The URL can be used to link to this page

03-10-80 agenda CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Office of City Manager Council Letter No. 103 Agenda March 10, 1980 The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Richfield Council Members: park a vehicle, whether attended or essary to avoid conflict with other the directions of a police officer any of the following places: . unattended except when nec- traffic or in compliance with or traffic control device in stop, stand or "On any public property, including parks, playgrounds and school grounds and including marked and improved parking areas on public property during times when parking in such parking areas is either prohibited or is otherwise limited by council reso7.u.tion and such probition or limi- tation is conspicously posted in the parking area." There are two resolutions. on the March 10, 1980 city council agenda which would provide for limitation of parking in two city parking lots. The first resolution relates to tYie parking at city hall. The second resolution relates to parking at the commun- ity center. Since the community center have been occasions of conflict and handicapped citizens using uses, such as commercial, resid the parking lot area would be center patrons or park users. officially opened in 1976, there in the parking lot with the senior the center, and the surrounding land 70th Street and Nicollet ~ center patrons during the nday through Friday. The r undesignated and could be t by Subject: Resolutions Relating to Public Parking Lots l°~ Council Letter No. '~ City Hall Parking Regulations -2- March 10, 1980 Council Members are all also aware of periodic major parking congestion problems which arise in the parking area immediately adjacent to city hall. These parking problems are particularly severe during the two days every other week that municipal court meets in the council chambers at city hall, although the number of employees assigned to city hall, and the level of business generated by the licensing, assessing and some park and recreation activities has created an on-going parking shortage at that fac- ility. Presently, most of the 39 spaces on the lower level of that lot are reserved for various city employees and for police and fire vehicles. This means that all other city employees and all residents conducting business at the city hall/public safety facility must .use the 63 parking spaces on the upper levels. Attached to this council letter is a resolution which would pro- vide for the removal of many existing reserved parking spaces, and the establishment of additional, different designated parking areas on the upper level. The resolution provides. that on the lower level there will be nine reserved spaces (five for police vehicles, one for handicapped and three for staff cars). The restrictions proposed for the upper level provide that the entire first row of parking adjacent to the building will be designated for "one hour parking", with the exception of the two spots east of the door and the spot furthest to the east. The two spots east of the door will be designated for "10 minute parking" on all week days except court days when they would be reserved fnr the Municipal Judge and Court Clerk. The spot furthest to It is recommended that the city council adopt the resolutions related to parking prohibitions and limitations at the city hall parking lot and at the community center parking lot. Respectfully submitted, Karl-Nollenberger . City Manager KN/eja cc: Department Directors. RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING CERTAIN PARKING RESTRICTIONS AT THE RICHFIELD COMMUNITY CENTER PARKTNG LOT WHEREAS, there is a city-owned parking lot adjacent to the City`s Community Center; and WHEREAS, the lot was constructed and located so as to serve the Community Center and there is. no other off-street parking which is convenient to the Community Center; and L~HEREAS,-there are commercial, residential and educational . activities in the area which compete for the space ire such lot, resulting in inadequate parking for the users of the Community Center, for whom the parking was intended; and WHEREAS, P.i.chfield Ordinance Code Section 9.03 Subdivision 1(19) authorizes the City Council by resolution to either prohibit or limit parking in city-owned parking areas; NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota as follows: 1. Parking in all but the westerly row of spaces at the Richfield Community Center parking lot shall, between 10:00 a.m. and 2:30 p.m. Monday through Friday, be limited to the vehicles of persons engaged in activities at the Community Center. 2. The City Manager is authorized to take the necessary steps to implement this resolution, including the posting of all suitable signs. Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield this 10th day of March, 1980. Donald J. Priebe Mayor ATTEST: Sylvia K. Bergh, Acting City Clerk RESOLUTION N0. RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING CERTAIN PARKING RESTRICTIONS AT THE RICHFIELD CITY HALL PARKING LOT WHEREAS, there is a city-owned parking lot adjacent to the city hall/public safety complex, and WHEREAS, the lot was constructed and located so as to serve the city hall and public safety offices and there is limited eff- street parking which is convenient to the city hall/public safety complex; and WHEREAS, there are various activities in the city hall/public safety complex which compete for the space i.n such lot, resulting in inadequate parking for the users of city hall and public safety.; and WHEREAS, Richfield Ordinance Code Section 9.03 subdivision 1 (19) authorizes the City Council by resolution to either prohibit or limit parking in city-owned parking areas; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota a's follows: 1. Parking in the upper level of the city hall parking lot shall be undesignated except for the row of parking spaces immediately adjacent to the building. The parking space furthest to the east in that row shall be a handi- capped parking space. The two spaces east of the city hall doorway shall be designated as "10 Minute Parking Only 8:00 A.M.-4:30 P.M. Weekdays" on all days of the month except court days when they shall be set aside for use by the court personnel. 2. Parking in the lover level of the city hall parking lot shall be undesignated except for nine spaces as designated by the City~Manager. 3. The City Manager is authorized to take the necessary steps to implement this resolution, including the posting of all suitable signs. Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield, this 10th day of March, 1980. Donald J. Priebe Mayor ATTEST: Sylvia K. Bergh Acting City Clerk • Z O -v A 2 ~ ~ n n 3 r 'o z A ~ ~ a y 5 r -a x ~~~ x v a. r~. O ~ ~ ~ o a ~' n 1 1 ! wn~K p 1 1 0 s e o 1 1 1 1 RAMP /1 1 1 1 1 1 o Reserved (Proposed) + Cn C ` a ^ Unrestricted Reserved (Present) ~ O ~ ~ c o Court Personnel an s"',---- N• r ~ O C I' 1 r~ ~I i 1 e r I { 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1! 1 1 1 1 I~ ~~~! 11~ j~ I 1 ~ 1 1 1! ~ I I I I 1 1 1 1 i l 1 1 1 l i 1! 1 1 1 ra "i ~s...:,.~~....,,..--~... l i i i l l l l l l l l l l l l l 11 1 i I I 1 1 1 1 1 ~ l i i i ~~y s CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Office of City Manager Council Letter No. 102 Agenda March 10, 1980 The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of R.ichf field Council Members: Subject: Survey Techniques Mayor Priebe has requested that there be a on the city council agenda providing for council piques which might be used in conducting surveys residents related to various matters. In mid-February, the city conducted a survey to ascertain citizen's preference for a special charge to continue to provide the curbside spring clean-up program, or for modification of that program to a designated site pick-up service. To conduct that survey, we randomly selected 400 Richfield homeowners from the homestead property files to receive the survey. Out of these 400 surveys mailed, 250 were returned, a return ratiL of 62.5%. This rate of return represents an unusually high ratio as survey an- alysts contend that even a 20% return rate is quite good. Mayor time to conduct other such surveys erating a particular issue. If we is desirable for the city council would be used for conducting such be desirable from time to as the city council is delib- are to do this, I believe it to agree on the mechanism that surveys. I believe that a survey of 400 Richfield residents represents a statistically valid sample, since 400 households would include around .3% ' ~ of the total city population. There are several means that can be used to determine who these 400 persons are. I believe it is most desirable to seek a balance of residents, from all parts of the city and from all age groups. Unfortunately, information available to us regarding our population is not pre- cise enough to enable us to select survey participants based on age, income, or other variable factors. By using the homestead or utility billing records, we are able to achieve a geographical mix of survey participants. One problem which might be noted in looking at survey techniques is that of, who really responds? It is possible that the respondents to the clean-up campaign survey were not representative of the whole community, in that those people who have the time, or make the time, to respond to a survey might be people such as senior citizens, whose time is more flexible than people where everybody in the family works a J ~ ~ Council Letter No. 102 -2- March 10, 1980 v full time job. On the other hand, it is likely that those people having strong feelings about a particular issue are those who respond, and that a survey on another subject could be sent to the same 400 people who were surveyed for the clean-up cam- paign and different people would respond. As opposed to the random survey, it would be possible for us to seek to develop a "core survey group" of 400 households who would agree, in advance, to participate over the course of one year or two years, in any such surveys that the city wishes to undertake. If we were to do this, I believe the appropriate process might be to start with 400 randomly selected households, and send them a survey form to determine their interest in par- - ticipating in this group, and. to collect some demographic data regarding general age range, general income range, etc. Based on the demographic information obtained through this process, we could continue randomly selecting and surveying households until we were able to develop a core group of 400 households who had agreec~.in advance to participate in the city's survey process and who, on the basis of the demographic data they returned to us, represented a good cross section of the overall Richfield population. This survey approach is probably statistically purer than the continued random access.. However, it does have the add- itional cost implications of requiring at least 400, and more likely 600-800 original mailings just to determine people who are interested in participatingJ. order. city council meeting would be Respectfully submitted, Karl Nollenberger City Manager which this in KN/eja /.~ CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Office of City Manager Council Letter No. 101 Agenda March 10, 1980 The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Richf field Council Members: Subject: Discussion of Federal Legislative Issues of Concern to the City of Richfield The National League of Cities annual conference held in Washington, D.C. on March 16-18, 1980. Mayor Council Member Bunce and myself will be representing of Richf field at this conference. A major intent of t ference is to provide cities with the opportunity to will.. be Priebe, the City hi c r.nri- matters pending before the Congress. Toward this end, Mayor Priebe, Council Member Bunce and I have made arrangements while in Washington to meet with Senators Durenberger and Boschwitz, as well as with Representative Frenzel. Attached to this council letter are several position state- ments regarding matters of concern to the City of Richfield which are presently pending in Congress. The statements have been drafted in such a way to provide a brief background of Richfield`s concern, as well as to represent Richfield`s supp- ort for specific action on these matters. The statements are drafted to represent my recommendation regarding the city's position, but are provided in this format to enable council members to discuss and finalize the city's position on these matters. I believe that council adoption of position state- ments on these legislative concerns will enable us to clearly and fairly represent the position of the entire Richfield City Council on these matters while participating in the NLC Confer- ence. Respectfully submitted, / r /~ Karl Nollenberger City Manager KN/eja ec: Program Directors CITY OF RICHFIELD FEDERAL LEGISLATIVE POSITION STATEMENT NUMBER 1 March 10, 1980 SUBJECT: General Revenue Sharing The purpose of this statement is to indicate support for continuation of the general revenue sharing program. Current Legislation The existing legislation authorizing the general revenue sharing program expires in 1980. If this program is to be continued, it will be necessary for congress to enact legislation maintaining this pro- gram. The current legislation provides that approximately one-third of the total appropriations go to state governments, and two-thirds of total funding appropriations of the program. go to local govern- mental jurisdictions. ~ ' Impact on the City of Richfield Richfield has received $1,545,494 since 1972 from this source. The city council at that time made the decision that this resource presented an opportunity to provide tax relief to Richfield property owners, and used the general revenue sharing monies received in the first entitlement to support the city's general operating budget. In recent years, the city has been systematically withdrawing general revenue monies from the operating budgets, because of the uncertainty of continued revenues from this source, and because of continued tightening of resources available to support major capital needs. Richfield's 1980 capital improvement budget re~.ies on $115,000 in revenue sharing monies to support building and energy improvements, park development and similar capital improvements. These funds are out of the city's general revenue sharing entitlement, and have been appropriated by the city council in accordance with the council's determination of project priorities and needs within the City of Richfield at this time. There are very few other revenue sources available to a municipality which are almost completely discretionary in as general revenue sharing monies are. Proposed Change The City of Richfield supports the extension of the general revenue sharing program in at least the same funding level and en- titlement basis as in the present year CITY OF RICHFIELD FEDERAL LEGISLATIVE POSITION STATEMENT Number 2 March 10, 1980 SUBJECT: Community Development Block Grant Program The purpose of this policy statement is to indicate the city's support for continuation of the Community Development Block Grant program, and to suggest .certain modifications in the program. Current Legislation The Community Development B1ock.Grant Program was first passed in 1974 and renewed in 1977, with the intent of providing funds .to municipalities to support various economic development activities. That program expires during 1980,and it will be necessary for additional legislation to be implemented some time this year if the program is to continue. Impact on the City of Richfield Since 1975, when the City of Richfield first received Community Development Block Grant funding, Richfield has received $1,790,683 through the Community Development Block Grant funding. Richfield participates with Hennepin County and numerous other suburban municipalities as part of the Urban County funding applicant through this program. (Richfield does not qualify for direct funding through Community Development Block Grant because we have a population of fewer than 50,000 people.) The Community Development Block Grant funds have been used extensively, and are projected for future use to support many of the city's and Richfield HRA's housing activities, as well as significant portions of the public improvements in the L/H/N district. Proposed Changes The City of Richfield supports Development Block Grant program as tance to communities in undertaking However, the City of Richfield has gested changes with regard to thin extension of the Community a significant source of assis- economic development activities. the following concerns and sug- program: Flexibility appears to be disappearing. New program. guidelines require that a project area serve at least 51% low income or handicapped persons. However, low income and handicapped is not fully defined. Further- more, all projects which appear to not meet the 51% low income rule, are submitted to the central department of Urban Housing and Redevelopment office in Washington, D.C., which centralizes control, and increases the time and cost of doing projects. Furthermore, the program guidelines, rules and regulations have been frequently changed during the time since the legislation was first's adopted, making it difficult to administer. ^ Number 2 ' ' Finally, the program regulations do not specifically provide for urban counties, which forces interpretation of entitlement regulations for central cities and ex- pansion of these regulations to the urban county. The lack of clear provision in the implementation of the Community Development Block Grant program creates additional time delays and processing grant applications and adds un- certainty to the process by which municipalities and the county may work together to determine which types of funding_ proposals qualify. It is suggested that the program guidelines specifically describe the way in which entitlements and .funding decisions. relating to urban counties are to be made. CITY OF RICHFIELD FEDERAL LEGISLATIVE POSITION STATEMENT NUMBER 3 March 10, 1980 SUBJECT: Energy Conservation Block Grants The purpose of this statement is to indicate the City of Richfield's support for a proposed energy conservation block grant program. Current Legislation Legislation now pending before congress would create an energy conservation block grant program for local governments. The proposed program would offer entitlement grants to cities for energy conser- vation and development. Impact on the City of Richfield Most of the major facilities and buildings of the City of Rich- field are at least 10 to 15 years old, and were built before there was any particular recognition of the importance of energy conser- vation. If the City of Richfield is to do its share in conserving energy resources, as well as limiting the rapid growth and costs for energy purposes in its municipal buildings, a sizable capital investment will be .necessary. This energy conservation effort on behalf of the city-will entail substantial research and investi- gation into existing systems and energy conception patterns, and likely result in significant costs for modification and adaptation of those systems and buildings to meet current energy consumption standards. The proposed energy conservation block grant program would be of significant assistance to Richfield in these efforts. CITY OF RICHFIELD FEDERAL LEGISLATIVE POSITION STATEMENT NUMBER 4 March 10, 1980 SUBJECT: Aircraft Noise Regulations The purpose of this position statement is to express the City of Richfield's interest in application of federal noise standards applied to airline sources. Current Legislation Congress recently passed legislation which extends from 1980 to 1982, the deadline with which certain aircraft carriers must meet in complying with federal noise standards. Impact on Richfield Because of its proximity to the Twin Cities International Airport, Richfield is particularly concerned with this noise generated by airport operations. Richfield has supported state and federal efforts to determine alternative methods of noise abatement, but has also found through those efforts, that the long range best hope for resolving the problems associated with aircraft noise is to re- quire the aircraft equipment itself to meet certain noise standards. For this reason, Richfield is extremely disappointed that congress has extended the federal noise standard conformance date for aircraft Proposed Changes Although it is too late now to retain the original noise standards conformance deadline, the City of Richfield would encourage its federal legislators to make no further extensions of those deadlines. CITY OF RICHFIELD , FEDERAT• LEGISLATIVE POSITION STATEMENT NUMBER 5 March 10, 1980 SUBJECT: Mortgage Revenue Bond Legislation The purpose of this statement is to express the City of Richfield position regarding mortgage revenue bond legislation. Current Legislation Mortgage backed housing .bonds were a mechanism utilized by municipalities to provide low interest mortgages to qualifying ' individuals upto the spring of 1979. Municipalities would issue revenue bonds backed by mortgages as a tax free .bond in order to facilitate the provision of mortgages in a low interest rate to its citizens. Most municipalities utilized income qualifications in order to qualify individuals for eligibility under the program. In the spring of 1979, the Ways and Means Committee of the House of Representatives introduced legislation which would prohibit issuance of these revenue bonds by municipalities. The mortgage backed revenue market has been in a state of moratorium since that time due to the retroactivity of the legislation. Impact on the City of Richfield Richfield supports the piece of legislation which has been reported from the House Ways and Means Committee as HR 5741. We would encourage the U.S. Congress to adopt this piece of legisla- tion. We feel that the legislation provides adequate safeguards for all taxpayers of both federal, state and municipal origin. The mortgage revenue bonds make it possible for state and local governments to assist persons to buy, rent or rehabilitate homes that they could not otherwise afford. The need for mortgage revenue bonds is particularly acute now because conventional mortgage in- terest rates. are very high and normal down payment requirements are 200 or more, making homeownership out of reach for a growing sector of the population. In addition to the high interest rates, conventional martgage money is growing increasingly scarce and is nonexistent in some city areas. Mortgage Revenue Bonds have proven to be an effective tool in housing revitalization efforts and for enticing persons to return to deteriorating urban areas. In a year when housing starts are expected to show a sharp de- cline and thus cause ripple impact throughout the nation's economy, it is important. not to oppose a program which has some housing stimulation effect. Mortgage Revenue Bond programs can be admin- istered at the state and local levels without need for a cumbersome and costly federal bureaucracy. In analyses done by the Joint Taxation Committee and the Congressional Budget Office, HR 5741 would actually save the Treasury $2.7 billion in revenues for FY 1981 and 1982 over current law which permits unrestricted use of the bonds. .~- ti L ' Proposed Change . The City of Richfield supports the passage of HR 5741 as ~ a responsible piece of legislation to allow for provision of mortgage revenue bonds in those situations which warrant the need. i s;• - :•.- l CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Office of City Manager Council Letter No. 100 Agenda March 10, 1980 The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Richfield Council Members: Subject: Tabulation of Bids and Award of Contract, Lyndale Avenue Ligaor Store Interior Remodeling The approved 1980 Capital Improvement badger provides funding for interior remodeling of-the Lyndale Avenue liquor store. As council members are aware, this project is the second phase of a general refurbishing of the Lyndale Avenue store which began during 1979 with major exterior store renovation and parking lot improvements. Bids for the Lyndale Avenue interior remodeling project were opened by the assistant city manager on March 5, 1980. A copy of the bid minutes is attached for your review. A major consideration in undertaking interior remodeling of the Lyndale Avenue liquor store is the impact which that remodel- ing project will have on the continued business operation of the store. The improvements planned for the retail sales area in- clude removal of the existing carpet and installation of new car- pet, painting, removal of existing ceiling and light fixtures and installation of new ceiling and light fixtures and duct work, corresponding electrical improvements and installations, and in- stallation of a new check-out counter. To accomplish the elect- rical, ceiling and carpeting work, it will be necessary for the store to be closed to business for some time. The bid specifica- tions for this project requested that the bidders include the number of days that they would need the store to be closed in order to complete the interior improvements. The specifications also provide for liquidated damages to be assessed against the contractor if he does not meet the schedule included in the bid. Bidders were also inf_omed that the starting date for .the project and the calendar days that they would propose for the store try be closed would be a factor considered in awarding the bid. The starting date is particularly crucial because the summer season is particularly crucial because the summer season is a peak time for liquor store sales. Disruption of any business activity for more than a day or two includes the potential of permanent loss of some customers. Disruption of the liquor store business into the summer months would include not only that potential, but would also mean that the daily loss in revenues for each day that the store is closed will be higher than if the store were closed Council Letter No. 100 during, say, April, when and July. At a minimum, we project a daily reven that the store is closed The attached bid tabulation in the base bids, the anticipated ject, and the anticipated time fo each of the bids. The seeming to -2- March 10, 1980 business is slower than it is in June based on 1979 Lyndale Store revenues, ae loss of $600 to $700 for each day to business. indicates a wide discreptency completion date for the pro- r the store to be closed for aeterminea by ease bid, was C,O. Field Company, with a base bid of $56,540. However, this company indicated that it would be necessary to have the store closed for 35 days and that the project would not begin until June 1, 1980. The duration of the anticipated store closing and. the inability of the project to be implemented until June makes this an undesirable and more costly, bid.- The second lowest bid, submitted by G.G. Kranz and Sons, in the amount of $58,000 anticipated a total project duration of 120 days, with the store closed for 74 days of that time. This store closing period would be extremely costly~to the the city, and makes this bid extremely expensive. The next two bids, submitted by David Volkmann Con- struction Company, in the amount of $59,000, and Superior 77, Inc., in the amount of $59,950, are very close. Both bidders indicate that they could start the project in April; however, Volkmann indicated completion in 60 days and Superior 77 indicated a completion date within 45 days: In addition, Superior 77 bid a store closing perio 26 days treat Volkmann bid estimated additional.$:i000 during the five additional closed would increase the of the Superior 77 bid. 3 of only 21 days, as for the store closing in revenues that the days that Volkmann w~ post of that contract opposed to the period. The city would lose Auld have the store beyond the cost Therefore, it is recommended that the city council award the contract for the Lyndale Avenue liquor store interior remodel- ing project to Superior 77, Inc. in the base bid amount of $59,950 and with the understanding that the project will close the store for no more than 21 days before liquidated damages are assessed ' against the contractor. The city attorney will present a resolu- tion at the March 10, 1980 city council meeting describing the findings which would authorize award of this contract to Superior 77, Inc. as the lowest responsible bidder in accordance with requireemnts of the state law. Respectfully submitted, KN/eja ~.wQ_ I ~ Karl Nollenberger City Manager cc: City Attorney Finance Coordinator Liquor Store Manager CITY OF RICHFIELD Bid Opening March S, 1980 Lyndale Liquor Store Interior Remodeling Pursuant to requirements of Resolution No. 1015, a meeting of the Administrative Staff was called by Assistant City Manager, Joyce Wilde, who announced that the purpose of the meeting was to receive, open and read aloud, sealed bids for the Interior Remodeling of the Lyndale Avenue Liquor Store as advertised in the official newspaper on February 20, 1980. Present: Joyce L. Wilde, Assistant City Manager Jeff Page, Liquor Stores Manager Sylvia K. Bergh, Acting City Clerk James Lindberg, Lindberg Pierce, Inc. ~ ~~,9~h The following bids were submitted and read aloud:~~~ ~~ BIDDER AND ALTERNATE COMPLETION DAYS STORE BID SECURITY BASE BID N0. 1 DAYS CLOSED ABJ Enterprises, Tnc. ~ a~'~ B.B. 5% $62:936 X3,089 ~0 ~ 125 30 Norman Berglund Construction B B 5% $59,533 $32500 90 30 0 C. 0. Field Co. ~~'~ B B 5% $56,540 $4,000 175 35 Henning Nelson Construction B B 5% $73,500 X3,370 100 Kloster-Madsen, Inc. B B 5°/ $62,400 $3,493 60 37 Knutson Construction Co. B g 5°/ $61=416 $4,143 45 21 0 G. G. Kranz & Sons / ~~~~° B.B. 5% 58,000 $4,500 120 74 Superior 77, Inc. ~ ,~^~ B B. 5% $59,950 $3,320 ~~' 45 21 David N. Volkmann Construction ~ ~~~ B.B. 5% $592000 $5,500 ~~~ 60 26 The Assistant City Manager announced that the bids would be tabulated and considered at the regular city council meeting of March 10, 1980. Sylvia K. Bergh Acting City Clerk CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Office of City Manager Council Letter No. 99 Agenda March 10, 1980 The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Richfield Council Members: Subject: Purchase in Excess of $1,000 The 1980 public safety department budget includes an appro- ~i 5 vNei a. ~uiy ~ii~ rc~udi nce Hennepin County court system. Therefore, it is impractical to attempt to use a different type of radar speed monitoring equip- ment within our police division. The public safety department has negotiated for the acquisi- tion of three radar speed monitoring devices directly Fith the manufacturer, the MPH Corporation. We have received a quotation in the amount of $1,950 for three units which will be identical to the other radar speed monitoring units utilized by the police division. The 1980 budget appropriation for this purchase is $2,550. It is the recommendation of the public safety director, in I concur, that the city council authorize this purchase. ity through funds made avail stration Act. nd~r the Highway Safety Adm Respectfully submitted, f~ Karl Nollenberger City Manager KN/eja cc: Public Safety Director Finance Coordinator ^ ~~ 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. 98 Agenda March 10, 1980 Subject: Status Report Re: Business License Application, Public Taxi Service, Inc. ' At the February 25, 1980 city council meeting, the city council discussed an application for fifteen taxicab licenses for Public Taxi Service, Inc. Since this application was for vehicles operated by a new taxicab company which had not previously been licensed by the city, the council requested a routine back- ground investigation of the company itself prior to approval of the license. This type of an investigation is provided for under our taxicab licensing ordinance 6.20. The council requested that this report be presented at the. March 10, 1980 council meeting. The Public Safety Department has initiated the required investigation, however, the investigation has raised a question with regard to the insurance provisions which provide coverage for the owner-operator of the vehicles for which the license is sought. While this may be nothing more than a minor technical problem, I do believe the issue should be resolved before final city council action on the application. This will necessitate an interview by the Public Safety Department with the agent issuing the insurance coverage, as well as verification of coverage with the company which has issued the policy. We will, therefore, not have a complete report on this matter available for council consideration on March 10, 1980. It is the recommendation of the Public Safet n which I concur, that council action on the reques icense applications be deferred until such time as Karl Nollenberger City Manager KN/jf y Director, ted taxicab the questions` cc: Public Safety Director Acting City Clerk Respectfully submitted, The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Richfield Council Letter No. 97 Agenda March 10, 1980 Council Members: Subject: Resolution Approving Classification and Each worth Avenu CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Office of City Manager Sale of Tax .Forfeited Land ar, the city receives from Hennepin County a list ited land located in the City of Richfield. There Harr-A1 nn the r-nrrPnt 1. i_st , located at 6200 ~dent- The Hennepin County board has classified this parcel as non-conservation land and authorized its sale. However, Minn- esota statutes require that the city council approve the non- conservation classification in order to make the land available for public sale. The city staff has reviewed this parcel of land and determined that there is no public purpose for which the city should seek to acquire the land. Therefore, it is recommended that the city council adopt the attached resolution approving classification of this parcel as non-conservation land and approving its sale. Respectfully submitted, 1 Karl Nollenberger City-Manager KN/ej a cc: Administrative Services Director /D F RESOLUTION N0. RESOLUTION APPROVING CLASSIFICATION OF TAX DELINQUENT LAND AS NON-CONSERVATION LAND AND PROVIDING FOR SALE THEREOF WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Richfield, Hennepin County, Minnesota, has received from the County Auditor of Hennepin County, Minnesota, a list of lands in said city which became the property of the State of Minnesota under the provisions of law declaring the forfeiture of lands to the State for non-payment of taxes, which said list has been designated as Classification List "65'7-NC", and described as follows: District 42, Plat 45000, Parcel 2910, Address, 6200 Wentworth, PID 27-028-24-21-0013 WHEREAS, the parcel of land described above has heretofore been clas- sified by the Board of County Commissioners of Hennepin County, Minnesota, as non-conservation land and the sale thereof has heretofore been authorized by said Board of County Commissioners. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by said City Council, acting pursuant to Minnesota Statutes 1957, Section 282.01, Subd. 1, that the said: ~- classification by said Board of County Commissioners of each parcel of land described above as non-conservation land be and the same is hereby approved and that the sale of such parcel of land be and the same is hereby approved. Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield this 10th day of March, 1980. Donald J. Priebe Mayor ATTEST: Sylvia K. Bergh Acting City Clerk } ~ ~l O.n ~GG~ Q` w Q '~ qi. ~: `, 0 Q ~ a J Q ~, w S F- i ~I N 64th c5 „~ ~ 3 ~. ~yL O ,~~~, ,tip F:~al ,~~~~ 9~,~;ti~Ad` i *„1':: , fir;. ,; ~ e . VACATE -- ~_c~~~~3 ~.~~~~. : -• _ , ..~ ,, 3a ~, ~ -T 5 ~ 5 _;.~; ~~ ~ ,_ . "~ ~ ~r ~~~.. a , 4~ao~., ~q~.~ Uri) ., ti H ~'~~~-~ ~~~6 ~1~ 2-2B-3s ~, STREET o (, T! ~ 7 ~y l y~ > O .." '~ ..a ~ ,~' ~ -:: ;.~ a . . . d ~y,,l - ;~~ ~ ,.~yy-~, , ,. ,, ,~a,~ah ,~, ~ ~ r~;ti~ . ((~~ e ~ ~ ~,,3`; ~~~17 4 ~,~~, •~~ r lie ~_ ~1~) ° ' „(~51s ~ O l-" ~ h • . ..... .~ --~--__ ~ ,~,~~~- ` ~ ~~ ~ gnu E~~,; ~ ~~`~ . ~ya.a ` ... ,(zq~' ~ ~,(Q1~~ .:,; -3a~ L ,. • ~8 , : ,1>.~ r~~; 7t , p- ; X301 ~A~~ . ~ ~~ p ~ d " j ''" ~ W - • - . - Q ~ -~ ~~ N ~' ~ v~ ' 3 ~ ° ~ - • li. . " 4. .. ~ ~ - • .. •......• ~r~. ~..........~T..• •......• •• V l,, • • - •~• •~ sr ~ R.L.S. ~~.~ • - ~ ~ A ....... . r ~;, ~ ~~~ ~ ~ ~ ... 65th ~ :~ ^ , _ A' ST EET z ~, ~ I ~t ~1 ~1 ,,~ .~ CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Office of City Manager Council Letter No. 96 Agenda March 10, 1980 The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Richf field Council Members: Subject: Recommendation for Adjustment in Mileage Reimbursement Rates There is an item scheduled for the March 10, 1980 city council agenda providing for council consideration of an adjust-"~ ment in the per mile reimbursement rate which the city provides Background Information The last time the city council adjusted the mileage reimburse- ment for employees who use their personal automobiles on city bus- iness was in June, 1978. At that time, the reimbursement was in- creased from 15~ per mile to 18~ per mile, which is the current rate. The City of Richfield has generally supported the concept that providing a mileage reimbursement is the most economical means of allowing city employees to conduct city business where it is not Nv~ ~ iul.c , vi c.. v,.v.<<.,_~. a city-owned vehicle. e employees with The purpose of a mileage reimbursement is to provide fair compensation for city employees who are required to use their own vehicles on official city business. It has been the city' practice to provide mileage reimbursement at a rate which neit However, since the city council last adjusted the mileage reimburs ment rate, the cost of operating a vehicle nas increasea supsLaiit- ially. This is evident in the frequent increases in the cost of gasoline as well as in the much higher purchase price of a vehicle this year compared with two years ago. Increases in the premium cost for insurance for personal injury and property damage have contributed as well to the overall increase in the cost of opera- ting a car. Recent statistics compiled by the :Iertz Corporation and the American Automobile Association show that the cost of operating an intermediate sized car is now well over 30~ per mile. Recommendation The City of Richfield has generally attempted to relate the mileage reimbursement rate paid to employees to the actual cost 11 Council Letter No. 96 -2- March 10, 1980 per mile of operating a motor vehicle. However, the recommenda- tion before the city council at this time would provide-only for an increase in the mileage reimbursement rate from the existing 18~ per mile rate to 19~ per mile. Minnesota Statutes 4'71.665 provides that no county, home rule city, school district, etc. may reimburse the employee at a rate greater than that provided by the Minnesota Commissioner of Personnel for state offices and employees. That rate is presently 19~ per mile, making the maxi- mum rate which the city may pay its employees also 19~ per mile. In the past, the city council has from time to time adjusted the city's mileage reimbursement rate when it became apparent that a significant discrepancy existed between the rate and the actual cost of operating an automobile. The resolution attached to this council letter provides that the City of Richfield employees who use their own car on city business be reimbursed at the same-rate as the state reimburses its employees. You will notice that this resolution does not contain a specific mileage reimbursement rate. The effect of this resolution would be to automatically adjust the rate of reimbursement for city employees every time that the state's mileage reimbursement rate is adjusted. Analysis The State of Minnesota has historically reimbursed its employ- ees at a rate somewhat below the actual average of operating an automobile, on the basis that the employee has the advantage of using the vehicle for his own purposes outside of business hours. For this reason, I do not believe that tying our mileage reimburse- ment rate to that of the state will result in an exaggerated mile- age reimbursement rate for the city. For example, in 1977, when the average cost of operating an automobile was almost 2~1~ per mile, the state mileage reimbursement rate was only 15~ per mile. Now that the average cost of operating a car is more than 30~ a mile, the state is still only reimbursing employees at a rate of 19~ per mile. The City of Richfield has taken the position in the past that it is more beneficial for both the employee and certainly for the city, to reimburse employees for the u-se of their personal vehicles on city business, rather than to provide city cars to those persons. Over the last four years, the number of pool cars made available by the city to employees has been reduced from three cars to one car. In addition, in 1980, several other staff vehicles are being elim- inated, and the employee who previously had a city car will re- imbursed at a flat monthly car allowance rate. This policy has significantly reduced the city's costs associated with owning, maintaining, and operating vehicles, while also addquatoly provid- ing reimbursing employees for using their own cars on city business. An employee seeking reimbursement for mileage driven on behalf of the city is required to document both the destination and number of miles driven, and receive approval of their immediate supervisor, the department-head and the city manager before receiving their reimbursement. In addition, since it has been difficult for the city's mileage reimbursement rate to keep pace with increases in the actual cost of operating an automobile, employees have a tendancy _' Council Letter No. 96 -3- March 10, 1980 a to minimize the use of their personal vehicles on city business, and provide their own "checks" on any potential abuses. If the state law did not limit the mileage reimbursement rate to the present maximum of 19~ per mile, I believe it would actually be desirable for the city to provide a mileage reimburse- ment rate more nearly reflective of the actual cost of operating a vehicle. However, because of this state limit, I believe that the city should at least pay the maximum that it can to those employees, so that they are not penalized for using their own vehicles for city business. Many other metropolitan area suburban cities are already paying mileage reimbursement of 19G per mile, and several others have recently, or are presently working at in- creasing their reimbursement rates to that maximum. In 1979, the city reimbursed 78 employees a total of $7,608.51, for 42,269 miles driven in their personal vehicles on city business. The 1~ increase in mileage reimbursement which would be implemented at this time if the council adopts the attached resolution, repre- sents a possible annual increased cost of only $422.60. Sufficient funds are available in the 1980 budget to provide this mileage reimbursement. Summary It is recommended that the city council adopt the attached resolution authorizing the city mileage reim'~ursement rate to be established at the same rate as that set for state employees. Respectfully submitted, Karl Nollenberger City Manager KN/eja cc: Program Directors .' RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING REIMBURSEMENT TO CITY ED4PLOYEES FOP. USE OF A PERSONAL AUTO- MOBILE IN THE PERFORMANCE OF DUTIES WHEREAS, the City of Richfield is authorized to reimburse members of the governing body, officers and employees of the city for use of their personal automobile in the performance of their duties; and WHEREAS, the City desires to reimburse employees at a rate which is as equitable as possible and still within the maximum amount allowed by State Statutes, and WHEREAS, the City wishes to be able to efficiently adjust the rate of reimbursement for use of a personal car as the cost of operating an automobile and the state imposed ceiling increases. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Richfield that the mileage allowance to be permitted for members of the governing body, officers and employees of the City for reimbursement for use of their own automobile shall be the same and shall not exceed the amount provided by the Comm- issioner of Personnel for state officers and employees. Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield this 10th day of March, 1980. Donald J. Priebe Mayor ATTEST: Sylvia I<. Bergh, Acting City Clerk 6 CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Office of City Manager Council Letter No. 95 Agenda March 10, 1980 The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City- of Richfield Council Members: Subject: Tabulation of Bids, Approval of Minutes for sealcoating Project ~On February 28, 1980, the acting city clerk opened bids for sealcoating, in accordance with previous city council authoriza- tion. The bid minutes and tabulations are attached for city council review. This sealcoating ision operating budget be sealcoated in 1980. This area is as "Area 1" in the permanent street the first year's street improvement approximately 8 miles of streets. div- 7- to also the area which was known improvement project and was paving area. It inclu~.es The 1979 amendments to the levy limitation law authorized cities to make a one-time adjustment in the levy limit base for purposes of initiating new street maintenance programs. Richfield included a $148,000 adjustment in the 1980 budget for this pur- pose. Originally, we had anticipated doing approximately one- seventh of the city each year during the sealcoating maintenance program. However, since this is a new project, it appears pre- ferable to begin the first year with ~ slightly smaller area, to determine how well the process is going to work, and to enable the staff to carefully monitor the project. This process of starting with a relatively small area first was also used during the permanent paving program. The bid specifications for this project were written in such a way as to permit us to expand the project by up to 250, and I would anticipate that we may wish to expand the 1980 project by that amount to include other streets in the area that may be particularly deteriorated. Four bids were received for this work. The apparent low bid was submitted by Bituminous Roadways, Inc. in the amount of $57,139.50. However, Bituminous Roadways qualified that bid by stating that they would use a spreader that was not specified, for the aggregate.. This process does not meet our specifications. Council Letter No. 95 -2- March 10, 1980 Therefore, it is recommended that the bid be awarded to the low bid that meets specifications, The low bid that meets specifica- tions was received from Allied Blacktop Company, in the amount of $58,330.50. I am also proposing that the city council authorize the staff to prepare bid specifications and call for bids for sealing of the concrete joints and cracks on Lyndale Avenue, 74th Street to 78th Street. This project was included in the 1979 budget, but the bids received at that time seemed excessive, so we re- jected bids in hopes of bidding early enough in 1980 to receive more favorable bids. It is estimated that this crack sealing project would cost approximately $40,000 to $60,000. The Lyndale Avenue project would also be an appropriate one to be funded with the one-time street maintenance levy. If that project cost is approximately as estimated, combined with the sealcoating bids, and potential 25% expansion of the sealcoating project, the total work described herein could cost approximately $130,000 to $135,000. Because there I recommend that th ing to Allied Black authorize the call project. Respectfully submitted, ~. Karl Nollenberger City Manager KN/eja cc: Community Services Director Acting City Clerk CITY OF RICHFIELD Bid Opening February 28, 1980 Sealcoating Bid No. 80-8 Pursuant to requirements of Resolution No. 1015, a meeting of the Administrative Staff was called by Acting City Clerk, Sylvia Bergh, who announced that the purpose of the meeting was to receive, open and read aloud, sealed bids for Sealcoating as advertised in the official newspaper on February 13, and 20, 1980. Present: Rick Jopke, Acting Planning Director Marshall Raaen, Technical Services Supervisor Arthur Bailey, Engineering. Technician Sylvia K. Bergh, Acting City Clerk The following bids were submitted and read aloud: BIDDER AND BID SECURITY AMOUNT Black Top Service Co. B.B. 5% Allied Blacktop Co. B.B. 5% Bituminous Roadways, Inc. B.B. 5% Batzer Construction Co. B.B. 5% $63,977.00 $58,330.50 $57,139.50 $71,129.00 The above bids will be tabulated and considered at the regular city council meeting of March 10, 1980. Sylvia K. Bargh Acting City Clerk ' C 'r ~ ~ ~ j LiJ ~~ ~ j W W a a a a ~~ ~ Q Q a L L ~ Q t r .r _ - N ~/ ~ ~ m ~ ~~ff X~1.0 E. 70th ST. ~ I i ~ ~ ' i ~ I i ~~~ !~1 I! i r`-- ~ r---I r-1 ~ 1 `~ \ ~ , ~ `~ ;~/ ^. ~ /% E. 71st ST. ~ \ . ~~ ~~\ E. 72nd ST. EN .A. P. 57 115-011 D S STA. 4~~'95.8 ' U E. 73rd ST. ' E. 4th ST. -~~ c. 75th ST. _. 76th ST. ~_~ T_..._ l _. 77th ST ~_ `_-__J~; sir.: ~.H.r. ~ ~-u ' STA. O+ l6.5 U ~ it EGIN S.A.F. ~7-115 -Oi / ~ ~ 1237 ~~ ~~ ~ ~ "~ ~~. ~ \ ~ r ;/ 111 Q Q W U EhC S.A.P. 57- STA 3: N~~y N NO SCALE AREAS TO RE SEAL COATED `f,~ ", iii I- 494 CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Office of City Manager Council Letter No. 94 Agenda March 10, 1980 The Honorable Mayor and r-~ Members of the City Council ~a-vv•c~ City. of Richf field Council Members: Subject: Ordinance Amendment Relating to Musical Concerts, Second Reading. At the February 25, 1980 city council meeting, the city council gave first reading approval to an ordinance amendment relating to certain types of amusement and recreation, most specifically to musical concerts. A copy of the proposed ordin- ance amendment is attached to•this council letter. This proposed ordinance would essentially permit small scale, indoor musical performances. Presently, city ordinance does not specifically designate conditions for such a perform- ance, and the existing licensing procedure and fee for such per- formances is such that smaller events, with fewer participants and performers, tend to be discouraged in pursuing that interest. The attached ordinance amendment would establish specific limi- tations on the hours, number of performers, and number of par- ticipants in musical concerts defined under this section of the ordinance, and provides a means for encouraging the development of localized artistic efforts. It is recommended that the~city council give second reading approval to the attached ordinance amendment at the March 10, 1980 city council meeting. Respectfully submitted, Karl Nollenberger City Manager • ~. ~ i• .._... _ _. .._ .... Bill 1980-8 AMENDMENT TO CHAPTER V, PART II, AND APPENDIX D OF THE ORDINANCE CODE OF THE CITY OF RICHFIELD CITY OF RICHFIELD DOES ORDAIN: A. Chapter V, Part II, of the Ordinance Code of the City of Richfield dealing with the licensing and regulation of certain types of amusement and recreation is hereby amended by adding thereto the following new section: r 5.22 A Musical Concerts - . .: ~. - Subdivision 1. Definition. For the purpose cf this section, the term "musical concert" shall mean and be limited to a live musical performance by a single performer or by a group of not to exceed.• three perfolsners, which is conducted and observed entirely indoors. Subdivision 2. License. No person shall conuuct a musical concert without first having obtained a license to do so. Subdivision 3. Application. Any person desiring to obtain a musical concert license shall make application to the City Clerk upon the forms provided for that purpose. The application shall be accompanied by the license fee established in Appendix D of this Code. Subdivision 4. Approval. Each application shall be reviewed and approved or disapproved. by the City Council. Subdivision 5. License Duration. The license granted under this section shall permit only one musical concert. The applicant may request multiple licenses in the same application. Subdivision 6. Conditions Governing Licensure. The following conditions govern the licensure of musical concerts under this section: ,~ (1) Musical concerts may be conducted only in the commercial districts of the city. (2) Not more than 50 persons may attend any single musical concert. (3) The licensee shall prohibit the consumption of alcoholic beverages on the premises. (4) No instrumental or voice amplification may be used. Electrified instruments must be kept at such a volurne level that sound is not transmitted to neighboring properties. .~' {5) Only one musical concert may be performed per day on the licensed premises and such performance may~~S~}~.' only between the „~ ~.t. t ~Fft"' ,, T-- i -~~ r` rr~-r~-M-,aGt rC r~ r~ ~ ~v ~ -~~tc~ C' ~ -s Tn ~ c-t n YlOl1rS Oi 12:00 grid 1-9-~8$- p~-,~-y. 1~ r ~ t e .., ~\uJn,~~ o r P~~LFu~lw.r..i.ct"r: ,°~ ~ ottrn~ ,, • ~> ,~~ ~' qJ Q~r"'^r`~="" ', t/'' ' ~ ~ ~ ~~Q A P PR V P+t Y~'11-: (6) Adequate parking shall be available ~ the licensed premises -ea-i~-h--~th-e-pro-vi-s-ions--of_-R-ic.h£.i.e.ld-Ordinance Code -~e-c-t•-arr-4°:~0'5 to accomodate any anticipated traffic generated by the licensed activity. (7) The licensee shall be responsible for maintaining order on all parts of the licensed premises. (.8) The licensed activity shall be conducted in such a manner and located in such a place as to be unlikely to result in injury or damage to persons or property in the neighborhood or be injurious, annoying or disruptive to patrons of other businesses located in the area. Subdivision 7. Revocation or Suspension of License. The license may be revoked or suspended by the City Manager whenever the licensee, its owner, manager, employees or agent has engaged in any of the following conduct: (1) Fraud, deception or misrepresentation in connection with the securing of a license. (2} Conduct inimical to the interests of public health, safety, welfare or morals. (-3) Conduct involving moral turpitude. (.4) Conviction of an offense involving moral turpitude by any court of competent jurisdiction. (5) Failure to comply with. any of the provisions of this section or engaging in conduct which would be grounds for denial of an initial application for licensure. The rnatter shall then proceed as provided in Richfield Ordinance Code X5.14 Subd. 4. E. Appendix D of the Ordinance Code of the City of Richfield establishing fees for various licensed activities is hereby amended by adling to Section 5, thereof the following paragraph: "TYPE OF SECTION FEE LICENSE REQUIRING SCiiEDULi/ FEE (12) Musical Concert 5.22 A Per Event $5.00" Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield this 10th day of March, 1980. _ ~" „~. _ ~ _ .. _ .. . , Donald J_. Priebe ..: Mayor -~ _~ ao,~ CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Off ice of City Manager Council Letter No. 93 Agenda March 10, 1980 The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Richf field Council Members: Subject: Application for Renewal of Bingo License Application for Gambling Licenses, Richfield American Legion Post #435 Richfield City Ordinance Code 5.19, establishes licensing requirements for the conduct of bingo activities and certain limited gambling activities within Richfield. Our ordinance code is based on Minnesota State Statutes 349.12, which relates to the licensure of bingo operations and Minnesota State Statute 349.26, which relates to the licensure of certain limited gambling devices. The city has received Gn application for renewal of a examination opinion of the public order and that all re ground investigations bingo manager and the vestigations have find any existing criminal from licensure. safety department that they appear to be in wired information has been furnished. Back- have been conducted with regard to the named named gambling manager. Both of these in- icated that neither of these individuals has history record which would preclude them Our ordinance requires that bonds be issued for these activ- ities and that such bonds be subject to approval of form by the city attorney's office. Copies of the bonds provided with the license applications have been sent to the city attorney's office for review. They do appear to be in order and to meet the ordin- ance requirements. Section 5.19, subd. 9 (3), of the ordinance code limits the number of bingo and gambling occasions each year to 104 activities annually, or two bingo and two gambling occasions per week, al- though the ordinance does provide for the city council to make exceptions to this requirement. The American Legion application for renewal of the bingo license conforms to this requirement, and also received an application for licenses to conduct raffles and tipboard operations, from the Richfield American Legion Post #435. The department of public safety has conducted the required in- vestigations with regard to these two license applications. Council Letter No. 93 -2- March 10, 1980 requests permission to c However, the application mission to conduct three activities specifically and they are requesting onduct two bingo activities per week. for the gambling license asks for per- activities per week, rather than the two authorized under our ordinance provision approval of this exception. .The ordinance also establishes some very strict accounting and reporting requirements for both bingo and gambling activities. These requirements are based on provisions of the state statute, with the majority of the requirements aimed at the control of gamb- ling activities. Because this is a new licensing procedure for both the city and the applicant, the specific manner in which these reporting requirements will be met has not, as yet, been established. However, the department of public safety will work with the appli- cant, if the license requests are approved, to develop a system which conforms to the statutory requirements and appears to be workable from both the needs of our public safety department as well as the operational procedures of the applicant. Based upon the foregoing discussion, there appears to be no legal issues which would require the city council to deny these license applications. Should the application for gambling license receive favorable consideration from the city council, specific action would be necessary to allow the third gambling activity each week as requested by the applicant. Favorable consideration of the gambling application should also be made conditional on the ability of our public safety department and the applicant to work out a satisfactory accounting and reporting procedure. Respectfully submitted, (~ Karl Nollenberger City Manager KN/eja cc: City Attorney Acting City Clerk Public Safety Director CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Office of City Manager Council Letter No. 92 I The Honor-able Mayor and Members of .the City Council City of Richfield Council Members: Subject: Request for Variance, Mr. Leslie Barton, representing Bar a variance for 7345 17th Avenue. The rE reduce the side street sideyard setback to the existing 12 feet. The property is family residential zone. Agenda March 10, 1980 m the required 22 feet ocated in a single History was constructe at tnat time. upon sale o= zr~e ~ru~e discovered the building did not meet A variance to the setback requirement complete sale of the property. eet setback requirements y in January, 1980, it was ese setback requirements. s necessary in order to Section 3.40, subdivision 6 establishes three criteria which must be met before a variance may be granted. Staff Findings The staff has reviewed this application for variance, and found the following: 1. Because the building permit was issued contrary to the setback requirements, and because this condition has existed on the property for 25 years without complaint, a special condition does exist. 2. Since there are no reasonable alternatives to having the property in conformance with city setback require- ments, and the property cannot be sold until it com- plies with all city ordinances, denial of the applica- tion will preclude the preservation and enjoyment of substantial property rights. 3. Since the condition has existed for 25 years and no expansion of the building is proposed, the granting of the application should not be detrimental to the public welfare. 7345 17th Avenue Council Letter No. 92 -2- Staff Recommendation Because the three condi been met, the staff recommen March 10, 1980 ing a variance have y council approve and also Respectfully submitted, I ,~. Karl Nollenberger City Manager KN/eja cc: Community Development Director Planning Commission Recommendation -- ----- _ • f- ,~ D: ~ i r ,r ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ i y c ~ ^r~ in sonir.c; XX~'i ~ reuues~ for variance S~•: Congress Investment, Inc. ' 5516 Lynclale Avenue So. , ^tinneapolis, `Tn. 55419 C~ ``, ~i27-4731 Pe_ t::e proper ;.~- or larc: loca sec at . =.~u= `ss ; 7345 17th Avenue So. , I;ichfiel.d, ?~fn. Su~,~;,.,sion. Evergreen Gardens Special lise Apartment Use CT~r;.:a~r/F.pp l i c ar. rddress Sus. Phone Dlat 45330 Parcel 3000 Bloc': 1 rot 10 Ge:-~eral di.,:ens~ons oL _ro~erty (a~~ached all necessary dra~:~in~s, r,!a~s S':•:is~_::y^ use of land: Qne-fa^~i1v residential ~...~s ~i_~g zo^inc R E:._s~_::y nui ld~-:cs? ~ Yes ~ No P='Jccs.u Changes in use: ____ -___ _ - P~ ~,.sed c ~^gas in ~on_nr, Vcria^c~ ..-..ssh ~-~•aes~~d: Set back all r.ecessa~- r_ ~.i rectuirement :.~s, ^s, on side lot (P.74th St.) ' ~::d side develcc:~en~ cl~.ns - >- ..~2ica.^.:s ~~ /~ ~ Si~atur° '~ ~' / ~,,, Dr:te: ~ ~' ~j ~ ~ ICJ °d rce~Q ~ F.ecei~~cd, F, :' l/~,~,,., ~ P.eceint ~ ~~ Z Datc ~- 3l-~~~ •~~ r ~- a, _ . ~~~ ~~~~ 827-4781 ~;,~ p =: SOUTH OFFICE ', 5516 LYNDALE AVENUE SOUTH • MINNEAPOLIS. MINNESOTA 55419 Januar}' 30, 190 1~•~ - City of Richfield 5700 Portland Avnnue So . EfT?OFIICtI ':.ti~l'r ~ Richfield, ~'In. 55423 ~ WAYZATA ~ BLYD.'~~".' f;y ttAPOL1E.MN f6436 ~aaa s2oo ~ ,' ~: ~2e : 7345 17th Avenue South ~y ~~ y r~r . ,~ r ; art , t :r M, ,. Lot 1, 81ocr, 10, ?wer~reen ardens a ?> ~}. 5 Vi ~ Gentlemen ,~~ ~HOgTri ,oF.,cE >v ;',;y,~ Upon sale of the above pr-operty it ryas discovered that the .;CRYfTAL fNOPPING ' •CCNT[R ,,2,.':`.. .,. "~''-~~ ~ building; does not sheet the side set back requirements of -WtfT BROAgWAYia6TH _ the City of Rlchf field. CRYfTAL MN.~ 66420 '~`. ~~'~ ,s,+ Vass eels ,'~~~'T ~ 4, .;, '` .x Therefore, T,?e are apnlyin~~ for a variance on said property ' ~ '``''~ ` a "''•' P1o further expansion of the etime is anticipated. 7 r ~ tF J l i '{~ '` Enclosed is the pertinent data for request of variance '-; '9URNtiY1LLE oIFIC[ and a checl: in the amount of $50.00. '; f10UJ1 TRAIL 'fHOPPIN6 CENTER ~ - 'if77 CL1-/ ROAD ~~ Thanl{ ou. LU RNfVILL [, NN. 56337 ~ - y ~'~ 090-0011 ~ - Sincerely, e. lie 1'a ton Presidet~t ~' ~/gIDL[Y OFFICE ~ ~fKYWOOD MALL .-: .-.~~ C0~?GRESS I~1VI:ST`?~,NT, I?';C. iNOPPING CENTER _- 61<71 CENTgAL AV [. N.[. 'aRIDLEY.. MN. 55431 L~7 •ph "'x.871.3335 enc a _ p - ~ C `~ 11y ~ b 1 a~ ~ `HIRE'- tFi'r 5'l ;j rz -1. - G i ~t r i ,ai,+ J :o ;r ~ ~ ti ,q r a ~ t ~ ~_i ~ ,~ ~_ t_ ~.*z -_- 1 -~~ , ~~~ Z01~1~G MAP ,. f~ ~ ~ ' - r- ~: ~~ ,-~ „- _ N U ' I ~' N~j 1 kS N I I I -~ ~ ~..- ^ mO = 3 =^ 3 _J o = 3O^3' 36 4^~ z .v 5 5 ^ N^ ~.1 N N \^ 5 N Q ~~ ~J ~~ N ~ ^ Nw 35 6 ^ ~ ~ ~ N^ - s O N 7I~ N 7 i ^ N 3f~_-~ 7¢ 34 7 [~ ~ ~ ~ 6 i J - M^ ~ ~g ^ ~ ^ 6I~ 8° ~--+ m 33~ 8 J °~ M g' ~ s 32 9 ^ .__ ,o ~ to C- .. ^ ^ ,o I,o v ~ to loa, 31,,0 ^ ~ 73rd ST. 30~ 11 L7 29',2 ^ 28.13 ^ _ '. ? t4 °° '6' (- 25 ! 16 l ;, 24~ 17 [] N 23~ le ^ Q n 22,19 L~.. . "° ?120^" T o~ ^ o „^ - ° ^lo 3 ^2 4 __ ^3? 5 ^4~ „ ^ 6 _ N ~ ^ ^5 m P ~ N - _ ~. ~ 8 ^ 6 P ^7 m ., ~~ g A SITE'.- ^8a 16 1 d ^g r p, ~ ~ ~ 1 ~ 0 1 ~^ 1 G 1 O - _ ~ a a^ 15 2 ^ ~: ~ 2 0 0 ^~ 2 0 - -- 14 3 8 3 ^ ~ ^ _1 3 -- 0 ^- ~ ---- ^ _ ^ 7 4 e ~ ~~ 4 4 ^ r r^ 4 13 4 ~~ ~ O ^ o N ~^ o N y 5 5 ^ o ~-^ 5 o ^ N 12 5 ^~ N~ 10 ~ i ~r'i N *T- ~ N 1 1~>/ R .,- 10 ~Y 1 ~T - I f 11 ~~: 6 K ^N N^ ~ , ~~ 1 \ 1 ~~ ~ GENERAL COMMERCIAL ~ ~`~~ n °' 0 SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL A s e ^ Q ~~ MULTIPLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL . S T. _ _ ~ ~. ~-- ~r' U ~ ,, - _ ^ m z _ 3 a ~ ~ ~ D P ~ 35 6 ^ v ~ 34 ,7 (] Q n J M • 33 ' 8 ~' m 32 9 ^ a - ~_~ 31 110 m (] 3 ~ ^ ?9 I ,i2 ^ ~ ~, ~8 , i3 _ - Sg 14 n --~ .~ v 'f'_ ~ N (~ S T. o _ ~._ ~ ° a M nn o U ^ i x. 0 _ 3 ^2 4 3N ~ -- a ?4 j 17 ~] N ?3T' 18 a ?2 19 ~ ~ i 0 ~ n ,, J 7 ~/~ 5 m -- ~; ~ 8 ^ 6 ;~ ~ ~ 9 ^7 a x ~ITFo ^e LAN[ IJSE MAP '_'-~'- ~.I^z o -- ~nz s v E.- I ~ I 3rd `~ ~I ~ o \ 2 ^ ~ \ .\ --- ^ 3 0 . ~. 5 ^ • •\ g ^ ,__`, ~[] •`, ~ ^ ~~ • ~ ~ 8 --- ---- a , ~ ~•~\ g M ~ ~ ~ i0 r .- r ~ 15 z ^ o 6 0 2 ~ a^ .. 2 14 3 ^Q --- 13 4 ~^ 7 4 v ,n ~ 4 4 Q r ~ ~ ~ ° N ,~,^ o ~ ti L1 5 5 D o N r2 5 ^ ~ N n N V to I n N ~, N ~ ~ i ~Q~' V R i. ." 6 ~ N N^ ~ D N N^ 10 7 ~ ~~ a - n ~ m M _. a° ^z ~m .- 3 ° _ _ '~ 4 t.^ 5 a ° ., i o i < N N 8 3 a o M ^ 7 4 "' r-~, ~o ., ° ° ^. ~>> ~ I\ ~vC H._= Q o n r • 9 e h . ° GENERAL COMMERCIAL - ~ o" ~` 4 n _• ~ SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL ._,6 ' ^~ ~ MULTIPLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL ~ ~ ^ 1 7~ J ~ } - ° ~ ~ Q n~ a r,~ 1 ~ - r '~i-S . ` it , . REQUEST FOR VARIANCE OF 7315 1.7th Avenue South FOR PURPOSE OF Set '-~zck renuirement Legal Description: Lot 10, 131ock 1, Evernreen Gardens We, the undersigned, being ow~iers of immediate adjoining land as above described, do hereby concur with the variance as requested. __Si~nature of Oi~ners Address Leal Description ~ ~~ '" ~d~~ _ ~ 740 18th Avenue So. ~ Lot Blor.k 1, F3assett's 2nd ~ / ~~ ~ ~ - ~{ /~l~C.C,''u,i _s~,SCu-`~-` ~.--- 7334 18th Avenue So, ---- Lot E>, );lock 1, Everr;reen Garden. ' 1~ `J 7333 18th Avenue So. _~ i Lot 7,I31oc}c l,Evernreen Gardens ~ < L ..: ~~~ ~~-~~-f,,;{~~c.~ 7344 18111 Avenue So, Lot 3,Block l,Ever~.reen Gardens l/ ~ ,~' ,)-•) ~ 7400 17th Avenue So. Lot l,Block 2, I3assetts 2nd Ac}dn ~'~~ r l~-C'.~ c_,~.~ - 744 17th Avenue So, _ I.ot 2,1?lock 2, Bassetts 2nd Addn • L '~p ~,~' 'L7r~~1~~ 7401 17th Avenue So, ___I I,ot 1, P,lock 1, Passetts 2nd Add _ , . f~~~~~21L,.,~i -~ ~y,q~ 7405 17th Avenue So. Lot ?_,Block 1, P,assetts 2nd Addn `; ~:. } r ~ ° ~ ~ ' ,~`~.~,~~ +~ 1- ~ ~,-~ ~ 7344 17th Avenge So._ of 10, };loch 2, Evergreen Garden U~~--.--~y~~j , ~z,~, -'c-~ ~~~;,~f'' L~(,.~ ~~ ,7338 17th Avenue So. 733!+ 17th Avenue So. Lot °, Block 2, rvers,re.en Garden Lot 8, Bloclt 7., F.ver~;reen Garden. ~~~-, ,7335 17th Avenue So, Lot 3, Block 1, Ever;;reen Garden ~~~~~ ~ 7339 17th Avenue So. I,ot 9, L'lock 1, 1Jvernreen Garden!. ~I I -- - ----- - ~ t ~ - -- - - - --- ------ --------~ -~ nc n:. J~ t u ~ Z 3 ~ ° ~ 36 4 ^ " Z `~ ^ Q 35 6 ^ ~ 0 34r 7 ^ Q r m PET~T~ON MAP ~~ L 'w+`-• .~~~? ° ~^ 3 , ~^ 4 d ^5" N L ^6 ° ~ 7~ - N c1 IY ~ • tit Q Q 1~ U 32 v 9 ^ a ^ ^ 10 -- i0 ^ N ~^ IOI ^IGa: ~ 6 I m 31;10 ^ ^ 73rd ST. 3oii ^ X9;12 e ^ 28.13 ^ 14 -°- ZFi (, ~-~ -_5.16 ~ ?4: 17 ^ N '3i 18 ^ -~ - - ?2~19 L] ~ ? 1 _ 20 _ ^ t r~ T. N , n ^ ~ o 0 _ 3~ o .,^,4 4 - 5 5 ^ N 6 :J N l N ~ I ~ ry ~ n Q ~ ~ _; ~, r, m 9 n r IOIIQ ~~ n a I! ^g 2 ^ °' 0 3 0 4 ^ 0 N 5 ^~ N 6. N ! 7 ~,^ ~ O a 0° n o .. o ~~ ~ ° 0 2 0 -^ B 3 ^ ~ '" ^ 7 N ^ ~ 4 ? ° h I ~ N N ~ ~ _ ~ N^ ^ N ~Q 8 3 ^ Q ^~ a e e o w o o r _ ' ^ M o ^ -- ° ^lo _ 3 ^2 7 4 _ ^3 5 ^4~ N ~7 ' ^ 5 N Q ^ ~ - ~ •• ~ "'""""'PPA x51 @0 •:`~•.y: ti•: '? N ~ i ~ '~ ~ N ~ O ~ O ~'L o ^ I ~^ '~ 2 ~ ~v .~ ^ N 1 N ~ ~ N N ,7 ~ 'T °~ ^ I N 5 ~n ^ i r y M _ ^ _~ ~ - ~ 3 --- _ --) o n 4 4 _'^ c ~^ 4 ~ _ 0 ti ~ 5 5 D ~ -^ 5 ^ ° l^ ~ ^ -~- TV^ K N ' ^ ~ ~ .~ ~' ^ 3 ~ a 8 13 ~ ^ M ~ -- ' ! i Q _ Ti ^ m v R - _ Q ~`C • ^ ~ ~ 4 ~ Signatures on Petition • ! ^ N ~ 16 i ^ n ~ 8 i ~ N ,~, ^ 8 1 ^ n ~r ^ r. n ~ n ~- { - _~ i QI ~~ W ~ Z W J ~- z---Q o Q.. • ~~ '~~ ~ • 0 W z W Q d- I ,ZZ-~. I I I I . _____ . .~•_.•- ~ ,L5 H1(lOS ~(1N~/~b' u~L I O N c N 7 Q J W =_ lL U_ o ~ U ~- W d' m U v-- 0 Y U a /~ CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Office of City Manager Council Letter No. 91 Agenda March 10, 1980 The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City~Council City of Richfield Council Members: Subject: Report on Emergency Ambulance Service In February, 1976, the city council appointed a citizens study committee to examine issues related to the provision of emergency ambulance services in the City of Richfield. The committee was composed of seven Richfield residents, a city council member, and the Public Safety Director. Councilman Ludeman served as the city council representative on this study group. After a very thorough examination of many issues surrounding the provision of ambulance service within Richfield, the committee issued a report in August, 1976. That report was received and accepted by the city council in September, 1976. As part of the study, this group examined the feasibility of the city initiating an ambulance service within the Department of Public Safety. The committee concluded that there were already adequate ambulance resources available within the city, that that those ambulance resources lacked adequate coordination and control, which resulted in a wide variety of ambulance charges to citizens using the services, as well as a, wide variety in response times for emergency ambulance service. In their final report the committee took the following position as one of their primary recommendations: That the City of Richfield, by council resolution, request that Hennepin County expedite a plan recently promulgated for the coordination, utilization, dispatching, and personnel training for both public and private ambulance services within the county under authority granted to the county by the Minnesota State Legislature. The report also recommended that the City of Richfield make an effort to seek expansion of the Hennepin County ambulance service into the community, since this service was already being supported through local property tax dollars. Almost simultaneous with the work of our ambulance study committee, the Hennepin County Board appointed an Emergency Med- ical Services Council to deal with the county-wide disparity in Council Letter No. 91 -2- March 10, 1980 the provision of ambulance service. This committee has effectively worked to equalize ambulance response times and charges within the entire Hennepin County area. Additionally, the committee has effectively improved the quality of ambulance service so that virtually every first response ambulance unit now is equipped as an advanced life support unit and staffed with certified Para-medic personnel. Nearly one year after the original study was completed, the Emergency Medical Services Council experienced some difficulties with one of the private ambulance service companies in meeting the minimal standards established by the council. At that time, Smith- Martin Ambulance Company serviced the southern and western portions of Hennepin County, including the City of Richfield. Because of losses the company was incurring in attempting to operate advanced life support units w~_th para-medic personnel, the company had re- quested that either the communities serviced help support the ser- vice through a subsidy, or else a reduction in the service provided would occur. As a result of Smith-Martin taking this position, the Richfield City Council, on August 8, 1977, passed a resolution urging "The Hennepin County Board of Commissioners to make arrangements for provision of ambulance service, through the advanced mobile life support units available throughout the entire county on a fair and equitable basis." Up to that point, Hennepin County had been pro- viding immediate response service only to the City of Minneapolis, since all of their ambulance units were stationed at the Hennepin County Medical Center. While they would respond to service requests from suburban areas, the response times were unacceptable from a medical standpoint, and the delayed response problem ti as been most severe in the southern and western part of the county. The north- ern and northwestern part of the county has historically received high quality para-medic ambulance services from North Memorial Hospital. For the past two years, the Emergency Medical Service Council has been realigning ambulance service areas as the Smith-Martin firm reduced their level of service. During this process, Hennepin County has increased the availability of their advanced life support ambulance units-which are staffed by para-medic personnel. Hennepin County has now established a plan whereby they are proposing to extend their first response ambulance capabilities to include the municipalities of St. Anthony, Hopkins, St. Louis Park, Minnetonka, Woodland, Deephaven, Excelsior, Shoreview, Tonka Bay, Glenwood, Eden Prairie and Richfield. This plan has been endorsed by the Emergency Medical Council and is scheduled for a hearing before the Metropolitan Health Board on Wednesday, March 19, 1980, at 7:00 p.m. The hearing will be held at the St. Louis Park city hall. This item is placed on the council agenda simply to bring the council up to date regarding developments in the emergency ambul- ance field. Both the Public Safety Director and I are very pleased to see that Hennepin County has included Richfield in their service area plans. I think the previous council positions requesting this Council Letter No. 91 -3- March 10, 1980 consideration had a great bearing on the Emergency Medical Service Council decision in this matter. If the council would desire again to take a position support- ing the county plan, it would be appropriate to take that action before the March 19, 1980 hearing. Hennepin County's proposed expansion of their ambulance service to the City of Richfield will assure high quality emergency medical transportation capability for our residents, while maximizing the benefit from the tax supp- ort already being provided by those residents. Respectfully submitted, Karl Nollenberger City Manager KN/ej a cc: Public Safety Director ., ~a CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Office of City Manager Council Letter No. 90 Agenda March 10, 1980 The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Richfield Council Members: Subject: Discussion of Proposed Department of Welfare Rule 39 At the February 25, 1980 city council meeting, Council Member Bunce asked the staff to investigate a proposed rule 39 recently promulgated by the Minnesota Department of Public Wel- fare. Rule 39 addresses the question of appropriate behavior modification methods and their use in state owned-and licensed hospital and medical facilities. Attached to this council letter is an article describing Rule 39 which appeared in the Sunday, March 2, 1980 Minneapolis Tribune. The article presents some background information regarding the intent of Rule 39, as well as describes much of the controversy and concern which has arisen since this rule was issued. Council has no control, it appears that provisions of the rule may apply to foster homes, day care homes, and group day care cen- ters which are licensed by the state. DPW has indicated a desire to remove those categories of state licensed facilities from applica- tion of the rule, and has, in fact indicated some concern with re- assessing the entire nature of Rule 39. The rule does go to some considerable length to specify situations in which certain types of the identified behavior modification methods may be used or may not be used. I believe Council Member Bunces' concern was The public concern, and that voiced by Council Member Bunce, 'b Although this matter is one over which the Richfield City ' relates to seeming ambiguities in the rule which descri e, or appear to permit, certain types of behavior modification methods including striking, slapping, physical restraints, electric shock, etc. Spokespersons for the Department of Public Welfare indicate that the rules addressing those methods is intended to specify any alter- natives which might be used in the treatment of mentally or emotion- ally disturbed or hospitalized persons, and provide the DPW with a basis for restricting and restraining the use of such treatment methods. As the attached article describes, however, the rule appears to be quite ambiguous in terms of what it truly would restrict, and how it would be enforced. • Council Letter No. 90 -2- March 10, 1980 r that such methods were even discussed in a manner which might imply that they would be permissable under certain circumstances. Given that concern, if the city council wishes to take a policy position on the general matter, I believe such a position would be a reason- able extension of the council's concern with human rights, and specifically with the type of activity and regulation which might be applied to licensed day care types of facilities within the city. Respectfully submitted, ~; Karl Nollenberger City Manager KN/eja Many protest R~~e 39- proposal, .~ for b~havc~r treatment - ~ sy Sam Piewjernd ~ I Staff Writer He was .:21, blind, poorly developed , and profoundly retarded. F©r. years he had been perrodically bashing his face with his fist a hal}it so irc- grained that _ his eyes, ~ cheeks and lips were swollen and hardened..A large, open -wound festered on one cheek .and even tine _ bael:s ©f ills hands were``red aird-swollen from ~: beating his face: . ,Treatment people at Faribault, State'' .Hospital trrecl everything .. They .se-- .hated hign, but that couldn't break the_~ habit. ,They kept his arms strapped dovin, or put boxing gloves an his hands, but those, too, were im- perfect solution.. Then they tried shock. Under .eon- trotled cgnditions the young man got. a taarmless but mildly pair_fui elec- t tric jolt whenever he struck himswlf. It was a form of "aversive treat- lent" and the result was mixed: fh.e .obit, was reduced but net eliminat- :?-'ed r?~Now comes proposed Rule 39, a bu-_ "reaucratic attempt to place controls on the use of methods, such as shock, ' fo change behavior. The intent clear- '.'ly is to guard against misuse of such methods, not to expand their use. i But•something went wrong. The Min- . nesota Department of Public Wel- fare was snowed -under last month with adverse reaction to tYze rule, -much of ii angry. Some excerpts: "I understand that your department is pushing fnr medieval snake prt , vrolence for mental patiErits ,_ . __~ "Torture, not treatment ... a return to the Dark Ages and to Hitler's Ger- many ... barbaric, cruel and sadrs tic." The 5,000-word rule's prose might be called torturous. But a careful read- ing reveals a clear intent to place strict controls on the use of "aver- ~si.ve and deprivation procedures" - d th quoted above, reacted to a pair of expose-style KSTP-TV reports saying that the department proposed to "le- galize bodily punishment " °"-,', The rule does list a number of prat- fives that could be taken as punish-_ ment. But. welfare department offs-. vials insist that positive behavtar' change, not punishment, is the pur- pose. And the rule specifies that the practices can be used "only when ath.er techniques have been used and materially failed to improve the cli- ' ~: The rule applies to the `following: The .nine state hosprtals, ,two state nursing homes and other facilities li- tensed by the state ~wetfare depart- ment. These include children's group homes, residential treatment centers for emotionally disturbed children, residential programs for. the -retard- ed, mentally-ill and chemically de-_ pendent, and-day. Centers for the re- tarded - ,_. ~, .. It also applies to foster homes, fam- #iy day care homes and group day care centers for children. But the de- !~ .; .partment wants to eliminate-. these places from the -rule because they ;. `aren't supposed to have the kind' of people that the rule deals with any- way, and because licensing rules :`cover the same issues, according ~to Barbara-Kaufman, a welfare depart-~ ment mental health officer. t;, The section of the rule that generat- ~~ ed the most steam lists, under Aefi- nitions, anumber of methods. They'. include "aversive procedures" such' as striking, slapping, spanking, pinch-' ing, cold baths or shower, physical <: restraints, unpleasant-tasting food, ' bad smells, splashing with cold wa- ~' ter, startling noises, and electric -shock like that received by the re- forded patient at Faribautt. Trouble arises from a reading of the ~ -Definition section without jumping back to the more ponderous sections • where restrictions on these methods =are piled upon each other in excruci-, ~ating detail. ~ For example, intense procedures ;'such as electric shock can be used!. "only if "a,clea'r and present danger"' is shown--and. .the failure of lesser methods : as •_ documented. A review > committee .:must monitor moderafe. ' and intense procedures. Only skilled therapists are to administer any of 'the techniques. .And the procedures must "never be used as punishment," the rule says. :.Young conceded last week that the, ~{ 'rule is flawed. The next revision, he -said, "will include an outright prohi- 'bition" on such things as "withhold= ' Ong medication, water, oxygen or ac- cess to toilet facilities:' It was "nev- 'er our intention" to allow such. ~ things, the psychiatrist said. I yWhy would anybody deprive some- one of oxygen? Young said nobody has complained of such treatment in this state, but he said the department I had heard of an experiment in an :out-oi-state prison where amuscle- { .relaxant that interfered with breath- , ing was given to inmates. He said oxygen was mentioned in Rule 39 be- cause "We didn't want that to hap- pen in Minnesota." State hearing examiner Natalie Gauls took testimony on the rule on' Jan. 23. Her report is expected in I mid-March. But welfare department is not bound by her findings, and un- der the speediest of formal rule-~ adoption scenarios the document would not"become effective for sev-I eral weeks after that. Last week Welfare Commissioner Arthur Noot announced that he will name a committee to reconsider the whole matter. Young said this will mean "a substantial rewrite job" that .might generate another hearing. ., The matter already had shearing - in 1975. But the rule had too many. bugs in it then, too, and instead of be- ing promulgated it was distributed 8mong various officials for further comment and revision. The problem goes back even further; (This is not the same as' electrocon- vulsive therapy, a treatment used in depression and other mental Illness- i es.) - Also included are deprivation prove dunes such as removal of food, wa- ter, oxygen, medicine and removal from activities or "time out." not to expan em. •` Dr. Ronald Young, assistant welfare .,fliers read it differentty. The Min- department commissioner for men- - neapolis Star reported Feb. 14 that ' tai health,- said all those things were the rule "reads like a catalog of tor- ~ .listed to make sure that every con- e tune." Letter writers, like those ' ~ celvable method that might be • ~ 'abused would be controlled with the force of taw. ~-- to 1967. That was the year when Anoka State Hospital got in trouble `. ;with the welfare department's late medical director, Dr. David Vail. He • stopped a behavior modification sys-~ tem that allowed mentally ill pa- tients to '"buy" release from re- straints or seclusion with tokens they had earned-for desirable behavior. '.But his new guidelines didn't have the force of law, as Rule 39 would. Rule 39 has generated milder dissent from ..professionals. Terry Sarazin, mental illness program director- for • the welfare department, doubted that the. department has the staff or ' expertise to enforce the rule. Fred- ``~ Brick Rudie, psychologist at Cam- bridge State Hospital, complained ~_: that "rules and regulations tend to stifle creativity, and the proposed rule is certainly no exception." y } ` `And although Noot's ~ announcment '- • last week said -the rule's aim is to ;.:"curb abuses,";.neither Young, Kauf- `man, Sarazin nor licensing director -John Buzzeli ,could spepify recent complaints that demonstrate -its ~~'need ` s ~ ~,. ,~::.; They did recall the September .1977 case of Ranaid Collins,- director of the Center for Behavior Disorder, Minneapolis, a residence .for emo- tionai[y disturbed adolescents: Cpl- lies and his staff were accused of withholding meals, keeping youths in seclusion for long periods and faulty use of tranquilizers. Collins was ac- quitted of criminal charges but the welfare department closed the cen- ter. ..t ,'.~ Buzzeil told of a -young retarded woman in a privately operated pro- gram. He said a state licensing con- t suttant discovered that she had been deprived of a meal because she failed to complete a laundry task. The operators agreed to stop such *?deprivation, he said. Buzzeil refused to name the center or the licensing consultant 1,Kaufman said she "went to Ron Young years ago and said, 'Look a what's going on in the name of treat- ment "' Four or five years ago, she said, she heard of clothing being tak- en from children who had run away and returned to a St. Paul group home. The Collins case "was a glar- ing example of the need for such a rute," Kaufman said.- For~ her and others, Rule 39 falls smack to the middle of two warthy goals: Guaranteeing the right to treatment for state hospital patients, as required by court rulings, and protecting patients from abuse. The face-battering young man at Fari- ` bault is an example. By the time shock was used, some front teeth dad been removed so he could no longer chew his lips to shreds. .._ _ r.~ .~. .~.-~~ Now, the reasoning went, trying shock was another try at treatment. The alternatives -- being strapped, drugged or cushioned - amounted to no treatment. In a reply to a woman concerned about "Gestapo tactics," Kaufman wrote of a "small group of patients who are extremely self-destructive." She said: "For these patients, do we deny treatment (such as electric shock therapy) on the basis that it's pain- ful? After ail the positive kinds of treatment have failed ,(and they of- ten do), do we simply consign them ' to life-long restraint?" : ~ ~•- CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Office of City Manager Council Letter No. 89 Agenda March 10, 1980 The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Richfield Council Members: Subject: Trans:~tory Ordinance Providing for Certain Capital Improvements, Second Reading 11, 1980, the city council gav approval to a transitory ordinance appropriating monies from the Special Revenue Fund to implement numerous projects which are included in the adopted 1980/85 Capital Improvements Program, in- cluding: Sheridan Park Nature Center $25,000 15,000 Ice Arena 10,000 Swimming Pool Bath- house 5,000 Minor Park Improve./ furniture .5,000 Tennis Court Light. 10,000 Bldg. & Energy Impr. 100,000 Central Garage 11,891 Forestry 45,000 Sidewalks uor Store Impr Li 55,000 000 100 . q Fire Vehicle Reserve , 4.0,000 Total 1980 Special Revenue .$ 421,891 Because these projects are scheduled for implementation in 1980, it is recommended that the city council give second reading approval to the attached transitory ordinance, appropriating monies from the Special Revenue Fund for these projects. Respectfully submitted, Karl Nollenberger City Manager KN/eja cc: Community Services Director Public Safety Director Finance Coordinator 3 TRANSITORY ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE FOR THE EXPENDITURE OF MONEY FROM THE SPECIAL REVENUE FUND FOR CERTAIN CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS The City of Richfield does ordain: Section 1. It is found and determined necessary and ex- pedient for the City to expend money from the Special Revenue Fund for the making of capital improvements listed in Section 2 hereof, and as further detailed in the city's 1980/85 Capital Improvements Program, and are projects which the city would be authorized to issue general obligation bonds. Section 2. The capital improvements and the amounts of expenditure for such improvements, which are hereby authorized to be paid from the Special Revenue Fund under Chapter 7, Section 7.12, subdivision 2, of the City Charter, are as follows: Sheridan Park Nature Center Ice Arena Swim Pool Bathhouse Minor Improve. & Furn. Tennis Court Lighting Building & Energy Improvements Central Garage Forestry Sidewalks Liquor Store Improvements Fire Vehicle Reserve Fund $ 25,000 15,000 10,000 5,000 5,000 10,000 100,000 11 ,891 45,000 55,000 100,000 40,000 $421 ,891 ~--- Section 3. The expenditure herein authorized shall be made pursuant to such contracts as are authorized from time to time by council resolution. Passed by the city council of the City of Richfield, this 1 ~i;h day of March, 19 80 . Donald J. Priebe Mayor ATTEST: Sylvia K. Bergh, Acting City Clerk a~ ~ r CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Office of City Manager Council Letter No. 88 Agenda March 10, 1980 The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Richfield Council Members: Subject: Recommendation for Denial of Taxicab Drivers License The city has received an application for a taxicab drivers license from a Douglas Jack Milner. The background investigation conducted by the public safety department with Y~egard to this license reveals that the applicant has been convicted twice during the past year for driving violations. The most recent of these convictions occurred on March 18, 1979, and involved an alcohol- related offense. As a result of this conviction, the applicant's drivers license was revoked on December 27, 1979. The applicant is currently authorized to operate a motor vehicle on a limited driving status. The public safety department policy used as a standard in recommending approval of applications for taxicab drivers licenses requires a minimum of one year driving experience which is free from traffic violation convictions. It is the opinion of the Public Safety Director that the applicant's record of traffic viola- tion convictions during 1979 relates directly to the license he is seeking. Therefore, it is the recommendation of the Public Safety Director, in which I concur, that Mr. Milner's request for a Richfield taxicab drivers license be denied. Respectfully submitted, ~ `t Karl Nollenberger City Manager KN/eja cc: Public Safety Director Acting City Clerk CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Office of City Manager Council Letter No. 87 Agenda Niarch 10, 1980 The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Richf field Council Members: gave first reading approval to an ordina provide for the issuance of on-sale wine Richfield. During council consideration proposed changes in the ordinance were s ey's office has redrafted this ordinance discussed by the city council. ice amendment which would licenses in the City of of this matter, several aggested. The city attorn- to incorporate the changes The changes which have been made include a revision of the provision for annual renewal of wine licenses, and a modification of the requirements relating to an accountant's statement which must be furnished as a part c the requirement related ants qualifying for wine dates the space standarc restaurant dining areas provision added to hold illegal possession, use stances on the licensed ~f the application process. Also revised is to a minimal seating capacity for restaur- licenses; the new provision directly man- is contained in the state building code for' Finally, the proposed ordinance has a the licensee responsible for prohibiting or sale of drugs or other controlled sub- premises. The city council also asked that the city attorney examine the term "habitual drunkard" which is used in the proposed ordinance. Some council members thought that there might be more appropriate alternative terminology such as "chemically dependant person". Both the city attorney and the public safety director have examined this matter. While the term "habitual drunkard" is perhaps archaic, and perhaps even vulgar, it i~ terminology which presently exists in Minnesota Statutes, and which is also used in a number of court decisions relating to such matters. In the event that the city were involved in any prosecution involving this portion of our ordinance code, our effort might be significantly hampered if we used termin- v~~ogyforeign to existing state statutes or citations in case law. Therefore, both the city attorney and the public safety director recommend that we retain the terminology as proposed. A copy of the revised ordinance is attached for council consid- eration. Both the city attorney and the public safety director will Subject: Ordinance Amendment Relating to the Issuing of On-Sale Wine Licenses. Second Reading. Council Letter No. 87 -2- March 10, 1980 be present at the March 10, 1980 city council meeting to respond to any questions that the council may have regarding this ordin- ance. At that time, if the council so desires, second reading approval can be given to the ordinance to provide for on-sale wine licensing in the City of Richfield. Respectfully submitted, h Karl Nollenberger City Manager KN/eja cc: City Attorney Public Safety Director AMENDMENT TO CHAPTER XI AND APPENDIX D OF THE ORDINANCE CODE OF THE CITY OF RICHFIELD City of Richfield does ordain: 1. Chapter XI of the Ordinance Code of the City of Richfield relating to liquor and intoxicating beverage control is hereby amended by adding after Section 11.07 therein, the following new Section: 11.08 ON-SALE WINE. .. ._ .. Subdivision 1. Definitions. The following terms have the meanings ascribed to them in this section: ~ ' (1) The term "wine" means and includes all vinous beverages not exceeding 14 percent alcohol by volume. • (2) "Sale" and "sell" and "sold" mean all barters and all manners of furnishing _ wine including such furnishing in violation or evasion of law. ' (3) .The .term "restaurant" means any establishment under the control of a single proprietor or manager where in consideration of payment therefor, meals are regularly served at tables to the general public and which employs an adequate staff for the usual -and suitable service to its guests. (4) The term "on-sale" means the sale of wine by the glass, or by the drink for consumption on the premises only. (5) "Minor" means any person under the .~ age of 19 years . ._ . ... _-- ~ - Subd. 2. License Required. No person, except wholesalers or manufacturers, to the extent authorized under state license, shall directly or indirectly deal in, sell, or keep for sale wine for "on-sale" sale without first having received a license to do so as pr~~vided in this section, or as provided in section 11.06 of this code. "On-sale" wine licenses shall be issued only to restaurants. No more than 7 "on-sale" licenses may be •~ issued to restaurants. ' Subd. 3. Applications for Licenses to be Verified. Every application for an "on-sale" lice se shall be verified and filed with the city clerk. 2 Subd. 4. Contents of Application. In addi- tion to information which may be required by the state commissioner of public safety, the application shall state: (1) Whether the applicant is a natural person, corporation, partnership, or other form of organization. (2) If the applicant is a natural person, the following information shall be furnished: (a) True name, place and date of birth, and street residence of applicant. (b) Whether applicant -has ever used or been known by a name other than his true name, and, if so, what was such name, or names, and information concerning dates and places where used. (c) The name of the business if it is to be conducted under a designation, name or style other than the full individual name of the applicant. {d) Whether applicant is married, or single. If married, true name, place and date of birth and street residence address of applicant's present spouse. (e) Whether applicant and present spouse are registered voters, and, if so, where. (f) Street addresses at which applicant and present spouse have lived during the preceding-ten years. (g) Whether the applicant in the case of a natural person, or spouse, or the manager and all persons holding or possessing an interest in the business to be licensed have ever been convicted-for violation of any law of the United States, State of Minnesota, or any other state or territory or any munici- pal ordinance. (h) PJhether applicant or spouse has ever been engaged as an employee or in operating a saloon, hotel, restuarant, cafe, tavern or other business of a similar nature. If so, applicant shall furnish information as to the time, place and length of time. (i) Whether applicant .has ever been in military servi~:e. If so, applicant shall, upon request, exhibit all discharges. (j) The name, address and business address of each person who is engaged in Minnesota in the business of selling, manu- facturing or distributing wine or intoxi- cating liquor and who is nearer of kin to the 3 applicant or spouse than second cousin, whether of whole or half blood, or who is a brother-in-law or sister-in-law of the appli- cant or spouse. (3) If the applicant is a partnership, the names and addresses of all partners and all information concerning each partner as is required of a single applicant in Paragraph (2) above. A managing partner, or partners, shall be designated. The interest of each partner in the business shall be disclosed. A true copy of the partnership agreement shall be submitted with the application. _ (4) If the applicant is a corporation or other organization and is applying for an ' "on-sale" license, the following information shall be furnished: (a) The name, and, if incorpora- ted, the state of incorporation. (b) A true copy of the certificate _ of incorporation, articles _of incorporation or association agreement and bylaws. . (c) The name of the manager or proprietor or other agent. in charge of the premises to be licensed, giving all the information about said person as is required of single applicant in Paragraph (2) above. (d) A list of all natural persons who, singly or together with their spouse, or a parent, brother, sister or child of either of them, own or control an interest in said corporation of association, together with their addresses and all other information required of a single applicant in Paragraph - {2) above. (5) The exact legal description of the premises to be licensed together with the locations of and distances to the nearest church building and school grounds. (6) The floor number and street number where the "on-sale" sale of wine is to be conducted and the rooms where wine is to be cor.s•.~med. An applicant for an "on-sale" license shall submit a floor plan of the dining room, or dining rooms, which shall be open to the public, shall show dimensions and •• shall indicate the number of persons intended to be served in each of said rooms. 4 (7) If a permit from the federal govern- ment is required by the laws of the United States, whether or not such permit has been issued, and, if so required, in what name issued, and the nature of the permit. (8) The amount of the investment that the applicant has in the business, building, premises, fixtures, furniture, stock in trade, etc., and proof of the source of such money. (9) The names and addresses of all persons, other than the applicant, who have any financial interest in the business, buildings, premises, fixtures, furniture,- stock in'trade; the nature of such interest, amount thereof, terms for payment or other reimbursement. This shall include, but not be limited to, any lessees, lessors, mort- gagees, mortgagors, lendors, lien holders, trustees, trustors and persons who have co-signed notes or otherwise loaned, pledged, or extended security for any indebtedness of the application. (10) The names, residences and business addresses of three• persons, residents of - Hennepin County, of good moral character,-not ' related to the applicant or financially interested in the premises or business, who may be referred to as to the applicant's character or in the case where information is required of a manager, the manager's char- acter. (11) Whether or not all real estate and personal property taxes for the premises to be licensed have been paid and, if not paid, the years for which delinquent. _. (12) Whenever the application for an - .---- - "on-sale" license, or for a transfer thereof, is for premises either planned or under construction or undergoing substantial altera- tion, the application shall be accompanied by a set of preliminary plans showing the design of the proposed premises to be licensed. If the plans or design are on file with the city engineer, no plans need to be filed with the city clerk. (13) Such other information as the city . council shall require. (14) Proof that the applicant has com- .. plied with all of the procedures required under the zoning regulations of the city to qualify the proposed licensed premises as an approved location. The council shall not act upon an application for a license until all 5 such regulations have been complied with and final approval of site and building plans have been given by the council. Subd. 5. Execution of Application. If the application is by a natural person, by such person; if by a corporation, by an officer thereof; if by a partnership, by one of the partners; if by an unincorporated associa- tion, by the manager or managing officer thereof. If the applicant is a partnership, any license,.bond and insurance policy issued shall be in the names of all partners. Subd. 6. Renewal Application. Applications for the renewal of.an existing license shall be filed with the city clerk at~lE:ast 60 days prior to the date of the expiration of the license and shall .be made in such abbreviated form as the city council may approve. Subd. 7. Accountant's Statement. Any appli- cant requesting a wine license renewal shall provide the city with documentation in a form deemed sufficient by the City Council which shows the total gross sales and the total food sales of the restuarant for the 12-month period immediately preceding the date for filing the renewal application. Subd. 8. License Fee. The following pro- visions control as ~to license fees and re- lated subjects: (1) The annual license fee for an ----- - - on-sale license shall be as established in Appendix D of this Code. (2) The entire license fee established in Appendix D shall be paid when. the license application is filed. No application shall be accepted by the clerk which is not accom- panied by such fee. All license fees shall be paid into the general fund of the city. 6 Upon rejection or withdrawal of any appli- cation the license fee shall be refunded except where rejection or withdrawal is for a willful misstatement in the license appli- cation. (3) At the time of each application for a license, the applicant shall also pay an investigating fee as provided in Appendix D of this Code. The -investigating fee shall not be subject to refund. If the expenses of the investigation relating to an application exceed the investigating fee paid with the application, the city manager shall notify the applicant of this fact and shall require the applicant to pay-such additional investi- gating fees as the city manager deems neces- sary to complete the investigation of the application. The total investigating fee shall not exceed the limit established in Appendix D of this Code. The applicant shall pay such additional investigating fees within five (5) days of being so notified. If such additional investigating fee is not paid within that period, the City shall discon- tinue consideration of the application. (4} At any time that an additional investigation is required because of a change in the ownership, interest or control of a partnership or a corporation, the licensee shall pay an additional investigating fee as provided in Appendix-D of this Code. Subd. 9. License Year. The license year shall commence April 1 of each year and terminate on March 31 of the following year. -~ -- -When an original license is issued for a - ~--- - - ---- portion of the license year, the fee shall be prorated at the rate~of one-twelfth of the annual license fee per month or portion of a month remaining in the license year. Subd. 10. Granting of Licenses. The follow- ing procedure shall be followed in processing applicaL~.ons for licenses under this section: (1) All applications for a license shall be referred to the public safety direc- tor, and to -such other city departments as the city manager shall deem necessary, for verification and investigation of the facts set forth in the application. The public safety director shall cause to be made such investigation of the information requested in Subdivision 4 as shall be necessary and shall make a written report to the city council which shall include a list of all violations of federal or state law or municipal regula- tions. {2) Upon completion of the manager's preliminary report and within 20 days there- after, the manager may recommend to the council that a public hearing be held upon the application. The council shall then instruct the city clerk to cause to be pub- lished in the official newspaper 10 days in advance, a notice of the hearing to be held by the city council, setting forth the day, time and place when the hearing will be held, the name of the applicant, the premises where the business is to be conducted, and such other information as the council may direct. . At the hearing opportunity shall be given to any person. to be heard for or against the granting of the license. After the hearing the council may either .grant or deny the license. If the license is granted, the council may withhold its issuance until the _ applicant has qualified in all respects for the license. If the premises to be licensed are not complete at the time that the hearing is conducted the council may grant the li- cense but shall withhold its issuance until the premises have been completed in accor- dance with the representations made by the applicant. If a license has been granted but its issuance has been withheld pending com- pletion of the premises to be licensed, and if the licensee does not proceed with reason- able dispatch to ready the premises, the council may rescind the action granting the license. Such action shall not be taken, ~~-~~ however, without giving the licensee at least eight days' notice of the time and place of a hearing on the proposed rescession. (3) Each license shall be issued to the applicant only. Each license shall be issued only for the premises described in the appli- cation. (4) The clerk shall, within 10 days after the issuance of any license under this ' section, submit to the commissioner of public safety the full name and address of each person granted a license, the trade name, the effective license date, and the date of expiration of the license. He shall also submit to the commissioner any change of address, transfer, cancellation, or revoca- tion of any license by the council during the license period. 8 Subd. 11. Person Ineligible-for License. No license shall be granted to or held by any person: (1) Who is ineligible under Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 340. (2) Who is a minor. (3} Who is not of good moral character and repute. (4} Who, if an individual, is an alien. (5) Who, within five years prior to the application for such license, has been con- victed of any willful violation of any law of the United States, the State of Minnesota, or any other state or territory, or of any local ordinance; with regard to the manufacture, sale, distribution, or possession for sale or distribution of intoxicating liquor, wine, or non-intoxicating malt liquor or~whose liquor, wine, or non-intoxicating malt liquor license has been revoked for any willful violation of any such laws or ordinances. (6) Who is a manufacturer or wholesaler of intoxicating liquor. (7} Who is directly- or indirectly - interested in any other establishment in the city to which a license has been issued under this section or under Section 11.06 of this Code. The word "interested" as used in this paragraph includes any pecuniary interest in the ownership, operation, management or profits of such an establishment. (8) Who, if a corporation, does not have a manager who is eligible pursuant to the provisions of this section or whose corporate stock is owned or subject to the beneficial interest of any person or the spouse of any person ineligible for licensure under paragraphs 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6 of this subdivision. ~~ (9) Who is the spouse of a person ineligible for a license under paragraphs 4, 5 or 6 of this subdivision and who, in the judgment of the city council, is not the real party in interest or beneficial owner of the business operated, or to be operated, under the license. Subd. 12. Ineligibility for License. Exis- tence of any of the following conditions render any applicant ineligible for receipt of a license: (1) No license shall be granted, or renewed, for operation on any premises, on which taxes, assessments or other financial claims of the city or of the state are due, 9 delinquent or unpaid. In the event any action has been commenced pursuant to the provisions of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 278, questioning the amount or validity of taxes, the city council may, on application by the licensee, waive strict compliance with this provision; no waiver may be granted, however, for taxes on any portion thereof, which remain unpaid -for a period exceeding one year after becoming due. (2) No license shall be granted for a foreign corporation. (3) No license shall be issued for the premises owned by a person to whom a license may not be granted under this section, except an owner who is a minor or an alien. (4) No "on-sale" license shall be granted for a restaurant as defined in sub- division (1) of this section which does not comply with the following requirements: _ (a) Have a dining room seating of at least 40 persons which conforms to the per patron space standards contained in the State Building Code for, restaurant dinning areas seating 50 or more' persons. {b) Have a special use permit as a restaurant at which intoxicating liquor may be sold. Subd. 13. Conditions Governing Issuance. The following conditions govern issuance of a license pursuant to .this section: (1) Every license shall be granted subject to the provisions of this section and of any other applicable ordinance or law. (2) The license shall be posted in a conspicuous place in the licensed premises at all times. (3) Every licensee shall be responsible for the conduct of his. place of business and for the conditions of sobriety and order in the place of business and on the premises. (4) No "on-sale" license shall sell wine "off-sale" (5) No license shall be effective beyond the compact and contiguous space shown in the license application for suctl license. (6) No minor shall be employed in any rooms constituting the place in which wines are sold at retail "on-sale", except that minors may be employed to perform the duties of a bus boy or dishwashing services in restaurants licensed under the provisions of this section. 10 (7) No wine shall be sold or furnished or delivered to any intoxicated person, to . any habitual. drunkard, to a minor, or to any person to whom sale is prohibited by state law. (8) No licensee or any of his employees shall keep, possess,. operate, or permit the keeping, possession, or operation of any slot machine, dice, or any gambling device or apparatus on the licensed premises, or in any room adjoining the licensed premises, nor shall any such person permit any gambling therein. {9) No licensee or any of his employees shall knowingly permit the licensed premises or any room in those premises or any adjoin- - .~ng.building directly or indirectly un-der his control to be used as a resort for prosti- tutes or for persons engaged in the illegal possession, use or sale of drugs or other controlled substances. (10) Any police officer, health officer, :sanitarian, building inspector or any proper- ly designated officer or employee of the city shall have the unqualified right to enter, inspect and search the premises of the licen- see without a search warrant at any time during which the sale of wine is occurring therein. Acceptance by the licensee of the license shall be deemed as consent to such entry, search and inspection . (11) No "on-sale" wine establishment shall display wine to the public during hours when the sale of wine is prohibited by this ordinance. (12) No licensee shall apply for or possess a federal wholesale or retail liquor - dealer's special tax stamp or a federal gambling stamp. (13) Changes in the corporate or associa- tion officers, corporate charter, articles of incorporation, bylaws or partnership agree- ment, as the cases may be, shall be submitted to the city clerk not less than 30 days before such changes are to be made. In the case of a corporation, the licensee shall notify the city clerk when a person not listed in the original application acquires an interest which, together with that of his spouse, parent, brother, sister or child, exceeds 5%. Such notice shall be given not less than 30 days from the date of the pro- posed transfer. (14) At the time a licensee submits his application for renewal of a license, he 11 shall state the nature and amount of any contribution he has made for campaign or political purposes, the person to whom the contribution was made and the person or organization for whom intended. (15) A restaurant shall be conducted in such a manner that the principal part of the business for a license year is the serving of foods. (16) Restaurants shall display a sign calling attention to the open bottle law. {17) No licensee shall sell, offer for sale, or keep for sale, wine in any original .package which has been refilled or partly refilled.' No licensee shall directly or through any other person delete or in any manner tamper with the contents of any origi- nal package so as to change its composition or alcoholic content while in the original package. Possession on the premises by the licensee of any wine in the original package differing in the composition or alcoholic .content in the wine when received from the manufacturer or wholesaler from whom it was purchased shall be prima facie evidence that the contents of the original package has been diluted, changed or tampered with. (18) The business records of the licen- see, including federal and state tax returns, shall be available for inspection by the city manager, or other duly authorized representa- tives of the city or the city council at all reasonable times. (19) No person may serve as manager in any restaurant serving wine who does not satisfy all the criteria required under Subdivision 11 for the issuance of a license. All licensees which are required to designate a person to manage the licensed operation shall notify the city of any proposed change . of manager from the person designated in the application. Such proposed subbtitute must qualify in the same manner as the .original manager. Upon notice of such proposed substi- tution, the city manager shall conduct such investigation involving such departments as he deems necessary to determine the qualifi- cation of the proposed substitute to act as manager. The city manager shall report his investigation to the council which may either approve or disapprove of the proposed substi- tute. The fee for the investigation required under this paragraph shall be as provided in Appendix D of this Code. 12 Subd. 14. Bond. (1) No license granted under this section shall be issued until the licensee has filed with the city clerk a fidelity bond in the amount of $5,000. At the time the license is granted the council shall desig- nate whether such bond shall be with corpor- ate surety duly licensed to do business in the State of Minnesota or with a personal surety who is a person of good credit and a property owner in the city. The licensee shall keep such bond or any substituted bond in the same amount and with the same terms in full force and effect throughout the license period. (2) The surety bond required by Para- - graph (1) of this subdivision shall be sub- ~ect to the approval of the city attorney as to form and execution. (3) All such bonds shall be conditioned as follows: (a} The licensee will obey the law relating to the licensed business. (b} The licensee will pay to the city when due all taxes,- licensee fees, penalties and other charges provided by law. (c) In the event of violation of any law relating to the business for which the license has been granted for the sale of wine, the bond shall be forfeited to the city. (4) All such bonds shall provide that no cancellation for any cause can be made either by the bonding company or the appli- cant, without said person first giving 30 days' written notice to the city, addressed ~..-. to the city manager, of intention to cancel ..- the bond. Subd. 15. Liability Insurance. (1) Prior to the issuance of an "on- sale" wine license, the applicant shall file with the city clerk (a) a public liability insurance policy providing coverage of at least $250,000 and $500,000 and (b) a liquor liability policy covering liabilities under the provisions of Minnesota Statutes 1979, Section 340.96 and providing coverage of at least $100,000 and $300,000. The city shall be named as an additional party insured on each of such policies. (2) Such policies shall provide that no cancellation for any cause shall be made by either the insured or the insurer without 13 first giving written notice of such cancel- lation to the city at least 30 days prior to the effective date of the cancellation. (3) Such policies of insurance shall further provide that subject to the limita- tions of paragraph (1) above, no payment of any claim by the insurance company shall in any manner decrease the coverage provided for in respect to any other claim or claims brought against the insured or the insuring company. (4) Such policies shall be subject to approval of the city attorney as to form and execution and shall be issued by companies who are duly licensed to do business in the State of Minnesota. Such policies, when approved by the proper city officials, shall be deposited with the city clerk. Subd. 16. Hours and Days of Operation. The sale of wine in conjunction with the serving of food shall be permitted between 8:00 a.m. and 1:00 a.m. on weekdays and until 1:00 a.m. on Sunday morning,' and between noon and midnight on Sunday, unless such Sunday sale is prohibited in the license. Sale of wine at times other than those permitted in this subdivision is unlawful. Wine shall not be sold at any establishment licensed hereunder between 1:00 a.m. and 8:00 p.m. on the day of any local or statewide election. Subd. 17. Minors. (1) No shall serve premises any licensee, or minor to be Restrictions Involving Sale to licensee, its agent or employee or dispense upon the licensed wine to a minor, nor shall such its agent or employee permit a furnished or consume any such wines on the licensed premises; nor shall such licensee,. or its agent or employee permit a minor to be present at any part of the licensed premises where wine is served if not accompanied by such child's parent or legal guardian. (2) Upon demand of the licensee, its agent or employee, any person present on the premises or seeking entrance thereto shall produce and permit the examinations of such persons driver's license or non-qualification certificate issued by the State of Minnesota. 14 Subd. 18. Other Restrictions on Purchase or- Consumption. (1) No person shall give, sell, pro- cure or purchase wine for any person to whom the sale of wine is forbidden by law. (2). No person shall mix or prepare wine for "on-sale" consumption in any public place not licensed in accordance with this code and the laws of the State of Minnesota. (3} Wine may not be sold or served in any bar or cocktail lounge area of the res- taurant but only at tables where meals are regularly served. (4) No person may be sold or served wine who~does not order food to be consumed with the wine. (5) Wine may not be sold or served in containers larger in volume than one liter. (6) Patrons shall not be allowed or permitted to remove from the premises any wine receptacles which contain wine whether or not the seal is broken. The licensee shall take such steps as are necessary to inform patrons of this prohibition prior to making any wine sale Subd. 19. Revocation. The city council may suspend or revoke an "on-sale" license for the violation of any provision or condition of this section, Code section 10.24 or of any state law or federal-law regulating intoxi- cating liquor or wine and shall revoke such license for any willful violation which, under the laws of the state, is grounds for mandatory revocation. Subd. 20. Revocation Procedure. The li- censee shall be afforded an opportunity for a hearing pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Section 15.0418 and 15.042b before the city council may vote whether to revoke or to suspend its license. No suspension shall exceed 60 days. Subd. 21. Enlargement, Alterations or Exten- sion of Premises. Proposed enlargement, alteration or extension of premises previous- ly licensed shall be reported to the city clerk at or before the time application is made for a building permit for any such change and the licensee shall- also give such information as is required by Subdivision 4. 15 Subd. 22. Transfer of License. No transfer of any license required under this section shall be permitted until all of the pro- visions of this section have been met includ- ing the filing of an original application, the payment of all fees and the approval of the city council. A license transfer shall be deemed to have occurred when any of the following conditions exist: (1) Any expansion, material alteration or extension of the licensed premises in- tended to be used for the sale or consumption of wine, "on-sale". (2)~ Any transfer of the license from person to person or from place to place. (3) Any change in the business struc- ture or organization of the licensee includ- ing, but not limited to, changes in the corporate or association officers, charter, articles of incorporation, bylaws or partner- ship agreement. (4) Any change in the legal or bene- ficial ownership of corporate stock which, together with the 'interest of a spouse, parent, brother, sister or child, involves 5% or more of the corporate stock. (5) The grant of any power of attorney, voting proxy, pledge or other assignment of the voting rights of corporate stock which will effect alone or in conjunction with any other assignment to the same assignee, his spouse, parent, brother, sister or child, 5% or more of the voting shares of stock. (6} The .creation of any new pecuniary interest in the ownership operation manage- ment, or profits of the licensed business. (7) The existence of any other situa- tion whereby individuals other than those listed in the original license application acquire a role in the management, operation. or profit of the license." 2. Appendix D, Section 8 of the Ordinance Code of the City of Richfield, Minnesota, is hereby amended by adding after paragraph (2)d, the following new. subparagraph: "e. Wine 11.08 lyear $300.00" 16 3. Appendix D, Section 8 of the Ordinance Code of the City of Richfield, Minnesota, is hereby amended by adding after paragraph 4(b) the following new subparagraph: "c. Wine 11.08 Original Application-- , Initial fee $150.00 and total fee not to exceed $1700. Renewal Applicatior.--Ini- tial fee $50.00 and total . fee not to exceed $1700. Additional Investigation under 11.08 Subd. 8. (4)- $1-00.00 and not to exceed $1700.00 Investigation of substi- tute manager-$25.00. Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota, this day of 1980. Donald Priebe, Mayor ATTEST: Sylvia K. Bergh, Acting City Clerk CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Office of City Manager Council Letter No. 86 Agenda March 10, 1980 The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Richf field Council Members: Subject: The March 10, providing for press persons who have s ions. Certif icates following retiring Certificates of Appreciation 1980 city council agenda includes an item ~ntation of certificates of appreciation to ~rved on the various city advisory commiss- sf appreciation will be presented to the commission members: Advisory Board of Health Robert Lien, appointed to the commission in 1977 and served two terms. Ms. Mildred Stake, appointed to the commission in 1977 and served two terms. Mr. William Siemers, appointed to the commission in 1977 and served two terms. Civil Service Commission Mr. Carlton Lytle, appointed to the commission in 1979 to fill an unexpired three-year term. Park and Recreation Advisory Commission Mr. Bernie Mittlesteadt, appointed to the commission in. 1977 and served one term. Mr. Robert Gunderson, appointed to the commission in 1977 and served one term. Mr. Don Anderson, appointed to the commission in 1973 and served three terms. /~ Council Letter No. 86 -2- March 10, 1980 Planninq Commission Ms. Betty Ebb, appointed to the commission in 1979 to fill an unexpired three-year term, and served the remainder of the term. Ms. Joan Helmberger, appointed to the commission in 1971 and served three terms. Senior Citizens~Handicapped Commission Sister Charlotte LeClair, appointed to the commission in 1978 and served one term. Ray Heeble, appointed to-the commission in 1977 and served one term: Frank Johnson, appointed to the commission in 1977 and served one term. Respectfully submitted, ~~~ ~~~L~ ,t~,~~~ ~ Karl Nollenberger City Manager KN/ej a cc: Department Directors :. /7 CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Office of City Manager Council Letter No. 85 Agenda March 10, 1980 The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Richf field Council Members: Subject: Appointment to Senior Citizens/ Handicapped Commission have expressed an interest in being appointed to this commission. Respectfully submitted, ~ , Karl Nollenberger City Manager KN/eja _.~ i.~ .U ; ; _:~ 1 Date /l o~- Q/7 „~ P:. ~ ~ ~ 1~ `~" pEG ~.~. 1.,7~ -_ r~:s?' APPLIC.?iTION FOR ~.I`r`~' Or RICHF-'TEED '~~il~.+l~~`' ~'' "+ <, i~ADVISOR~' COMivIITTEE OR COP.1MiSSIO~i APPOi~;?'~,iFTtiTT NAME ~/-f-/2~ s O h ~/`~ ~. ~ ~ ~e ~~~- Last ~--- HOME ADDRESS 7~~--0 ~~}-{~ ~~ ~e_C Ij~t/~~c_ ~Ch ~~~~d ~/'~ ~sr~3 Street No. City Zip t`cae MAILING ADDRESS (if different from home address) , Street No. PHONE: Home City Business Zi~~ ~~'ode APPOINTMENT PREFERENCE: Planning Commission Park and Recreation Advisory Comm. Senior Citizen & Handicapped Advisory Commission~~ Human Rights Commission Civil Service Cor~missior: Advisory Board of Heait'r~, Other Briefly discuss aspects of your experience «.~hich you believe qualify you for this municipal commission/commit*_ee and why '>>-ou are interested in ser~,~ing: CIVIC, PR FESSION LAN CO MUIvTT~. ACTTVI ~~ ~ ~-. ~ ~ ~ ~ -!I - .,n n Y { ~~ 000UPATION: ee '(' Employing ,firm, agency)'j~cJ~/1L¢. N'~JiVd~ Cpt,t r, i ~~e s ~~ati(~keci~.Te''`rv, 'Qrv 'S'!_ G~ Address '~0 t. ~ ~T /9 ut /U0 ~ ~~ hw~,~,~~.'3'~ c~rUa 3 Position~„~,;il;s~a~Tl/.r~ ~Ss,`s~a.~ years w/firm.%agenc-,~ Other work experience (optional) ~~ ~f'n~3 d~. 1~y~~e-a. ~ v ~ b ra a i~ ~'~t.e cti ~ c.~-l~ Cl,.'~. ,'~ ST ~ n ~c ~'s ~'~N . REFERENCES (Optional) A . ~,4 20 ~ M- ~ S e-!1 S~ P 2.r y .~ S o Y Full name Relationship Mailing address Phone number B. Full name Mailing address C. Full name Relationship Phone number Relationship Mailing address Phone number Return to: City Manager's Office 6700 Portland Avenue Richfield 55423 Att: ~E~leen An~ersor. Da to j~ / ~ ~" ~~~~ ~ '- APFLIC?`,TION FOR CIT`,' OF RICHFIELD ADVISOR' COMMITTEE OR COPJ~MISSION APPOII~;T~`F"vT NAME ~~p_ ~l~ ---- ~~ ~ ~~"~.~ Ltd Last ~= it t i.,,_~,ale HOME ADDRESS Street No. ,. , l.l~l __..L-`~~1` ~ Zip ~'c::e MAILING ADDRESS (if different from home addressi Street No. City Zip C.~ e PHONE: Home ,~~~i` ~~~,/ Business APPOINTMENT PREFERENCE: Planning Commission Human Rights Commission Park and Recreation Advisory Comm. Civil Service C'or~missior:_ Senior Citizen ~ Handicapped Advisory Board of Health- Advisory Commission- }~. Other Briefly discuss aspects of your experience which you believe qualify you for this municipal commission/`com~Jmit~tteest.~and why ,;ou aret~nterested in ~9serving: .~ ~ /S ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~~~~~~ ~c~pn.Q' 7 !{J~ Gi~su Lt~iGt7~- , ~i F~/J71 NY'LtiLC~,CO .G'h 11~~d!.w~ ~ Yl~~ Ti"~L~~~Y~+l R/~/".2. /ri0 U vN. CIVIC, PROFESSIOIv'AL AND COMMUi~?ITYACTIVITIES: Gam, w ~n~~s~~~L r;~ ~~° _J~~~ ~~" Ct~~ ~~~~~-~'~r ~*~.~,-~s~ ~~a.~-~;~- r } "= 1 OC CU PAT ION : - ~Z~~.¢' Employing ,firm, agency Address Position Other work experience (optional) REFERENCES (Optional) A . ~ ..a-c~.~a_. Full name , Relationship Mailing address Phone number ~'i~ r . B ~ , " ~~~~e«' . FuII name Relationship Mailing address Phone number Full name Relationship ~ ~~~ Mailing address gears w/firrr;%agenc; ~~ ~~~= Phone number Return to: City Manager's Office 6700 Portland Avenue Richfield 55423 Att: E:1eer. araerson Date ~ /'~~ i ~ .t ~ APPLIC.-''~TICTv FOR CIT`: OF RICHi'IEL~ ADVISOR' COMMITTEE OR COI~~IMISSION_ APPOII~iT~iE''~'T NAME 5~~~~F~~~c/C,~ /1~'J~i~~~C.~j~t/C ~~t}~/Z Last ~= first i~:iG~Ui!' HOME ADDRESS /o? 7 ~ ~1~T~~r ~1~~-/O it i C~~/Pf(~ ~ `5 7`°` --~ Street No, City Zip C::de MAILING ADDRESS (if different from home address) Street No. PHONE: City Home ~~° ~ 7/~~3 Business APPOINTMENT PREFERENCE: Planning Commission Park and Recreation Advisory Comm, Senior Citizen & Handicapped Advisory Commission ~,/ Human Rights Commission Civil Service Commission Advisory Board of Health Other Briefly discuss aspects of your experience ~^~hich you believe qualify you for this municipal commission,%committee and why you are interested in ser~.~ing: art L7 =Z /~Ci~~GY .~ e ~'~,~ ~~e~~~P ~ ~~~n, ,L ti.til~L~tL ~~ Z~-F ~L~ ~1-L ,2 Gtr-~ut~ suJt/ ~„ CIVIC, PROFESSIONAL AND CJMMUNITYACTIVITIES: ip erode ~ ~:~ ~ ~C ~1~d~~( s~ OCCUPATION: e ~~ n Employing ,firm, agency C~~~~i Address Position years tn-; firrr•,!agenr..~; y, Other work experience (optional) i ~'~~G?. L~ (~ n ~,l~J-~jj f ~ ~?-G~~ t~ G'-'!~%'e / ~~ ti ~ ~ fJ'"~ y~ ,~i~ ~'GG~~it REFERENCES (Optional) Full name Relationship Mailing address Phone number $.~'?, ~, ,S~C~ Full name e-~ y~ /jil Relationship 7~x! ~~N~~~ Airs Lo i 7~ ~'~ ~~~ ~' ~ Mailing address Phone number Full name Relationship Mailing address Phone number Return to: City Manager's Office 6700 Portland Avenue Richfield 55423 Att: L;.leen An.ierson P'iI`a"S LII~LiAPi Iili'~' 7000 iiicollet Ave, , So. , Richfield, MP~i ~j423 Dear bliss Iiipp: February 23, 1930 Please accept this letter as my res:Lgna-tion from my appointment to the Senior Citizen ~ Iiand:ica_pped Commis- sion, effective immediately. I am sorry that I must resign at i;his time as the ~~rork of the commission is very worthy, and the outlook for this year'..s activities for handicapped Ai~rareness fleck appear to be quite interesting. Thad looked forward to some participation in the program, but it is not working out -for rne. 1•'iy involvement in Toastmasters has snowballed to the extent that I had not anticipated. In addition, my workload as the secretary and Treasurer of the A?ational_ Avionics Society has greatly increased. Thus, ~ have no recourJe but to curtail some of my activities. I regret that I rnust leave the Commission at this time, particularly since I have never. worked with a more congenial group of co-~-rorl{ers. .S'•S nr-•orr~'l v lS CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Office of City Manager Council Letter No. 84 Agenda March 10, 1980 The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Richf field Council Members: Subject: Setting Date for Board of Review There is an item on the March 10, 1980 city council agenda for the purpose of setting the date for the 1980 Board of Review meeting. State law requires that the city reevaluate one-fourth of real estate property within the community each year, and that values of the remaining properties in the city be adjusted acc ingly. Each property owner in the city is notified by mail of any increase in valuation of their property, and must also be ing. ~l~ne t~oara or xeview nears appeals prom resiaents wno wisn to have their property valuations established at some level other than that established by the city asessor. Section 7.04 of the city charter details the responsibilities of the Board of Review: "The Board of Equalization shall consist of the members of the council and two residents of the city appointed for a one year term by the city manager and approved by the council. The two resident members shall be experienced in real estate matters and shall receive such compensation as the council may determine. The Board of Equalization shall equalize assessments of property for taxation purposes according to law. As soon as any real estate has been re- as~essed, the affected property owner shall be notified by the assessor of the amount of the change and the reasons therefore." The council may consider appointments of citizen members on the Board of Review at some future council meeting. Respectfully submitted, .~ Karl Nollenberger City Manager /:UU p.m. to serve cc: City Assessor Acting City Clerk