12-28-81 agenda
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Office of City Manager
Council Letter No. 460
Agenda December 28, 1981
The Honorable Mayor
and
Members of the City Council
City of Richfield
Council Members:
Subject: Resolution Amending 1981 Budget
There is an extra item placed on the December 28, 1981 city
council agenda providing for council consideration of a resolution
which would amend the city's 1981 General Fund budget. The City
Charter provides that the city council must appropriate monies
for operations of the city on a department level basis. During
the course of the year, the city council usually amends the oper-
ating budget at least once, by approving a revised budget proposal
in conjunction with approving the next year's proposed budget.
However, during the course of 1981, circumstances arose which meant
that in the Other Agencies activity budget, 1981 expenditures ex-
ceed the appropriation contained even in the revised 1981 budget.
The Other Agencies budget appears to be overspent by about
$15,000, which is entirely costs associated with the cable tele-
vision franchising process. The costs were items that were expend-
ed in cash by the City of Edina on behalf of the Southwest Subur-
ban Cable Commission (SWSCC). All of the SWSCC costs are split be-
tween the five communities with the costs being born by the cable
company. In order to accurately reflect the real costs, the City
of Richfield must accrue $15,000 of expenditures and an offsetting
$15,000 of revenue for the cable franchising process. Although
expenditures by the city council are under budget, it appears that
the overall Legislative Dept. budget may be overspent if the
budget appropriation for this department is not amended.
Therefore, it is recommended that the city council adopt the
attached resolution, authorizing the transfer of appropriations
from the Community Service Department budget to the-Legislative De-
partment budget as described.
Respectfully submitted,
Karl Nollenberger
• City Manager
cc: Community Services Director
Administrative Services Director
Finance Coordinator
KN/eja
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING REVISIONS OF 1981
BUDGET OF VARIOUS DEPARTMENTS
WHEREAS, Resolution Number 6290 appropriated funds for personal services,
and other expenses and capital outlays for each department of the City for the
year 1981; and
WHEREAS, the City Manager has requested a revision of the 1981 budget
appropriations in accordance with Charter provisions.
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of
Richfield, Minnesota, as follows:
1. That the 1981 appropriations for the following department of the
General Fund be revised as follows:
GENERAL FUND AMOUNT
Legislative $15,000 Increase
2. That the 1981 estimated revenues of the General Fund be revised
as follows:
GENERAL FUND AMOUNT
• Charges for Services $15,000 Increase
3. That the City Manager bring into effect the provisions of this
resolution.
Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota, this
28th day of December, 1981.
Donald J. Priebe Mayor
ATTEST:
Sylvia K. Bergh City Clerk
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Office of City Manager
0
The Honorable Mayor
and
Members of the City Council
City of Richfield
Council Members:
Subject: City Manager Compensation
Council Letter No. 459
Agenda December 28, 1981
When the city council last considered the compensation package
for the city manager, I believe it was your intent to reconsider the
issue in December for an effective date of January 1, 1982. This
would put the city manager's compensation back on the normal city
review schedule and bring it into the same schedule as most of the
rest of the metropolitan cities.
I have enclosed a salary survey showing the existing salary
situation in cities over 25,000 population in the metro area. The
average salary for 1981 is $47,367 (-ompared to the current salary
of $47,253 in Richfield. So far, eight of the 14 cities have
made determinations for 1982 averaging an 8.7 percent increase.
The increases ranged from five percent to ten percent, with most of
the cities going around nine percent.
On an internal comparison basis, our management pay plan was
adjusted by eight percent for 1982. This means that employees who
are in the mid-part of their salary range (such as I am as it relates
to city manager positions) would be eligible for pay increases as
follows:
Unsatisfactory 0%
Adequate 60
Standard 8%
Above Standard 10%
Outstanding 12%
The average salary increase given in our management will be around
9.0 percent.
Council Letter No. 459 -2- December 28, 1981
There are three areas of compensation that the council might
like to consider: salary, retirement and car allowance. I would
suggest that the salary increase be limited to five percent in order
v? to keep the total salary below $50,000. Any additional increase
that the council would like to give could go as a contribution to
the retirement plan of the city manager. In addition, I would suggest
that the council increase the car allowance from $225 per month to
$245 per month, an 8.9 percent increase. This allowance was last
increased two years ago, and I find the business use of my vehicle
has exceeded the $225 per month figure in the last year and one-half.
Respectfully submitted,
Karl Nollenberger
City Manager
•
i
0
0
x n 3 m d Fl ;j td n 3 m Cn b7
n n n o r? o r r n (t a
?C Fd O ?j r m n O n O r O
C 'z3 rt (D x O N C to rh (D ?-N, t' w
(D n w £ (D s; (D r C xi r- rt O N•
n r H O ?C rt N r fy (D O l<
F-' O H' F- li? N r•
? (D F r a rr
(
D I- n (D CL b O
(D
b
O
i-h E? rf- 7' Fi
(D 7
rr co Fl
:D' O
(D
3
(D (D N N W W W w w w W W W XA .n ,A J
Fl- rt- Ul Cl O O O N U7 (.P J co ?.o N N Un Q0
? ?-l 1
?3' O J C1 O C) l.C w Ui --l F-' -1 N J 00 O J
(t '"o N N N N N F--' N IA W W Up O W Cl 00
O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O
r- rr
(? Sv
?3, n
pi
O
a
A
a
p
QP
A
A
a
a
a
l -cn
-1
C r- --1 W C) H .A C1 00 l0 .A J w J OJ U
.P
(D 1.3
() O Oo O H C, m Ul Ul O N w H O U-1 O
a F- O O O .A A O O O UP O Un O O O
(D F- O O O O lD O O O w m w O O O
r n
a (D
(D t:5
a cn Ul z U-1 .tom z u, z z Ln z v, to
rl \ O w \ O \ \ 00 \ N \ ,p
cn cn
I
O O F- H OJ X, W N O
C7 O A ?O ?I O W O O
?h Q1 O O J O O W O
Al (t
? !L
I-'
Co Z \O u, Z l0 Z O
U-1 > O O O > > O
,n
H
FC
rd
O
l?
y
H
O
FL'
rr Q0
?y co
d N
FC
H
Z ?O LO Z do
> O W xJ O
do N F1
Jy
m n m n m x ?o w CTS w b n
? r• a o n n n n r• rt o ? a N 1? H
' u O O r K: O 0 n N O ?C t -3
r ?J ?:l O CZ co O ?3"
t (D ?:5 O F-'
(D (D 7 F- rt 7 ?-h C to P) ?l O
0 0 ?D N < (D N r rt
cn F-I
a
r• (D rt
a a n b b (D o
cn rt >v
.A .A .A .A .n .A .A .A .A .P ? .A .A .A .
(n
?l N Li w .A G) 0) -_j ? -_j co co
w F W co O O Cl O F N O UD Ui UP O Cl QJ
m .A O O O O O Ul Lp O O O O O A U H
-l O 01 O O O ?C O W W O O O O O ?O FC
it
LP n c? to Lp Ul I Z z v, Ul
Z
cn
N W \ \ 00 O O F-' I ' \ \ \ A 0 \
> >
FJ F A F cc O W N O ,> w
O O ,A ?I O W O O ly N
J O O O O QO W O
W
x
H Cn
n >
x C
t7 >
Cn ;o
to H
n
y Cn
O
x
t-' y
m l•J
(n
y
n
r•
r• H
K
O?
C r
(D 2
n>
c
Ut ?
O U
O >
O
b
O K
C LI.
>J x
rt C
P- t-
O K
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING 1982
COMPENSATION FOR CITY MANAGER
WHEREAS, the City has a Letter of Understanding with Karl
Nollenberger, City Manager, dated May 14, 1979; and
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Richfield desires
to establish certain 1982 compensation provisions for the city
manager effective January 1, 1982.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Letter of Understanding
between Karl Nollenberger and the City of Richfield is amended as
follows:
Section 2. SALARY. Is amended to read "The City of Richfield
agrees to pay Karl Nollenberger an annual salary at the rate of
$ per year for the year starting January 1, 1982, and
thereafter at such rate as may from time to time be fixed by the
City Council."
Section 3. CITY PLANS. Subparagraph a. CAR ALLOWANCE.
Is amended to read "Nollenberger will be paid a car allowance of
two hundred forty-five ($245) dollars per month to compensate him
for all city driving on City business within the seven (7) county
µr,-. ?.^11 .'er?er will be further compensated for all city driving
on City business outside the seven (7) county area at the rate of
twenty-two (.22) cents per mile (this rate shall be subject to
change from time to time due to economic changes and will be handled
by Resolution) in addition to the two hundred forty-five ($245)
dollars per month car allowance.
Section 8. RETIREMENT, ICMA Plan. The City agrees to continue
the agreement provided by the ICMA retirement plan and the City of
Richfield. The City will contribute
percent of salary to the ICMA plan in addition to any contribution
to the plan which Nollenberger requests to be deducted from his
salary.
Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield this 28th
day of December, 1981.
Donald J. Priebe, Mayor
ATTEST:
0
Sylvia K. Bergh City Clerk
C-0
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Office of City Manager
The Honorable Mayor
and
Members of the City Council
City of Richfield
Council Members:
Council Letter No. 458
Agenda December 28, 1981
Subject: Temporary Loan to Various Capital Improvement
Projects
During 1981, the city initiated four Capital Improvement
projects which are to be financed in large part by special assess-
ments. Because of the timing for completion of these projects, the
special assessment rolls will not be adopted and certified until
sometime in early 1982, and the first special assessment revenues
collected until very late 1982 or in conjunction with property tax
payments received on July of 1983.
In order to meet the costs already incurred for these public
improvement special assessment projects, it is requested that the
council authorize the issuance of Temporary Improvement Bonds from
the Refunding Bonds of 1978 debt service fund. The temporary bonds
will finance these projects until the permanent bonds are sold.
The attached reoslution provides for the issuance of temporary
bonds dated December 1, 1981, in the amount of $510,000. These
temporary bonds will finance the front end project design and
engineering costs as well as the already incurred construction costs
a for CP 734, permanent alley improvements, CP 761, arterial street
lighting, CP 765, the 1981 alley maintenance program, and CP 770,
the L/I3/N maintenance program (July through December 1981). The bonds
will mature on December 4, 1984, but may be recalled earlier.
It is recommended that the city council adopt the attached
resolution, authorizing the issuance of these temporary bonds.
Respectfully submitted,
1
Karl Nollenberger
City Manager
KN/sh
• cc: Administrative'Services Director
Community Development Director
Community Services Director
City Engineer
Finance Coordinator
RESOLUTION NO.
• RESOLUTION DIRECTING THE ISSUANCE AND SALE OF TEMPORARY
IMPROVEMENT BONDS, SERIES 33 TO THE REFUNDING BONDS
OF 1978 SINKING FUNDS IN ACCORDANCE ti4ITH MINNESOTA
STATUTES, CHAPTER 429
BE IT RESOLVED BY THE City Council of the City of Richfield, Hennepin County,
Minnesota, as follows:
1. The total estimated costs of City Projects No. 734, 761, 765 and 770,
otherwise known as 1981 Permanent Alley Improvements, Arterial Street Lighting,
1981 Alley Maintenance and L/H/N Maintenance has been estimated at $510,000.
It is now estimated that this sum is currently necessary to provide financing
for the cost of said projects, and it is hereby determined to be necessary to
borrow said amount for the payment of obligations now incurred and for expenses
necessarily incurred in connection with the construction of said project.
There has been created a Bond Fund into which shall be paid the proceeds of
temporary bonds issued pursuant to this resolution and out of which shall be
paid all amounts due and payable as costs or expenses incident to or incurred
in connection with the making of said improvements. There is also hereby
created Series 33 accounts in the Temporary Improvement Bonds Common Sinking
Fund into which fund shall be paid the proceeds of all special assessments
levied against benefited property by reason of the making of said improvements
and out of which shall be paid principal and interest on all temporary improve-
ment bonds issued to finance said projects.
• 2. It is hereby determined that the sum shall be borrowed to finance
the following City Projects:
City Project No. 734 $260,000
City Project No. 761 195,000
City Project No. 765 30,000
City Project No. 770 25,000
by issuance of Temporary Improvement Bonds of the city as authorized in
Minnesota Statutes, Section 429.091, Subdivision 3. Said bonds shall be payable
from the Temporary Improvement Bonds Common Sinking Fund, Series 33 accounts,
but the city further recognizes its statutory duty, as provided by Section
429.091, and covenants and agrees with the purchaser and all holders from time
to time of said temporary improvement bonds, at or prior to the maturity thereof
it will pay and retire such bonds and the interest thereon out of the proceeds
of definitive improvement bonds which the council shall issue and sell at or
prior to the maturity of the Temporary Improvement Bonds, to the extent that
the same cannot be paid out of funds available in the Temporary Improvement
Bonds Common Sinking Fund, Series 33 accounts, or out of other municipal funds
which are properly available and are appropriated by the council for such purposes.
0
3. It is hereby determined to levy special assessments against benefited
property by reason of the making of City Projects No. 734, 761, 765 and 770
and ad valorem taxes, if necessary, to produce sums sufficient to pay principal
when due on said temporary improvement bonds and on any definitive bonds to be •
issued as herein provided, such special assessments to be placed on the tax
v rolls subject to the time when said City Projects have been completed and the
total costs thereof have been determined.
4. Said temporary improvement bonds in the amount of $510,000 shall be
dated December 1, 1981 shall be one in number inclusive, in the denomination
of $510,000, shall mature December 1, 1984, and shall be subject to redemption
at par. Not less than 30 days before the date specified for redemption of
said bonds the City Treasurer shall mail notice of the call thereof to the
holder, if known, and said Treasurer shall maintain a record of the names and
addresses of the holders of said bond insofar as such information is made
available to him by the holders thereof, for the purpose of mailing said notice.
The principal of said bond shall be payable at the Richfield City Hall, 6700
Portland Avenue, Richfield, Minnesota, 55423.
5. Said Temporary Improvement Bond shall be offset printed with attached
interest coupon in substantially the following form:
•
is
-2-
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
' STATE OF MINNESOTA
COUNTY OF HENNEPIN
CITY OF RICHFIELD
TEMPORARY IMPROVEMENT BOND SERIES THIRTY-THREE
NO. ONE
$510,000
KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS that the City of Richfield, a duly organized
municipal corporation of Hennepin County Minnesota, acknowledges itself to
be indebted and for value received, promises to pay to bearer the sum of
FIVE HUNDRED AND TEN THOUSAND DOLLARS on the first day of December, 1984
on a date prior thereto on which this bond has been duly called for redemption.
Principal is payable at the City Hall, City of Richfield, 6700 Portland Avenue,
Richfield, Minnesota, 55423, in any currency or coin of the United States of
America on which the respective dates of payment is public tender for private
and public debts. For the prompt and full payment of such principal as the
same became due the full faith, credit and taxing powers of the city are
hereby irrevocably pledged.
This bond is one, a series in the aggregate principal amount of $510,000
issued by said city for the purpose of defraying expenses incurred and to
be incurred in the construction of improvements designated as "City Projects
No. 734, 761, 765 and 770" by the City of Richfield, consisting of Permanent
Alley Surfacing, Arterial Street Lighting, 1981 Alley Maintenance and L/H/N
Maintenance, and is issued pursuant to and in full conformity with resolutions
• duly adopted by the city council after hearing as required by law and pursuant
to and in full conformity with the constitution and Laws of the State of Min-
nesota thereunto enabling, including Minnesota Statutes, Section 429.091,
Subdivision 3. This bond is payable primarily from the Temporary Improvement
Bonds Common Sinking Fund, Series 33 accounts of the city, but the council
is required to pay the principal thereon out of any funds in the treasury
in the event that the monies on hand in aid funds are at any time insufficient
to meet the payment of maturing principal, and is further required at or prior
to the maturity of this bond, to provide for the payment and retirement thereof
by the issuance of definitive bonds, to the extent, if any, that the assessments
and taxes or other municipal funds theretofore collected and received in said
Sinking Fund may be insufficient for such purpose.
This bond is subject to redemption and prepayment at the option of the city,
at a price of par upon notice of call for redemption mailed not less than 30
days prior to the date specified for such redemption, to the holder, if known.
Bond holders desiring to receive such notice may have their names and addresses
and the serial numbers of their bonds recorded by the City Treasurer.
is
-3-
IT IS HEREBY CERTIFIED, RECITED, COVENANTED AND AGREED that all acts, conditions
and things required by the Constitution and laws of the State of Minnesota to
be done, to exist, to happen and to be performed preliminary to and in the •
issuance of this bond in order to make it a valid and binding general obligation
of said city according to its terms have been done, to exist, have happened and
have been performed as so required; that the city has duly determined the
necessity of and provided for the construction of said improvements; that the
Temporary Improvement Bonds Common Sinking Fund, Series 33 accounts have been
duly created and provision has been made for the support thereof by ad valorem
taxes and special assessments to be levied, at or prior to the time of issuance
of said definitive bonds, for the years and in aggregate amounts not less than
five percent (5%) in excess of sums sufficient to pay the principal on all bonds
payable from said fund as such principal becomes due, and additional taxes, if
needed for said purpose, may be levied upon all taxable property in the city,
without limitation as to rate or amount; that the holder hereof shall have and
may enforce by appropriate proceedings all duties imposed by said Chapter 429
upon the city and its officers with reference to the levy and collection of
said assessments and taxes and the issuance of said definitive bonds; and that
the issuance of this bond did not cause the indebtedness of said city to exceed
any constitutional or statutory limitation.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF the City of Richfield, Hennepin County, Minnesota, by its
City Council, has caused this bond to be executed in its behalf of the signature
of its mayor and manager and sealed with its official seal, and the interest
coupon appurtenant thereto to be executed and authenticated by the facsimile
signatures of said officers,:and has caused this bond to be dated as of
---------------------------
Mayor
Manager ---?
-- -
-4-
6. Said bonus shall be prepared under the direction of the city clerk
and shall be executed on behalf of the city by the signatures of the Mayor
and Manager, and the corporate seal of the city shall be affixed thereto,
and the appurtenant interest coupon shall be executed and authenticated, by
the printed, engraved or lithographed facsimile signature of said Mayor and
Manager. When said bond has been executed and authenticated, it shall be
delivered by the Treasurer to the purchaser thereof, upon payment of the
purchase price heretofore agreed upon and said purchaser shall not be obliged
to see the application thereof.
7. The city clerk is hereby authorized and directed to file a certified
copy of this resolution with the County Auditor of Hennepin County, together
with such other information as he shall require and to obtain from said
County Auditor a certificate that said bonds have been entered on his bond
register.
8. The officers of the city and the County Auditor of Hennepin County
are hereby authorized and directed to prepare and furnish to the purchaser of
said bond and to the attorneys approving the legality of the issuance thereof,
certified copies of all proceedings and records relating to said bond and to
the financial affairs of said city, and such other affidavits, certificates
and information as may be required to show the facts relating to the legality
and marketability of said bond as the same appear from the books and records
under their custody and control or as otherwise known to them, and such
certificates, certified copies and affidavits, including any heretofore
furnished, shall be deemed representations of the city as to the correctness
of all statements contained thereon.
. 9. It is hereby determined that there is at the present time a total
amount in excess of $510,000 in the various sinking funds and other funds
of the city which will not be required for other purposes prior to
December 1, 1984.
10. It is hereby determined to purchase the aforementioned $510,000
Temporary Improvement Bond, Series 33, upon initial issuance, in accordance
with the provisions of Minnesota Statutes, Section 471.56 and 475.66, out of
funds in the following Funds and in the following amounts and on behalf of
said funds, at par and accrued interest as of the date of delivery of said
bond and completion of such sale:
Fund Amount
Refunding Bonds of 1978 $510,000
it being further determined to be reasonable and advantageous to the above
funds to invest in said Temporary Improvement Bond, Series 33, and it being
further determined to be reasonable and advantageous to the city to sell said
Temporary Improvement Bond, Series 33, in accordance with the provisions of
this resolution.
•
C
- J-
11. The city manager, mayor and acting
authorized and directed to take any and all
R provisions of the foregoing resolutions and
may be necessary from time to time, to give
Passed by the City Council of the City of R
finance officer are hereby
steps necessary to affect the
to make transfers of funds as
effect to the provisions thereof.
ichfield this
Mayor
ATTEST;
Sylvia K. Bergh A City Clerk
0
-6-
0
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Office of City Manager
The Honorable Mayor
and
Members of the City Council
City of Richfield
Council Members:
Council Letter No. 457
Agenda December 28, 1981
Subject: Release of Off-street Parking Bond, SuperAmerica
On December 11, 1978, the city council authorized execution
of an off-street parking contract with SuperAmerica, 1240 West 98th
Street, Bloomington, Minnesota, in conjunction with a convenience
store with petroleium products sales, located at 2913 West 66th
Street.
All stipulations have been met, except stipulation Number 7
in which the council stipulated that "the applicant pay for place-
ment of one-way signs on the alley adjacent to the site to prevent
traffic from short-cutting through the alley." The staff
recommends that this stipulation be dropped. It appears that the
• short-cut problem has not materialized, and the one-way designa-
tion would be difficult to enforce.
Therefore, it is recommended that the city council adopt
the attached resolution, authorizing release of the performance
bond for this off-street parking contract.
Respectfully submitted,
Karl Nollenberger
City Manager
KN/sh
cc: Community Development Director
0
RESOLUTION N0.
RESOLUTION RELATING TO RELEASE OF BOND ON
I'I • OFF-STREET PARKING
Superamerica
1240 W. 98th Street
Location: 2913 W. 66th Street
Use: Convenience Store with
Petroleum Products Sales
Contract No. 2281, Application 78-16
WHEREAS, Superamerica had an off-street parking agreement
with the City of Richfield relating to 2913 West 66th Street,
which contract bears the designation of Contract No.2281, and
which contract was guaranteed by an off-street parking
operator's bond in the amount of Nine Thousand Dollars ($9,000)
on which the Insurance Company of North America appears as
j surety, and
WHEREAS, said Superamerica has substantially complied
with the provisions of said agreement and now seek to be relieved
of any further obligation under said bond, and
WHEREAS, there appears to be no justification for re-
quiring said Superamerica to continue to provide a bond for
security on the performance of said agreement.
• NOW, THERE, BE IT RESOLVED by the city council of the
City of Richfield, Minnesota, as follows:
That the city manager is hereby authorized and directed
to release Superamerica for any and all acts committed or
incurred in violation of said Contract No. 2281, on and after
the 28th day of December, 1981.
' Adopted by the city council of the City of Richfield this
28th day of December, 1981.
Donal J. Priebe, Mayor
ATTEST
Sylvia K. Bergh, City Clerk
:*I
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Office of City Manager
• Council Letter No. 456
Agenda December 28, 1981
The Honorable Mayor
and
Members of the City Council
City of Richfield
Council Members:
Subject: Request for Special Use Permit, Variance, and
Off-Street Parking Permit, 1912 East 66th Street
HISTORY
On November 5, 1981, North Star Bumper Exchange suffered a fire
which did considerable damage to their building at 1912 East 66th
Street. Mr. Ray Wood of North Star Bumper Exchange has requested
a special use permit and a variance to the front yard setback
requirements to allow him to renovate and expand the building.
There has been a question of whether or not North Star Bumper
• Exchange is a non-conforming use and whether or not it could repair
and expand the building to continue to operate at the site after
the fire. Based on the applicant's description of the use, the
city attorney's office has determined that the applicant's use is
one which would be permitted by special use permit. No special use
permit has been issued for the property; therefore, the use is a
non-conforming use. As such, it cannot be expanded and if more
than 50 percent of the market value of the building was destroyed
by the fire, the use cannot be continued on the site. To end this
"non-conformity," Mr. Wood has requested that a special use permit
be issued for the property.
PROPOSAL
Mr. Wood is proposing to repair the existing building and add
a 19-foot by 40-foot addition to the front of the building. This
addition would reduce the front yard setback of the building from
44 feet to 25 feet. The only other building on the blokc has a
frontyard setback of 24.5 feet. Thk.average existing setback on
the block is 34.25 feet. Therefore, the variance requested will
reduce the required setback from 34.25 feet to 25 feet (a 9.25-foot
reduction). The proposed addition would be constructed of pattern
concrete block and will match the existing building.
In reviewing.this request, the staff has determined that two
• additional variances will be necessary. The first is to allow a
ten-foot high fence around the outside storage area. The zoning
ordinance sets the maximum fence height at six feet. The second
variance is to clear up a problem with the existing rear yard
setback. The existing building has a rearyard setback of two feet.
Council Letter No. 456 -2-
December 28, 1981
The required rearyard setback under existing conditions is 10 feet;
is with the proposed addition it would be 18 feet. The city council
approved a commercial building permit and an offstreet parking permit
for the building in 1959. The rearyard setback requirements were
the same at that point as they are presently, but city staff can
find no record of a variance ever being officially granted. There-
fore, a variance to allow the building to be two feet from the rear
property line should be considered to clear up this problem.
ORDINANCE REQUIREMENTS
Section 3.33, subdivision 2, lists uses permitted by special
use permit in C-2 general commercial zoning districts. Section
3.33, subdivision 6, and Section 3.32, subdivision 4 list setback
requirements in C-2 general commercial zoning districts. Section
3.40, subdivision 6 lists three conditions which must be met before
a variance may be granted. Section 3.41, subdivision 5, lists
conditions governing the issuance of special use permits.
STAFF SPECIAL USE PERMIT REVIEW
The staff has reviewed the request for a special use permit
and found the following :
1. That the use is not consistent with either the existing
or proposed comprehensive plan. The existing and proposed
comprehensive plan indicates that the site should be
• developed as medium density mixed land use, which generally
would include such uses as single family dwellings, multiple
dwellings, and neighborhood convenience commercial. The
proposed comprehensive plan stipulates, however, that only
existing convenience commercial should be permitted. In the
opion of the staff, the auto parts use would not be a neigh-
borhood convenience commercial use. The site is currently
zoned C-2 general commercial, which allows uses other than
convenience commercial uses. With the issuance of a special
use permit, this use would be consistent with the C-2
zoning district use regulations. It also can be argued
that because of the airport noise present at that site,
this type of use would be appropriate because it would
minimize the number of people exposed to the noise and the
exposure would be limited to the business hours of the use.
The use has existed on the site for a number of years, and
a number of complaints have been filed with the city con-
cerning poor maintenance of the property.
2. The proposed expansion of the building would eliminate five
parking stalls. The proposal indicates that the site will
be redesigned to provide a total of seven parking stalls.
City parking guidelines indicate that a total of eight
parking stalls should be provided. Sufficient area exists
on the site to provide eight parking stalls. The proposal
• also does not meet city offstreet parking lot requirements
for perimeter curbing and sidewalk alone the front of the
building.
Council Letter No. 456 -3- December 28, 1981
3. There currently is a wood fence around the storage area
and along the rear property line which is in disrepair.
4. The proposed use would not result in congestion on
surrounding streets.
STAFF VARIANCE REVIEW
The staff has reviewed the three conditions which must be met
before a variance may be granted and found the following:
1. That there are special conditions affecting this particular
site. The setback of the building adjacent to the
applicant's property on the block has a setback which mould
be slightly less than the proposed building addition. In
terms of the rear yard setback, the fact that the city
issued a permit for the building at its present location
could be considered a special circumstance. No special
circumstances exist which would affect the fence height
variance.
2. That denial of the variances would not preclude reasonable
use of the property. The applicant could renovate the
building and continue to use the property without getting
a variance. Alternatives exist for building expansions
which would not require variances.
• 3. That the proposal would not be detrimental to the public
welfare. The proposal would be an improvement to the
property. The "character" of the block has been established
by the setback of the adjacent building and the proposed
addition would be consistent with that character.
STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS
Because the proposed use has existed on the site and is consistent
with existing zoning and is an appropriate use of the site from an
airport noise standpoint, the staff would recommend that the special
use permit be granted with the following stipulations:
1. That the parking areas be designed to meet city offstreet
parking area standards including number of spaces provided,
perimeter curbing, and sidewalk.
2. That the wood screen fence along the rear of the property be
repaired and properly maintained.
3. That the outside storage area enclosure be constructed to
screen its contents from public view.
Because the variances do not meet all of the three conditions
necessary to grant a variance, the staff must recommend that the
variances be denied.
Council Letter No. 456 -4- December 28, 1981
The staff would recommend that the city council adopt the
attached resolution approving the offstreet parking layout and
authorize execution of an offstreet parking agreement subject to
the following stipulations:
1. That one additional parking stalls be provided;
2. That perimeter curbing be provided;
3. That sidewalk be provided along the front of the building.
PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION
The Planning Commission felt that a special use permit would not
be required for this use. If the city council determines that a
special use permit is necessary, the Planning Commission recommends
that the special use permit be granted.
The Planning Commission recommends that the variance to reduce the
required frontyard setback from 34.25 feet to 25 feet be granted
with the stipulation that the parking area be designed to meet city
off-street parking area standards including number of spaces provided,
perimeter curbing, and sidewalk.
The Planning Commission recommends that the variances to allow
the rearyard setback be reduced to two feet and the maximum fence
height to be increased to 10 feet be granted with the stipulation
that the fence materials be approved by city staff.
0
Respectfully submitted,
Karl Nollenberger
City Manager
KN/sh
cc: Community Development Director
City Planner
0
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION APPROVING LAYOUT AND CONTRACT FOR
OFF-STREET PARKING IN ACCORDANCE WITH APPLICATION
No. 81-11, CONTRACT NO. 2241
North Star Bumper Exchange
1912 E. 66th Street
Location: Same
Use: Auto Parts Dealership
BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Richfield,
Minnesota, as follows:
1. That the proposed geometric layout of the off-street
parking as contained in Off-Street Parking Application No. 81-11,
of performance of the contract for such off-street parking as here-
inafter authorized.
2. That the proposed off-street parking contract for the
improvement of said off-street parking, bearing Contract No. 2241
be placed on file and that the manager be authorized to sign said
contract and the clerk be authorized to seal the same for and on
behalf of this city.
3. That the off-street parking operator provide the City of
Richfield with Surety in the form of cash, passbook saving with-
drawal authority, or performance bond in an amount to be determined
by the community development director and city manager, to ensure
• the off-street parking lot is constructed within the terms and
regulations of the Off-Street Parking Agreement with the following
stipulations:
1. That one additional parking stall be provided
2. That perimeter curbing be provided
3. That a sidewalk be provided along the front of the building
4. That responsibility for the proper upkeep and maintenance
of said off-street parking lot shall remain the responsibility of the
off-street parking lot operator in accordance with Ordinance Code 4.05.
Adopted by the city council of the City of Richfield this
28th day of December, 1981.
Dona J. Priebe, Mayor
ATTEST:
Sylvia K. Bergh, Acting City Clerk
0
F
r
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Office of City Manager
Council Letter No. 455
Agenda December 28, 1981
•
•
The Honorable Mayor
and
Members of the City
City of Richfield
Council Members:
Subject:
Council
Purchases in Excess of $1,000
Chapter 6, Section 6.05 of the city charter stipulates that the
city council must approve the purchase of merchandise, materials,
equipment or construction when the amount exceeds $1,000. There are
two (2) such items on the council agenda of December 28, 1981.
BASKETS
The municipal outdoor swimming pool uses a basket system for patrons
to keep clothes and valuables in the bathhouse where personnel are on
duty. These baskets are in need of replacement. Approximately 150
to 200 baskets are typically used as a maximum at any one time on
$7.25 each of the size to fit our needs at the bathhouse (12 x 20 x 74z
and zinc coated. It is recommended that the city council authorize the
purchase of 360 baskets at $7.25 from Halogen Supply Company, Inc., for
a total purchase price of $2,610.00.
each side of the bathhouse, although the facility does have more
baskets available. One of the last items in the Municipal Pool Im-
provement project, CP 755, provides for the purchase of new baskets.
Verbal quotations have been obtained from Halogen Supply Company,
Inc. and Pools, Inc. Anchor Pools was unable to provide a quotation.
Pools, Inc. indicated they could provide the baskets at $7.25 each but
were unable to identify the details of the baskets, such as size and
fabric. Halogen Supply Company, Inc. could provide the baskets at
II 11 1 it
STREET/TRAFFIC SIGNS
Additional signs are needed to complete the traffic sign inventory
work for replacement of signs or provision of new signs in the city.
Funding for this purchase is through the street division budget, with
reimbursement for a percentage of the cost from a grant program. All
signs are engineer grade reflective sheeting on aluminum per State of
Minnesota specifications. Quotations were received for 50 30" stop
signs; 28 12" x 6" 4-way; four Do Not Enter; one One Way; 73 No Parking
Any Time; two No Parking This Side of Street; five Axle Weight Limit
4 Tons; 57 single arrow; 57 double arrow; 10 Stop Ahead; seven Railroad
Advance Warning; six Ped Xing (symbol); 19 Dead End; one No Passing
Zone; 20 school advance (symbol); two Do Not Pass; one No Parking
Between Signs; two signal ahead (symbol); 165 7' channel posts, 34/foot;
and 165 7' channel posts, 2#/foot. Two quotations were submitted.
Earl F. Andersen and Associates, Inc. quoted $8,092.42 for the package.
Council Letter No.
455 -2-
December 28, 1981
It is recommended that the city council authorize the purchase of
the signs as outlined above from Gopher Signs, Inc. for a total
purchase price of $8,014.67.
Respectfully submitted,
Karl Nollenberger
City Manager
KN/sh
cc: Community Services Director
0
.W ''??s
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Office of City Manager
Council Letter No. 454
Agenda December 28, 1981
The Honorable Mayor
and
Members of the City Council
City of Richfield
Council Members:
Subject: Adams Hill Park Storm Drainage Ponds
From time to time the city council has discussed problems
relating to the Adams Hill Park storm water holding pond. This
problem has consumed numerous hours of discussion, debate and
concern since 1972 when the City of Richfield entered into an
agreement with the City of Edina to receive storm water into the
Adams Hill Park pond. The area serviced by the Adams Hill Park
pond includes 146 acres of development within Edina and 127 acres
of development within Richfield. The Richfield acreage is primarily
residential, which would mean a high absorbency rate, while the
• Edina acreage is primarily commercial, which would mean a
developed hard surface situation. It became apparent very soon
after the agreement between the two cities was signed in 1972 that
the City of Richfield had underestimated the amount of storm water
which was being received by the Adams Hill Park pond. The only
means of removing storm water from the pond was a temporary pump which
was contributed by the City of Edina under the agreement and which was
to be manned by Richfield forces in the rare occasions when water would
exceed the pond's capacity.
In 1980, the city constructed a new storm water pond at Adams
Hill Park, which accounted for the 100-year storm potential without
flooding on private property. During 1981, the storm water pond was
successful in that no private property was inundated. However, it
became obvious that storm water inundation within the park reached
levels of unacceptability without a permanent pumping arrangement.
Previous to park development, water levels would stay in the park for
periods of time similar to 1981 but did not produce an unacceptable
situation since the park was not in a developed state. Intensified
negotiations with the City of Edina transpired as a result of the
development of the park.
The negotiations with Edina have yielded the agreement which is
attached to this council letter. The city management of the City of
Edina has agreed to recommend this agreement to their city council
if it is approved by the. City of Richfield. The agreement would call
• for the City of Richfield to build a three and one-half cubic foot
per second pump into a pump station to service the pond. A three
and one-half cfs pump is the largest which could currently be constructF
in this location due to the limitations of the piping from Adams Hill
Park into the Edina system. The pump would be turned on when the
elevation of the water at Adams Hill Park reaches 110 Richfield datum
Council Letter No.
-2-
December 28, 1981
which preserves the pond for major rainfalls without inundating the
north portion of the park. The entire capital work for the 1982
pump installation would be borne by the City of Richfield and is
included in the 1982 budget of the sewer fund in the amount of $100,000.
When the Hedberg property is developed, Edina is committed
to constructing a storm sewer from the Adams Hill pump station to a
storm water drainage pond to be located on the Hedberg property in
southeast Edina. The City of Richfield would then be in the position
to increase the pumpage capacity from Adams Hill Park pond to the
Hedbera . property from three and one-half cfs to nine cfs. Nine cfs
would provide the city with maximum 100-year flood protection at all
times in the Adams Hill Park pond. Three and one-half cfs pumping until
the Hedberq property dovetops would double the existing pumping ability
that we experienced during 1981. The cost of providing the force
main would be borne by the City of Edina. The cost of the force main
in 1982 dollars is $138,230. At the time of the implementation for
the construction of the force main, the City of Richfield would bear
additional costs of $15,000 to increase the pumpage capacity. The
total 1982 dolldar cost to the City of Richfield would be $LG9 00,ONI3
as compared to $138,230 for the City of Edina. The City of Edina
would end up paying 56 percent of the cost compared to Richfield's
44 percent of the construction cost. It could be argued that 77 percent
of the water drainage comes from the City of Edina into Adams Hill
Park pond; but in light of the 1972 agreement which obligates the
City of Richfield to fully take care of the water problem, the agree-
ment which is before the city council appears to be a judicious one.
In addition, the City of Edina will pay the electricity cost related
to the pump station maintenance.
The above factors indicate that the agreement attached to this
council letter is beneficial to the City of Richfield and at the
same time resolving a long-standing problem in our community. I
would recommend that the city council approve the agreement and
request the city council of the City of Edina to give it favorable
consideration.
KN/sh
Resp ctfully submitted,
,? ? o. ?19
Karl Nollenberger
City Manager
cc: Community Services Director
Consulting Engineers
•
RICHFIELD-EDINA AGREEMENT
RELATING TO STORM WATER FACILITIES
THIS AGREEMENT made and entered into this day of 198 by and
between the CITY OF RICHFIELD, a Minnesota municipal corporation
("Richfield"), and the CITY OF EDINA, a Minnesota municipal corpor-
ation ("Edina").
WITNESSETH:
BACKGROUND OF AGREEMENT
Richfield is the owner of a park known as Adams Park located on
the boundary between Richfield and Edina. A pond located in Adams
Park ("Adams Pond") is presently used as a storm water pending area.
Storm water enters Adams Pond from both Richfield and Edina by both
natural and artificial flow.
Richfield and Edina entered into an agreement dated December 18,
1972 ("the 1972 Agreement") which imposed certain conditions and
limitations upon the use of Adams Park and Adams Pond as a ponding
area for storm water from Edina.
The actions taken by Richfield and Edina under the 1972 Agreement
have not eliminated flooding problems in Adams Park and on properties
adjacent to Adams Park. By this agreement, the parties desire to
make provision for additional storm water facilities which will
reduce the flooding which now occurs at Adams Park. It is expected
that within the next few years a tract land located in Edina on the
north side of 76th Street between York and France Avenues ("the
Hedberg Property") will be developed. Edina expects to establish
a storm water ponding area on the Hedberg Property in conjunction
with such development. That ponding area, when established, will
be used to store overflow storm water pumped from Adams Pond.
IT IS THEREFORE AGREED by and between Richfield and Edina as
follows:
1. During the year 1982 Richfield will build a storm water
pumping station on Adams Pond at the location and substantially in
accordance with the plans therefor prepared by Orr-Schelen-Mayeron
and Associates, Inc., a copy of which is attached hereto and made
a part hereof, marked "Exhibit l." In 1982 Richfield shall install
one of the two pumps shown on such plan. The pump to be so installed
by Richfield shall have a 3, cfs capacity and shall be connected to
the force main which now leads from Adams Park into the storm sewer
system of Edina and which was constructed pursuant to the 1972
agreement. This pump shall be designed and installed so that it
can provide pumping when the elevation of the water in Adams Pond
reaches 110 Richfield datum. In the event of rainfalls of large
volume, the two cities will cooperate to reduce water pumpage into
the Edina system when private property damage might occur. The
• capital costs of such 1982 work shall be paid by Richfield. The
pumping station and any pumps installed therein pursuant to this
agreement shall be the property of Richfield.
-2-
2. When the Hedberg Property is developed Edina will construct
a storm sewer from the Adams Pond storm water pumping station to a
storm water drainage pond to be located on the Hedberg Property.
Such storm sewer will include a force main from the pumping station
to the point where storm water pumped from Adams Pond will flow by
gravity into the ponding area on the Hedberg Property. Such storm
sewer shall be constructed to provide sufficient capacity to handle
discharge of the proposed lift station. The capital costs of such
storm sewer construction shall be borne by Edina and such facilities
shall be the property of Edina and shall be operated and maintained
by Edina. Edina hereby makes a good faith commitment that it will
not allow the Hedberg Property to develop in a piecemeal fashion so
as to bypass the above noted storm drainage improvements.
3. Before Edina's completion of the storm sewers required by
the foregoing paragraph 2, Richfield shall install one or more
additional pumps at the Adams Pond storm water pumping station so
that water may be pumped from Adams Pond into the Edina storm sewers
and thence to the drainage pond on the Hedberg Property. The
additional pump or pumps shall have a capacity of at least 4z cfs but
not more than 5z cfs. At the time of installing such additional pump
or pumps Richfield will make such piping modifications in the pump-
ing station as are necessary to connect the first pump to the new
Edina storm sewer, along with the additional pump or pumps. When
the requirements of this paragraph 3 have been fulfilled, Edina
shall be relieved of its obligation to provide the pump provided
for in the 1972 agreement.
4. The operation, maintenance, repair and replacement of the
pumping station and the pump located therein shall be paid for by
Richfield. The electricity cost shall be paid for by Edina.
5. This agreement is an addendum to the 1972 Agreement. The
1972 Agreement remains in full force and effect except to the extent
that it is modified by the provisions hereof.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this agreement
to be executed by their appropriate officers and their seals affixed
hereto as of the date hereof.
IN PRESENCE OF:
CITY OF RICHFIELD
Mayor
By
By
City Manager
0
1:1?- z?
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Office of City Manager
The Honorable Mayor
and
Members of the City Council
City of Richfield
Council Members:
After adoption of the legislative policies, it is recommended
that the council set a meeting to discuss these with the state
legislators prior to their January legislative session. A possible
date for that discussion might be prior to the regular council
meeting on January 11, 1982, at 5:30 p.m.
Subject: Legislative Policies
Council Letter No. 453
Agenda December 28, 1981
There are a number of legislative policies attached to this
council letter for review by the city council. The legislative
policies relate to issues that have been or are a concern to the
city. Each of the policies speaks for itself, but discussion at the
council meeting may be appropriate to clarify any issues.
KN/sh
V?
i
Respectfully submitted,
Karl Nollenberger
City Manager
cc: Community Services Director
Administrative Services Director
Community Development Director
Public Safety Director
0
Ot HRA MEMO_ TO:
FROM:
SUBJ: Relocation benefits paid within the city
Relocation benefits are paid under two different circum-
stances within Richfield; within the LHN and outside the LHN.
Within the LHN
The acquisition and redevelopment activities within the LHN
are financed locally, without federal dollars. On May 23, 1973,
the Minnesota legislature amended Minnesota Statutes Chaper 117.
The amendment incorporated by reference on existing federal
statute, the Uniform Relocation and Assistance and Real Property
0 It Act of 1970. HRA's, cities, and other public acquiring bodies
are thus required to pay relocation benefits as prescribed in
the Uniform Act as it existed, May 23, 1973 in projects without
Federal dollars.
In May, 1979, HRA legal counsel pursued this matter and related
issues with the Attorney General of Minnesota. The Attorney
General's opinion stated that we were obligated to pay benefits
under the Uniform Act as it existed on May 23, 1973.
Outside the LHN (utilizing federal dollars)
When federal dollars are spent to implement a project, applicable
laws and regulations must be followed. When a business or
residence is being displaced, relocation benefits must be paid.
* 4 However, payment is made based on the current regulations
rather than those in existence on may 23, 1973.
LEGISLATIVE POSITION STATEMENT
RELOCATION ASSISTANCE
The purpose of this statement is to express the City of Richfield's
support for changes in the Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real
Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970.
Current Legislation
Minnesota Statutes provide that any city in Minnesota which
acquires property for minicipal purposes, must provide all relocation
assistance, service, payments and benefits provided by the Uniform
Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of
1970, and any implementing regulations developed by the U.S. Department
of Housing and Urban Development (HUD).
Impact on the city of Richfield
The City of Richfield is required to meet the relocation assist-
ance provisions of the federal legislation by state law and by virtue
of the federal act and regulations applying to redevelopment activi-
ties assisted under Community Development Block Grant programs.
The major impact of this legislation on the City of Richfield has
occurred in implementation of the L/H/N redevelopment project.
Development plans for this area call for HRA acquisition of a sub-
stantial number of properties. The intent of congress in passing
• the Relocation Assistance law is to provide for equitable treatment
of citizens by the government when the government is taking property,
be it through purchase or through eminent domain. The government's
responsibility is to ensure that persons affected be assisted in
order to relocate without incurring a substantial hardship. However,
the City of Richfield has acquired several properties in conjunction
with the L/H/N project implementation which appear to be distortions
of the congressional intent. These properties were placed on the
market due to condition in no way created or encouraged by the L/H/N
project. In one instance, a property was sold because the property
owner purchased a business in another state. In another, a property
was sold because of re-marriage, where the new spouse did not wish
to live in a property which had been occupied by a previous spouse.
In each of these instances, the availability of the property on the
real estate market and the HRA subsequent purchase of the property
were related to personal events in the lives of the property owners,
rather than events in the marketplace or pressure created by the
redevelopment activity. However, for each of these acquisitions, the
city was required to pay relocation assistance to the property owner
or to tenants occupying the property.
The City of Richfield supports the concept that government should
provide assistance to persons displaced or in some way harmed by its
actions. However, it is the City's position that there should be a
recognition in the law that not all occupants or project properties
are displaced by reason of the project, and that some persons would
• have relocated regardless. In such circumstances, it is our position
that the acquiring authority should not be required to provide
relocation assistance.
LEGISLATIVE POSITION STATEMENT
PAYMENT OF BONUSES TO CITY EMPLOYEES
The purpose of this statement is to express the City of
Richfield's support for legislation which would permit the payment
of bonuses to municipal employees.
Current Legislation
Minnesota State Law currently prohibits the use of any public
monies for purposes of paying bonuses to municipal employees. The
law clearly prohibits the payment of bonuses under any circumstances
or for any purposes.
Impact on Richfield
A significant aspect of any employee productivity improvement
or motivation program includes the ability of the employer to give
bonuses for various reasons, such as innovative ideas, suggestion
box winners, safety program participants, etc. Under such programs,
the bonus is not intended to be an overwhelming sum of money
but rather to be a token demonstrating the employer's recognition of
the employee's contribution. It is well accepted in personnel man-
agement theory that a cash bonus can have the effect of stimulating
productivity at an overall cost savings to the employer. Accordingly,
it is appropriate to support legislation which would allow city
employees to be paid bonuses in an amount not to exceed $500.
0
LEGISLATIVE POSITION STATEMENT
L 10 INTEREST ON UNPAID UTILITY BILLS
The purpose of this statement is to express the City of Richfield's
support for legislation which would allow interest to be charged on
unpaid water and sewer bills which are being certified for collection
through the property tax.
Current Legislation
Current legislation prohibits cities from charging interest on
unpaid utility bills which are being certified to the county for
collection. Municipalities are authorized to charge a certification
fee, for purposes of recovering their special costs incurred in pre-
paring the delinquent accounts for certification and collection by
the county.
Impact on Richfield
Each year, Richfield has more than 800, out of approximately
15,000, sewer and water accounts which are certified to the county
for collection. The proprieters of these accounts do not make
payments on their water and sewer bills during the course of the
year, but rather allow the charges to accumulate to be put on the
property tax bill as an unpaid assessment. They then make payments
40 in a subsequent year in conjunction with their property tax payments.
Because of the number of delinquent accounts, and the dollar value
of the water and sewer services sold to those accounts, the cost of
interest lost by the city for carrying those delinquent accounts is
reasonably significant, approximately $10,000 on the delinquent 1981
accounts. With the increased need for the city to tighten control
over its cash flow, it is only reasonable that legislation should be
amended to permit cities to charge interest on delinquent accounts in
the same way that other businesses can charge interest on the past
due balance on delinquent accounts.
LEGISLATIVE POSITION STATEMENT
0 PREFERENCE FOR A STATE REDISTRICTING PLAN
The purpose of this statement is to express the City of Richfield's
preference for a state redistricting plan.
Current Status
The Minnesota Legislature is currently redrawing legislative
district boundaries to preserve the integrity of representative
government in accordance with the population data established in the
1980 census. The City of Richfield must also evaluate its precinct
boundaries, and is presently seeking to establish district boundaries
based on the 1980 census data, in accordance with the city charter.
Many proposals have been studied and submitted to the state legislature,
although, at this time, no final plan has been promulgated.
Impact on the City of Richfield
Several of the redistricting proposal which have been studied by
the state legislature would create legislative districts that would
fragment municipal constituencies. The fragmentation of a municipality
could impede the workings of local government by diluting the interests
and concerns of a municipality that could be different from those of
other municipal jurisdictions represented in the same district.
Furthermore, from a practical standpoint, the administering of elections
which is done by local governments could be extremely complicated by
a redistricting plan that is not cognizant of municipal precinct
boundaries, or municipal boundaries as a whole. It is the position of
the City of Richfield that any state redistricting plan recognize the
municipal boundaries, and not split the municipality for legislative
district purposes. If such occurs, it is at least requested that
such legislative district boundaries recognize municipal precincts and/
or district boundaries. Finally, it is the preference of the City of
Richfield to be placed in a legislative district with cities of the
second and third class but not with cities of the first class, if it
becomes necessary to combine Richfield or portions of Richfield with
other municipalities or portions thereof.
0
LEGISLATIVE POSITION STATEMENT
0 DEDICATION OF A PORTION OF SALES TAX FOR CITIES
The purpose of this statement is to express the City of Richfield's
support for legislation which would dedicate a portion of the state
sales tax for cities.
Current Status
The present Minnesota sales tax is imposed on certain goods and
services state wide, and revenues from that sales tax are used to
support the state's general fund.
Impact on City of Richfield
r'or cities to be able to budget and plan in a rational and
orderly manner, they must have a stable, reliable and predictable source
of revenue other than the property tax. Experience with delays in local
government aid payments, and cut backs in those payments over the past
two years has demonstrated that that system of revenues is neither
reliable or predictable. The cities are subjected to the dual uncertaintt
of not knowing whether the state's revenues will be adequate, and not
knowing how or when the legislature and governor will choose to make
fudning cut backs if state revenues do fall short.
S Under a system in which cities derive a substantial part of their
revenues from state sources, cities must expect that when state revenues
fall short, their state aid funding will also decline. However, cities
must have assurances that they will not be forced to absorb a dispro-
portionate share of a revenue short fall. As a corollary, it is also
reasonable for cities to expect state funding for local government aid
to increase in proportion to increases of state revenues. For these
reasons, the City of Richfield feels that the appropriation for local
government aids be tied directly to a specified share of the state
sales tax collections. Historically, the state aid appropriation has
been equivalent to about 1.5 cents of the sales sales tax. The
dedication of a share of the sales tax should commence immediately
through legislative action, although we recommend that ultimately
this provision be enacted as a constitutional amendment. It is further
recommended that the revenues be distributed to cities on a monthly
basis, based on the month's sales tax collection.
LEGISLATIVE POSITION STATEMENT
• IMPOSITION OF MAXIMUM FEES AND CHARGES BY STATE LAW
The purpose of this statement is to express the City of Richfield's
support for removal of maximum fees and charges from state law.
Current Legislation
Currently, municipalities are authorized to regulate by license
any activity which, when unrestrained, might adversely affect the
public health, morals, safety or welfare. Cities have adequate leg-
islative authority for almost any licensing ordinance. While a city
may not use license fees as a guise for generating excess revenues or
taxation, the city license and permit granting function ,_s a source
of revenue to a municipality which should ensure that the city's cost
of issuing the license and regulating the license business is recovered.
However, several license fees are regulated by state law and can be
raised only by legislative action, including the following:
- The maximum license fee for an off-sale liquor license is $200.
- The maximum fee for an on-sale wine license is $2,000.
- The maximum fee for regulating the retail of cigarettes,
cigarette papers or wrappers is $12.
• - The maximum fee for bottle club licenses is $300 per year.
Impact on City of Richfield
The City of Richfield, through its municipal licensing authority,
regulates many business activities, including those for which the state
has established a maximum fee. Generally, the statutes granting
authority to issue licenses and permits do not specify maximum fees,
and court decisions have provided ample limitation and direction that
the city's power to set license fees is restricted in that revenues
produced must be related to the cost of issuing the license and
regulating the license business. It appears inconsistent that the
municipal licensing authority is restricted in the forenoted areas
by the state establishing maximum fee provisions, when the cost to
various municipalities for processing and regulating such activities
may vary widely.
The City of Richfield feels that the legislature should repeal
these maximum fee provisions and allow cities to decide locally the
appropriate fee to charge for such licenses.
0
LEGISLATIVE POSITION STATEMENT
0 LOCAL GOVERNMENT AIDS
The purpose of this statement is to express the City of Richfield's
support for changes in our ability to anticipate local government aids
and to finance operations based on anticipation of those aids.
Current Status
In 1981, the local government aid payment schedule was changed
so that, instead of receiving four equal installments of local
government aid during the months of March, July, September and
December, cities now receive six equal installments of local govern-
ment aid payments each month, July through December. The result of
this change in local government aid payment schedule is that cities
have experienced additional cash flow problems, because of such a
large portion of their revenues being withheld until the second half
of the calendar year. Furthermore, the governor has delayed the local
government aid and homestead credit payments which cities were due to
receive in November and December, 1981, to some unspecified future
date. The withholding of this local government aid, already anticipated
as revenue for most cities' operations through the end of 1981, has
resulted in serious cash flow and/or financial difficulties for many
cities.
• Impact on Richfield
The City of Richfield experienced a $968,000 reduction in
anticipated revenues for November and December, resulting from with-
holding of the local government aid and homestead credit payments.
Because of the withholding of these payments, and the previously
authorized change in the annual local government aid payment schedule,
the city's general fund balance will be severely diminished by the
beginning of 1982 and, in fact, the city will experience a cash
flow deficit by February of 1982.
It is the recommendation of the City of Richfield that cities
should be granted authority to borrow in anticipation of receiving
local government aids, in the same way that they can now borrow in
anticipation of property tax receipts, so that they have an extra
tool to cope with the revised payment schedule and further payment
delays. Furthermore, it is recommended that the legislature require
the payment of interest on local governemnt aids deferred for cities,
in the same way as the governor proposed to pay interest delayed aid
payments for school districts.
E
LEGISLATIVE POSITION STATEMENT
DISTRIBUTION OF PROPERTY TAX COLLECTIONS
The purpose of this statement is to express the City of Richfield's
support for an accelerated collection and remittance of property tax
revenues.
Current Status
Under current law, counties need not distribute property tax
collections to cities until three days after the June 1 and November 1
date of property tax payments to the county. Furthermore, the county
does not pay interest on collected but undistributed funds until 45
days after the settlement date. After that time, the county must pay
interest, but only at eight percent.
Impact on City of Richfield
Property taxes are currently paid to cities from counties in two
semi-annual payments, usually in July and December, a system which
often results in cash flow problems for cities. These cash flow
problems have been aggravated by the change in the local government
aid payment schedule which concentrates all of the LGA payments into
the second half of the calendar year. In most counties, particularly
those with computer accounting capability, the collections are virtually
100 percent available within one working week after the settlement date.
While counties are retaining funds and collecting interest at market
rates, many cities must borrow money at market rates to meet their
cash flow needs.
It is the position of the City of Richfield that the legislature
require counties with computer capability to distribute to cities 90
percent of the property tax revenues on hand no later than the 15th
day of the month following each property tax due date. This would mean
that 90 percent of the taxes would be paid to cities by June 15 and
November 15. We further recommend that the remainder be distributed
to the cities by the last day of those months.
Finally, it is recommended that the legislature modify the property
tax collection system so that taxes are paid quarterly. Given the
current statutory dates for local levy certification, and practicalities
with county property tax billing procedures, the first payment date
should be March 31 of each year
LEGISLATIVE POSITION STATEMENT
0 LEVY LIMITS
The purpose of this statement is to express the City of Richfield's
support for elimination of the levy limits, or substantial modification
to the previously applicable levy limits legislation.
Current legislation
The 1971 Minnesota Legislature established a piece of legislation
which essentially limited a city's ability to support its programs and
services through property tax revenues to a six percent annual increase.
The original levy limit law, although changed many times, has remained
essentially the same in its impact since that time. In 1979, the six
percent limit was increased to eight percent, and many of the excluded
levies which had previously been permitted were eliminated or severely
restricted. In the approximately ten years since the original levy
limit law was imposed, the annual rate of inflation has grealty
exceeded six percent or even eight percent. Cities have, therefore,
been forced to continually reduce expenditures and/or programs because
they have not been able to even keep pace in their major revenue sources
with the rate of inflation. Furthermore, changes in the levy limit law
have often times served to penalize those cities that successfully
held down their property tax levies in the previous year. The leg-
islature has repealed the levy limit law effective for taxes payable
in 1983, but has also indicated that in 1982 the issue will be
subjected to study and potential reenactment.
Impact on City of Richfield
The City of Richfield receives more than one-half of its operating
revenues from the combination of property tax and local government aid
revenues, which are subject to the levy limit law. The imposition of
the levy limit law has forced the City of Richfield to severely
restrain growth of activities, and, in fact, the number of municipal
employees in 1982 is significantly lower than the number during the
early to mid-1970's, despite the addition of several entirely new
services and programs, such as opening of a municipal golf course.
The City of Richfield has consistently opposed the levy limit law in
that it provides little flexibility to the city, is contrary to basic
principles of local self government and accountability, and fails to
recognize changing local conditions as to either expenditure needs of
revenue sources. The city remains strongly opposed to any such levy
limitation, and recommends that the Minnesota Legislature take no
action to reenact levy limits.
If repeal of the levy limit law cannot be maintained, the City of
Richfield recommends that the following elements be incorporated into
any new levy limit law:
Legislative Position Statement
Levy Limits
Page 2
A. Levy Limit Base
1. Increase index
A more accurate index of governmental costs should be
incorporated into the law as a basis for automatically
adjusting the levy limit. Increases in local assessed
valuation should also be taken into account, so that the
combined effect of levy limits and growing assessed
valuation is a stabilization rather than a reduction of
mill rates.
2. Method for fixing base figure
i
The levy limit base, to which any increase index is
applied, should not be set arbitrarily based on city tax
levies for a particular year. A city's property tax levy
for a given year may have little relationship to its total
expenditure needs in subsequent years. At the very least
an average figure based on several years' levies, adjusted
for inflation, should be used as a starting point.
3. Population
Any levy limit should recognize that increased population
requires increased revenues and thus should provide base •
increases in direct proportion to population increases.
Because many costs are fixed, decreases in population
should not result in a base decrease.
4. State and federal aid decreases
Minnesota cities have become dependent on federal revenue
sharing, state local government aid and other state and
federal aids and grant payments. If federal and state
aids are reduced or frozed, some alternative method must
be allowed to replace the loss. The city recommends
that the levy base should be adjusted to allow for replace-
ment of funds due to failure of state or federal aid to
increase, or due to decreases or payment delays of such
aid.
5. Commercial, industrial, residential growth
Any levy limit law should recognize that new commercial,
industrial, or residential growth causes increased city
costs. Some of these are one-time capital costs for
extension of city services to a particualr -development,
which should be allowed as a special levy to the extent
that such services are not paid for through bonded
indebtedness,or special assessments.
Any additional costs for general services to the new
development should be added into the permanent levy limit
base. If this is not done, insufficient revenues will be
provided for the required services and a strong disincentive
for encouraging new development within cities would exist.
U
Legislative Position Statement
Levy Limits
Page 3
B. Special Levies
Special levies are an important part of any levy limit law,
because they allow some flexibility based on special needs
and circumstances that may affect individual cities. Therefore,
we support maintaining all of the special levies that are
currently allowed and, in addition, recommends that
the following special levies also be included in any new levy
limit law:
1. Special elections
The legislature should allow for a special levy so that a
city may recover local costs of holding special elections
for Congress and the State Senate and House of Represent-
atives.
2. Mandated state and federal programs
0
The cost of local government is being influenced more and
more by state and federally mandated programs and increased
mandated benefits or costs for in-place programs. Some of
the costs which bear no relationship to any allowed
percentage levy limit increases are: workers' compensa-
tion benefits; binding arbitration; federal social security;
minimum wage laws; comprehensive planning; OSHA. Therefore,
we recommend that the legislature re-instate the special
levy for new and increased program costs mandated by state
law and initiate a special levy for increased costs
caused by new federally mandated programs.
3. Natural disasters and lawful orders
The legislature should re-instate the special levies allowinc
for expenditures of funds as a result of natural disasters
and lawful orders. A city cannot really plan for either
of these events, and has no control over them. Neither of
these special levies would be used often, but would be
extremely important to those cities needing to use them.
4. Energy
We recommend that the legislature enact a special levy to
pay-for costs incurred by cities for energy improvements,
including capital expenditures. Voluntary energy conserva-
tion improvements, as well as required expenses, should
be allowed to be funded out of this special levy.
0
Legislative Position Statement
Levy Limits
Page 4
C. Size of City Covered by Levy Limits
In both 1973 and 1975, amendments were passed to the levy
limit law excluding certain cities from this law on the
basis of population, because it became obvious that the
normal political forces at work in smaller cities made levy
limits unnecessary. In 1981, the law was applied to all
cities for 1982 only. If new levy limits are enacted for
1983 or thereafter, the legislature should at least exclude
all cities under 5,000 population from levy limits.
D. Mandated Programs
•
Levy limit laws cause especially difficult problems for cities
to the extent that the growth in the number and cost of
federal and state mandated programs is not recognized.
Congress and the legislature substitute their
for local budget priorities - yet the program costs must be
met within restrictive levy limits. Therefore, the following
actions are recommended:
1. As an alternative to special levies (see part B) the
state should provide full or partial reimbursement directly
from state revenues to carry out state mandated programs.
2. The state should adopt a policy of "deliberate restraint"
on its mandated programs, including a mandatory fiscal
note identifying local governmental costs on any new
mandated programs when they are introduced in the leg-
islature and a statement of compelling state-wide interest
to accompany all state mandates.
0
LEGISLATIVE POSITION STATEMENT
LOCAL FIRE PROTECTION ON STATE HIGHWAYS
The purpose of this statement is to express the City of Richfield's
support for a change in the State's reimbursement procedure for local
fire protection on State highways.
Current Legislation
The State law covering reiumbursement for fire service, adopted
in 1977, directs the State Commissioner of Transportation to reimburse
local fire departments for ordinary expenses incurred while exting-
uishing a fire or eliminating the danger of a fire or explosion on
any State highway. The Department of Transportation's disbursement
policies are extremely restrictive, and the program as presently
administered is not cost-efficient. Only half of the State's fire
departments have been able to successfully claim reimbursement for
services, and the administration costs are taking $30,000 of the
$90,000 annual expenditure.
Impact on City of Richfield
The law as administered has had little positive impact on the
City of Richfield, and the negative impact is growing. Less than one-
third of the city's claims for 1981 have been reimbursed, yielding an
estimated $1,000 from over $3,000 in claims. The cost of the services
provided in 1981 have been over $5,000, but the restrictions placed
on reimbursement by the MnDOT have precluded the city from claiming
the true cost of fire service.
Persons traveling through Richfield on State roads who experience
a fire or accident are not receiving timely responses from the Fire
Division as an indreict result of the MnDot policies. Since all fire
department claims for service must be investigated and justified by
the State Patrol, the Patrol officers have been instructed not to call
for local help at emergencies until the Patrol reaches the scene of
an accident and verifies that fire or emergency medical help is needed.
This has resulted in people waiting over 15 minutes for medical help
when the normal response is two minutes.
It is suggested that the city council support efforts by the
State legislature to either reduce the impediments to cost-effective
claim reimbursement or repeal the law and re-direct the alloted funds
to other local government aid programs.
0
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Office of City Manager
0
Council Letter No. 452
Agenda December 28, 1981
The Honorable Mayor
and
Members of the City Council
City of Richfield
Council Members:
Subject: Update on City's Financial Condition
There is an item on the December 28, 1981 city council agenda
providing for an update on the city's financial condition. At that
meeting, the staff will describe the impact on the City of Richfield
of the legislature's proposals, if any such proposals have been
finalized by that time.
Respectfully submitted,
Karl Nollenberger
City Manager
KN/sh
0
'0 1
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Office of City Manager
Council Letter No. 451
Agenda December 28, 1981
The Honorable Mayor
and ?.
Members of the City Council
City of Richfield
Council Members:
Subject: Godfather Block Moratorium
In November, 1980, the city council passed an ordinance declaring
a moratorium on development on the block bounded by 65th Street, 66th
Street, Lyndale Avenue and Graham Avenue. This moratorium was
requested by the HRA. The city council considered and instituted the
moratorium to allow the city to determine what types of land use
controls exist or could be put in place to bring about the integrated
and unified development called for on the block in the L/H/N redevel-
opment plan. This moratorium will expire on January 10, 1982.
During the past year, members of the staff and others have met
to study potential uses for the area and the need for integrated
development on the block. The studies will continue and be considered
by the council at the time it considers adoption of the comprehensive
plan. A policy incorporated into the draft comprehensive plan requires
integrated development of areas to be acquired by the HRA, to ensure
that the L/H/N redevelopment plan is carried out. The draft compre-
hensive plan, including this policy, was approved by the Planning
Commission on June 9, 1981 and accepted by the city council. This
draft comprehensive plan was submitted to the Metropolitan Council and
approved by them on December 3, 1981. The city will have to officially
adopt the comprehensive plan within nine months of Metropolitan Council
approval.
The HRA, at their December 21, 1981 meeting, reaffirmed their
desire for integrated development on the block and passed the attached
resolution requesting that the city council extend the moratorium for
one year.
It is recommended that the city council pass the attached resol-
ution, extending the moratorium for one year, to allow time to
consider formal adoption of the comprehensive plan and official zoning
controls consistent with the comprehensive plan.
0
Council Letter No. -2- December 28, 1981
It is also recommended that the city council refer the matter of
the proper zoning for the Godfather Block to the Planning Commission
for review and recommendation, so as to promulgate development con-
sistent with the guidelines contained in the L/H/N Redevelopment Plan.
Respectfully submitted,
Karl Nollenberger
City Manager
KN/sh
cc: City Attorney
Community Development Director
City Planner
Housing and Redevelopment Coordinator
0
!'
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION EXTENDING TRANSITORY
ORDINANCE 16.61 FOR ADDITIONAL
TWELVE MONTH PERIOD
WHEREAS, on November 24, 1980, the City Council adopted
Transitory Ordinance 16.61 placing a moratorium upon development
of the area of land located within the City of Richfield bounded
by 65th Street on the north, 66th Street on the south, Lyndale on
the east and Graham Avenue on the west; and
WHEREAS, the purpose of said moratorium was recited in the
ordinance to be as follows:
"[I]t is necessary and expedient for the
purpose of protecting the planning process
and preserving the health and safety, general
welfare, convenience, and prosperity of the
citizens that during such study period and
pending the adoption of official controls,
no development or redevelopment within the
block occur, and no request for rezoning,
special use permit, variance, platting, build-
ing permit or sign permit be considered."
is and;
WHEREAS, during the period of the moratorium the city staff
and the staff of the Housing and Redevelopment Authority have con-
ducted reviews of the existing zoning and land use patterns in
the area which is subject to the moratorium and have studied the
potential for development of the area as an integrated project; and
WHEREAS, on June 9, 1981, the Planning Commission, upon
review of recommendations by the City Planning staff and following
public hearing, recommended that the Richfield Comprehensive Plan
Land Use Element - Central Business District Policy be amended
to designated areas such as the subject block for integrated
development; and
WHEREAS, on June 22, 1981, The Comprehensive Plan containing
the amendments recommended by the Planning Commission was
forwarded to the Metropolitan Council for its review and comment
as is required prior to its formal consideration by the City
Council; and
WHEREAS, the City has been notified that the Comprehensive
Plan submittal was approved by the Metropolitan Council on
December 3, 1981; and
WHEREAS, the City Council intends to conduct public hearings
on the Comprehensive Plan and to receive the information gathered
by the staff during the past year; and
WHEREAS, should the Council adopt the Comprehensive Plan,
including the Land Use Element, it will also be necessary to
consider the adoption of official controls implementing the ?I
Comprehensive Plan; and
WHEREAS, the purpose quoted above for which the moratorium
was originally enacted remains valid until all of the actions
outlined herein can be considered; and
WHEREAS, Ordinance 16.61 provides that the Council may
extend it for an additional 12 months.
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the
City of Richfield, Minnesota, that Ordinance 16.61 is hereby
renewed and extended for an additional 12 month period to and
until January 10, 1983.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Council requests the
City Planning Commission to consider and make recommendations on
the appropriate zoning classification for the subject block. taking
into consideration the Comprehensive Plan of the City as finally
adopted.
Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield this 28th
day of December, 1981.
0
Donald J. Priebe Mayor
ATTEST:
Sylvia K. Bergh City Clerk
•A
December 28, 1981
City of Richfield Council
6700 Portland Ave. So.
Richfield, MN. 55423
Dear Council:
In October of 1980 you passed a resolution on my property for a mora-
torium for one year, effective January 1981. I was very much opposed to
that action, and so stated at various meetings. However, my likes and
dislikes were disregarded and the moratorium was passed. When this
happened, I made a specific request of you to be kept informed of the
developments and progress concerning my property and this moratorium.
It was my feeling then, as now, that the moratorium was unnecessary,
as the HRA had already adopted a comprehensive plan for this area. This
moratorium has caused me very considerable financial losses. Now, you
are proposing to extend the moratorium for an additional year. This
again will cause me to suffer further economic losses. How and when
are you going to reimburse me for these losses?
A year has now passed for "study" purposes. As of today, I have seen
no studies. In a letter I sent to you dated July 1, 1981, I asked for
this. I have had no reply for this request. I can only presume that
you have not utilized the moratorium time to its best advantage, and I
see no reason to have an additional one year moratorium placed on this
property. After all, you have had since 1975.
I would also like to point out that there are eight businesses on my
property, with over 100 employees. A moratorium is bad for their busi-
ness as well as their employees.
It is my feeling that you have not kept me informed of development and
planning for this area, that you have had more than ample time to plan
(several years), and that an extension of this moratorium is not in
order.
I request that this letter be read into the record on the meeting on
the moratorium.
Sincerely,
G. E: Strom
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Office of City Manager
Council Letter No. 450
Agenda December 28, 1981
w
The Honorable Mayor
and
Members of the City Council
City of Richfield
Council Members:
Subject: Resolution Requesting City Council Members
to Authorize the Advisory Board of Health
to Facilitate the Implementation of the
Comprehensive South Hennepin Human Services
Plan
The South Hennepin Human Services Council (SHHSC) has recently
completed a needs assessment study. The study addressed 12 areas of
social services. Needs were prioritized and recommendations made for
possible resolution of problems. The next logical step is to
facilitate implementation of the plan which was developed from that
study. Bloomington, Eden Prarie and Edina, also members of the SHHSC,
have appointed boards to be responsible for the facilitation of the
implementation of the plan. The SHHSC has developed a tentative work
plan. It requires participation by Richfield residents to further
the facilitation process during the early part of 1982.
At its December 8, 1981 meeting, the Richfield Advisory Board of
Health passed a resolution which states, "The Advisory Board of Health
requests the city council to authorize the Advisory Board of Health to
facilitiate the implementation of the comprehensive South Hennepin
Human Services plan for Richfield and to work with the South Hennepin
Human Services Council and other appropriate resources in the community
e.g. churches, schools."
There will be members of the Richfield Advisory Board of Health
present during the council meeting. Helen Yates, a liaison to the
Advisory Board of Health from the SHHSC will be prepared to answer
questions. Russ Stricker, Executive Director of the SHHSC, will also
be present.
Respectfully submitted,
Karl Nollenberger
City Manager
0 KN/sh
cc: Public Safety Director
Environemntal Health Manager
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Office of City Manager
a
Council Letter No. 449
Agenda December 28, 1981
The Honorable Mayor
and
Members of the City Council
City of Richfield
Council Members:
Subject: Resolution Establishing Procedure for
Deferment of Special Assessments Against
Owner-Occupied Homestead Properties of
Persons Over 65 years of Age or Persons
Permanently and Totally Disabled
•
On October 12, 1981, the city council passed Resolution No. 6519,
providing for the deferment of special assessments against owner-
occupied homestead properties in certain circumstances. A copy of
that resolution is attached to this council letter. That resolution
listed the requirements which must be met by persons requesting
deferment of assessments, and incorrectly listed number seven as
follows:
"Within 30 days after the filing of the application in completed
form, the city manager or his/her designee shall make a report
to the council on the application, with a recommendation as to
whether the application shall be granted. The council shall,
by resolution, either grant or deny the application and the
decision of the council shall be final."
The section duplicates section 8 and requires that the names
of persons requesting these deferments be made public; hence, that
section of the resolution should not have been included. Attached
to this council letter is a resolution establishing the procedure
for deferment of special assessments, deleting that provision.
This item has been placed on the December 28, 1981 city council
agenda for council action.
Respectfully submitted,
Karl Nollenberger
City Manager
11
KN/ sh
cc: Administrative Services Director
City Clerk
Finance Coordinator
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING
PROCEDURES FOR DEFERMENT
OF SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS
AGAINST OWNER-OCCUPIED
HOMESTEAD PROPERTIES OF
PERSONS OVER SIXTY-FIVE
YEARS OF AGE OR PERSONS
PERMANENTLY AND TOTALLY
DISABLED
BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Richfield,
Minnesota as follows:
1. It is the policy of the city to consider requests for the
deferment of special assessments upon homestead properties owned
by persons 65 years of age or older or by persons retired by virtue
of a permanent total disability for whom it would be a hardship
to make payments of such special assessments. Permanent and total
disability for the purpose of this section means a condition which
is permanent by nature and totally incapacitates the person from
working at an occupation which brings him an income. In the
adoption of such policy and the procedures established by this
resolution the city is acting pursuant to authority granted by
Minnesota Statutes, Sections 435.193 to 435.195.
41 2. A qualifying hardship shall be deemed to exist if the owner
of the homestead property and other occupants of the homestead,
taken together (a) had a gross income of less than $11,000 in the
previous calendar year and (b) will have an estimated income for the
current calendar year and subsequent years which will not exceed said
sum.
3. Application for deferral of payment of special assessments
shall be made on forms prescribed by the county auditor. The home
owner shall furnish the city with such information as it may require
at the time of the original application and at any time thereafter
while the special assessment remains unpaid, which will permit the
city to establish, verify or continue the deferral of special assess-
ments or to determine whether eligibility for such deferral has ended.
4. Interest on deferred special assessments shall accrue until the
special assessment is paid, at the rate established by the city at the
time of levying the special assessment.
5. The city manager or his designee shall examine all applica-
tions for determination of his/her eligibility for deferral of
payment of special assessments (a) in compliance with said statute
and (b) in accordance with the standards and guidelines for deter-
mining hardships contained in this resolution or any suL-)sequent
amendment thereof.
• 6. No deferment of payment of a special assessment shall be
made unless the owner furnishes the city with an application and
such supplementary documentation and verification as may be required
to establish the following:
1. The legal description, plat and parcel number of the
property;
2. The street address of the property;
3. Its status as homestead property;
4. The description or designation of the local improvement; i
5. The name of the homestead owner-occupant;
6. That said owner-occupant is over 65 years of age or
permanently and totally disabled;
7. Tha_ payment of the special assessment on the ordinary
time basis would be hardship as defined herein.
7. Within 30 days after the filing of said application for
deferment of special assessments, the city manager shall review
the application for consistency with and conformance to, the
council prescribed standards and guidelines; and then either
grant or deny the application. In the event of the existence of
exceptional or unusual circumstances not covered by the standards
and guidelines, the city manager shall make a full report to the
city council within 30 days of the filing of said application
along with a recommendation as to whether said application should
be granted or denied. In the event of the denial of the applica-
tion by the city manager, any applicant shall have the right to
have the application considered by the city council. In those
instances where the city council considers an application, it
shall, by resolution, either grant or deny the application; and
the decision of the city council shall be final. The city manager
shall report to the city council on a quarterly basis on deferrals
granted by him/her.
8. The option to defer the payment of special assessments
shall terminate and all amounts accumulated, plus applicable
interest, shall become due upon the occurrence of any of the
following events: (a) the death of the owner, provided that the
surviving spouse is not eligible for the benefits hereunder; (b)
the sale, transfer or subdivision of the property or any part
thereof; (c) if the property should for any reason lose its
homestead status; or (d) if for any reason the taxing authority
deferring the payments shall determine that there would be no
hardship to require immediate or partial payment.
Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield this
12th day of October, 1981.
Donald J. Priebe Mayor
ATTEST:
Sylvia K. Bergh City Clerk •
G
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Office of City Manager
Council Letter No. 448
Agenda December 28, 1981
The Honorable Mayor
and
Members of the City Council
City of Richfield
Council Members:
Subject: Approval of Payment of Arbitration,
Reichart Construction
The city council has previously been informed that in April, 1981,
a Demand for Arbitration was filed against the city on behalf of the
water wells and pump equipment contractor at the Rich Acres Golf
Course (Lee Richert Plumbing and Heating, Inc.) in the amount of
$37,074.52. In late April, the city filed a counterclaim. Since
that time, a three-arbitrator panel has held hearings on this matter.
In late November, the arbitrators reached their decision; the city
received notice of the Award of Arbitrators in December.
• The Award calls for the city to pay Lee Richert Plumbing and
Heating, Inc. the sum of $36,072.81. In order to assure completion
of warranty work on the repair of the pressure relief valve, the
city may withhold $500.00 until such time as the leak in the pressure
relief valve has been repaired.
The city was holding $17,353.54 on this particular contract.
It is now necessary to pay this sum plus an additional $18,219.27
for a total payment of $36,572.81. Part of the additional payment
represents interest on the remaining contract amount, extended
warranties and insurance, and payment for work done by the contractor
which was ruled by the arbitrator to be beyond work for which the
city has already paid. Another $500 will be paid when the repair is
complete.
It is recommended that the city council authorize payment of
$37,072.81 to Lee Richert Plumbing and Heating, Inc. with $36,572.81
to be paid at this time and the remaining $500.00 to be paid upon
completion of the repair.
Respectfully submitted,
Karl Nollenberger
City Manager
0 KN/sh
cc: Community Services Director
Finance Coordinator
-1 R EIPT-NO1w,F
"^ CITY OF RICHFIELD NEW
' ,J '
u 6700 Portland Avenue South
LICENSE NO. Richfield, ;4N 55423 RENEWAL
-
APPLICATI ON FOR ;ON-INTOXICATING 1AALT ,10
OR LICENSE
1
FOR CALENDAR YEAR
-----__-°----- ------------------------------
Bus. Name: y;_ Riq? field ^~er; can Leman 1+35 **Retail "On-Sale" ......... $200
Retail "Off-Sale"......... 25
Bus. Address: ?KC1 nrtlan d :vim moo. Wholesale ................ 10
Bus. Phone Number:
.
Club • • 100
A
FULL N
:
li
t' TOTAL
O
D
pp
ame
can
s AM
UNT
UE$_
(Women include maiden name. )
Applicant's Address: o c r ',-y P "o. Length of Residence: 2 years
(Hennepin County residency required for on-sale License)
Are you a resident of Hennepin County eyes no Applicant's Phone Number: 92U-2205
Applicant's Date of Birth: c,L7
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - --- - --
Are you the actual proprietor? yes x no
Are you the owner of the property at which the business will be located? des x no
Has any other license of this kind been granted to you? Yes no
*IF APPLYING FOR A TAVERN LICENSE, the retail "on-sale" and food licenses must be granted
addition to the Tavern License. Have you applied for these licenses? _yes no
**IF APPLYING FOR A "RETAIL ON-SALE" LICENSE, only a food license must be granted in addit
to the "Retail On-Sale" License. Have you applied for a food license? _yes no
Will you remain open between 1:15 A.M. and 5:00 A.M.? ____yes no
If joint ownership or if a silent partnership is involved, specify complete names, dates o
birth, addresses and telephone numbers for everyone concerned.-
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ,
I (we) hereby agree to operate such business in accordance with the laws of Minnesota and T
the ordinances of the City of Richfield. The foregoing statements are true and correct to
the best of my knowledge a belief. / -
/ i
Authorized Signature: Title: Date:
- - - - - - - - - - - /- - - - / - / - -- - - - - - - - - - - -/- - - - - - - - -
-FOR CITY USE ONLY
POLICE APPROVAL: YES NO Signed:i
• Date; '?_
COUNCIL APPROVAL: YES NO DATE: ?V
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
r. Office of City Manager
Council Letter No. 447
Agenda December 28, 1981
The Honorable Mayor
and
Members of the City Council
City of Richfield
Council Members:
Subject: Agreement with Hennepin County for
Implementation of 1982-83 Community
Health Services Plan
In 1977, the City of Richfield received approximately $55,000
through a Community Health Service subsidy to expand our program of
personal health services and strengthen the environmental health
activities. The subsidy program has continued and in 1981, the subsidy
was approximately $85,500.
To continue this program in 1982, it is necessary for the city
council to authorize execution of an agreement between the City of
-? Richfield and the Hennepin County Community Health Department to
provide for conveyance of the subsidy monies to the City from the
County. Attached is a copy of the proposed 1982-83 Agreement. There
have been several minor changes. The Agreement is now with the (County)
Community Health Department. A paragraph relating to Data Privacy has
been changed. There are some wording clarifications in the liability
paragraph.
The subsidy dollar support written into the Agreement (paragraph
2, section b) in the amount of $76,364 represents the subsidy support
requested in the county-wide 1982-83 CHS plan. It is based upon
legislative allocation made last spring, down approximately $9,000
from the previous allocation of $85,500.
The Governor has proposed a biannual decrease in State agency
spending, which includes the CHS subsidy program. If adopted by the
legislation, there could be a 15-17 percent cut for the calendar year
1982 and January-June 1903. Because it is unclear when the legisla-
ture will act and what the impact on the CHS program will be, the
county has processed contracts in the Plan amount. If the legisla-
ture cuts the CHS subsidy program, the Agreement will be renegotiated
to reflect reduced funding.
•
Council Letter No. 447 -2- December 28, 1981
It is recommended that the city council authorize the Mayor and
the City Manager to execute the contract agreement (No. 20016).
Respectfully submitted,
i
Karl Nollenberger
City Manager
KN/sh
cc: Public Safety Director
Environmental Health Manager
n
U
49
,
1} AGREEMENT No. 20016
S AGREEMENT, Made between the COUNTY OF HENNEPIN, State of
.;` Minnesota, hereinafter referred to as the County through the Community Health
yh Department, hereinafter referred to as Department, and the CITY OF RICHFIELD,
c
" _ to municipality organized and existing under the laves of the State of Niinnesota,
`? x_M ,hereinafter referred to as the Municipality;
'•? ` WITNESSETH:
7t:: r..
`bWHEREAS, the Municipality wishes to provide Community Health Care Services;
and
' 1;,-aWHEREAS, Community Health Services subsidy funds are available to Hennepin
.w
County from the Minnesota Department of Health;
F -SNOW THEREFORE r '
, in consideration of the mutual undertakings and agreements
ajr 1 ,.hereinafter set forth herein, the County through the Department and the
b5?;?;rt Municipality agree as follows:
?4 12 sC 'a f?i 7 il??ht+? 1 TERM OF AGREEMENT
e term of this Agreement shall be from January 1, 1982, through
December 31, 1983. This Agreement shall include the period July 1,
K,1983, through December 31, 1983, only if the Community Health
Services Act is continued, fully funded by the State of Minnesota for
?.;•t`c?, t the 1983-84 biennium and the County receives the full amount of
subsidy funds requested in the approved 1982-83 Hennepin County
Community Health Services Subsidy Plan. If such funds are not
available to allow for funding during the period July 1, 1983, through
December 31, 1983, this Agreement shall be cancelled upon written
notice from the County through the Department; such cancellation to
be effective as of July 1, 1983, or this Agreement shall be renegotiated
-to reflect reduced funding.
2.
`e'• i.
nu-
CONDITIONS OF COUNTY SUPPORT
a. The County through the Department agrees to make payments to
the Municipality in reimbursement for the provision of Community
Health Services as described in the 1982-83 Community Health
Services Subsidy Plan, hereinafter referred to as Plan, written
pursuant to Minnesota Statutes 145.911-145.921, a copy of which
is on file at the Hennepin County Community Health Department,
4th Floor, 501 Park Avenue South, Minneapolis, Minnesota. The
Plan is incorporated into and made a part of this Agreement as if
fully set forth herein.
h. The total 1982 cash payment to the Municipality for Community
Health Services shall not exceed $76,364, and total 1983 payments
shall not exceed $76,364.
oi? htf? . - ^-???..?«......n v.- _-?•., . r..o.5. .?.... ? - ?'._ - ._- .- -..vb:..... _ ...?..,.•«.:...r.?ei?s.aa..?• ....c'?.•-.i.n...::.:6. t-.«'R ?5?.?. 3??..-,..rn
C. These payments to the Municipality will be made in eight (8)
fYF;:. „: installments to be paid on or about March 30, 1982; June 30, 1982;
m
September 30, 1982; Deceber 31, 1982; March 30, 1983; June 30,
1983; September 30, 1983; and December 31, 1983. Payments
shall be made in the manner provided by law for payment of
claims against the County.
-i}, ;' :• 3. CONDITIONS OF THE PARTIES' OBLIGATIONS
a. It is understood and agreed that the Agreement between the
parties is conditional upon the County receiving sufficient
Community Health Services funding from the State of Minnesota.
If such funding is not available, this Agreement shall be cancelled
immediately upon written notice to the Municipality, other
provisions for cancellation of this Agreement notwithstanding.
This agreement may be renegotiated to reflect any reduced
funding.
b. This Agreement or any part thereof may be cancelled by either
;;:''4 :........ party upon thirty (30) days written notice delivered by mail or in
} ..person if by State law, regulation or policy the relationship
between the County and the Municipality as it concerns the
expenditure of State funds for the purpose of providing the
services as described in the Plan is modified as to render the
obligations under this contract materially changed.
oY s.
c. The Municipality agrees to make expenditures of Community
Health Services funds provided through County through the
Department payments within Minnesota Department of Health
rules and policies relating to Community Health Services,
including Minnesota Department of Health Rules 451 to 460,
Policies Relating to Community Health Services, Assurances and
Agreements contained in the Plan and policies contained in the
- Minnesota Department of Health Fiscal Manaqement Report for
Communiiy Health Services Boards, June, 1978.
•
d. Both parties to this Agreement shall make a good faith effort to
determine if payments to subcontractors anticipated in the budget
contained in the Plan duplicate payments by the County directly ?
to those subcontractors pursuant to an other agreements between
?
•
- the County and such subcontractors, and shall endeavor to use all
4...,
; _._ information available to prevent any such duplicate payment to a
subcontractor.
e. Any material alterations, variations, modifications or waivers of
provisions of this Agreement shall be valid only when they have
been reduced to writing, as an Amendment to this Agreement
signed by the parties hereto.
f. cancellation or termination of this Agreement, the
Upon
,
Municipality- will reimburse to the County through the Department
any and all unobligated funds as required by the Minnesota
r`
.Y
ate Department of Health. This reimbursement shall be made within
.
=
,,.
Y f .
?
?
-
sixty (60) days of the effective date of such termination.
.r..
.-
.
'T!'•?4i1. ..f''' 2 i- l t y `^ ?' r. - R +y' {sue :.gym-XlS
?
•
y r-'Y
r.._ ?.-._r ?. -,n.r;.x--,..,,.a,_...:.? ? .-. i....<?,:........> ? _ _.. ?.._ .U w. ? ?V.?+ :a..Zl,...:, y`..a ?fi4Y,."'•..?. _ 1..k... _ ?'..v:..."..svx'
" ,f-? ? '?:' .?.."?.' i ?.+i: ??.:4Z.. y _.:+.1...':..... ?.a
4. AUDITS, REPORTS, MONITORING PROCEDURES, AND RECORDS
a. The Municipality will:
(1) Maintain a bookkeeping system which meets standards
contained in the Minnesota Department of Health Fiscal
Management Report for Community_ Health Services, June,
1978.
(2) Provide an estimated quarterly budget/expenditure report
within forty (40) days to the County through the Department
on Exhibit A attached hereto, such Exhibit being
incorporated into and made a part of this Agreement;
provided, however, that the last quarterly report shall
include actual expenditures for the ,year.
(3) Provide an evaluation report meeting the requirements of
the Minnesota Department of Health Rules 455.B.'', to the
County through the Department within eighty-five (85) days
of the expiration of this Agreement as described in the Plan.
(4) Provide other reports as required by the Minnesota
Department of Health.
b. Municipality agrees that the County through the Department or
State or any of their duly authorized representatives, at any time
1 .1 during normal business hours and as often as they may reasonably
deem necessary, shall have access to and the right to examine,
audit, excerpt and transcribe any books, documents, papers,
records, or other materials, which are pertinent and involve
transactions relating to this Agreement. Such material must be
retained for five (5) years by the Municipality.
5. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY AND CIVIL RIGHTS
During the performance of this Agreement, the Municipality agrees to
the following:
No person shall, on the grounds of race, color, creed, religion, age, sex,
handicap, marital status, affectional preference, public assistance,
criminal record, or national origin, be excluded from full employment
rights in, participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be otherwise
subjected to discrimination under any program, service, or activity
under the provisions of any and all applicable Federal and State laws
against discrimination including the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The
Municipality will furnish all information and reports required by the
County or by Executive Order No. 11246 and Revised Order No. 4, and
by the rules and regulations and orders of the Secretary of Labor for
purposes of investigation to ascertain compliance with such rules,
regulations, and orders.
LM`
6. DATA PRIVACY
All data collected, created, received, maintained or disseminated for
• any purposes by the activities of the Municipality because of this iia
?..9-tom.. ?..? ?.aar'a..: -.. N _ ._......?. ... ._-.... , ?..:.._r .,.._. _.,....?.:..?. .... +w..?=- .:?...,.. Y.s.?,r:,... i:. +.?. r-..sc":...._..v:5.. ?.;w.a;„?..?..,.r._.....
contract is governed by the j'?linnesota uoverninent Data Practices Act,
S ?-
ti 15.1611 to 15.1699, as amended by the Laws of Minnesota 1981,
Chapter 311, the Minnesota Code of Agency Rules implementing such
act as now in force or herein adopted, as well as Federal regulations on
Data Privacy. Municipality agrees to hold the County harmless from
;'Y t
a r any claims resulting from the Municipality's unlawful disclosure or use
of private or confidential information.
INDEMNITY
The Municipality agrees to defend, indemnify and hold the County, its
officers, and employees harmless from any liability, claims, damages,
costs, judgments, or expenses, including reasonable attorney's fees,
resulting directly or indirectly from an act or omission of the
Municipality, its a
gents, employees, or contractors
in the performance
of the services provided by this contract and against all loss by reason
of the failure of said Municipality fully to perform, in any respect, all
obligations under this contract.
The Municipality warrants that it has sufficient insurance coverage to
M; meet the Municipality liability requirements of Minnesota Statutes
466.02 and 466.04, and to comply with the foregoing indemnification
provisions.
`7 " `•`" 8. INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR
It is agreed that nothing herein contained is intended or should be
S- t
4s ,
construed in any manner as creating or establishing the relationship of
r'CO-partners between the parties hereto or as constituting the
Municipality as the agent, representative or employee of the County for
any purpose or in any manner whatsoever. Municipality is to be and
h?-Y
,.'shall remain an independent contractor with respect to all services
performed under this Agreement. Municipality represents that it has,
or will secure at its own expense, all personnel required in performing
services under this Agreement. Any and all personnel of Municipality or
other persons, while engaged in the performance of any work or services
s required by Municipality under this Agreement, shall have no
Kr : contractual relationship with the County and shall not be considered
employees of the County, and any and all claims that may or might
arise under the Unemployment Compensation Act or the Worker's
Compensation act of the State of Minnesota on behalf of said personnel
arising out of employment or alleged employment including, without
limitationclaims of discrimination against the Municipality,
its
.•:._ -. officers, agents, contractors or employees shall in no way be the
r.r responsibility of the County; and Municipality shall defend, indemnify
and hold the County, its officers, agents and employees harmless from
any and all such claims irrespective of any determination of any
.x frT? - pertinent tribunal, agency, board, commission or court. Such personnel
or other persons shall neither require nor be entitled to any
compensation, rights or benefits of any kind whatsoever from the
County, including without limitation, tenure rights, medical and hospital
care, sick and vacation leave, worker's compensation, unemployment
` compensation, disability, severance pay and P.E.R.A.
9. SUBCONTRACTING' AND ASSIGNMENTS
The Municipality shall be responsible for the performance of all
subcontractors.
i
.,F ate. •C.LY 1 ?..,?. J .a-S v - _ _ _q , ..
V-lt
'???;'a?'Z".i?"t'`... e.iti•":'..?+.•s.?6. ..a ??' - _,..-..w ?.... <,. ..._L 'F._ .......?-...-....w?`.?. ... ?...~..'.:wc..+.?;n-`..,._ra.. -.?-=.Y?+«"?..:..o__...:r.
r
Municipality, having signed this Agreement, and the Hennepin County Board
xM;of Commissioners having duly approved this Agreement on 19_, and
pursuant to such approval and the proper County officials having signed this
Agreement, the parties hereto agree to be bound by the provisions herein set forth.
--s_-Upon proper execution, this Agreement COUNTY OF HENENPIN,
will be legally valid and binding. STATE OF MINNESOTA
-Assistant Cou t> tto n Chairman of its Board
to ,
And
Assoc./Deputy County Administrator
ATTEST
Deputy County Auditor
CITY OF RICHFIELD
By
Mayor
And
City Manager
City organized under:
Plan A Plan B Charter
r
r'
?~Y; ~ -..a-i.?..u.J....n... ??. ?.f.__..:.+..t- ...+. .?,_. ?. i..?. -..... r.?.: : ., -... .. 4 _. ... a . _ , ... .. ?- r +.? .. _<<-...:.,?... _ ...?. ..tea ` ..??..
Date
:wApproved as to legality, form and
execution
IV1Ol A1Nnoo
T1 rte...:
• R.? '? ?? '.w ?{".R;:R :i'CS?^7?Shr7.,. ?-. >a:q?y',^i ti.Yy'".v? .t.
5
a
:
.
ir
r
J'
j ajn ,puadx3;)abpng Spun) 10
Aiunoo ao, nJaS 6u?pino'd
A?ua6y io
wei6o SHJ
we+fio'd S H3 a»noS 'iwn luawwanoO ?eoo? ?
palualJ03;paSina8 leuy ljodaa ajnlipuadx3 CD
1eui6up C AjeuiwilaJd El 1a6png O
of pouad ayl jo3
?Od32 32mIGN3dX3/1304(18 Wd2!DO'dd SH:„
' b:..:,w-..iscti_a-.+?'Tn'is?r:`,.?,.:.••._'S?...:,...?.:^ri??.w.?.r?:cw:pslti':.-^.
r
C
:u
U
t,
~ Sa
L
o
a
_
`O
4 h
in
n _
q
]
U N Z a m W . ?...
ic.
-
o? p
>
o a y y .?.._ f
y
Q
a E ?'?
a
r 6
+ 3f
o t(:
9
w
w
'-
m
T
N H c
F- F- ;
w U ? -
f M
-
w -
d ? c'
X o •? Ti
'
J y
Q d
r $
r
w O ? u -
7= c tq.
Q
F-
G Z t N a s
iJ
d zo F?
V
p
2 a W - m
N Q . ] C w
? v _ d .m, s Y C r f -
F
Z
G
T
F
W
(?
C7
C h
b
0' 01
J V
O
G
>i?k+:: ??,?1pj?'R',?'='=F'?•?yy' f :?""?1`?/?h?t4'?114p.,?: _. c:^.'C'?
?i
>
K
c
q-6 t
C
G ? - - O
L C 6 -
ZI
C
?
? c T G
ml ai ? c ?
wl
?
E
.v
U
z
F-
Q E L
E-
2
v. O a:
E c UI vM
L
O yy
Q n
Z C
Z ,
C Ul'` l c
SI DI wl
21
wI
U LI
LL w
C C _I
U
I
•.
X d
W
? u
? o
x
W J
I
J J
O O
t)
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Office of City Manager
Council Letter No. 446
Agenda December 28, 1981
The Honorable Mayor
and
Members of the City Council
City of Richfield
Council Members:
Subject: Minutes, Tabulation of Bids and Award
of Contract - Ice Resurfacing Machine
On December 7, 1931 bids were opened for replacement of the ice
arena ice resurfacing machine. The city clerk, a representative
of the city manager, and the acting community services director were
present at the bid opening. A copy of the bid minutes and tabulation
is attached for council review.
The central garage 1982 budget includes funding for replacement
of the ice resurfacing machine. The existing machine has experienced
many maintenance problems, and is fully depreciated. The high main-
tenance costs are exceeding any benefits of retaining this piece of
equipment. Two bids were received, but one bidder did not meet the
minimum specifications. Par Equipment Ltd., a firm from Winnipeg,
Canada, bid a price for an Olympia ice resurfacer of $26,475. This
bid, however, does not meet specifications in two key areas. A
washing system was specified, but not included in the Olympia unit.
This washing system is used to wash and squeeze the ice surface with-
out waiting for the fresh water to form a new ice surface. The high
school hockey team uses this extensively to eliminate the time needed
for freezing of the water. Perhaps the most important consideration
is the specification that the snow dump tank be hydraulically operated,
cupping ice shavings forward. "Forward" is the important statement,
in that the Richfield Ice Arena is designed for this type of dump.
The Olympia unit is a side dump unit. In order to best use a side
unit, it would be necessary to remodel the ice arena to accomodate a
side dump unit. The alternative would be to engage in manual shoveling
of ice shavings at some times which would be expensive over the life
of the machine. As an added note, the specifications indicated ice
shaving blades needed to be not less than 77 inches long. The Olympia
unit blades are 80 inches long, meeting specifications, but would
require the city to purchase at least four new blades for the opera-
tion of this unit, at a total cost of $1,800. We already have spare
blades for the existing Zamboni unit.
Because the Olympia unit bid by Park Equipment Ltd. does not meet
specifications, it.is recommended that this bid not be accepted. The
• washing system could be added for a cost of $1,900 and the bidder has
indicated a willingness to provides blades or retooling. The differ-
ence in additional labor caused by the side dump unit would be sig-
nificant over the years. More importantly, the city attorney advises
Council Letter No. 446 -2- December 28, 1931
us that we cannot negotiate on these two items now but rather we would
• have to reject the bids and initiate the process from the beginning.
The second bid was submitted by Frank J. Zamboni and Company, Inc.
for a Zamboni ice resurfacer, for an amount of $33,262. The ice
resurfacing machine currently used at the arena is a Zamboni. The
unit in this bid does meet specifications and the price bid is for a
delivered and assembled unit. The 1982 Central Garage budget includes
$33,064 for the purchase of a replacement ice resurfacer.
It is recommended that the city council take the following actions:
1. Approve the bid minutes and tabulations;
2. Reject the bid submitted by Par Equipment Ltd. as not meeting
spec if ications ;
3. Accept the bid submitted by Frank J. Zamboni and Company, Inc.
in the amount of $33,262 with a delivery date of 45-60 days
from notification of award of contract.
Respectfully submitted,
Karl Nollenberger
City Manager
• KN/sh
cc: Community Services Director
Finance Coordinator
0
CITY OF RICHFIELD
Bid Opening
December 7, 1981
Ice Resurfacing Machine
Pursuant to requirements of Resolution No. 1015, a meeting of the Administrative
Staff was called by Sylvia K. Bergh, City Clerk, who announced that the purpose
of the meeting was to receive, open and read aloud, bids for an Ice Resurfacing
Machine for the Ice Arena as advertised in the official newspaper on November 25
and December 2, 1981.
Present: Joyce L. Wilde, Assistant City Manager
Sylvia K. Bergh, City Clerk
David Skrien, Recreation Coo -inator
John Heddle, Buildings Superintendent
Al. Payne, Ice Arena Supervisor
The following bids were submitted and read aloud:
VENDOR BID SECURITY TOTAL BID
P A R Equipment, Ltd.
• Winnipeg $1,323.75 $26,475
Frank J. Zamboni & Co.
Paramount, CA $1,663.10 $33,262
The City Clerk announced that the bids would be tabulated and considered at the
regular city council meeting of December 28, 1981.
Sylvia K. Bergh City Clerk
0
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Office of City Manager
Council Letter No. 445
Agenda December 28, 1981
The Honorable Mayor
and
Members of the City Council
City of Richfield
Council Members:
Subject: Request for Refund of Liquor License Fees,
Left Guard, Inc.
At the September 28, 1981 city council meeting, the city council
considered a request from Mr. Max McGee that the city council refund
a portion of the liquor license fee for 1981. The restaurants
Chi Chi's and Maximilians at 7717 Nicollet Avenue were sold to Consul
Corporation in August, 1981, and a new liquor license granted to this
corporation.
At the September 28, 1981 city council meeting, the council
deferred action on this request, pending completion of a fence along
is the edge of the property.
A fence has been erected on the west side from Nicollet Avenue
to the front of the building. No fence has been erected on the LaBelle',
property which is a separate property owner. It is my recommendation,
and that of the Public Safety Director, that the city council approve
a refund in the amount of $2,500, which would be the prorated share
of the annual liquor license fee which is attributable to the Consul
Corporation for part of 1981 for which they did not own the license.
It is my opinion that this amount might be seen as duplicating the
previous license fees paid by the Left Guard, Inc. for that same
period of the year. City ordinances provide that refund of any license
fees may be made only by city council approval.
It is recommended that the city council approve a refund of the
liquor license fee for the Left Guard, Inc. in the amount of $2,500.
Respectfully submitted,
Karl NollenbeC;rger
City Manager
KN/sh
0 cc: Finance Coordinator
$?: i??
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Office of City Manager
Council Letter No. 444
Agenda December 28, 1981
The Honorable Mayor
and
Members of the City Council
City of Richfield
Council Members:
Subject: Neighborhood Meetings for Traffic
Problem Along 76th Street
At the December 14, 1981 city council meeting, the council
requested that the staff make a recommendation to the council at
its December 28 meeting on the subject of holding neighborhood
meetings to discuss the traffic which currently exists along 76th
Street. In reviewing this request it appears reasonable to direct
the Planning Commission to hold these neighborhood meetings, study
the problem, and suggest viable alternative solutions to the council.
The Planning Commission is responsible for suggesting long-range
planning for the city and helping to control its development.
• In that
background
be included
held during
the council
some staff
information
in this en
the months
be made in
time will be required to gather the necessary
and to compile a mailing list of persons to
3eavor, it is suggested that the meetings be
of February and March and that a report to
either March or April, 1982.
It is suggested that the neighborhood to be included in the study
be bounded by 75th Street of the north, e venue on the east,
77th Street on the south, and Xerxes Avenue on the west.
In summary, it is recommended that the city council direct the
Planning Commission to conduct a series of neighborhood meetings,
study the issue, and recommend any viable alternatives to the city
council by April, 1982.
Respectfully submitted,
Karl Nollenberger
City Manager
KN/sh
• cc: Community Development Director
City Planner
'010,
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Office of City Manager
Council Letter No. 443
Agenda December 28, 1981
The Honorable Mayor
and
Members of the City Council
City of Richf ield
Council Members:
Subject: Relocation of Richfield Court Facility
to Bloomington
At the October 12, 1981 city council meeting, the city council
approved temporary relocation of the Richfield Municipal Court to
the City of Bloomington as of November 1, 1981, and requested that
this matter be reviewed again at the December 28, 1981 city council
meeting.
The Hennepin County Fourth Judicial District Court had requested
this move unless the City of Richfield made substantial enlargements
and improvements to the court facilities provided here. The cost
implications of those improvements is significant, and the City of
Richfield began discussions with the court in order to attain
assurances on several procedural matters if the court were moved
to Bloomington. These assurances have been met to the satisfaction
of the city. Our experience with the court facilities in Bloomington
over the past seven weeks has been satisfactory.
In accordance with state statutes, the permanent move of court
facilities must be approved in resolution form by the city council.
Attached to this council letter is a resolution allowing for the
relocation of court facilities, and containing the assurances requested
by the City of Richfield.
It is recommended that the city council approve this resolution,
approving the relocation of court facilities to the City fo Bloomington.
Respectfully submitted,
c_l
Karl Nollenberger
City Manager
KN/sh
cc: City Attorney.
• Assistant City Attorney
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION CONSENTING TO
TRANSFER OF COURT TO
BLOOMINGTON
WHEREAS, the Hennepin County Municipal Court has for many
years conducted court without jury trials in the City of Richfield;
and
WHEREAS, on August 14, 1978, the City Council did express its
intention to retain municipal court facilities in Richfield; and
WHEREAS, beginning in 1980, members of the city staff have
been discussing the possibility of a relocation of the court to
Bloomington; and
WHEREAS, the Municipal Court bench has aa_reed to the condi-
tions set out in the letter of May 4, 1981, a copy of which is
attached hereto,
NOW THEREFOR
of Richfield that
rescinded and the
tion of municipal
• is subject to the
above.
E, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City
the Resolution of August 14, 1978, is hereby
City of Richfield hereby consents to the rel.oca-
court activities to Bloominaton. Such action
provisions of the May 4, 1981, letter referenced
Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield this 28th day
of December, 1981.
Donald J. Priebe, Mayor
ATTEST:
Sylvia K. Bergh City Clerk
is
3
.
A .
c3?' 4, 13,5 1
::onorable F M-er j. min dberq
. e
'.SSistarit CIAl£I i3 l; :.C`
I ",Cor i'OWeX
':e z 3 lec 12 f ^I ^ lfie? d ''o? a cI_ Lt>>
Deal: J uage Lir:ct,1,: ;
3I..1CjET a fC r to r_;OEs$ W:l t` .. - ae `innagor, , "ar l
1:01lC°.mberaer, t:,*: L:ia1. C •. ? E?''.?i' Llrecto'_ , ?'om _MorCran anci mnyI :e'ls:
olt:_?tC LI ?. r i :+
Crl'f,^•?T :._Z1C t .'lr: ._ _iY. ?' c.• f eF? Z ili71C.`.l. pal
• it 'J=: f3 i101i:1.Y' 'I2'C _ ?.n: ra=?? .. :I :;".".L?a;iLO'_? .._. _; ? ,....,^f? _ a:VCa'. ?F!C. 'r''so
d2 ", T T?<Y C
:eCC.;:I'iF•riC: .G`• L...:-?. t:Cl:1C-.__ _... s T. t3 C.L:;.?t.?.c)r .^..;: t?E, ?:rs;:3Ca,!:i?:1..1'.1 ?. C: ?:__?
c:_)i3Xt in
Ln t1-Ic'. _`f.?;'Uval Oi it
c'
::zcr.:izld mur_:icil:ai cour C- activitios to t'.e <'our h 1iv. sicn head-
cua: rers in Dloom ._zr tcn.
ass s•ae jiscus`_;,?td cn O:_'.iay, the c4i:',7 ` -; wi "_J::r nes , t-o take
necessary 341-ep Of --esc.iI ding tt13 rasol;ztion assiuneS a3 a p2'econ-
Oition that the faca ° ity in Bloomington wiii be e-nod_>1oc1 to provide
adequate space to ?,,ieet our needs. 11.1is oulc. i:icl..nde, an we d1--
cu3sed, an offlcEl with tolw?phone -which coulc: be. 'i,;eCa
by the Richfield : -oseci.-cc -: while lie or he -s L-1
is Irv +.rde-rst.andi':Aq tha- loom ngton is Ti1:'esnnt1, CcnEJ.i.c? int.1 ,':;le
remaeiing c::aich wili be necessary to praL•i,?e that office-. A
decisicn from. Sir-,cmirgton is due shortly.
In additicn, we arc- seeking a3surtiuic os tron t..e Court on
several r,,atters of procedure once we have relocated to 11loo-Anatcn.
? . P.ichfielr,. appearances -will :till receive separato
3,7hedulin. q. t`=r ,.ntly we have arra.ignnents and
is trials on Tuesday3 and Wednesdays every other
i
Ron. Peter J. Lindberg
;day 4, 1981
?aq-e Two
week and on Monrlay of the interim week. Jury trials
and pre-trials ar-? scheduled for the interim week,
except Monday. We understand that tree particular
day..3 could be ;ub j .-ct to change in tine. The point
is that they he separate and predictable.
2. T't:.e "oncay arraignment and court trial settings will
be ar..!v in the mornings unl se additional af--terrcon
er-t:'-ng3 cl-iould become necessary to relieves a case
Dacfl.oc.
el:. ?-:c.:cdailivi wi! 1 no- ,De '-R)ulb-'ed up" except
i;t -itr.at. ons. }ri`i we mean thzt
?o •??r'?s_V'_t'.,Uc ta?'2f?.i-, T.jC>tl.#.?? 1:1V?? .•c' .?,??_.''.t;ltt:!1E3C".1??,-`! `?i0
s ,cjto-v for -4'.ch::j.'3b€? S= ;:t'i i?.'.C 4n ?'?QO."l nC7LOn.
'.rarolles 'qc)u?..d . r. -Djrf a: ^ourt lxiai an-I -y
ar:d a-1-1d jury
trial-3 and c'ot,al?? --i.r r Trials o- cot-r_t trims.
j-
9.1'n Cn :n iC ^t'' ?! obi l E17 I'_ C, nl
j ,-3D : }_b
CC: K. "lolle.nberc;er
12. Morgan, Jr.
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Office of City Manager
Council Letter No. 442
Agenda December 28, 1981
The Honorable Mayor
and
Members of the City Council
City of Richfield
Council Members:
Subject: Ordinance Amendment Relating to Personal
Leave/Disability Insurance Benefits -
Management Employees, Second Reading
At the December 14, 1931 city council meeting, the city council
gave first reading approval to an ordinance amendment relating to
personal leave/disability insurance benefits for management employees,
and scheduled a public hearing and second reading consideration for
the December 28, 1981 city council meeting.
A copy of the proposed ordinance amendment and a copy of the
December 14, 1971 council letter detailing these proposed amendments
is attached to this council letter.
This item has been placed on the December 28, 1981 agenda for
second reading consideration. It is recommended that the city council
approve this ordinance on second reading.
Respectfully submitted,
Karl Nollenberger
City Manager
KN/sh
cc: Personal Manager
0
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Office of City Manager
Council Letter No. 426
Agenda December 14, 1981
The Honorable Mayor
and
Members of the City Council
City of Richfield
Council Members:
Subject: Ordinance Amendment Relating to Personal
Leave/Disability Insurance Benefits -
Management Employees. First Reading.
The City of Richfield provides a number of fringe benefits to
employees of the city in addition to the salaries that are paid.
In the case of four employee groups (police officers, police super-
visors, firefighters, supervisors and maintenance workers), the
salaries and fringe benefits are determined through the negotiation
process. In the case of general service and management employees,
the city council determines the level and types of fringe benefits
• and salaries, upon recommendation of the city manager. The city
manager consults with the management team and frequently with other
employees when making these recommendations.
The city provides one such benefit referred to as "sick leave."
All general service and management employees receive 12 days of sick
leave accrual at the rate of one day per month. The employees may
utilize those sick days for the following purposes:
1-physical incapacity incurred on or off-duty;
2-personal illness, including medical and dental appoint-
ments during work hours;
3-enforced quarantine of the employee in accordance with
community health regulations;
4-serious illness or death in the immediate family.
Much discontent is generated in most cities that have sick
leave plans similar to ours (as almost all cities do) due to the
use of sick leave by employees. While there are some tools which
the city has and uses to administer the sick leave benefit, an
equitable use of sick leave for all parties in line with the purposes
outlined above is impossible. There are cases where employees abuse
sick leave for reasons not stated above when it is not feasible to
verify the actual illness (i.e. requiring a doctor's excuse for
one-day illnesses) and there are cases where people nearing retire-
ment seek to utilize sick leave since the accumulation of sick
leave is lost upon retirement. In addition, there are cases where
employees utilize sick leave on a one-day at a time basis instead
I
Council Letter No. 426 -2- December 14, 1981
of accumulating days, only to find when an extended illness
occurs, that they have accumulated no leave to cover their loss
of pay during the time of illness. Employees who are conscientious
in their use of sick leave sometimes feel frustration at the in-
equity of the situation which creates morale implications that are
a detriment to good working relations.
All of these reasons have led us to look for alternatives to
the traditional sick leave programs that might better serve the
employees as well as the city. We are recommending that we be
able to pursue one such alternative which consists of a personal
leave plan, short-term disability, and long-term disability insur-
ance in lieu of sick leave. We are suggesting the new program just
for management personnel at this time, however, the city may wish
to provide the benefit to general services employees in the future.
In addition to the concerns outlined above with the sick
leave program, there is a need for income protection in the event
of extended non-job related illness or injury. This is a signifi-
cant gap in our existing benefit program. Employees also frLuCnt?_`
request a severance pay benefit which would be based upon unused
sick leave. Due to that type of benefit in police and fire labor
contracts, I would expect that request to be repeated until such
time as the issue is resolved. The implementation of this program
to a smaller group such as the 40 member management group will give
us time to evaluate the program. Following is a description of the
provisions of the new plan.
PERSO -AL LL, ':-t
Commencing January 1, 1982, all employees classified and com-
pensated as part of the Management Pay Plan will be granted 40
hours (5 days) of annual personal leave, with pay, which may be used
by the employee as follows:
1-Time lost as a result of non-job-related illness/injury
to the employee or a member of the employee's immediate
family;
2-Medical/dental appointments for the employee or a member
of the employee's immediate family;
3-To attend to personal business;
4-Leisure time.
Employees may accrue unused personal leave from year to year
provided, however, that no employee may accrue in excess of 160
hours (20 days) of personal leave. Hours in excess of the 160
(20 days) limit shall be forfeited by the employee, without compen-
sation.
Utilization
Personal leave.shall be scheduled and administered under dir-
ection of the Department'IIeads. In the event of illness/injury
for which personal leave is requested, the employee requesting such
Council Letter No. 426 -3- December 14, 1981
leave shall notify the supervisor prior to the scheduled reporting
' time. Requests for personal leave for reasons other than illness/
injury must be submitted to the supervisor a reasonable time in
advance of the period of time for which such leave is requested,
to enable the supervisor to arrange for normal continuance of the
department functions.
In each f
request or personal leave the
city shall have the authority to grant or deny such leave based
upon the merit of such request and the reasonable needs of the
municipal service.
Sick Leave Conversion
Management employees who have accrued sick leave on December
31, 1981, may convert such accrued leave to personal leave accord-
ing to the following formula:
Accrued Sick Leave Hours _ Conversion Personal Leave
Factor Hours
0-240 3 0 - 80 (max.)
241 - 720 (480 Hours) 6 0 - 80 (max.)
Total Personal Leave Hours 0 -160 (max.)
Examples:
Employee X Sick Leave Accrual as of 12/31/81: 375 hours
First 240 hours 3= 00.0 hours personal leave
Remaining 135 hours (375-240) 6= 22.5 hours personal leave
Total 102.5 hours personal leave
Employee Y Sick Leave Accrual as of 12/31/81: 840 hours
First 240 hours 3= 80.0 hours personal leave
Next 480 hours (241 thru 720) 6= 80.0 hours personal leave
't'otal 160.0 hours personal leave
The remaining 120 hours of sick leave (840-720) would not be elig-
ible for conversion to personal leave.
s Council Letter No. 426 -4- December 14, 1931
Definition
SHORT-TERM DISABILITY
Short-term disability is leave provided for injury or illness
which prevents the employee from performing his/her duties as a
city employee. Short-term disability benefits become effective on
the eleventh (11th) continuous day of such absence of any eligible
employee. The benefits paid will be coordinated with workers'
compensation or any other supplemental pay plan.
Provision
Commencing January 1, 1932, all employees classified and com-
pensated as part of the Management Pay Plan, will become eligible
for an employer paid short-term disability benefit, which will pro-
vide eligible employees with a paid leave for qualifying absences
at the rate of 100% of the employee's regular base wage up to a
maximum of 122 working days of disability, or until such employee's
accrued "benefit days" of coverage have been exhausted, whichever
comes first; provided, however, that employees shall not be elig-
ible for short-term disability benefits once they have qualified
for long-term disability benefits.
0
Effective January 1, 1932, eligible employees will accumulate
24 benefit days of short-term disability coverage per year for
each full year of service, provided however, that such leave shall
be cumulative to a maximum of 122 benefit days.
Vesting of Current Management Employees
Eligible employees with accrued sick leave as of December 31,
1901 will be vested with short-term disability coverage according
to the following formula:
Total Hours of Accrued Sick Leave (Prior to Personal Leave Conversion)
-Total flours of Personal Leave Vested (From Sick Leave Conversion)
=Total Vested Hours of Short-Term Disability Coverage
Examples:
Employee X - Sick Leave Accrual as of 12/31/81
Total hours of personal leave vested from sick
version process = 102.5 hours (see conversion
375.0 hours sick leave accrued
-102.5 hours personal leave vested
272.5 hours of short-term disability insurance
Eptil )lovee Y - Sick Leave Accrual as of 12/31/81
- 375 hours
leave con-
2xample)
(34.06 benefit day.
- 040 hours
Total }lours of personal leave vested from sic!: leave con?'Or-
sion process = 160.0 hours (see conversion example)
Council Letter No. 426 -5-
December 14, 1931
840 hours sick leave accrued
-160 hours personal leave vested
680 hours of short term disability insurance (85 benefit days)
Utilization
In order to qualify for short-term disability benefits, the
eligible employee must provide the city with a written statement,
provided by a duly licensed physician, which verifies that the
employee is unable to satisfactorily perform his/her assigned duties.
At any time during the period of absence in which short-term disa-
bility benefits are paid to the employee, the city manager may re-
quire the employee tosubmit to an examination by a city appointed
;hysician to verify that the employee is unable to satisfactorily
perform required duties. In all cases, requests for short-term
disability benefits must be apporved and determined valid by the
city manager.
LONG-TERM DISABILITY
Definition
Long-term disability is income protection provided for injury
or illness which prevents the employee from performing his/her
duties as a city employee. Long-term disability income becomes
effective after six continuous calendar months of any absence which
is due to non-service related disability. The benefits paid will
be coordinated with workers' compensation or any other supplemental
pay plan.
Provision
Commencing as soon after January 1, 1982 as practicable, all
employees classified and compensated as part of the management plan
will become eligible for an employer paid long-term disability benefit,
which will provide eligible employees with a disability income for
qualifying long-term absences at the rate of 60% of the employee's
base wage up to a maximum of $3,000 per month (final details depend-
ent upon insurance package selected). Long-term disability income
will not accrue beyond the disabled employee's 65th birthday. The
city manager should annually review the maximum monthly disability
payment and make adjustments as deemed necessary.
Utilization
Guidelines or restrictions relating to the utilization and
qualification of this benefit are quite lengthy and complex and
would be developed as part of the bid specifications for this cov-
erage.
SUMMARY
The city currently.self-insures the sick leave program of
the city which allows employees to be absent from work for periods
of time up to six months. It is highly unusual for sickness of
Council Letter No. 426 -6- December 14, 1981
these durations to occur with a low frequency occuring in the last
five years. The city would continue to self-insure the short-term
disability, with insurance for the more significant long-term costs
of long-term disability coverage.
The city has a self-insurance
programs now covering the workers'
self-insurance fund will cover the
long-term disability insurance. T
activity budgets from onerous, but
illnesses which require a position
fund for employer paid leave
compensation insurance. The
costs of both short-term and
ais would relieve the individual
infrequent costs of extended
to remain vacant.
Attached to this council letter is an ordinance amendment
relating to personal leave/disability insurance benefits. This
ordinance amendment has been placed on the December 14, 1981 city
council agenda for first reading consideration.
Respectfully submitted,
Karl Nollenberger
City Manager
cc: Program Directors
Personnel Manager
KN/eja
f
0
LEGAL :;OTLCE
r ORDINANCE 1981-37
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE CITY CODE
OF THE CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA,
BY ADDING A NEW SUBDIVISION 12 TO
SECTION 2.34 THEREOF PROVIDING PERSONAL LEIA
BENEFITS TO CITY EI•IPLOYEES
COVERED BY THE MANAGEMENT PAY PLAN;
AND BY ADDING NEW SUBDIVISIONS 3 AND 4
TO SECTION 2.35 THEREOF PROVIDING SHORT-T^?,...I
?`r
DISABILITY AND LONG-TEPli DISABILITY
BENEFITS, RESPECTIVELY, TO THE
EMPLOYEES COVERED BY SAID PLAN.
CITY OF RICHFIELD DOES ORDAIN:
I. Section 2.34 of The Ordinance Code of the City of Richfield,
Minnesota, is hereby amended by adding a new Subdivision 12
to read as follows:
r 2.34 ATTENDANCE AND LEAVES.
Subd. 12. Personal Leave.
•
(1) Eligibility and Accrual. Effective January 1,
1982, each permanent full-time or full-time probationary
employee classified and compensated under the Management Pay
Plan, as that Plan has been adopted and may be amended from
time to time pursuant to Section 2.33 of this Code, shall be
eligible to accrue and use personal leave. An eligible
employee shall accrue 1.54 hours of personal leave bi-weekly
and may accu:I,ulate such leave from year to year up to a
maxi,'num of 160 hours of personal leave unless written author-
ization extending this maximul;l is obtained frori the Depart-
ment He':d and the City Manager. Hours in excess of 160
hours shall be forfeited by the employee without compen-
sation.
(a) Restrictions. Notwithstanding any any other
I
provision of this Code, no employee eligible for per- i
` sonal leave shall be eligible to accrue or use sick
leave.
(b) Conversion of Sick Leave Benefit. Each
4
employee who becomes eligible for personal leave and
who has accrued sick leave hours shall convert such
sick leave hours into personal leave hours in accord-
ance with the formula developed and amended from time
to time by the City Manager and set out in the City's
Personnel Policy. In the event that an employee ceases
to be classified under the Management Pay Plan but
remains in the employ of the City, that employee's
personal leave shall be converted back to the then
applicable sick leave benefit in reverse application of
the abovementioned formula then in effect.
(2) Usage and Administration. An employee may use
accrued personal leave for any reason, subject to the re-
strictions stated herein, but shall be required to use
accrued personal leave for illness or injury necessitating
absence from work, except that personal leave shall not be
used if the employee is eligible for short-term disability
or long-term disability benefits provided in Section 2.35 of
this Code. Personal leave shall be scheduled and adminis-
tered under direction of the Department Heads. In the event
2
of illness or injury necessitating work absence, the
employee requesting such leave shall notify his or _.Ar
??
r
supervisor prior to the scheduled reporting time. Requests
for personal leave for reasons other than illness or injury
must be submitted to the supervisor a reasonable time in
advance of the period of time for which such leave is re-
quested to enable the supervisor to arrange for normal
continuance of the department functions, and in such cases,
requested personal leave will not be unreasonably refused
but shall be subject to and coordinated with the adminis-
trative and managerial needs of the City. Personal leave
shall be chargeable only when used on regularly scheduled
work days or work periods. When a holiday occurs during an
employee's personal leave, and the employee is regularly
titl
ff
th
d t
ti such
h
lid
ith time will
e
e
me o
on
en
o ay w
pay,
o
not be charged against the employee's personal leave.
II. Section 2.35 of The Ordinance Code of the City of Richfield,
i Minnesota, is hereby amended to add new Subdivisions 3 and 4
to read as follows:
2.35 GROUP INSURANCE PROVISIONS.
Subd. 3. SHORT-TERM DISABILITY: ACCIDENT & SICKNESS BENEFIT.
(1) Eligibility and Accrual. Effective January 1,
1982, eac'.: permanent full-time and full-time probationary
employee classified and compensated under the Management Pay
C. ' :17 100
P1aT:, u? p ?..?d (-in(! ? C. alilt'ndt:C1 `.r.?.m
t::at Pla.."1 has bE;e1 a'G
3
_ i
j
d
time to-time pursuant to Section 2.33 of this Code, shall be
_ eligible for a short-term disability benefit providing a
- disability income for qualifying absences at the rate of
100% of the employee's regular base wage up to a maximum of
122 benefit days of disability, or until such employee's
i
accrued benefit days of coverage have been exhausted, which-
ever occurs first; provided, however, that an employee shall
not be eligible for short-term disability benefits once he
or she has qualified for the long-term disability benefits
provided below. Effective and beginning January 1, 1982, an
eligible employee shall accrue two days of short-term dis-
ability coverage per month, and such unused coverage shall
accumulate to a maximum of 122 benefit days.
(a) Restrictions. Notwithstanding any other
f thi
C
d
i
i
l
li
ibl
f
prov
s
on o
s
o
e, no emp
oyee e
g
e
or short-
term disability benefits shall be eligible to accrue or
use sick leave.
(b) Conversion of Sick Leave Benefit. Each
i
employee who becomes eligible for short-term disability
benefits, and who has sick leave hours which exceed the
number of sick leave hours which can then be converted
into personal leave hours under the formula provided in
Section 2.34, Subd. 12(1)'(b) of this Code, shall con-
vert such excess sick leave hours into si-iort-term
disability benefit days in accordance with the formula
de•,eloped and amended from time to time by the City
hlar.a,er. I-n the event that an employee ceases to be
classified under the Management Pay Plan but remains in
4
the employ of the City, that employee's short-term
disability benefit days shall be converted hack to the
then applicable sick leave benefit in reverse applica-
tion of the abovementioned formula then in effect.
(2) Usace. Short-term disability is a benefit which
provides disability income for injury or illness which pre-
vents the employee from performing his or her duties as a
City employee. Short-term disability benefits become effec-
tive on the eleventh (11th) continuous day of such absence
of any eligible employee. Benefits paid will be coordinated
with and offset by workers' compensation or any other supple-
mental pay plan.
(3) Administration. In order to qualify for short-
term disability benefits, the eligible employee must provide
the City with a written statement from a duly licensed
duties. In all cases, requests for short-term disability
physician verifying that the employee is unable to perform
satisfactorily his or her assigned duties due to injury or
illness. At any time during the period of absence in which
short-term disability benefits are paid to the employee, the
city manager may require the employee to submit to an exam-
ination by a City-appointed physician to verify that the
employee is unable to perform satisfactorily required
benefits muct be approved by the City Manager.
Subd. -1. Lor:?T-Term Disability.
(1) E1ir:ibility and Benefit Amount. Effective July 1,
c1I1c], ftiii-t_ime probatlonafy
5
.,
employee classified and compensated under the Management Pay
Plan will become eligible for an employer-paid long-term
disability insurance benfit, which will provide eligible
employees with a disability income for qualifying long-term
absences.
(2) Administration. The City Manager shall annually
review the long-term disability insurance benefit and shall
cause such modifications in that benefit as deemed neces-
sary.
Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield,
Minnesota, this day of 1981.
• Mayor
ATTEST:
City Cier
w
6
0 %A
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Office of City Manager
is Council Letter No. 441
Agenda December 28, 1981
The Honorable Mayor
and
Members of the City Council
City of Richfield
Council Members:
Subject: Charter Amendment Relating to City
Purchasing Practices, Amending Section
6.06 of the City Charter, Second Reading
At the December 14, 1981 city council meeting, the city council
gave first readig approval to a charter amendment which would change
the requirement for obtaining sealed, competitive bids from $2,500
to $10,000. State law currently provides for a $10,000 requirement
for sealed competitive bidding. An attorney general's opinion in
1971 indicated that the Uniform Purchasing Law of the State of Min-
nesota superceded local home rule charters. For that reason, the
city practice since that time has been to require sealed, competitive
bids only for contracts in excess of $10,000.
• The new charter language would clarify the types of contracts
covered by the provision of Section 6.06, and clarify the relationship
to state law and bring the city charter into conformity thereof.
A copy of the proposed charter amendment is attached to this
council letter and has been placed on the city council agenda for
second reading at the December 28, 1981 city council meeting. It
is recommended that the council approve the ordinance in second
reading by the unanimous vote which is required in charter amendments.
Respectfully submitted,
Karl Nollenberger
City Manager
KN/sh
cc: City Clerk
C?
A ,.
Bill 1981-3u
CHARTER At-IIEND21:17NT
ORDINANCE I:0 • 11
AN ORDINANCE AMENDIi,?G THE CITY CHARTER
OF THE CITY OF RICHFIELD
4.
CITY OF RICHFIELD DOES ORDAIN:
The City Charter of the City of Richfield, adopted '.c%,em?D er 3
1964, as subsequently amended, is hereby amended in the follo:•;in,
respects:
Section 6.06 thereof, entitled "Contracts: How Let" is hereby
amended to read as follows:
Sec. 6.06. Contracts: ??oa Let. Every contract for t;:e sale
or purchase of merchandise, materials or equipment, or
rentnl thereof or for the construction, alteration, rC- air
or mainten.ince of real or aersonal nroocrt [or for any kind
of construction work] where the amount involved is more than
[$2,500.001 S10,000.00 shall be let only by the council upon
the reco.-.mendation of the city manager to the lo%,est respon-
sible bidder, unless, the council shall othere,rise pro•; ide by
resolution adopted by a vote of a majority of the council and
published once in the official le;ai newspaper of the city.
The council may, however, reject any and all bids. Subject
to the provisions of the charter, the council may by o:?'-;nnnco
adopt further rc;;ulatior,s for makin of bids and letter of
contracts.
Proposed by the City Council of the City of Richfield this
14th day of December, 1981.
Donald J. Priebe Mayor
ATTEST:
Sylvia I\'. l3ergii city clerk
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Office of City Manager
• Council Letter No. 440
Agenda December 28, 1981
The Honorable Mayor
and
Members of the City Council
City of Richfield
Council Members:
Subject: Charter Amendment Relating to City Purchasi:
Practices, Amending Section 6.05 of the Cit_
Charter, Second Reading
At the December 14, 1981 city council meeting,
gave first reading approval to a charter amendment
increase the city manager's authorization to make
prior city council approval from $1,000 to $5,000.
council letter detailing these changes is attached
letter.
the city council
which would
purchases without
A copy of the
to this council
Also attached to this council letter is a copy of a resolution
which would permit the city council to maintain any controls they
would like to have on purchases in excess of $2,500. The points
included in the council letter of December 14 are included in the
resolution.
A copy of the proposed charter amendment is attached to this council
letter, and has been placed on the December 28, 1981 city council
agenda for second reading consideration. It is recommended that the
city council approve the ordinance by the unanimous vote required to
pass a charter amendment. The council should also consider the
resolution attached in the event that you would like the additional
limitations imposed.
Respectfully submitted,
Karl Nollenberger
City Manager
KN/sh
cc: Community Services Director
Community Development Director
Administrative Services Director
Public Safety Director
Liquor Operations Director
City Clerk
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Office of City Manager
•
•
The Honorable Mayor
and
Members of the City Council
City of Richfield
Council Members:
Subject: Charter Amendment
for the Adoption
Amending Section
and Adding a New
Council Letter No. 439
Agenda December 28, 1981
Relating to Procedure
of City Ordinances,
3.05 of the City Charter
Section 3.12, Second Readir
At the December 14, 1981 city council meeting, council gave first
reading approval to a charter amendment relating to the publication
procedure for the adoption of city ordinances. The current charter
provision requires that the city publish in the legal newspaper ordin-
ances of the city after both first and second reading. Through the
end of October, the second publication costs amounted to $1,383.13
for 1981. This figure does not include the publishing costs of the
proposed residential zoning ordinance, which is $576.67 to meet each
publication requirement in its entirety.
The proposed charter amendment eliminates the requirement that
every ordinance be published in the legal newspaper at least one week
prior to final passage, and requires that ordinances be published only
once, after second reading. In addition, in special circumstances,
when the city council determines by unanimous decision that costs of
publishing an ordinance in its entirety is not justified, a summary of
the ordinance may be published in its stead. Notices of the public
hearings to be held on ordinances on second reading will still be
required.
approval to this charter amendment.
A copy of the proposed charter amendment is attached to this
council letter. This item has been placed on the December 28, 1981
city council agenda for second reading consideration. State law
provides that charter amendments may be adopted by ordinance, after
recommendation of the charter commission, by a unanimous vote of the
city council. It is recommended that the city council give unanimous
Respectfully submitted,
is
Karl Nollenberger
City Manager
KN/sh
cc: City Clerk
Bill 1981-33
CHARTER AMENDMENT ORDINANCE NO. 7
CHARTER A E.!DMENT ORDINANCE RELATING TO
PROCEDURE FOR TIIE ADOPTION OF CITY ORDINANCES
AMENDING SECTION 3.05 OF TIME RICHFIELD CITY
CHARTER AND ADDING A NEW SECTION: 3.12.
CITY OF RICHFIELD DOES ORDAIN:
Section 1. Section 3.05 of the Richfield City Charter
is amended to read:
"Section 3.05. Procedure on ordinances. The enacting
clause of all ordinances shall be in the words 'City of Richfield
does ordain'. Every ordinance shall be presented in writing. .:o
ordinance except an emergency ordinance shall be passed at the
meeting at which it is introduced and at least seven (7) days
shall elapse between its introduction and its final passage.
[Every-ordinance;-ctncr-th nn-an-exftcrSency-ardinanee,-st?a?i-tee
published-in-tnc-}egs?-nc?spa??cr-at-feast-enc-weer-pr?ar-te-the •
finny-pa?sngc-7..
Section 2. Chapter 3 of said charter is amended by addin:,,
at the end thereof, the following additional section:
"Sec. 3.12. [Manner of F?t:blication of Ordinances. If the
city council deterFTiinec that publication of the complete text of
an ordinance is not worth the expensc and that a sunimary would
clearl,/ inform the public of the intent and effect of the ordinance,
the council may l)v a unani_motis vote direct that only the title of
the ordinance and a =>>tir_v be published with notice that printed
conies of the ordinance are available to anv t ?erson during rec.:lar
office hour:; at +_he office of the city clc,rlc and any other location
Wh 1Ch thy' C-C'.!"•!' ? ? (Ik's ignate:; . Pr lol- to the i?UIJl lCatlrn Of the
i
title a rd summary the council shall approve the text of the
summary and determine that it clearly informs the public of the
intent and effect of the ordinance."
Se tion 3. Effective Date. This ordinance is effective
thirty 430) days after its publication, subject to the provisions
of Minn sota Statutes, Sec. 410.12, Subdivision 7.
Proposed by the City Council of the City of Richfield this
14th day of December, 1981.
Donald J. Priebe Mayor
Attest: -
Sylvia *. Bergh City Cler
41
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Office of City Manager
• Council Letter No. 438
Agenda December 28, 1981
The Honorable Mayor
and
Members of the City Council
City of Richfield
Council Members:
Subject: Ordinance Amendment to City Charter
Defining Status of the Public Safety
Director in Relation to Civil Service,
Second Reading
At the initiation of the city council, the Richfield Charter
Commission has recommended an amendment to the city charter which would
clarify the status of the Public Safety Director in relation to the Civil
Service. At the December 14, 1981 city council meeting, the city council
gave first reading approval to this charter amendment.
The proposal would amend the provisions in the city charter
relating to the city manager's appointment powers. This language
is proposed in order to clarify any consideration of the public safety
director position and its applicability to civil service. While the
existing public safety director position is not considered to be
covered by the civil service, some dispute or confusion regarding this
matter could arise under existing state law due to the way this position
is handled in other cities.
A copy of this proposed charter amendment is attached to this
council letter and has been placed on the December 28, 1981 city council
agenda for second reading consideration. State law provides that
charter amendments may be adopted by the city council by ordinance
with the unanimous approval of the city council. It is recommended
that the city council give unanimous approval to this charter amendment.
Respectfully submitted,
;J 1\3.?L?„
Karl Nollenberger
City Manager
KN/sh
cc: Public Safety Director
City Clerk
0
LEGAL NOTLCE
' f'
Bill 1981-35
CHARTER AMENDMENT ORDINANCE NO. 9
An Ordinance Amending Section 6.02,
Subdivision 3, of the Richfield City
Charter, Defining the Status of the
Director of Public Safety in Relation
to Civil Service.
CITY OF RICHFIELD DOES ORDAIN:
Section 1. Section 6.02, Subdivision 3, of the City Charter of the
City of Richfield, is amended to read:
"Sub. 3 The City manager Ehe3 shall appoint and remove, upon the basis of merit and
fitness and subject to applicable civil service provisions, if any, the
city clerk, all heads of departments and all subordinate officers and
employees in the departments. The director of public safety, having
administrative and supervisory control over the police and fire divisions
of the Department of Public Safety, is not under the jurisdiction of the
police and fire civil service commission of the city. Appointment or
removal of department heads shad be made final only upon a majority vote
of the council."
• Section 2. Subject to the provisions of Minnesota Statutes, Section
410.12, Subdivision 7, this ordinance is effective 30 days after its
passage and publication.
Mayor
ATTEST:
City CIer
0
?V
CITY OF RICHFIELD,MINNESOTA
Office of City Manager
Council Letter No. 437
Agenda December 28, 1981
The Honorable Mayor
and
Members of the City
City of Richfield
Council Members:
Council
Subject: Ordinance Amending City
Relating to Nominations
Offices, Second Reading
Charter Provisions
for City Elected
The Richfield Charter Commission has recommended an amendment to
Section 4.04 of the city charter, relating to the nomination of
candidates for city elected offices. At their December 14, 1981 city
council meeting, the city council gave first reading approval to this
ordinance amendment.
The proposed amendment would clarify the time prior to a municipal
primary election during which nominating petitions can be received
16 by the city clerk. The proposed language is consistent with state law
and eliminates confusion which previously existed regarding the earliest
time that a candidate might submit a petition filing for office.
A copy of the proposed charter amendment is attached to this
council letter and has been placed on the December 28, 1981 city council
agenda for second reading consideration. State law provides that
charter amendments may be adopted by ordinance after recommendation of
the Charter Commission upon a unanimous vote of the city council. It
is recommended that the city council give unanimous approval to this
charter amendment.
Respectfully submitted,
Karl Nollenberger
City Manager
KN/sh
cc: City Clerk
is
LEGAL NOTICE
Bill 1981-34
0 CHARTER AilENDMENT ORDINANCE NO. 8
CHARTER AME"TD.=T ORDINANCE RELATING TO
NOMINATIONS FOR CITY ELECTIVE OFFICES, AMENDING
SECTION 4.04 OF THE RIC11FIELD CITY CARTER
CITY OF RICHFIELD DOES ORDAIN:
Section 1. Section 4.04 of the City Charter o-f the
City of Richfield relating to the nominations of candidates
for City elective offices is hereby amended to provide as
follows:
"Section 4.04. Nominations by Petition. All candi-
dates for elective office provided for-by-this charter shall
be nominated by petition. The name
_of_any_registered voter
of the city shall be printed upon-the-ballot as a candidate
for an office whenever_a petition signed by at least ten
registered voters has been filed with the city clerk in his
behalf at-least not more than six nor less than four weeks
before the municipal primary election date provided in
. Section 4.02. No registered voter shall sign petitions for
more candidates for anv office than the number of persons to
be chosen for that office at the election; should he do so,
his signature shall be void as to the petition or petitions
last filed. Each petition presented shall be accompanied by
a five dollar ($5.00) filing fee.
Section 2. Effective Date. This ordinance is
effective thirty (30) days after its publication, subject to
the provisions of Minnesota Statutes, Sec. 410.12, Subdivision
7.
0
0 5
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Office of City Manager
`0
Council Letter No. 436
Agenda December 28, 1981
The Honorable Mayor
and
Members of the City Council
City of Richfield
Council Members:
Subject: Renewal of On-Sale Liquor nd Sunday
Liquor Licenses, Ground Round Restaurant,
1504 East 78th Street
0
A public hearing has been scheduled for December 28, 1981 for
consideration of the application for renewal of the above noted
liquor licenses. Attached for council review is the Public Safety
Department Investigative Report on issues pertinent to this license
renewal request.
Based on the information provided by the Public Safety Depart-
ment, it is recommended that the requested license renewals be
approved and the licenses issued.
Respectfully submitted,
KN/sh
cc: Public Safety Director
City Clerk
Karl Nollenberger
City Manager
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY
City of Richfield, Minnesota
Date: December 17, 1981
Subl,ect: INVESTIGATIVE REPORT
RENEWAL OF ON-SALE LIQUOR, and SUNDAY LIQUOR LICENSES
GROUND GROUND RESTAURANT
An application for the above named licenses has been submitted
by the Howard Johnson Company, a Maryland corporation licensed
to do business within the State of Minnesota,for the continued
operation of the Ground Round Restaurant. All necessary infor-
mation including an accountant statement of the gross liquor
and food sales, surety bond, insurance certificates, political
contributions statement, and license fees have been filed with
the application. It should be noted that the license fees sub-
mitted were based on the 1981 license rate, rather than the
license rates established for 1982 license year. The applicant
has been notified of the balance in the license fee due and pay-
able to the City of Richfield regarding the pending license
applications.
Application Investigation
In accordance with the city ordinance requirements, the Public
Safety Director has initiated the investigation of information
required by Richfield City Ordinance Code 11.06 (Subd. 4), which
relates to the control of on-sale liquor establishments. The
application for the license has been submitted on behalf of the
corporation by Mr. Walter W. Curcio, Vice-President of the parent
corporation, The Howard Johnson Company. There have been no
changes in the corporate structure during the past year which
would have any impact on the pending license renewal applications.
During the course of the license renewal investigation it was
determined by the Department of Public Safety that the restaurant
had changed operations manager. Therefore, the required background
investigation of the manager was conducted as a part of this license
renewal proceeding. The new manager of the local operation is Mr.
William Behrens, who has been a management employee of the parent
corporation since May of 1978. The background investigation found
no problem which would preclude Mr. Behrens from the management
position at the local establishment. The corporation was informed
of the ordinance requirement to notify the City of Richfield in
the event of a manager change. The instance of the change dis-
covered during this investigative process simply appears to have
been an oversight on tho part of the applicant.
Ground Round Restaurant -2- December 17, 1981
The Department of Public Safety has verified that all of the
insurance and bonding requirements have been met and are
presently in force. Additionally, the Department of Public
Safety has verified that all federal, state and local tax
obligations have been met.
It shoul
present
this is
During t
82 incid
months o
incident
experien
of the c
termed,
ness. B
ing, and
Director
corporat
iate and
a meetin
the Poli
personne
has made
effect o
occurred
incident
manager
ing the
noted th
concerns
the type
be noted that the applicant has only operat
usiness establishment since July of 1980. T
he first full year of operation which has be
e past year, the Department of Public Safety
nts occurring at this establishment. In the
operation in 1980, the applicant experience
which required Public Safety service. Of t
ed during the past year, 32 involved crimina
iminal incidents experienced, 26 involved wh
bar type" problems including disorderly cond
cause of the pattern of problems that appear
the fact that the manager was changed withou
of Public Safety contacted the Vice-Presiden
on in September of 1981. The corporation sh
very concerned response to this problem. On
was held between members of the Ground Roun
e Division. The parent corporation flew in
to participate in this meeting. The local
numerous policy changes which have had a ver
the number of Public Safety incidents. Sin
on October 5th through November 30th, there
which occurred at the establishment. The 1
as taken a very aggressive position with reg
ublic Safety problems which had developed.
t the rapid response of the corporation in d
raised by the Department of Public Safety sp
of establishment they wish to operate in thi
Aside from the 32 incidents of a criminal nature, the
incident requiring Public Safety responses were for
general service matters. However, of these 50 incidei
matters elated to parking problems in the area of th,
This trend would seem to indicate that there is insuf
street parking available for the volume of business e:
this establishment.
Accountant's Report
The on-sale liquor ordinance requires that the app.
with the city a statement, by an accountant, which shy
sales an the total food sales of the preceding twelve
It shout be noted, that while this information has b,
as required, the statement is furnished by the intern.
departme t of the-parent corporation and not an indep
ing firm The Department of Public Safety has been u:
the financial reports.
d the
erefore,
n monitored.
has responded to
first three
only 5
e 82 incidents
matters.
t can be
ct and drunken-
d to be develop-
notice, the
of the
wed an immed-
October 5,
staff and
anagement
stablishment
noticeable •
e the meeting
ere only 2
cal operations
rd to correct-
t should be
aling with the
aks well for
community.
remaining 50
a variety of
its, 20 involved
restaurant.
Eicient off-
Kperienced by
Licant file
Dws the gross
month period.
Zen provided
al audit
=ndent account-
aable to verify
r
Ground Round Restaurant -3-
The corporation operates on a fiscal year which runs from
November lst to October 31st. Based on this accounting
period, the pertinent required financial information is
as follows:
3 Months Ending 12 Months Ending
October 31, 1980 October 31, 1981
Total Sales $ 378,155 $1,886,779
Food Sales 227,142 1,051,907
% of Food Sales to Total 60% 560
% of Liquor Sales to Total 400 44%
Health and Safety Regulations
Both the Health and Fire Divisions of the Department of Public
Safety have made regular and routine inspections of the applicants
premises during the past year. As a result of these inspections
there have been only minor problems identified with regard to the
food service area. These problems have been corrected immediately
after being brought to the attention of the establishments manage-
ment.
The property is free from major violations of the Uniform Fire
Code. While minor deficiencies have been identified during the
fire safety inspections, the applicant has been cooperative in
correcting these problems as they arose.
Miscellaneous Information
The applicant has filed the necessary political contribution declara-
tions indicating that there were no such contributions made during
the past year. The license applicant does not own the building or
the property upon which the business operates. The applicant is
continuing under the same lease arrangement which has existed in
the past. The property owners have no interest in the business
operation itself.
December 17, 1981
The assessing records of the property reflect the current market
value and taxes paid. It should be noted that the current record
reflects a substantial improvement to the property which was made
at the time the applicant corporation leased the site. Based on
the fiscal year of the applicant corporation, the tax information
is as follows:
Market Value
Taxes Paid
Year Ending
October, 1980
$307,000
13,213
Year Ending
October, 1981
$350,000
15,056
Ground bound Restaurant -4-
December 17, 1981
Recommendation
Based upon the investigation conducted by the Department of
Public Safety, there appears no basis for not approving the
applica is license renewal requests for 1982. Therefore,
it is recommended that the application for renewal of the
on-sale liquor and the Sunday liquor licenses be approved
and iss ed.
Respect
ice.
Thomas 2
Directo:
ully submitted,
u...
. Morgan, Jr.
of Public Safety
TAM/ 1je
V\
13 ? CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Office of City Manager
Council Letter No. 435
Agenda December 28, 1981
The Honorable Mayor
and
Members of the City Council
City of Richfield
Council Members:
Subject: Renewal of On-Sale Liquor, Sunday Liquor
and Tavern Licenses, Chi Chi'-: Mexican.
Restaurant and Maximillian's of Mexico,
7717 Nicollet Avenue South
A public hearing has been scheduled for December 28, 1981 for
consideration of the application for renewal of the above noted liquor
licenses. Attached for council review is the Public Safety Investiga-
tive Report on the issues pertinent to the license renewal request.
Based on the information developed by the Public Safety Depart-
ment, it is recommended that the requested license renewals be
approved and the licenses be issued.
Respectfully submitted,
Karl Nollenberger
City Manager
KN/sh
cc: Public Safety Director
City Clerk
is
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY
City of Richfield, Minnesota
Date: December 21, 1981
Subject: INVESTIGATIVE REPORT
RENEWAL OF ON-SALE LIQUOR, SUNDAY LIQUOR and
TAVERN LICENSES
CHI-CHI'S MEXICAN RESTAURANT and MAXIMILLIAN'S of MEXICO
An application for the above named licenses has been submitted
by the Consul Corporation, a Minnesota Corporation, for the
continued operation of the Chi-Chi's Mexican Restaurant and
Maximillians of Mexico. The two restaurants, while seperate,
operate in the same building sharing common kitchen and service
facilities. All necessary information including an accountant's
statement of the gross liquor and food sales, surety bond,
insurance certificates, political contributions statement, and
license fees have been filed with the application. It should be
noted that the license fee's submitted were based on. the 1981
license rate, rather than the license rates established for the
1982 license year. The applicant has been notified of the balance
in the license fee due and payable to the City of Richfield regard-
ing the pending license application.
Application Investigation
In accordance with the city ordinance requirements, the Public
Safety Director has initiated the investigation of information
required by Rich-field City Ordinance Code 11.06 (Subd. 4), which
relates to control of on-sale liquor establishments. The applica-
tion for the licenses has been submitted on behalf of the corpora-
tion by Mr. John M. Hamburger, Secretary of the parent corporation,
Consul Corporation. It should be noted that the liquor licenses
for this operation were first issued in August of 1981. The
operations of the former restaurants were purchased by Consul
Corporation from the Left Guard, Inc., the previous licensee. The
names of the restaurant establishments have remained the same.
Consul Corporation took over operations on September 1, 1981. Th-re
has been only one change in corporate officers since the original
license was issued. Mr. Theodore O'Shaughnessy, who was the
Regional P?anager at the time the original license was issued, has
now been made the Vice-President of the corporation.
During the course of the license renewal investigation it was deter-
mined by the Department of Public Safety that the restaurant had
changed the operations manager. Therefore, the required background
investigation of the manager was conducted as a part of this license
renewal proceeding. The new manager of the local operation is Mr.
Michael Lucore, and has been in the restaurant management business
since 1976. The background investigation found no problem which
would preclude Mr. Lucore from the management position at the local
establishment. The corporation was informed of the ordinance re-
-2-
Chi-Chi's Mexican Restaurant December 21, 1981
and Maxim llian's of Mexico
•
quirement
manager c]
this inve!
oversight
The Depar
insurance
sently in
has verif
have been
As a part
Safety ha
applicant
the owner
In 1980,
at this e
Departmen
under a c
experienc
This comp
Of the 10
in the fi
and the r
current 1
safety ac
two years
criminal
to notify the City of Richfield in the event of a
range. The instance of the change discovered during
;tigative process simply appears to have been an
on the part of the applicant.
:ment of Public Safety has verified that all of the
and bonding requirements have been met and are pre-
force. Additionally, the Department of Public Safety
.ed that all federal, state and local tax obligations
met.
of the investigative process, the Department of Public
examined the incident experience at the licensed
s location during the past year. As noted previously,
hip of this business did change during the past year.
he Public Safety Department responded to 94 incidents
tablishment. During the past year, the Public Safety
has responded to a total of 100 incidents, occurring
mbination of both of the 1981 license holders operating
. Of these 100 incidents, 36 involved criminal matters.
res to 43 criminal incidents which occurred during 1980.
incidents experienced durinq the past year, 72 occurred
st nine months of the year under the previous licensee,
maining 28 occurred in the last three months under the
censee. It would appear that the incidents of public
ivity at the establishment has been stable for the past
under both owners. The number of incidents involving
roblems has been reduced during the past year.
It should be noted that when this license was renewed :
year to t e prior applicant, it was renewed on a condi-
only. Th's action was taken because of a series of pr(
establishment during the 1980 license year. One of th(
major con ern with this regard related to parking prob:
establishment, particularly illegal parking in establi:
lanes. D ring 1980, there had been a total of 27 such
most of w ich involved the impounding of cars and towii
the fire Lane areas. During the past year, the problei
substantially with only 13 similar problems reported.
12 occurred in the first nine months of the year under
of the fo er applicant, and only 1 has occurred in th
months un er the present applicant.
Accountant's Report
The on-sale liquor.ordinance required that the applica
the city statement, by an accountant, which shows th
and the t tal food sales for the preceding twelve mont
should be noted, that while this information has been
required, the statement is furnished by the internal a
ment of p rent corporation and not an independent acco
-or the current
--ional basis
)blems at the
issues of
ems at the
;hed fire
incidents,
lg them from
a was reduced
of this number
the operation
last three
it file with
gross sales IN
a period. It
Drovided as
adit depart-
snting firm.
-3-
Chi-Chi's Mexican Restaurant
and Maximillian's of Mexico
December 21,1981
•
The Department of Public Safety has been unable to verify the
financial reports. Additionally, it should be noted that the
firm has been in operation for only three months during 1981.
Therefore, the financial information provided is for the opera-
tions of the present applicant during the period for which the
applicant was responsible for operations. The pertinent re-
quired financial information, on the foregoing basis, is as
follows:
Total Sales
Food Sales
% of Food Sales to Total
% of Liquor Sales to Total
Health and Safety Regulations
3 Months Ending
November 30, 1981
$ 931,352
493,977
53%
470
Both the Health and Fire Divisions of the Department of Public
Safety have made regular and routine inspections of the applicants
premises during the past year. one of the conditions of licensure
for the former applicants 1981 renewal related to fixture or furn-
ishing eqiupment problems in the food processing area. All of these
problems have been corrected. Additionally, during the inspection
process only minor problems have been identified with regard to the
food service area. These problems have been corrected immediately
after being brought to the attention of the establishments manage-
ment.
The property is free from major violations of the Uniform Fire Code,
Again, this was an area addressed in the conditional license issued
the former applicant for the 1981 license year. All problems related
to fire safety have been corrected. While minor deficiencies have
been identified during fire safety inspections, the applicant has
been cooperative in correcting these problems as they arose.
Privacy Fencin
Reference has been made in this report to the conditional basis upon
which the original 1981 license renewal application was approved.
As a result of this action by the Richfield City Council, the city
entered into a formal Memorandum of Agreement with the former license
applicant to correct certain operational problems related to licensure.
As has been noted in this report, all of the operational problems under
the direct control of management have been corrected. The one remain-
ing issue which has not been fully resolved relates to the interest
in extending the privacy fencing on the North property line (along
East 77th Street), from the existing fence West to Nicollet Avenue and
East to the LaBelle building. The present applicant has installed a
wooden privacy fence West from the existing fence to Nicollet Avenue.
This new fence replaces a.chain link fence which had previously been
-4-
Chi-Chi's exican Restaurant
and Maximi lian's of Mexico
located in
extending
ing is ere
by the app
applicants
owner to e
barrier be
of East 77
applicant
has been s
successful
present ap
hours, but
ing lot is
with priva
the direct
Miscellane
December 21, 1981
this area. The chain link fence which Curren
ast from the applicants operation to the LaB
ted on property that is neither owned nor co
icant. In the past, the city council has re
to enter into good faith negotiations with t
courage the extension of privacy fence as a
ween the parking lot area and the residentia
h Street. Both the former applicant and the
ave attempted to negotiate such a fencing ch
ccessful, nor have direct attempts by the ci
in facilitating this request for fencing ch
licant has some use of the parking lot area
has no direct control over the property in w
located. The applicant has replaced a chain
y fencing on that portion of the property wh
control of the applicant.
Dus Information
The applic nt has filed the necessary political contrib
tions indicating that there were no such contributions i
past year. The license applicant does not own the buil,
property upon which the business operates. The applica
ing under he same lease arrangement which has existed
The proper y owners have no direct interest in the busi
itself.
•
ly exists
lle build-
trolled
uested
e property
Greening
area North
present
nge. Neither
y been
nge. The
n the evening
ich the park-
link fencing
ch is under
tion declara-
ade during the
ing or the
t is continu-'
n the past.
ess operation
The assess'ng records of the property reflect the current market value
and taxes aid. Based upon the fiscal year of the applicant corpora-
tion, the ?ax information is as follows:
Year Ending
November, 1980
Market Val jue
Taxes Paid
Recommendajtion
$1,250,000
55,866
Year Ending
November, 1981
$1,325,000
55,605
Based upon the investigation conducted by the Department of Public
Safety,the e appears to be no basis for not approving the applicants
license renewal request for 1982. Therefore, it is recommended that
the application for the renewal of the on-sale liquor, the Sunday
liquor and the Tavern licenses be approved and issued.
Rese?tf?ul?l submited,
Thomas A. orgn, IJr .
Director of Public Safety
TAM/lje
3
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Office of City Manager
Council Letter No. 434
Agenda December 28, 1981
The Honorable Mayor
and
Members of the City Council
City of Richfield
Council Members:
Subject: Renewal of On-Sale Liquor, Sunday Liquor
and Tavern Licenses, The Godfather, Inc.
708 West 66th Street
A public hearing has been scheduled for December 28, 1981 for
the consideration of the application for renewal of the above noted
liquor licenses. Attached for council review is the Public Safety
Investigative Report on issues pertinent to this license renewal
request.
Based upon the information provided by the Public Safety Depart-
ment, it is recommended that the council, at hearing, consider the
failure of the applicant to disclose the ownership interest that has
been discovered by the Public Safety Department with regard to the
applicant's second licensed liquor establishment in the metropolitan
area. Additionally, consideration should be given to the applicant's
management commitment with regard to these two liquor operations and
the related uncertainty of who is actually managing the Richfield
liquor operation. Finally, it is recommended that the council give
consideration to thr increased experience of public safety problems
at the Richfield establishment and determine what action the applicant
proposes to take to correct these problems during the license renewal
period.
Respectfully submitted,
Karl Nollenberger
City Manager
KN/sh
cc: Public Safety Director
City Clerk
F?
X
C
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY
• City of Richfield, Minnesota
Date: December 16, 1981
Subject: INVESTIGATIVE REPORT
RENEWAL OF ON-SALE LIQUOR, SUNDAY LIQUOR, and
TAVERN LICENSE
THE GODFATHER, INC.
An application for the above named licenses has been submitted
on behalf of the corporation by Mr. John Anzevino, Jr., Presi-
dent and sole owner. All necessary information, including an
accountants statement of the gross liquor and food sales, surety
bond, insurance certificate, political contributions statement,
and license fees have been filed with the application. It should
be noted that the license fees submitted were based on the 1981
license rate, rather than the license rates established for the
1982 license year. The applicant has been notified of the balance
in the license fee due and payable to the City of Richfield re-
garding his pending license application.
Application Investigation
In accordance with the city ordinance requirements, the Public
Safety Director has initiated the investigation of information
required by Richfield City Ordinance Code 11.06 (Subd. 4), which
relates to the control of on-sale liquor establishments. The
Public Safety Department has determined that there has been an
ownership change in the corporation during the past year. Pre-
viously, the corporate stock had been under the ownership of two
individuals, Mr. John Anzevino, Jr., and Mr. Gerald Burnett.
These two individuals were the officers of the corporation in
addition to the s.olb stock holders. On May 12, 1981, Mr. Burnett
sold his interest in the corporation to Mr. Anzevino for a sum
of $75,000. Subsequent to this transaction Mr. Burnett passed
away in August of this year. Mr. Burnett had a 350 ownership
interest in the corporation at the time of the sale and Mr.
Anzevino was the majority share holder with a 65% interest in the
corporation. Mr. Anzevino is now the sole shareholder in the
corporation.
As a part of the transaction involving Mr. Burnett's sale of his
interest in this corporation, the corporation has borrowed a sum
of $92,000 from Mr. Anzevino. Mr. Anzevino has stated that his
loan to the corporation was from "personal funds". The Department
of Public Safety has been unable to verify the source of the funds
provided by Mr. Anzevino for this corporate loan.
The Godfather, Inc. -2- December 16, 1981
The Department of Public Safety has verified that all of the insurance
and bonding requirements have been met and are presently in force.
Additionally, the Department of Public Safety has verified that all
federal, state and local tax obligations have been met.
During the past year, the Department of Public Safety has
to 118 incidents occurring at the establishment. Of these
76 involved criminal matters. This compares to Public Sa
during the year 1980 which involved a total of 74 incident
involved criminal matters. In the past year there has bee
crease in the incidents involving Public Safety service to
establishment. As previously noted, during the past year,
Public Safety incidents were of a criminal nature. Based
ported criminal incidents during 1980, there has been a 31
this particular category of service. Over half of the cri
dents involve what can be termed, "bar type" problems incl
orderly conduct, drunkenness, noise complaints and assault
past year there have been 4 incidents which have involved
possession of alcoholic beverage. The tremendous increase
required. by this business establishment during the past ye
Bern. However, of even greater concern to the Department
Safety is the rapid increase in calls of a criminal nature
not speak well for the management techniques currently bei
by the license applicant. The trend experienced during th
with problems at this business establishment could clearly
a major community problem if the situation is not correct
esponded
incidents,
ety response
58 of which
a 60% in-
this business
76 of the
n the 58 re-
increase in
inal inci-
ding dis-
inn the
inors in
in service
r is of con-
f Public
This does
g practiced
past year
develop into
d.
Aside from the incidents of a criminal nature, the remaining 42 Public
Safety responses were for general service. These included emergency
medical problems, fire alarms, assistance to the public, and a variety
of miscellaneous requests for aid.
Accountant's Report
The on-sale liquor ordinance requires that the applicant file with
the city a statement by an accountant which shows the gross sales and
the total food sales of the preceding twelve month period. It should
be noted, that while this information has been provided by a certified
public accounting firm for the present renewal application, the informa-
tion is based on unaudited data supplied through the accounting firm by
the applicant corporation. Therefore, the Department of Public Safety
has been unable to verify the financial reports.
d r
F ?F The corporation operates on a fiscal year which runs from June 1, to
May 31. Based on this accounting period, the pertinent required fin-
P ,'ancial information is as follows:
\ 12 Months Endinq
May 31, 1980 _
Total Sales $1,198,307
a, Food Sales 701,154
of Food Sales to Total 58.5%
? o
o of Liquor Sales to Total 41.50
12 Months Ending
May 31, 1981
, ' 1 / , / U U
763,813
53.90
46.10
The Godfather, Inc. -3- December 16, 1981
For the three month period ending August 31, 1981, the establishment
had a total qross sales volume of $384,691. Of this amount $221,367,
or 57.50, involved food sales. The balance of $163,324, or 42.50,
involved beverage sales.
The business establishment appears to be financially successful at
this point in time. Based on the latest financial statement sub-
mitted (August 31, 1981), the corporation showed a retained earnings
balance of $68,569.
Health and Safety Regulations
Both the Health and Fire Divisions of the Department of Public Safety
have made regular and routine inspections of the applicants premises
during the past year. As a result of these inspections, there have
been a number of minor problems which have been identified and brought
to the attention of the corporate management. The problems have been
corrected immediately.
The property is free from major violations of the Uniform Fire Code.
While minor deficiencies have been identified during the fire safety
inspections, the applicant has been cooperative in correcting these
problems as they arose.
Miscellaneous Information
The applicant has filed the necessary political contribution declara-
tions indicating that there were no such contributions made during the
past year. The license applicant does not own the building or the
property upon which the business operates. The applicant is continuing
to operate under the same lease arrangements which have existed in the
past. The property owners have no direct interest in the business opera-
tion itself.
The assessing records of the property reflect the market value and taxes
paid as it currently appears on city records, based on the fiscal year
of the applicant corporation:
Year Ending Year Ending
May, 1980 May, 1981
Market Value $682,200 $600,000
Taxes Paid 30,214 24,990
Related Business Activit
During the course of the investigation conducted this year by the Depart-
ment of Public Safety, it was determined that the stele stockholder of the
applicant corporation, had established another on-sale liquor establish-
ment in the City of Medicine Lake, Minnesota. The establishment operates
under the name of Vino's Godfather II, and examination of the license
application in Medicine Lake lists Mr. Anzevino as the sole stockholder
of that corporation. An examination of the Articles of Incorporation
indicates that the company was incorporated on September 16, 1981. The
City of Medicine Lake indicates that a liquor license was issued to the
The Godfather, Inc. -4- December 16, 1981
f
corporation on September 21, 1981.
In the present renewal application there are two areas which inquire
about the applicants business relationship to similar liquor establish-
ments. The application was signed by Mr. Anzevino and notarized on
October 29, 1981. The application submitted makes no reference to Mr.
Anzevino's ownership relationship with the Medicine Lake liquor estab-
lishment.
A second discrepancy which developed during the course of t
tion relates to the named manager for the Richfield establ
Anzevino has personally been named as the manager of the ap
oration enterprise in Richfield, and has been the manager s
license was first issued. However, in obtaining the liquor
the Medicine Lake establishment, Mr. Anzevino indicated to
Lake City Council that he would be the manager of that esta
In a review of the case file of the incidents occurring at
during the past year, the Department of Public Safety had o
November 7, 1981, to interview a Patrick Michael Anzevino.
understanding of the Department of Public Safety that Patr
is the brother of John Anzevino, Jr. At the time the state
Patrick Anzevino stated that he was an employee of the Godf
and further stated that he was the General Manager of the G
rant. There is no mention of Patrick Anzevino made on the
tion relating to the manager of the Richfield establishment
question with regard to which establishment John Anzevino a
It may be that this apparent confusion regarding the manage
both of the liquor establishments and Mr. Anzevino relates
in problems requiring Public Safety service at the Richfiel
In any event, it is of some great concern that the applican
disclose his ownership interest in the Medicine Lake establ
time he filed for the renewal of his current Richfield liau
Recommendation
e investiga-
shment. Mr.
licant corp-
nce the
license for
he Medicine
lishment.
he Godfather
casion on
t is the
ck Anzevino
ent was given,
ther Restaurant,
dfather Restau-
urrent applic?.
There is a
tualiy manages.
ent status of
o the increase
establishment.
failed to
shment at the
r license.
Based upon the investigation conducted by the Department of Public Safety,
and the actual incident experienced by the Department during the current
year, there is a concern with regard to the license renewal request. This
concern is compounded by the apparent failure of the applicant to disclose
his financial interest in a second on-sale liquor establishment within the
metropolitan area. It is recommended that these issues be considered with
the applicant at the license renewal hearing. Based upon the information
provided at that hearing, it is recommended that the requested 1982
liquor licenses be issued on the basis that the applicant correct the
existing problems relating to Public Safety experience during the current
license year.
Respectfully subm tted,
4 . ?? «-,
Thomas A. Morgan, Jr.
Director of Public Safety
TAM/lje