Loading...
08-11-86 agenda• CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Office of City Manager Council Letter No. 323 Agenda August 11, 1986 The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Richfield Subject: Resolutions Declaring Costs to be Assessed for Removal of Diseased Trees from Private Property P Y for the Period August 1, 1985 to July 31, 1986 and Setting Date of Hearing Council Members: The costs incurred for removal of Dutch Elm diseased trees on private property for the period of August 1, 1985 to July 31, 1986 have been determined to be $16,384.74. The homeowner of a diseased tree has four options: 1. Remove the tree themselves 2. Secure and pay their own contractor 3. Use the city's contractor and pay immediately for the tree removal 4. Use the city's contractor and have the cost of the work assessed against their property tax There were 57 homeowners that selected the fourth option during the period August 1, 1985 to July 31, 1986. The original source of funding to have the work done is through the city's Permanent Improvement Revolving Fund. The homeowner may prepay the special assessment, but if it is certified on or before October 10, 1986 for the 1987 taxes, the interest rate is 8% with payment spread over three years. Recommendation: It is recommended that the city council adopt the attached resolution declaring costs to be assessed and ordering the ispreparation of the proposed assessment roll, and the resolution setting the date of hearing on the proposed assessment for September 8, 1986. SD /eja • • Res e tfull submitted, ed n evi .i Acting City Manager • • RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION DECLARING COSTS TO BE ASSESSED AND ORDERING PREPARATION OF PROPOSED ASSESSMENT FOR REMOVAL OF DISEASED TREES FROM PRIVATE PROPERTY FOR THE PERIOD OF AUGUST 1, 1985 TO JULY 31, 1986 WHEREAS, costs have been determined for the removal of diseased trees from the following private properties in the City of Richfield and the expenses incurred or to be incurred for such work during the period of August 1, 1985 through July 31, 1986 amount to $18,259.74: Property Address Property Identification Number 6308 Colfax Ave. So. 28- 028 -24 -11 -0064 7632 - 15th Ave. So. 35- 028 -24 -43 -0062 7433 - Stevens Ave. So. 34- 028 -24 -42 -0027 2007 W. Forest Drive 28- 028 -24 -32 -0096 6935 James Ave. So. 28- 028 -24 -34 -0139 7227 Pillsbury Ave. So. 34- 028 -24 -24 -0044 6408 - 18th Ave. So. 26- 028 -24 -14 -0052 7415 - 12th Ave. So. 35- 028 -24 -42 -0056 6525 - 15th Ave. So. 26- 028 -24 -13 -0110 7320 - 2nd Ave. So. 34- 028 -24 -13 -0079 6349 - 14th Ave. So. 26- 028 -24 -12 -0087 6512 - 23rd Ave. So. 25- 028 -24 -24 -0054 2236 E. 66th St. 25- 028 -24 -24 -0049 6704 Russell Ave. So. 29- 028 -24 -41 -0095 6520 - 23rd Ave. So. 25- 028 -24 -24 -0117 6805 Longfellow Ave. So. 25- 028 -24 -33 -0052 7215 Upton Ave. So. 32- 028 -24 -13 -0016 6801 Garfield Ave. So. 27- 028 -24 -33 -0012 6511 Bloomington Ave. So. 26- 028 -24 -14 -0115 7314 Morgan Ave. So. 33- 028 -24 -23 -0077 6314 Standish Ave. So. 25- 028 -24 -21 -0029 7044 Garfield Ave. So. 34- 028 -24 -22 -0031 7320 Russell Ave. So. 32- 028 -24 -14 -0097 6405 Standish Ave. So. 25- 028 -24 -24 -0097 7339 Harriet Ave. So. 34- 028 -24 -23 -0009 7413 Pillsbury Ave. So. 34- 028 -24 -31 -0046 7414 - 18th Ave. So. 35- 028 -24 -41 -0008 7105 - 15th Ave. So. 35- 028 -24 -12 -0130 7213 Nicollet Ave. So. 34- 028 -24 -13 -0098 7221 - 2nd Ave. So. 34- 028 -24 -13 -0155 6609 Chicago Ave. So. 26- 028 -24 -31 -0057 7132 Logan Ave. So. 33- 028 -24 -22 -0070 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota: 1. The portion of the cost to be assessed against benefited property owners is declared to be $18,259.74; 2. The city clerk shall forthwith calculate the proper amount to be specially assessed for such diseased tree removal against every assessable lot, piece or parcel of land affected, without regard to cash valuation as provided by law, and shall file a copy of such proposed assessment in his office for public inspection; 3. The clerk shall, upon completion of such proposed assessment, notify the city council thereof. is 2017 W. 77th St. 33- 028 -24 -33 -0008 6820 Oliver Ave. So. 28- 028 -24 -33 -0041 7338 - 18th Ave. So. 35- 028 -24 -14 -0104 7111 - 17th Ave. So. 35- 028 -24 -11 -0040 6924 Logan Ave. So. 28- 028 -24 -33 -0111 7105 - 17th Ave. So. 35- 028 -24 -11 -0041 6810 - 10th Ave. So. 26- 028 -24 -34 -0080 2800 W. 71st St. 32- 028 -24 -12 -0114 7201 Penn Ave. So. 33- 028 -24 -23 -0006 7639 Penn Ave. So. 33- 028 -24 -33 -0031 6232 Bryant Ave. So. 28- 028 -24 -11 -0075 7649 Penn Ave. So. 33- 028 -24 -33 -0012 6828 Russell Ave. So. 29- 028 -24 -44 -0048 7100- 2nd Ave. So. 34- 028 -24 -12 -0133 7210 James Ave. So. 33- 028 -24 -24 -0071 7034 Bloomington Ave. So. 35- 028 -24 -12 -0088 7221 Knox Ave. So. 33- 028 -24 -24 -0010 6741 Sheridan Ave. So. 29- 028 -24 -41 -0107 6337 - 14th Ave. So. 26- 028 -24 -12 -0089 6625 Lynnwood Blvd. 28- 028 -24 -41 -0030 7015 Newton Ave. So. 33- 028 -24 -22 -0034 7300 - 5th Ave. So. 34- 028 -24 -14 -0036 7321 Penn Ave. So. 33- 028 -24 -23 -0012 7519 Girard Ave. So. 33- 028 -24 -42 -0096 6919 Logan Ave. So. 28- 028 -24 -34 -0094 6244 7645 Aldrich Ave. So. Xerxes Ave. So. 28- 028 -24 11 -0023 32- 028 -24 -43 -0049 6336 - 22nd Ave. So. 25-028-24-21-0010 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota: 1. The portion of the cost to be assessed against benefited property owners is declared to be $18,259.74; 2. The city clerk shall forthwith calculate the proper amount to be specially assessed for such diseased tree removal against every assessable lot, piece or parcel of land affected, without regard to cash valuation as provided by law, and shall file a copy of such proposed assessment in his office for public inspection; 3. The clerk shall, upon completion of such proposed assessment, notify the city council thereof. is Adopted by the City Council of the City of Richfield this 11th day of August, 1986. John Hamilton, Mayor ATTEST: Thomas P. Ferber, City Clerk r� • • • • 4 -/Z�"'- RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION FOR HEARING ON PROPOSED ASSESSMENT FOR DISEASED TREE REMOVAL FROM PRIVATE PROPERTY: AUGUST 1, 1985 TO JULY 312 1986 WHEREAS, by a resolution passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield on August 11, 1986, the city clerk was directed to prepare assessment of the cost of removing diseased trees from the following private properties in the City of Richfield for the period August 1, 1985 through July 31, 1986: Pro 6308 7632 7433 2007 6935 7227 6408 7415 6525 7320 6349 6512 2236 6704 6520 6805 7215 6801 6511 7314 6314 7044 7320 6405 7339 7413 7414 7105 7213 7221 6609 7132 2017 6820 7338 7111 6924 7105 arty Address Colfax Ave. So. - 15th Ave. So. - Stevens Ave. So. W. Forest Drive James Ave. So. Pillsbury Ave. So. - 18th Ave. So. - 12th Ave. So. - 15th Ave. So. - 2nd Ave. So. - 14th Ave. So. - 23rd Ave. So. E. 66th St. Russell Ave. So. - 23rd Ave. So. Longfellow Ave. So. Upton Ave. So. Garfield Ave. So. Bloomington Ave. So. Morgan Ave. So. Standish Ave. So. Garfield Ave. So. Russell Ave. So. Standish Ave. So. Harriet Ave. So. Pillsbury Ave. So. - 18th Ave. So. - 15th Ave. So. Nicollet Ave. So. - 2nd Ave. So. Chicago Ave. So. Logan Ave. So. W. 77th St. Oliver Ave. So. - 18th Ave. So. - 17th Ave. So. Logan Ave. So. - 17th Ave. So. Property.,Identifipation Number 28- 028 -24 -11 -0064 35- 028 -24 -43 -0062 34- 028 -24 -42 -0027 28- 028 -24 -32 -0096 28- 028 -24 -34 -0139 34- 028 -24 -24 -0044 26- 028 -24 -14 -0052 35- 028 -24 -42 -0056 26- 028 -24 -13 -0110 34- 028 -24 -13 -0079 26- 028 -24 -12 -0087 25- 028 -24 -24 -0054 25- 028 -24 -24 -0049 29- 028 -24 -41 -0095 25- 028 -24 -24 -0117 25- 028 -24 -33 -0052 32- 028 -24 -13 -0016 27- 028 -24 -33 -0012 26- 028 -24 -14 -0115 33- 028 -24 -23 -0077 25- 028 -24 -21 -0029 34- 028 -24 -22 -0031 32- 028 -24 -14 -0097 25- 028 -24 -24 -0097 34- 028 -24 -23 -0009 34- 028 -24 -31 -0046 35- 028 -24 -41 -0008 35- 028 -24 -12 -0130 34- 028 -24 -13 -0098 34- 028 -24 -13 -0155 26- 028 -24 -31 -0057 33- 028 -24 -22 -0070 33- 028 -24 -33 -0008 28- 028 -24 -33 -0041 35- 028 -24 -14 -0104 35- 028 -24 -11 -0040 28- 028 -24 -33 -0111 35- 028 -24 -11 -0041 1. A hearing shall be held on the 8th day of September, 1986 in the city hall council chambers at 7 PM, or as soon thereafter as it may be reached on the agenda, to pass upon such proposed assessment and at such time and place all persons owning property affected by said diseased tree removal assessment will be given an opportunity to be heard in reference to such assessment. 2. The city clerk is hereby directed to cause a notice of the hearing on the proposed assessment to be published once in the official newspaper at least two weeks prior to the hearing, and he shall state in the notice the total cost of the diseased tree removal. He shall also cause mailed notice to be given to the owner of each parcel described in the assessment roll not less than two weeks prior to the hearing. 11 6810 - 10th Ave. So. 26- 028 -24 -34 -0080 2800 W. 71st St. 32- 028 -24 -12 -0114 7201 Penn Ave. So. 33- 028 -24 -23 -0006 7639 Penn Ave. So. 33- 028 -24 -33 -0031 6232 Bryant Ave. So. 28- 028 -24 -11 -0075 7649 Penn Ave. So. 33- 028 -24 -33 -0012 6828 Russell Ave. So. 29- 028 -24 -44 -0048 7100 - 2nd Ave. So. 34- 028 -24 -12 -0133 7210 James Ave. So. 33- 028 -24 -24 -0071 7034 Bloomington Ave. So. 35- 028 -24 -12 -0088 7221 Knox.Ave. So. 33- 028 -24 -24 -0010 6741 Sheridan Ave. So. 29- 028 -24 -41 -0107 6337 - 14th Ave. So. 26- 028 -24 -12 -0089 6625 Lynnwood Blvd. 28- 028 -24 -41 -0030 7015 Newton Ave. So. 33- 028 -24 -22 -0034 7300 - 5th Ave. So. 34- 028 -24 -14 -0036 7321 Penn Ave. So. 33- 028 -24 -23 -0012 7519 Girard Ave. So. 33- 028 -24 -42 -0096 6919 Logan Ave. So. 28- 028 -24 -34 -0094 6244 Aldrich Ave. So. 28- 028 -24 -11 -0023 7645 Xerxes Ave. So. 32- 028 -24 -43 -0049 6336 - 22nd Ave. So. 25- 028 -24 -21 -0010 WHEREAS, the city clerk has notified the City Council that such proposed assessment has been completed and filed in his office for public inspection. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota: 1. A hearing shall be held on the 8th day of September, 1986 in the city hall council chambers at 7 PM, or as soon thereafter as it may be reached on the agenda, to pass upon such proposed assessment and at such time and place all persons owning property affected by said diseased tree removal assessment will be given an opportunity to be heard in reference to such assessment. 2. The city clerk is hereby directed to cause a notice of the hearing on the proposed assessment to be published once in the official newspaper at least two weeks prior to the hearing, and he shall state in the notice the total cost of the diseased tree removal. He shall also cause mailed notice to be given to the owner of each parcel described in the assessment roll not less than two weeks prior to the hearing. 11 Adopted by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this 11th day of August, 1986. John Hamilton, Mayor ATTEST: Thomas P. Ferber, Citq Clerk • � I* it • A 17 CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Office of City Manager Council Letter No. 322 Agenda August 11, 1986 The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Richfield Subject: Resolution Affecting Certain State Mandated Changes to Police and Fire Relief Associations Council Members: During the 1986 session of the Legislature, Chapter 359, concerning the regulation of Relief Associations was passed and became effective March 20, 1986. The law is intended to provide a mechanism to gain greater municipal professional staff input into the governance of relief associations, especially with respect to financial losses due to misappropriation or unprofessional or fraudulent investment. The law is an immediate reaction to the recent Winona Police Relief Association case which involved the mishandling of pension funds. An important aspect of the law allows, at the discretion of the City Council, the substitution of existing ex- officio members with three voting municipal board members. These City representatives on the Relief Association may be council members, City staff persons or citizens. The intent is to ensure that cities are not denied representation and knowledge of Relief Association activities by lack of interest or time on the part of the ex- officio members. In addition, to protect investment income, one of the municipal members must sit on an investment subcommittee of the Relief Association if an investment committee exists. In a recent audit of the three largest municipalities, Minneapolis, St. Paul and Duluth, it was found that their return on investments was just adequate. The report raised concern that City officials were not attending Board meetings in all three cities. The report also stated that with the active involvement of City staff members, there could have been a better return on investments. The statute requires that the municipality receive and deposit all monies received for the special fund of the Relief Association and may countersign disbursements from the special fund less than $5,000 and shall sign all disbursements in excess of $5.000. "Received for special funds" means state insurance and state amortization aid, property taxes, payroll contributions, and other government aids. 17,1 There is also a requirement of the statute for the City to agree to the amount of the Associations Treasurers' Bond. amount of the current Bonds are: Police $100.0009 Fire $50,000. It is the opinion of the City Auditor that the City require that both Relief Associations have a bond in the amount of $100,000. This amount would provide, along with other internal controls, adequate protection for a possible loss. The Bond amount would reciprocate approximately one -half of the total deposits made to each of the Relief Association's. The 1985 contributions were: Police, $235,6702 Fire $283 -420. Local Relief Associations The City of Richfield is currently operating with two separate Relief Associations, one each for Police and Firefighters. These two relief associations are autonomous from each other, and each utilizes three ex- officio (nonvoting) board members. The Police Relief Association bylaws provide for an eight - member Board which consists of five member representatives and three ex- officio members: Public Safety Director Mayor City Treasurer The Fire Relief Association bylaws similarly provide for a nine- member Board consisting of six member representatives and three ex- officio members: Fire Chief Mayor Chief Financial Officer In each relief association, the bylaws will have to be amended to provide for the statutory change and specific appointment of Board members. Board officers from both relief associations have been contacted and are aware of the new state statute and of the action recommended within this council letter. Finally, it should be emphasized that appointment of full Board members to replace the current ex- officio representation is in response to the state law change and not any concern regarding mismanagement of the Richfield relief associations. Recommendation It is recommended that the City Council adopt the attached resolution which takes the following actions: . .Appoint the Finance Manager, City Treasurer and Public Safety Director as voting board members in both the Police and Fire Relief Associations .Authorize either the Finance Manager or City Treasurer to sign for all Relief Association disbursements over $5,000 from the Special Fund .Authorize either the Finance Manager or City Treasurer to receive and deposit all monies for the Special Fund of each Relief Association .Require the Treasurer of each Relief Association to have a bond of $100,000. Attached is a copy of a memo from Brian Rice of the City Attorney's office, which outlines the changes in the law. Also attached is a copy of a recommendation Respe ully submitted, L. Devich Acting City Manager SLD /eja cc: Tom Morgan, Public Safety Director Jean Mitchell, Finance Director Police Relief Association Fire Relief Association 0 RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION APPOINTING VOTING MUNICIPAL MEMBERS TO RICHFIELD POLICE RELIEF ASSOCIATION AND RICHFIELD FIRE RELIEF ASSOCIATION; REPLACING EXISTING EX- OFFICIO MEMBERS WHEREAS, the Minnesota Legislature has made certain amendments to Minnesota Statute provisions regulating Police and Fire Relief Associations, and WHEREAS. two local relief associations, the Richfield Police Relief Association and Richfield Fire Relief Association are currently functioning entities, with three ex- officio City representatives named to their respective Boards, and WHEREAS, the state statutes now provide that a municipality of the 2nd class, such as Richfield may appoint three voting municipal members in place of existing ex- officio members, and WHEREAS, a municipal official of the City of Richfield is now required to countersign disbursements of said relief associations over $5,0002 and to receive and deposit all monies received for the special funds of the Relief Associations. WHEREAS, the City must agree to the amount of the Relief Association's Treasurer's Bond. NOW. THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City appoints to the Board of the Richfield Police Relief Association and the Richfield Fire Relief Association the following voting members: Finance Manager Director of Public Safety City Treasurer BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that either the City Treasurer or Finance Manager shall countersign all disbursements over $5,000 of the Police and Fire Relief Associations of the City of Richfield and shall receive and deposit all monies for the special funds of said Associations. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City require the Police and Fire Relief Associations of the City of Richfield to each have a Treasurer's Bond in the amount of $100.000. Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota, this 11th day of August, 1986. John Hamilton Mayor is ATTEST: Thomas P. Ferber City Clerk LeFevere Lefler � Kennedy . O'Brien & °' r'` ' 6 19986 Dmwz A Professional Association 2000 First Bank Place West MEMORANDUM Minneapolis Minnesota 55402 TO: Minnesota Police Pension Council Telephone (s12) 333 -0543 Telecopier (612) 3330540 Minneapolis Firefighters Relief Association St. Cloud Firefighters Relief Association Clayton L. LeFevere Herbert P. Lefler J. Dennis O'Brien FROM: Brian F. Rice John E. Drawz David J. Kennedy . DATE: May 13, 1986 John B. Dean Glenn E. Purdue Richard J. Schieffer RE: 1986 Legislative Report Charles L. LeFevere Herbert P. Lefler III James J. Thomson, Jr. Thomas R. Galt This memo will summarize the work that the Pension Dayle Nolan Council did during the 1986 Session. The subjects to be Brian F. Rice John G. Kressel included in this report are P Lorraine S. Clugg James M. Strommen 1. Laws of 1986, Chapter 359 (the Winona Bill) . Ronald H. Batty P. Jordan WDickel Minsberg 2. The Laws of 1986, Chapter 458 (the Omnibus Pension . Erickson Bill) . William R. Skallerud Rodney D. Anderson Corrine A. Heine 3. The Laws of 1986, Chapter 459 (the Comparable Worth John R. McDonald, Jr. Legislation) . David D. Beaudoin 4. Highlights of the issues continuing during the interim and for consideration for the 1987 session of the legislature. 1. Laws of 1986, Chapter 359 - the Winona Bill Section 1 amends Minn. Stat. 53.85, subd. 6 to allow the Minnesota Commission on Pensions and Retirement to request information from the pension funds in the State. Although this section appears to be essentially house- keeping in that the pension funds have complied with requests for information previously, this section spells out specifically the authority of the Pension Commission to request the local police and fire pension plans to promptly furnish information to the Commission. In future years this could have some effect. Section 2 amends Chapter 6 by adding Minn. Stat. 56.495 that gives the. State Auditor the authority to audit the • various police and fire relief associations. The audit authority includes auditing both the special and general May 13, 1986 Page 2 funds of the relief associations. This audit may be performed by a certified public accountant if the relief association or the municipality requests a certified public accountant and the State Auditor agrees. The relief associations will pay for the cost of the audit out of the special fund. The State Auditor is required to file written financial audits with the Commissioner of Revenue. Also the State Auditor must file a financial compliance report with the Commissioner of Revenue certifying that each relief association has: a. Completed the annual financial report required in Minn. Stat. 569.051 (hereinafter 69.051 report); b. Been audited by the State Auditor or certified public accountant; and C* Completed an actuarial valuation required by Minn. Stat. 569.77. NOTE: Article 2, Section 19 of Laws 1986, Special Session 1, Chapter 31 provides that the State Auditor will not perform the reporting and auditing duties of Sections 2 to 9 of this bill until after January 1, 1987. Section 3 amends Minn.'Stat. 56.72, subd. 2 by requiring that volunteer firefighter relief associations report • amount of lump sum or monthly service pensions approved per year of service credits. Section 4 amends Minn. Stat. 569.011, subd. 1 by includ- ing Chapter 423A within the covered definition. This apparently is a technical correction. Section 5 amends Minn. Stat. 569.011, subd. 2 by provid- ing that the firefighter and police 69.011 report will be filed at the same time as the relief association's 69.051 report will be completed before July 1 in order to receive police and fire state insurance aid. This extends by one month the period of time which the finan- cial report has to be completed. The State Auditor is to prepare the 69.051 form in future years. For this year, the Commissioner of Revenue is to prepare the 69.011 form.. Section 6 amends Minn. Stat. 569.021, subd. 4 eliminating the automatic presumption of qualification because the relief association received aid in the previous years. In order to qualify in the future, the Commissioner of Revenue must receive: a. The fire department personnel equipment certifica- tion or the police department qualified officer's certificate required by Minn. Stat. 569.011; May 13, 1986 Page 3 17- � b. The financial compliance reports required under Section 2 of the bill which is the State Auditor's. financial audit report required by Minn. Stat. 56.495, subd. 3; C. The relief association's 69.051 financial report; and d. The annual actuarial valuations required by Minn. Stat. 569.77 Section 7 amends Minn. Stat. 569.021, subd. 7 by elimi- nating the' direct payment to cities of the first and second class relief associations of insurance aid pay- ments by the Commissioner of Revenue. In the future, payments will be made to the County Auditor who will then forward it to the municipalities. The municipality has 30 days to transfer the funds to the relief associations. The association must file the 69.051 financial report with the treasurer of the municipality in order to get the state insurance payment. This section again empha- sizes the importance of having the financial reports completed in a timely manner. Section 8 amends Minn. Stat. 569.031, subd. 1 by making the interest payment penalty accrue beginning on July 1 if payment has not been received by September 1. Section 9 amends Minn. Stat. 569.051 by requiring the board of the relief association to: a. prepare a financial report covering the special and general funds of the relief association for the preceding fiscal year on a form prescribed by the State Auditor. This is a change from the past when the Commissioner of Insurance prepared the form. The State Auditor will have to prepare a new form for this. For this year, the relief association funds should use the old forms. lifter the foam" is signed by the municipal clerk and the secretary of the relief association it shall be filed in the relief association office, presented to the city council, and a copy submitted to the State Auditor; and b. submit audited financial statements attested to by a certified public accountant, a public accountant or by the State Auditor within 180 days after the close of the fiscal year. The State Auditor may extend the deadline for himself. Subd. 2 of this new section 69.051 requires the treasurer of a relief association to have a bond in a reasonable amount that is acceptable to the municipality. May 13, 1986 Page 4 Reasonable in this context means whatever the relief association and the city deems to be reasonable. Note: The relief association board should adopt a resolution which sets a specified bond amount and then notify the city council of that action. If the council does not object, then the amount can be presumed to be reasonable. Subd. 4 requires that State Auditor shall notify the Legislative Commission on Pension and Retirement if an audit reveals misfeasance, malfeasance or nonfeasance. It also requires. the Commissioner to notify the Legisla- tive Commission on Pension and Retirements if the State Auditor has not filed a financial compliance report by July 1. Section 10 of the bill amends the guidelines act, Minn. Stat. 569.77. Subd. 1 was amended to delete reference to the Commissioner of Commerce and gives the Commissioner of Revenue the authority to determine the apportionment of insurance aid to relief associations. If the Commis- sioner finds a relief association has not qualified, the fund can be brought into compliance even if they have not completed the reports if they meet these following requirements. a. All the members contribute 8% of their maximum salary. b. The officers of the relief association determine the financial requirements of the relief association for the municipality for the proceeding year by August 1 of the year and not later than September 1. The financial requirements report will be based on the most recent actuarial valuation of survey prepared in accordance with Minn. Stat. 5356.15 and 5356.216. C. The relief association submits the report between August 1 and September 1 for the upcoming year. d. The funds are properly invested under 69.77, subd. 2g which were in this bill eliminated the $10,000 investment in any corporation of a small size that the 5% stock limitation specified in Minn. Stat. 511A.24, subd. 5 would have required a smaller investment. It also removed the investment option to invest in Minnesota non -farm real estate owner- ships secured by mortgage deeds of trust not to exceed 10% of the market value of the association funds. Securities that were held before the effec- tive date of this act may be continued to be held. This subdivision also allows the board to select and appoint a qualified private firm to measure the investment performance and return on investment May 13, 1986 Page 5 using the formulas developed by the State Board of Investment pursuant to Minn. Stat. S11A.04, clause 11. e. The actuarial reports have to be done every year as of December 31 of the preceding year and have to be filed by July 1 of the current year. That report has to be filed with the legislative reference library, the municipality, the pension commission and the State Auditor, not later than July 1. f. Any by -laws or articles of incorporation must be ratified by the municipality. Section 11 amends Minn. Stat. 569.773, subd. 2 by requir- ing the actuarial valuations be filed with the State :�- Auditor not later than July 1 and eliminates the provi- sions that allow the groups to band together to do quadrennial studies. Section 12 amends the laws relating to the volunteer firefighters. Section 13 amends Minn. Stat. 569.80 dealing with author- ized administrative expenses to allow for expenditures of monies for performance evaluation expenses. Section 14 amends Minn. Stat. 5356.216, which deals with the contents of actuarial valuations for local police and fire funds by eliminating the reference to experienced studies and again require that the valuation to be submitted no later than July 1 for the previous fiscal year. Section 15 amends Chapter 423A by adding new sections. Minn. Stat. S423A.001 provides that relief associations are subject to the provisions of Chapter 6 relating to audits by the State Auditor and the provisions of Chap- ter 13, Minn. Stat. 515.17; 5138.163 and 5138.17, relat- ing to data privacy and the creation- and retention of official public records. The records of the special fund and the by -laws of the relief association shall be public and open for inspection by any member through any officer or employee of the State or municipality and any member of the public at reasonable times and places. This section of the law is very important. Chapter 13 is Minnesota Data Practices Act. This is a sweeping statute which requires that data kept on individuals be public unless specifically made private. Every fund will have to file a form with the Commissioner of Administration detailing what records they keep on individuals and what those records contain generally. This topic merits further discussion at the coming pension council meet- ings. Briefly, the general rule is that all data can be May 13, 1986 Page 7 knows or should know that'a transaction constitutes one of the following direct or'indirect transactions: a. Sale, exchange or leasing of any real property between the relief association and a board member; b. Lending of money or extension of credit between the relief association and a board member or member of the relief association; C. Furnishing of goods, services or facilities between the relief association and board member; and d. Transfer to-a board member or use by a board member of any of the assets of the relief association. Transfer of assets does not mean the payment of the relief association benefits or administrative expenses provided by law. These responsibilities are modeled after the ERISA law, although they are limited in that the transaction must not be between the relief association and a board member. The most difficult one to interpret is the furnishing of goods, services or facilities between the relief associa- tion and a board member. Section 16 board sha] detailing guidelines must also must: adding Minn. Stat. 5423A.002 requires that the .1 file annual reports with the municipality the required municipal support under the act Minn. Stat. 569.77. The 69.051 report be filed with the municipality. Funds also a. file written statements or investment objectives and performances; b. a report on the surety bond amount required by Section 9; and C. submit an annual administrative budget of the relief association. Note this will require the funds to write out their objectives and performances, submit the surety bond amounts for the secretary and treasurer required under Minn. Stat. 569.051, subd. 4 in the annual administrative budget for the relief association. Note that these are new. Minn. Stat. 5423A.02, Subd. 2 requires that the munici- pality shall receive and deposit all monies received for the special fund of the relief association and may countersign disbursements from the special fund less than $5,000 and shall sign all disbursement in excess of May 13, 1986 Page 6 / inspected unless it is specifically exempted. The law allows the public to come in and view those records. If you get a request for data and you are unsure as to what to do, you should refer to question to your local attor- ney. You have five days exclusive of weekends and holidays to respond to a request. (Attached is an article dealing with data privacy. Although somewhat dated, it is still valuable.) Minn. Stat. 515.177 and 5138.163 and 5138.17 generally deal with the creation and retention of records. The statute basically requires that officials keep accurate records of the public work that they do and document their work. It is important, therefore, that members of the relief association keep accurate and written records of transactions and other matters that they engage in. Minn. Stat. 5423A.001, Subd. 2 deals with municipal representation. The municipality as of the effective date of the act, March 20, 1986, has the right to appoint` individuals as voting members to the relief association • board of directors. Each municipality is entitled to at least two members. This means that third and fourth class cities will have' to add two members to their boards, while first and second class cities will substitute voting municipal members for existing ex officio members.: One of the municipal representatives must sit on an investment subcommittee of the relief association if an investment committee exists. This change in the law will necessitate potential relief association by -law changes for the relief associations. One suggested method is to amend the relief association by -laws to provide that the municipal representatives will be the two or three members required by law. A second method is to wait until the city appoints someone and then amend the by -laws. For practical purposes, it will be better to specify the municipal representatives. Minn. Stat. 5423A.001, Subd. 3 defines officers and trustees of the local relief associations as public officers for the purposes of Minn. Stat. 471.87 and 609.43. These statutes deal with conflict of interests provisions and a criminal statutes relating to theft. Minn. Stat. 5423A.001, Subd. 4 outlines the fiduciary responsibility of board members. Board members are held to the standard of care enumerated in Minn. Stat. 511A.09. This is the prudent investor's standard. (Note: This opens up questions of the interpretation of the prudent person standard by the Attorney General in the South Africa situation.) Subdivision 4 also spells out that each board member is a fiduciary and that as a . fiduciary, no relief association shall cause a relief association to engage in a transaction if the fiduciary May 13, 1986 P age 8 17 // $5,000. If a trustee is hired, the city must approve the trust agreement and it must still countersign authoriza- tions for disbursements in excess of $5,000. "Received for special funds" means state insurance aid, state amortization aid, property taxes, payroll contributions and other governmental aids. The phrase does not mean investment income. "Disbursements" means all expendi- tures; the phrase does not mean payments for investments. The amendment in Section 17 transfers the function from the Commissioner of 'Finance to the Commissioner of Revenue for the amortization payment. Section 18 deals with the local volunteer firefighters as does Section 19 of the bill. -Section 20 deals with the $1 million obtained by 1984 legislature by transferring the dis- bursement authority to the Commissioner of Revenue. Section 21 allows relief association that has fewer than two municipal members to increase the size of its board up to two positions and that these by -laws should be sent to the legislative Commission on Pensions and Retirement. Third and fourth class relief associations will need to add members by reason of that amendment. At two members are required to be added. This should be affected by by -law change. Sections 22, 23, 24 and 25 relate to the Winona situa- tion. 2. Laws of 1986 Chapter Laws of 1986, Chapter 458 has miscellaneous pension provisions in it, most of which do not affect police and fire funds. Section 23 is benefit increase for surviving spouse and children of Buhl Police Relief Association. Section 24 has a benefit increase for Eveleth police and firefighters and their surviving spouses. Section 34 deals with the Mankato Relief Association amendment for purchase of probationary credit. Note the PERA offset was not removed in this bill even though the conference committee talked about it. 3. Laws of 1986 Chapter 459 This bill is the Comparable Worth Bill that we began working on in the 1985 session. Essentially, the bill changes the word "shall" to "consider" when the arbitra- tion views the equitable compensation relationship standards established under the comparable worth law together with other standards appropriate in interest arbitration in reaching his decision. The arbitrator must also consider not only the study but objections to it in making his determination. The provisions of . Section 2 still make it not an unfair labor practice for a political subdivision to set aside money to correct an I> r 0 May 13, 1986 Page 9 /Z- /"/--I equitable compensation relationship and it also spells out that the comparable worth law is not designed to diminish the political duties bargained under good faith under PERA. 4. The Divorced Surviving Spousal Benefit Bill This bill was defeated in the House, but has been re- ferred over for interim study. 5. Issues for the Interim a. The relative worth of age 50 retirement letter of Jim Hacking needs to be responded to. b. The legislative auditor's report will be a hot item. c. We should prepare a response on the divorced surviving spouse benefit bill. d. Consolidation will be up again next year. 1587NO02.C35 ADMINISTRATIVE AND OPERATING MATTERS RETIREMENT ASSOCIATIONS } Observation - The Minnesota Legislature recently passed Laws 1986, Chapter 359 relating to police and firefighters' relief associations: Among other things, this legislation places new responsibilities upon the City Council and the boards of trustees of the associations, including: • (1) Trustees are now responsible for annual financial reporting and ' auditing, and for filing such reports with the City.Counci,l. (2) The City must, agree to the amount of the association treasurer's bond. (3) The City must now appoint at least two trustees to each association board. (4) The City must designate one official to receive and deposit all money received for the special (pensions) fund of- each association, and countersign all disbursements over $5,000. (5) The City's ex- officio trustee(s) are no longer mandated. The City may appoint any person it wishes to such trustee positions. The legislation also further restricts authorized investments, and provides new duties to the State Auditor with respect to relief associations. Recommendation - We suggest that the City carefully study this complex legislation, and provide for such reorganization of duties as may be appropriate. Such reorganization may include having a City official directly responsible for concurring on investment decisions made by the relief associations. INVESTMENT ACCOUNTING Observation - While performing audit procedures on investment balances, we noted that investment activity is recorded manually. As a result, a substantial amount of time is required to consistently maintain accurate and reliable investment records. Background - The finance manager is responsible for investment operations and prepares investment documentation. When investments are initially purchased, the investment is recorded manually in an investment notebook. All necessary computations such as interest income, and discount and premium amortization are computed manually at this time. Journal entries are also prepared manually using the amounts derived from the purchase transaction. -2- CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Office of City Manager Council Letter No. 321 Agenda August 11, 1986 The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Richfield Subject: Approval of Plans and Specifications and Authorization to Advertise for Bids: New Cedar Avenue Liquor Store Council Members: On July 14, 1986, the city council approved preliminary design plans and an off - street parking permit and authorized staff and the architect to proceed with the development of construction documents for a new liquor store at Cedar Avenue and 66th Street. The proposed structure would be 5,585 square foot brick structure with a basement for storage and an employee breakroom. It would be smaller than the existing store (10,500), but would represent a much more effective use of selling area and would be able to accommodate sales in excess of 2 million dollars. The existing Cedar Avenue store now generates sales of 1.7 million dollars annually. Structurally, the store would be more energy efficient than the existing store which is in need of costly repairs, such as a new roof. The proposed facility would comply with all City setback requirements. A profit statement is attached to show projected sales, expenditures and net profit figures for the new operation. The figures generated are based on the premise that the corner of 66th Street and Cedar Avenue would be a more desirable location with more visibility from Highway 77, and therefore generate more sales. The proposed parking layout meets all city off - street parking area standards concerning the number of parking stalls provided, the dimensions of parking stalls and driving aisles, and the location of curb cuts. The parking area should adequately meet parking needs and will not result in congestion . on surrounding streets. • • /2✓ Cost It is the city staff's intention to complete the new facility at a total cost of between $450,000 - $500,000. Funds for the new facility would come from the working capital of the liquor fund and proceeds from the sale of the current liquor store site. The following is a list of future actions and an anticipated schedule which will be followed: August 11, 1986 Sept. 11, 1986 Sept. 22, 1986 Oct. 13, 1986 March 1, 1987 City Council approved final design, plans and specifications, and authorize bidding. Bid opening City Council awards contracts Contracts executed Liquor Store open for business The staff is presently working out the final details with the architects about what will and will not be included in the plans and specifications. The complete plans and specifications will be thoroughly reviewed by city staff prior to releasing them for bids. The above schedule is a tight one. Any substantial delays could potentially increase costs because of ground freeze - up and cold weather or could delay start up until next spring. This delay could also affect the redevelopment of the existing liquor store site discussed in another item on this agenda. For these reasons staff feels its important to keep on the above - mentioned schedule. Recommendation: It is recommended that the City Council approve plans and specifications subject to staff review and authorize staff and the architect to proceed with the advertisement for bids. SLD /eja Resoctfully pi L . D Acting City submitted, Q1144 Manager • CEDAR AVENUE LIQUOR STORE 1981/1987 SALES ANALYSIS Year Sales 1981 $1,805,706 1982 1,762,523 1983 1,719,680 1984 1,743,307 1985 1,702,474 • • Projected Year Sales 1986 $1,753,550 1987 $1,800,000* PROJECTED 1987 SALES /PROFIT DATA Sales Cost of Goods Sold Gross Profit (21.5%) Personal Expenditures Other Services & Chgs Supplies Total Oper. Expend Sub Total Net Profit Additions to Income Net Profit before Transfers $1,800,000 1,413,000 387,000 108,000 ** 110,000 * ** 5,500 $ 223,500 $ 163,500 25,000 * * ** $ 188,500 zz * Grand Opening Year Includes Benefits. Personal service reduction is result of elimination of full time cashier position and expected personnel cost reduction from property maintenance * Reduction result of elimination of property management costs, energy output, inventory costs, constant repairs and replace- ment of store equipment that was in need of replacement due to age. * ** *Cigarette commissions, space rental and interest earned NET PROFIT FROM PREVIOUS YEARS Year Amount 1985 $7102,471 1984 $138,791 1983 $160,879 Dram Shop Insurance increased drastically in 1985. However, this expenditure decreased in 1986 from 1985, and that may increase net profit slightly in the future. � 0 tt oC W�< z� «3_ � 0 tt oC W�< 133M15 4499 - - - IIiHill 1. A ��,; �Iillllll3 � �I )I d 133M15 4499 - - - IIiHill 1. A ��,; �Iillllll3 � �I )I 4 TWe iL � c � � `wsa � 0 • �o �a�o li �i _br 0 I Oil � Q I 0 j "" - I Il. L: , I )I r� I I • Z O Y V W Q } Y N Z K 0 Y �11- ^ J • • If CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Office of City Manager Council Letter No. 320 Agenda August 11, 1986 The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Richfield Subject: Schedule of Review of 1986 Revised and 1987 Proposed Budgets Council Members: The city staff is now working to prepare the 1986 revised and the 1987 proposed budgets. It is expected that the budget documents will be printed and distributed just prior to Labor Day. In order for council members and staff to arrange their schedules, the following dates and times are suggested for the council's budget review sessions: Wednesday, September 10,7:00 P.M.: Overall Budget Preparation Community Development General Fund Community Services Public Safety Administrative Services Legislative /Executive Wednesday, September 17, 7:00 P.M.: Water Fund Sewer Fund Golf Course Fund Wednesday, September 24, 7:00 P.M.: Liquor Fund Debt Service Funds Internal Service Funds Special Revenue Fund Capital Budget Budget Adoption Wednesday, October 1, 7:00 P.M.: Reserve date, if necessary It is expected that the review sessions scheduled above will provide sufficient time for budget discussion. It may be possible to shorten the number of sessions; however, all of these dates should be held open in case they are necessary. SD /eja • • Res c fully qubmit d, zv ich Acting City Mana er 17� • CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Office of City Manager Council Letter No. 319 Agenda August 11, 1986 The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Richfield Subject: Appointments to Advisory Board of Health, Energy Awareness Commission and the Human Rights Commission Council Members: Three city commissions currently have vacancies due to resignations. Appointments to the Advisory Board of Health, the Energy Awareness Commission and the Human Rights Commission have been scheduled for the August 11, 1986 city council meeting. Advisory Board of Health There are two vacancies on this board. Applications have been received from Grace Crowley, Kevin Keller, and Lars Savolainen. Two of the applicants, Kevin Keller and Lars Savolainen, have also indicated an interest in the Energy Awareness Commission. Energy Awareness Commission There is one vacancy on this commission. Kevin Keller and Lars Savolainen have indicated an interest in being appointed to either this commission or the Advisory Board of Health; and an application has also been received from Wendy Peterson. Human Rights Commission There are two student vacancies on this commission. Attached for council consideration is an application from Kevin Hoemke. Interviews with the applicants have been scheduled beginning at 6:15 p.m. in the lobby conference room on Monday, August 11. SD /eja L. "Devich City Manager I w /Z u • NAME C K 0 LAST DATE G - - CITY OF RICHFIELD COMMISSION /COMITTEE APPLICATION FORM �(: y G-Y-A c C FA. KI't(N (',- to � MIDDLE HOME ADDRESS -73 a-0 F M i 1V- O ✓V f' AV. SO. PHONE HOME 3 cJ BUSINESS APPOINTMENT PREFERENCE: (Number in order of preference if more than one) Advisory Board of Health Planning Commission Civil Service Commission Human Services Commission Community Services Commission (Serving Seniors & Disabled) Energy Awareness Commission Sister City International Human Rights Commission Other Briefly list aspects of your experience which you believe qualify you for this advisory commission and why you are interested in serving: UIVIU, rhUYE661UNAL AND GUMMUNITY ACTIVITIES: REFERENCES (OPTIONAL) OCCUPATION: Return to City ManageV's office, 6700 Portland Avenue, Richfield, MN 55423. Please complete in black ink or typewriter. /y3 DATE Q(.LN CITY OF RICHFIELD COMMISSION /COMITTEE APPLICATION FORM N 1911V lQ l IC FIRST MIDDLE HOME ADDRESS % � PHONE HOME �� � BUSINESS7 e �L° �/)Gj r.S,MTc �S'%� APPOINTMENT PREFERENCE: (Number in order of preference if more than one) Advisory Board of Health, Planning Commission Civil Service Commission Human Services Commission Community Services Commission- (Serving Seniors & Disabled) ('Energy Awareness Commission Sister City International uman Rights Commission Other Briefly list aspects of your experience which you believe qualify you for this advisory commission and why you are interested in serving: �(Jc m ssi a co US-iz-- CIVIC, PROFESSIONAL AND COMMUNITY ACTIVITIES: '� ©rn e' On � tE t) ,PSG. 4UJA -- 2E UR REFERENCES (OPTIONAL) OCCUPATION: iFX PE7r N `7�"L %UI /`��i ��T f /V P-7 Return to City Manager's office, 6700 Portland Avenue, Richfield, MN 55423. Please complete in black ink or typewriter. M CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Office of City Manager Council Letter No. 318 Agenda August 11, 1986 The Honorable Mayor and Members Of The City Council City of Richfield Subject: Extension Of Hearing Examiner Process For Reviewing Variances City Council Members: In July of 1985 the City Council passed an ordinance which changed the way the city reviewed zoning ordinance variance requests. The ordinance created a committee of Hearing Examiners which constituted a special committee of the Board of Adjustments and Appeals. The hearing examiners were given the power to make variance decisions. The hearing examiner decisions could be appealed to the City Council. Prior to this ordinance change, variances were reviewed by the Planning Commission and then approved or granted by the City Council acting as the Board of Adjustments and Appeals. The new ordinance became effective on August 31, 1985. Connie Hoverson and Vern Luettinger were appointed by the Council to act as hearing examiners. To date the hearing examiners have considered nine variance requests. Of these nine requests, six requests have been denied and three requests have been granted. Three of the six denials have been appealed to the Council. The Council has overturned two denials and upheld the third. Attached for your information is a summary and disposition of the variances considered by the hearing examiners. The ordinance creating the hearing examiner process indicates that the process "will expire one year from its effective date unless the City Council shall, by resolution, extend it for an additional period or periods ". . Recommendation The hearing examiner process has worked well from staff's perspective, allowing routine variance matters to be handled expediently. Thus, it is recommended that the City Council extend the hearing examiner process for one year. At the end of the year the Council should evaluate the matter again and consider further extensions. A resolution is attached for your consideration. Res l sub tte .'4 Dev Actin g City Manager SLD /eja • • RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION EXTENDING HEARING EXAMINER PROCESS FOR ZONING ORDINANCE VARIANCE REVIEW WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota established a hearing examiner process for zoning ordinance variance review; and WHEREAS- this process will expire on or about August 31, 1986 unless extended by -the City Council; and WHEREAS. the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota has reviewed the process and determined that the hearing examiner process is working well and it is desirable to continue it. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED. by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota that the hearing examiner process established in Chapter III, Part IV Section 3.40A of the ordinance is hereby extended for an additional one year period and will expire at the end of this additional year unless the City Council, by resolution, extends it for an additional period or periods. Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this 11th day of August, 1986. ATTEST: Thomas Ferber, City Clerk John Hamilton, Mayor • • VARIANCE STATUS SUMMARY SINCE THE COMMITTEE OF HEARING EXAMINER WAS ESTABLISHED 1. DATE OF HEARING: 11/26/85 LOCATION: 7045 James Ave. So. REQUEST: To allow an addition to the existing garage with a rear yard setback of 15 feet rather than the required 25 square feet. DECISION: Denied APPEALED: Decision-Reversed (12/9/86) 2. DATE OF HEARING: 11/26/85 LOCATION: 78th & Lyndale Ave. (Hampton Inn) REQUEST: To allow increases in floor area from 38,890 square feet to 55,564 square feet DECISION: Denied (12/9/85) APPEALED: Decision Reversed (2/24/86) 3. DATE OF HEARING: 2/25/86 LOCATION: 7700 -7750 Morgan Ave. 2016,.2020,2022 and 2026 W. 78th St. (Walser Corp). REQUEST: To allow the construction of a new structure within 5 feet of Morgan Avenue right -of -way instead of the required 40 feet building setback. DECISION: Denied 3/12/86 APPEALED: Decision Upheld 7/14/86 4. DATE OF HEARING: 4/29/86 LOCATION: 710 LakeShore Drive (VFW) REQUEST: To increase maximum floor area from 21,330 square feet to 41,128 square feet. DECISION: Denied 5/8/86 5. DATE OF HEARING: 5/22/86 LOCATION: 6445 Penn Ave. So. REQUEST: To reduce the building setback on 65th Street from required 40 feet to 37 feet. DECISION: Granted 6/12/86 6. DATE OF HEARING: 5/22/86 LOCATION: 6228 Pleasant Ave. So. REQUEST: To reduce the minimum lot area requirement from 6,750 square feet to 6,487.87 feet and also to reduce the rear yard setback from 25 feet to 7 feet. DECISION: Denied 6/12/86 7. DATE OF HEARING: 5/22/86 LOCATION: 1120 E. 78th Street REQUEST: To allow the construction of detailed canopy over pump island to be 2 feet higher than ordinance permits. DECISION: Granted 6/12/86 8. DATE OF HEARING: REQUEST: To allow chase to foot int DECISION: Denied 6/17/86 LOCATION: 6900 Blaisdell Ave. a 2 foot by 5 foot fireplace chimney project 2 feet into the required 5 erior side yard set back area. 7/8/86 9. DATE OF HEARING: 7/23/86 LOCATION: 7545 Lyndale Ave. So. REQUEST: To allow the construction of a 9 foot by 39 foot addition onto the west side of the existing Pantry Restaurant, which will reduce the existing front yard setback from 31 feet to 22 feet. The required front yard in C -2 (general commercial) district is 40 feet. DECISION: Granted 7/28/86 t • • /;0/ CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Office of City Manager Council Letter No. 317 Agenda August 11, 1986 The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Richfield Subject: Policy Requiring Minimum Age for Employment Within Municipal Liquor Operation. On September 1, 1986, the State of Minnesota's minimum age for the purchase and consumption of alcoholic beverages will be changed to 21 years of age. Previously the legal drinking age in Minnesota was 19 years of age. Currently the Richfield City ordinances provide that an individual must be 19 years of age to purchase and consume alcoholic beverages. Thus, an ordinance change must be made to keep the City ordinance code in compliance with the state statutes. An ordinance change is now being prepared by the City Attorney's office and should be ready for first reading council consideration at the August 25th meeting. Prior to the August 25th meeting, City staff would like to point out to the City Council that the new state statute allows minors 18, 19 and 20 years old to dispense liquor. The Richfield municipal liquor operation has always required that employees be of legal drinking age to dispense liquor. This requirement has been an essential element in the control and safety of the dispensing of alcoholic beverages. City staff feels strongly that such a requirement should continue. Attached for council consideration is a draft policy prepared by the City Attorney's office which would require persons employed within the Richfield municipal liquor operation to be a minimum 21 years of age. In adopting the attached policy the City could ensure that the control and safety of the dispensing of alcoholic beverages would continue. It is in keeping with the City's strong commitment toward being a leader in the responsible sales of liquor products. aRECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the City Council adopt the attached policy requiring that all persons employed within the City's municipal liquor operation who are involved in the dispensing of liquor be at least 21 years of age. i Respe lly Ssub'tted, e. L. D * 4 Acting City Manager cc: Liquor Operations Director • ///- / e-, RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING A POLICY PERTAINING TO HIRING OF MINORS BY MUNICIPAL LIQUOR STORES WHEREAS, the 1986 Minnesota Legislature evinced concern over the ability of 19 and 20 year olds to use alcoholic beverages responsibly by raising the legal drinking age from 19 to 21 years; and WHEREAS, the 1986 Minnesota Legislature left the decision whether to employ 18, 19 and 20 year olds in serving alcoholic beverages to the individual liquor proprietors; and WHEREAS, the City of Richfield agrees with the conclusion of the 1986 Minnesota Legislature with respect to the raising of the legal drinking age; and further believes that persons under the age of 21 years may lack the maturity necessary for responsible handling and dispensing of alcoholic beverages. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City of Richfield, Minnesota, proprietor of the City of Richfield Municipal Liquor Stores, hereby establishes a policy of employing in such estab- lishments only those individuals who are 21 years of age or older. 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 0055REO1.E14 7 12 CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Office of City Manager Council Letter No. 316 Agenda August 11, 1986 The Honorable Mayor and Members Of The City Council City of Richfield Subject: Resolution Giving Final Approval to Transfer of Controlling Interest of City's Cable Television Franchise. Council Members: Rogers' Cablesystems of Minnesota, Limited Partnership is currently seeking final approval of a transfer of controlling interest and refinancing plan of the firm's long term debt. The resolution now before the City Council is the final approval and culmination of a process that was initiated approximately one year ago. Background The franchise ordinance and subsequent relief ordinance adopted by the member cities of the Southwest Suburban Cable Commission ( SWSCC) approximately one year ago made provisions for a refinancing plan for Rogers which would create a more favorable repayment schedule of the firms' long term debt. Such an improvement would also enhance the overall financial position of the company. In response to the above referred provision, Rogers structured a refinancing plan that included a delayed payment schedule and more favorable interest rate for the firm's long term debt. However, a major component of that plan called for the transfer of controlling interest in the franchise granter's general partner from Rogers Cablesystems of Minnesota, LTD to Rogers American Cable Corporation, a wholly -owned subsidiary of Rogers Cablesystems of American, Incorporated. The transfer of controlling interest significantly improves Rogers Cablesystems of Minnesota's, financial position and also keeps the controlling interest in the Roger's corporate family. The SWSCC engaged the certified public accountant firm of Is Touche Ross to review the proposed transfer of stock ownership and the representation by Rogers that the transfer did strengthen the firm's financial position. Touche Ross made a report to the 12-1 A& SWSCC indicating that it concurs that the financial condition of Roger's Cablesystem of America, Incorporated was healthier then that of Rogers Cablesystems of Minnesota. In addition it appears that the proposed transfer would not adversely affect the franchise subscribers. The proposed transfer may, in fact, permit Rogers to provide better service to it's subscribers than it could have otherwise provided. Preliminary Approvals At its April meeting, the SWSCC approved a resolution granting preliminary approval of the proposed transfer and refinancing, and recommended preliminary approvals by the individual member cities of the SWSCC. Each member City also gave preliminary approval to the transfer package. Richfield passed the resolution giving preliminary approval at its City Council meeting of May 12, 1986 (preliminary approval resolution is attached). Final Approval The preliminary approval was conditioned upon the acceptable submission and execution of all appropriate documentation necessary for the transaction. Since the preliminary approval, Rogers has worked closely with the lending institution involved to finalize the transfer and refinancing transactions. Terms of the transaction have now been completed and final approval has been given by the SWSCC via the attached Commission Resolution which sets forth all of the requirements of the completed transfer of ownership and related filings and agreements. The transfer would be effective July 31, 1986. With the SWSCC final approval given, the last step in this process is the final approval of each of the member cities. A resolution reciting the terms and conditions of final approval by the City of Richfield is attached for Council consideration. The SWSCC recommends approval of that resolution. Recommendation It is the recommendation of the SWSCC, in which I concur, that the City Council adopt the attached resolution giving final approval to a transfer of controlling interest in the City's cable television franchise. Res kLL-W. ubmit d, / e ich Acting City Manager SLD /sae x�_4 0 RESOLUTION RESOLUTION GIVING FINAL APPROVAL TO A TRANSFER OF CONTROLLING INTEREST IN CITY'S CABLE TELEVISION FRANCHISE. WHEREAS, The City of �Ricrfields , Minnesota, ( "City ") has granted a cable television franchise (the "Franchise ") to Rogers Cablesystems of Minnesota Limited Partnership (the "Grantee ") pursuant to City's cable communications ordinance (the "Franchise Ordinance "); and WHEREAS, City has also adopted an ordinance (the "Relief Ordinance ") intended to provide financial relief to Grantee by providing for a modification of Grantee's obligations for a period of time in order to permit refinancing of Grantee's long -term debt and to enhance its financial viability; and WHEREAS, Grantee has now proposed a refinancing plan, as contemplated by the Franchise Ordinance and the Relief Ordinance and seeks approval of such plan; and WHEREAS, the Southwest Suburban Cable Commission (hereinafter SWSCC) has adopted a Resolution, a copy of which is incorporated herein and made part hereof, recommending approval of the transfer of controlling interest in Grantee, approval of Grantee refinancing its long -term debt, and recommending approval of the extension of the Franchise Ordinance term; and WHEREAS, the Resolution of the SWSCC recommends compliance by Grantee of certain conditions; and WHEREAS, it is intended that this Resolution will serve to approve the refinancing plan of Grantee that includes first, with the adoption this Resolution, the approval of the transfer of controlling interest in Grantee, and second, based on the transfer of the controlling interest in Grantee and refinancing according to an amendment to a Loan Agreement, an opportunity for improving the financial operating condition of Grantee; WHEREAS, Rogers Cablesystems of the Southwest, Inc., formerly Rogers Cablesystems of Minnesota, Inc. ("RCSI") is the general partner of Grantee and is a wholly -owned subsidiary of Rogers U.S. Cablesystems, Inc. ("RUSCI"); and WHEREAS, the proposed transfer of controlling interest calls for a change in ownership of Grantee's general partner through transfer of the ownership of the shares of RCSI from RUSCI to Rogers American Cable Corp. ("RACC"), a wholly -owned subsidiary of Rogers Cablesystems of America, Inc., ( "RCA"); and - 1 - • WHEREAS, RCSI and Grantee have represented to the SWSCC, which acts on behalf of the City on certain matters related to cable television, that in conjunction with the proposed transfer of controlling interest in Grantee, RACC will make use of its line of credit from time to time as necessary to provide funds to Grantee to meet operating expenses and debt service payments and RCA will also guarantee performance of Grantee's under the Franchise Ordinance and Relief Ordinance; and WHEREAS, it has been represented by Grantee to SWSCC that such transfer of stock ownership of RCSI will strengthen the financial position of RCSI and will facilitate the refinancing of Grantee's long -term debt and WHEREAS, SWSCC has engaged the firm of Touche Ross, certified public accountants, to review this proposed transfer of stock ownership of RCSI and the proposed refinancing; and WHEREAS, Touche Ross has made a report to SWSCC indicating that it has reviewed financial material provided to it by RCA and has found that its financial condition is healthier than that of RUSCI; and WHEREAS, simultaneous with the transfer of controlling interest in Grantee by RACC an offer was made to the individual limited partners in Grantee to acquire this interest with limited partners holding approximately sixty percent (60 %) of the units agreeing to the sale. RACC has assigned its right to purchase these units to RCSI; and WHEREAS, Minnesota Statutes Section 238.083, and Article XII of the Franchise Ordinance, require City approval of any transfer of controlling interest of Grantee; and WHEREAS, it appears that the proposed transfer of controlling interest will not adversely affect the Grantee's subscribers; and WHEREAS, it appears that the proposed transfer of controlling interest is likely to benefit Grantee and may, in turn, permit Grantee to provide better service to its subscribers than it would otherwise be able to provide. WHEREAS, City finds that Grantee has complied with the conditions imposed in a Preliminary Resolution passed by City and dated May 12, 1986 , WHEREAS, the City considered the transfer of controlling interest request at its meeting on , reviewed the Resolution and recommendation of the SWSCC and the presentation from its staff, discussed the requests with representatives of Grantee, and considered all of the reports and - 2 - • Xy information presented to it at its meeting and finds, based on the foregoing; that A. All procedural requirements set forth in the Franchise and Minnesota state law regarding the consideration of a cable communications system franchise transfer of controlling interest and the approval of the refinancing have been complied with B. The proposed transfer of controlling interest and refinancing would be in the public interest as contemplated under the Franchise and that the transferee has demonstrated that the transfer of controlling interest will enable the transferee to finance the cable communications system in a more efficient manner than currently existing, thereby eliminating potential financial pressure and cash flow problems on the systems and on future subscriber rates C. As part of the transfer of controlling interest request and approval of it, the City has relied upon SWSCC's financial consultant representations that by having assurances from the parent organizations of Grantee the financial strength of the cable communications system will be improved; and, in reliance upon this, City has requested Grantee to secure approval from the parent organizations to execute an Agreement of Joint and Several Liability, a copy of which is attached, to be executed by Rogers Cablesystems, Inc., a Canadian corporation, ( "Canadian "), RCA and RACC; and D. With the completion of the refinancing as contemplated by the Amendment to Loan Agreement, the provision of Article 11, Section 4 of the Franchise Ordinances of the Members Cities will be satisfied, and upon execution of an Agreement between Grantee and each City acknowledging the completion of refinancing and payment of the "Existing Indebtedness ", as described in Article 11, Section 4, the Franchise Ordinance will be extended by four (4) years; E. The terms of the refinancing and the transfer of controlling interest should be approved effective July 31, 1986, and finds that provisions of Article XII, Section 1 of the Franchise Ordinance and Section 238.083 of the Minnesota Statutes are complied with and the terms of the refinancing and transfer of controlling interest are acceptable. WHEREAS, City will authorize SWSCC to file with the Commissioner of Commerce, as required under Minnesota law, the necessary documentation reflecting the process involved in the approval of the transfer of controlling interest in Grantee and the agreements executed between the parties. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that City hereby approves of the transfer of the controlling interest in Grantee and the 3 - acquisition of the limited partnership units by RCSI, subject to the following conditions: 1. Receipt from Grantee of final signed Resolutions, which will be substantially in form and substance in conformance with the Resolutions presented to SWSCC and attached to the SWSCC Resolution, from RUSCI, RACC, RCA and RCSI and attorney's opinion in a form acceptable to City, and compliance with all requirements of Article XIV, Section 2 of the Franchise Ordinance; 2. Execution by Grantee, and its parent corporations, of all necessary documents including an Acceptance, a Joint and Several Liability Agreement (copies of which are attached as exhibits) and a Certification that all requirements of Article XIV, Section 2 have been complied with. 3. Receipt by SWSCC of authority from Grantee to file with the Commissioner of Commerce the information relating to the transfer of controlling interest and refinancing and extension of term of Franchise Ordinance together with the authority from each Member City for SWSCC to do this filing. 4. Upon refinancing being completed Grantee will execute an Agreement together with City that will acknowledge that the refinancing, effective July 31, 1986, is complete and satisfactory according to the terms of Article 11, Section 4 of the Franchise Ordinance and that the Franchise Ordinance term is extended by four (4) years. 5. The SWSCC is hereby authorized on behalf of City to make said filings as may be required with the Minnesota Commerce Department under Section 238.085 of Minnesota Statutes. 4. Grantee will pay the reasonable costs and disbursements of the SWSCC and its Member Cities directly related to the review and approval of its refinancing plan and the transfer of controlling interest approved by this Resolution. Passed and adopted this 11thday of August , 1986, by the City of Richfield DATED: CITY OF AEH:SWRESO4A • By: Its: Mayor == 3�1 CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Office of City Manager Council Letter No. 190 Agenda May 12, 1986 The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Richfield Subject: Resolution Approving a Refinancing Plan, Sale and Transfer of Rogers Cablesystems Franchise and Extending the Franchise Period Council Members: At the City Council meeting of April 28, 1986, the City Council held a Public Hearing on a request by Rogers Cablesystems of Minnesota, LTD. Partnership for City Council approval of the following actions (see attached Council Letter No. 171): 1. A Refinancing Plan which provides for alternative financing mechanisms to relieve Rogers of its' unfavorable long -term debt, and 2. The sale and transfer of the Cable T.V. franchise from Rogers Cablesystems of Minnesota, Ltd. Partnership to Rogers Cablesystems of America. The operation would stay within the Rogers family of companies, but the long -term outstanding debt of the company would be refinanced under the much larger credit line of Rogers Cablesystems of America, and 3. The extension of the terms of the Rogers Cable television franchise for an additional four years. The refinancing plan and extension of the franchise for an additional four year period were two items provided for in the relief ordinance adopted by the five cities of the Southwest Suburban Cable Commission (SWSCC) approximately one year ago. At the public hearing on April 28, 1986, testimony was heard from representatives of Rogers Cablesystems of Minnesota, Adrian Herbst (Attorney for the SWSCC), and members of the public. The official action approving the request was to be a resolution. However, the exact wording of that resolution was not available at the April 28th meeting; thus the resolution was to be prepared by the City Attorney and presented to the City Council at the May 12, 1986, City Council meeting. Attached is a resolution entitled "A Resolution Giving Preliminary Approval to a Change of Ownership and of a Refinancing Plan of the City's Cable Television Franchise ". The previously adopted Franchise Ordinance provides for a four year extension of the Franchise if Rogers completes refinancing of its' existing long -term indebtedness before December 31, 1987, and provides the City with acceptable evidence thereof. Thus adoption of this resolution would indirectly also extend the City's franchise with Rogers for four additional years (from December 31, 1995 to December 31, 1999). Finally, the resolution gives preliminary approval of the change of ownership and refinancing plan pending the acceptable submission and execution of all appropriate documentation as necessary for this transaction. It is recommended that the City Council adopt the attached resolution approving the Refinancing Plan and transfer of ownership of Rogers Cablesystems of Minnesota, LTD. Partnership. • SLD /eja u 1, q - C', • 13 -/;- RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION GIVING PRELIMINARY APPROVAL TO A CHANGE OF OWNERSHIP AND OF A REFINANCING PLAN OF THE CITY'S CABLE TELEVISION FRANCHISE, WHEREAS, the City of , Minnesota, ( "City ") has granted a cable television franchise ( "the Franchise ") to Rogers Cablesystems of Minnesota Limited Partnership ( "the Grantee ") pursuant to City's cable communications ordinance ( "the Franchise Ordinance "); and WHEREAS, City has also adopted an ordinance (the "Relief ordinance ") intended to provide financial relief to Grantee by providing for a modification of Grantee's obligations for a period of time in order to permit refinancing of Grantee's long -term debt and to enhance its financial viability; and WHEREAS, Grantee has now proposed a refinancing plan, as contemplated by the Franchise Ordinance and the Relief Ordinance and seeks approval of such plan; and WHEREAS, Rogers Cablesystems of Minnesota, Inc. ("RCMI") is the general partner of Grantee and is a wholly -owned subsidiary of Rogers U.S. Cablesystems, Inc. (" RUSCI"); and WHEREAS, the proposed refinancing calls for a change in ownership of Grantee's general partner through transfer of the ownership of the shares of RCMI from RUSCI to Rogers American Cable Corp. ("RACC"), a wholly -owned subsidiary of Rogers Cablesystems of America, Inc. ( "RCA"); and WHEREAS, RCMI has represented to the Southwest Suburban Cable Communications Commission ( "SWSCC "), which acts on behalf of the City on certain matters related to cable television, that in conjunction with the proposed refinancing of Grantee, RCA will make use of its line of credit from time to time as necessary to provide funds to Grantee to meet operating expenses and debt service payments; and WHEREAS, it has also been represented by Grantee to SWSCC that such transfer of stock ownership of RCMI will strengthen the financial position of RCMI and will facilitate the refinancing of Grantee's long -term debt; and WHEREAS, SWSCC has engaged the firm of Touche Ross, certified public accountants, to review this proposed transfer of stock ownership of RCMI and the proposed refinancing; and WHEREAS, Touche Ross has made an interim report to SWSCC indicating that the proposed refinancing will lighten the debt - 1 - long term debt as contemplated by Article II, Section 4, of the Franchise Ordinance and as represented to SWSCC. B. RCA has given written contractual commitment to City, satisfactory to City, that it will provide financial assistance as necessary to Grantee, during the term of the refinancing loan, to enable Grantee to meet its operating expenses and debt service payments. C. Grantee, RCMI or RACC have certified to City that the ownership of the stock of RCMI has been transferred from RUSCI to RACC and that all actions incident to such transfer have been duly authorized and taken. D. RACC has executed and delivered to City an acceptance and a guarantee of RCMI's performance of the Franchise Ordinance, the Relief Ordinance and the Performance Agreement between City and Grantee, accompanied by such opinions of counsel as are required by Article XIV of the Franchise Ordinance. E. SWSCC has recommended to City that it give final approval of the actions described in paragraph 1 of this Resolution. 3. Upon final City approval of the actions described in paragraph 1 of this Resolution, the City will execute and deliver an agreement with Grantee evidencing extension of the Franchise to December 31, 1999. Dated this day of r Mayor - 3 - 1986. i 40 The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City City of Richfield CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Office of City Manager Council Council Letter No. 171 Agenda April 28, 1986 Subject: Public Hearing on Rogers Cablesystem's Application for Approval of Refinancing Plan Transfer and Sale of Ownership of Franchise and Extension of the Term of the Franchise Council Members: Approximately one year ago, the City of Richfield along with other member cities of the Southwest Suburban Cable Commission, (hereafter SWSCC) adopted a relief ordinance which enabled Rogers to provide for refinancing of their unfavorable long -term debt. Since that time Rogers Cablesystems has developed a refinancing plan and is now in the process of submitting that plan to five member cities of the SWSCC which includes, Edina, Eden Prairie, Hopkins, Minnetonka and Richfield. At the council meeting of April 14, 1986 council members were informed that on April 2, 1986, the SWSCC had received a completed application from Rogers Cablesystems to approve the following: I. The refinancing plan which provides for alternative financing mechanisms to relieve Rogers of its unfavorable long -term debt, and 2. A request for approval of the sale and transfer of the cable franchise. Rogers Cablesystems of Minnesota would be acquired by Rogers Cablesystems of America, thus the operation would stay within the Rogers Cablesystems family of companies, but the long -term outstanding debt of the company would be refinanced under the much larger credit line of Rogers Cablesystems of America, and 3. Approval of the extension of the terms of the city' franchises for an additional four year term. At its April 2 meeting, the SWSCC considered the application by Rogers Cablesystems and unanimously adopted a resolution which information the council issues which following: f regarding the application and to answer any questions members and public may have. Once again the three .will be considered at the public hearing are the 1. A request for approval by each of the member cities of a refinancing plan of Rogers Cablesystems of Minnesota Limited Partnership. During the course of the past year, Rogers Cablesystems of Minnesota has attempted to secure financing to alleviate the cash flow problems caused by their long -term debt. However, several problems arose in that refinancing including a reluctance on the part of at least one lender because of the provision in the franchise agreement which provides that the system could be taken over by the member cities at the net book value of Rogers in the event of a default of the franchise agreement. Thus, the possibility arose in the mind of the potential lender that in the event of a default there would not be sufficient funds to insure that the lender was properly paid. Secondly, the interest rates available at the time Rogers attempted to secure refinancing were in excess of 11% interest their cost under the current bank loan agreement. The refinancing proposal now up for approval includes the provision wherein the bank loan of Rogers Cablesystems of Minnesota would be amended to match the terms of Rogers Cablesystems of America's long -term debt. This long -term debt bears an interest rate at the prime rate plus one percent (as .compared to the Minnesota loan rate which is the prime plus one and one -half per cent. The refinancing if approved would result in reduced interest costs, extending payment terms and a greater degree of flexibility for the Minnesota Limited Partnership. A copy of a letter from the Touche Ross accounting firm reviewing the proposed refinancing plan is attached to this letter. 2. Hand in hand with the refinancing of the Cablesystems of Minnesota debt, with the Rogers Cablesystems of America credit line, would be the request for sale and transfer of the franchise from Rogers Cablesystems of Minnesota Limited Partnership to Rogers Cablesystems of America, Inc. Both companies operate within the Rogers Cablesystems of America corporate group. 3. The request t in each of the member approximately one year refinancing there was franchise term to make uring and at that time the refinancing of the franchise term by four financing plan, would o extend the franchise term by four vears cities. In the relief ordinance, executed ago, the cities recognized that with the also a need to permit an extension of the the best possible long -term debt restruct- the cities agreed that upon approval of long -term debt they would also extend the years. Thus, along with approval of the come approval to extend the franchise for r Attachments: A -R ough Draft of a Proposed Ordinance for First Reading B -Rough Draft of a Council Resolution Accepting Refinancing Plan C- Ten -Year Proforma Concerning the Refinancing D -A Letter to the SWSC C from Rogers Cablesystems Dated March 4 explaining th � ' e steps taken to secure the refinancing E -A Letter from Adrian Herbst to Touche Ross & Company Concerning the Analysis of the Refinancing Plan F -A Letter from Touche Ross Reviewing the Refinancing Plan r X-3-1-3 HERBST & THVE, LTD. 0 M E M O R A N D U M TO: Chairman Courtney and Commission Members FROM: Adrian E. Herbst, Administrator /Attorney DATE: July 18, 1986 RE: Attachments Regarding Refinancing Plan and Transfer of Controlling Interest in Franchise We have included for your review a number of items as follows: 1. A memorandum prepared for the SWSCC Operating Committee 2. Letters from Rogers: a. Letter with schedule of bank repayment to Wayne Courtney dated July 8, 1986 b. Letter to Wayne Courtney dated June 18, 1986 C. Letter to Wayne Courtney dated July 3, 1986 3. A description of the Franchise Chain of Ownership 4. Listings of officers and directors a. Rogers Cablesystems of America, Inc. b. Rogers American Cable Corporation C. Rogers Cablesystems of the Southwest, Inc. 5. Resolutions of Boards of Directors 6. Loan Agreement 7. Resolutions of SWSCC (for adoption of this meeting Alternate A and Alternate B)- 8. Resolutions of Member Cities Alternate A and Alternate B 9. Acceptance Agreement • II HERBST & THUE, LTD. 0 July 18, 1986 Page Two 10. Joint and Several Liability Agreement 11. Certification of Rogers 12. Schedule of Member City Council Meeting Dates • 0 A 7 10 X9 HERBST & THUE, LTD. M E M O R A N D U M TO: Chairman Miller, Operating Committee FROM: Adrian E. Herbst, Attorney /Administrator DATE: July 3, 1986 RE: Final Approval of Transfer of Controlling Interest Attached to this Memorandum are a number of materials from the Grantee relating to finalization of the approval of the first step in its refinancing plan. At the last Operating Committee and Commission meetings, it was decided that the separation of the refinancing from the transfer of controlling interest should not be processed for approval. Despite this, Grantee has requested further consideration of. this matter. Two letters from Rogers explaining Grantee's request are enclosed. The process should include the following steps: 1. The Operating Committee should review the final documents and make a report to the Full Commission. The Operating Committee should also set the date for the Commission meeting. 2. The Full Commission, based upon the report of its Operating Committee, should adopt a Resolution and refer the matter to the Member Cities for final action. The following items. should be submitted to the Cities by the Commission: A. The Commission Resolution; B. A resolution for the Cities to act on; C. All of the documentation backing up the resolution including resolutions from the various boards of the corporations and partnerships that are involved, the opinion of its legal counsel, this Memorandum and a Memorandum outlining the organizational structure of the various Rogers' entities. 3. After the Cites have acted on and passed a resolution it will be necessary for Grantee to execute a certification, an acceptance, furnish its Joint and Several Liability Agreement executed by Rogers Cablesystems of America, Inc., (RCA) and Rogers Cablesystems, Inc., the Canadian parent corporation, and Rogers American Cable Corporation, the direct parent corporation of the general partner of Grantee, and the entity in which the controlling interest will be transferred. Grantee also should - 1 - furnish a consent to filing that will be necessary in order for the filing of all of the documents with the Commissioner of Commerce of the State of Minnesota. The timing of the filing is a matter to be discussed with Grantee at the Operating Committee meeting. 4. Whatever final action is taken and agreed to at the Operating Committee meeting, after all five Member Cities have acted on the final resolution, a closing will be arranged with Grantee in order for the necessary documents to be executed and delivered. Those documents then will be executed by the appropriate persons from each Member City and then a filing of those documents will be required with the Commissioner of Commerce. I have also included with this portion of the agenda a Memorandum that I have prepared, based upon my discussions with Mr. David Jones, attorney for Rogers. This Memorandum outlines what I understand is the organizational structure of the various entities that are involved. It should provide you with a clearer understanding as to the various corporations and partnership arrangements that exist. Additionally, Grantee has furnished to us the resolutions of the various entities that are involved that will provide you with the evidence of the authority to transfer the controlling interest in the general partner of the limited partner that is the grantee of the Southwest system. You will also note that the limited partner has as a general partner Rogers Cablesystems of the Southwest, Inc., a Minnesota corporation. That is the same entity that was previously the general partner. However, the name has been changed from Rogers Cablesystems of Minnesota, Inc., to Rogers Cablesystems of the Southwest, Inc. Finally, included with this portion of the agenda is a resolution for your consideration. The resolution should be adopted by the Full Commission based on the recommendations of the Operating Committee. The resolution will authorize the delivery of the materials to the Member Cities of the Commission with the direction that the Cities proceed to adopt final resolutions on the transfer of controlling interest. Additionally, a suggested resolution for each Member City is attached. We have received draft copies of the Certification, the Acceptance and the Joint and Several Liability Agreement which, if the Operating Committee and Full Commission recommend approval on, we will review with the City Attorneys prior to action by the individual Cities. AEH:pms SWmemo3 Enc. • - 2 - 12 Rogers Cablesystems. Rogers Cablesystems of America. Inc. Rogers U.S. Cablesystems, Inc. Twelfth & Market Streets P.O. Box 1347 Wilmington, Delaware 19899 (302) 658.8128 July 8, 1986 Mayor Wayne Courtney Chairman Southwest Suburban Cable Commission Edina City Hall 4801 West 50th Street Edina, Minnesota 55424 Dear Mayor Courtney: I am writing to inform you that we have reached a tentative agreement with our bankers for the refinancing of our system serving the southwest suburban communities. When completed, the refinancing will fix the interest rate at one percent above prime and will defer the principal payments as shown in the attached exhibit. As you know, we have been involved in lengthy and delicate negotiations with our bankers on this refinancing and we are extremely pleased with this development. We will continue to keep you advised as to our progress. As soon as an agreement has been finalized, we will forward it to your legal counsel so that he can confirm these terms of the refinancing. We appreciate your continued interest and support. 'Very trul yours, Edward S. Rogers I ESR /blb 13 • • Calendar Year 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 r� -��" Exhibit Rogers Cablesystems of Minnesota Bank Repayment Schedule Old Repayment Revised Repayment Schedule Schedule 1.4% -- 6.4% - -' 9.3% 5% 12.9% 10% 20.0% 10% 28.6% 10% 21.4% 15% -- 20% -- 20% -- - 100.046 10% 100% M Rogers Cabies Y stems inc. - Suite 2EC0. Commercial Union Tower P.O. Box 249. Toronto Dominion Cwt ­_-. Toronto. Ontano h15< U5 416.864 -2373 June 18, 1986 Mayor Wayne Courtney Chairman Southwest Suburban Cable Commission Edina City Hall _ 4801 West 50th Street Edina, Minnesota 55424 - Dear Chairman. Courtney: I understand that your Commission met last Wednesday, June 11, to consider the proposed reorganization and refinancing of the Rogers Cablesystems of Minnesota Limited Partnership. At that time the Commission felt that it could not act on this matter because the terms of the refinancing had not been finalized. I apologize to the Commission and to its members individually for any inconvenience that was caused and to request your for-beararice and continued support in this process.. ' 'We had anticipated finalizing an agreement with our bankers prior to your meeting. However, we find that bankers do not always move with the same speed that we or you would hope for. This is particularly true with seven banks (and seven sets of lawyers.) spread along . the Eastern Coast of North America being involved. 'We continue our negotiations and are hopeful that they can be concluded successfully later this summer. Apart from the mechanical difficulties involved in finalizing the refinancing, negotiations have proceeded cautiously because the system is still not performing at a level that justifies refinancing on substantially more favorable terms. As you will recall, we entered into serious discussions last winter with Mutual of New York concerning the refinancing of the system and could not arrive at terms that were sufficiently beneficial. The Commission's wisdom in providing us with thirty months to secure refinancing allows us the opportunity to turn down marginal packages. In approaching our lead bank, the Toronto: Dominion Bank, this spring about refinancing the system serving .your cities, it became apparent that better terms . could be negotiated if the system was moved from the Rogers U.5. Cablesystems, ' Inc. ( "RUSCI") group of systems to-the Rogers Cablesystems of America, Inc. • 12-,Z4 ( "RCA ") group. This is not surprising since RUSCI is comprised of our urban new build systems in California, Oregon and Minnesota. Like similar urban systems b,.!—',It in the 1980's, they are not yet profitable. The RCA group is comprised of mature systems serving over 300,000 subscribers in communities across the Southwestern United States. The largest system operates in San Antonio, Texas and its neighboring suburbs and has 200,000 subscribers to its credit. RCA is publicly traded over the counter on the NASDAQ Exchange. Since going public last fall, the stock has performed well. It is understandable that financial institutions wduld feel more comfortable in lending money to the system based on the strength that RCA provides in comparison • .-to RUSCI. We feel that this reorganization will be essential in achieving a favorable refinancing whether with our current bankers or another lender and, as such, request that you proceed with the transfer now.' In addition to being the lynch pin to refinancing the system, the reorganization will provide the cities with performance guarantees from the more financially sound RCA and its holding company Rogers American Cable Corporation ("RACC"). It will also provide the system with access to the RCA line of credit through RACC..As such, the cities are in a more secure position and the system is in a 'stronger financial position pending the refinancing. This transfer .would not trigger the franchise extension since it is not a refinancing. Any franchise extension will still require approval by the Cities of the system refinancing. Since RCA and RUSCI are both wholly controlled Rogers subsidiaries, there will be no change in management or in the reorganization. I want to re- emphasize that we continue our negotiations with our current bankers and are hopeful that an acceptable refinancing can be concluded by the end of the summer. It goes without saying that refinancing the system is a necessary step in the process which began last summer with the relief ordinance. We at Rogers will continue to treat the refinancing of the system as a priority issue and will keep you apprised of our progress. In the meantime we requst your assistance in approving the transfer of the system from RUSCI to RCA as a necessary first step in securing . the refinancing. Very truly yours, EDWARD S. ROGERS • CD July 3, 1986 Mayor Wayne Courtney Chiarman Southwest Surburban Cable Commission Edina City Hall 4801 West 50th Street Edina, Minnesota 55424 Rogers Cablesystems Rogers Cablesystems of Minnesota 10210 Crosstown Circle Eden Prairie. MN 55344 (612) 941 -8820 Dear Mayor Courtney and Members of the Commission: I am writing in furtherance of Ted Rogers' letter to you of June 17, 1986.- In his letter, Mr. Rogers provided you with an update on the status of our efforts to refinance the system and requested that you continue with the process of transferring ownership of the system. This letter renews our request for your approval of the transfer from Rogers U.S. Cablesystems, Inc. to Rogers American Cable Corp. I would also like to provide you with some additional background information concerning the status of our refinancing efforts. We came to you last spring and requested•that you approve on an expedited basis a corporate - reorganization and refinancing plan which would significantly improve the terms of the system's long term financing. After considerable effort on the part of the Commission and member cities, we found - that we were unable to close the refinancing in the time frame which we had presented to you. Please believe me when I tell you that we are even more disappointed than you in this turn of events. Not only has the delay cost the system money, it has also put the Commission and the cities in a difficult position. We very much appreciate the cooperative relationship we have developed with you as our regulators and deeply regret this inconvenience. Serving the Communities of Eden Prairie, Hopkins. Edina. Minnetonka and Richfield 11 r -1 r�I J Mayor Courtney July 3, 1980' Page 2 Perhaps I can ease some anxiety that Commission members are experiencing by telling you some things that are not happening at Rogers. First, we are not considering selling or otherwise disposing of the system serving your cities. In fact, if the transfer of ownership is approved so that the system comes under the RACC line of credit, we intend to go forward with purchasing the interest of 19 of the 24 limited partners who have indicated an interest in selling their units. There would be no incentive for us to do a partial takeout of the limited partners if we were thinking of selling the system. Another thing that is not happening at Rogers is that we have not given up on refinancing the system. We are still actively engaged in discussions with the bankers and we are optimistic that a refinancing package can be finalized by the end of the summer. But we cannot guarantee a timetable. The problem we face is transferring a multi - million dollar loan that has been syndicated to three banks to a new consortium of seven banks. The logistical problems involved in coordinating this effort are enormous and our task is complicated by the fact that the system, even with refinancing, has still not obtained the financial stability that would make it attractive to lenders. That is why it is so important that we proceed with the transfer of ownership so that the system is a part of the RCA group. RCA is a publicly traded company with substantial assets and its involvement in the refinancing is essential to achieving favorable terms.- RUSCI, the current owner, is neither publicly traded nor financially substantial. In short, the transfer is necessary irrespective of who eventually refinances the system. During the interim, it provides the system with ready access to a line of credit and the cities with a guarantee from a substantial company. It also provides us with some time and leverage so that we can work out the best possible refinancing package rather than taking whatever comes along. This is consistent with the Commission's_ decision to provide us with thirty months to achieve a workable refinancina. One more thing that is not happening at Rogers is that we are not engaged in a series of corporate reorganizations to stay one step ahead of our creditors or in some other fashion prop up an enterprise that is about to go under. It is hoped that in the 0 • Mayor Courtney July 3, 1986 Page 3 years to come, all of Rogers' cable operations in the United States will be consolidated in RCA. However, because RCA is a publicly traded corporation, the systems have to achieve a certain degree of financial stability before -they can be transferred. To do otherwise would result in undermining the value of the stock. The system serving your communities is just reaching the point where such a transfer is feasible in light of RCA's overall operating position. I hope you will attempt to put yourself in our position as you evaluate the events of the past several weeks. We are truly attempting to achieve a refinancing that will strengthen the system's financial condition and we remain confident that such a refinancing will be achieved soon. The only method which we have found to achieve this goal involves very sophisticated corporate reorganization and delicate negotiations with our lenders. We believe that you have every right to know the progress of the • negotiations and their outcome as they relate to the system. We also hope that you can understand our sensitivity to making public our corporate strategic planning thereby needlessly complicating the issues before the Commission. I am sure we have much to learn in determining where to draw the line in terms of how much and • what information to provide to the Commission.- With your help and, hopefully, with your sensitivity to our problems in operating a complicated business in a competitive environment, Ne will do a = better job of communicating in the future. Very truly yours, DAJ /jlh /3715B - cc: Philip B. Lind Cliff Williams • Vernon Achber .10, • GRANTEE: OWNERSHIP Rogers Cablesystems of Minnesota Limited Partnership, a Minnesota Limited Partnership GENERAL PARTNER: Rogers Cablesystems of the Southwest, Inc. a Minnesota corporation CHAIN OF OWNERSHIP 1. Rogers Cablesystems, Inc., a Canadian corporation 2. Rogers Cablesystems International B.V., a Netherlands corporation. (It is a wholly owned subsidiary of Rogers Cablesystems, Inc.) 3. (RCA) - Rogers Cablesystems of America, Inc., a Delaware corporation. It is a public stock company. But about 75 percent is owned by Rogers Cablesystems International B.V. (18% directly and 57% through a wholly -owned subsidiary - RUSCI Holding Co., Inc., a Delaware corporation- holding Company). The directors total 8 - the public can elect 2. 4. Rogers American Cable Corporation (RACC) , a Delaware corporation and Holding Company. Wholly -owned subsidiary of RCA. 5. Rogers Cablesystems of the Southwest, Inc., a Minnesota corporation. This is a wholly -owned subsidiary of RACC. 6. Rogers Cablesystems of Minnesota Limited Partnership, a Minnesota Limited Partnership. AEH:SW15 0 General Partner is Rogers Cablesystems of the Southwest, Inc. Limited Partners - an offer to purchase the limited partner interest of limited partners holding 60% of the limited partnership units. (RACC is buying out) . The names of the remaining limited partners will be furnished to us as soon as available. RACC will assign its right to buy the limited partnership units to Rogers Cablesystems of the Southwest, Inc. ROGERS CABLESYSTEMS OF AMERICA, INC. (Inc. California - November 16, 1932 - subsequently reincorporated in Delaware - February 16, 1933) DIRECTORS OFFICERS David E. Friesen' Edward S. Ro -ers Chairman and Philip B. Lind Chief Executive Officer Patricia T. McAllister Colin D. Watson - Vice- Chairman Edward S. Rogers Philip B. Lind Vice- Chairman Colin D. Watson David E. Friesen President Graham W. Savage Yice- President, Investment Planning Nicholas F. Ham ilton- PiercyVice- President, Engineering Barry A. Ross Vice- President, Corporate Bruce D. Day Vice - President, Treasurer William W. Linton Vice- President, Controller M. Kevin Shea Vice - President, Marketing Peter Biackmere Controller . Albert Gnat, Q.C. Secretary Daphne Evans Assistant Secretary As designated by Directors or 6; Quorum - majority; Annual Meeting set by Board within 13 months of last annual meeting; Increase /decrease by Directors' resolution. As at May 15th, 1986 so ZI • ROGERS AMERICAN CABLE CORP. lnc. Delaware - February 16, 1983 DIRECTORS OFFICERS David E. Friesen Edward S. Rogers Chairman and Philip B. Lind Chief. executive Officer Patricia T. McAllister Philip D. bind Vice- Chairman Edward S. Rogers Colin D. Watson ' . Vice- Chairman and Colin D. Watson- Chief Operating Officer David E. Friesen President Graham_ W. Savage Vice- President, Investment Planning Nicholas F. Harnilton- Piercy Vice- President, Engineering Barry A. Ross Vice- President, Corporate Quorum - majority; Bruce D. Day - Vice - President, Treasurer Increaseldecrease by William W. Linton Vice- President, Controller Directors' resolution; M. Kevin Shea Vice- President, Marketing • Annual Meeting as Kenneth 3. Watson Controller designated but within Albert Gnat, Q.C. Secretary • 13 months of last. Daphne Evans Assistant Secretary As at May 15th, 1986 ,..� �J ZZ As at May _23rd. 1986 �l JUL -�J� -' co 1.`;:5 ' T- �Ul.cr:� IHnL_ �ib•1c.:,o ( ���J�J -i�-1 ROGERS CABLESYSTEMS OF THE SOUTHWEST INC. Inc. October 24, 1979 DIRECTORS OFFICER Genevieve G. Bolger Edward S. Rogers Chairman Philip B. Lind David E. Friesen President Frederick S. Richards Clifford D. Williams Executive Vice - President cc • Edward S. Rogers General Manager Colin D. Watson Tony Werner Vice - President, Engineering William D. WiIkening Sallie Fischer Vice- President, Marketing Clifford D. Williams Nancy Anderson Vice- President, Programming James Laramie Controller James B. Lockhart Secretary Daphne Evans Assist: nt Secretary Quorum - Majority; Annual Meeting - 1st Monday in March at I0.00 a.m.; otherwise, as designated by Directors; minimum 3, maximum 7 - ehange by shareholders' resolution `1 AUDIT COMMITTEE CONTRIBUTION COMMITTEE Genevieve G. Bolger Genevieve G. Bolger Frederick S. Richards Frederick S. Richards William D. Wilkenina, William D. Wilkening, Chairman. Chairman As at May _23rd. 1986 �l .RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF ROGERS CABLESYSTEMS OF MINNESOTA, INC. Transfer of Shares RESOLVED THAT: _ 1. -The Board of Directors of the Corporation hereby consents to the transfer of all of the issued and outstanding shares of the Corporation from Rogers U.S.- Cablesystems, Inc.-to Rogers American ; Cable Corp.'( "RACC"). 2. Upon the surrender of the certificate or. certificates representing the said shares, the Corporation is hereby directed to issue a certificate or- certificates registered in the name of RACC. CERTIFICATE I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing is a true and correct copy of a resolution duly passed by the directors of ROGERS CABLESYSTEMS OF MINNESOTA, INC., on. May 15, 1986, as required by law, and the said resolution is in full force and effect, unamended. DATED this day of 1986. 3577B 24 . RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF' ROGERS CABLESYSTEMS OF MINNESOTA, INC. RESOLVED THAT: 1•. Upon final approval by each and all of the Cities of Eden Prairie, Edina, .'Hopkins, Minnetonka and Richfield (the "Cities ") of the transfer of ownership of the Corporation's stock from Rogers U.S. Cablesystems, Inc..•to-Rogers American Cable Corp., the .Corporation is hereby authorized to execute all such documents•as may be reasonably required by the Cities in order to effectuate such a transfer of ownership; and 2. . Subsequent to the approval referred to above, any director -or - officer of the Corporation is he -reby authorized and directed to execute and deliver to each City on behalf of the..Corporation all such documents as may be reasonably required by the Cities, and to . do such other acts and things as may be necessary and desirable to give effect to the foregoing. CERTIFICATE I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoin, copy of a resolution duly passed by the CABLESYSTEMS OF MINNESOTA, INC., on May law, and the said resolution is in full unamended. DATED this day of 3576B 3 is a true and correct directors of ROGERS 15, 1986, as required by force and effect, 1986. 2c�1 RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF ROGERS AMERICAN CABLE CORP. Snare Purchase Agreement RESOLVED THAT: 1. The Corporation is'hereby authorized to enter into the Share Purchase'Agreement for the purchase by the Corporation of all of the issued and outstanding shares of Rogers Cablesystems of Minnesota, Inc. ( "RCMI "•) from Rogers U.S.•Cablesystems, Inc. ("RUSCI..) . 2. The directors of the Corporation hereby expressly determine that the above transaction is made for Fair Value based upon'the Appraisal. - 3. Any two directors or officers of the Corporation are hereby authorized and directed to execute and delivery the Share Purchase Agreement, subject to such amendments'; deletions or modifications as may be approved by such persons executing the Share Purchase Agreement on behalf of the Corporation, whose signatures thereto shall be conclusive evidence of such approval. Z� • 4. Any director or officer of the Corporation is hereby - authorized and directed to execute and deliver on behalf of the Corporation all such other deeds, documents and other instruments as may be necessary or desirable in order to complete the purchase and sale contemplated by the Share 'Purchase Agreement. 5. Subsequent to the fi -nalapproval by each and all of the Cities of Eden Prairie, Edina,', Hopkins', Minnetonka and Richfield ( "Cities ") of the transfer of the outstanding - shares of RCMI from RUSCI to the Corporation, and while any portion of Rogers Cablesystems of Minnesota Limited Partnership's (the "Partnership ") current term indebtedness remains outstanding, the Corporation may draw on its line of credit, from time to *time and to the extent such line of credit. is available to the Corporation for such purpose,'to provide funds to the Partnership to meet its obligations under the Franchises as amended and modified by the Relief Ordinances and Performance Agreements. 6. Subsequent to the approval referred to in paragraph five above, the Corporation is hereby authorized to execute and deliver to the Cities an acceptance and a guarantee of RCMI's performance of the Franchise Ordinances, the Relief Ordinances, and the Performance Agreements between the Cities and the Partnership, together with such other documents as the Cities may reasonably require. -2- Z- i I 7. Subsequent to the approval referred to in paragraph five above, any director or officer of the Corporation is hereby authorized and directed to execute and deliver the said documents to each City on behalf of the e- Corporation and to -do all such other acts and things as may be necessary or desirable to give effect to the foregoing. CERTIFICATE I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing is a true and correct copy of a resolution duly passed by the directors of ROGERS AMERICAN CABLE CORP. on 'May 15, 1986, as required by law, and the said resolution is in full•force and effect, unamended.. DATED this day of ,- 1986. • Assistant Secretary 3580B -3- • • RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF ROGERS CABLESYSTEMS OF AMERICA, INC. RESOLVED THAT: 1. Upon final approval by each and all of the Cities of Eder Prairie, Edina, Hopkins, Minnetonka and Richfield ( "Cities ") of the transfer-of the outstanding shares of Rogers Cablesystems of Minnesota, Inc.( "RCMI ").from, Rogers U.S. Cablesystems Inc..to '"Rogers 'American Cable Corp., the Corporation is hereby .*authorized to execute and deliver to the Cities an acceptance and a guarantee of the performance by "RCMI Rogers Cablesystems of Minnesota, Inc., .the general partner of Rogers Cablesystems of Minnesota Limited Partnership (the "Partnership "), of the Franchise Ordinances, the Relief Ordinances, and the Performance Agreements between the Cities and the Partnership, together with such other documents as the Cities may reasonably require. - 2. Subsequent to the approval referred to above, any director or officer of the Corporation is hereby-authorized and directed to execute and deliver the said documents to the Cities and to do all such other'acts and things as may be necessary or desirable to give effect to the foregoing. l ZG I CERTIFICATE I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing is a true and correct copy of a resolution duly passed by the directors of ROGERS CABLESYSTE IS OF AMERICA, INC. on the day of , 1986, as required by law, and -the said resolution is in full force and effect, unamended. DATED this day of 1986. c/s Assistant Secretary 35938 . -2- i 2 r / RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF ROGERS U.S. CABLESYSTEMS, INC. Share Purchase Agreement RESOLVED THAT: 1. The Corporation is hereby authorized to enter into the Share Purchase Agreement for the sale of all of the issued and outstanding shares of Rogers Cablesystems of Minnesota, Inc. to Rogers American Cable Corp. 2. The directors of the Corporation hereby expressly determine that the above transaction is made for Fair Value based upon the Appraisal. 3. Any two directors or officers of the Corporation are hereby_ authorized and directed to execute and deliver -the Share Purchase Agreement, subject to such amendments, deletions or modifications as may be approved by such persons executing the Share Purchase' Agreement on behalf of the Corporation, whose signatures thereto shall be conclusive evidence of such approval. • �l 13 • 4. Any director or officer of the Corporation is hereby authorized and directed to execute and deliver on behalf of the Corporation all such deeds, documents and other instruments as may .be necessary or desirable in order to complete the purchase and sale transaction contemplated by the Share Purchase Agreement. CERTIFICATE I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing is a true and correct :copy of a resolution Fiuly passed by the directors of ROGERS -U.S. M CABLESYSTEMS, INC. on May 15, 1986, as required by law, and the said resolution is in full force and effect, unamended. DATED this. day of 1986. c/s . Assistant Secretary 3579B -2- r� 0. • ROGERS /US:JA Board.1:07 /U7/86 RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF ROGERS CABLESYSTEMS OF MINNESOTA, INC. Bank Securitv WHEREAS pursuant to an offer dated April 22, 1986 (the "Offer ") made by Rogers American Cable Corp. ( "RACC ") to all the limited partners (the "Limited Partners ") in the Rogers Cablesystems of Minnesota Limited Partnership (the "Partnership "), RACC has offered to purchase all of the interests of the Limited Partners in the Partnership conditional upon acceptance by all of the Limited Partners; AND WHEREAS the Corporation is the general partner of the Partnership; AND WHEREAS Rogers U.S. Cablesystems, Inc. ( "RUSCI ") wishes to transfer lU common shares with a par value of $1.00 each in the capital of the Corporation to RACC; AND WHEREAS the transfer of the said 10 commaon shares requires the consent of the banks named in a loan agreement dated as of June 26th, 1984 (the "Loan Agreement ") among Rogers Cablesystems of Canada Limited and Rogers Cablesystems of r. � ' - 2 - Southwest, Inc., as borrowers, the guarantors named in the Loan Agreement, the banks named in the Loan Agreement (the "Banks ") and The Toronto - Dominion Bank, Atlanta Agency, as agent; AND WHEREAS as a condition of granting their consent to the transfer of the said 10 common shares, the Banks may require certain security to be executed in favour of the Banks by the Corporation and, in addition to or in lieu thereof, by the Partnership in the event that RACC acquires the interests of all of the Limitad Partners in the Partnership pursuant to the Offer; AND WHEREAS RACC has agreed to subscribe for up to 19,000 additional common shares in the capital of the Corporation at a. subscription price of $1,000 per share and, in consideration of the said subscription, the Corporation has agreed to execute _all such security as the Banks may reasonably require as a condition of granting their consent to the transfer of the said 10 common shares; -- NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED THAT: 1. The Corporation is hereby authorized to grant such security as the Banks may reasonably require as a condition of granting their consent to the transfer of the said 10 common shares in the capital of the Corporation from RUSCI to RACC including, but not limited to, a guaranty agreement and a' guarantor security agreement substantially in the form of the 2/� I - 3 - agreements attached as Exhibits D and I, respectively, to the Loan Agreement. 2. In the event that RACC acquires the interests of all of the Limited Partners in the Partnership pursuant to the Offer, the Corporation is hereby authorized to grant, in addition to or in lieu of the above security, such security in its capacity as the general partner of the Partnership as the Banks may reasonably require as a condition of granting their consent to the transfer of the said 10 common shares in the capital of the Corporation from RUSCI to RACC including, but not limited to, a guaranty agreement by the Partnership and a guarantor security agreement by the Partnership substantially in the form of the agreements attached as Exhibits D and I, respectively, to the Loan Agreement. 3. Any director or officer of the Corporation is hereby authorized on behalf of-the Corporation to execute and deliver to the Banks all such security documents as the Banks may reasonably require from the Corporation and to do all such other things and execute all such other documents necessary or desirable to give effect to the foregoing. 35 0 XY Jy" -4- CERTIFICATE I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing is a true and correct copy of a resolution duly passed by the directors of " ROGERS CABLESYSTEMS OF MINNESOTA, INC. on the 15th day of May, 1986, as required by law, and the said resolution is in full force and eftect, unamended. DATED this day of , 1986. c/s Assistant- Secretary 1 3�c Ll • r -I L_j RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF ROGERS AMERICAN CABLE CORP. Amendments to Rogers Cablesystems of Canada Limited Loan Agreement WHEREAS Rogers. Cablesystems of Canada Limited and Rogers Cablesystems of Southwest, Inc. (collectively the "Borrowers "), the several guarantors that are named in the loan agreement hereinafter referred to (the "Guarantors "), the banks that are named in the loan agreement hereafter referred to (the "Banks ") and The Toronto- Dominion Bank,-Atlanta Agency, as agent (the "Agent ") have previously entered into a loan agreement dated as of June 26th, 1984 (which loan agreement as previously amended is herein referred to as the "Loan Agreement "); AND WHEREAS the Corporation is the successor under the Loan Agreement to Rogers Cablesystems of Southwest, Inc.; AND WHEREAS the Borrowers, the Guarantors, the Banks and the Agent wish to further amend the Loan Agreement as hereinafter provided; AND WHEREAS it is in the interest of the Corporation to so amend the Loan Agreement; ­.' BE IT RESOLVED THAT: 1. The Corporation is hereby authorized to execute the following amendments to the Loan Agreement (the "Amendments "): 3� � 2 _ (a) an amendment to make Rogers Cablesystems of the Southwest Inc. a guarantor; ' (b) an amendment to waive defaults arising on the Rogers Cablesystems of Minnesota Limited Partnership (the "Partnership ") becoming an "Other Subsidiary" pursuant to the Loan Agreement; and (c) a waiver and amendment agreement to increase the amount Of the facility which is available under the RCSI Letters of Credit (as defined in the Loan Agreement), to revise the repayment schedule with respect to the RCSI Revolving -Loan (as defined in the Loan Agreement), and to revise certain of the financial and information covenants - contained in the Loan Agreement. 2. Any two officers of the Corporation or any two directors be and are hereby authorized: (a) to execute (under corporate seal or otherwise) and deliver the Amendments in such form and with such terms and conditions as may be approved by them, execution as aforesaid to be conclusive evidence of this and their approval of such documents; and (b) to execute (under corporate seal or otherwise) and deliver such other documents, and take such other steps as may be necessary to give effect to the foregoing. CERTIFIED to be a true copy of a resolution passed at a meeting of the Board of Directors of ROGERS AMERICAN CABLE CORP. duly held on the 15th day of -May, 1986, as set forth in the minutes of the said meeting and which resolutions are now in full force and effect, unamended. DATED at Toronto, the _ day of 1986. Assistant - Secretary c/s so • • • 13 15 Draft dated July 1,1986 AMENDiNIEIST TO LOAN AGREEMENT This agreement is dated as of the - day of •, 1986, between Rogers Cables ;teem; of ;�Iinnesotu Lisr.itc3 Ptu .e:�hip, a li='te3 pu�arship formed uadu the laws of the t„t�c of Min. ^esota (fo mcriy Nfinncsota Cablesystems- Southwest L l7 tcd Pattncnhip, hereinafter called the "Borrower') and Rogers Cablesystems of the Southwest Inc,, a corporation organized under the laws of the State of Minnesota (formerly known as Rogers Cablesystems of Minnesota Inc., and before that as Minnesota Cablesystems, Inc., hereinafter called the "General Partner"), WITNES SET �i� � ISM WHEREAS, Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce CUM"), The Toronto- Donunion Bank ( "TD "), -and the parties hereto were parties to a loan agreement dated as of Apl"111 ON (ft "Loan Agi ccmcnt "); AND WHEREAS, CIBC assigned its rights under the Loan Agreement, the security relating thereto, and all other documents and instruments relating thereto, to The Bank of Nova Scotia ( "BNS "), pursuant to that certain Assignment and Assumption Agreement dated as of the 1st day of May, 1984; AND WHEREAS, by art amending agreement (the "Amending Agreement") also dated as of the 1st day of May, 1984, among the Borrower, the General Partner, TD and BNS, the Loan Agreement was amended in order to delete CIBC as a party thereto, and to substitute therefor BNS as a party (the Loan Agreement as amended by thy Amending Agrce:ncnt is hereinafter referred to as the "Agreement'); AND WHEREAS, it is contemplated that TD and BNS will assign their respective rights under the Agreement, the security rclatino thcrcto, and all other documents and instruments relating thereto to the General Partner, AND WHEREAS, the parties desire to amend the Agreement, effective upon the above - mentioned assignment by TD and BNS to the General Partner, in order to delete TD and BNS as parties to the Agreement, to substitute therefor the General Partner as a party, and to effect certain amendments to enable the Borrower to fulfil its refinancing obligations to the cities of Minnetonka, Richfield, Eder Prairie, Hopkins and Edina, all in the State of Minnesota, as contemplated by the cable television franchises granted to the Borower pursuant to cable communications ordinances of such cities, and the ordinances intended to provide financial relief to the Bor.owcr also adapted by such cities; NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of these premises, the agreements hereinafter set forth and other good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which is hereby acknowledged, the parties hereby agree as follows: y 3( 2 0 1. Effective Date of Amendment Subject to Section 9 hereof, this agreement and the amendments to the Agreement and the Security Agreement (as hereinafter defined in section 9) herein provided for shall becoine effective upon die. assignment by TD and BNS of their respective rights under the Agreenment, t.'�e security relating thereto, and all other documents and instruments relating thereto to the General Partner (the "Effective Date "). 2. Amendments throughout the Agrcc.nent (a) The parties hereby agree that, throughout the Agreement, wherever the terms If "BNS" "Bank" "Banks" "each Bank" "either Bank" "such Bank" If Banks ", "Banks "' are used, such terns shall hereafter be read as "General Partner" or "General Partner's ", as the case may be. (b) The par —pies hereby further agree that, throughout the. Agreement, wherever the wcr ds "Rogers Cablesystems Inc." are used, such words shal hereafter be read as "Rogers Communications Inc." 3. Amendments to Section 1 Section 1 of the Agreement is hereby amended by deleting :the definitions of Banking Day, Banks, $orrower (Section 1.06), RNS Commitment, Commitment, Commitment Fee, Conversion Date (Section 1.15), General partner (Section 1.21), Loan (Section 1.24), Loan Documents (Section 1.25), No[cs ( Section 1.27), Prime Rate, and TD Coimmitment. (Section 1.39) in their cntirety and substituting the following therefor: "1.03 ' anUf , Iv'' means any day excrpt Suturduy, Sunday, or a day when The Toronto - Dominion Bank is not open for the transaction of business in New York. 1.46 " rrower" means Rogers Cablesystems of Minnesota Lirndtce Par -Lints }lip, a lllilltel partnership formed under the laws wf tlic 3tatc of lriitnicauLi hnvltig 1cs principal place of business at 10210 Crosstown Circle, Eden Prairie, Minnesota, and formerly known as Minnesota Cable Systems - Southwest Limited Partnership. 1.14 "Commitmc -1t" means tl:c oblibaL'on of the General Partner to advanao tho cum of V0,000,000 It tke Dsv8war pLrsualit to the terms hereof or such reduced sum from time to time as provided in Section 2.0a he: eof. • 12- �� 4T I • 3 1.21 "n-- ricral Partner' means Rogers C ablesystems or the Southwest Inc., a corporation organized under the laws of the State of Minnesota, and formerly known as Rogers Cablesysterns Qf Minnesota 1114,, and before that as 4finnusota Cabtesystems, Inc., which is the General Partner of ffie Borrower. 1,27 mcans the aggregate loans made by the General Partner to the Borrower hereunder (including loans heretofore Dmadd by TD, IMNS aucl Cwiudiwi I111perial Bank or CommCrc;. to Borrower, all rigghts in respect of which have bccn assigac'r by TD and BNS to, and all obligations of the TD and BINS, the General Partner) and more particularly described in Section 2.01 hereof, and unless the contrary is expressed, includes the principal and unpaid interest thereon, 1.25 "Loan bocum�nts" mcans this Agreement as the same may be amended from time to time, the Notes,. the Security AgreeIrlent na iltt; nnuir, tunlr br. nntrmirtl rtt"tt 11tnr . b.t tlutc Mid Al uthCr documents executed in connection herewith or contemplated herby. 1,27 " tP " or "Nl tc " means the promissory note or notes of the Borrower issued to reprogent the Lars, 1.31 "Prime Rate'' means at any time the rate per annum of rltliGlC�t dd1JPtCC1 hIld tlChlS gUUtCd by the Nciv York agency 1of D itt 4o �J 4tiv 141;, Aiq %rhauBG 111 UIG Pii iii. �tc �Lall be effective without notice to the Borrower, as of the opening of business on the date TD establishes a prime rate change:' 4. Amendments to Section 2 (a) Section 2 is hereby amended by deleting Section 2.01 in its entirety and substituting therefor the following: "2.01 Tin Sub, W to VVl{1=JI1G11L:. wltll tlic tc1 v, and cundlaumi licicul, tllc Concral Partner agrees to lend to the borrower the aggregate I1tiiu ipA1 Aninmif of Nittt',li;e.rt mminn T)I1mint ,. (,si S10 nn) The 1orrower shall be entitled to borrow, re -gay and re- borrow funds hercund--r, provided that the amount outstanding at any one tirne shall not exceed the Commitment, which Commitment shall be reduced aaaually as Sat out in Section 2.03 Iterevf. 41 • • 4 (b) Section 2.02 is hereby amended by deleting subsection (a) thereof and substituting therefor the following: "(a) The principal amount of the Loan outstanding from time to time shall bear interest at an annual rate equal to the Prime Rate plus one- percent (1%). (c) Section 2 is hereby further amended by deleting Sections 2.03, 2.04, 2.05 and 2.06 thereof in their entirety and substituting therefor the following: "2.03 Annual Reduction in Commitment The Commitment shall be reduced annually by the following amounts on the following dates: ar Amount gf E,-dl Remaining Amount of ction .o mirmen' Available Dec. 31, 1987 $ 950,000 518,050,000 Dec. 31, 1988 $1,900,000 $16,150,000 Dec. 31, 1989 $1,900,000 $14,250,000 Dec. 31, 1990 $1,900,000 $12,350,000 Dec. 31, 1991 $2,830,000 $ 9,500,000 Dec. 31,1992 $3,800,000 $ 5,700,000 Dec. 31,1993 $3,800,000 $1,900,000 Dec. 31, 1994 $1,900,000 NIL On Decembe: 31, 1994 dic Loan ,hall be duo and payable in full. During the period prior to December 31, 1994, the Borrower shall be entitled to receive the proceeds of the Loan in Advances pursuant to Section 4 hereof. 2.04 Fav mpn ts All payments made by the Borrower under this Agreement or the Notes shall be made to the General Partner at its address referred to in Section 9.04 hereof, or at such other address as the General Partner may hereinafter notify the Borrower to make payment, in U.S. funds paid. no later than noon on the due dates thereof. When the Loan shall have been paid in full together with all other amounts due to the General Partner under this Agreement and the Note on or prior to the due dates for such payments, the General Partner shall cancel and return its Note to the Borrower and discharge its security interest in the Collateral." (d) Section 2.07 is hc:ebv amenCea Oy deleting The, w9rG 5 "or of the Stand -by rce hereunder" therefrom, and renumbering the said Section as Section'l.t}5. (e) Section 2.08 is hereby amcndud by delcting the wordy "If the Loan is cunve:ted Lo a lefm loan, the ", substituting therefor the word "The" and renumbcring the said Section as Section 2.06. �Z • • 5 5. Amendments to Section 5 {a) Section 5 is bcreby amended by deleting the opening words "The Borrower and General Partner hereby jointly and severally represent and warrant to and in favour of each of die BaiAA aiat" ind by :ubsdtuLg therefor this following: "The Borrower hereby represents and warrants to and in favour of the General Partner that:" (b) Section 5.11 is hereby amended by deleting the period at the end of the final sentence thereof and adding thereto the following words: "or to repay the indebtednam of the Ror_owe- to Ttu$ers U.S. e'ab1csystems Inc. evidenced by promissory noes mace by the Rorrownr in favmr of Rogers U.S. C_ablesystems Inc. as of August 30, 1985 for the principal amount of $1,000,000,.as of December 18, 1985 for the principal amount of $250,000, as of January 9, 1986 for the principal amount of $250,000, and as of July 7, 1986 for the principal amount of $250,000." (c) Section 5 is hereby further amended by deleting therefrom Sections 5.14 and 5.15. 6. Amendments to Section 6 (a) Section 6 is hereby amended by deleting the opening words "The Borrower and the General Partner jointly and severally covenant and agree" and by substituting therefor the following: "The Borrower covenants and agrees" (b) Section 6 is hereby amended by deleting therefrom Section 6.10. (c) Section 6.11 is hereby amended by deleting therefrom the opening words "The Borrower and the General Partner jointly and severally covenant and agree to and in favour of e »ch of the Banks that they shall" and by substituting therefor the following: "The Borrower covenants and agrees to and in favour of the General Partner that it shall:" 7. Amendments to Section 7 (a) Section 7 is hereby amended by deleting therefrom Section 7.01. (b) Section 7.09 is hereby amended by waiving the Debt Servict. Ratio test referred to therein up to and including September 1, 1986. (c) Section 7.10 is hereby amended by deleting the number "5.0" in the eighth line thereof and substituting therefor the number "7.0 ". 4?I I 0 8. Amendment to Section 8 (a) Section 8 is hereby amended by deleting all of the references to the "General Partner" in the Rvents of nnfanit enum.rratM in Section 8 sn that the said Events of Dcfault shall refer to Events of Default occasioned only by the Borrower. 9. Amendments to Section 9 (a) The p=ics hereby agree that Scction 9.03 shall be amended by deleting the word "Georgia" in the second and third lines and substituting therefor the word "Minnesota ", (b) The parties hereby agree that Section 9.04 shall be amended by deleting the provision for notices to be given to *11), BNS and (:IB ;, by indicating that the uviiLO uddICJJCI tv Qro Ev,suwci uhuuld be uddrussud lu "Rugum Cubluaystu :ns of Minnesota Limited Partnership ", and by deleting the provision for notice addressed to the General Partner, be with "If to the General Partner..." and substituting therefor the following: "If to the General Partner: RO' Cablesystems of the Southwest Inc. 801 Plymouth Avenue North Minneapolis, Minnesota U.S.A. 55411 Attention: Vice President - Treasurer with a copy to: Rogers Communications Inc. Commercial Union Tower P.Q. Box 249, Suite 2600 Toronto - Dominion Centre Toronto, Ontario MSK US Attention: Chief Executive Officer Telex No. 06523996" 10. Substitution of BNS and TD Notes Borrower hereby agrees to issue a new promissory note to the General Partner on the Effective Date, substantially in the form of that certain promissory note dated Aril 1, 1982 issued by Borrower to TD pursuant to the Loan Ao eement and that certain promissory note issued by Borrower to BNS pursuant to Section 4 of the Amendin4 Agreement, except that the new promissory note shall reflect the terms as to interest set out in subsection 2.02(x) of the Agreement as amended hereby and the terms as to repayment set out in Section 2.03 of the Agree-ment as amended hereby, and the new promissory note shall be in the principal amount of Nineteen Million Dollars (S 19,000,000) (hereinafter referred to as the "Substitute Note "). FT 0 7 11. Amendment to Security Agreement (a) The parties hereby amend that certain security agreement dated as of April 1, 1982 by and among the Borrower, TD and CIBC, as amended by the Amending Agreement (which security agreement as amended by the Amending Agreement is hereinafter referred to as the "Security Agreement ") by deleting TD and BNS as parties thereto and substituting therefor the General Partner. Followine, the Effective Date, all references in the Security Agreement to "Baniks ", "TD" or "BNS" shall be read "General Partner'. (b) The parties further agree that following the worsts (the "Borrower') at the end of the ninth line of page one of the Security Agreement there shall be added the words, "as amended from time to time ", and that the words 118,000,000" on the beginning of line 11 on page one of the Security Agrecment shall be deleted and the word "$19,000,000" substituted therefor. (c) The parties further agree that Section 15 of the Security Agreement is hereby amended by deleting that portion thereof commencing "Notices shall be addressed as follows:..." and substituting therefor the following: "Notices shall be addressed as follows: If to Borrower: Rogers Cablesystems of Minnesota Limited Pimnership 801 Plymouth Avenue North Minneapolis, Minnesota U.S.A. 55411 Attention: Executive Vice - President and General Manager If to Rogers Cablesystems of the Southwest Inc.: Rogers Cablesystems of the Southwest, Inc. 801 Plymouth Avenue North Minneapolis, Minnesota U.S.A. 55411 Attention: Vice- President - Treasurer with copy to: Rogers Communications Inc. Commercial Union Tower P.O. Box 249, Suite 2600 Toronto- Dominion Centre Toronto, Ontaro NiSK 135 Attention: Chief Executive Officer" 4S • E 12. No Other Amendments Except for the amendments hereinabove set forth, the text of the Agreement, the Security Agret.nent and all other documents and agreements e:.ecu.ed in connection therewith shall remain unchanged and in full force and effect. 13. Conditions Precedent to Effectiveness of Amendment The effectiveness of this agreement is subject to new UCC -1 Financing Statements or appropriate amendments to existing UCC -I Financing Statements filed against the Borrower having been filed wherever such filing is necessary or desirable in order to substitute the General Partner for TD and BNS as a secured party, in order to preserve, protect and perfect the security interest granted by the Borrower in its assets - pursuant to the Security Agreement. 14. Counterparts This agreement may be executed in any number of counterparts, each of which shall be deemed to be an original and all of which, when taken together, shall constitute one . and the sa.:.e agreernent. • 4W P • 13. Law of Contract This Arend :rent shall be deemed to be made pursuant to the laws of the State of Minnesotr with respect to agreements made and to be performed wholly within the State of Minnesota and shall be construed, interpreted, performed and enforced in accordance therewith. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused their duly authorized officers or rearesentatives to execute, deliver and seal this agreement as of the day and year first above written, to be effect as of the day and year first above-written. ROGERS CABLESYSTENIS OF MINNESOTA LLi=D FARTNEIF,=, by its General Partner: Rogers Cablesysterrs of the Southwest Inc. By: By: [CORPORATE SEAL] Attest: ROGERS CABLESYSTEDdS OF THE SOUTHNVEST INC. By: [ CORFORATE SEAL] By: Attest: 0 CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Office of City Manager Council Letter No. 315 Agenda August 11, 1986 The Honorable Mayor and Members Of The City Council City of Richfield Subject: Cedar Avenue Liquor Store Site Development Proposal Review, Selection Of Developer And Authorization To Negotiate Developer's Agreement Council Members: On June 24, 1986, five developers who had previously expressed interest were mailed a request for a proposal (RFP) for the redevelopment of the Cedar Avenue liquor store site. This letter presents a report on the results of the response to the RFP, staff evaluation of the two proposals submitted:. one by Urban Associates and one by The Lincoln Companies; a . recommendation that Urban Associates be selected as the redeveloper, and that staff be authorized to negotiate a developers' agreement. Several supporting documents are part of this letter. The RFP package includes the City Council and HRA Memorandum dated June 26. 1986, a list of five recipients, the cover letter, and development concept criteria. Each developer was requested to submit their response to the development concept criteria in the form of a booklet and a verbal presentation to staff on July 8th. The booklet from Urban Associates and The Lincoln Companies is provided. A comparison of the two proposals on a spreadsheet is also included. Finally, a copy of the letter recently mailed to approximately 400 owners and occupants of property in the vicinity of the site, inviting them to the Council meeting on August 11th, is included. As indicated above, two of the five developers submitted appropriate proposals. Three developers did not respond for the following reasons: Winfield Developments, Inc. Working on too many other projects with a higher priority. Royal LePage, Inc. Made on assessment that the potential competition would be too great. • • Joel Ahlstrom Unable to respond within available time which included an extension of 6 days beyond original deadline. The RFP requested the developers to respond to several different points in their verbal and written presentations. The booklets and spreadsheet discuss the response of Urban Associates and The Lincoln Companies to these points. This letter will discuss the points which are the most significant and indicate the differences between the two proposals. The developers will be in attendance at the August 11 city council meeting to present their proposals. URBAN ASSOCIATES Use: An office /retail "service center" of approximately 29,400 s.f. which would include a mix of small professional office users and retail space each occupying approximately 50% of the space. Customers would be the general public. Comment: THE LINCOLN COMPANIES An office /showroom/ assembly /storage/ "business center" of approximately 27,550 s.f The customers would be other businesses in need of products assembled and /or marketed by the building tenants. Both developers have indicated there is a market for their proposed uses based on responses from potential tenants. A market study undertaken in April, 1983 by James McComb and Associates on behalf of the city indicated that the market for retail and office /showroom space would be soft. However, three years have passed and viable development proposals are the best indication of a market. Staff has not been supportive of a retail strip center in the past because of other retail uses along 66th Street to the west. However, the Urban Associates proposal which combines office and retail space mitigates that concern so long as the mix is maintained. The developer has not firmly committed to a mix ratio, but staff would press for a resolution of this matter during negotiations. Development Team Developer: Urban Associates Edina, MN Builder: Bill Henning & Co. Shakopee, MN Architect: Kilstofte Associates Wayzata, MN The Lincoln Companies Edina, MN Kraus - Anderson Const. Mpls., MN Korsunsky Krank Erickson Mpls., MN • Lender: Comment: Possibly Northwestern Unspecified Mutual Life Metropolitan area Edina, MN After making contacts in the development community, staff is of the opinion that each of the development teams is capable of undertaking and completing their proposed development. Elevation and Facade Materials One story with One story with a two different colors combination of brick, of brick on all walls, block, metal panels, and, glass along the and, glass along the building front. building front. Comment: Both buildings would be attractive on the exterior. However, The Lincoln Companies proposal is more exciting visually because of the variety of materials used and the relationship of those materials. Financing of Development: Purchase Price (Revenue due City) Comment: Conventional No IDRB's $3.50 /s.f. or approximately $345,156 Conventional No IDRB's $2.58/s.f. or approximately $255,000 The difference between these two offers is $90,156. The land proceeds are an important consideration because they will be used to help finance the construction of the new liquor store. The preliminary development cost of the liquor store is estimated at $450,000 to $500,000. Vacation of 67th Street: Yes No Land proceeds to City of $25 -844 or approx- imately $3.50 /s.f. Comment: If the street was vacated, the cost of "retrofitting" it to provide buffering and continued access to properties on the south side of 67th would be $10,000 to $15,000. Thus a balance of $10,000 to $15,000 would remain. • • Value of Improvements: Comment: $1.350 million $46 /s.f. of building area $1.100 million $40 /s.f. of building area Developers were requested to indicate the minimum value of improvements they would be willing to guarantee on 1/2/88 or before. Each responded above as indicated. The County Assessor's staff indicated these values were reasonable. Estimated Tax Revenue: $78.620 $51,000 Comment: These numbers were submitted by the developers. They should be compared and evaluated cautiously. Both developments would have an assessed value at 43% of the market value for land and improvements. The Urban Associates estimate is computed on the basis of the value of their improvements plus valuing the land at their proposed purchase price including the portion of vacated 67th Street which would become taxable. Staff believes the taxes could be slightly higher than indicated or $82,513. The taxes estimated by Lincoln Companies are calculated on the basis of the value of improvements only, that is the $1.1 million. It would be appropriate to add land to this calculation. Adding land to this number at the value Lincoln offered to pay would increase the tax revenue by $12,226 for a total of $63,226. The difference in taxes based on the numbers submitted by the developers is $27,620. When the above adjustments are considered, the difference is $19,287. However, County assessing personnel opined that the $2.58/s.f. value from an assessing point of view was probably low. Thus, the difference in tax review from the two projects could be even less (The Assessor is not restricted to valuing land at the sale price in this type of transaction). Transportation Related Parking Required 147 77 Proposed 157 100 Comment: Each development would have excess parking based on the zoning ordinance. The Urban Associates proposal was subjected to the retail standard of 5 spaces per 1,000 square feet of building space. The Lincoln proposal was evaluated on the basis of data presented which indicated that 60% of the space would be office or 16,200 s.f. and 10.800 s.f. would be service. The parking requirements are 4 spaces per 1,000 s.f. of building space, and, 1 space per 1,000 s.f. of building space respectively. Average Daily Traffic 1,800 -2,300 315 -840 Comment: These numbers were provided by staff based on standards formulated by The Institute of Traffic Engineers. They should only be used as an indicator of the relative amount of traffic which each use would generate. A final number will, of course, depend on the specific tenants. To help put these numbers in perspective, it is interesting to note that the existing liquor store has an average daily traffic count of 733. However, the Friday and Saturday counts approximate 1100 to 1400. The former service station probably had a daily traffic count of approximately 700 to 800. Hours of Operation: 9:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m. 7:30 a.m. to 5:30 p.m. Comment: Probably all of the Urban Associates tenants would be open Monday through Friday with some of the professional space being closed on Saturday and Sunday and the retail being open seven days a week. The peak customer time would probably be in the afternoon continuing until early evening. The Lincoln tenants would be open fewer hours during the week with little activity in the evening and on weekends. Deliveries: No weekend deliveries No weekend deliveries No semi - trailer trucks Most deliveries would be in vans and smaller trucks with little reliance on semi- trailers. Site Plan Comment: Through the site plan, many items related to neighborhood compatibility are answered. The reader should compare the two site plans. In many respects the two proposals are similar and respond to the design considerations which evolved from a neighborhood meeting approximately 3 years ago. However, staff is of the opinion that the Urban Associates proposal is more sensitive to the neighborhood and mitigates the higher activity level associated with it to a point where their proposal is more desirable. The Urban Associates proposal envisions the vacation of 67th Street. The Planning Commission and neighborhood have already initiated discussions on this subject. There would be no traffic �r s A& from this development on 67th Street. Traffic volumes on 18th Avenue would also probably not change. The vacation of 67th Street also provides an improved opportunity for buffering and landscaping of which they have taken advantage. The Lincoln proposal has two curb -cuts on 67th Street, one of which is located too close to the intersection with 18th. Truck and automobile traffic could easily utilize neighborhood streets. One problem common to both proposals is the proximity of the northerly most Cedar Avenue curb -cut to the new liquor store curb -cut. This could result in confusion and is potentially dangerous. This would be studied by staff and the developer. Relationship to New Liquor Store It is probable that the liquor store and the Urban Associates proposal would be mutually supportive of one another because of the use compatibility. To enhance the support, staff and the developer would study the possibility of making it possible for motor vehicles to circulate on -site between the two adjoining developments. Need For City Services Comment: Both proposals would likely require about the same amount of services from the fire division (The structure would be "sprinkled "). The Urban Associates proposal would attract more people and may, therefore, be more likely to require assistance from the police, however, the need should be consistant with other similar developments and not unusually high. With the vacation of 67th Street under the Urban Associates proposal, some savings would result in street maintenance costs. Conclusion: Virtually all of the items with which to be concerned in the selection of a developer may be grouped into three categories; neighborhood compatibility, revenues, and the impact on a new liquor store. The Lincoln proposal would be more interesting and attractive visually and would attract fewer people to the area than the Urban Associates proposal. The Urban Associates proposal is, however, visually attractive and while it would attract more customers all access points are along Cedar Avenue. 67th Street would be vacated. These two features adequately protect the neighborhood when combined with the landscaping proposal for the vacated right -of -way. From a revenue point of view, the city would realize on a net basis, approximately $100,000 more from the Urban Associates. Finally, liquor store sales may benefit more from the Urban Associates proposal. • C1 • Recommendation: .It is recommended that the proposal submitted by Urban Associates be selected and that staff be authorized to initiate negotiations on a developers' agreement subject to receipt of a $5,000 check by August 18th from Urban Associates as an earnest money payment. SD /eja fi L. - D-eiich' g City Manager ted, 'J f • • CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Office of City Manager Council Letter No. 314 Agenda August 11, 1986 The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Richfield /c Subject: Two Ordinance Amendments and a Resolution Exempting Vending Machines Which Dispense Bottled and Canned Soft Drinks from License and Inspection Fees. First Reading. Council Members: During the 1986 Minnesota Legislative Session, a bill was passed and signed into law concerning the licensing of vending machines which dispense bottled and canned soft drinks. The new state law exempts these vending machines from license and inspection fees previously charged by the State of Minnesota, a city, or a county. Historically, the City of Richfield has charged a license fee and was responsible for inspection of the vending machines. With the new statute, Richfield's ordinances pertaining to licensure make it impossible to continue this practice and requires amending Richfield's ordinance code. The City Attorney's office has prepared two ordinance amendments and a resolution amending Appendix D of the ordinance code which establishes license, permit, and miscellaneous fees. The two ordinance amendments and the resolution, once adopted, will eliminate all licensing of vending machines dispensing bottled or canned soft drinks along with any license or inspection fee previously charged by the city. Staff Recommendation It is recommended that the City Council take the following actions: 1. Give first to Section of the City and second meeting. reading to the proposed ordinance amendment 6.13, subdivision 2 of the ordinance code of Richfield and schedule the public hearing reading for the August 25, 1986 council 2. Give first reading to the proposed ordinance amendment to Section 6.01, subdivision 8 of the ordinance code of the City of Richfield and schedule the public hearing and second reading for the August 25, 1986 council meeting. It is further recommended that the City Council adopt the attached resolution amending Resolution No.7092 establishing license, permit and miscellaneous fees upon second reading of the two ordinance amendments cited above. A separate motion would be In order for each action. SLD /eja • • Respe fully submitted, teven L. Devich Acting City Manager /G BILL N0. AMENDMENT TO ARTICLE VI, SECTION 6.01 SUBDIVISION 8 OF THE ORDINANCE CODE OF THE CITY OF RICHFIELD. Subdivision 8 of Section 6.01 in Article VI of the ordinance code of the City of Richfield, Minnesota, relating to license fee exemptions is hereby amended to read as follows: Subd. 8. License Fee Exemptions. The following exemptions from the the licensing provisions of this section shall be observed: (1) Vending machines operated by the insertion of a coin or token having a value of less than ten cents (10 cents) are exempt from the licensing requirements of this section. (2) Food services in governmental subdivisions, charitable institutions, houses of worship, homes for the aged, child -care homes, schools, charitable and nonprofit hospitals, and employee coffee shops are required to apply for and obtain a license, but are not charged a fee therefore, but are subject to all other requirements of this section; provided that any food vending machine located in any such establishment must be owned by the establishment in order for any license fee thereon to be issued. License fees shall not be waived, under the provisions of this paragraph (2), as to any institution or organization of the type mentioned herein, unless it is a nonprofit organization or institution. (3) Any licensing provision ___charging a fee that is prohibited by state statute. Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this day of , 1986. ATTEST: Thomas P. Ferber City Clerk • John N. Hamilton Mayor /o • BILL NO. AMENDMENT TO ARTICLE VI, SECTION 6.13 SUBDIVISION 2 OF THE ORDINANCE CODE OF THE CITY OF RICHFIELD. Subdivision 2 of Section 6.13 in Article VI of the ordinance code of the City of Richfield, Minnesota, relating to the soft drink licensing is hereby amended to read as follows: Subd. 2. No person shall sell nor offer for sale by means of vending machines or otherwise, any soft drinks within the city without first obtaining a license from the city manager or his /her designate. Exempt from the licensing requirement of this paragraph is the sale of bottled and canned soft drinks by means of -vending machines. Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this day of , 1986. • ATTEST: Thomas P. Ferber City Clerk • John N. Hamilton Mayor 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. 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 • ed, �'r.4 • 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 Richfield, 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 n shall notify the applicant in writing when the fee is due in full, which due date shall be at least five days before the date that the report is to be presented to the city council.. Subd. 5. Council Action. The city council shall consider the application not later than 25 days after written notification of the application has been received by the city. The council shall consider the report of the department of public safety, statements from the applicant, and any other information which the council believes to be relevant to the application. Thereafter the council shall, by resolution, approve or disap- prove of the license. If the investigation fee provided in subdivision 4 of this section has not been paid within the time limit provided in such subdivision 4, the council may disapprove the license on that basis. Subd. 6. Reports. As a condition to approval of the license, the council may require that the applicant agree to promptly furnish the city with copies of all records, reports, accounts and other data which applicant will be required to submit to the charitable gambling board during the term of • the license. Failure of the applicant to fulfill such requirement may constitute grounds for disapproval of licenses in subsequent years. Subd. 7. Notification to Charitable Gambling Board. The city manager shall transmit a certi- fied copy of the council resolution to the chari- table gambling board. If the council has disap- proved the license, the city manager shall take such actions as are reasonably necessary to deliver a copy of such resolution to the board within 30 days from the date that the city re- ceived notice of the license application. A copy of the resolution shall also be provided to the applicant upon request. Subd. 8. Permit. (1) Organizations desiring to conduct lawful gambling which is exempt from state licensure under Minnesota Statutes §349.12 shall make application to the city for a permit to conduct such lawful gambling. (2) The application shall be on forms prepared by the city manager for that purpose and shall be accompanied by the permit fee hereinafter required. (3) The permit fee shall be as provided in Appendix D of this code. (4) The city manager shall issue the permit if the following conditions have been met: i. Neither the designated gambling manager nor any of the organization's officers have been convicted of any offense which would indicate lack of suitability of the designated manager or the organiza- tion to engage in the type of gambling activity for which the permit is sought. ii. The organization has existed in the city for at least three years prior to the date of application. On the date of application, the organ- ization has at least 30 active members. iv. The organization will either own or lease the premises where the gambling activity would be conducted. V. If the gambling activity is to occur on leased premises, the lease will be for a term at least equal in length to the term of the permit being sought. (5) Before the issuance of the permit, the designated gambling manager shall file with the city manager a fidelity bond in the amount of $10,000. Such bond shall run in favor of the organization conducting the gambling activity and be conditioned upon the gambling manager fully and faithfully per- forming his duties. The city council may, upon unanimous vote, waive the bonding requirement. (6) The permit fee may be waived in whole or in part by the city manager. The portion of the fee waived shall be returned to the permitee upon issuance of the permit. If the permit is denied, the city manager shall retain $50 of the fee to reimburse the city for its administrative and investigative expenses in connection with consideration of the permit application. Passed by the city council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this day of , 1986. John N. Hamilton, Mayor ATTEST: Thomas Ferber, City Clerk • 0 0055AM02 E14 t El • %G 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. 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. • /G CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Office of City Manager Council Letter No. 312 Agenda August 11, 1986 The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Richfield Subject: Purchase of 6425 and 6429 Portland Avenue for Park Purposes Council Members: Background In 1983 the properties at 6425 Portland Avenue South and 6429 Portland Avenue South were purchased from previous owners by the Housing and Redevelopment Authority. Since the HRA purchase, the determination was made that these properties would not be the site of housing development but instead were to be part of the Legion Lake park development site. The HRA has indicated a willingness to sell the properties to the city provided that the acquisition and relocation costs of the properties is recovered. The Community Services Advisory Commission has recommended purchase of the properties for the original acquisition price. Additionally, the Planning Commission has found the purchase of these properties for park purposes to be in compliance with the comprehensive plan. Purchase Price The following summary indicates the HRA cost for acquisition and relocation for the two properties: 6425 6429 Acquisition Appraisals 300 300 Acquisition 76,589 88,031 Relocation 4,992 4,450 Total 81,881 92,781 Grand Total $174,662 • • • After considerable discussion and negotiation, city staff has arrived at the recommended terms and conditions of the purchase of the two properties from the HRA by the city. The recommended purchase price is $174,662. However, it is further recommended that the amount be paid to the HRA after January 1, 1987. Thus, funding for the purchase would be provided through the 1987 Capital Improvement Program Allocation for the Legion Lake Project. During the interim however, the city will be contracting with an independent contractor for the sale and removal of two other city owned properties on Portland Avenue which are included in the Legion Lake Project. It is staff's intention to contract for the removal of the two subject (HRA) properties later this summer along with the two city owned properties. Recommendation It is recommended the and authorize the staff to complete the transactions. SLD /eja city council approve these purchases proceed with t ecessary steps to Re ul ub 't d, l S en evi Acting City Manager • RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION APPROVING PURCHASE OF PROPERTIES LOCATED AT 6425 AND 6429 PORTLAND AVENUE FOR PARK PURPOSES WHEREAS, in 1983 the Richfield Housing and Redevelopment Authority purchased the properties at 6425 and 6429 Portland Avenue for possible housing development; and WHEREAS, the Richfield City Council has determined that this property should be used for park development; and WHEREAS, the Richfield Housing and Redevelopment Authority has indicated a willingness to sell these properties to the City of Richfield; and WHEREAS, a total purchase price including acquisition appraisals and relocation costs, has been negotiated in the amount of $81,881 for 6425 Portland Avenue and $92,781 for 6429 Portland Avenue; and WHEREAS, funding is available for this purchase through the 1987 Capital Improvement Program for the Legion Lake Project. . NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Richfield hereby approves the purchase of 6425 and 6429 Portland Avenue for park purposes in the total amount of $174,662 to be paid to the Housing and Redevelopment Authority after January 1, 1987. PASSED by the City Council of the City of Richfield this 11th day of August, 1986. ATTEST: Thomas Ferber, City Clerk • John Hamilton Mayor "/,- "�r 0 CITY Or RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Office of City Manager Council Letter No. 311 Agenda April 14, 1986 The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Richfield Subject: Request For Fee Waiver on Itinerant Food License and Itinerant Amusement License for Assumption Church Fun Fest, 305 East 77th Street, to be held On August 16 and 17, 1986. Council Members: On July 11, 1986 the city received applications for Itinerant Food and Itinerant Amusement Licenses from Assumption Church. These applications are requested for the annual Fun Fest which will be held on August 16 and 17, 1986. The applicant is requesting that the City Council consider passing a resolution approving the Fun Fest as a civic celebration. The applicant has furnished a diagram and a schedule of activities for the events to be conducted. In February of 1986 the City Council granted a permit to sell non - intoxicating malt liquor to Assumption Church. This permit allows the applicant to sell non - intoxicating malt liquor for up to three occasions in one year. The applicant as of this date has utilized one of those occasions. The second occasion will be conducted in conjunction with the Fun Fest. The applicant has furnished the city with a certificate of insurance detailing the liquor liability coverage. Copies of the certificate of insurance and the request by the applicant are attached to this council letter. Recommendation It is the recommendation of the Director of Public Safety, in which I concur, that the City Council give favorable consideration to granting the fee waived licenses for Itinerant Food and Amusement to the Assumption Church on the dates requested. Res c fully bmit ed, L. evich Acting City Manager SLD /eja 1 Church of the Assumption 305 East 77th Street Minneapolis, Minnesota 55423 • 866 -5019 July 10, 1986 City Council City of Richfield 6700 Portland Avenue South Richfield, MN 55423 Dear Council Members: JUL ' 9 1986 RECEIVED J O L 1 1 1,936 Attached are applications for Assumption Church's annual Fun Fest: an ap- plication for an itinerant food license and an application for itinerant places of amusement. In as much as it is felt that the Assumption Fun Fest is, in a sense, a civic celebration, it is requested that the City Council pass a resolution approving the Fun Fest as a civic celebration on a daily basis for August 16 and 17,1986, and that all fees and bonds for the above mentioned licenses be waived. Also enclosed with this letter are: a diagram of the booths and activities; a schedule of activities; a listing of the games being played in addition to Bingo and the raffle; and a listing of foods to be sold at the various booths. Thank you for your consideration. Very truly yours, Michael V. Dols Parish Administrator Enc: • G�:)e ARTHUR J. GALLAGHER & CO. The Tower, Golf Road, Rolling Meadows, Illinois 60008 • 312/640 -8500 CERTIFICATE OF INSURANCE Name and addreu of party to whom this efrtifime is iuued r � City of Richfield L J COMPANY POLICY NO. Interstate Fire & Casualty Company 83- 0172570 KIND OF INSURANCE: �a Name and address of inwred Archdiocese of St. Paul and Minneapolis, et al 226 Summit Avenue St. Paul, Minnesota 55102 including Church of Assumpti 305 E. 77th St., Richfield, MN EXPIRATION Excess Liability Insurance including Auto Liability and General Liability. 0 HOST LIQUOR (Dram Shop) LIMITS OF LIABILITY: $1,000,000. Any One Occurrence and Annual Aggregate wherever applicable Excess of existing underlying insurance. Cancellation: Should any of the above described policies be cancelled before the expiration date thereof, the issuing company will endeavor to mail 10 days written notice to the below named certificate holder, but failure to mail such notice shall impose no obligation or liability of any kind upon the company. This Certificate of Insurance does NOT amend, extend or otherwise after the Terms and Conditions of Insurance contained in the policies identified above. 0 ARTHUR J. GALLAGHER & CO. DATE February 4, 1986 BY 000 -.O� P Richard . Carlson, Account Executive wato Rev. ens CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Office of City Manager Council Letter No. 65 Agenda: February 10, 1986 The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Richfield Subject: Request-For Permit To Sell Non - intoxicating Malt Liquor At Spaghetti Dinner Assumption Church Council Members: On January 31, 1986, the city received an application for a permit to sell non - intoxicating malt liquor from Mr. Michael V. Dols, Parish Administrator for Assumption Church. This request is in accordance with Richfield City Ordinance Code 11.02 Subd. 2, which allows the council to issue a fee waived license to churches to sell non - intoxicating malt liquor not more than three times a year. Assumption Church is requesting this permit as a part of a spaghetti dinner that will be served on Sunday, February 23, 1986, from 11:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. The dinner is sponsored by the Assumption Home and School Association as a fund raising activity for the Assumption School. The applicant has the required liquor liability insurance coverage. A copy of the certificate of insurance will be sent to the city. Mr. Dols has no criminal record. It is the recommendation of the Director of Public Safety, in which I concur, that the city council give favorable consideration to granting a fee waived license to the Assumption Church to sell non - intoxicating malt liquor on the date requested. JGC /eja • mitted, 0 CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Office of City Manager Council Letter No. 310 Agenda August 11, 1986 The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Richfield P Subject: Waiver of Preliminary Platting Procedures and Approval of Final Plat For the Hampton Inn Project At 77th And Lyndale Avenue. Council Members: In February, 1986 the City Council approved a final development plan for the Hampton Inn Project at 77th and Lyndale Avenue. One of the stipulations on that approval was that the property be platted and that proper preliminary and final plats be filed for city approval. The representatives of Hampton Inn have submitted a final plat for city approval and in accordance with the provision of the city subdivision ordinance have requested that the council exempt them from preliminary platting procedures because the plat contains three lots or less. Background The existing site consists of two lots. One lot where the existing print shop is and the other lot where the existing Colonial Lodge Motel sits. The proposed new plat would also contain two lots but in a different configuration. There would be one large lot and a small outlot on the southeast corner of the property. The intent of creating a small outlot at this time is that the property owners at some future date would like to acquire additional land from the state. The additional land would be combined with the outlot and allow them to develop a freestanding restaurant. Until such time as they obtain this additional amount of property the area within the outlot would be parking lot and landscaped areas. The plat shows the required easements to be granted to the city for the street improvements on Lyndale Avenue and 77th Street which are called for the ILN Redevelopment Plan. Staff Review Staff has reviewed the plat against the requirements for a final plat contained in the city subdivision ordinance and find that all the information required to be shown on a final plat is shown. Staff has also reviewed the easements that are shown on the plat and find them to be correct. ,r-/ 0 Recommendation It is recommended that the council approve the requested exemption from preliminary platting procedures and approve the final plat by approving the attached resolution. The council may want to refer this matter to the Planning Commission because preliminary platting procedures are being waived which eliminates Planning Commission review of the plat. However, it is staff's opinion that Planning Commission review is not necessary because the replatting is minor in nature and in accordance with the stipulations recommended by both the Planning Commission and City Council. Additionally, the platting in no way affects the development plan for the site. _Reyectlully Fqbmi ed, �C Steve is Acting City Manager 0 SLD /eja 0 ,r-- ;�-I RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION APPROVING PLAT OF HAMPTON RICHFIELD WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota must approve all plats and subdivision of land in the City of Richfield, Minnesota by resolution pursuant to the provisions of Minnesota Statutes 462.358, and WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota has found that the proposed plat of "Hampton Richfield" is in compliance with the subdivision regulations of the city. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota that the proposed plat entitled "Hampton Richfield" is approved and the appropriate city officers are directed to take the necessary steps to evidence this approval. Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this 11th day of August, 1986. John Hamilton, Mayor ATTEST: 0 Thomas Ferber, City Clerk C I b Z- -4 \ h y _ b \"N N U WtS� /A( • f SW{ I� S.W; of CW,t If s— jr* T.H or Ifs • N .. o' 0,LY'dr,•ALE AVE S0. I F - LYNDAIE AVE SO.1 - y�fe n � �y� 1 A wr � • • � I^ ` 7 2 2 y' d1/ t•�9 4�°4r` d�/ r r l��y�I i T + -1 � i • v+ d •. O� �Nq4 i X jjj x «F � �1 .,��e'" � Od a ._. • C I$$'' • I y� � `. ( M O 1 iel «E Z+ '!'- 1 a I A� • �� '^ E NjO i Al � I � � I /,tr try /,;.t • „* �j •f,,�r �,� � � • •j hh Jw ./ tfr nvf e/s c. 34C 2 � GARFIELD \� !etwn/ /ix of /er Mf ee w•./ /-t •!/er tesf /5e.ee /rr /t /fArWf I�1 In / !! •f I*ele) •f /M tw� •j fAM E j /Mt sw • the SW • •f /nr sw� • sec .f/ f 1 e j /4e• Sw� n f ♦D A rn / e�see K IRI �I?�y z O/ l � /ha ta/ /i>r of set wt e,�it et of sir sw� the e` Sw! ,% fh Sw� •/r stcl:.7 i4, r! /, R 94 c ; m ;s I ii t: 13 3. 3. g z o w Ct N 1 � n N r n O s z z : o In z g ' C ; y N ~ t O C1 • CITY OF RICHFIELD- MINNESOTA Office of City Manager Council Letter No. 309 Agenda August 11, 1986 The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Richfield Subject: Request for the Vacation of Way at the Intersection of Avenue and the Disposition Council Members: History Unimproved Right -of- 74th Street and Upton of City Owned Property. In 1981 Mr. Eric Lindholm petitioned the city to vacate the unimproved right -of -way adjacent to his property at 7332 Upton Avenue South. He also requested that the city sell him a small triangular shaped tract of land owned and maintained by the city which was dedicated as a park. Mr. Lindholm was attempting to acquire enough property to allow for a new single family residence. The Planning Commission reviewed the matter and recommended city council approval of the street vacation and also found that the sale of the property would be consistent with the city's comprehensive plan. Because of potential legal problems with the city selling property dedicated for park purposes the applicant withdrew his application prior to city council consideration. Mr. Eric Lindholm has passed away and in 1984 his son, John Lindholm, requested the vacation of the right -of -way and the sale of the city owned park property. The Planning Commission again reviewed the matter and recommended in favor of the request. The City Council accepted the resolution for the vacation of the alley and gave first reading on November 13, 1984. However, due to legal complication regarding the sale of the park property, the city could not make any final determination on the subject. Now, Mr. John Lindholm has made a new request for the vacation of the unimproved right -of -way at the intersection of 74th street and Upton Avenue. Ordinance Requirement: 1. City Ordinance, Section 12.04 outlines the vacation of a street. 7�1 Staff Review 1. Land Area and Lot Size. If the right -of -way is vacated, the vacated land would be dedicated to the adjacent property owners. Mr. Lindholm would receive half of the portion of the vacated right -of -way that abuts his property. This additional land would provide Mr. Lindholm with a total land area of approximately 19,170 square feet. Currently, there is a residential structure with a detached garage in the northerly portion of the parcel. Mr. Lindholm intends to subdivide the property into two single - family residential lots. He will then sell the lots with or without building a new single - family dwelling on the new lot. He may also decide to live in the new dwelling. 2. Utility Easements or Cost of Relocation the Gas Line. There is a four inch gas line located on the unimproved right -of -way and Minnegasco has indicated that an easement would be necessary or that the gas line would have to be all moved. The applicant has indicated that he will pay f the costs of relocating the gas line. 3. Status of the Park Property. The Community Services Commission reviewed the matter on December 11, 1984 at the request of the city council and determined that the triangle is not an asset to the Richfield Park System and recommended disposition of the property. City staff is of the opinion that the city may enter into an agreement with Mr. Lindholm, which would allow him to use the park property as an open space. However, Mr. Lindholm will be responsible for the maintenance of the park property. Lindholm indicated his willingness to agree to enter into such agreement with the city. 4. Legal Opinion Regarding Applicants Use of Park Property as an open space. The city attorney's office indicated that in a case like this where the property was dedicated for park purposes, the city �� is a trustee for the property and does not have ownership of the property or have the control we have with a street or utility easement. The park is dedicated to the public i.e. all the property owners in the plat. According to the city attorney's office, the city can legally forgo its interest in the park and enter into an agreement with the applicant would allow him to use the park land as open space. However, any member of the public could challenge the agreement in court and could get an injunction invalidating it if the court ruled it was contrary to the purposes for which the land was dedicated. 7_'Z� 5. Consistency with the Comprehensive Plan As determined earlier the proposed vacation of the right -of- way would allow Mr. Lindholm to subdivide his property into two single - family residential lots, and would be consistent with the City's Comprehensive Plan. The Comprehensive Plan indicates that the property be developed as a single - family residence. 6. Impact on the Surrounding Neighborhood Mr. Steve Milner, 2812 West 74th Street (adjoining property owner to the West) has expressed concern regarding the intended use of the land and the cost of moving the gas line. Mr. McKinnon, 7308 Upton Avenue, expressed his concern regarding the aesthetics if the property is used for any other uses than a single family dwelling. The applicant clearly stated that the vacant property would be used for a single family dwelling and that it would be his responsibility to pay for all the cost for moving the gas line. It is the opinion of the staff that the vacation of the right -of -way would be in the interest of the public, city maintenance cost would be reduced, and the vacation would not result in any adverse impact on the surrounding neighborhood. Furthermore, the vacation of the right -of -way would allow residential development on the property which would generate additional tax revenues for the city. Planning Commission Recommendation The Planning Commission voted 5 -1 to recommend City Council approval of the vacation of unimproved right -of -way at the intersection of 74th Street and Upton Avenue with the following stipulations: 1. That a utility easement be granted to Minnegasco in order to maintain the gas line and that the gas line be moved or removed and relocated at the sole expense of the applicant. 2. That the City Council consider with the advice of the city's legal counsel, that the property owner enter into a written agreement with the city which would provide for the maintenance of the public property by the adjacent land owner, and hold the city harmless for any legal expenses that.the city may incur as a result of this action. The Planning Commission in a separate motion voted unanimously (6 -0) to pass the attached resolution finding the vacation of the public right -of -way and the disposition of that portion of vacated right -of -way to be consistent with the city's Comprehensive Plan. 7-2 Staff has referred the matter to the city attorney's office for further study. The results of that study will be available prior to the second reading of the ordinance to vacate the right- of-way. Staff Recommendation Staff recommends that the City Council pass the attached resolution acknowledging the receipt of petition, hold a public hearing on August 25, 1986 and give first reading to the attached transitory ordinance providing for the vacation of the right -of- The 1986 ordinance, l is completed for Aug , August 25, by Aug the City Attorney's office. Resp ct ully submitted, L. Acting City Manager SLD /eja • • RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION RECEIVING PUBLIC RIGHT -OF -WAY VACATION AND CALLING FOR PUBLIC HEARING WHEREAS- a petition has been filed with the city requesting the vacation of an unimproved right -of -way described as follows: "That part of the north half of the platted street of Penn Lake Terrace 2nd Addition Lying within the following described lines: Starting at the Northeast corner of Lot 6, Block 1, Penn Lake Terrace 2nd Addition, Thence South along the East line of said Lot 6 41.4 feet to actual point of beginning, thence Southwesterly along curved line of Lot 6 a cord distance of 173.0 feet to the Southwesterly corner of Lot 6 also being the Southeasterly corner of Lot 7, thence Westerly along the curved south line of Lot 7 a cord distance of 75.0 feet to the Southwesterly corner of Lot 7 also being the Southeasterly corner of Lot 8. thence Westerly along the Southerly curved line of Lot 8 a cord distance of 39.45 feet, the curve of the above lot lines has radius of 142.41 feet with a delta angle of 121 degrees 12 minutes, thence Easterly along a curved line with a radius of 414.84 feet to the Southwesterly corner of Park as shown on plat of Penn Lake Terrace 2nd Addition, thence Northeasterly along the Northerly line of said Park to the Northeasterly corner of Park on the west right -of -way line of Upton Avenue, thence North along the Southerly extension of the West line of Upton Avenue of Block 1 to the actual point of beginning there terminating. WHEREAS, said petition complies in all respects with the requirements of Richfield Ordinance code 12:04, subdivision 2 NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Richfield as follows: 1. The petition for vacation of that portion of the unimproved right -of -way described above is received. 2. A public hearing on the street right -of -way vacation in said petition shall be held on August 25, 1986. 3. The City Clerk is directed to publish notice of such hearing in the official newspaper of the city and post notice of said hearing in the manner provided by the Richfield Ordinance Code Section 12.04, subdivision 3. Passed by the City Council of the city of Richfield this 11th day of August, 1986. i ATTEST: John Hamilton, Mayor Thomas Feber, City Clerk i . TRANSITORY ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE PROVIDING FOR THE VACATION OF THE UNIMPROVED RIGHT -OF -WAY AT THE INTERSECTION OF 74TH STREET AND UPTON AVENUE CITY OF RICHFIELD DOES ORDAIN Section 1. The following described right -of -way is hereby vacated: "That part of the north half of the platted street of Penn Lake Terrace 2nd Addition Lying within the following described lines: Starting at the Northeast corner of Lot 6, Block 1, Penn Lake Terrace 2nd Addition, Thence South along the East line of said Lot 6 41.4 feet to actual point of beginning, thence Southwesterly along curved line of Lot 6 a cord distance of 173.0 feet to the Southwesterly corner of Lot 6 also being the Southeasterly corner of Lot 7, thence Westerly along the curved south line of Lot 7 a cord distance of 75.0 feet to the Southwesterly corner of Lot 7 also being the Southeasterly corner of Lot 8, thence Westerly along the Southerly curved line of Lot 8 a cord distance of 39.45 feet, the curve of the above lot lines has radius of 142.41 feet with a delta angle of 121 degrees 12 minutes, thence Easterly along a curved line with a radius of 414.84 feet to the Southwesterly corner of Park as shown on plat of Penn Lake Terrace 2nd Addition, thence Northeasterly along the Northerly line of said Park to the Northeasterly corner of Park on the west right -of -way line of Upton Avenue, thence North along the Southerly extension of the West line of Upton Avenue of Block 1 to the actual point of beginning there terminating. Section 2. This right -of -way vacation shall not affect, destroy or interfere with the right of any person, corporation or municipality owning or having control of any electric, gas telephone, sewer, water, or other utility to construct, reconstruct, operate, maintain repair and remove any public utility facilities upon or within the vacated right -of -way. Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota, this 25th day of August, 1986. 0 John Hamilton, Mayor ATTEST. Thomas Ferber, City Clerk • Anne asco �M � A Company of Diversified Energies, Inca July 28, 1986 Mr. John Lindholm 13508 Fremont Place Burnsville, MN 55337 RE: Relocation of 4" gas main for street vacation at West 74th Street and Upton Ave. South. Richfield, MN. Dear 'sir. Lindholm: With respect to my letter of May 21, 1986. The $3100 charge for any gas main relocation and abandonment is the total estimated cost for the project. This cost is normally paid by the party who benefits from or requests the vacation and relocation. Neighbors not affected by the vacation are not expected to cover any part • of the costs. Should you or any of the neighbors have any questions, please contact me. Sincerely, t_Z /6 Richard Pilon P. E. Supervising Engineer Engineering Services 612 - 342 -5426 RJP /jlp 700 Nest Linden Avenue .Minneapolis, MN 55403 7G 17Ninnegasco A Company of Diversifiers Energies, Inc. May 21, 1986 Mr. John Lindholm 13508 Fremont Place Burnsville, MN 55337 RE: Relocation of 4" gas main for street vacation at W. 74th Street & Upton Ave. S., Richfield, MN Dear Mr. Lindholm: Minnegasco's charges to relocate an existing 4" gas main at W. 74th St. and Upton Ave. S. will be $3,100 if done this year. This includes 250'± of new gas main and the costs to cut and abandon the existing gas main. Another option may be to have the City of Richfield vacate the street subject to an easement for Minnegasco. This could be appropriate if the proposed house or building were to sit closer to the back of the lot. If I can be of any further assistance, please contact me. Sincerely, Richard J. Pilon P.E. Supervising Engineer Engineering Services 612- 342 -5426 /jh • W] � 0 scale: V =30- Richfield, Mn. 75 105' 41.4' i _ C PETITIONER 'p 7332 Upton 0 178.8' 178.9' 0 C �D Grow. .. .�''...:::::::: --chora 75 '. •.•.•:.•:.•.•.•.•.•.•.•.•.•.•.• ... t' :. e C3' 14t h Str eet park • • 7332 UPTON AVENUE 105 74TH STREET RIGHT -OF -WAY 49.8 NORTH GAS MAIN J 1� W : 20 19 PEN a17 16 + IS l4 13 I; • � p ol: ICio I i w 17 4 a 16 S ❑. ry it - t ❑ !3 16 O 'a 12;9 02 t ❑ 11 i.10 S Z M 5 ~ ~ _ CL w >Z� 1 ❑ r 2 w + 3 LAKE ❑� 4 10 9 Tb ^• S La ry w CEz w� 18 t ❑ g A 90 .15 2 p o a14 3 ❑ _ N t7 13 4 (� N 12 5 .� Q uj c2 -5 ! +•� Q �. to j1 - A 73rd _ v (! 16 1 15 2 J _ I Paris sa o 3 4 ❑ N _ 14 0• ^' 13 �El 12 N S ❑ „ N ❑ 11 6 N a' 10 n 7 `J w° t yn 9 8 s Q J I AL-04 El 16 1 El 15 2' wo �+ 14 3 L] ± _ 13 N 12 4 J N LLJ Q J " v C .2 5 El- ah h w .. to 17 = I N 1 w C 9 !8 ❑� h . c,1 IS `2 r7 11 .3 • +ry 12 5 " C11 16 6-- t0 7 `• � + A " In Etzler, land was dedicated to the Village of Golden Valley for park purposes. However, this land was never improved or devoted to park purposes by the village. The surrounding area became industrialized and the village decided to sell the property to Etzler. The Court ruled that upon vacation of the park property the village no longer had any interest in the park property which it could sell. Once the park is vacated the fee is owned by the dedicator of the plat and his successors in interest. This means that the property at 74th and Upton is owned in fee by all the owners of lots in the plat. Richfield only owns an easement for park purposes. If Richfield vacates this easement, all the lot owners in the plat have an equal ownership in the triangle. • C Lefevere ,JAN 2 1 l9 Lefler Kennedy ay Richfiele of O'Brien 3; Dr-a%-.,z r" 1 ('11111 \YIIIdI • - 1 \VMI.II V ::00 First BanK Place west January 16, 1985 Ainneaoous Ainnesota 55402 - Mr. Donald A. Fondrick - eleonone 812- 333 -0543 Director Community Services Department ::ayton L. LeFevere City of Richfield -eroen P. Lefler 6700 Portland Avenue .. Dennis O'Brien Richfield, Minnesota 55402 .onn E. Drawz �avld J. Kennedy .onn B. Dean Re: Park Triangle - 74th and Upton �:enn E. Purdue -cnard J. Scnietter Dear Don: :canes L. LeFevere - ert>ert P. Lefler III effrey J. Strand This is in response to your letter dated December 19, Aary J. Siorklund onn G. Kressel 1984, in which you requested any suggestions, information :ayle Nolan or insight on things the City can do related to the ..ndy L. Lavorato park triangle at 74th and Upton. I am afraid that I am .iicnaelA.Nasn ._xe R. Komarek unable to offer an suggestions that would Y g�J permit the :clan nice City to convey this property to a private individual. err Clugg Case law indicates that land dedicated by plat for park i omson. Jr. ames . Strommen purposes cannot be sold b the City. Etzler v. Mondale, Y Y ary C. Nielsen 123 N.W. 2d 603 (Minn 1963) . In Etzler, land was dedicated to the Village of Golden Valley for park purposes. However, this land was never improved or devoted to park purposes by the village. The surrounding area became industrialized and the village decided to sell the property to Etzler. The Court ruled that upon vacation of the park property the village no longer had any interest in the park property which it could sell. Once the park is vacated the fee is owned by the dedicator of the plat and his successors in interest. This means that the property at 74th and Upton is owned in fee by all the owners of lots in the plat. Richfield only owns an easement for park purposes. If Richfield vacates this easement, all the lot owners in the plat have an equal ownership in the triangle. • The HRA or the City could condemn the property provided that a public purpose could be found for the condemnation. Any such condemnation would be both expense and legally difficult. However, this is the only method that I am aware of which would allow the City to sell this property. If you have any comments or questions concerning this matter, please advise. Sincerely, Terry L. Hall TLH:sds • • • • CITY OF RICHFIELD MINNESOTA Office of City Manager Council Letter No. 308 Agenda August 11, 1986 The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Richfield Subject: Resolution Providing for Polling Places and Designating Judges for the September 9, 1986 Primary Election Council Members: Minnesota Statute 204B.21, Subd. 2 provides that election judges for precincts in a municipality shall be appointed by the governing body of the municipality and that the appointments be made at least 25 days before the election at which the election judges will serve. Attached is a resolution designating polling places and appointing election judges for the primary election to be held on Tuesday, September 9, 1986. It is recommended that the city council adopt the attached resolution designating polling places and appointing election judges for the September 9, 1986 primary election. SLD /eja ted, rz -f • RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION PROVIDING FOR POLLING PLACES AND DESIGNATING JUDGES FOR THE PRIMARY ELECTION OF SEPTEMBER 9, 1986 WHEREAS, a primary election will be held on Tuesday, September 9, 1986, NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Richfield, that said election shall be held at the polling places as herein- appear specified, and that the following are hereby appointed as judges for said election: Precinct No. 1 Mt. Calvary Educational Building 6541 16th Avenue Election Judges: Chairperson: Shirley Comstock (DFL) Co- Chair: Ralph Roberts (IR) Lois Ball (DFL) Myrtle Lindgren (IR) Edith Nye (IR) Ruth Pansch (DFL) Precinct No. 2 St. Peter's Catholic Church 6720 Nicollet Avenue Election Judges: Chairperson: Elaine Gilhousen (IR) Co- Chair: Ellen Brandon (IR) Elinor Kuhl (DFL) Helen Moritz (DFL) Rosemary Peritz (IR) Ione Waller (DFL) Precinct No. 3 Sheridan Hills School 6400 Sheridan Avenue Election Judges: Chairperson: Jan Anderson (IR) Co- Chair: Linda Bloomgren ((DFL) Michelle Johnson (DFL) Robert Mack (IR) Virginia Nitke (DFL) Mildred Wolfe (IR) Precinct No. 4 St. Richard's Catholic Church 7540 Penn Avenue • Election Judges: Chairperson: Dave Arnold (IR) Co- Chair: Cathrine Alfano (DFL) Gerry Ascher (DFL) Jim Neuhart (IR) Jaclyn Schwab (DF,L) Marilyn Wagner (IR) Precinct No. 5 Richfield Junior High School 7461 Oliver Avenue Election Judges: Chairperson: Phyllis Reinmuth (IR) Co- Chair: Bev Stelman (DFL) Maxine Evans (IR) Margaret Felicetta (DFL) Jane Nelson (IR) Dorothy Vorweck (DFL) Precinct No. 6 Central School Building 7145 Harriet Avenue Election Judges: Chairperson: Co- Chair: Muriel Bernstein (DFL) Ellen Pederson (DFL) Vivian Bennis (IR) Betty Halloran (IR) Helen Hillstrom (DFL) Alice Strom (IR) Precinct No. 7 Hope Presbyterian Church Facility 7201 4th Avenue Election Judges: Chairperson: Donna Vidas (IR) Co- Chair: Jeanne Frenz (IR) Pat Brenner (DLF) Gladys Juengling (DFL) Ruth Lundquist (DFL) Rosemary Reynolds (IR) Precinct No. 8 Richfield Intermediate School 7000 12th Avenue Election Judges: Chairperson: Gertrude Herll (DFL) Co- Chair: Audrey Winslow (IR) Carol Josephs (IR) Larry Marks (IR) Mary Ann Schindler (DFL) Helen Shimanski (DFL) ww..° • • Precinct No. 9 Centennial School 7315 Bloomington Avenue Election Judges: Chairperson: Corrine Cosgrove (DFL) Co- Chair: Barb Cook (DFL) Lois Kovach (DFL) Bernadette Lais (IR) Sue Lewis (IR) Judith Moquist (IR) Fort Snelling Mt. Calvary Educational Building 6541 16th Avenue Election Judges: Chairperson: Irene Andersonn (IR) Co- Chair: Clara Darsow (DFL) Philip Carney (DFL) Lemuel Cotterman (IR) Absentee Election Judges: Alternates Council Chambers City Hall - 6700 Portland Avenue Chairperson: Co- Chair: Pat Bunting (DLF) Beulah Johnson (IR) Helen E. Peterson (DFL) Hannah Augst (IR) Loraine DeMay (DFL) John Gera (DFL) Ada Mae Hoyne (IR) Merry Manthei (DFL) Abnor Morvig (DFL) Alice Neuberger (DFL) Fern Oreck (DFL) Gertrude Ulrich (DFL) Joanne Wilmes (DFL) Pat Toney (IR) Charlotte Hall (IR) Mary Morton (IR) Della Shuck (DFL) Mildred Carlson (DFL) Pat Farnham (IR) June Hoffman (IR) Kathleen Leckner (DFL) Anita Mittleton (IR) Kathy Nervick (IR) Florence Onan (IR) Marie Psyhos (IR) Lorraine Watson (IR) PASSED by the City Council of Richfield, Minnesota this 11th day of August, 1986. ATTEST: Thomas P. Ferber City Clerk John Hamilton Mayor CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Office of City Manager Council Letter No. 307 Agenda August 11, 1986 The Honorable Mayor and Members Of The City Council City of Richfield Subject: Revised Joint Powers Agreement South Hennepin Human Services Council Council Members: Background: For the past several months the Board of Directors of the 4v 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 0 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. is Manager to execute the new Agreement. If, on the other hand, the council does not wish to endorse this change, it is recommended C • • 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 with tjje pity council. SD /eja Res ct ZDevich itt d, ;t L. Acti g City Manager Revised 6/11/86 • SOUTH HENNEPIN HUMAN SERVICES COUNCIL JOINT AND COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT The parties to this Agreement are governmental units of the State of Minnesota. This Agreement is made pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Section 471.59. ARTICLE _I_ GENERAL _PURPOSE Section 1. The general purpose of this agreement is to provide an organization through which the parties may jointly and cooperatively coordinote the providing of human services, both publicly and privately, in the territory of the respective parties. Section 2. being governme the pecuniary member of its intervene in a public office. The organization farmed by in this agreement, ntal in nature, shall not be used or operated for gain, directly or indirectly, of any party or any board. The organization shall not participate or political campaign on behalf of any candidate for ARTICLE II. DEFINITIONS ------------------ - - - - -- Section 1. For the purposes of this agreement the terms defined in this section have the meanings given them. 3 Section 2. "South Hen-r, pin 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" rnieans the beard of directors of the Council. -1- Section 4. "City council" means the governing body of a party. Section 5. "Party" means a governmental unit which enters into this section. Section 6. "Governmental unit" means a city, however organized. Section 7. "Human services" includes but is not limited to services and facilities to deal with and serve human needs. ARTICLE III. PARTIES Section 1. The initial parties to this agreement are the following governmental units: City of Bloomington City of Eden 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 co=uncil may also at its discretion rescind such appointment. In January of each year each city acounci 1 shall make two regular apps ointments 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. i 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 give consideration to health professionals, administrative officials, senior citizens, young adults of voting age, persons engaged in law enforcement, members of the clergy, representatives� of business and labor and others with special concerns related to Council. activities so that the board may 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 group, 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. n -3- • -'Ssl ARTICLE_ V. MEETINGS ___ELECTION OF OFFICERS • Section 1. At the organizational meeting of the beard and in February-of each year, the board shall elect from its members a chair, a vice - chair, a secretary and a treasurer. Section 2. In February of each year, the beard of directors shall adapt 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 provisiuns 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 least one director from each of the cities and the board may authorize it to exercise specified powers of the beard of directors between board meetings, subject to the 1 imitations imposed upon it by the board. ARTICLE VI. POWERS AND DUTIES OF THE COUNCIL Section 1. The powers and duties of the Council acting through the board include the powers set forth in this section. Section �E:. It may employ a per-son to act as executive director of the Council. Section 3. It may make such contracts as the board deems neccessary and advisable to make effective any power to be exercised by the Council pursuant to the provisions of this • agreement. -4- 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 5. 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 loans or grants from any organization or agency in order to accomplish its purposes and may enter into the agreements necessary to obtain that support. a • "5- R ` Section 8. current operating t law to statutory in excess of funds Section 9. supplies. It may invest and reinvest funds not needed for expenses, if any, in the manner applicable by cities. The council may not incur obligations available to it. It may contract for space, material and 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 directot^, 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 u12. It may conduct human service programs within the parties, provided that -i`t first in-form the City Council of each of the parties of the intent to provide such services. Any such program may be submitted to the parties in conjunction with the annual budget of the organization, or it may be submitted ibetween budgets at any time. 3 • • Section 13. It may exercise any ether 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 participation 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 maybe 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 be required to provide funds to the Council, but any parties may do so. The board is (1) 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. -7- Section 4. A proposed annual bl_tdget must be formulated by the board and must be submitted to the parties on or before. August 1. The budget shall be deemed approved by a party unless, prior to October 10 of the year involved, the party gives notice in writing to the Council that it is withdrawing from the organization. The board may revise its budget in response to or as a result of a notice from any city that it proposes to withdraw from the organization. Final action adopting an annual budget year shall be taken by the board on or= before November 1. Section 5. Except 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 in may voluntarily have a personal financial ` interest in such transaction o'r personally benefit financially therefrom. A director may not be employed to perform or be compensated for the performance of services for the Council. Section E. The fiscal year of the Council is the calender year. ARTICLE VIII. DURATION Section 1. The Council shall continue from year to year unless the number of parties is less than three. 5 -8- • Panties in equal shares. 6 • a -9- Section 1. (cant'd) 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 beard by October 10 of the preceding year, giving notice of _withdrawal as of the fallowing January 31. The withdrawing party shall continue to be a party to this agreement until the effective date of such notice of withdrawal. 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 been no such contributions by such parties, surplus monies of the Council shall, upon termination of the Council, be returned to the Panties in equal shares. 6 • a -9- :1 T 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. ,3-11 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned parties have caused this, agreement to be signed by their duly authorized offices as of the date indicated after their respective executives. Date --------- - - - - -- Date Date Date ------------- - - - - -- M -10- CITY OF BLOOMINGTON By- --------------- -- Its Mayor By------------------------ Its Manager CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE By----------------------- Its Mayor By----------------------- Its Manager CITY OF EDINA By----------------------- Its Mayor By-------------- --- - - - - -- -Its Manager CITY OF RICHFIELD By----------------------- Its Mayor By----------------------- Its Manager -:. 0 . CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Office of City Manager Council Letter No. 306 Agenda August 11, 1986 The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Richfield Subject: Resolution Declaring Costs to Be Assessed For The Installation of a Fire Protection System for Richfield Shoppes North and Setting the Date of Hearing. Council Members: The costs incurred for the installation of a fire protection system for Richfield Shoppes North located on Nicollet Avenue between 65th and 66th streets have been determined to be $48,705. Recent legislation (MN statutes chapter 429) makes it possible to special assess the cost of installation of a fire suppression system in a private building and finance that cost through a special assessment process. A resolution passed by the City Council on May 29, 1984 approved the installation of the system petitioned by the owners of the Richfield Shoppes North property. Attached to this letter is a copy of the Waiver of Challenge to a special assessment signed by the developers. The cost of the improvement has been paid by the Permanent Improvement Revolving (PIR) Fund. This fund will also assume the special assessments to be levied against the property over a five year period. The interest to charged for this special assessment for the five year period is to be 8% per annum. RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the City Council adopt the attached resolution declaring the costs to be assessed, ordering the preparation of the proposed assessment and setting the date of hearing for the proposed assessment for September 8, 1986. Re e tfully submitted, n L. Devi h Acting City Manager SLD /eja WAIVER OF CHALLENGE TO SPECIAL ASSESSMENT WHEREAS, the undersigned has petitioned the City of Richfield for the installation of a fire protection system (public improvement); and WHEREAS, the City has authorized the construction of such improvement and authorized the advertisement for bids for the construction of such improvement pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 429 (1984); and WHEREAS, the cost of such improvement is proposed to be assessed entirely against the benefited property which property is all in the ownership of the undersigned; and WHEREAS, the City has proposed to pay for the costs of such improvement through its Permanent Improvement Revolving Fund (PIR) and to repay such fund in five (5) years together with interest at the rate of 8% per annum on the unpaid balance by issuing special assessment bonds to finance the unpaid balance; and . WHEREAS, the City is unwilling to undertake the project unless the undersigned agrees that it will pay in full the special assessments which are levied to repay the PIR fund and the bonds. NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the action by the City to proceed with the fire protection system, the undersigned stipulates and agrees as follows: -1. That it will review the bids received by the City promptly after they have been opened, and will, on or before the date on which the contract is to be awarded, notify the City whether it wishes the City to proceed with the project and award the contract. 2. Subject to its right to notify the City not to proceed, Lincoln hereby waives any right which it may have to challenge the special assessment to be levied against its property for the actual cost of construction and for interest to be paid thereon. Such waiver includes the rights to challenge the validity or amount of any such special assessment including, but not limited to challenges based upon defect of notice, irregularity or defect of proceedings, insufficiency of benefit, unconstitutionality or other defect of statute. 3. The undersigned further acknowledges and waives any challenge to the increase in interest on the assessment to the rate which the City will pay on the bonds issued to finance the improvement through repayment of the PIR monies initially expend- ed to pay the contractor on such improvement. 4. This agreement is for the benefit of the City of Richfield and is binding upon the undersigned and its successors in interest to the property on which improvements are to be contracted. S, `� lctlTrt�L1�- St}oNPt,s ���Z 5 Its • r1 L� y� RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION DECLARING COSTS TO BE ASSESSED FOR THE INSTALLATION OF A FIRE PROTECTION SYSTEM FOR RICHFIELD SHOPPES NORTH AND SETTING DATE OF HEARING WHEREAS, cost has been determined for the installation of a fire protection system for Richfield Shoppes North located on Nicollet Avenue between 65th and 66th Streets in the City of Richfield in the amount of $48,705 for the following property: PID #27- 028 -24 -13 -0059 - 6501 Nicollet Avenue South NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota: 1. The cost to be assessed against the property owner is declared to be $48,705; 2. The city clerk shall file a copy of such proposed assessment in his office for public inspection; 3. The clerk shall, upon that completion of such proposed assessment, notify the City Council thereof. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Richfield this 11th day of August, 1986. ATTEST: Thomas P. Ferber, City Clerk John Hamilton, Mayor • C l� CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Office of City Manager Council Letter No. 305 Agenda August 11, 1986 The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Richfield Subject: Resolution Authorizing Preparation of Preliminary Report, Resolution Receiving Preliminary Report and Calling a Public Hearing for 1987 Alley Paving Project, City Project No. 832 Council Members: In 1981, the City Council established a policy providing for the improvement of the city's alleys by concrete paving. This policy stipulates that an alley will be paved upon receipt of a petition signed by property owners representing more than 50% of the abutting footage requesting such paving. To date, 67 of 96 total alleys have been permanently paved as a result of this policy. Due to the small number of petitions submitted this year and the prospect that many of the remaining alleys will be left unpaved for some time, city staff prepared several alternative alley paving policies. The city council reviewed these alternatives at a special study session held on April 28, 1986. At that time, it was the consensus of the council to support the alternative which recommended paving all remaining alleys without submittal of petitions. City staff was also directed to develop a recommendation regarding the exemption of certain alleys adjacent to 35W, Cedar Avenue and in the L /H /N area. A preliminary engineer's report including the estimated costs and assessments for the proposed 1987 alley paving project has been prepared. It is recommended that the nine alleys within project areas be excluded from being permanently paved until plans for the adjacent projects are finalized. In addition, there is some right -of -way in some blocks of the city dedicated for an alley but not being used as an alley and will be left as is. Therefore, it is recommended that the twenty alleys listed below constitute the 1987 alley paving project and be improved by concrete paving: • • • The staff recommends that the city council adopt the attached resolutions authorizing the preparation of a preliminary report and accepting the preliminary report and calling a public hearing on the proposed project for September 8, 1986. SLD%eja itted, er To Alley between From 65th St. and 66th St. 19th Avenue 20th Avenue 65th St. and 66th St. Bloomington Avenue 16th Avenue 65th St. and 66th St. 15th Avenue Bloomington 66th St. and 67th St. 13th Avenue 14th Avenue Nicollet and 1st Avenue 68th Street 69th Street Wentworth and Blaisdell 68th Street 147' north Harriet and Grand Ave. 67th Street 68th Street Harriet and Grand Ave. 73rd Street 74th Street Lyndale and Garfield 73rd Street 298' south 63rd St. and Mildred Dr Colfax Avenue Bryant Avenue 63rd St. and Mildred Dr Dupont Avenue Colfax Avenue Humboldt and Girard Ave. 63rd Street 64th Street Irving and Humboldt Ave. 63rd Street 463' south James and Irving Avenue 63rd Street 118' south Logan and Knox Avenue 63rd Street 223' south Morgan and Logan Avenue 63rd Street 243' south Penn and Oliver Avenue 63rd Street 443' south Queen and Penn Avenue 66th Street 67th Street Russell and Queen Ave. 66th Street 67th Street Washburn and Vincent Ave 67th Street 68th Street The estimated residential assessment is $20.50 per foot as compared to approximately $18.45 per foot for the actual 1985 alley assessment program. Recommendation The staff recommends that the city council adopt the attached resolutions authorizing the preparation of a preliminary report and accepting the preliminary report and calling a public hearing on the proposed project for September 8, 1986. SLD%eja itted, er • • RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION ORDERING PRELIMINARY REPORT ON PROPOSED ALLEY PAVING, CITY PROJECT NO. 832 WHEREAS, it is proposed to improve the following- described alleys in the City of Richfield, Minnesota by concrete paving and to assess the benefited property for all or a portion of the cost of the improvement, pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 429: Alley between 65th St. and 66th St. 65th St. and 66th St. 65th St. and 66th St. 66th St. and 67th St. Nicollet and 1st Avenue Wentworth and Blaisdell Harriet and Grand Ave. Harriet and Grand Ave. Lyndale and Garfield 63rd St. and Mildred Dr 63rd St. and Mildred Dr Humboldt and Girard Ave. Irving and Humboldt Ave. James and Irving Avenue Logan and Knox Avenue Morgan and Logan Avenue Penn and Oliver Avenue Queen and Penn Avenue Russell and Queen Ave. Washburn and Vincent From To 19th Avenue 20th Avenue Bloomington Avenue 16th Avenue 15th Avenue Bloomington 13th Avenue 14th Avenue 68th Street 69th Street 68th Street 147' north 67th Street 68th Street 73rd Street 74th Street 73rd Street 298' south Colfax Avenue Bryant Avenue Dupont Avenue Colfax Avenue 63rd Street 64th Street 63rd Street 463' south 63rd Street 118' south 63rd Street 223' south 63rd Street 243' south 63rd Street 443' south 66th Street 67th Street 66th Street 67th Street 67th Street 68th Street NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota: 1. The City Council finds it appears necessary and desirable that the city make the assessable public improvements of permanent surfacing of the above - mentioned alleys, pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 429; 2. A preliminary engineering report on such proposed assessable public improvement is required by law in the event that said improvement or any part thereof is specially assessed against the benefited property within the city. The city engineer is, therefore, authorized and directed to prepare a preliminary report of such proposed improvement and to submit the same to the City Council at the earliest convenient time; 3. Such report shall indicate the estimated cost of such proposed improvement, shall indicate whether such proposed improvement is feasible and whether it should best be made as proposed or in connection with some other improvement; 4. Such proposed improvement shall hereafter be known and designated as City Project No. 832. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this 11th day of August, 1986. / John Hamilton, Mayor ATTEST: Thomas P. Ferber, City Clerk RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION RECEIVING PRELIMINARY REPORT AND CALLING PUBLIC HEARING ON PROPOSED ALLEY PAVING CITY PROJECT NO. 832 WHEREAS, pursuant to a resolution of the city council adopted August 11, 1986, with reference to the improvement of the following alleys by concrete paving: Alley between From To 5th St. and 66th St. 19th Avenue 20th Avenue 65th St. and 66th St. Bloomington Avenue 16th Avenue 65th St. and 66th St. 15th Avenue Bloomington 66th St. and 67th St. 13th Avenue 14th Avenue Nicollet and 1st Avenue 68th Street 69th Street Wentworth and Blaisdell 68th Street 147' north Harriet and Grand Ave. 67th Street 68th Street Harriet and Grand Ave. 73rd Street 74th Street Lyndale and Garfield 73rd Street 298' south 63rd St. and Mildred Dr Colfax Avenue Bryant Avenue 63rd St. and Mildred Dr Dupont Avenue Colfax Avenue Humboldt and Girard Ave. 63rd Street 64th Street Irving and Humboldt Ave. 63rd Street 463' south James and Irving Avenue 63rd Street 118' south Logan and Knox Avenue 63rd Street 223' south Morgan and Logan Avenue 63rd Street 243' south Penn and Oliver Avenue 63rd Street 4143' south Queen and Penn Avenue 66th Street 67th Street Russell and Queen Avenue Washburn and Vincent 66th 67th Street Street 67th 68th Street Street NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota, as follows: 1. The preliminary report on the proposed City Project No. 832, dated the 11th day of August, 1986, prepared by the city engineer, is hereby received and ordered to be placed on file. 2. A public hearing on said proposed improvement is hereby called to be held on September 8, 1986, commencing at 7 p.m. in the council chambers of City Hall, 6700 Portland Avenue South, Richfield, Minnesota, at which time the council will consider the improvement of these alleys in accordance with the report and assessment of abutting property for all or a portion of the cost of the improvement pursuant to Minnesota Statutes 429, at an estimated cost of the improvement of $294,585. 3. The city clerk is hereby authorized and directed to give published and mailed notice of such hearing in the manner required by law. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this 11th day of August, 1986. isJohn Hamilton, Mayor ATTEST: 0 Thomas P. Ferber, City Clerk • 0 • PRELIMINARY REPORT AND ESTIMATE OF COST ALLEY PAVING & APPURTENANT WORK PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT NO. 832 CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA I. TYPE OF WORK Concrete alley paving improvements in the City of Richfield, Minnesota. II. REASON FOR IMPROVEMENT Alleys identified i—n—Tt--e—mTV are proposed as a paving program for the City of Richfield to provide concrete alley surfacing to benefit abutting properties. Petitions were not received for proposed improvement. III. DATE OF PRELIMINARY REPORT August I T—,79856— IV. LOCATION 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. Alley between E. 65th St. and E. 66th St. E. 65th St. and E. 66th St. E. 65th St. and E. 66th St. E. 66th St. and E. 67th St. Nicollet and First Avenue Wentworth and Blaisdell Ave. Harriet and Grand Avenue Harriet and Grand Avenue Lyndale and Garfield Avenue 63rd St. and Mildred Drive 63rd St. and Mildred Drive Humboldt and Girard Avenue Irving and Humboldt Avenue James and Irving Avenue Logan and Knox Avenue Morgan and Logan Avenue Penn and Oliver Avenue Queen and Penn Avenue Russell and Queen Avenue Washburn and Vincent Avenue From 19th Avenue Bloomington Avenue 15th Avenue 13th Avenue 68th Street 68th Street 67th Street 73rd Street 73rd Street Colfax Avenue Dupont Avenue 63rd Street 63rd Street 63rd Street 63rd Street 63rd Street 63rd Street 66th Street 66th Street 67th Street To 20th Avenue 16th Avenue Bloomington Avenue 14th Avenue 69th Street 147' north 68th Street 74th Street 298' south Bryant Avenue Colfax Avenue 64th Street 463' south 118' south 223' south 243' south 443' south 67th Street 67th Street 68th Street V. FEASIBILITY e a ey paving project is feasible and can best be accomplished as proposed and not in conjunction with any other project. VI. PROPERTY TO BE ASSESSED All that property abutting a alleys previously described in Item No. IV. -2- VII. ESTIMATED PROJECT COST Cost of Alleys 11' Wide Concrete Alley 1 thru 20 Estimated Construction Cost $218,211.00 Administration, Legal, Engineering and Interest (35 %) 76,374.00 ESTIMATED PROJECT COST $294,585.00 VIII. ESTIMATED PROJECT ASSESSMENT Property abutting alleys wi a assessed for alley construction according to the assessment policy established in the City Council Resolution No. 6345. Alleys 1 thru 20 Total Assessable Alley Frontage 13,894' Total Project Cost $294,585.00 Less City Cost - 9,758.00 Assessable Cost $284,827.00 $284,827.00 :.13,894 = $20.50 /assessable foot Typical Assessment for-50' lot = $1,025.00 Typical Assessment for 75' lot = $1,575.50 I hereby certify that this plan, specification or report was prepared by me or under my direct supervision and that I am a duly Registered Professional Engineer under the laws of the State of Minnesota. DATE: 8/11/86 Registration No. 15066 • icnael,,o/ Eastling 8/5/86 C. P. 832 TENTATIVE SCHEDULE FOR 1987 ALLEY PAVING PROJECT August 1, 1986 City Council letter and resolution ordering Preliminary Report, Accepting Preliminary Report, and Setting Date of a Public Hearing is due August 11, 1986 City Council passes resolution ordering Preliminary Report, Accepting Preliminary Report and Setting Date of a Public Hearing for September 8, 1986 August 12, 1986 Legal Notice of hearing sent to City Clerk for publication in Richfield Sun - Current on August 20 and August 27, August 27, 1986 Legal Notice of public hearing mailed to property owners August 29, 1986 City Council letter and resolution to order the project is due September 8, 1986 City Council holds public hearing ordering project and preparation of plans and specs January 2, 1987 City council letter and resolution to approve the plans and specifications and order advertisement for bids is due January 12, 1987 City council passes resolution approving plans and specifications and ordering advertisement for bids January 13, 1987 Send bid advertisement to City Clerk for ' publication in Richfield Sun - Current and the Construction Bulletin (Sun- Current on January 21, 1987 and Construction Bulletin on January 23, 1987) February 12, 1987 Bid opening February 13, 1987 City Council letter and resolution to award contract is due February 23, 1987 City council passes resolution to award contract April 8, 1987 Pre - construction meeting April 15, 1987 Begin construction (approximate) CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Office of City Manager Council Letter No. 304 Agenda August 11, 1986 The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Richfield Subject: Resolution Relating to Maintenance Assessments, LHN Redevelopment Area - C.P. 830 Council Members: On January 26, 1981, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 6372, which established a policy that the actual cost to perform current maintenance services in the LHN area (area approximately bounded by 64th Street, First Avenue, 67th Street and Emerson Avenue) would be specially assessed. The special assessments to commercial property would be made on the basis of area, with each square foot of assessable commercial property within the district being assessed an equal amount. All single family, two - family and multiple family residential property within this area were eliminated from the special assessment levy. In 1982, agreements were reached with owners in the LHN area related to maintenance of property. For the most part, each owner was to be responsible for property to the curb while the city is responsible for common areas such as street islands. Although the city does do some maintenance work for individual property owners, these costs are directly assessed to the appropriate owner and maintenance of common areas continues to be assessed to the entire district. Current maintenance services for the district would include, but not necessarily be limited to, one or more of the following: 1. Landscaping, including tree trimming; 2. Sidewalk sweeping in summer; 3. Snow removal in winter; 4. Sidewalk deicing; 5. Painting and repair of wood furniture; 6. Trash removal; 7. General maintenance, including repairs and replacement; 8. Irrigation maintenance. . These items are extra services provided directly to the LHN Redevelopment Area and do not include services provided to the entire city. For example, all city streets are swept twice a year, and for this service there would be no charge to the LHN maintenance assessment. However, any additional street sweeping in the LHN area would be an assessable item. Recommendation: It is recommended that the City Council adopt the attached resolution proposing to specially assess for the costs of current services provided within the LHN project area for the period of January 1, 1987 through December 31, 1987 and set the public hearing for September 8, 1986. SLD /eja • • Res t' ully submitted, L. vic Act ng City Manager RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION PROPOSING TO SPECIALLY ASSESS FOR THE COSTS OF CURRENT SERVICES PROVIDED WITHIN THE LYNDALE /HUB /NICOLLET PROJECT AREA FOR THE PERIOD JANUARY 1, 1987 THROUGH DECEMBER 31, 1987 CITY PROJECT NO. 830 BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota as follows: 1. There is hereby established a special assessment district, the boundaries of which are conterminous with the Lyndale /Hub /Nicollet (L /H /N) Redevelopment Project Area, for the purposes of assessing for current services provided by the city. 2. The following current services of the city are hereby proposed to be undertaken by the city in the district, with the cost of such services to be specially assessed against benefited property within the district: Snow, ice or rubbish removal; Weed elimination; Elimination or removal of public health or safety hazards from private property, excluding any structure included under the provisions of Minnesota Statutes Section 463.15 to 463.26; Installation or repair of water service lines; Street sprinkling or other dust treatment of streets; Trimming and care of trees and the removal of unsound trees; Repair of sidewalks, crosswalks, other pedestrian walkways; Operation of the street lighting system; Maintenance of landscaped areas and other public amenities on or adjacent to street right -of -way; Maintenance of Civic Plaza; Snow removal and other maintenance of streets; Painting and repair of wood furniture; .General maintenance, including repairs and replacement. 3. The area proposed to be specially assessed for such current services consists-of every assessable lot and parcel of land within the district. It is proposed that special assessments on commercial property be made on the basis of the area with each square foot of assessable commercial property within the district being assessed an equal amount for maintenance of common area. Exempt from the special assessment levy shall be all single family, two - family, multiple family residential property within the L /H /N Redevelopment district. Special maintenance of individual commercial properties shall be assessed directly for costs incurred in performing said maintenance to said property. 0 4. The city clerk is authorized and directed to give public notice of a hearing by this council at which the council will consider the undertaking of such current services and the levying of special assessments to bear the costs thereof. The city clerk shall give mailed and published notice of such hearing as required by law. Such hearing shall be held on Monday, September 8, 1986, commencing at 7 p.m. or as soon thereafter as the matter can be reached on the agenda. 5. It is hereby proposed that the project consist of the costs of the aforementioned services for the period of January 1, 1987 through December 31, 1987. The estimated cost of providing all of the aforementioned current services during that period is $49.936. Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this 11th day of August, 1986. ATTEST: Thomas P. Ferber, City Clerk • John Hamilton, Mayor • • CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Office of City Manager Council Letter No. 303 Agenda August 11, 1986 The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Richfield Subject: 1987 Alley Maintenance Special Assessment Project City Project No. 831 Council Members: The alley policy adopted by the city council in 1980 provides that "all costs involved in maintaining an alley will be assessed against the property abutting the alley." In 1981, the maintenance functions to unpaved alleys covered sweeping, cleaning of potholes and cold patching. In 1982 and years since, the maintenance functions covered by this assessment included not only repair work to unpaved alleys, but also an assessment to all alleys, paved or unpaved, for snowplowing services. Community Services Department personnel estimate the 1987 alley maintenance cost for the period January 1 - December 31 to be $7,000. Actual 1985 maintenance costs for all alleys totaled $15,141.97. This estimated maintenance cost decrease in 1987 would result from the anticipated permanent concrete paving of the remaining graded alleys in the city, thus reducing maintenance costs for repairs necessary to unpaved alleys. The majority of the assessed amount to each property would be for snowplowing services, which is a calculated shared cost of the actual cost for snowplowing. Recommendation It is recommended that the city council adopt the attached resolution which proposes to specially assess the costs of 1987 services for alley maintenance and sets the public hearing on this special assessment project forlSeptember 8, 1986. SLD /eja 3, City Manager �r RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION PROPOSING TO SPECIALLY ASSESS FOR THE COSTS OF CURRENT SERVICES PROVIDED FOR ALLEY MAINTENANCE IN THE CITY OF RICHFIELD JANUARY 1, 1987 THROUGH DECEMBER 31, 1987 CITY PROJECT NO. 831 BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota, as follows: 1. That area which includes the property which abuts improved alleys in Richfield (the "District ") is hereby estabished as a special assessment district for the purpose of assessing for current services provided by the city; 2. That the following current services of the city are hereby proposed to be undertaken by the city in the District with the cost of such services to be specially assessed against the benefited property within the District: the maintenance and snowplowing of alleys; 3. The area proposed to be specially assessed for such current services consists of every assessable lot and parcel of land within the District. It is proposed that special assessments on property be made on the basis of pro -rated share of assessable abutting footage as defined in the alley improvement policy, Resolution No. 6345; Y • 4. The city clerk is authorized and directed to publish notice of a public hearing by this council at which time the council will consider the undertaking of such current services and the levying of special assessments to bear the costs thereof. Such notice shall be published in the official newspaper at least once and at least two weeks prior to the date of hearing. Such hearing shall be held on Monday, September 8, 1986 commencing at 7 p.m. or as soon thereafter as the matter can be reached on the agenda. 5. It is hereby proposed that the project consist of the costs of the aforementioned services for the period from January 1, 1987 through December 31, 1987. The estimated cost of providing all of the aforementioned current services during that 0 period, using day labor, is $7,000. • 6. The project is feasible. Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this 11th day of August, 1986. ATTEST: Thomas P. Ferber, City Clerk John Hamilton, Mayor CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Office of City Manager Council Letter No. 302 Agenda August 11, 1986 � The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Richfield Subject: Resolution Declaring Costs to be Assessed and Setting the Date of Public Hearing - Longfellow Avenue Improvements, City Project No. 803 • Council Members: The city staff has determined the costs to be assessed for City Project No. 803, the reconstruction of the Longfellow Avenue frontage road from 66th Street to 69th Street and overlay of the service road from 69th Street to 24th Avenue South. The area to be assessed are the ten residential properties on the 6800 block of Longfellow Avenue. The proposed assessment roll for this area has been prepared by staff members and filed for public inspection. The Minnesota Department of Transportation has agreed to pay for all improvements associated with the project except the curb and gutter on the property owner's side of the frontage road and Municipal State Aid money will fund that portion of the city side curb and gutter not funded by special assessment. In November of 1984, the city council set the maximum assessment to property owners on Longfellow Avenue between 68th and 69th Street at $4 per front foot for the curb and gutter or the actual cost of the improvements, whichever is less. The owner of a typical 60' lot will be assessed $240 for this instal- lation. In addition, the cost for installation of driveway aprons will also be assessed, as previously directed by the city council. These costs vary with each property depending upon the width of their driveway apron and amount of concrete or asphalt used to match to their existing driveway. The average cost of a driveway apron was $245• Recommendation It is recommended that the city council adopt the attached resolution declaring the costs to be assessed and ordering the preparation of the proposed assessment roll; and the resolution setting the date of the public hearin on the proposed assessment for September 8, 1986. Res ct ul s t , SLD /eja v evich Acting City Manager • • RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION DECLARING COSTS TO BE ASSESSED AND ORDERING PREPARATION OF PROPOSED ASSESSMENT FOR CITY PROJECT NO. 803 - LONGFELLOW AVENUE IMPROVEMENTS WHEREAS, costs have been determined for the improvement of Longfellow Avenue, 66th Street to 69th Street by reconstruction, paving, curb and gutter and driveway aprons and overlay of the service road from 69th Street to 24th Avenue South and to assess the benefited property for a portion of the cost of the improvement pursuant to council directives and Minnesota Statutes Chapter 429; AND, WHEREAS, the contract price for such improvement is $187,885.47 and the expenses incurred or to be incurred in the making of such improvement amount to $32,841.53 so that the total cost of the improvement will be $220,727. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota: 1. The portion of the cost to be assessed against benefited property owners is declared to be $4,512.11. 2. The city clerk and city engineer shall forthwith calculate the proper amount to be specially assessed for such improvement against every assessable lot, piece or parcel of land within the district affected, without regard to cash —tTI valuation, as provided by law, and he shall file a copy of such proposed assessment in his office for public inspection. 0 3. The clerk shall upon completion of such proposed assessment notify the council thereof. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this 11th day of August, 1986. ATTEST: Thomas P. Ferber, City Clerk is John Hamilton, Mayor RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION FOR HEARING ON PROPOSED ASSESSMENT FOR CITY PROJECT NO. 803 - LONGFELLOW AVENUE IMPROVEMENTS WHEREAS, by resolution passed by the City Council on August 11, 1986, the city clerk and city engineer were directed to prepare a proposed assessment of the cost for the improvement of Longfellow Avenue, 68th Street to 69th Street by reconstruction, paving, curb and gutter and driveway aprons; AND, WHEREAS, the city clerk and city engineer have notified the council that such proposed assessment has been completed and filed for public inspection. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota: 1. A hearing shall be held on the 8th day of September, 1986, in the council chambers of city hall at 7 p.m. to pass upon such proposed assessment and at such time and place all persons owning property affected by such improvement will be given an opportunity to be heard in reference to such assessment. 2. The city clerk and city engineer are hereby directed to cause notice of the hearing on the proposed assessment to be published once in the official newspaper at least two weeks prior to the hearing, and shall state in the notice the total �141- cost of the improvement. The city clerk and city engineer shall also cause mailed notice to be given to the owner of each parcel described in the assessment roll not less than two weeks prior to the hearings. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this 11th day of August, 1986. ATTEST: Thomas P. Ferber, City Clerk • John Hamilton, Mayor CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Office of City Manager Council Letter No. 301 Agenda August 11, 1986 The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Richfield Subject: Resolution Declaring Costs to be Assessed and Setting-the Date of Hearing - City Project No. 812 Council Members: The city staff has determined the costs to be assessed for City Project No. 812, 1985 Alley Paving. The proposed assessment roll has been prepared by staff members and filed for public inspection. The cost for a residential property is $18.45 per assessable foot, for a total assessment of $922.50 for a typical fifty foot lot. The original estimate was $19.75/ft. Recommendation It is recommended that the city council adopt the attached resolution declaring the costs to be assessed and ordering the preparation of the proposed assessment roll; and the resolution setting the date of the hearing on the proposed assessment for September 8, 1986. Re c fully ubmitted, t L. evict Acting City Manager SLD /eja • And the contract price for such improvement is $89,933 and the expenses incurred or to be incurred in the making of such improvement amount to $34,919.33 so that the total cost of the improvement will be $124,852.33• NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota: 1. The portion of the cost of such improvement to be paid by the city is hereby declared to be $8,919.17 and the portion of the cost to be assessed against benefited property owners is at least twenty percent (20 %) of the total cost and is declared RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION DECLARING COSTS TO BE ASSESSED AND ORDERING PREPARATION OF PROPOSED ASSESSMENT FOR CITY PROJECT NO. 812, 1985 ALLEY PAVING WHEREAS, costs have been determined for the improvement of the following alleys by reconstruction and concrete paving: Alley between From To Augsburg and Garfield Ave. 70th Street 71st Street Russell and Sheridan Ave. 68th Street 69th Street Blaisdell and Nicollet Ave. 75th Street 76th Street Upton and Thomas Ave. 68th Street 69th Street . Xerxes and Washburn Ave. 68th Street 69th Street Queen and Penn Ave. 68th Street 69th Street And the contract price for such improvement is $89,933 and the expenses incurred or to be incurred in the making of such improvement amount to $34,919.33 so that the total cost of the improvement will be $124,852.33• NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota: 1. The portion of the cost of such improvement to be paid by the city is hereby declared to be $8,919.17 and the portion of the cost to be assessed against benefited property owners is at least twenty percent (20 %) of the total cost and is declared to be $115,933.16. 2. The city clerk and the city engineer shall forthwith calculate the proper amount to be specially assessed for such improvement against every assessable lot, piece or parcel of land within the district affected, without regard to cash valuation, as provided by law, and he shall file a copy of such proposed assessment in his office for public inspection. 3. The clerk shall upon the completion of such proposed assessment notify the council thereof. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this 11th day of August, 1986. • ATTEST: Thomas P. Ferber, City Clerk • John Hamilton, Mayor RESOLUTION NO. • RESOLUTION FOR HEARING ON PROPOSED ASSESSMENT FOR CITY PROJECT NO. 812 - 1985 ALLEY PAVING WHEREAS, by resolution passed by the city council on August 11, 1986, the city clerk and city engineer were directed to prepare a proposed assessment of the cost for the reconstruction and the concrete paving of the following alleys: Alley between From To Augsburg and Garfield Ave. 70th Street" 71st Street Russell and Sheridan Ave. 68th Street 69th Street Blaisdell and Nicollet Ave. 75th Street 76th Street Upton and Thomas Ave. 68th Street 69th Street Xerxes and Washburn Ave. 68th Street 69th Street Queen and Penn Ave. 68th Street 69th Street AND, WHEREAS, the city clerk and city engineer have notified the council that such proposed assessment has been completed and filed for public inspection. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota: 1. A hearing shall be held on the 8th day of September, 1986, in the council chambers of city hall at 7 p.m. to pass upon such proposed assessment and at such time and P lace all persons owning property affected by such improvement will be given an opportunity to be heard in reference to such assessment. . 2. The city clerk and city engineer are hereby directed to cause notice of the hearing on the proposed assessment to be published once in the official newspaper at least two weeks prior to the hearing, and shall state in the notice the total cost of the improvement. The city clerk and city engineer shall also cause mailed notice to be given to the owner of each parcel described in the assessment roll not less than two weeks prior to the hearings. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this 11th day of August, 1986. ATTEST: Thomas P. Ferber, City Clerk • John Hamilton, Mayor CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Office of City Manager Council Letter No. 300 Agenda August 11, 1986 The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Richfield Subject: Resolutions Declaring Costs to be Assessed for Alley Maintenance and Snowplowing for the Period January 1, 1985 to December 31, 1985 and Setting the Date of Hearing - CP 810 Council Members: The cost incurred for alley maintenance and snowplowing for the period of January 1, 1985 to December 31, 1985 have been determined to be $15,141.97. Property owners on permanently paved concrete alleys are assessed for snowplowing only, while property owners on all other alleys are assessed actual costs for their individual alley maintenance and snowplowing costs. Recommendation It is recommended that the city council adopt the attached resolution declaring the costs to be assessed and ordering the preparation of the proposed assessment roll; and the resolution setting the date of hearing on the proposed assessment for September 8, 1986. SLD /eja • ed, Actiing City Manager J • C RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION DECLARING COSTS TO BE ASSESSED AND ORDERING PREPARATION OF PROPOSED ASSESSMENT FOR ALLEY MAINTENANCE AND SNOWPLOWING - CITY PROJECT NO. 810 WHEREAS, costs have been determined for the maintenance and snowplowing of the following alleys in the City of Richfield and the expenses incurred or to be incurred for such maintenance and snowplowing for the period of January 1, 1985 through December 31, 1985 amount to be $15,141.97: Number Surrounding Avenues 1001 Xerxes - Washburn 1002 Xerxes - Washburn 1003 Xerxes - Washburn 1004 Xerxes - Washburn 1005 Washburn - Vincent 1006 Washburn - Vincent 1007 Washburn - Vincent 1008 Washburn - Vincent 1009 Vincent - Upton 1010 Vincent - Upton 1011 Vincent - Upton 1012 Vincent - Upton 1013 Upton - Thomas Surrounding Streets 66th -67th 67th -68th 68th -69th 69th -70th 66th -67th 67th -68th 68th -69th 69th -70th 66th -67th 67th -68th 68th -69th 69th -70th 66th -67th -2 -- 1014 Upton - Thomas 68th -69th 1015 Upton - Thomas 69th -70th 1016 Thomas - Sheridan 66th -67th 1017 Thomas - Sheridan 67th -68th 1018 Thomas - Sheridan 68th -69th 1019 Thomas - Sheridan 69th -70th 1020 Sheridan - Russell 66th -67th 1021 Sheridan - Russell 67th -68th 1022 Sheridan - Russell 68th -69th 1023 Sheridan - Russell 69th -70th 1024 Russell - Queen 66th -67th 1025 Russell - Queen 67th -68th 1026 Russell - Queen 68th -69th 1027 Russell - Queen 69th -70th 1028 Queen - Penn 66th -67th 1029 Queen - Penn 67th -68th 1030 Queen - Penn 68th -69th 1031 Queen - Penn 69th -70th 2001 Penn - Oliver 63rd -64th 2002 Oliver - Newton 63rd -64th 2004 Morgan - Logan 63rd -64th 2005 Logan - Knox 63rd -64th 2007 James - Irving 63rd -64th 2008 Irving - Humboldt 63rd -64th 2009 Humboldt - Girard 63rd -64th 2010 Girard - Fremont (35W) 63rd -64th • -3- 2011 Girard - Fremont (35W) 64th -65th 2012 Girard - Fremont (35W) 65th -66th 2013 Fremont (35W) - Emerson 64th -65th 2014 Fremont (35W) - Emerson 65th -66th 2015 Dupont - Colfax 63rd- Mildred Dr 2016 Colfax - Bryant 63rd - Mildred Dr 2017 Bryant - Aldrich 63rd - Mildred Dr 2019 Graham - Lyndale 66th -Lk Shr Dry 2020 Aldrich - Lyndale 75th -76th 2021 Aldrich - Lyndale 76th -77th 3002 Lyndale - Garfield 68th -69th 3003 Augsburg - Garfield 70th -71st 3004 Augsburg - Garfield 71st -72nd 3005 Lyndale - Garfield 72nd -73rd 3006 Lyndale - Garfield 73rd -74th 3007 Garfield - Harriet 71st -72nd 3008 Garfield - Harriet 72nd -73rd 3009 Garfield - Harriet 73rd -74th 3011 Harriet - Grand 67th -68th 3012 Harriet - Grand 68th -69th 3013 Harriet - Grand 72nd -73rd 3014 Harriet - Grand 73rd -74th 3015 Grand - Pleasant 68th -69th 3016 Grand - Pleasant 72nd -73rd 3018 Wentworth - Blaisdell 67th -68th 3020 Blaisdell - Nicollet 72nd -73rd -4- 3021 Blaisdell - Nicollet 73rd -74th 3022 Blaisdell - Nicollet 74th -75th 3023 Blaisdell - Nicollet 75th -76th 3024 Nicollet - 2nd Avenue 68th -69th 3025 Nicollet - 1st Avenue 70th -71st 3026 Nicollet - 1st Avenue 71st -72nd 3027 Nicollet - 1st Avenue 72nd -73rd 3028 1st - Stevens 71st -72nd 3029 1st - Stevens 72nd -73rd 3030 Stevens - 2nd Avenue 71st -72nd 3031 Stevens - 2nd Avenue 72nd -73rd • 3032 2nd - 3rd Avenue 66th -67th 3033 2nd - 3rd Avenue 71st -72nd 3034 2nd - 3rd Avenue 72nd -73rd 3035 3rd - Clinton 66th -67th 3036 3rd - Clinton 73rd -74th 3037 Clinton - 4th Avenue 66th -67th 3038 Clinton - 4th Avenue 73rd -74th 3039 4th - 5th Avenue 66th -67th 3040 4th - 5th Avenue 73rd -74th 4001 13th - 14th Avenue 65th -66th 4002 14th - 15th Avenue 62nd -63rd 4004 15th - Bloomington 62nd -63rd 4005 15th - Bloomington 65th -66th 4006 Bloomington - 16th Avenue 65th -66th 4007 Cedar - Longfellow 63rd -64th • • 4008 Cedar - Longfellow* 4009 Cedar - Longfellow 4010 19th - 20th Avenue 4012 22nd - Standish 4013 13th,- 14th Avenue 64th -65th 65th -66th 65th -66th 65th -66th 66th -67th NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota: 1. The portion of the cost to be assessed against benefited property owners is declared to be $15,141.97. 2. The city clerk shall forthwith calculate the proper amount to be specially assessed for such maintenance against every assessable lot, piece or parcel of land affected, without regard to cash valuation as provided by law, and shall file a copy of such proposed assessment in his office for public inspection. 3. The clerk shall, upon the completion of such proposed assessment, notify the City Council thereof. • s_ Adopted by the City Council of the City of Richfield this 11th day of August, 1986. ATTEST: • Thomas P. Ferber, City Clerk J John Hamilton, Mayor • • RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION FOR HEARING ON PROPOSED ASSESSMENT ALLEY MAINTENANCE - C.P. 810 WHEREAS, by a resolution passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield on August 11, 1986, the city clerk was directed to prepare assessment of the cost of maintaining the following alleys in the City of Richfield for the period of January 1, 1985 through December 31, 1985: Number 1001 1002 1003 1004 1005 1006 1007 1008 1009 1010 1011 1012 1013 1014 Surrounding Avenues Xerxes - Washburn Xerxes - Washburn Xerxes - Washburn Xerxes - Washburn Washburn - Vincent Washburn - Vincent Washburn - Vincent Washburn - Vincent Vincent - Upton Vincent - Upton Vincent - Upton Vincent - Upton Upton - Thomas Upton - Thomas Surrounding Streets 66th -67th 67th -68th 68th -69th 69th -70th 66th -67th 67th -68th 68th -69th 69th -70th 66th -67th 67th -68th 68th -69th 69th -70th 66th -67th 68th -69th -2- 1015 Upton - Thomas 69th -70th 1016 Thomas - Sheridan 66th -67th 1017 Thomas - Sheridan 67th -68th 1018 Thomas - Sheridan 68th -69th 1019 Thomas - Sheridan 69th -70th 1020 Sheridan - Russell 66th -67th 1021 Sheridan - Russell 67th -68th 1022 Sheridan- Russell 68th -69th 1023 Sheridan - Russell 69th -70th 1024 Russell - Queen 66th -67th 1025 Russell - Queen 67th -68th 1026 Russell - Queen 68th -69th 1027 Russell - Queen 69th -70th 1028 Queen - Penn 66th -67th 1029 Queen - Penn 67th -68th 1030 Queen - Penn 68th -69th 1031 Queen - Penn 69th -70th 2001 Penn - Oliver 63rd -64th 2002 Oliver - Newton 63rd -64th 2004 Morgan - Logan 63rd -64th 2005 Logan - Knox 63rd -64th 2007 James - Irving 63rd -64th 2008 Irving - Humboldt 63rd -64th 2009 Humboldt - Girard 63rd -64th 2010 Girard - Fremont (35W) 63rd -64th 2011 Girard - Fremont (35W) 64th -65th -3- 2012 Girard - Fremont (35W) 65th -66th 2013 Fremont (35W) - Emerson 64th -65th 2014 Fremont (35W) - Emerson 65th -66th 2015 Dupont - Colfax 63rd - Mildred Dr. 2016 Colfax - Bryant 63rd- Mildred Dr. 2017 Bryant - Aldrich 63rd- Mildred Dr. 2019 Graham - Lyndale 66th -Lk Shr Dr. 2020 Aldrich - Lyndale 75th -76th 2021 Aldrich - Lyndale 76th -77th 3002 Lyndale - Garfield 68th -69th 3003 Augsburg - Garfield 70th -71st 3004 Augsburg - Garfield 71st -72nd 3005 Lyndale - Garfield 72nd -73rd 3006 Lyndale - Garfield 73rd -74th 3007 Garfield - Harriet 71st -72nd 3008 Garfield - Harriet 72nd -73rd 3009 Garfield - Harriet 73rd -74th 3011 Harriet - Grand 67th -68th 3012 Harriet - Grand 68th -69th 3013 Harriet - Grand 72nd -73rd 3014 Harriet - Grand 73rd -74th 3015 Grand - Pleasant 68th -69th 3016 Grand - Pleasant 72nd -73rd 3018 Wentworth - Blaisdell 66th -68th -4- 3020 Blaisdell - Nicollet 72nd -73rd 3021 Blaisdell - Nicollet 73rd -74th 3022 Blaisdell - Nicollet 74th -75th 3023 Blaisdell - Nicollet 75th -76th 3024 Nicollet - 2nd Avenue 68th -69th 3025 Nicollet - 1st Avenue 70th -71st 3026 Nicollet - 1st Avenue 71st -72nd 3027 Nicollet - 1st Avenue 72nd -73rd 3028 1st - Stevens 71st -72nd 3029 1st - Stevens 72nd -73rd 3030 Stevens - 2nd Avenue 71st -72nd 3031 Stevens - 2nd Avenue 72nd -73rd 3032 2nd - 3rd Avenue 66th -67th 3033 2nd - 3rd Avenue 71st -72nd 3034 2nd - 3rd Avenue 72nd -73rd 3035 3rd - Clinton 66th -67th 3036 3rd - Clinton 73rd -74th 3037 Clinton - 4th Avenue 66th -67th 3038 Clinton - 4th Avenue 73rd -74th 3039 4th - 5th Avenue 66th -67th 3040 4th - 5th Avenue 73rd -74th 4001 13th - 14th Avenue 65th -66th 4002 14th - 15th Avenue 62nd -63rd 4004 15th - Bloomington 62nd -63rd 4005 15th - Bloomington 65th -66th 4006 Bloomington - 16th Avenue 65th -66th NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota: 1. A hearing shall be held on the 8th day of September, 1986, in the council chambers of city hall at 7 p.m. to pass upon such proposed assessment and at such time and place all persons owning property affected by said maintenance assessment will be given an opportunity to be heard in reference to such assessment. 2. The city clerk is hereby directed to cause a notice of the hearing on the proposed assessment to be published once in the official newspaper at least two weeks prior to the hearing, and he shall state in the notice the total cost of the maintenance. He shall also cause mailed notice to be given to the owner of each parcel described in the assessment roll not less than two weeks prior to the hearing. -5- 4007 Cedar - Longfellow 63rd -64th 4008 Cedar - Longfellow 64th -65th 4009 Cedar - Longfellow 65th -66th 4010 19th - 20th Avenue 65th -66th 4012 22nd_- Standish Avenue 65th -66th 4013 13th - 14th Avenue 66th -67th WHEREAS, the city clerk has notified the City Council that such proposed assessment has been completed and filed in his office for public inspection. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota: 1. A hearing shall be held on the 8th day of September, 1986, in the council chambers of city hall at 7 p.m. to pass upon such proposed assessment and at such time and place all persons owning property affected by said maintenance assessment will be given an opportunity to be heard in reference to such assessment. 2. The city clerk is hereby directed to cause a notice of the hearing on the proposed assessment to be published once in the official newspaper at least two weeks prior to the hearing, and he shall state in the notice the total cost of the maintenance. He shall also cause mailed notice to be given to the owner of each parcel described in the assessment roll not less than two weeks prior to the hearing. 0 Adopted by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this 11th day of Augusts, 1986. ATTEST: Thomas P. Ferber, City Clerk • John Hamilton, Mayor z — " &- CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Office of City Manager Council Letter No. 299 Agenda August 11, 1986 The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Richfield Subject: Preparation of Assessment Rolls and Setting Hearing Date for City Project 809, LHN Maintenance Council Members: Attached are resolutions declaring the costs to be assessed and ordering the preparation of the proposed assessment rolls, and setting the hearing date for the proposed assessment for City Project No. 809, the 1985 LHN Maintenance project. Recommendation It is recommended that the city council pass the resolution declaring costs to be assessed and ordering preparation of the proposed assessment for LHN maintenance, and the resolution setting the date of hearing on the proposed assessment for September 8. 1986. SLD /eja 0-11 Re kngCity lly s mitt , t <L-evic Act Manager RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION DECLARING COST TO BE ASSESSED. AND ORDERING PREPARATION OF PROPOSED ASSESSMENT FOR LHN MAINTENANCE JANUARY 1, 1985 THROUGH DECEMBER 31, 1985 CITY PROJECT NO. 809 WHEREAS, costs have been determined for the maintenance of the Lyndale /Hub /Nicollet (LHN) Redevelopment Area (approximately bounded by 64th Street, First Avenue, 67th Street and Emerson Avenue) in the City of Richfield and the expenses incurred or to be incurred for such maintenance amount to $35,726.30 for the period of January 1, 1985 through December 31, 1985. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota: 1. The portion of the cost to be assessed against benefited property owners is declared to be $35,726.30; 2. The city clerk, with the assistance of the city engineer and the facilities /project coordinator, shall forthwith calculate the proper amount to be specially assessed for such maintenance against every assessable lot, piece or parcel of land within the district affected, without regard to cash valuation, as provided by law, and shall file a copy of such proposed assessment in his office for public inspection. 3. The city clerk shall, upon the completion of such proposed assessment, notify the city council thereof. Adopted by the City Council the of City of Richfield, Minnesota, this 11th day of August, 1986. ATTEST: Thomas P. Ferber, City Clerk John Hamilton, Mayor RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION FOR HEARING ON PROPOSED ASSESSMENT FOR LHN MAINTENANCE JANUARY 1, 1985 THROUGH DECEMBER 31, 1985 CITY PROJECT NO. 809 WHEREAS, by a resolution passed by the city council of the City of Richfield on August 11, 1986, the city clerk was directed to prepare a proposed assessment of the cost of maintaining the Lyndale /Hub /Nicollet (LHN) Redevelopment Area which is approximately bounded by 64th Street, First Avenue. 67th Street and Emerson Avenue in the City of Richfield, Minnesota for the period of January 1, 1985 through December 31, 1985. WHEREAS the city clerk has notified the city council that such proposed assessment has been completed and filed in his office for public inspection. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota: 1. A hearing shall be held on the 8th day of September, 1986 in the council chambers of city hall at 7 p.m. to pass upon such proposed assessment and at such time and place all persons owning property affected by said maintenance assessment will be given an opportunity to be heard in reference to such assessment. 2. The city clerk is hereby directed to cause a notice of the hearing on the proposed assessment to be published once in the official newspaper at least two weeks prior to the hearing, and he shall state in the notice the total cost of the maintenance. The city clerk shall also cause mailed notice to be given to the owner of each parcel described in the assessment roll not less than two weeks prior to the hearing. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this 11th day of August, 1986. ATTEST: Thomas P. Ferber, City Clerk • John Hamilton, Mayor CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Office of City Manager Council Letter No. 298 Agenda: August 11, 1986 The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Richfield Subject: St. Pe-ter's Church Request For Sign Permits For Annual Fall Festival Council Members: St. Peter's Catholic Church has requested four advertising permits for their Annual Fall Festival to be held on September 13th and 14th, 1986. The signs requested are: One temporary banner located on their building at 6720 Nicollet Avenue. It is to be 6' X 3'6" and will be erected on 8/15/86. One double -faced ground sign located at the same address with a size of 5' X 6'. This sign is to be erected 8/22/86. Temporary banners are to be put up on August 22, 1986. One double -faced ground sign (same location) with a size of 3' X 6' to be put up on 8/29/86. They request waiver of all permit fees. Staff Review: City Council has previously approved signs of this nature. Staff Recommendation: It is recommended that the City Council approve temporary sign permits for the signs requested above. JRe tfull y ubmitted, en L. vi ng City Manager SLD /eja City `".anager Date DEi'ia Plannin Depa tment Date to above for•special approval per code Inspector Date Y �[ PDRIOVE L_J DENYa City Council Date General Si APPLICATION FOR' ADVERTISING PEP -HIT City of Richfield, . Minnesota Date Zoning /�/Ja ,. �J Sign Erected - Yes No ✓ Fee Address of Si roprietor Name DBA Sign Tw e Erector Address ��. �a��• -<-�� of Sign Desiozn WF+athPr rnver LiQhtinQ f L'luminated - Yes (11_-__No� Watts — Imlectrical Contractor — Address — Phone Property Owner or his Agent Signature %G,.�tt , / c ./_�...c -s Phone.r�� ,,_ 7 y, .p Esti.:.ated Cost Sign Width /_. height Total Square Feet /9 Position of the advertisement sz--;ctsra in relationship to the adjacent buildings, sidewalks, curbs, roadways, overhead utili_-, lines, vehicle movement lines, or public facilities on drawing with significant dimensicrs and attached 'hereto of major signs. -Mino r 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 st= acture. Does the sign copy relate solely to the business, institution, or activity conducted on the premises? 'dill 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? Applicant's Signature and T-it1d with Firm Phone Number Date ?/ XA•l V •1 - Lkt 198-5 PL��SE SEE REVURSE SIDE FOR SIGN LOCATION SKETCH Sivert Hendrickson /Building Official - 366 -5061 Wall Projecting Ground Roof Pedestal (hangeable Temporary Trailer ✓ Single Face Double Face Multi -Faced Aerial /Blimp Searchlight Banner/pennants- Portable Frame: F-1 A n Post Clear Lexon Constant Frosted Lexoa Flashing -Plastic Covered Revolving Shaded Traveling Neon Zip Lite Other Other (cxplai: Sion Colors�,� J .� ET f L'luminated - Yes (11_-__No� Watts — Imlectrical Contractor — Address — Phone Property Owner or his Agent Signature %G,.�tt , / c ./_�...c -s Phone.r�� ,,_ 7 y, .p Esti.:.ated Cost Sign Width /_. height Total Square Feet /9 Position of the advertisement sz--;ctsra in relationship to the adjacent buildings, sidewalks, curbs, roadways, overhead utili_-, lines, vehicle movement lines, or public facilities on drawing with significant dimensicrs and attached 'hereto of major signs. -Mino r 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 st= acture. Does the sign copy relate solely to the business, institution, or activity conducted on the premises? 'dill 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? Applicant's Signature and T-it1d with Firm Phone Number Date ?/ XA•l V •1 - Lkt 198-5 PL��SE SEE REVURSE SIDE FOR SIGN LOCATION SKETCH Sivert Hendrickson /Building Official - 366 -5061 GROLM, SIGN WIDTH LEGEND y WIDTH � LEGEND �s'o FA LL GROUND PEDESTAL SIGN WIDTH — I` LEGEND Y T �1 u ROOF SIGN WIDTH ROOF LEGEND fi y fi PROJECTING SIGN WIDTH ---� LEGEND Indicate Distance From The Building Indicate legend on the the reverse side in the space below LEGEND Ilk Place location of sign on this sketch with distancetth sign ign is f om prop ty lines. Locate any traffic lights within 300 feet. _� "v � 'LYITION: Minor Signs -- Single or double faced sign less than 32 sq. ft. on a common board INDICATE NORTH T ;"r /A /.q I :::3i, I City I1 H33 er LL�� Date g APPROVE D ENY ❑ . Plannin De P rtment Date 1 �-V i Inspector. Date�1e6 APPROVE El DEN. YF- : City Council Date Route to above for•special approval per code General Sins APPLICATION FOR'ADVERTISING PERMIT City of Richfield, , Minnesota Date /, �_z /_�� Zoning ��,�� Sign Erected - Yes No ,/ Fee L�ja� -tom' Address of Signl����,��� Proprietor Name �y�- DBA Sign Erector /,�,��� -U, Addres . , Tvoe of Sign Design Wearhar rnvPr Liohr_iria � - v �f Illuminated - Yes < No Watts — Electrical Contractor — Address — Phone Property Owner or his Agent Signature Phone P ; '7 Zsti=ated Cost Sign Widt . S Height E To tai Square Feet � p Position of the adver_isenent structure in relationship to the ad -4acent buildings, sidewalks, curbs, roadways, overhead utility lines, vehicle movement lines, or public facilities on drawing with significant dimensions and attached hereto of major signs. Hinor signs as defined on page 2. Two blueprints of the sign, billboard, or outdoor advertising structure construction plans: including specifications, list of materials, and e=licit anchoring or fastening details and a copy of the stress sheets, calculations, color of sign structure. Does the sign copy relate solely to the business, institution, or ac?tty conducted on the premises? 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? Apblicant's Signature and Titl th Firm Phone Number 9 - -' 9 / P' Lkt 1985 PLEASE SEE REVERSE. SIDE FOR SIGN LOCATION S =TCH Sivert Hendrickson /Building Official - 866 -5061 Wall Projecting Ground Roof Pedestal Changeable Temporary Trailer Single Face Double Face Multi -Faced I Aerial /Blimp Searchlight Banner /Pennants Portable Frame: I T ❑ A 17 Post Clear Lexon Constant Frosted Lexon Flashing Plastic Covered Revolving Shaded Traveling Neon Zip Lite Other - Other,E :tplai= Sign Colors i�,'J_ rte.- .��•.� ✓ ✓ I � - v �f Illuminated - Yes < No Watts — Electrical Contractor — Address — Phone Property Owner or his Agent Signature Phone P ; '7 Zsti=ated Cost Sign Widt . S Height E To tai Square Feet � p Position of the adver_isenent structure in relationship to the ad -4acent buildings, sidewalks, curbs, roadways, overhead utility lines, vehicle movement lines, or public facilities on drawing with significant dimensions and attached hereto of major signs. Hinor signs as defined on page 2. Two blueprints of the sign, billboard, or outdoor advertising structure construction plans: including specifications, list of materials, and e=licit anchoring or fastening details and a copy of the stress sheets, calculations, color of sign structure. Does the sign copy relate solely to the business, institution, or ac?tty conducted on the premises? 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? Apblicant's Signature and Titl th Firm Phone Number 9 - -' 9 / P' Lkt 1985 PLEASE SEE REVERSE. SIDE FOR SIGN LOCATION S =TCH Sivert Hendrickson /Building Official - 866 -5061 • GRO L "ND SIGN LEGEND le::-4 ,- ���. % G ,u T PEDEST.0 SIGN —� WIDTH LEGEND WALL SIGN �� WIDTH ' ROOF SIGN WIDTH - - -^ ROOF LEGEND PROJECTING SIGN �E WIDTH — LEGEND Indicate Distance From The Building Indicate legend on the the reverse side in the suace below LEGEND �- e , Place location of sign on this sketch with distance th_ -ign is from pro roerty lines. 1`10 Locate any traffic lights within 300 feet. FINITION: Minor Signs -- Single or double faced sign less than 32 sq. ft. on a common board • I INDICATE NORTH Liu /8/83 � I WALL SIGN �� WIDTH ' ROOF SIGN WIDTH - - -^ ROOF LEGEND PROJECTING SIGN �E WIDTH — LEGEND Indicate Distance From The Building Indicate legend on the the reverse side in the suace below LEGEND �- e , Place location of sign on this sketch with distance th_ -ign is from pro roerty lines. 1`10 Locate any traffic lights within 300 feet. FINITION: Minor Signs -- Single or double faced sign less than 32 sq. ft. on a common board • I INDICATE NORTH Liu /8/83 Date Zoning jj«/ Sign Erected - Yes No ✓ Fee Address of Sign i G������ Proprietor Name ­-�/"/ DBA Sign Type Erector e! �6 ,-7� Address of Sign T)asion LTn�tF�or ('n�sor T.ioi� tins Wall Projecting Ground Roof Pedestal Changeable Temporary Trailer b==--%% Clear Lexon Constant Frosted Lexon Flashing Plastic 0&-Aered- Revolving Shaded Traveling Neon Zip Lite Other Other(Explai= Sign Colors Clt7 Manager lnspectLq, Date a Date a 6 APPROVE DEVfF : bo= APPROVE a DENY� Planning Deplartment City Council Date -7N,190- Date Route to above for special approval per code General Sims APPLICATION FOR'ADVERTISING PERMIT City of Richfield, , Minnesota Date Zoning jj«/ Sign Erected - Yes No ✓ Fee Address of Sign i G������ Proprietor Name ­-�/"/ DBA Sign Type Erector e! �6 ,-7� Address of Sign T)asion LTn�tF�or ('n�sor T.ioi� tins f I?luminated - Yes <: ilo: Watts — lectrical Contractor -- Address Phone _ Property Owner or his Agent Signature, /�.� , � �/��,�r Phone,,�H Esti.:ated Cost / Sign Width Height Total Square Feet ?os tion of th.e. advertise--ent structure in relationship to tae adjacent buildings, sideaals , curbs, roadways, overhead utility lines, vehicle movement lines, or public facilities on draw�zg with significant di=ensions and attached hereto of major signs. Minor signs as defi=ed 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 tae premises? dill the sign, structure, or billboard restrict any sight distance under, around, or over .:or safe access by persons destined for or passing the subject premises? c,,, A e Applicant's Signature and Titkfi with Firm ee '� � .re- Date Phone :Number Lkt 1985 PLEASE SEE REVERSE SIDE FOR SIGN LOCATION SKETCH Sivert Hendrickson /Building Official - 866 -5061 Wall Projecting Ground Roof Pedestal Changeable Temporary Trailer Single Face Double Face Multi -Faced Aerial /Blimp Searchlight as =ex /Pennants Portable Frame: IT Q A n Post 0 Clear Lexon Constant Frosted Lexon Flashing Plastic 0&-Aered- Revolving Shaded Traveling Neon Zip Lite Other Other(Explai= Sign Colors -_(" a f I?luminated - Yes <: ilo: Watts — lectrical Contractor -- Address Phone _ Property Owner or his Agent Signature, /�.� , � �/��,�r Phone,,�H Esti.:ated Cost / Sign Width Height Total Square Feet ?os tion of th.e. advertise--ent structure in relationship to tae adjacent buildings, sideaals , curbs, roadways, overhead utility lines, vehicle movement lines, or public facilities on draw�zg with significant di=ensions and attached hereto of major signs. Minor signs as defi=ed 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 tae premises? dill the sign, structure, or billboard restrict any sight distance under, around, or over .:or safe access by persons destined for or passing the subject premises? c,,, A e Applicant's Signature and Titkfi with Firm ee '� � .re- Date Phone :Number Lkt 1985 PLEASE SEE REVERSE SIDE FOR SIGN LOCATION SKETCH Sivert Hendrickson /Building Official - 866 -5061 GROUND SIGN • WIDTH -- LEGEND WAIL SIGN < WIDTH ' LEGEND • r T PEDESTAL SIGN WIDTH -- LEGEND —] T ROOF SIGN WIDTH - - -? LEGEND PROJECTING SIGN --WIDTH �� LEGEND Indicate Distance From The Building Indicate legend on the the reverse side in the space below LEGEND GROUND I ROOF Place location of sign on this sketch with distance the sign is from property lines. /o Locate any traffic lights within 300 feet. 0 INITION: Minor Signs -- Single or double faced sign less than 32 sq. ft. on a common board INDICATE NORTH L:�T/8/83 }�_ r • u City Manager WA Inspector Date Date � APPROVE g D ENY a : �okSZ APPROVE El DENYa : Plannin t Department City Council Date a I Date Route to above for special approval per code General Signs APPLICATION FOR' ADVERTISING PEP -MIT City of Richfield, , Minnesota Date Zoning /�� � Sign Erected - Yes No Fee j / „e Address of Sign �/ �_ /�� -,t p�� ` Proprietor Name DBA Sign Erector /�_ ,,,,�` v_ Address Type of Signer Design Weather Cover Lizhtin O f Illuminated - Yes �o ) Watts Electrical Contractor — Address Phone — Property Owner or his Agent Signature .�- t -.,��� _�_, .�.�_���E�' Phone, Est4- aced Cost .. Sign Width _3 height 6 Total Square Feet Position of the adrertise=ent st= uc_::ra in relationship to the adiacent buildings, sidewalks cubs, roadways, overhead uti'_i:_ lines, vehicle movement lines, or public facilities on drawing with significant dimensiers 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: ;-chiding 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 the ?remises'. G a� j4�GGG Wi11 the sign, ''st--Ucture, or billboard for safe access by persons destined for business, institution, or activity conducted on restrict any sight distance under, around, or over or passing the subject premises? Apvlicant'4 Signa� ure ane i tle with Firm ?hone Number ,mil 9 - % 9 4P' r� Date Lkt 1985 PLEAS -c SEE REVISE SIDE FOR SIGN LOCATION SKETCH Sivert Hendrickson /Building Official - 866 -5061 Wall Projecting Ground Roof Pedestal Changeable Temporary Trailer Single Face Face :Multi -Faced Aerial /Blimp Searchlight Banner /Pennants Portable Framer A F7,r Post F� Clear Leson Constant Frosted Lea-con Flashing -Plastic Covered Revolving Shaded Traveling Neon Zip Lite Other Other(E..cplai: Sign Colors _1 ,-,- --Double t PIT[:] 1 O f Illuminated - Yes �o ) Watts Electrical Contractor — Address Phone — Property Owner or his Agent Signature .�- t -.,��� _�_, .�.�_���E�' Phone, Est4- aced Cost .. Sign Width _3 height 6 Total Square Feet Position of the adrertise=ent st= uc_::ra in relationship to the adiacent buildings, sidewalks cubs, roadways, overhead uti'_i:_ lines, vehicle movement lines, or public facilities on drawing with significant dimensiers 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: ;-chiding 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 the ?remises'. G a� j4�GGG Wi11 the sign, ''st--Ucture, or billboard for safe access by persons destined for business, institution, or activity conducted on restrict any sight distance under, around, or over or passing the subject premises? Apvlicant'4 Signa� ure ane i tle with Firm ?hone Number ,mil 9 - % 9 4P' r� Date Lkt 1985 PLEAS -c SEE REVISE SIDE FOR SIGN LOCATION SKETCH Sivert Hendrickson /Building Official - 866 -5061 GROUND SIGN LEGEND WALL SIGN ,��--- W'IDTH ' LEGEND • T i i.�• G�ctG c .o.Cc PEDESTAL SIGN PROJECTING SIGN —WIDTH - -�; t�� WIDTH -3 LEGEND T I ROOF SIGN V WIDTH ---�i L _EE GEND 4 LEGEND Indicate Distance From The Building Indicate legend on the the reverse side in the space below LEGEND UAUcvll 1t! ROOF G G zz a/� N Place location of sign on this sketch, with distance the si m ig from Property lines G Locate any traffic lights within 300 feet. W - INITION: Ydnor Signs -- Single or double faced sign less than 32 sq. ft. I on a common board INDICATE NORTH LZ/8/83 CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA 0 Office of City Manager Council Letter No. 298 Agenda: August 11, 1986 The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Richfield Subject: St. Peter's Church Request For Sign Permits For Annual Fall Festival Council Members: St. Peter's Catholic Church has requested four advertising permits for their Annual Fall Festival to be held on September 13th and 14th, 1986. The signs requested are: One temporary banner located on their building at 6720 Nicollet Avenue. It is to be 6' X 316" and will be erected on 8/15/86. One double -faced ground sign located at the same address with a size of 5' X 6'. This sign is to be erected 8/22/86. Temporary banners are to be put up on August 22, 1986. One double -faced ground sign (same location) with a size of 3' X 6' to be put up on 8/29/86. They request waiver of all permit fees. Staff Review: City Council has previously approved signs of this nature. Staff Recommendation: It is recommended that the City Council approve temporary sign permits for the signs requested above. 0 SLD /eja ubmitted, �d nager . U'Cit7 Yana S er Date ' 'OE!'La : , Plannin Deparktmenc Date ��to above for special approval per code Inspector Date 9 APPROVE El DENY?: City Council Date APPLICATION FOR' ADVERTISING PER!"11T City of Richfield, , Minnesota r Date /F--� Zoning />/ �Sign Erected - Yes No ,/ Fee Address of Sign Proprietor Name �� DBA Sign Erector c,,.ti�, f.�� Address Tvne of Si?n DesfoTt truati,or f „or T.i &Fn r;ne J f Illuminated - Yes _�140 Watts 46lectrical Contractor — Address — Phone — Property Owner or his Agent Signature Ph one . � Esti=ted Cost Sign Widt / Height Total Square Feet /9 Position of the advertiserent str.:c_Sra in relationship to the ad4acent buildings, sidewalks, curbs, roadways, overhead utilit: lines, vehicle movement lines, or public facilities on draw'lag with significant di=ensicrs and attached hereto of major signs. - -w nor signs )as defined on page 2. Two bluearints of the sign, billboard, or outdoor advertising structure construction plans: including specifications, list of materials, and e.%-alicit anchoring or fastening details and a copy of the stress sheets, calculations, color of sign structure. Does the sign copv relate solely to the business, institution, or activity conducted on the premises? Will the sign, Est=,- ,cture, or billboard restrict any sight distance under, around, or over for safe access by persons destined for or passing the subject premises? Applicant's Signature and Tttli with Firm ?::ore Number Date 7ze Lkt 19H5 PLEASE SEE REVEI�tSE SIDE FOR SIGN LOCATION SKETCH Sivert Hendrickson /Building Official - 866 -5061 Wall Projecting Ground Roof ?edestal Changeable Temporary Trailer ✓ Single Face Double Face Multi -Faced Aerial /Blimp Searcaiight . Banner /-Rennants- it Portable Frame: { T Q A 7 Post[' Clear Lexon Constant Frosted Lexon Flashing Plastic Covered Revolving Shaded Traveling Neon Zip Lite Other — �/ Other(Explai= Si ,,n Colors �- <T�� 7 J f Illuminated - Yes _�140 Watts 46lectrical Contractor — Address — Phone — Property Owner or his Agent Signature Ph one . � Esti=ted Cost Sign Widt / Height Total Square Feet /9 Position of the advertiserent str.:c_Sra in relationship to the ad4acent buildings, sidewalks, curbs, roadways, overhead utilit: lines, vehicle movement lines, or public facilities on draw'lag with significant di=ensicrs and attached hereto of major signs. - -w nor signs )as defined on page 2. Two bluearints of the sign, billboard, or outdoor advertising structure construction plans: including specifications, list of materials, and e.%-alicit anchoring or fastening details and a copy of the stress sheets, calculations, color of sign structure. Does the sign copv relate solely to the business, institution, or activity conducted on the premises? Will the sign, Est=,- ,cture, or billboard restrict any sight distance under, around, or over for safe access by persons destined for or passing the subject premises? Applicant's Signature and Tttli with Firm ?::ore Number Date 7ze Lkt 19H5 PLEASE SEE REVEI�tSE SIDE FOR SIGN LOCATION SKETCH Sivert Hendrickson /Building Official - 866 -5061 GROUND SIGN U WIDTH —� LEGM �c -- - +rI TH/ ' i LEGEND ��� F,q Lt- Ft6 T, v� 0 PEDESTAL, SIGN WIDTH - - -- LEGEND T ROOF SIGN WIDTH — - -�; LEGEND V IV ROOF y T PROJECTING SIGN ----WIDTH�� LEGEND Indicate Distance From The Building Indicate legend on the the reverse side in the space below LEGEND 13 Place location of sign on this sketch with distance the sign gn is from prop ty lines. Locate any traffic lights within 300 feet. .� OINITION: Minor Signs -- Single or double faced sign less than 32 sq. ft. on a common board INDICATE NORTH T ;T /R /Al Ci,'7 Yana g er Date •Inspector. Date_ el��6� APPROVE DENY =_ V4 , �� }�1p_Q/�� APPROVE DENYa Plannin Depdrtment City Council Date Date Route to above for'special approval per code General Sims APPLICATION FOR' ADVERTISING PERMIT City of Richfield, , Minnesota Date y Zoning ; -'' -e Sign Erected - Yes No ./ Fee Address of Sign m Proprietor Na / /'/ DBA P /y?�7 ,/r � . Sign Erector Addres Type of Sign Design Weather Cover Lightin 0-f Illuminated - Yes -No') — Watts — Electrical Contractor Address — Phone — Property Owner or his Agent Signat::re �:�- - rG�S / Phone _ a Est -_' ated Cost Sign Widta Heizht E, T Ot31 Square Feet � n Position of tae advertise=ent s=;ct;:ra 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. wUnor signs as defined on page 2. Two blueprints of the sign, billboard, or outdoor advertising str•,scture construction plans: including specifications, list of materials, and ex-plicit, anchoring or fastening details and a copy of the stress sheets, calculations, color of sign structure. Does the sign copv relate solely to tae business, institution, or activJ conducted tae pre - ses? T r tae sign, structure, or billboard restrict any sight distance under, around, or for safe access by persons destined for or passing the subject premises? licant's Signature and Title—/with Firm Phone :lumber Lkt 1985 Date PLEASE SEE REVERSE SIDE FOR SIGN LOCATION SKETCH Sivert Hendrickson /Building Official - 866 -5061 .. over Wall Projecting Ground Roof Pedestal Changeable Temporary Trailer Single Face Double Face Multi -.aced I Aerial /Blimp Searchlight Banner /Pennants Portable Frame: I T [] A,7 Post Clear Lexon, Constant Frosted lexon Flashing Plastic Covered Revolving Shaded Traveling Neon Zip Lite " Other - OtherExplai: Sign Colors �w �Ne ✓.�.� / /_7`�i� C� r ✓ ✓ ✓ 1 0-f Illuminated - Yes -No') — Watts — Electrical Contractor Address — Phone — Property Owner or his Agent Signat::re �:�- - rG�S / Phone _ a Est -_' ated Cost Sign Widta Heizht E, T Ot31 Square Feet � n Position of tae advertise=ent s=;ct;:ra 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. wUnor signs as defined on page 2. Two blueprints of the sign, billboard, or outdoor advertising str•,scture construction plans: including specifications, list of materials, and ex-plicit, anchoring or fastening details and a copy of the stress sheets, calculations, color of sign structure. Does the sign copv relate solely to tae business, institution, or activJ conducted tae pre - ses? T r tae sign, structure, or billboard restrict any sight distance under, around, or for safe access by persons destined for or passing the subject premises? licant's Signature and Title—/with Firm Phone :lumber Lkt 1985 Date PLEASE SEE REVERSE SIDE FOR SIGN LOCATION SKETCH Sivert Hendrickson /Building Official - 866 -5061 .. over J GROLM— SIGN WIDTH —� LEGEND 4 T- Y A _I WALL SIGN ,�� -- -+vI TH ' LEGF -',M • PEDESTAL SIGN WIDTH --- LEGEND ROOF SIGN WIDTH' —�� ROOF LEGEND fi ,y fi PROJECTING SIGN — WIDTH —�j LEGEND Indicate Distance From The Building Indicate legend on the the reverse side in the saace below LEGEND Place location of sign on this sketch with distance th "ig is from pro Qerty lines. �`/ a Locate any traffic lights within 300 feet. _ - "— IV INITION: Minor Signs -- Single or double faced sign less than 32 sq. ft. on a common board INDICATE NORTH Liu /8/83 4�� - 4 CITY OF RICHFIELD, Minnesota Office of City Manager Council Letter No. 297 Agenda August 11, 1986 The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Richfield Subject: Purchase in Excess of $5 -000 Council Members: The City Council policy resolution on purchasing provides that when the purchase of merchandise, materials, equipment or construction exceeds the amount of $5,000, authority to purchase shall be submitted to the City Council for consideration. There is one such item on the agenda for August 11, 1986. Wood Lake Nature Center External Improvements The purpose of this project is to replace the wood pavers of the entryway ramp and side door activity pads with concrete paving blocks. The project was first proposed in 1983. The immediate need was to replace the rotting wood block pavers of the entryway, which were installed in 1970. These are a distinct safety hazard because the surface is quite uneven and soft. The second safety need was to improve traction on the wood ramp that runs from the gate to the building doors which has become extremely slippery. The same interlocking concrete paving blocks can be used to replace both the wood blocks and ramp. In addition, each linkway of the building has a small wood block activity pad which should be replaced and enlarged so tables and chairs can be set up outside on a firm surface. A total of $15,000 has been budgeted in the CIP to accomplish this work. The style of blocks was chosen first, and the only two local contractors available were contacted. Both contractors bid a total price of $12.941.76 ($4.08 /square foot). Meadowbrook Farms of Plymouth, Minnesota, however, appears to have more experience working with small projects such as this. Therefore, it is recommended that the bid for external improvements to Wood Lake Nature Center be awarded to Meadowbrook Farms of Plymouth, Minnesota in the amount of $12,941.76. Res tfully bmitted, vic Acting City Manager SD /eja CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Office of City Manager Council Letter No. 296 Agenda August 11, 1986 The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Richfield Subject: Request for Permit To Erect An Illuminated Sign at King Oscars, 1120 East 66th Street Council Members: Leroy Signs Incorporated has requested an advertising permit to erect a 22' x 2' 9" illuminated wall sign at King Oscars Restaurant, 1120 East 66th Street. Staff Review: The inspection division staff has reviewed the sign permit application and finds that the sign conforms to all applicable city ordinances. City ordinances provide that the city council must approve all permits for illuminated signs. Recommendation: It is recommended that the city council approve the permit for an illuminated sign at King Oscars Restaurant, 1120 East 66th Street. SD /eja • Res c full4Manage ted Acti g City • L ex a a UTrL ES.- _y.IeLLOW FLEX Ilr4kcw ) L SILV WOE, I .fvc L LLCPi4'•lL TTROVE I I DENZ U: APPROVE Li DEN-Y": -�'- City Manager Inspector Date Date APPROVE 'DENY a : APPROVE DENY❑ : Plan ni g epartment City Council Date 7� 41(2 Date Ote to above for special approval per code General Signs APPLICATION FOR ADVERTISING PER:fIT City of Richfield, Minnesota Date 'j :�)q Q C Zoning Sign Erected Yes No � Fee Address of Sign ! 1 '1 C, e Proprietor Name ��c.. � 25 DBA Sign Ereetorl _ (*' ,;., C_ Address_I_ _; ,1.i 'c. -_ �coro ti TvDe of Sien Desicn Weather Cover Lighting If Illuminated �s No Watts 1 "I .i 0ctrical Contractor Property Owner or his Agent Signature Address Estimated Cost C 0 Sign Width--!.,? F Height 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 Z. Phone Phone Total Square Feet •?jacent 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 o*_ materials, and explicit ancher_ng or faste=ning 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? 'Y'.-- 5 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? Njo N'c/�ey Applicant's Signature and Title with Firm Date '71,31 '��_, Phone Number S 3 - C C WPLEASE SEE REVERSE. SIDE FOR SIGN LOCATION SKETCH Sivert Hendrickson /Building Official - 866 -5061 Wall Projecting Ground Roof Pedestal Changeable Temporary Trailer i Single Face Double Face Multi -Faced Aerial /Blimp Searchlight Banner /Pennants Portable Frame: T 7 A n Post E. 1 Clear Lexon Constant Frosted Lexon Flashing Plastic Covered Revolving Shaded Traveling Neon Zip Lite Other Other(Explain) Sign Colors _ n_ tf - If Illuminated �s No Watts 1 "I .i 0ctrical Contractor Property Owner or his Agent Signature Address Estimated Cost C 0 Sign Width--!.,? F Height 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 Z. Phone Phone Total Square Feet •?jacent 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 o*_ materials, and explicit ancher_ng or faste=ning 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? 'Y'.-- 5 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? Njo N'c/�ey Applicant's Signature and Title with Firm Date '71,31 '��_, Phone Number S 3 - C C WPLEASE SEE REVERSE. SIDE FOR SIGN LOCATION SKETCH Sivert Hendrickson /Building Official - 866 -5061 • GROUND SIG' �{ —WIDTH LEGEND WALL SIGN :k, , WIDTH -V LEGEND AL'S r� PEDESTAL. SICK —WIDTH- LEGEND /1 I LQ C ,_,vim � ; �, C � � Z +_�•�% -", Z7 _ GROUNM , f ROOF SIGN WIDTH ROOF LEGEND PROJECTING SIGN LEGE::D Indicate Distance IVFrom The Building UND Indicate legend on the the reverse side in the space beiow LEGE.-M Place location of sign on this sketch with distance the sign is from property lines. Locate any traffic lights within 300 feet. DEFINITI0:7: Minor Sins -- Single or double faced sign less than 32 sq. ft. on a common board UZICATE ;:OATH LIZ/3/33 fi /1 I LQ C ,_,vim � ; �, C � � Z +_�•�% -", Z7 _ GROUNM , f ROOF SIGN WIDTH ROOF LEGEND PROJECTING SIGN LEGE::D Indicate Distance IVFrom The Building UND Indicate legend on the the reverse side in the space beiow LEGE.-M Place location of sign on this sketch with distance the sign is from property lines. Locate any traffic lights within 300 feet. DEFINITI0:7: Minor Sins -- Single or double faced sign less than 32 sq. ft. on a common board UZICATE ;:OATH LIZ/3/33 4 0- CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Office of City Manager Council Letter No. 293 Agenda August 11, 1986 The Honorable Mayor and Members Of The City Council City of Richfield Subject: Citizen Commendation to Ms. Molly Jo Nordstrom Council Members: On June 26, 1986, at approximately 6:15 p.m., the Public Safety Department responded to a medical emergency in the 7500 block of Logan Avenue. Ms. Molly Nordstrom was baby- sitting two young children at this location. The youngest, an eight month old baby, had been sleeping in her crib. Ms. Nordstrom found the baby had stopped breathing and was turning blue. She immediately started to administer CPR to the child and continued until the vital signs stabilized. She then called 911 for assistance. • When Public Safety Officials arrived, they found the baby in a stable condition with vital signs returned to normal. It appeared that the baby had suffered from a condition identified as sudden infant death syndrome. Ms. Nordstrom acted quickly and heroically. The manner in which she handled this emergency was instrumental in saving the life of the child. It is the recommendation of the Director of Public Safety, in which I concur, that the council recognize Ms. Molly Jo Nordstrom for a job well done in contributing to the Public Safety effort of our community. SD /eja • 2 Resp ctf lly s mitt d, r t n Acting City Manager ,* v • • ■ i O ova i f+ L O C. ■� Q 011-1 July 16, 1986 Ms. Molly Jo Nordstrom 7601 Upton Avenue South Richfield, Minnesota 55423 W Dear Ms. Nordstrom: I have been informed by our Public Safety personnel of the outstanding life saving effort you extended to a Tamra Kazemi on June -26, 1986. The Public Safety Officers who responded to the incident have informed me that your actions were both appropriate and instrumental in saving Tamra's life. I would like to both congratulate and thank you for the very competent and professional manner in which you rendered this life saving assistance. The Richfield City Council would like to recognize you for your significant contribution to the Public Safety effort in our community. Mayor John Hamilton would be pleased to have you appear at the council meeting scheduled for Monday, August 11, 1986. At that time he would like to present you with a Certificate of Appreciation for your outstanding actions in this matter. The presentation would occur at the beginning of the council meeting scheduled for 7 :00 p.m., that evening at city hall. I will plan to call you the first part of August to finalize the arrangements for this council meeting. Again, on behalf of the entire Public Safety Department, we commend you for your outstanding contribution to the Public Safety service in our community. Sincerely, Thomas A. Mdrgan, Jr. Director of Public Safety TAM /lje telephone: 869_7521 (612) an equal eppMmity empleyw N L0 f+ O ■ �. ■ i O ova i f+ L O C. ■� Q 011-1 July 16, 1986 Ms. Molly Jo Nordstrom 7601 Upton Avenue South Richfield, Minnesota 55423 W Dear Ms. Nordstrom: I have been informed by our Public Safety personnel of the outstanding life saving effort you extended to a Tamra Kazemi on June -26, 1986. The Public Safety Officers who responded to the incident have informed me that your actions were both appropriate and instrumental in saving Tamra's life. I would like to both congratulate and thank you for the very competent and professional manner in which you rendered this life saving assistance. The Richfield City Council would like to recognize you for your significant contribution to the Public Safety effort in our community. Mayor John Hamilton would be pleased to have you appear at the council meeting scheduled for Monday, August 11, 1986. At that time he would like to present you with a Certificate of Appreciation for your outstanding actions in this matter. The presentation would occur at the beginning of the council meeting scheduled for 7 :00 p.m., that evening at city hall. I will plan to call you the first part of August to finalize the arrangements for this council meeting. Again, on behalf of the entire Public Safety Department, we commend you for your outstanding contribution to the Public Safety service in our community. Sincerely, Thomas A. Mdrgan, Jr. Director of Public Safety TAM /lje telephone: 869_7521 (612) an equal eppMmity empleyw .--e s CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Office of City Manager Council Letter No. 294 Agenda August 11, 1986 The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Richfield Subject: Recognition of Fourth of July Committee Members Council Members: Members of the Fourth of July Committee will be present at the August 11, 1986 city council meeting to receive recognition for another very successful Fourth of July in the City of Richfield. The members of the committee are: Howard Bunce Ethel Naslund Carolyn Doeden Roxane Nelson Paula Ekstrand Dick Swedean George Evans Joyce Swedean Bob Houlton Dan Thurber Paul Kaiser Sheryl Thurber Carole Memmel Joanne Wilmes As the membership of the committee has not changed significantly for the past few years, most of these members have previously received Certificates of Appreciation from the city council. Therefore, as a token of appreciation to the members of the committee, City of Richfield coffee mugs will be presented to the members at the August 11, 1986 city council meeting. R c fully u ted, L. Vic Acting City Man ger .t SD /e ja • CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Office of City Manager Council Letter No. 295 Agenda August 11, 1986 The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Richfield Subject: Request for Permit for Illuminated Sign at Hansons Auto Spa, 6420 Penn Avenue Council Members: Attracta Sign Incorporated has requested an advertising permit to erect a 12' x 16' illuminated pedestal sign at Hansons Auto Spa, located at 6420 Penn Avenue. City ordinance provides that the city council must approve all permits for illuminated signs. Staff Review: The inspection division staff has reviewed the sign permit application and finds that the sign conforms to all applicable city ordinances. Recommendation: It is recommended that the city council approve the permit for an illuminated pedestal sign at Hansons Auto Spa, 6420 Penn Avenue. SD /eja itted, Acti6g City Manager z • ' Yu : , 4 "DENY" : APPROVE DEN � t rtG � --"� City Manager- Inspector / v Date Date APPROVE 7DENYF� : • .�u,{L 069 APPROVE ❑ DENY u Plann17-;z> De artment City Council oa �,HQ �G NaT $ P PA�wwe, . Date b Date Route to above for special approval.-per.code General Signs APPLICATION FOR ADVERTISING PERMIT l, ,9�0"000 City of Richfield, Minnesota Date 7 -24 -86 Zoning Sign .Erected - Yes. X No Fee 52.50 Address of Sign 6420 Penn Ave. So. Proprietor Name Paul Hanson DBA Hansons Auto Sign Erector Attracta Sign, Inc. Address Type of Sign nAQicn Spa 6417 Penn Ave. So. Weather Cover Lighting i` Illuminated - Yes No �'L�lectrical Contractor Property Owner or his Agent Signature Watts Address Phone Phone Estimated Cost 1,800.00 Sign Width 12' Height 16 Total Square Feet 192 Position of the advertisement structure in relationship to the adjacent buildings, sidewalks, curbs, roadways, overhead utility lines, vehicle movement lines, or public facilities on drawing with significant dimensions and attached hereto of major signs. Minor signs as defined on page 2. Two blueprints of the sign, billboard, or outdoor advertising structure construction plans: including specifications, list of materials, and explicit anchoring or fastening details and a copy of the stress sheets, calculations, color of sign structure. Does the sign copy relate solely to the business, institution, or activity conducted on the premises? Yes Will the sign, structure, or billboard restrict any sight distance under, around, or over for s access by persons destined for or passing the subject premises? No y L Applicant' Signature and Title with Firm Date 7 -24 -86 Phone Number 866 -3047 Ot 8/83 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 [] AM Post M Clear Lexon X Constant Frosted Lexon Flashing Plastic Covered Revolving Shaded Traveling Neon Zip Lite Other Other(Explain) Sign Colors Red, White & Black X i` Illuminated - Yes No �'L�lectrical Contractor Property Owner or his Agent Signature Watts Address Phone Phone Estimated Cost 1,800.00 Sign Width 12' Height 16 Total Square Feet 192 Position of the advertisement structure in relationship to the adjacent buildings, sidewalks, curbs, roadways, overhead utility lines, vehicle movement lines, or public facilities on drawing with significant dimensions and attached hereto of major signs. Minor signs as defined on page 2. Two blueprints of the sign, billboard, or outdoor advertising structure construction plans: including specifications, list of materials, and explicit anchoring or fastening details and a copy of the stress sheets, calculations, color of sign structure. Does the sign copy relate solely to the business, institution, or activity conducted on the premises? Yes Will the sign, structure, or billboard restrict any sight distance under, around, or over for s access by persons destined for or passing the subject premises? No y L Applicant' Signature and Title with Firm Date 7 -24 -86 Phone Number 866 -3047 Ot 8/83 PLEASE SEE REVERSE SIDE FOR SIGN LOCATION SKETCH Sivert Hendrickson /Building Official - 866 -5061 OR 6 N�nS�InS uI Oa r- '� 120 Cr Y . y•_ p...t'r �' lx t'�.t �� ...� id..v?)avt�1 L2 �. i ... l�t. �.� - .. .. Y . v C I 3 rl 6. `, - _. , _ a - f y • niklS ... '• > 7 Apli 2 'ri'ii+a4R _ y •7: . L .1 �,�4� •r F 'Y