council. • Respectfully submitted, James D. Prosser City Manager JDP /e j a • CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Council Letter No. 371 September 22, 1986 0 n LJ `.- Issue Statement: ILN Residential Advisory Committee Appointment of Mr. V. A Duvlea (Woody), 7345 Lyndale Avenue To The ILN Residential Advisory Committee As A Replacement For Mr. Earl Norwood Background: On June 9, 1986, twelve people were appointed to the ILN Residential Advisory Committee by the City Council to represent the ILN residents. Members were selected based on an application process and geographic distribution (see map). On August 25, 1986 the City Council appointed Mrs. Ruth Larson to replace Mrs. Kendall, Area 1 representative. Mrs. Kendall had requested that she be replaced. Subsequent to the ILN Residential Committee's first meeting, it was learned that Mr. Earl Norwood from Area 10 was not a resident. The address on his application, 7412 Lyndale Avenue, was that of a residential structure, but Mr. Earl Norwood operates his business from the property and does not reside in Richfield. Upon discussing the situation with Mr. Earl Norwood, he agreed it would be appropriate for him to be replaced by a resident of the area. There are two other individuals who expressed interest in serving on this committee from Area 10. The two were: Mr. Dave Sarajeant, 7316 Aldrich Avenue and Mr. V. A. Duvlea (Woody) from 7345 Lyndale Avenue. Recommendation: It is recommended that the city council pass the attached resolution appointing Mr. V. A. Duvlea (Woody), 7345 Lyndale Avenue, to replace Mr. Earl Norwood, as a residential representative. Basis of Recommendation: 1. Mr. Duvlea's homestead abuts Lyndale Avenue, an arterial roadway 2. Mr. Duvlea's residential property is centrally located within the Area 10 3. Mr. Duvlea has expressed an interest and is agreeable to becoming a member of the committee. • • Alternative Recommendation: 1. Mr. Dave Sarajeant, 7316 Aldrich Avenue, be the residential representative replacement for Mr. Norwood from Area 10. However, his property lacks the locational features of Mr. Duvlea's. Decision Mode: This resolution has been placed on the September 22, 1986 city council agenda for council consideration. The ILN Residential Committees are currently underway and appointment at this time would permit Mr. Duvlea to participate in these discussions in a timely fashion. JDP /eja Respectfully submitted, Jam D. Prosser Cit Manager RESOLUTION NO. APPOINTMENT TO VACANCY ILN RESIDENTIAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE WHEREAS, the City Council established the ILN Residential Advisory Committee on June 9, 1986, and WHEREAS, Earl Norwood was appointed to the Committee, but is unable to serve. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that Mr. V. A. Duvlea (Woody), 7345 Lyndale Avenue be appointed to fill this position. PASSED by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this 22nd day of September, 1986. John Hamilton Mayor ATTEST: • Thomas Ferber City Clerk • > 0 n 0 PO Im z 0 z :4 I Ca > > > ICI ICI Nv; I rep, > �u o 0 tv > z H� m 13 DID �\ Ii �STTTA T E- 35W LIHIGHWAY NO. --4 A- so I GIRARD F I oo� ca t fAEIIONT AVE It FREMONT EMM EfAERSOR co 01 2222"" ---a a 1 1; I 1 olleolrr AYE IN POPFT C"L t t'! tj tj t! 3'' W- A; N -c'DLFAX AVg d, w I ILI 1-2 1 Q 2 %'LlE 'z MR- tv I IT111 I -u 't- IN ALDRICH AYE -cm AVE ALDRI Ell @1 k T K� f . z RI-4 a 0, a i 11 1 1.1ij -t- Jilt! LYNDALE "I -. SOUTH — QARFELD AVE $0. OARFIFL iiii C) IQ 1 AD C tit KARFMT 80. HARRIE1 FgT, E Z' m co �f 3 5 fD 1 W 1 'I a 1H GRAND AM sm -r GRAND 2i c 1 got g PILLSBILIFY AVE. 11a t; 9 �io CU'it�vt t zi 46 p WEPIrrWORTH AVE. $0. AM 110. (A rn t t t ri , � L; NICOLLET AVENUE SOUTH h 7/71 1 1 1 1 1 IT �1 I I I I I CITY OF RICHFIELD 76TH & LYNDALE f`FD4I IHIRITIAND AIEWE SOUTH STUDY AREA RICHFIELD. WINNEWYA 11-5 —E '—n2' N SO m '41 • E • CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Council Letter No. 370 September 22, 1986 Issue Statement: Adoption of a Housekeeping Resolution Reclassifying the Self - Insurance Fund from a Trust and Agency Fund to an Internal Service Fund Background: In 1979, the City of Richfield first adopted a resolution creating a statutorily authorized Self- Insurance Fund for claims and expenses relating to workers' compensation. Since 1979, the Self- Insurance Fund was expanded by resolution in 1981,`1984 and most recently, in 1986, to add unemployment compensation, dental and general liability coverage to the Fund. In the initial resolution creating the Self- Insurance Fund, and in each succeeding resolution expanding the Fund, the Fund was designated as a "Trust and Agency Account." Such accounts are authorized in the City Charter (Section 7.12, Subd. 4) and are used to administer resources received and held by the City as a trustee or agent for others. Typically, pension or retirement funds fall into this fund category. In practice, since 1979, the City of Richfield has treated the Self- Insurance Fund as an Internal Service Fund. Internal Service Funds are provided for in Section 7.12, Subd. 5 of the City Charter for ". . .financing self- sustaining activities not accounted for through other funds." A City function, such as self- insurance, which is a self- sustaining accounting entity, is ideally suited as an Internal Service Fund. Thus, the City has accounted for the Self- Insurance Fund in the internal service category since its original inception. Other examples of the City's Internal Service Funds are the Central Garage and Central Services Funds. The attached resolution is a housekeeping change which formally classifies the Self- Insurance Fund as an Internal Service Fund instead of a Trust and Agency Fund. This change would be in keeping with the actual practice of the City. The original classification of the account appears to be a simple oversight. Recommendation: It is recommended that the City Council adopt the attached resolution changing the classification of the Self- Insurance Fund from a Trust and Agency Fund to an Internal Service Fund. ` %/ • Alternative Recommendations: The City could pursue two alternative courses of action in this matter: 1) Take no action and continue to operate as has been the practice since 1979 with an authorization for a Trust and Agency Fund, but account for the Self- Insurance Fund as an Internal Service Fund, or 2) Change accounting practice to account for the Self - Insurance Fund as a Trust and Agency Fund as authorized by the original resolution. Both alternate recommendations have significant undesirable implication. First, once the discrepancy was discovered, it is the City's responsibility to rectify it. City accounting practice and authorization should be compatible. The alternative of changing accounting practice to coincide with the original resolution is a problematic course of action from an accounting perspective. The change would be cumbersome. Perhaps more important, however, is that in practice, the Self- Insurance Fund is more properly classified as an Internal Service Fund. Discussion /Decision Mode: • There is no particular urgency or critical deadline to adopt the attached resolution. However, this simple housekeeping matter should be resolved as soon as possible to reconcile the City's self- insurance authorization and practice. JDP:sb Respect ully submitted, X�v Ja D. Prosser CIO Manager CITY OF RICHFIELD RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION CLARIFYING CITY FUND TO BE USED FOR SELF - INSURANCE WHEREAS, the City of Richfield, Minnesota has previously authorized the City to self insure for workers' compensation, unemployment compensation, dental insurance, and liability for those amounts not covered by the League of Minnesota Cities Insurance Trust; WHEREAS, the Resolutions authorizing self- insurance of the above matters have stated that such self- insurance matters should be accounted for through the Trust and Agency Fund; WHEREAS, the actual practice of the City is to account for such matters through the Internal Service Fund, which has previously been created pursuant to City Charter Section 7.12, Subd. 5; NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota that the City Manager is authorized to administer and account for all City self- insurance matters through the Internal Service Fund and ratifies the past practice • of using the Internal Service Fund for self- insurance matters. Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield this 22nd day of September, 1986. ATTEST: Thomas P. Ferber City Clerk John Hamilton Mayor CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Council Letter No. 369 September 22, 1986 Issue Statement: City Ordinance Amendment Relating to the Minimum Age for the Purchase and Consumption of Alcoholic Beverages. First Reading. Background: As of.September 1, 1986 the minimum age for the purchase and consumption of alcoholic beverages in the State of Minnesota is 21 years of age. At the August 11, 1986 city council meeting, the city council approved a resolution establishing a policy pertaining to the hiring of minors at our municipal liquor operation. This policy provides that persons employed by the liquor operations must be a minimum 21 years of age. The city's ordinance code must also be amended to reflect the change in minimum age. Recommendation: It is recommended that the city council approve first reading of the attached ordinance which provides that one must be 21 years of age to purchase and consume alcoholic beverages. Basis for Recommendation: • 1. The legal drinking age as of September 1, 1986 in the State of Minnesota is 21 years of age. 2. The Richfield City Ordinance should be brought into conformance with state law. 3. Bringing the Richfield City Ordinance into conformance with state law will reinforce prosecution of those violating the minimum drinking age in Richfield. Alternative Concerns: 1. There may a slight decrease in sales as a result of this new state law. Discussion /Decision Mode: First reading of the ordinance amendment establishing the legal drinking age as 21 should be given at the September 22, 1986 city council meeting, with second reading and the public hearing scheduled for the October 13, 1986 city council meeting. Respect lly submitted, • Jame D. Prosser City Manager JDP /eja • E • CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Council Letter No. 368 September 22, 1986 Issue Statement: First Reading of a Personnel Ordinance Amendment Bringing it into Compliance with the Fair Labor Standards Act Background: The Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) was enacted by the Congress in 1938 to guarantee employees of private employers, certain minimum wages and overtime standards. In 1966, the Act was amended to include for the first time certain specific public employees, schools and colleges, public hospitals and public transit systems. In 1974, Congress again amended the Act, this time making its provisions binding on all public employees. The extension of the Act to cover all public employees did not take full effect, however, due to a court challenge filed by the National League of Cities and National Governors' Conference. The result of the challenge was that the Department of Labor was enjoined by an interim order of the Supreme Court from enforcing its regulations against public employers. That court challenge culminated in 1976, with the landmark Supreme Court decision in National League of Cities vs Usery. In the Usery decision, the Court held that the commerce clause of the Constitution did not give the Federal Government the power to regulate the wages of those states and local government employees engaged in "traditional governmental functions." On February 19, 1985, the Supreme Court overruled Usery in Garcia vs City of San Antonio Metropolitan Transit Authority. The Court did away with the "traditional" vs "non- traditional" governmental test. The language of the opinion stated that the 1974 amendment to the Act making all public employees subject to its provisions was constitutional. In November of 1985, the President signed legislation amending the Act and setting the implementation date of April 15, 1986. Effective on that date, the City has implemented administrative policies and procedures to bring its personnel practices into conformity with the FLSA. It is now necessary for the City to also bring Chapter III of the Personnel ordinance into conformity with the provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act. A summary of the changes in the personnel ordinance are as follows: 1. All hours worked in excess of 40 hours in a work period (including training time will be paid at the rate of time • and one -half. (Subdivision 7 Pay Plan Administration (14) Training Pay) 2. A change in the time interval to record time for overtime calculation purposes. FLSA requires that time of 7 minutes or less be rounded down to the nearest quarter hour and that eight minutes or more be rounded up to the next quarter hour. (Subdivision 8). 3. The base rate for calculation of overtime must include educational and other incentive pay, awards for performance on the job, merit bonuses and longevity pay (Subdivision 8). 4. Establishment of exempt and non - exempt personnel. 5. Discontinuance of the use of flex time scheduling. (Subdivision 8). Recommendation: It is recommended that the City Council approve the following changes to Chapter III of the City's Personnel Ordinance, which are required to bring the ordinance into compliance with the Fair Labor Standards Act. Basis of Recommendation: 1. Compliance with the Fair Labor Standards Act as Amended 2. The changes to the ordinance have been reviewed and a roved by Attorney Dayle Nolan of the City Attorney's • office. Alternative Recommendation: If the city does not comply with the Fair Labor Standards Act we are subject to penalties including, but not limited to, repayment to employees for any lost wages. Damages may also be awarded to employees if we do not comply with the Fair Labor Standards Act as Amended. While the city has changed practices to comply with regulations, we have not yet modified the Personnel Ordinance in accordance with the requirement. Discussion Mode: The City should implement the changes to its ordinance code as soon as possible. The Act's implementation date was April 15, 1986, and it is necessary to bring the legal code into conformity with the Act and the City's administrative practices. Respe 7 ully submitted, Ja s D. Prosser Ci y Manager • JDP:sb • AMENDMENT TO CHAPTER II, PART III OF THE ORDINANCE CODE OF THE CITY OF RICHFIELD City of Richfield Does Ordain: Chapter II, Part III of the Ordinance Code of the City entitled: "Personnel - Position Classification - Compensation and Merit System" is hereby amended in the following respects: 1. By amending paragraph (14) of Subdivision 7 of Section 2.32 to read as follows: (14 ) Training Pay. The- -e3-ty- ta&nmetge�r--step--atYtcjr- (4e- e4:ther- eempeesatery- time- er- eash- eempensat »ems; Beth --ate -s i i-g - t4:me- des-- to-- eiirgleyees Employ- ees, non - exempt from the provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act, who are required to partici- pate in authorized training programs which take place outside their regular work schedule, shall be paid overtime for all hours worked, to include training time, over forty hours per work period, or may agree to the use of compensatory time in lieu of paid overtime. • 2. By amending Subdivision 8 of Section 2.32 to read as fol- lows: Subd. 8. Overtime Pav and Compensatory Time Off. Overtime is all time ordered and worked (in units of ene- halt -hoer fifteen (15) minutes or more) by employees who are non - exempt from the provisions of the Miaseseta Fair Labor Standards Act, which is in excess of the- emplepeeis- regularly- seheduled work -week forty hours per work period. Authorized overtime for eligible employees shall be compen- sated at the rate of one and one -half times the employee's regular base rate of pay, Eempensatlee stay- - -bp eer�peesatey --t-i- ate-- e; - --t- ire-- e�leetle�t -�f- -the elty- �tta�rae�e� �rt�- to- the -��e� or in compensatory time, in lieu of paid overtime, at the rate of one and one -half hours for each hour of overtime ordered and worked. The city manager shall adopt policies regarding overtime and the limits, accrual and use of compensatory time to the extent permitted by law. (1) Managerial Exempt Employees. The- pc�s-irt-i -on . elassltleatlea-- arr--- e�-ab- l- i-s�tef� - -s - -te shall- ii -K_4- -a -t om - ern-- ef-- tzm�-&e -- manager }al • ex�p�e�*ees-- �rhe -- hare- �esgens�b }��t�es-- �ah�eh- -awe sup erviaery - -4+1r - P-&rserte-- - -sue h ges�t� ens -gin- the- �tea�e�ga�- se���ee- xta�- He- �e�e��ed ether -- - +4i&9%—_ as - -rg ed-- -as- -- tire-- ieremea; Employees classified as exempt under the provi- sions of the Fair Labor Standards Act shall not receive overtime compensation either in the form of pay or time off, as provided for herein for ether nonexempt employees. The city manager may, however, grant reasonable periods of time off to managerial exempt employees when he determines that such time off is warranted. aver age-- frovty- -ketrL- -mss -94i 34- -be- -by e ash- peymetl�t- -at-- tire- rert�- -e�€ -time - afrd- eae- haIf -fer work - -- in-- exeeas --o- € - eight hour s- Tmer- -& ay, - e+ -rd- -of - +4- te-i-r- -we rk sehedule- -E3 } -- erg 3Bmp-1-0yees -. - - - germ&Ftertt -and grehatienary- emp4eyeee ,- o t4ie-i -and sh��t- ex�p�eyees ; - sha��- ne��xa��y- lie- eex�pensated -tee Eve # -e de ed -aael -der or [CT�3 e5teess - -o- € -a- regular • flexible - at -- tyre - rest- &f- -the emp loyee- - bpe-- eampensated- 4- n- -with the- e�ae�t�x;e- �a�- g�e�r�s� ens- estah�� shed- he�e�n- €ems the-- estab�sl�rec--£ �e- i- b- 1- e- k-- sekeelt��e- - {eght hours- -gerr-- -i- eelel hours- per-wee#- {¢} (2) Administration of Eempensable Overtime Compensation. (a) Permanent - - ae -rff 4>e given -} e e einee- 33rr -e -ice- ass eases;- *oweve ,- Lt-iicw_ -- - - -i eirL-e- -wo 614r -15,e -made in- seeh -a- +ate -Otar - tore - -Eru ion-s- -&f- - tyre - m u n i e 4: p a I se ee- -i3-1-- - xgest --&f t -i e3 --oe 1-& t e&;- - - A I I eemgensa191e-- av-er- tite -- mid --be-- fTn r -at- -the d��eet�en -et- the- de�a�t� tent- head -ems- his- aethe��ged regreseatat4:ye7- and- evert4:me- eyed -it - may- he- aeerued All compensable overtime must be performed at the direction of the Depart- ment Head or his authorized representative. Overtime credit may be accrued for no other purpose. Overtime assignments will be made in such a way that the functions of the municipal • service will be most effective. -oz (b) �Pke- tees- wl�eri- ee�peesatep- txte- a € -�rtay �e- ta3�ea- sl�a��- �e- at- tl�e- el�se�et�ea -ef- tie- e�epa�t- men t- Iaeac�,-- -exre�- -t4rxL- - +*e-- emV4.eyee- Ls- -de airea skaII --b,&- - gessible- When - - &f- f--- 3- s-- e- rde -red- -by - -the department - -tom - reeluested-- br -- t+re-- empleyee9 reasonable--adva-mee---rro 3-ee- - 1�- �e-- prev!dedT Employees requesting to use accrued compensatory time shall be permitted to use such time off within a reasonable period after making the request, if such use does not unduly disrupt the operations of the employee's department. All use of compensatory time shall be approved in advance by the department head or his authorized represen- tative. 3. By amending Subdivision 1 of Section 2.33 to read as fol- lows: 2.33 ATTENDANCE AND LEAVES Subdivision 1. Work Period. Except where other- wise specified, the regular work period for city employees shall be forty hours e- as- a�eage -ety hours. The normal work day shall be eight hours; however, various departments and divisions may • establish a different work day with the approval of the city manager. Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minne- sota this day of , 1986. John N. Hamilton, Mayor ATTEST: Thomas Ferber, City Clerk 0 0055AM05.E14 Ma • CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Council Letter No. 367 September 22, 1986 Issue Statement: Ordinance Amendment Related to Providing Identification to a Police Officer. First Reading. Background: The present provision of Richfield City Ordinance Code 10.16 (Subd.8), which requires an individual to identify himself when so requested by a police officer, has been found to be constitutionally invalid in a recent Richfield case. The circumstances involved related to a situation where an officer had probable cause to question an individual based upon certain circumstances which caused the officer to be suspicious about the individual's behavior. However, at the time the officer did not have probable cause to make an arrest. Under these circumstances the court has ruled that, absent a basis for arrest, an individual is not required against his will to identify himself to a police officer. Attached for council review, is a copy of current Richfield City Ordinance Code 10.16 and the amendments requested thereto. Also • attached are the two memorandums of the case involved and the notice of dismissal awarded by the court. To clarify the legal frame of reference, Amendment IV of the Constitution of the United States of America is also attached. Staff Recommendation: Approve the attached ordinance amendment which eliminates the requirement to identify self to a police officer under probable cause, except for arrest, and add a violation related to falsely identifying one's self to a police officer when so requested. Basis of Recommendation: 1. Court decision ruling present ordinance unconstitutional. 2. City Attorney recommends approval of amended ordinance. 3. In order to provide our officers with appropriate investi- gative tools, an alternative to the existing ordinance code is highly desirable. The alternative suggested serves that purpose within the framework of constitutional law. • #J;--/ • Alternative Recommendation: 1. Enforce existing ordinance, however if the current ordinance is enforced, the city would be subject to significant liability expense including payment of compensatory damages, attorney fees and punitive damages. Therefore, the code, as it presently exists, can no longer be enforced. 2. Do not enforce city ordinance. This alternative would deprive our officers of a valuable investigation tool. Decision Date: It is recommended that the city council give first reading to the attached ordinance amendment and schedule second reading and the public hearing for the October 13, 1986 city council meeting. Until a suitable alternative ordinance is approved,'officers have no local ordinance basis for requiring proper identification in certain circumstances. �J JDP /eja Respectfully submitted, Jame D. Prosser Cit Manager AMENDMENT TO CHAPTER X, Part III, Section 10.16 OF THE ORDINANCE CODE OF THE CITY OF RICHFIELD CITY OF RICHFIELD DOES ORDAIN: Chapter X, Part III, Section 10.16 of the Ordinance Code of the City of Richfield relating to miscellaneous misdemeanor acts, types and causes of behavior is hereby amended in the following respects: By amending §10.16, Subdivision 8 thereof as follows: Subd. 8. Aid to Law Enforcement Offic- es; False- Regi-st-r-a+iorr. Every person who provides any police officer with inaccurate informa- tion as to his identity and place of residence when requested to do so7_ e�ttdag-- t-- ��icrr� --c3 €- -sari €tea • �e� € € €eat�e�- t�e�ee €- € €- �egeested; Subd. 8A. False Registration. Every person who falsely registers himself or willfully obtains or permits false registration of any other person at any tourist camp, cabin camp, hotel, rooming house or other place furnishing sleeping or overnight stopping accommodations for transient guests. Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minne- sota, this day of , 1986. ATTEST: 40 John Hamilton, Mayor v - ,t- CHAPTER X PART III. MISDEMEANORS The acts, types and causes of behavior enumerated in this part constitute misdemeanors and are punishable as provided in Section 1.10 of Chapter I of this code unless a different penalty is set forth in this chapter. 10.15. ADOPTION OF CERTAIN PROVISIONS OF MINNESOTA STATUTES CHAPTER 609 BY REFERENCE. The following pxov,isions and sections of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter-609, The Criminal Code of 1963,- as amended are hereby adopted by reference and made a part of this Code as if fully set forth herein: Subdvisio Subd. 2., Subd. 3. Subd. 4. Subd. 5. or Like "; n 1. Minnesota Statutes 6C Minnesota Statutes 609.22, Minnesota Statutes 609.22, Minne'sota Statutes 609.66, Minnesota Statutes 609.68, 9.72, "Disorderly Conduct "; "Vagrancy "; "Assault "; "Dangerous Weapons "; , "Unlawful Deposit of Garbage, Litter Subd. 6. Minnesota Statutes 609.705, "Unlawful Assembly "; Subd. 7. Minnesota. Statutes 609.715, "Presence at Unlawful Assembly "; Subd..8. Minnesota .Statutes 609.505, "Falsely Reporting a Crime "; Subd. 9. Minnesota Statutes 609.51, "Simulating Legal Process "; Subd.10. Minnesota Statutes 609.535, "Issuance of Worthless Check "; Subd.11. Minnesota Statutes 609.544, "Misusing Credit Card to Secure Services"; Subd.12. Minnesota Statutes 609:575, "Negligent Fires "; Subd.13. Minnesota Statutes 609.605, "Trespasses and Other Acts "; 10.16. MISDEMEANORS - MISCELLANEOUS OFFENSES. In addition to the provisions of Section 10.15, the following acts, types and causes of behavior constitute misdemeanors: Subdivilitan 1. Indecent Exposure. Whoever willfully exposes his private parts or induces or procures another to so expose himself or commits any other open act which is lewd, lascivious or indecent. Subd. 2. Riots or Public Disturbances. Any person or persons who make, aid, countenance or assist in making any noise, riot, disturbance or improper diversion and all persons who collect in bodies or crowds in said city, for unlawful purposes or to the annoyance or disturbance of citizens or travelers. 4/8/68 ORDINANCE CODE 259 CITY OF RICHFIELD. MINNESOTA e Subd. 3. Indecent Swimming or Bathing. Any person who swims or bathes in any creek, stream or pond within the limits of the city without being clad in swimming apparel. Subd. 4. Cruelty to Animals and Birds. Any person who inhumanely, unneces- sarily, cruelly or wantonly beats, injures or otherwise abuses any animal or bird within the city. Sued. 5. Public Possession and Consumption of Alcoholic Beverages. Except as permitted in Section 4.17 of this Code, any person Who consumes intoxicating liquor as defined by Minnesota Statutes Section 340.07, subdivision 2 or nonintoxicating malt liquor as-defined by Minnesota Statutes Section 340.001, subdivision 2, while (1) on a public street, park or other public place, or (2) on any private property without the consent of the owner of such property, or (3) while in a vehicle upon any public street and any person who possesses such intoxicating or nonintoxicating liquor in any park including all public parking areas located within or immediately adjacent to any park. (Bill 1980 -13) 6/9/80 CROSS - REFERENCE: See Chap, XI for general regulation of the sale and dispensation of intoxicating beverages. Subd. 6. Offenses Against Property. The following constitute offenses against property: (1) Whoever willfully procures money or property in this city by fraud, misrepresentation or false pretenses, or commits any acts of larceny, robbery or burglary or in any manner steals or unlawfully obtains or appropriates the property of another within this city. (2) Whoever willfully or maliciously displaces, removes, injures or destroys public or private property of any kind without authority of law. (3) Whoever negligently or carelessly sets on fire or causes to be set on fire combustible material, whether on his land or not, by means whereof the property of another shall be endangered, or negligently allows any fire upon his own land or property.to extend beyond the limits thereof or willfully dis- obeys any lawful fire prevention provision or order for the purpose of fire protection within this city. (4) Whoever lacking right of possession to property, refuses to depart from or surrender possession of such property when ordered to do so by the owner thereof; provided, however, that this subdivision shall not apply in any case where immediately prior thereto there existed between the owner and the person in possession the relationship of landlord and tenant, vendor and vendee or mortgagor and mortgagee, or their respective assigns. (5) Whoever willfully and fraudulently obtains money or property from another by check, draft or order for the payment of money or the delivery of property, when such person knows that the drawer or maker thereof is not en- titled to draw on the drawee for the sum specified therein or to order the payment of the sum. Subd. 7. Offenses Against Public ,justice. The offenses against public justice: (1) Whoever by force or fraud rescues from officer or person having him in lawful custody, arrest, commitment, conviction or sentence for ORDINANCE CODE 260 following acts constitute lawful custody, or from an a prisoner held upon a charge, a misdemeanor. 6/9/80 CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESO rA #f- �C�- (2) Whoever takes from the custody of an officer or other person personal property in his charge under any process of law or who willfully injures or destroys such property. (3) Whoever escapes from custody while a prisoner or who departs from the jail or place of confinement or.fails to return in accordance with his permission. (4) Whoever with intent to effect or facilitate the escape of a prisoner, whether such escape is effected or attempted or not, enters the jail or conveys to a prisoner any information or sends into the jail any disguise, in strument, weapon or other thing, and every person who aids or assists a prisoner in escaping or attempting to escape from lawful custody. (5) Whoever knowingly or willfully conceals or harbors for the pur pose of concealment a person who has escaped or is escaping from custody. (6) Whoever, after having been lawfully commanded by any judge or magistrate to arrest another person, willfully neglects or refuses to do so, and every person who, after having been lawfully commanded to aid an officer in arresting any person or in retaking any person who has escaped from lawful custody, or in executing any legal process. (7) Whoever in any case, or under any circumstances not otherwise enumerated herein willfully resists, delays or obstructs a public officer in discharging or attempting to discharge a duty of his office. (8) Whoever directly or indirectly addresses any threat or intimidation to a public officer, or who attempts to bribe any public officer, with intent to induce him to do, make, omit or delay any act, decision'or determination. (9) Whenever two or more persons conspire to commit any act injurious to the public health, public morals, trade or commerce for the perver- sion or obstruction of public justice or the due administration of laws. Subd. 8. Aid to Law Enforcement Officials;_ False Registration. Every person who fails or refuses to provide any police officer with accurate information as to his identity and place of residence when requested to do so, including the production of written verification thereof if re- quested, and every person who falsely registers himself or willfully obtains or permits false registration of any other person at any tourist camp, cabin camp, hotel, rooming house or other place furnishing-sleeping or overnight stopping accommodations for transient guests. Subd. 9. Lurking. No person in any public or private place, shall . lurk, lie in wait or be concealed with intent to do any mischief or to commit any crime or unlawful act. (Bill 1968 -15) 10/14/68 Subd. 10. Prostitution. No person, in any public or private place, shall engage in, offer or agree to submit his body for hire for the purpose of sexual intercourse as'defined in Minn. Stat. Section 609.29, for the purpose of sodomy as defined in Minn. Stat. Section. 609.293 or for the purpose of manual genital stimulation. 10/14/68 ORDINANCE CODE 261 CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Subd. 11. Further Acts Prohibited. No person shall in any public or prive place do any of the following; (1) Secure or offer to secure, or entice or attempt to entice, another to engage in prostitution as described in this Section, and no person shall aid or abet the commission of such acts or knowingly accept any part of the earnings from prostitution. (2) Hire or offer or agree to hire another person to engage in acts of prostitution. (Bill 1975 -1) 1/27/75 Subd. 12. Participating in a Disorderly House. No person shall own, lease, operate, maintain, reside in, visit or entice or attempt to entice another to reside in or visit any building or place with knowledge that prostitution as defined in Subdivision 10 of this Section, lewd, lascivious or indecent acts, gambling or the unlawful sale of intoxicating liquor or non - intoxicating malt liquor occurs therein. Evidence of the general reputation of such a building or place as one where any of the foregoing occurs shall be prima facie evidence of such knowledge. (1976 -13) 6/14/76 ORDINANCE CODE 261.1 7/12/76 CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA STATE OF MINNESOTA COUNTY OF HENNEPIN - State of Minnesota, Plaintiff,.. MUNICIPAL COURT FOURTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT DIVISION II NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO DISMIS Vs. A .Richard Walter ' Kedzior, CD=t File No: 4092531 Defendant. ---------------------- - - - - -- - - - -- Defendant, Richard Walter. Kedzior, moves the Court to Dismiss the charges against him on the grounds that the facts surrounding his arrest and incarceration clearly violate his Fourth Amendment Rights against unreasonable search ' ' and seizure as guaranteed under the United States Constitution. Oa►-'�"' This. Motion is made upon all of the files, records herein, the police report and the Memorandum and points of authority submitted herewith. Dated: Charles W. Faulkner Attorney for Defendant 800 Norwest Midland Bldg. ' 401 -2nd Avenue South Minneapolis, MN 55401 (612) 341 -4411 Atty. No. 28551 • I• -�Owv;- � THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA AMENDMENT IV The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirm- ation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to.be seized. I• I• 10 STATE OF MINNESOTA COUNTY OF HENNEPIN State of Minnesota, MUNICIPAL COURT FOURTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT DIVISION II Plaintiff, DEFENDANT'S MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF HIS MOTION vs. TO DISMISS Richard Walter Kedzior. Defendant. -------------------------------- TO: STATE OF MINNESOTA AND LORRAINE S. CLUGG, ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY, 2000 First Bank Place West, Minneapolis, MN 55402. I. INTRODUCTION On April 21, 1986, an Omnibus Hearing was held before the Honorable Judge of Hennepin County Municipal Court, at which time, Richard Walter Kedzior, by and through his attorney of record, Charles W. Faulkner, moved the above -named Court for its Order dismissing the Complaint. An evidentiary, probable cause hearing was held pursuant to rule 11.03 of the Minnesota Rules of Criminal Procedure at which time _evidence was presented on the record. II.. STATEMENT OF FACTS On October 18, 1985 at approximately 11:00 o'clock p.m., the Defendant went for his usual walk along his usual route. Leaving his home at 7320 Wentworth, he proceeded north through Osburg Park to 70th Street thence east to West Pleasant Avenue, thence north to 66th Street where he proceeded east to the "Hub Mall ". All stores were brightly lit and the sidewalks illuminated. He crossed 66th Street North and walked to the hobby store peering at the window displays. He proceeded to look in the windows of the United Stores and then crossed Nicollet Avenue going east to the shopping mall on the opposite side of Nicollet. The Defendant briefly looked in a couple of store fronts and proceeded south until arriving at 66th Street. He crossed it and checked out stores on the mall on the southeast corner of 66th and Nicollet including, a restaurant, Gentleman's Warehouse, and the Hammond Organ Store. All stores were brightly lit and the sidewalk 'illuminated. Defendant looked at various shirts in the windows of Gentleman's Warehouse and proceeded to view the organs and pianos at the Hammond Organ store front. He then started to cross the parking lot to get to the street when a police car roared at him from the rear. He continued to walk when the police officer jumped . out of his car and yelled for some form of identification. The Defendant calmly told him that he did not have any identification whereupon the police officer responded that he should identify himself. Defendant walked over to the police officer, some 25 feet, and asked the officer if he was under arrest. The officer said no, and the Defendant turned around and continued to walk away in the direction he was previously going. When he had proceeded approximately ten feet the officer jumped him from the back, turned him around whereupon the officer dropped his flashlight. The officer became very excited and exclaimed, "now you are in trouble, you have knocked my flashlight out of my hand and you are resisting ;A�f_ll arrest." The officer gave a code into his walkie talkie. The Defendant toasked the officer what he was charged with and the officer responded, "trespassing ", whereupon he threw the Defendant against the police car. The officer held the Defendant by the coat jacket and in bouncing him against the car demanded to know who he was. The Defendant replied, "My name is Richard Kedzior", yet the officer subsequently denied this. A few minutes later two or three other police cars arrived and handcuffed him and took him to the Richfield Police Station. III. ARGUMENT A. The arresting officers investigatory stop was not justified by some objective manifestation that R i c h a r d Walter Kedzior was about to be, or was engaged in criminal activity. The Fourth Amendment applies to seizures of the person, including brief investigatory stops.: Reid vs. Geor2ia.448 U.S. 438, 440, 100 S.Ct. 2752, 2753, 65 L.Ed.2d 890 (1980); United States v. Brignoni- Ponce. 422 U.S., supra, at 878, 95 S.Ct., at 2578; Davis vs. MississiI21-2i, 394 U.S. 721, 89 S.Ct. 1394, 22 L.Ed.2d 676 (1969); Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 16 -19, 88 S.Ct. 1868, 1877 - 1979, 20 L.Ed.2d 889 (1968). -an investigatory stop must be justified by some objective manifestation that the person stopped is, or is about to be, engaged in criminal activity Brown vs. Texas, 443 U.S. 47, 51, 99, S.Ct. 2637, 2640, 61 L.Ed.2d 541 (1979); Delaware vs. Prouse.440 U.S. 648, 661, 99, S.Ct. 1391, 1400, 59 L.Ed.2d 660 (1,979); United States v. Brignoni- Ponce. supra, 422 U.S., at 884, 95 S.Ct. at 2581; Adams v. Williams, 407 U.S. 143, 146 -149, 92 S.Ct. 1921, 1023 -1924, 32 L.Ed.2d 612 (1972); Terry v. Ohio, supra, 392 U.S., at 16 -19, 88 S.Ct., at 1977 -1879. Courts have used a variety of terms to capture the elusive concept of what cause is sufficient to authorize police to stop a person. ; terms like " articulabee reasons" and "founded suspicion" are not self- defining; they fall short of providing clear guidance dispositive of the myriad factual situations that arise. But the essence of all that has been written is that the totality of the circumstance the whole picture- must be taken into account. Based upon that whole picture the detaining officers must have a particularized and objective basis for suspecting the particular person stopped of criminal activity. See, e.g., Brown v. Texas. supra, . 443 U.S., at 51, 99, S.Ct., at 2640; United States v. Brignoni- Ponce. supra, 422 U.S., at 884, 95 S.Ct., at 2581. The idea that an assessment of the whole picture must yield a particularized suspicion contains two elements, each of which must be present before a stop is permissible. First, the assessment must be based upon all the circumstances. The analysis proceeds with various objective observations, information from police reports, if such are available, and consideration of the modes or patterns of operation of certain kinds of lawbreakers. From these data, a trained officer draws inferences and makes deductions- inferences and deductions that might well elude an untrained person. The process does not deal with hard certainties, but with probabilities. Long before the law of probabilities was articulated as such, practical people formulated certain common sense conclusions about human behavior; jurors as factfinders are permitted to do the a same and so are law enforcement officers. Finally, the evidence thus collected must be seen and weighed not in terms of library analysis by scholars, but as understood by those versed in the field of law enforcement. The second element contained in the idea that an assessment of the whole picture must yield a particularized suspicion is the concept that the process just described must raise a suspicion that the particular individual being stopped is engaged in wrongdoing. Chief Justice Warren, speaking for the Court in Terry v. Ohio. supra, said that, "(t)his demand for specificity in the information upon which police action is predicated is the central teaching of this Court's Fourth Amendment jurisprudence." Id., 392 U.S., at 21, N. 18, 88 S.Ct., at 1880, n. 19 (emphasis added). See also, Brown v. Texas, Prouse, supra, 443 U.S., at 51, 99 S.Ct., at 2640; Delaware v. supra, at 661 -663, 99 S.Ct., at 1400 -1401; United States v. Brienoni- Ponce, supra, at 884, S.Ct., at 2581. Based on the whole picture comprising the instant case, the arresting officer did not have a particularized and objective basis for suspecting that Richard Walter Kedzior was, or was about to be engaged in criminal activity. The analysis proceeds with objective observations - information from the arresting officer's police report. (See Exhibit #1). The officer prefaces his report by noting that he was checking businesses in the area due to past and recent burglaries. The officer observed an older man looking into a mens store in a lighted shopping mall. the officer turned his squad car around and now he observed the man looking into Hammond Organ, a store next to the mens store. At ithis point, with nothing more than the above stated facts, the officer pulled into the parking lot of the mall and advised his dispatch that he, the officer, would be checking out a suspicious male. Clearly, under the progeny as laid out by the U.S. Supreme Court, in r wn and then Terry, supra, there is by no stretch of the imagination, an assessment of the whole picture that yields a particularized suspicion based upon all the circumstances that the individual being stopped was engaged in wrongdoing. As Chief Justice Warren stated, in speaking for the Court in Terry vs. Ohio. sup r a, "(t)his demand for specificity in the information upon which police action is predicted is the central teaching of this Courts Fourth Amendment Jurisprudence." I'd., 392 U.S., at 21, n. 18, 88 S.Ct., at 1880, n. 18. B. Richard Walter Kedzior's decision to refuse to identify himself and continue on his way after the officer identified himself as a police officer, did not, c o n s t i t u t e reasonable, objective grounds to detain him even momentarily. Law enforcement officers do not violate the Fourth Amendment by merely approaching an individual on the street or in another public place, by asking him if he is willing to answer some questions, by putting questions -to him if the person is willing to listen, or by offering in evidence ' in a criminal prosecution his i voluntary answers to such questions. 2e Dunaway v. New York, supra, at 210, n. 12, 60 L.Ed.2d 824, 99 S.Ct., 2248; Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. at 31, 32 -33; 20 L.Ed.2d 889, 88 S.Ct., 1868, 44 Ohio Ops 2d 383 iW (Harlan, J., concurring); id., at 34, 20 L.Ed.2d 889, 88 S.Ct. 1868, 44 Ohio Ops 2d 383 (White, J., concurring). Nor would the fact that the officer identifies himself as a police officer, without more, convert the encounter into a seizure requiring some level of objective justification. United States v. Mendenhall 446 U.S. 544, 555, 64 L.Ed.2d 497, 100 S. Ct. 1870 (1980) (opinion of Stewart, J.). The person approached, however, need not answer any question put to him; indeed, he may decline to listen to the questions at all and may go on his way. Terry v. Ohio. 392 U.S., at 32 -33, 20 L.Ed.2d 889, 88 S.Ct. 1868, 44 Ohio Ops 2d 383 (Harlan, J., concurring); id., at 34, 20 L.Ed.2d 889, 88 S.Ct. 1868, 44 Ohio Ops 2d 383 (White, J., concurring). He may not be detained even momentarily without reasonable, objective grounds for doing so; and his refusal to listen or answer does not, without more, furnish those grounds. United States v. Mendenhall. supra, at 556, 64 L.Ed.2d 497, 100 S.Ct., 1870 (opinion of Stewart J.). As the Supreme Court's constitutional interpretations clearly state, even with a police officers identification or himself as a police officer, there is no duty upon the person approached to answer any questions put to him. More importantly, one may decline to listen to the officer's questions at all and go on his way. A persons refusal to listen or answer to a police officer under these conditions will not furnish the grounds to even momentarily detain a person. IV. CONCLUSION The Defendant, Richard Walter Kedzior, is a licensed attorney in the State of :Minnesota. As such, he is clearly aware of his rights is under the constitution. His behavior in the instant action has been • explicitly endorsed by the highest Court in the land. Accordingly, Richard Walter Kedzior, by and through his attorney of record Charles W. Faulkner, respectfully requests this Court to _.dismiss the charges against said Defendant. Respectfully Submitted, Charles W. Faulkner n L J' 4 STATE OF MINNESOTA MUNICIPAL COURT • COUNTY OF HENNEPIN FOURTH .JUDICIAL DISTRICT DIVISION FOUR COURT FILE NO. 4092531 and 4092532 and 4092533 State of Minnesota, Plaintiff, V. STATE'S MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN OPPOSITION TO Richard.Walter Kedzior, MOTION TO DISMISS Defendant. TO: Defendant, Richard Walter Kedzior, and his attorney, Charles W. Faulkner, 800 Norwest Midland Building, 401 Second Avenue South, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55401: I. INTRODUCTION The above- captioned matter was set on for a jury trial on April 21, 1986, before the Honorable George R. Adzick, presiding in Courtroom 227, Division 4 - Southdale. The Defendant's motion to dismiss the charges against him was set before the Court, and the Court ordered the parties to submit briefs to be reviewed prior to the Court deciding the matters of law submitted to it. II. STATEMENT OF FACTS On October 18, 1985, at approximately one -half hour after midnight, Officer Robert Brotzel of the Richfield Department of Public Safety was checking businesses in the vicinity of Nicollet • Avenue and 66th Street in the City of Richfield. There had been C� J • • burglaries to businesses during this time period. Officer Brotzel noticed an older man who was approximately six feet tall wearing blue jeans, a gray jacket, a reddish stocking hat, and blue Nike running shoes, looking into one of the store front businesses, Gentlemen's Wearhouse at 6601 Nicollet Avenue South. As Officer Brotzel's squad car headed southbound on Nicollet, the individual he was observing looked toward the squad, and then started walking southbound along the side of the building. The officer turned his squad around and now observed the individual looking into the Hammond Organ store at 6609 Nicollet Avenue. Officer Brotzel then pulled into the parking lot, advising the dispatcher that he was checking a suspicious person at that location. The businesses had been closed for six hours, and all employees were gone. When Officer Brotzel entered the parking lot, the person he was observing quickly walked away from the businesses, westward toward Nicollet Avenue. Officer Brotzel approached the individual and advised him the reason for his presence, that he was suspicious of his activities in the area at that time of night, and that Officer Brotzel would like some identification from him. The individual stated that he was just window shopping, and that he did not have to show identification. He repeatedly refused to provide identification, stating he was going to continue on his way. Officer Brotzel then ordered back up assistance and held on to the individual to prevent him from leaving. The individual then stated he wanted to be placed under arrest and was told to put his hands up on the squad, which he did. While Officer Brotzel was doing a pat search on the 2 individual, the individual turned completely around, swinging his arms and knocking the flashlight that Officer Erotzel was holding onto the ground. Officer Brotzel was now holding the individual, who was facing him, against the squad. Two other officers, Officer Clark and Sergeant Wright, arrived on the scene, and the individual was cuffed and placed into Officer Brotzel's squad car. Officer Brotzel and Sergeant Wright then checked the area and found the buildings secure, and the detainee was advised he was under arrest for failure to identify himself and also for obstructing legal process and resisting arrest. He was transported to the police station for booking where he still refused to give his name and refused to be fingerprinted. He called two separate attorneys, and after talking to each he • persisted in -- refusing to provide identification. He was later released to the Hennepin County Jail. Later, the Hennepin County Jail called and advised that the arrestee had finally identified himself as Richard Walter Kedzior, date of birth - February 26, 1941. III. ARGUMENT A. Officer Brotzel's investigatory stop of Richard Walter Kedzior was justified. The United States Supreme Court, beginning with the case of Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 88 S.CT. (1968) , has given full recognition to law enforcement officers' need for an "intermediate" response, short of arrest, to suspicious • circumstances; the power to effect a brief detention for the 3 purpose of questioning is a useful tool for an investigation and for prevention of crime. As stated in the case of Berkemer v. McCarty, 82 L.Ed 2nd 317, 334 (1984), . . Under the Fourth Amendment, we have held, a policeman who lacks probable cause_but. whose "observations lead -him reasonably to suspect" that a particular person has committed, is committing, or is about to commit a crime, may detain that person• briefly in order to "investigate the circumstances that provoke suspicion." United States v. Brignoni- Ponce, 422 U.S. 873, 881 (1975). "[T]he stop and inquiry must be 'reasonably related in scope to the justification for their initiation.'" Ibid. (Quoting Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 29 (1968).) Typically, this means that the officer may ask the detainee a moderate number of questions to determine his identity and to try to obtain information confirming or dispelling the officer's suspicions. But the detainee is not obliged to respond, and, unless the detainee's answers provide the officer with probable cause to arrest him, he must then be released. As the U.S. Supreme Court noted in Kolender v. Lawson, 461 U.S. 352, 103 S.CT. 1855 (1983), Terry encounters must be brief, • and the suspect must not be moved or asked to move more than a short distance; physical searches are permitted only to the extent necessary to protect the police officers involved during the encounter, and, most importantly, the subject must be free to leave after a short time and to decline to answer the questions put to him. Nevertheless, and important to this case, the Supreme Court also recognized in Kolender at 461 U.S. 366, fn4, that a reaction by an individual to a properly limited Terry encounter, e.g., violence towards a police officer, in and of itself furnishes.valid grounds for arrest. Other reactions, such as flight, may often provide the necessary information, in addition to that the officers already possess, to constitute • probable cause. "In some circumstances it is even conceivable that the mere fact that a suspect refuses to answer questions 4 once detained, viewed in the context of the facts that gave rise to reasonable suspicion in the first place, would be enough to provide probable cause. A Court confronted with such a claim, however, would have to evaluate it carefully to make certain that the person arrested was not being penalized for the exercise of his right to refuse to answer." Id., at 461 U.S. 366, fn4. The Supreme Court in Michigan v. Long, 463 U.S. 1032, 1047 (1983), noted that a brief intrusion into personal security may be reasonable when weighing the interest of the individual against the legitimate interest in crime prevention and detectment and the need for law enforcement officers to protect themselves and other prospective victims of violence in situations where they may have probable cause for an arrest. • In the - matter under review, Officer Brotzel certainly had reason to investigate, considering the lateness of the hour, the facts that these stores had long been closed, the fact that there had been burglaries in the area recently, and the fact that the Defendant's dress and behavior at the time and place were unusual. The investigation started out with a simple question, asking the Defendant to identify himself, and rather than cooperate and explain his presence in the vicinity, the Defendant chose to be obstructive, to the extent that during the pat down search which is allowed by law, the Defendant knocked Officer Brotzel's flashlight away from him. Thus what had begun as a simple investigatory stop became, solely by the actions of the Defendant, an act of an individual interfering with legal process. 5 It 0 B. Actions by the Defendant subsequent to the initial investigatory stop created a situation wherein Defendant was required to provide identification to the police officer. As already mentioned, the Supreme Court in Kolender recognized that an initial investigatory stop could, through reactions of a detainee, conceivably turn into a situation which would in itself furnish a valid ground for arrest. Once that situation has occurred, then all constitutional protection the Defendant might have as an individual which would preclude his having to answer questions of an investigating law enforcement officer would end. That is precisely what happened in the matter at bar. Officer Brotzel made a legal investigatory stop, which escalated due to actions instigated by the Defendant, to a situation where Officer Brotzel had the right to arrest the Defendant for interfering with legal process. At that point in time, Defendant had no further protections such as those discussed in Brown v. Texas, 443 U.S. 47 (1979), wherein he could claim that he had the right to refuse to answer questions. Even after being placed under arrest for failure to cooperate with the police officers, the Defendant refused to provide his identification and refused to cooperate in the booking process,.necessitating the calling of Hennepin County Sheriff's Deputies to transport him to the Hennepin County Jail. Apparently only upon arrival at the jail did the Defendant choose to provide his name. The fact that the Defendant is a licensed attorney and therefore an officer of the court does not mitigate his obstructive behavior. Once having . s • ' recognized that he was in fact going to be placed under arrest, • had he chosen to cooperate with the officers the entire affair might have ended right there. IV. CONCLUSIONS Officer Brotzel's investigatory stop was justified. The Defendant's subsequent behavior in the course of the legal action taken by the officer during the investigatory stop warranted the Defendant being placed under arrest, and when the Defendant still refused to provide identification to the officer and to cooperate with the booking process, the Defendant's behavior clearly was not protected by any constitutional rights. The State of Minnesota respectfully requests the Court to deny the Motion To • Dismiss brought by Defendant. 1 Respectfully submitted LeFEVERE, LEFLER, KENNEDY, O'BRIEN & DRAWZ By Lorraine S. Clugg Atty. Reg. No. 139488 Assistant City Attorney, City of Richfield Attorneys for Plaintiff 2000 First Bank Place West Minneapolis, MN 55402 Tel: (612) 333 -0543 7 CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Council Letter No. 366 September 22, 1986 Issue Statement: Ordinance Amendment Related to Gambling Activities, and Prohibiting Off- premise Gambling. Second Reading. Background: On May 12, 1986 the council considered a request from Richfield VFW Post 5555 for an off- premise gambling license. At that time, the council passed a resolution recommending that the State Charitable Gambling Control Commission deny this request. However, during the discussion of this matter, the City Attorney informed council members that because of substantial changes in the state gambling statutes, and the transfer of many gambling control activities from municipal government to the new State Charitable Gambling Control Commission, amendments were required to the Richfield City Ordinance Code related to gambling activities in our community. An additional issue that related to this change in gambling ® regulations involved the provision of off -site gambling, if such activity was to be permitted after review by local councils. The council requested that the impact of such activity be studied prior to setting a council policy with regard to this issue. Based upon the change in the law, it was the opinion of the City Attorney that the city council should consider such requests on an individual basis. The city could determine over a period of months what impact this activity might have within our community. At the August 11, 1986, city council meeting, the city council gave first reading to an ordinance amendment related to gambling. The ordinance amendment would bring the city ordinance into conformance with the state statutes. Under the terms of the proposed ordinance amendment, off -site gambling could be permitted on a request by request basis by resolution of the city council. Although the city council approved first reading of this ordinance, the council directed city staff to incorporate into the ordinance amendment a prohibition of off - premise gambling, to the extent possible, under terms of the new state statute, or prepare a policy which would prohibit off - premise gambling. The attached revised ordinance amendment prepared by the City Attorney prohibits off - premise gambling and may be approved in this form at second reading if the council so desires. Included with this proposed ordinance amendment is the recommended fee • structure related to gambling activities as permitted by state law. Also attached for council information is Council Letter 313 • which was considered on August 11, 1986 when council gave first reading approval to the proposed ordinance amendment. Recommendation: Approve the attached ordinance amendment which brings city control of community gambling activities into conformance with changes in the state statute and prohibits off - premise gambling in the community. Also, that council approve the attached fee structure which is based on permissible charges under state statute. Basis of Recommendation: 1. Changes in state law related to charitable gambling have invalidated portions of the existing Richfield Gambling Control Ordinance. 2. Attached amendment incorporates the prohibition of off - premise gambling requested by city council. 3. City Attorney recommends approval of amended ordinance. 4. Not maintaining local control over permissible gambling could create a public safety problem in the community. Alternatives: 1. If the current ordinance continues to be enforced, the city 4 could be subject to litigation on an issue that we could no longer defend. 2. If the current ordinance is not amended, community organizations will be encouraged to continue to apply for permission to conduct off - premise gambling activities. 3. Council could elect to not maintain local control over gambling activities and simply defer to the existing regulations which can be established by the State Charitable Gambling Control Board. Their option could eliminate local control of gambling activities within Richfield. Decision: The amendment to the Richfield code will be presented for action at the September 22, 1986 city council meeting. Until final action is taken, Richfield lacks a valid local ordinance to regulate gambling. YRespec ully submitted, Prosser ager • JDP /eja AMENDMENT TO CHAPTER V, PART II OF THE ORDINANCE CODE OF THE CITY OF RICHFIELD CITY OF RICHFIELD DOES ORDAIN: Chapter V, Part II of the Ordinance Code of the City of Rich- field, entitled "Amusement and Recreation ", is hereby amended in the following respects: I. Section 5.19 thereof entitled "Bingo, Gambling Devices and Raffles" is repealed. II. The following new Section 5.19A is added in place of said Section 5.19: 5.19A Lawful Gamblin Subdivision 1. Definitions. The definitions contained in Minnesota Statutes, Section 349.12, subdivision 1 are adopted and incorporated by reference and shall constitute the definitions of those terms as used in this section. Subd. 2. License or Permit Required. Lawful types of gambling shall be permitted but only by organizations which have been issued either a currently valid gambling license issued by the state charitable gambling board, or a permit issued by the city to conduct gambling exempt from licensing under Minnesota Statutes, Section 349.214. Subd. 3. Investigation - State License. Upon receipt of notification from the charitable gambling board of the pendency of an application for issuance or renewal of an organization gam- bling license, the city manager shall transmit the notification to the public safety department for its review and recommendation. The public safety department shall investigate the matter and make its review and recommendation to the city council as soon as possible, but in no event later than 25 days following receipt of the notification by the city. The applicant shall be notified in writing of the date on which the recommendation will be considered by the city council. Subd. 4. Investigation Fee. The applicant for an organization gambling license shall pay to the city an investigation fee as provided in Appen- dix D of this code. The public safety department ;zo- 7 CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Office of City Manager Council Letter No. 313 Agenda August 11, 1986 The Honorable Mayor and Members Of The City Council City of Richfield Subject: Ordinance Amendment Related to Gambling Activities Permitting Off- Premise Gambling On An Individual Basis. First Reading. Council Members:. On May 12, 1986, the council considered a request from Richfield VFW Post 5555 for an off - premises gambling license. During discussion of this matter, the City Attorney informed council members that because of substantial changes in the state gambling statutes, and the transfer of many gambling control activities from municipal government to the, new State Charitable Gambling Control Commission, amendments were required to the . Richfield City Ordinance Code. The attached amendments as prepared by the City Attorney, are presented for council consideration in this matter. An additional issue that related to this.change in gambling regulations involved the provision of off -site gambling if such activity was to be permitted after review by local council's. There was a general feeling of reservation on the part of council members to permit this type of activity. It was requested that the impact of such activity be studied prior to setting a council policy with regard to this issue. It is the opinion of the City Attorney that council consider such requests on an individual basis for a period of months to determine what impact this activity might have within our community, or until a "track record" of such activity is established by other communities which staff may study. The attached ordinance amendment does not prohibit off -site gambling. Under the terms of the proposed ordinance amendment, off -site gambling could be permitted on a request by request basis by resolution of the city council. If the council concurs with this concept, the attached ordinance can be considered as it is presented. If the council wishes to prohibit off -site gambling, such a regulation can be added to the attached ordinance amendment prior to the public hearing and second reading consideration. i Staff Recommendation It is recommended that the council give first reading consideration to the attached ordinance amendment. Following council discussion of this issue, staff can be directed to develop any additional language prior to final consideration of the amendment to prohibit off -site gambling if the council so chooses. SD /eja • Npc fully submit ted, L. is City Manager 0 PUBLIC SAFETY DEPARTMENT POLICE DIVISION MEMORANDUM DATE: 7 -23 -86 TO: DIRECTOR THOMAS A. MORGAN FROM: CAPTAIN RONALD J. RICHARDSON SUBJECT: AMENDMENT TO THE GAMBLING ORDINANCE The Legislature has enacted more changes, in the statutes relating to charitable gambling, that relieves the local municipalities of the responsibility of licensing legal gambling. The new legislation did, though, make provision for local regulation by the review of requests for gambling licenses by local authorities and gives the City Council the authority, by resolution, to approve or disapprove the license request. The authority for local regulation of lawful gambling also gives the right to the city to require permits for the conduct of legal gambling that is exempt from licensing by the state. The changes in the gambling statutes by the legislature essentially caused our local gambling ordinances to conflict with the new provisions, and thus we must amend our ordinance in order to function within the conditions of the new statute. Our city attorney (John Dean) has developed some amendments to our present Gambling Ordinance (Chapter V,Part II) that we should present to the City Council for their consideration and action. In my talks with John Dean I expressed our concerns with the ability for organizations to ask for and be granted licenses for conducting gambling at sights other than the premises occupied by the requesting qualified organization. We in our talks have expressed a reluctance on our part-to endorse such off -sight gambling on the grounds that it would not be in the best intrust of the community. I went so far as to request that John draft an ordinance revision that would in fact prohibit such off -sight gambling. John got back to me on this part of my suggestion and said that it might be best not to prohibit such activities, but, instead let the council consider each request for off -sight gambling and act on each individually. He felt that it would be best if the council had the experience in dealing with these license requests for a year or so to enable them to make a more informed decision on the advisability of allowing off -sight gambling and could express a community stand by resolution. � 7-/. • Other controls of legal gambling that were in our ordinance addressed the number gambling occasions allowed and set monetary limits on legal gambling. These controls are now addressed by rules adopted by the Charitable Gambling Control Board and the limits set by them, although more liberal than ours were, seem reasonable. It would be my suggestion that we refrain from adopting any different standards until such that time it becomes - necessary. Therefore, I am submitting the proposed Gambling Ordinance amendment for your review and comment. If you are satisfied it should be ready for presentation for Council approval. E n L_J • n U Council Minutes -8- August 11, 1986 Item #9 ORDINANCE AMENDMENT RELATING TO GAMBLING ACTIVITIES WHICH WOULD PERMIT OFF - PREMISE GAMBLING ON AN INDIVIDUAL BASIS. C.L. 313. Public Safety Director Morgan reviewed Council Letter No. 313 concerning a proposed ordinance amendment relating to 71-1� Council Minutes -9- August 11, 1986 gambling activities and to allow off - premise gambling on an . individual basis. The amendment would bring Richfield's ordinance in compliance with recent state legislation. City Attorney LeFevere reviewed the state statutes regarding charitable gambling and their relationship to city ordinances. He stated that the council could adopt a policy of not approving any off - premise gambling permit applications. Council Member Sandahl stated he was opposed to a blanket prohibition of off - premise gambling because some may merit council approval. Public Safety Director Morgan stated that the ordinance amendment provided for approval. However, the council may wish to give a clear direction on this issue by a policy. Council "Member Ludeman stated he supported developing a Policy of prohibiting all off - premise gambling. Council Member Garcia stated that allowing off - premise gambling would not be in the best interest of the community and that a policy prohibiting it would provide consistency in dealing with this issue. Council Member Kirsch stated that a consistent policy would avoid any confusion regarding this issue. M /Kirsch,.S /Ludeman to direct city staff to develop a policy prohibiting off - premise gambling for council consideration and, that this constitute First Reading of this ordinance amendment and that the Public Hearing and Second Readin of the ordinance amendment be scheduled for Au ust 25 1986. Motion carried 4 -1. ( Sandahl opposed). Item #10 TWO ORDINANCE AMENDMENTS EXEMPTING VENDING MACHINES WHICH DISPENSE BOTTLED AND CANNED SOFT DRINKS FROM LICENSE AND INSPECTION FEES.' C.L. 314. Acting City Manager Devich reviewed Council Letter No. 314 regarding two proposed ordinance amendments to exempt vending machines which dispense bottled and canned soft drinks from license and inspection fees and bring the Richfield ordinance code in compliance with recent state legislative action. • �4 CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Council Letter No. 365 September 22, 1986 Issue Statement: Conduct a Public Hearing and Subsequently Adopt a Resolution Regarding a Proposed Increase to Food, Tobacco, and Certain Vending Machine License Fees Background: There is a public hearing scheduled for September 22, 1986, regarding the fees set by the City Council for food, drink and tobacco vending machines. Minnesota State Statute 471.707 requires that the City Council conduct a public hearing when a fee adjustment is proposed for these license categories. This law provides that thirty (30) days mailed notice must be given to such vending machine businesses. A timely notice of the September 22, 1986, hearing was mailed by the City Clerk's office to the licensees covered by the statute (see attached notice). At the public hearing, affected licensees will be given an opportunity to comment on the proposed fee increases. Recommendation: • It is recommended that at the conclusion of the public hearing, the City Council adopt a motion setting the license fee at $20.00 (an increase of $1.00) for the following license categories: 1) 6.01 Food and Ice Vending Machines 2) 6.11 Tobacco Vending Machines 3) 6.13 Soft Drink Vending Machines (excluding bottled and canned soft drink vending machines which are now exempt by State Statute from fees) Basis of Recommendation: Pursuant to State Statute, a community may not use license fees to generate revenues generally in excess of the total costs incurred by the community for such licensure. The proposed 1987 license fee of $2 (i.00 is approximately a five per cent (5 %) increase over the 1986 license fee of $19.00. This increase is justified to cover additional labor costs (the proposed 1987 budget calls for a 4% wage increase) and anticipated increase in the costs of supplies. Therefore, based upon the review of the costs to regulate, the recommended 1987 • license fee is $20.00 for all categories covered by this council letter. Alternative Recommendation: License fees could remain at the 1986 rate of $19.00. However, the increased costs of labor and materials with no corresponding revenue increase would require that General Fund revenues be used to support this licensing function. Additionally, it has been the policy of the City Council to approve annual nominal fee increases, rather than hold fees constant for two or more years and then adopt a significant fee increase. Discussion /Decision Mode: If the City Council concurs with the recommended fee structure, such fees will be included in the annual resolution to establish license, permit, and miscellaneous fees to be considered by the Council as part of the 1987 proposed budget. This is the most appropriate procedure for adopting such fee increases. JDP:sb • Respectfully submitted, J es D. Prosser C ty Manager August 20, 1986 To: All Vending Machine Licensees Subject: Public Hearing on Proposed Fee Increases NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING Minnesota State Statute 471.707 requires that hearings be held on the following categories of licensure: A. 6.01 food and ice vending machines B. 6.11 tobacco vending machines C. 6.13 soft drink vending machines In order to comply with state law, the.City of Richfield is holding a PUBLIC HEARING in conjunction with the regulary scheduled City Council Meeting on Monday, September 22, 1986 at 7:00 p.m. in the council chambers at 6700 Portland Avenue. 6.13 Soft Drink *a. Vending machine dispensing $ 19 per year $ 0 bottles or cans b. Other vending machines $ 19 per year $ 20 per year *Please note that bottled and canned soft drink vending machines will no longer be licensed nor have a fee due to a change in Minnesota Statutes. Please plan on attending this hearing if you have comments or questions regarding these proposed fee increases or call the licensing staff at 869 -7521 during business hours, Monday 8 a.m. to 6 p.m. and Tuesday - Friday 8 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. Thomas P. Ferber, City Clerk Present (1986) Rate Proposed (1987) Rate 6.01 Food 0 a. Food vending machine $ 19 per year $ 20 per year requiring coin or token b. Other food vending $ 19 per year $ 20 per year machine. c. Ice vending machine $ 19 per year $ 20 per year 6.11 Tobacco a. Sale & distribution $ 19 per year $ 20 per year b. Vending Machine $ 19 per year $ 20 per year 6.13 Soft Drink *a. Vending machine dispensing $ 19 per year $ 0 bottles or cans b. Other vending machines $ 19 per year $ 20 per year *Please note that bottled and canned soft drink vending machines will no longer be licensed nor have a fee due to a change in Minnesota Statutes. Please plan on attending this hearing if you have comments or questions regarding these proposed fee increases or call the licensing staff at 869 -7521 during business hours, Monday 8 a.m. to 6 p.m. and Tuesday - Friday 8 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. Thomas P. Ferber, City Clerk • CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Council Letter No. 364 September 22, 1986 Issue Statement: Public Hearing on the Appeal of Hearing Examiner's Denial of Sideyard Setback Variance Request and Whether or Not a Lot Coverage Variance Should be Granted at 7011 James Avenue Background: Mr. and Mrs. Thomas E. Ticen, 7011 James Avenue, requested two variances: 1) to allow the construction of a fireplace with a chimney chase extending two feet into the required five foot interior sideyard setback on the northside; 2) to allow the lot coverage to exceed the allowed maximum lot coverage for residential use. Maximum lot coverage provided by ordinance is 3,037.5 square feet. The proposed maximum lot coverage for this property is 3,173 square feet. The case was heard by the hearing examiner on August 12, 1986 and a written decision on the subject was mailed to the applicant on September 2, 1986. A copy of the staff review of the variance request and the hearing examiner's decision is attached for your information. The hearing.examiner denied the request for a variance for the construction of fireplace with the chimney chase extending,two feet into the required sideyard setback on the northside. The hearing examiner did not make a decision on the variance request for allowable maximum lot coverage in the "R" (single family residence) district, and recommended that the city council determine whether or not a variance for the lot coverage should be granted. Recommendation: It is recommended that the hearing examiner's decision on the variance request for the sideyard setback requirement be upheld, and that the request for a variance on the allowable maximum lot coverage be granted. Basis of Recommendation: Variance to the Sideyard Requirement: 1. State Statutes Section 462.357, subdivision 6 and Chapter III, Part IV of the City of Richfield Ordinance Code provides for the granting of variance to the literal provisions of the zoning code, where strict compliance would cause undue hardship because of circumstances unique to the property under consideration. • 2. A variance for the interior sideyard setback to allow the construction of a fireplace with a chimney chase extending two feet into the interior sideyard on the northside is not necessary because reasonable use of the property could be continued by locating the fireplace without extending the chimney chase two feet into the required five foot sideyard on the northside of the property. 3. The property is similar to other lots in the area and is not unique in the community. 4. Allowing the construction of the fireplace with the chimney chase extending into the required sideyard setback on the northside would pose a public safety problem due to the risk of an exposure fire and would necessitate a residential sprinkler system in the dwelling. 5. The criteria for granting of the variance has not been met. Thus, the denial of the request for a variance to the required sideyard setback would not create undue hardship to the applicant and would not violate individual property right. Maximum Lot Coverage • 1. State Statutes Section 462.357, subdivision 6 and Chapter III, Part IV of the City of Richfield Ordinance Code provides for the granting of variance to the literal provisions of the zoning code, where strict compliance would cause undue hardship because of circumstances unique to the property under consideration. 2. The variance request to exceed the allowable maximum lot coverage should be granted since the construction of the proposed addition is already completed because a building permit for the proposed addition was issued on 4/24/86 due to an oversight made by staff before granting of the variance. 3. The proposed addition would have to be demolished to bring the structure into conformance with the city code if the variance for maximum lot coverage is not granted which would pose an undue hardship on the applicant. 4. The proposed addition without the fireplace chimney chase projecting in the sideyard will not alter the • character of the neighborhood. • 5. The addition would increase lot coverage ratio from 14.7% to 26.15%, an amount not considered to be significant enough to disrupt the neighborhood. (maximum allowed lot coverage is 25% of the land area) Alternative Recommendation:. 1. Denial of both variances would result in the need for the applicant to redesign the proposed addition in such a way to conform with all city codes. However, this would cause undue hardship to the applicant and the decision could be challenged in court. 2. The second alternative is to overturn the hearing examiner's decision regarding the variance request on the sideyard setback and also granting the lot coverage to exceed maximum allowable lot coverage. However, granting of the variance request to allow the construction of a fireplace with chimney chase projecting into the sideyard setback would not only set a bad precedent, since the city recently denied a case similar to this one, but also the purpose of having the sideyard setback requirement would be jeopardized. • Decision Mode: This matter will be presented for council action at the September 22, 1986 council meeting. The petitioners are seeking a timely decision in order to complete building during the current building season. R7sProsser ully submitted, J Cager • • (OFFICIAL PUBLICATION) LEGAL NOTICE NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING CONCERNING THE APPEAL OF HEARING EXAMINERS DENIAL OF A SIDEYARD SETBACK VARIANCE REQUEST AND WHETHER OR NOT A LOT COVERAGE VARIANCE SHOULD BE GRANTED AT 7011 JAMES AVENUE SOUTH Notice is hereby given that a public hearing will be held before the City Council of the City of Richfield, acting as the Board of Appeals, concerning an appeal of the denial of a sideyard setback variance by a Richfield Hearing Examiner. The council will also be deciding whether or not a lot coverage variance should also be granted for the site. The hearing will be at 7:00 PM on Monday, September 22 , 1986 in the Council Chambers of Richfield City Hall, at 6700 Portland Avenue, to hear an appeal of the denial of a variance to the Zoning Ordinance. The property is located at 7011 James Avenue South and is legally described as Section 33, Township 28, Range 24, Block 4, Lot 18 and the north 30 feet of Lot 17 Forest Lawn. The appeal concerns the Hearing Examiner's denial of a variance request to allow the construction of a fireplace chase extending 2 feet into the required 5 foot interior setback on the • northside. The council will be deciding whether a variance should be granted to allow the lot coverage to exceed the allowed maximum lot coverage for residential use. All persons interested in this matter are hereby notified to be present and they will be heard. Thomas Ferber, City Clerk PUBLISH: September 10, 1986 0 September 2, 1986 Mr. Thomas Ticen 7011 James Avenue South Richfield, MN 55423 Dear Mr. Ticen, Attached is the written decision of the Richfield Hearing Examiner concerning your recent variance requests. As I indicated to you over the phone, the sideyard variance was denied and the hearing examiner determined that she did not have the authority to make a decision on the lot coverage variance question. The lot coverage variance will be scheduled before the city council on September 22, 1986. If you wish to appeal the sideyard setback decision, you must submit a request in writing for an appeal within 10 days. The appeal will also be scheduled on September 22, 1986. If you have any questions on this matter, please feel free to contact myself or my assistant, Towhid Kazi, at 869 -7521. Sincerely, Rick Jopke City Planner Enclosure RJ /dh telephone: 869 -7521 (612) an equal opportunity employer CO N 'Cfi L LO O ti O ■ i O � 0 September 2, 1986 Mr. Thomas Ticen 7011 James Avenue South Richfield, MN 55423 Dear Mr. Ticen, Attached is the written decision of the Richfield Hearing Examiner concerning your recent variance requests. As I indicated to you over the phone, the sideyard variance was denied and the hearing examiner determined that she did not have the authority to make a decision on the lot coverage variance question. The lot coverage variance will be scheduled before the city council on September 22, 1986. If you wish to appeal the sideyard setback decision, you must submit a request in writing for an appeal within 10 days. The appeal will also be scheduled on September 22, 1986. If you have any questions on this matter, please feel free to contact myself or my assistant, Towhid Kazi, at 869 -7521. Sincerely, Rick Jopke City Planner Enclosure RJ /dh telephone: 869 -7521 (612) an equal opportunity employer EW L O Q O ti O 0 September 2, 1986 Mr. Thomas Ticen 7011 James Avenue South Richfield, MN 55423 Dear Mr. Ticen, Attached is the written decision of the Richfield Hearing Examiner concerning your recent variance requests. As I indicated to you over the phone, the sideyard variance was denied and the hearing examiner determined that she did not have the authority to make a decision on the lot coverage variance question. The lot coverage variance will be scheduled before the city council on September 22, 1986. If you wish to appeal the sideyard setback decision, you must submit a request in writing for an appeal within 10 days. The appeal will also be scheduled on September 22, 1986. If you have any questions on this matter, please feel free to contact myself or my assistant, Towhid Kazi, at 869 -7521. Sincerely, Rick Jopke City Planner Enclosure RJ /dh telephone: 869 -7521 (612) an equal opportunity employer telephone: 869 -7521 (612) an equal opportunity employer co Variance Request N d' CASE N0. 86-V-8-CH-4 U% U) APPLICANT: Mr. and Mrs. Thomas E. Ticen M PROPERTY LOCATION: 7011 James Avenue South • HEARING EXAMINER: Ms. Connie Hoverson _ HEARING DATE: August 12, 1986 APPEARANCES: Mr. Thomas E. Ticen, 7011 James •� Avenue South Based upon the evidence presented at the hearing, ■ the undersigned makes the following findings of 9 9 9 fact, conclusions and decisions. A. FINDINGS OF FACT: i 1. Notice of public hearing was proper. Notice was mailed to property owners within 350 feet of the site in-question as required by city ordinances. The ten day notice requirements o was also met. cc 2. The street address and legal descriptions of �. the property in question are as follows~ •Ln L' 0 Section 33, Township 28, Range 24, Block 4, Lot 18 and the north 30 feet of Lot 17, Q Forest Lawn 0 3. The zoning f the site in I g question is R O Single Family Residential (O 4. The variance requested 1) to allow construction of a fireplace chase extending 2 i feet into the required 5 foot interior sideyard setback on the north side. 2) to allow the lot coverage to exceed the allowed maximum lot coverage for residential use. telephone: 869 -7521 (612) an equal opportunity employer 0 5. The reasons for the request is to allow construction of additions that will substantially enlarge the dwelling for increased living space and to accommodate amenities such as a indoor swimming pool, sauna and a second fireplace. B. CONCLUSIONS Minnesota Statutes Section 462.357, subdivision 6 provides for the granting of variance to the literal provisions of the zoning regulations in instances where their strict enforcement would cause undue hardship to the owners of the property under consideration. In determining whether to grant or deny the requested variance, I specifically have made the following conclusions: 1. Is the granting of the variance necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of substantial property rights? I conclude that the variance to allow the construction of a fireplace with the chase extending 2 feet into the required sideyard setback on the northside is not necessary for the preservation of property rights. The existing single family use can be continued without the variance. There are also reasonable alternative location for the fireplace which would not require a variance. 2. Are there special circumstances or conditions affecting the particular land or building referred to in the application, not caused by the property owner, which are not common to other properties in this or similar districts? I conclude that there are not any unique circumstances which cause a hardship to the property owners. The size and shape of the lot are not unique and allows for reasonable use of the site. 3. Will the granting of the variance alter the essential character of the neighborhood or locality? I conclude that the proposal would not alter the character of the area but might pose a public safety problem because of the proximity of the proposed chimney to the structure on the adjacent lot. 4. Are there any conditions which must be attached to the granting of the variance to ensure compli °ance and to protect adjacent properties? I conclude N /A. C. DECISION Based upon the foregoing, the undersigned determines that the request for a variance to allow the construction of a fireplace chase extending 2 feet into the required 5 foot interior setback on the northside be denied. These is also before me the issue of whether or not a variance should be granted to permit a lot coverage greater than allowed by ordinance. Ordinarily, such an issue can be resolved simply by determining whether the criterion required for granting of a variance are present. In this case, however, the structure has been constructed with the permission of the city and as such I believe that this matter presents considerations and circumstances which are beyond those which I am authorized as a Hearing Examiner to consider. Accordingly I make no findings and render no decision with respect to the applicants request for a variance to the lot coverage requirements contain in city's ordinance code. Nonetheless, I believe that the resolution of this matter is of vital concern to the applicant, and therefore, it is my recommendation that the City Council fully consider all of the circumstances in 0 this matter and determine whether based upon all such circumstances the City Council should grant the lot coverage .variance requested by the applicant. DATED: 2 , 1986. Hearing Examiner City of Richfield 0 • C C� -Z�� L C I T Y O F R I C H F I E L D, M I N N E S O T A C O M M U N I T Y D E V E L O P M E N T D E P A R T M E N T Hearing Examiner City of Richfield Case #86- V- 8 -CH -4 Date of Hearing: August 12, 1986 Subject: Variance Request by M/M Thomas E. Ticen Concerning Property at 7011 James Avenue South Proposal: Mr. and Mrs. Thomas E. Ticen have requested two variances, 1) to allow the construction of a fireplace chase extending 2 feet into the required 5 feet interior sideyard setback on the north side, 2) to allow the lot coverage to exceed the allowed maximum lot coverage for residential use. The lot has an area of 12,150 square feet. Existing structure meets all the setback requirements. The proposed addition, however, increases the lot coverage to 3,173 square feet including the new fireplace. The maximum allowable lot coverage in this particular lot is 3,037.5 square feet. The proposed addition will meet the setback requirements except the interior sideyard setback on the north side. A building permit for the proposed addition except the fireplace on the north side was issued on 4- 24 -86. It was an oversight by the building official to issue the permit before the variances were granted. Zoning District: The site is currently zoned 'R' single family residential. Zoning Ordinance Requirements: 1. Section 3.30, subdivision 4 (c) indicates that the maximum lot coverage for residential use shall be 25 percent in 'R' district. 2. Section 3.30, subdivision 5, indicates that the minimum interior sideyard setback for single family dwelling shall be 5 feet. 3. Section 3.40 and 3.40A, outlines the process for granting variances. • State Statute Requirements: Minnesota State Statutes 462.357, subdivision 6, outlines conditions which must be met for variances to be granted. Notice Provided: Written notice of the hearing before the hearing examiner was mailed to property owners within 350 feet of the site. A copy of the notice and a list of those receiving the notice is attached. Staff Review: Staff has reviewed the request for variances against the city and state legal requirements and found the following. 1. The granting of the variance for maximum lot coverage is necessary for the preservation and reasonable use of the property since the building permit for the proposed addition has already been issued. However, the construction of a fireplace with the chase extending 2 feet into the required sideyard setback on the north side is not necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of substantial property rights. Reasonable single family use could . continue on the location without the fireplace extending into the setback area. It is also staff's opinion that the fireplace could be relocated in such a way that the chase would not have to project into the required setback area. 2. There is an unique circumstance on this site in regards to the variance on allowable maximum lot coverage. An oversight by the building official has permitted the construction of the additions exceeding the required maximum lot coverage. Unique circumstance in this case was not caused by the landowner. Bringing the addition to conform with the city code would create undue hardship for the property owner, since the construction is already well underway. There are no unique circumstances on this site that necessitates the construction of a fireplace with the chase extending into the minimum sideyard setback area on the north side of the dwelling. The site is similar in shape and area to other lots in the neighborhood. 3. The granting of the variance for the allowable maximum lot coverage will not alter the character of the neighborhood. The proposed addition without the fireplace (as shown) will meet all the setback requirements. However, it is the opinion of the c � Public Safety Department staff that the fireplace with the chase extending into the interior setback would be potential fire hazard. It is also the opinion of the Public Safety Department staff that the location of the fireplace with the chase extending into the sideyard would increase the neighbors risk of an exposure fire and would necessitate a residential sprinkler system in the dwelling. Separation between the two structures on the north side of the property meets the minimum (10 feet) city requirement. The construction of the fireplace with a chase extending into the sideyard setback area is potentially detrimental to the safety of the adjoining house and the neighborhood if the adjoining landowner decides to expand eastward at a future date. Staff Findings: Staff has found that the required standards for granting of the variance for the maximum lot coverage have been met but the standards for granting of the variance for the fireplace with the chase extending into the setback area have not been met. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends that a public hearing be held on August 12, 1986 and that the request for variance for the maximum lot coverage be granted but the variance request for the minimum interior sideyard setback on the north side be denied. Respectfully submitted, Towhid k�zi Assistant Planner TK /jle FL Ilmore 4593 - 94 - 95 PR imr 4050 RALPH D. THOMAS . & ASSOCIATES INC. ENGINEERS 400 MET. LIFE BLDG. MINNEAPOLIS ], MINNESOTA "n119 so to csTu y that:the P'aPosaB locaum btracture - s]:OVPn 83 :'dc3 41 . ^. ?r i5 QD - 144 all dinances to be. - �i.ei wa3 "----- - - -- -- - -- --- _ Build r wnar NEW ADDITION t •� FIREPLACE 7Ac \V ° p v r p ZL i L) ' i N DffiIIMD - �p�g { , i 1 ova ror ° =-�o Sq o; seoaauipzo zeg;o TIQ ' a =g; ao ae&ogs.so 1azr4onxp s; 7¢ nc ,._c, pzzodosd eg; mu Air giso o; st stt 1 m , 'p Scale: I"= 44 i s llsrebv rP iifg THAT WE :HAVE ON MADE A SURVEY OF.THE REAL ESTATE DESCRIBED AS. —A- _.c.L____�F__�1Ct7'___/ � ,flv�p ?' __ /Q•QT•s� . -- ._-- HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA; AS - SHOWN ON THE ABOVE PLAT. - x SURVEY MADE FOR..__0..3,t_2... FFS'i �4� A ' ... AT THE REQUEST OF i hereby certify that thiS survey, plan, or report ,r t Was'p'spai�ed by rne:or,urtdec:rery.direct supervision and hat I am ard* Regielered tand-Surveyor under r o, S sf the Stote of Minneeata ,t t RALPH D. 'THOMAS &ASSOCIATES tNC, s �'•: ri '1A &W .e:c ssAk` $ i e3 .,s� p� Engineers ''� ol•' to ?r - 4 e t :t kliiyyt s t• lteg Wo. 3105_ -No s Project ,No _ t f NC c. fS'rei.sa G �S,_ 9) c C homas E. icen LAW OFFICE, LTD. ATTORNEY AT LAW (612) 831 -5090 July 15, 1986 Community Development Department Planning Division City of Richfield Richfield, Minnesota Re: Application for variance from sideyard setback requirement 7011 James Ave. So. Enclosed please find an application for the above variance and my check for $138.00 representing the filing fee. Pursuant to the Variance Checklist I herewith submit the following: 4. Purpose of Variance. My wife and I are substiantially enl_arging.the dwelling at 7011 James and are going to live-in the remodeled structure as our homestead. We have added a new master bedroom and desire a fireplace in that room. In order to accomodiate the fireplace the stack will have to be cantilevered and will extend two(2) feet into the sideyard setback on the north side of the dwelling. My neighbor to the north maintains a fence on his south lot line. The requested variance will place the fireplace opening oposite his open back yard. It should also be pointed out that a tree standing in the middle of the setback area was removed to'accomodiate the construction. Based upon these facts we consider it to be an undue hardship . on us to strictly comply with the zoning regulations. The variance, if granted, will not altar the essential character -of the locality. The site plan, etc. is in the possession of the building department in connection with the building permit. I am enclosing with this letter a plan of the house as remodeled, marked up to comply with paragraph 6 of the checklist. A topography and elevations would not appear to be required. A petition of the neighbors to the north and south of the structure is enclosed. If there are any questions please call. Very u yours, Thom s icef� 7300 France Avenue South, Suite #207 • Minneapolis; MN 55435 0 - REQUEST FOR WA-RI2C. CE OF nmac F TirAn FOR PURPOSE OF p to construct candtilever fireplace within- 3 feet of North lot line. Legal Description: Lot 18 the North 30 feet of Lot 17, Block 4, "Forest Lawn" We, the undersigned, being owners of immediate adjoining land as above described, do hereby concur with the variance as requested. Signature of Owners* Address iIItheLfPlanning Division the petition is signed and returned to (4) c � • 7011 Knox Avenue S. Richfield, MN 55423 Hearing Examiner City of Richfield 6700 Portland Avenue Richfield, 'INM 55423 Dear Sir: In regard to the proposed construction by Mr. Thomas E. Ticen of 7011 James Avenue South as outlined in the Hearing Notice dated July 24, 19869 I would like to go on record as opposing said construction. Having examined the exterior of this property very recently on a number of occasions, I have concluded that the building is already so large and sprawling as to be out of character with the neighborhood, as well as unsightly and tending to diminish several desireable aspects of the neighborhood: adequate light, air, and greenery, as well as a feeling of "woodsy airiness" without which the area would become just another cramped development. More generally I am opposed to the granting of variances except in the most unusual circumstances, as proper zoning, properly enforced, is extremely important in order to maintain property values and quality of life. Si cerely, Eric Grupp 866 -9507 1] 0- -_ TO - APPLIC,!NT LCCATICN OF PROPERTY �0�_ i7 PUBLIC HEARING NOTIE CITY OF RICHFIELD HEARING EXAMINER property Owners within 350 feet of 7011 James Avenue South. Thomas E. Ticen Block 4, Lot 18 and the north 30 feet of Lot 17, Forest Lawn, PURPOSE " "O hear reasons for or against the granting of a variance to allow the construction of a fireplace, with the stack extending 2 feet into the required sideyard, reducing the sideyard setback on the north side of the dwelling and also . a variance for exceeding the allowed maximum lot coverage °or residential use. TWE CF HEARING 7:00 PM, Tuesday, August 12, 1986 I PLACE OF HEARING HOW TO PARTICIPATE Council Chambers, Richfield City Hall 6700 Portland Avenue 1• --Attend -the - hearing and-give testimony for or against the proposal. 2. Submit a letter to the Hearing Examiner expressing your views. ANY CUESTICNS Towhid Kazi Assistant Planner f City of Richfield 6700 Portland Avenue ax.�z �-a Richfield, TAN 55423 a �69 -7521, Ext. 512 MAILING DATE 1 • Ll Ben w W) CD sV (CFC: r L!LuJ i �g �R Lag q:c IIN TO APPLICANT LOCATION OF PROPERTY PURPOSE 0 TIME OF HEARING 4 PUBLIC HEARING NOTI�� CITY OF RICHFIELD HEARING EXAMINER' Property Owners within 350 feet of 7011 James Avenue South. Thomas E. Ticen Block 4, Lot 18-and the north 30 feet of Lot 17, Forest Lawn, To hear reasons for or against the granting of a variance to allow the construction of &'fireplace, with the stack extending 2 feet into the required sideyard,reducing the sideyard setback on the north side of the dwelling and also a variance for exceeding the allowed maximum lot coverage for residential use. 7:00 PM, Tuesday, August 12, 1986 PLACE OF HEARING Council Chambers, Richfield City Hall 6700 Portland :Avenue HOW TO PARTICIPATE 1. --Attend -the _hearing and-give testimony for or against the proposal. 2. Submit a letter to the Hearing Examiner expressing your views. ANY QUEST IONS • Towhid Kazi Assistant Planner City of Richfield 6700 Portland Avenue Richfield, MN 55+23 869 -7521, Ext. 512 C CITY OF RICHFI CEL ) ASS::SS,iENT ROLL F(.%,R CITY P.ROJ EICT: X-Q'62 - 7011 JAMES Ate LOCATICIN OWNERIS i"*IAMIE / ADDRESS (IF DIFFERENT THAN LOCATIOi 3SI6939 IRVING ;?.!6945 IRVING 33-J46 4 - e I I ..,1 7UOU LAKE SHORE OR 1 .4 u 4 4- c: 1 0 U %j c .701i LAKE SH DR 3j ez, - Z 4 1 u, 7014 LAKE SH Lk L 1.-17020 W LK SH DR c 7jZ3 LAKc 34, vR 1-1 J.) - J 4 a - 4 4 - e I - U U (L llfl7034 LAKE SH DR HC 4", 4HAL�iq SAN LEa FiEDIG 915 A Gi)TT,.A-.r4-- KA -STA-iAKKE-91--S V 0 T -Y ,r. ITH .., aRENDA J1 DONALD tcAmD --134 IRVIL,v[Z' PAUL J SICHULT": oY40 IRVINE RVING AV S ,jo935 JAMiCS- AVE Sc i: T.11 "L6-i26-24-34-G-073 KENNETH 5r LUANN JONES 0934 JAMES 7JTA ST V:,IRUC--' H I,STRAADER 6955 K NO X 40— 1 C h EL A iri A.',o S j 4 5 K N. U X AVE 6 0 L 2 3 4 - C -) 8. 4 WILLIAri L NESS IRVING AVE SO ...I;;94o —2 u 4 3 4 1 of o WEST 70TH, -�RE,3-jRl , r.AzLYNN 5ANDVI-G 1"I 26-J28-� 4 J 4 - 0 j'0'6 MARIJN L t,,uE _.!6939 JAMES AV S 3SI6939 IRVING ;?.!6945 IRVING 33-J46 4 - e I I ..,1 7UOU LAKE SHORE OR 1 .4 u 4 4- c: 1 0 U %j c .701i LAKE SH DR 3j ez, - Z 4 1 u, 7014 LAKE SH Lk L 1.-17020 W LK SH DR c 7jZ3 LAKc 34, vR 1-1 J.) - J 4 a - 4 4 - e I - U U (L llfl7034 LAKE SH DR HC 4", 4HAL�iq SAN LEa FiEDIG 915 A Gi)TT,.A-.r4-- KA -STA-iAKKE-91--S V 0 T -Y ,r. ITH .., aRENDA J1 CITY OF PICHFIEL) ;3.----EsS-'�EiNT R,;LL FOR CITY PROJi-CT: X262 7011 JAMES A 2 -6 - 2-4 - �.j 4 ;WiERT L ;jJRG 7045 JAAES - L 0 C A T 1 G N 0 WINE R S .4 A Ml E A D D R CE S S (IF DIFFERENT THAN LOCATIO 7;)39 JAMES JAMES 6ORMIAW& ROZ�IN lea 17035 JAMES AV 3 .17035 LAKE 'V:HOR:-: :P I -,. al oef -:- -0 A v r:) -LL A t, s --: N S"Di".1 E TT .1700u- IRVT ING 33-i Zc- 17 LAPRY i..17034 IRVING LOREN s CATHY SHEFFER !RVIN6 F J i A L,; a UR G j :7024 iRviN- AV s — —44 J 3 E R 7J 30 1 -1 V '& IN ,G -026-24-21-0�2z .-133 SEYMOUti OLL'- '7038 IRVING p M 7144 IRviNll� 2 -6 - 2-4 - �.j 4 ;WiERT L ;jJRG 7045 JAAES - CHRMT—ALm LI-NN 7;)39 JAMES JAMES 6ORMIAW& ROZ�IN lea 17035 JAMES AV 3 I -,. al oef -:- -0 A v r:) -LL A t, s --: N 1- t 1.).) JcO-44- ; .,.: 7025 J A :1 E S ROOERT L6E D.RUKH ••,7021 JAMES VAYLE TICF-i J .4 �A E c. 0 55 3 LA -.! S ,� E L L V E S 0 6L00hINGTC,'v'p MN 554::0 !;7jJ5 JAMES J K HALU�T 7JO0 JAMES AVE SO C.ITY OF X262 7U11 JAMES jr14.FIELD �Str:--3'OEPIT RJLL FOR CITY PROJECT: LOCATION OWNER'S NAME ADDRESS (IF DIFFERENT THAN LOCATIO .5j-U4_ 6-44-e I 7039 KNOX I 53—j26-24-el -jj33 %0EL 1 -1 3 17J.-i 4 J A,' 3J-0Zd-Z4£l-0 7031 KNOX AV j4Z S .7 i 3 3- ii Z 6 - 2 4 -_ 1 -:;J 4 SUNDRA JAHiNKE i 70J JAMES AV S J JAY AUTSCHLER 33-U28-24-Zl-UJ44 17021 KNOX 7�j 14 i AME AVe SO TIMOTHY 6 AMY HOLTZMAN O3 6 GR.E(:ORY y M MICCLENAHAN 7020 JAMES 3 3 - U 2,3- 2 T=74 T---u-j-4 1701 1 KN OJX 7 RIC MONA GRUPP 7007 K.*�A 1,.1-53 026-2 4-21-uv.57 VIOLET 6 SAANHOLI 7001 KNOX 7 j 3 0 J A `4 E: S STuART C SUTTON - -44-21-uu 30 FRANCIS d,.LYA.l-A dARTU-zH 7 J 3 8 JAMES TOTAL ASSESSMENT IS: .5.5 vER!N0:',.' .,:CCiLLUl :,1u44 J A S L NdLSGN DANIEL ..17045 KNOX AV S il i. .5j-U4_ 6-44-e I 7039 KNOX I -Uj4l R C SPuLTZ 3J-0Zd-Z4£l-0 7031 KNOX AV j4Z S JOHN E DUN. TAN llu25 KNOX i J JAY AUTSCHLER 33-U28-24-Zl-UJ44 17021 KNOX TIMOTHY 6 AMY HOLTZMAN l7j15 K"40N 3 3 - U 2,3- 2 T=74 T---u-j-4 1701 1 KN OJX 7 RIC MONA GRUPP 7007 K.*�A 7001 KNOX STuART C SUTTON TOTAL ASSESSMENT IS: • CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Council Letter No. 363 September 22, 1986 Issue Statement: ��- 4 Request by Lake Shore Drive Condominiums for Fee Waived Itinerant Food License Background: Karen Korstad, Manager of the Lake Shore Drive Condominium Association, has submitted an application for a fee waived itinerant food license for the association. The association requests that the fee be waived due to the fact that the residents are preparing food for themselves and not selling food to the public. The dining room at Lake Shore Drive is private and not open to the public except for guests of residents. The residents plan to use the kitchen perhaps 10 to 12 times a year to serve meals at their Couples Club. Recommendation: • It is recommended that the city council approve the license for an itinerant food license, but do not waive the $62 license fee. Basis of Recommendation: 1. The residents will be preparing food only for themselves, not for resale. 2. The license has been approved by the inspection division. 3. The city will incur expenses to inspect the kitchen facilities from time to time. The fee should be charged to cover these inspection costs. Otherwise the General Fund will be in effect, subsidizing the Lake Shore Drive Condominium Association. Alternative Recommendation: The city council may make a determination to issue a fee waived license based on the following: 1. Lake Shore Drive Condominium Association is a nonprofit association. 2. City Ordinance Chapter VI, Subd. 8, License Exemptions provides in paragraph (2) that the city council may waive food license fees for a nonprofit organization. • 3. The city council has in the past waived fee licenses for such organizations. y� • Discussion /Decision Mode: This item is placed on the September 22, 1986 city council agenda for action at that meeting. JDP /eja 0 Resp r lly submitted, Jam D. Prosser City Manager CITY OF RICHFIELD 6700 PORTLAND AVENUE SOUTH RICEiF'IELA, MILAN. 5542 0 2 19 6 IFL 121 SO 1986 NEW ✓ RENEWAL_,,,_ FEE $62.00 a year 56 . _ _ �EpV�y APPLICATION FOR I= FOOD - Voe 0 (THIS LICENSE APPLIES TO CONCESSIONS, SOCIALS, FRESH/FROZEN SHRIMP, SCORN, ETC.) DEFINITION Itinerant food establishment means a food establishment operating for a temporary period, including but not limited to a`fair; carn•ral, circus, church supper, or public exhibition. (see p. 152, ordinance 6.01) 1. Name of event Occasional use of our commercial kitchen by resident 2. Location of event6615 Lake Shore Drive Condominiums, Richfield 3. Date (s) of event During the year 1986 4. Sponsoring Organization Lake Shore Drive Condominium Association 5. How frequent is event? (annual, semi - annual, weekly etc. ?) 10 - 12 times a year 6. 7. 8. Person in charge of Food operation (Manager) Karen J. Korstad, Manager Lake Shore Drive Condo. ASSOC a) Residence phone and address John Stensvaag, g6j -79954566-8536 mea Program committee unairperson b) Business phone and address Karen Knrai-ad, R61- 7S99/R61 -242 Manager Person in charge of Food Preparation (Cook - Caterer- Chef)e Giden volunteers jaiin T1a[7P haPn i-rn i na„ - n = rnV c-r use of k i i-r -hen ;in-aliances and food o eparation by Charolotte Morgan, Bloomington Environmental Services. "a� Residence phone and address b) Business phone and address rnmMittegg- 9. Any food preparation by your organization? Yes X No a) If yes, date(s) of food preparation Residents will need to reserve kit- Chen ahead of time throughout -the year.. b) If yes, location * -� =� Shore Drive Kitchen c) If yes, does location have a food license? Yes X No Mazy Martha Ministries, current providers of ou—r %Real Program twice a week. CONTINUED As of July 1986, King Oscar's Crosstown Kitchen, Inc., ("ring Oscar's ") became the Meal Program providers at Lake Shore Drive every Tuesday, Thursday, and Friday, plus two Sundays a month. • page 2 J7 d) If location does not have food license, what approved facilities will be used for the food preparation? Location Equipment 10. Are there any readily perishable foods to be served? Yes NO a) If yes, what are the specific foods? v 11. I-P ill be overnight storage of foods, J� what approved f ilities will be use ? 12. If food is to be transported, what approved transport vehicle will be used? a) Make of vehicle b) 'Year of vehicle c) Serial (VIN) number of vehicle • d) Registration Information (License plate numbers and State of Origin) e) Company name /policy number of liability insurance carrier (specific to vehicle /food sales) f) Name of driver & driver's license number . . . .. . . .. . . . 6 . . f . . . . • .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... . . . . . . . . . . • . . . • . • . . . . . . . . • . . . . . . ... NOTE: The Health /Inspection Departments highly recommend that the responsible party in charge of food preparation properly inform all food workers of proper food handling practices. CONTINUED • Page 3 SWORN STATEMENT TEMENT , PERMISSION OF PROPERTY OWNER MUST ACCOMPANY YOUR APPLICANT AS WELL AS A COPY OF THE HENNEPIN COUNTY LICENSE. I (We) hereby agree to operate such event in accordance with the laws of the State of Minnesota and the ordinances of the City of Richfield. The foregoing statements are true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief., Name of Event (&Business) Lake Shore Drive Condominiums Associaiton Authorized signature (applicar Title Vice President, and ChKirman of the Meal Program Committee ' Date Tuesday, March 25, 1986 . . . .. . .. . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . .. . .. . . . . . . . ... . .. . . . . . • .. . .. . . . . . . . . .. . . . . FOR CITY USE ONLY (APPROVALS- INVESTIGATIONS) q INSPECTORS Yes No Date CITY COUNCIL Yes No Date DATE OF ISSUANCE ................................................. ............................... Public Safety Officers will, on a regular basis, inspect the premises for any licensing violations. Any violation of City License Ordinance is a misdemeanor punishable by a $500 fine and /or 90 days in jail. • . CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Council Letter No. 362 September 22, 1986 Issue Statement: Amendment to the Offstreet Parking Permit for the Market Plaza Development at 66th Street and Lyndale Avenue Background: In July, 1985 the City Council approved an offstreet parking permit in conjunction with other approvals for the Market Plaza Development at 66th Street and Lyndale Avenue. Through the offstreet parking permit the City Council approved the number of parking spaces on the site as well as the design of the parking areas. During routine inspections of the construction, the inspection division staff discovered that an electrical generator room in the parking garage for the apartments had been expanded without city approval. This expansion results in the loss of two parking spaces for apartment tenantts in the garage. The developer has subsequently requested that the city approve an amended offstreet parking permit to allow the reduction of two parking spaces. • Recommendation: It is recommended that the City Council approve the requested amended offstreet parking permit reducting the required number of parking spaces from 205 to 203 spaces. Basis of Recommendation: 1. The number of parking stalls provided in the garage for the apartments exceeds the required number of parking stalls specified in the Planned Unit Development Ordinance. The PUD ordinance indicates that one space per unit should be provided for a total of 166 parking spaces. The existing parking garage contains 205 parking spaces. The loss of two spaces would bring the total down to 203 parking spaces which considerably exceeds the 166 spaces required. Alternate Recommendation: 1. Require the developer to remove the existing walls for the generator room and reconstruct it as per the original plan and restore the two additional parking spaces. • 0 Decision Mode: This item has been placed on the September 22, 1986 city council agenda for council consideration. Immediate action on this item is not required, although this matter must be resolved prior to granting building occupancy permits. JP /eja 1_J V fully submitted, . Prosser nager CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Council Letter No. 361 September 22, 1986 Issue Statement: Execution of Year XII Community Development Block Grant Funds Public Services Agreement /Day Care Between the City of Richfield and the Greater Minneapolis Day Care Association Background: On February 10, 1986, the City Council approved the allocation of $138,582 in CDBG Year XII funds. Out of this fund, $13,400 was allocated to Greater Minneapolis Day Care Association to provide support for the Child Care Sliding Fee Program for Richfield residents. A copy of the agreement is attached for council review. The council minutes from February 10,1986 meeting are also attached. Each year, if the council approves an allocation of CDBG fund for day care, the City of Richfield enters into an agreement with the Greater Minneapolis Day Care Association for the purpose of supporting the sliding fee day care program administered by the agency. The language and content of this agreement is the same .as previous years for the program year, project number and the • amount of funds allocated. Recommendation: Staff recommends the City Council approve the execution of the Public Service Agreement /Day Care between the City of Richfield and Greater Minneapolis Day Care Association for the approved expenditure of $13,400 Year XII CDBG funds. Basis of Recommendation: 1. The City Council approved the expenditureof $13,400 Year XII CDBG funds to Greater Minneapolis Day Care Association at a public hearing on February 10, 1986. 2. Execution of this agreement is part of the requirement for the city to act as an authorized unit in the Urban Hennepin County Community Block Grant program. Alternative Recommendation: 1. The City Council may act not to approve the execution of this agreement. This would mean that although the City Council has previously approved providing funds for this program, no funds would be provided for day care. 2. If the contract is not executed, to be reallocated. Reallocation program could be done by motion reallocation of the funds to an require a public hearing. Decision Mode: the funds would have to an existing eligible of the council; eligible new project would This item has been placed on the September 22, 1986 city council agenda for city council consideration. This contract should be considered in the near future in order to provide direction to the Greater Minneapolis Day Care Association regarding the city's intent to participate in this program. Respec fully submitted, Ja a D. Prosser Ci Manager 0 Council Meeting Minutes -4- February 10, 1986 M Sandahl S _ / /Garcia that the following resolution be adopted; that it be sAread in the resolution book and that it be made part of these minutes: RESOLUTION NO. 7142 RESOLUTION ORDERING THE PAVING OF ALLEYS AND PREPARATION OF PLANS FOR CITY PROJECT NO. 822 Motion carried 5 -0. This resolution appears as Resolution No. 7142 in Resolution Book No. 54. Item #7 HEARING ON YEAR XII COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT PROGRAM AND CITY ADMINISTRATION RECOMMENDATIONS FOR THE ALLOCATION OF CDBG ENTITLEMENT FUNDS. C.L. 68. Mayor Hamilton temporarily left the meeting at this time (7:15 p.m.). The meeting was then chaired by Councilmember Ludeman, Mayor Pro Tem. City Manager Cartwright reviewed Council Letter No. 68 regarding the city administration recommendations for the allocation of CDBG entitlement funds. Larry Ophold, Director for South Hennepin Human Services Council, requested the council provide pome level of funding for the H.O.M.E. program and reviewed the services provided by H.O.M.E. to Richfield residents. Don Hoagie, Manager of the H.O.M.E. program, stated that 116 Richfield households had been served by H.O.M.E. in 1985 and urged the council to provide funding to the program. Jim Nicoli, Greater Minneapolis Day Care Association, requested the council to continue funding for the sliding fee day care program and reviewed the benefits of the program. Council Member Sandahl stated he did not agree with the staff Funding recommendation, which did not provide allocations for the H.O.M.E. program and the Greater Minneapolis Day Care Association. It was the consensus of the council to allocate a portion the CDBG allotment to H.O.M.E. and the Minneapolis Day Care Association sliding fee program. M /Sandahl, S /Kirsch to close the public hearing. Motion carried 4 -0. (Hamilton absent) 14 e Council Meeting Minutes -5 February 10, 1986 M /Sandahl, S /Kirsch to authorize ho ize the allocation of $138,582 in CDBG Year XII funds as follows: Housing Rehabilitation $44,882 New Home Acquisition $70,000 Energy Grants $�-5 000 H.O.M.E. 5,300 Minneapolis Dav Care Association $13,400 Motion carried 4 -0. (Hamilton absent) Item #8 CONSIDERATION OF STAFF RECOMMENDATION TO APPLY FOR $52,000 OF UNEXPENDED CDBG DISCRETIONARY FUNDS TO BE USED FOR HOUSING PROGRAMS. C.L. 69. City Manager Cartwright reviewed Council Letter No. 69 regarding a staff recommendation to apply for $52,000 of unexpended C.D.B.G. Discretionary Funds to be used for housing rehabilitation activities. M /Sandahl, S /Kirsch to close the public hearing. Motion carried 4 -0. (Hamilton absent) M /Sandahl, S /Garcia to authorize city staff to make application to Hennepin County for $52,000 of CDBG Discretionary Funds. Motion carried 4 -0. (Hamilton absent) Item #9 REVENUE FUND FOR CERTAIN CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS. VLLVy�L FIRST READING. C.L. 70. City Manager Cartwright reviewed Council Letter No. 70 regarding first reading of a transitory ordinance allocating funds from the special revenue fund for certain capital improvements. Mayor Pro Tem Ludeman explained to the audience that the special revenue fund is derived from liquor store profits and used for various capital improvements, thus most major capital improvements are not financed by property taxes. 0 • Public Services Agreement/Daycare This agreement made and entered into byland between the City of Richfield, hereinafter referred to as the "City" and Greater Minneapolis Day Care, a public service agency, hereinafter referred to as the "Agency", WITNESSETH: WHEREAS, the City is an authorized cooperating unit in the Urban Hennepin County Community Development Block Grant program by virtue of a joint cooperation agreement executed between the City and Hennepin County pursuant to MSA 471.59, and WHEREAS, the City has allocated Urban Hennepin County Community Development Block Grant funds in program Year XII, project number 074, for the purpose of supporting the Child Care Sliding Fee program administered by the Agency, NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual covenants and promises contained in this Agreement, the parties hereto mutually agree to the following terms and conditions: I The City agrees to provide $13,400 dollars from the Urban ,Hennepin County Community Development Block Grant to the Agency in support of the Child Care Sliding Fee program. ,The City reserves the right to assign its administrative responsibility, pursuant to the requirement of the Urban Hennepin County Community Development Block Grant program, to any other cooperating unit. II The Agency agrees to provide the City: 1. Affidavit of Agency service fee schedule. 2. A financial statement for the past full year. 3. A statement of public revenue sources for the period June 1, 1986 through June 1, 1987. III The Agency agrees to award funds to eligible applicants residing in the City on a first come first served basis with maintenance of a waiting list of eligible applicants. Public Services Agreement /Daycare Page Two • IV The Agency agrees to allocate funds to eligible recipients based on.the State of Minnesota Department of Public Welfare Sliding Fee Scale with U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development Section 8 income limits used as a ceiling cutoff for eligibility. V The Agency provides assurance that it will comply with: 1. Administrative reporting requirements of the County. 2. Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (PL88 -352). ,(Nondiscrimination in program or activities receiving Federal financial assistance.) 3. Section 109 of the Housing and Community Development Act of 1974 as amended. (Nondiscrimination is any program or activity subject to provision of the HCDA.) 4. OMB Circular A -102 Attachment 0, Section 14, paragraph (h) by assuring the grantee, federal grantor agency, the Comptroller General of the United States or any.duly authorized representative access to all records directly pertinent to this contract for the purpose of making audit examinations, excerpts, and transcriptions. • 5. OMB Circular A -102 Attachment C (2), and maintain all required records for a period of three years after receiving final payment. VI The Agency, prior to financial reimbursement, shall provide the City or its assignee with: 1. Application. 2. Individual Data Confidentiality form. 3. Listing of clients, their addresses, and amount of assistance per client. VII This Agreement is effective as of July 1, 1986, -and shall continue in full force and effect until all funds made available under this Agreement have been expended in accordance with paragraphs I -VI, but no later than December 31, 1987. IN TESTIMONY WHEREOF, the parties ereto have set their hands and affixed their seals this /v_ day of _ , 19 Upon proper.execution, this Agreement will be legally valid and binding. Public Service Agreement /Daycare GREATER MINNEAPOLIS DAY CARE ASSOCIATION Page Three CITY OF STATE OF MINNESOTA By g Y Its,�cX EL atz���tcfiYG Mayor and avid Its City Manager 0 CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Council Letter No. 360 September 22, 1986 Issue Statement: Requests for Permits to Install Illuminated Signs at Lamettrys Body Shop, 500 West 78th Street; Floral Consultants, 2321 West 66th Street; SuperAmerica Stations at 7500 Lyndale Avenue and 826 West 66th Street; and at the Phillips 66 Station 7744 12th Avenue Background: City Ordinance provides that the City Council must approve all sign permits for illuminated signs. There are four such requests on the September 22, 1986 city council agenda. Lamettry's Body Shop, 500 West 78th Street -the proposed sign will be a double- faced, pedestal sign measuring 8' x 51611, with the slogan "LaMettry's Body Shop Foreign & American 866 -0016. Floral Consultants, 2321 West 66th Street -the permit is to reface an existing illuminated pedestal sign measuring 33 square feet. Superamerica, 7500 Lyndale and 826 West 66th Street -the proposed signs are to be double -faced pylon signs measuring 10' x 13' with Superamerica's new logo on them. Phillips 66, 7724 12th Avenue -the proposed sign is to be an illuminated pedestal sign measuring 91 square feet. Recommendation: It is recommended that the permits for signs at the above noted locations be approved. Basis for Recommendation: 1. The signs conform to all applicable city ordinances. 2. The signs have been approved by the Chief Building Inspector and the City Planner. Alternative Recommendation: The council could reject the requests. However, at this time the city has no alternative design criteria to suggest for substitutes for these signs. n 1..J • E • Discussion /Decision Mode: This item has been placed on the September 22, 1986 city council businesses are wanting action to placement /replacement. JDP /eja consent calendar portion of the agenda for consideration. The complete sign R e9�1 ly submitted, Jam D. Prosser Cit Manager u u City Manager Date APPROVE a DENY ❑ _ Planning Department Date : f f Inspector. Date APPROVE F-1 DENY ❑ : City Council Date oute to above for'special approval per code General Sims APPLICATION FOR'ADVERTISING PERMIT City of Richfield, , Minnesota Date 8 -25 -86 Zoning Sign Erected - Yes No Fee 18.00 . Address of Sign 500 W. 78th St. Proprietor Name Joanne Lamettry DBALamettry Bod� Sign Erector Attracta Sign, Inc. Address Type of Sign Design 6417 Penn Ave. So. Richfield WtSr Hnpr rnvor Li..?-tin- If Illuminated - Yes X No 40 lectrical Contractor Property Owner or his Agent Signature Estimated Cost 2 , 000.00 Sign Width 8' Height 5-5' Total Square Feet Watts Address Phone Phone 44 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. h .11boar� or c `a...._ _ _ uLIaVVL auvCzt.lSing 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 safe access by persons destined for or passing the subject premises? No. We are redoing existing sign Applicant's Signature:---and Title with Firm Phone Number 866 -3047 *kt 1985 Date 8 -25 -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 D A n Post Clear Lexon X Constant Frosted Lexon Flashing Plastic Covered Revolving Shaded Traveling Neon Zip Lite Other Other(Explain) Sign Colors Black & Ute If Illuminated - Yes X No 40 lectrical Contractor Property Owner or his Agent Signature Estimated Cost 2 , 000.00 Sign Width 8' Height 5-5' Total Square Feet Watts Address Phone Phone 44 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. h .11boar� or c `a...._ _ _ uLIaVVL auvCzt.lSing 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 safe access by persons destined for or passing the subject premises? No. We are redoing existing sign Applicant's Signature:---and Title with Firm Phone Number 866 -3047 *kt 1985 Date 8 -25 -86 PLEASE SEE REVERSE SIDE FOR SIGN LOCATION SKETCH Sivert Hendrickson /Building Official - 866 -5061 s 0 GROUND SIGN Tom— WIDTH- --�..! WALL SIGN -- -WIDTH LEGEND PEDESTAL SIGN WIDTH - - -�-} _ ROOF SIGN ��— WIDTH —� ROOF LEGEND PROJECTING SIGN — WIDTH Indicate legend on the the reverse side in L.11C bpctCC UC1UW LEGEND Place location of sign on this sketch with distance the sign is from property lines. Locate any traffic lights within 300 feet. DEFINITION: Minor Signs -- Single or double faced sign less than 32 sq. f on a common board • Li7/8/83 �1 J m(3E -.N - -�- •c}— �' Z 0 tp p co oZ =Z $v.)WWOE-; 1 s =3 ~ J 0 Z ozo i z�sz a NQ� NL � m o ti M�M N V yay �1 J m(3E -.N - -�- •c}— �' Z 0 tp p co oZ =Z $v.)WWOE-; 1 s =3 ~ J 0 Z ozo i z�sz a NQ� NL � m o ti M�M N V . y - ... . � �� yy•, _ l._J 'City Manager Date APPROVE 171 TIENY� • Planning Department Date Route to above for'special approval per code General Signs APPLICATION FOR'ADVERTISING PERMIT City of Richfield,, Minnesota - Date 9 -4 -86 Zoning Sign Erected - Yes X No Fee 18.00 Address of Sign 2321 W. 66th St. Sign Erector Attracta Sian, Type of Sign Design Inc. Proprietor Name nIichael Dieter DBAFloral Address 6417 Penn Ave. so. Richfield Waathar rnvar 1A all tina Wall Projecting Ground Roof Pedestal Changeable Temporary Trailer Inspector Date APPROVE F-1 DENY a : City Council .Date Route to above for'special approval per code General Signs APPLICATION FOR'ADVERTISING PERMIT City of Richfield,, Minnesota - Date 9 -4 -86 Zoning Sign Erected - Yes X No Fee 18.00 Address of Sign 2321 W. 66th St. Sign Erector Attracta Sian, Type of Sign Design Inc. Proprietor Name nIichael Dieter DBAFloral Address 6417 Penn Ave. so. Richfield Waathar rnvar 1A all tina 0 Illuminated - Yes No Electrical Contractor Watts Address Phone Property O;.mer or his Agent Signature Phone_ Estimated Cost 1,000. Sign Width 6' Height 41 P Total Square Feet 33 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 biuepri:Yts 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 safe access by persons destined for or passing the subject premises? No We are refacing existing sign partial Applicant's Signature and Title with Firm Date 9 -4 -86 Phone Number 866 -3047 • 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 F'� AF-1 Post Clear Lexon X Constant Frosted Lexon Flashing Plastic Covered Revolving Shaded Traveling Neon Zip Lite Other Other(Explain) Sign Colors Blue & WI e XX XX 0 Illuminated - Yes No Electrical Contractor Watts Address Phone Property O;.mer or his Agent Signature Phone_ Estimated Cost 1,000. Sign Width 6' Height 41 P Total Square Feet 33 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 biuepri:Yts 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 safe access by persons destined for or passing the subject premises? No We are refacing existing sign partial Applicant's Signature and Title with Firm Date 9 -4 -86 Phone Number 866 -3047 • Lkt 1985 PLEASE SEE REVERSE SIDE FOR SIGN LOCATION SKETCH Sivert Hendrickson /Building Official - 866 -5061 ■1. 0 • UN ` °J 2� .. .. . ...... ------ APPROVE ' iDENYI �: l--J u City Manager Date APPROVE © I)ENY�: L. Planning De artment Date ��!'P1tUV1 U DHNY I, i : inspector Date 111 �L APPROVE ❑ DENY ❑ City Council Date Route to above for special approval per code General Signs APPLICATION FOR ADVERTISING PERMIT City of Richfield, Minnesota Date oning Sign Erected - Yes No r/ Fee Address of Sign 5 G *C, ), y�; J..i /C 4,1& SC Proprietor Name,_5 Pe 'C v_ D B A Sign Erector ; �'lCe .' �1 <' y /7� Address, !t/ •J Wanrhar rnvar Lighting q *Illuminated kyes Electrical Contractor No - Watts c � Address Phone Property Owner or his Agent Signature Phone Estimated Cost ,: G C. Sign Width /_ Height Total Square Feet osition of the advertisement structure in relationship to the adjacent buildings, sidewalks, lrbs, roadways, overhead utility lines, vehicle movement lines, or public facilities on -awing with significant dimensions and attached hereto of major .signs. Minor signs as fined on page 2. blueprints of the sign, billboard, or outdoor advertising structure construction plans: luding specifications, list of materials, and explicit anchoring or fastening details a copy of the stress sheets, calculations, color of sign structure. the sign copy relate solely to the business, institution, or activity conducted on -)remises?- S the sign, structure, or billboard restrict any sight distance under, around, or over of access by persons destined for or passing the subject premises? A/c ant' Signature and Title with Firm p Date ivumber ' C/1 %// • lkt 8/83 PLEASE SEE REVERSE SIDE FOR SIGN LOCATION SKETCH Sivert Hendrickson /Building Official - 866 -5061 Wall Projecting Ground/,y1,,, Roof Pedestal Changeable Temporary Trailer - Single Face Double Face Multi -Faced Aerial /Blimp Searchlight Banner /Pennants Portable Frame: T [] A 7 Post Clear Lexon Constant Frosted Lexon Flashing Plastic Covered Revolving Shaded Traveling Neon Zip Lite Other Other(Explain) �ign Colors1; _ (� q *Illuminated kyes Electrical Contractor No - Watts c � Address Phone Property Owner or his Agent Signature Phone Estimated Cost ,: G C. Sign Width /_ Height Total Square Feet osition of the advertisement structure in relationship to the adjacent buildings, sidewalks, lrbs, roadways, overhead utility lines, vehicle movement lines, or public facilities on -awing with significant dimensions and attached hereto of major .signs. Minor signs as fined on page 2. blueprints of the sign, billboard, or outdoor advertising structure construction plans: luding specifications, list of materials, and explicit anchoring or fastening details a copy of the stress sheets, calculations, color of sign structure. the sign copy relate solely to the business, institution, or activity conducted on -)remises?- S the sign, structure, or billboard restrict any sight distance under, around, or over of access by persons destined for or passing the subject premises? A/c ant' Signature and Title with Firm p Date ivumber ' C/1 %// • lkt 8/83 PLEASE SEE REVERSE SIDE FOR SIGN LOCATION SKETCH Sivert Hendrickson /Building Official - 866 -5061 0 x' s I I m C I cl C) TOP PLATE SEE DETAIL STEEL TUBE 10'x 10'x l/ 18' THK. WALL 10' -1 112 LONG 2 REO'O. _i r� i oG i.piclsec AJ�- v6 3' SO. TUBES TO BRACE STRUCTURE 14 112' LONG x 12 GA. M REO'D. BASE PLATE SEE DETAIL APPROVE DEN'Y City :tanager Date APPROVE ® 'DENTY� Plannin D artment APPROVE �f DE:1'❑: Inspector. / Date APPROVE i_ DEN;Y a : City Council Date of / Date Route to above for special approval per code General Signs APPLICATION FOR ADVERTISING PERXIT City of Richfield, Minnesota Date y - -(� Zoning Sign Erected - Yes ::o L,-" Fee Address of Sign' w' . i- /- '" C ',— Proprietor NameS DBA Sign TvDe Erector,'. ay,,,^�t ? <c� c:rT L,,c Address of Sien Design Weather Cover Liehtin^ If Illuminated Yes Octrical Contractor No Watts o0SC 2-7 address \ Phone Property Owner or his Agent Signature Phone Estimated Cost �? �,�` C� Sign Width %/ Heiht / _? Total Square Feet 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 ?.uC " Will the sign, structure, or billboard restrict any sight distance under, around, or over for safe,access by persons destined for or passing the subject premises? A/ 0 Applicant's Signature and Title with Firm Date. Phone Dumber 6 711 PS 3 PLEASE SEE REVERSE SIDE FOR SIGN: LOCATION C'" 0 :�� I SKETCH Sivert Hendrickson /Building Official - 866 -5061 Wall Projecting Ground y1C t Roof Pedestal Changeable Temporary Trailer H;,"*., Single Face Double Face Multi -Faced Aerial /Blimp Searchlight Banner /Pennants I Portable Frame: T 7 A n Post r Clear Lexon Constant Frosted Lexon Flashing Plastic Covered Revolving Shaded Traveling Neon Zip Lite Other Other(Explain) Sign Colors j -> .ti, f, • i �. I r If Illuminated Yes Octrical Contractor No Watts o0SC 2-7 address \ Phone Property Owner or his Agent Signature Phone Estimated Cost �? �,�` C� Sign Width %/ Heiht / _? Total Square Feet 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 ?.uC " Will the sign, structure, or billboard restrict any sight distance under, around, or over for safe,access by persons destined for or passing the subject premises? A/ 0 Applicant's Signature and Title with Firm Date. Phone Dumber 6 711 PS 3 PLEASE SEE REVERSE SIDE FOR SIGN: LOCATION C'" 0 :�� I SKETCH Sivert Hendrickson /Building Official - 866 -5061 It E . w ltd SUPERAMERICA 1� ti 1 JIL ic, 4' - % � - L 1 ; 'A — ' i S 77, TOP PLATE SEE DETAIL STEEL TUBE 10ox10lu/16- THK. WALL 10--1 112 LONG. 2 REG D. 3' SO. TUBES TO BRACE STRUCTURE 14 112' LONG x 12 GA. M REOD. I SE PLATE SEE DETAIL 3UPERAMERICA' APPROVE DENY APPROVE n DENY a : 6'J4 City Manager Inspector Date _ Date APPROVE © I)ENY❑ : APPROVE 7 DENY" • Planning Dep rtment City Council Date 9 Date Route to above for special approval per code General Signs .APPLICATION FOR ADVERTISING PERMIT City of Richfield,_ Minnesota ff 7 12.77-1 L1 ✓En v Date 9� i� / zoning Sign Erected - Yes No Fee Address of Eign Prop ietor 'ZeSA4" A 14 DBA Sign Erector 944U4 W49 - Address Type of Sign Design Weather Cover Liahtine Wall ' Projecting Roof Pedestal Changeable Temporary Trailer Single Face Double Face Multi -Faced Aerial /Blimp Searchlight Banner /Pennants Portable Frame: T [) A [] Post Clear Lexon Frosted Lexon Plastic Covered Shaded Neon Other Sign Colors W eclluminated - Ye No Watts trical Contractor _ _ Mwess`a T7 Property Owner or his Agent Signature - T'y7 1 '1 Estimated Cost �..� Sign Width Hei t Position of the advertisement structure in relationship to the a curbs, roadways, overhead utility lines, vehicle movement lines, drawing with significant dimensions and attached hereto of major defined on page 2. ` Constant Flashing Revolving Traveling Zip Lite Other (Explain) Phone��- -%9 T�ota��l4gccuare Feet accal buildings, sidewalks, or public facilities on signs. Minor signs as 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? Will the sign, structure, or bi lboard r4 trict any sight distance under, around, or over for safe access by rsons des ned for orb passing the subject premises? ppl cant's Signature and T 1e with Firm Date % ^,..- Phone Number � 1� 8/83 PLEASE SEE REVERSE SIDE FOR SIGN LOCATION SKETCH Sivert Hendrickson /Building Official - 866 -5061 GROUND SIGN ::IDTH • i LEGEND • I PEDESTAL SIGN PROJECTING SIGN F--- WIDWH-- ---�►} -wiDTH LEGEND Indicate Distance From The Building GROUND WALL, SIGN ROOF SIGN Indicate legend on the — IDT � ""'" WTDTx'-"-"— the reverse side in ;I ROOF e below LEGEND Place'location of sign on this sketch with distance the sign is from property lines.. Locate any traffic lights within 300 feet.. DEFINITION: Minor Signs. -- Single or double faced sign less than 32 sq. ft... on a common board INDICATE NORTH LIT /8/83 �-j CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Council Letter No. 359 September 22, 1986 Issue Statement: Proclamation Designating September 22 -26, 1986 As United Way Campaign Week for City Employees Background: Each year, city employees participate in the United Way Campaign. This year the chairpersons of the campaign are Howard Rowland, Personnel Manager; and Bill Fillmore, Liquor Operations Director. To kickoff the campaign, these individuals have requested that the Mayor proclaim September 22 -26, 1986 as "United Way Campaign Week" for Richfield city employees. Both Mr. Rowland and Mr. Fillmore will be present at the September 22 city council meeting to receive this proclamation. . Recommendation /Decision Mode: It is recommended that Mayor Hamilton sign the attached proclamation designating September 22 -26, 1986 as "United Way Campaign Week" and present the proclamation to Howard Rowland and Bill Fillmore at the September 22, 1986 city council meeting. JDP /eja. :7 Respect lly submitted, Jam D. Prosser Cit anager - 0610-7-21 rZ �l 114 NOV 4k" APA 8111-1, Al t, W -F -r7 PS 4- 0 %0 lop r-I -C) (1) 1 c (L) c c (N -rl CO (D V, 04 4-) L) - cr 0 E :3 k '0 d) 'o CO 4- (D a) 4-) i: c 0) 0 •-) Z a 0 q 4-) k, -r V) w 0 co U) 0 -H ++ 4-) W -rq Co L) CD CO CD r 4J z c Q) 4J -ri 41 -H 0 4-) Ci-- ca 0 n w CL C3Lr-I 4- > 4� E r-4 0 fn '0 04 co co cu a) W >i Q) L) 4-) > cc co r _ c o o 3: 4J D CD 6.4 0 —) CL *` Q) -0 L) .0 W Q) C " 0) C' 4J A : 1, 0 to w gs� %, i! 04 -ri F4 4-) '0 -H 0.- z C :3 •r') C 4-- C 1= (L) ca (D Cn Q) 0 L (D r- E .0 LL. •-) k 4-)-,4 w co CC O S w cc ca cc z �.V W4 W 4J M A& W 4 W to N r-4 3 0 2 4-) -,1 CU 0 is 0 0 OA- k CL 0 4J a ci 0 a) :3 a) E U) to cc ®R -ow ot >1 M . p S-7 %lo 00 3§3 W., 4j RM Pq E co cl (D Z 4 (n 0 rl 4- 0 CLI Ago. '0 ,C) c C14 U) iiz . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . -C 4-) q: