The URL can be used to link to this page

07-23-79 agenda• CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Office of City Manager Council Letter No. 226 Agenda July 23, 1979 ,The Honorable,Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Richfield Council Members: Subject: Purchase in Excess of $1,000, Fall Brochure Production Chapter Six, Section 6.05 of the city charter stipulates that the city council must approve .purchases of merchandise, materials, equip- ment or construction when the amount exceeds $1,000. There is one such item on the July 23, 19%9 city council agenda. Four times each year, the City of Richfield distributes to each Richfield residence a brochure which includes the city Newsletter and information on park and recreation program offerings. In 1979, the city has combined our publication with the Richfield School District's Community Education publication. The Fall, 1979 issue of this joint publication should be distributed to each Richfield residence during the first week of September, to allow sufficient time for people to review program offerings and make arrangements to register for the programs before they begin in late September or early October. In the past, printing of this publication has been done with the city's cen- tral print shop. However., timing of production of the Fall brochure will be in direct conflict with the in -house printing of the city's annual budget document. This is the first time this conflict has occur - red because it is the first Fall issue combining information from the school district and the city. The Spring, 1979 publication, the first joint issue, was 24 pages. The Summer, 1979, publication was 16 pages. While copy for the Fall-issue is currently being submitted, and laid out for publication, the determination of the final size of the Fall publication has not been made, although the estimated length of the Fall publicat *on is 40 pages. Written quotations to produce the fall brochure he from Agner's Foss Printing, and Bolger Publications, Ir tion schedule provides that the city staff prepare the camera work. The vendor would provide paper, printing, ing, stapling, and bundling of the brochure. Based on pages length of the brochure, the lowest quotation was Bolger Publications, Inc in the amount of $5,026. Th maximum amount paid to the vendor for work on the broch rho. D e been received The produc- opy ready for cutting, fold - he assumed 40 ubmitted by s would be the re publication. 3 LAW OFFICES LF-FEVERE, LEFLER, PEARSON, O'BRIEN & DRAWZ 1100 FIRST NATIONAL BANK BUILDING CLAYTON L. LEFEVERE HERBERT P. LEFLER - MINNEAPOLIS, MINNESOTA 55402 TELEPHONE CURTIS A. PEARSON (612) 333 -0543 J. DENNIS O'BRIEN JOHN E. DRAWZ ' July 19, 1979 9 DAVID J. KENNEDY .JOHN B. DEAN -GLENN E. PURDUE JAMES D. LARSON _ CHARLES L. I,EFEVERE .HERBERT P. LEFLER III JEFFREY J. STRAND JAMES P. O'MEARA Ms. Joyce Wilde _'Administrative Assistant 6700 Portland Ave. S. Richfield,'MN 55423 Re: Gambling Dear Joyce: Enclosed please find an amendment to the ordinance code which 7: would provide for the conduct of certain gambling activities and the licensing of the organizations which conduct them. We have combined ;this new licensed activity with the regulation of bingo in the same ordinance section. This is done because of the similarity of regu- lation, and does not mean to suggest that all activities covered by this section could be permitted with a single license. While the enclosed ordinance is offered for discussion purposes, it is in proper form for adoption, should the council wish to so act. The regulation of gambling and bingo are largely controlled by state statute. For that reason, many of the provisions contained in the proposed amendment are taken directly from the state statute. You will note that we have inserted certain license fees in the portion amending Appendix D. These fees are merely for discussion purposes and the council is entirely free to establish whatever fee it wishes. Similarly, we have, for discussion purposes only, put a limitation on where raffle tickets may be sold. We have also provided for the making of a fidelity bond with the bingo or gambling manager as personal surety. This would 'remove the expense to the organization of obtaining a fidelity bond with corporate surety. Finally, we have provided that the licensee will hold the city harmless from any cause or claim arising out of or by reason of the LAW OFFICES LEFEVERE, LEFLER, PEARSON, O'BRIEN & DRAWZ Ms.. Joyce Wilde July 19, 1979 Page Two granting of the license. This provision is intended, in part, to protect the city from possible claims in the event the statute authorizing municipalities to permit and license these.activities were to be declared unconstitutional. If you have any questions concerning this amendment, or if I can be of further assistance, please advise. Respectfully yours, Xhn B. Dean JBD:kb encl. t _ AMENDMENT TO CHAPTER V PART II, SECTION 5.19 APPENDIX OF THE ORDINANCE CODE OF THE CITY OF RICHFIELD CITY OF RICHFIELD DOES ORDAIN: A. Chapter V, Part II, Section 5.19 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 to read as follows: "5.19 BINGO, GAMBLING DEVICES AND RAFFLES Subdivision 1. Definitions. (1) The following terms shall have the meanings given to them by Minnesota Statutes, 11976.11978, Sections 349.12 and 349.26; [(1)] (a) C(2)] (b) [(3)] (c) 1(4).] (d) [(5)] (e) [ (6)] (f) [ (7) ] (g) [ (8) ] (h) (i) (J) (k) (1) Active member Bingo Bingo occasion Checker Lawful purpose Organization Profit Bingo manager Gambling devices Paddle wheel. Tipboard Raffle (2) As used in this section be limited to the operation of conduct of raffles. the term "gambli ddle wheels, tip " shall refer and ards and the (3) As used in this section, the term "gambling occasion means a single gathering or session at which gambling is conducted. Subdivision 2. License Required. Any organization authorized to apply for ja] bingo or gambling licenses pursuant to Minnesota Statutes [1976] 1978, Chapter 349, shall apply to the City Clerk for a license before conducting [the game of bingo] any.such activity, within the city. [Bingo] No such activity may .[not] be conducted until the proper license is issued. Subdivision 3. Application. Application shall be made on forms prepared for that purpose by the city clerk. Separate application shall be made for bingo and gambling licenses. Applications shall be verified by a duly appointed officer of the organization and by the person designated by the organization as bingo or gambling manager.. Applications shall state the dates for which permission t'-o [play the game] conduct the activity is requested and the place where the [games] activities will be [played] conducted. The application shall contain an agreement on the part of the applicant that if the license applied for is granted, the license will save the city and its officers, agents and employees harmless against any claims or actions and the cost of defending the same arising out of or by.r.eason of the granting of the license or the conduct.of any of the activities authorized by the license. The city clerk may require additional information on the application for the purpose of carrying out the provisions of this section. No application for a gambling license may be submitted until the effective date of this section. Subdivision 4. Change in Organization Officers. If !during the period for which [the] a license is issued there is a change in the officers of the organization, or in the person designated to act as bingo or gambling manager, a new application disclosing such change must be made and filed with the city clerk Subdivision 5. License Fee and License Year. The annual license fee for bingo _licenses and for gambling licenses shall be as provided in Appendix D of this Code. The [annual] license year in the case of both types of licenses shall run from January 1 [to] through December 31 of the year. Subdivision 6. Bond. (1) At the time of filing the application, the designated bingo or gambling manager shall file with the city clerk a fidelity bond with the manager as personal surety [with corporate surety duly licensed to do business in the State of Minnesota]. Such bond shall be in the amount of $10,000 for each bingo license requested and $10,000 for each gambling license requested even though the same individual may be designated by the organization as its bingo and gambling manager. Such-bonds shall be subject to approval by the city attorney as to form and execution. The bonds shall run in favor of the organization conducting the .[bingo] activity and be conditioned .as follows: (a) The designated bingo or gambling manager will obey all ordinances and statutes relating to the licensed activity. (b) The designated bingo or gambling manager shall fully and faithfully perform his duties. (c) The bond may not be cancelled for any reason without the written consent of the city and then only after 30 days written notice of intention to cancel the bond. (2) The city council may upon unanimous vote waive the.bonding requirement. If waived, the license shall state that it is issued with a waiver of ,[surety] fidelity bond. (3) Should there be a change-in the designated bingo or gambling manager during the license year, the new [bingo.] manager shall, before assuming his duties, comply with all of the bond requirements of this subdivision. Subdivision 7. Approval and Issuance of License. The application shall be referred to the Police and Fire Divisions of the Public Safety Department, to the inspection division of the Public Works Department and to such other persons or departments as the city manager shall deem appropriate for investigating and recommendations. The application shall thereupon be returned to the city manager who shall note his own recommendations and comments thereon. The appli- cation shall be then presented to the council for final approval or denial. The council may not act on the application until at least .30 days after it has been submitted in completed form; and must act within 180 days of submission. Subdivision 8. Conditions - Governing Issuance. The following conditions govern the issuance of licenses pursuant to this section: (1) No license shall be issued to an organization whose desig- nated manager, or any organization officer, has been convicted by any court of competent jurisdiction of any offense which relates to the competency of the designated manager or the organization to perform the licensed activity. (2)Licenses shall be issued only upon applications which are complete in every respect and have been accompanied by the payment of the annual license fee and filing of the bingo or gambling manager's [surety] fidelity bond. i (3) No license shall be issued to any organization unless such organization has existed in the city for at least three years prior to the date of application. [This restriction shall not apply if the organization making application is, or is a subsidiary of, any religious, charitable or fraternal organization of national or statewide jurisdiction which has been in existence for at'ileast i three years.] (4) No license shall be not have, on the date of app (5) No license shall be designated bingo or gambling standing of the organization least two years prior to the issued to any organization which does lication, at least 30 active members. issued to any organization whose manager is not a member in good and who has not been a member for at date on which application is made. (6) No organization may be licensed to conduct bingo.or gambling on any leased premises without a written lease for a term at least equal to the term of the [bingo] license sought and in no event for a term extending less than six months from the date the license is issued. In the case of bingo., 'lease payments shall be at a fixed monthly rate or rate per bingo occasion, not subject to change during the term of the lease. No such lease shall provide that rental payments be based on a percentage of receipts or projects from bingo occasions. Subdivision 9. Conditions Governing Conduct of Bingo and Gambling. (1) The bingo manager shall not be the bingo manager for any other organization. The gambling manager shall not be the gambling manager for any other organization. - One person may simultaneously serve as the bingo manager and the gambling manager for the same organization. (2) No compensation shall be paid to any person in connection with (a] bingo or .gambling [occasion] activities except that in the case of bingo, an active member of the organization, or its auxiliary, or the spouse or surviving.spouse of an active member, conducting the bingo occasion. -In the case -of bingo only, a [nor shall any] person not an active member of the organization or its auxiliary, or the spouse or surviving spouse of an active member may participate in the conduct of a bingo occasion .[,• except] by resolution of a majority of the membership recorded in the approval minutes of the organization. Nonmanagement assistants who are not active members of the organization, or the spouse or surviving spouse of.an active .member, may be hired to assist members in.conducting the bingo occasion. Compensation shall not exceed $12.00 per bingo occasion. (3) Unless the city council shall so provide in the license, no more than 104 bingo or gambling occasions each year or two bingo or gambling occasions per week may be conducted by the organization. No'bingo or gambling occasion shall continue for more than four consecutive hours. (4) Any person or corporation, other than an organization, which leases any premises that it owns to two or more organizations for purposes including the conduct of bingo occasions, shall not allow more than four bingo or gambling occasions to be conducted on the premises in any week. (5) Any organization which leases any premises to one or.more other organizations for purposes including the conduct of bingo occasions shall use the proceeds to the rental, less reasonable sums for maintenance, furnishings and other necessary expenses, only for lawful purposes as defined in Minnesota Statutes, 1978, Section 349.12. At the end of each license year the organization shall report to the city clerk the disposition of all receipts which it has received during the license period from the rental on its facilities to other organizations for purposes including the conduct of bingo occasions. i (6) Prizes for a single bingo game shall not exceed $100.00 except for prizes for a game of the type commonly known as a "cover- all" game which shall in aggregate value not exceed $500.100. The I M i y"t ,... sr ps aggregate of prizes for a bingo occasion shall not exceed $2,500.00, except that when the bingo occasion includes a "cover- all" game, the aggregate of prizes shall not exceed $3,000.00. Merchandise prizes shall be valued at fair market retail value. (7) Total prizes from the operation of paddle wheels and tipboards awarded in a single day in which they are operated shall not exceed $500.00. Total prizes resulting from any single spin of a paddle wheel or from a single tipboard shall not exceed $100.00. The total prizes awarded for both paddle wheel and tipboard by any organization shall not exceed _$15,000 per license year. (8).No expense shall be incurred or amounts paid in connection with the conduct of bingo, except those reasonably expended for bingo supplies and equipment, prizes, rent or, utilities used during the bingo. occasion, bingo license fees, taxes related to bingo and compensation to active members who conduct the game. (9) No expense shall be incurred or amounts paid in connection with licensed gambling activities except those reasonably expended for .prizes, local licensing fees, -taxes and maintenance costs for the gambling devices. (10) Each bingo or gambling winner shall be determined and every prize shall be awarded and delivered the same day on which the bingo [occasion) or gambling activity is conducted, except that raffle winners not present for the drawing may be, delivered their prizes at a later date. _(11) Bingo or gambling shall not be conducted on dates'or at places other than those dates and places enumerated in the application. (12) Bingo and gambling may only be [played] conducted in the hall where regular meetings of the organization are held unless otherwise permitted by the Council. Tickets for raffles conducted in accordance with this section may be sold off the premises, but may not be sold in residential `. districts of the city. (13) Bingo and gambling may not be played by any person under 18 years of age unless accompanied by his parent or legal guardian. Subdivision 10. Recording Players and Receipts- Bingo. One or more checkers shall be engaged for each bingo occasion. The checker or checkers shall record -the numbers of cards played in each game prior to the completion of each game and record the prizes awarded to the recorded cards. Each checker shall certify all figures which he has recorded as accurate and correct to the best of his knowledge. This record shall be kept on file by the association within the city and shall be open to inspection by city policy officers. Subdivision 11. Records. Each organization shall keep records _ of its .gross receipts, expenses and profits for each [bingo] single gathering or occasion.. Gross receipts shall be compared to the checker's records for the bingo occasion by a person who did not sell cards for the bingo occasion. All deductions from gross receipts [for a bingo.occasion].shall:.be documented with receipts or other 1. records indicatincr the amount, a description_of the purchased item or service or other reason for the deduction and „the name of the recipient. The distribution .of profits shall be itemized as to payee, amount, and date of payment [Bingo] Gross receipts from each activity required to be licensed under this section shall be segregated from other revenues, including other activities licensed hereunder, and placed in a separate account. Each organization shall maintain separate records of [itsbingo] each licensed operations] The person who accounts for [bingo] gross receipts, expenses and profits shall not be the same person who accounts for other revenues of the organization. Recordslrequired to be kept by this section and by Minnesota Statutes 1978, Chapter 349 shall be preserved for at least three years. Licenses shall make their bingo and gambling records available to the police department at any reasonable time and after proper notice. Y Subdivision 12. Reports and Applications. (1) If any discrepancy is found between the amount of gross receipts for a'bingo occasion as determined by the checker's records and the amount of gross receipts as determined by totaling the cash receipts and the discrepancy exceeds $20.00, the discrep- ancy shall be reported to the city clerk within five days of-its discovery. (2) An organization shall report monthly to its membership gross receipts [from bingo], its expenses, its profits [from bingo] from the licensed activity and the distribution of those profits itemized as required by subdivision 11 of this section and Minnesota Statutes 1978, Sections.349.17 and 349.26. Copies of all such reports shall be furnished monthly.to the city clerk. (3) At least 30 days prior to conducting its first [bingo occasion] licensed activity of the license year, an organization shall file with the city clerk copies of the following: (a) Department of Treasury, Internal Revenue Service, "Return of Organization Exempt from Income Tax ", Form 990, or a comparable form if the organization is required to file the form with the Department of the Treasury; (b) Department of Treasury, Internal Revenue Service, "Exempt Organization Business Income Tax ", Form 990-T, or a comparable form if the organization is required to file the form with the Department of the Treasury; (c) The annual report required of charitable organizations by Minnesota Statutes 1978, Section 309.53, provided that the organiza- tion that conducts [ bingo•] licensed activities but is exempt from submitting this report to the Department of Commerce under Section 309.53, Subdivision la, shall nevertheless submit such a report under this subdivision; - (d) The Minnesota Department of Commerce "Statement of Bingo Operations ",. All information contained in the statement shall be true, correct and complete to the best of the knowledge of the person or persons signing the statement. Any-person who shall knowingly make a false statement or knowingly conceal a material fact in the statement shall be subject to the penalties provided in Subdivision 14 of this section. (e) Any lease agreements required by this [ordinance] section executed by the organization in regard to premises leased for the conduct of [bingo] the licensed activity. Subdivision 13. Revocation or Suspension of License. The license may be revoked or suspended by the city manager whenever the licensee, its owners, directors,,, bingo manager, gambling manager, or agents have -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. i (3) Conduct involving moral turpitude. (4) Conviction for an offense involving moral turpitude or relating to the conduct of the licensed activity. (5) Failure to promptly comply with any of the requirements of this [ordinance] section or state laws relating to bingo or I gambling (6) Engaging in activity, action or change which would have disqualified the licensee from obtaining a license. The matter shall then proceed as provided in Richfield Ordinance Code Section 5.14 Subdivision 4. Subdivision 14. Penalty. Any alleged violation of the pro- visions of this section which shall.also constitute a violation of the provisions of Minnesota Statutes, 1976, Chapter 349 shall first' be presented to the office of the.Hennepin County Attorney for prosecution of a gross misdemeanor. In any instance where the county attorney shall decline, for any.reason, to prosecute the alleged violation,'and in all other cases involving alleged viola - tions of this section the matter shall be: presented to the city attorney for prosecution as a misdemeanor. Subdivision 15-Existing Licenses. All .licenses heretofore issued for the conduct of bingo shall-continue unless revoked or suspended until the end to the current license year [terminate upon the effective date of this ordinance. Any organization whose license is terminated must cease conducting bingo not later than twenty days thereafter unless within that period it makes application as above provided. If application is.made, the organization may continue to conduct bingo until the council shall act upon the application and thereafter if a license is granted.] Subdivision 16. Exemptions Bingo.. In lieu of obtaining the annual bingo license as provided in this section, daily permits may be issued, covering the conduct of bingo if- conducted. (1) In connection with a county fair conducted by a county agricultural.society or 'association, the state.fair conducted by the state agricultural.society, or a civic celebration recognized by resolution or other similar action by the city council provided that bingo -is not.conducted more.than twelve days in any one calendar year. .(2) By an,organization.which conducts less than five bingo occasions in any calendar year. Application for daily permits shall be on forms prepared for the city clerk for that purpose. Applications shall be presented to the council for its approval. The daily permit fee shall be as provided .in Appendix.D of this Code and the city council may waive all or part of the fee. The council may also place such conditions and restrictions upon the daily permit as it shall.deem.necessary. Subdivision 17. License Fee Reduction - Gambling. The fee established in subdivision 5 of this section shall not apply to gambling license applications involving not more.than 5 single occasions during the license year. In such instances, the fee shall _ be as provided in Appendix D of this code. B. Appendix D of the Ordinance Code of the City of Richfield establishing fees for various licensed activities is hereby amended.by amending Section 5,, paragraph 3 thereof to read as follows i i 104 Type of Permit Section Fee of License Requiring_ Schedule Fee (3) Bingo and Gambling 5.19 a. Daily permit. Bingo & gambling 1 day $30.00 /day b. Annual license -bingo Calendar yr. $200.00 c. Annual license - Tipboard Calendar yr. $200.00 d. Annual license - Paddle wheel Calendar yr. $200.00 e. Annual license - Raffle Calendar yr. $200.00 Passed by the City Council at the City of Richfield, Minnesota this day of 1979 Loren L. Law, Mayor ATTEST• Thomas Moran - City Clerk 104 .0 , council f rom both ed, to identify e and West..-6 6th �,.`:' shburn Avenue'. ttee I s a very 1 members ched, along Associate.sr, orking with 1 agenda field resi drainage tified that ineering ayoran will ndings of I ORR •SCHELEN • MAYERON & ASSOCIATES, INC. Consulting Engineers Lane! Surveyors July 18, 1979 City Council City of Richfield 6700 Portland Avenue Richfield, MN 55423 Re: Edina - Richfield Border Area Study of Storm Water Problems Gentlemen: Attached are excerpted sheets for the joint study performed on Edina- Richfield Boundary Area drainage problem. The recommendation as contained in the report are attached. The updated status of the recommendation is: 69th & Xerxes Area Flooding at 69th and'York,in Edina. The City of Edina is pursuing the regrading of 69th Street just easterly of York to prevent flooding by surface flowby. Remedial action should be completed this-construction season. The capacity of existing catch basins located on Xerxes between 69th and 70th should be increased to maximize flow to the existing storm drain system. In conjunction with the work in Xerxes, the construction of a new catch basin and inlet, with a flap gate to prevent backflow, is required in the alley between Xerxes and Washburn. The City Council should authorize preparation of plans and specifications for these improvements. The affected residents along Xerxes and Washburn should be advised that the proposed improvements will reduce the frequency and severity of flooding but will not totally eliminate the potential. Individual flood proofing to approx- imately 3 foot above the alley surface will be required. Adams Hill Pond Area Adequate provisions for storm water control can be made in Adams Hill Pond. TThe questions to be decided relate to the pump and force main size necessary to meet inflow 2021 fast Hennepin Avenue ® Suite 238 ® Minneapolis, Mi nnesota 55413 s 612/ 331 - 8660 • Richfield City July 18, 1979 Page 2 Council conditions, ponding needs and park requirements when con- sidering downstream constraints. To proceed further, pre- liminary engineering plans should be developed to determine specifics of a potential project. The immediate step would be an agreement between Edina.and Richfield to initiate and share the costs of such preliminary plan preparation. 'The plans could be prepared.by the engineering staffs of either city and submitted along with estimated project cost and potential cost sharing proposals to the other city. 66th and Xerxes Area The three-agencies, namely Richfield, Edina and Hennepin County, having jurisdiction within problem area located at 66th and Xerxes have met and discussed the problem and solu- tions as outlined in the report. There are no existing improvements proposed by any.of the involved agencies that would benefit the storm drainage in the area. There is no solution available at reasonable costs that can be imple- mented solely by Richfield. The course of action at this time seems to be toward a political or policy level decision.by all three involved agencies to establish that the currently existing flood conditions at this intersection are perceived as a high priority problem. It must be decided that all three political bodies, supported by their respective engineering staffs, are committed to finding and funding a solution. This joint commitment will provide for scheduling of the project in future construction programs to insure implementation. The first step toward this commitment could be made by the City of Richfield by expressing their resolution that a solution is necessary by expressing their commitment toward participation in the cost of a solution and by identifying a funding source from which potential participating costs will be paid. That commitment would then be transmitted to the other two agencies requesting action. Upon council direction, we will provide such data or!Ipre- liminary plans for any of the actions listed above. We thank you for the opportunity to be of service. Sincerely, ORR- SCHELEN- MAYERON & ASSOCIATES, INC. j ohn A. Harwood JAH /gg I• RECO', ^tE`-Di aTIONS The following recorWendations are nade by the engineering advisors regarding the three drainage problem areas studied along the Edina - Richfield boundary. These areas are outlined in the memorandum of March 13, 1979, submitted to the Edina - Richfield Storm Drainage Committee. 1. 69th and Xerxes It is our recommendation that the following changes be made at this location: a. Prevent the flow -by at 69th Street and York Avenue by raising 69th'.Street east of York Avenue. b. Increase catch basin capacity at Xerxes Avenue between 69th Street and 70th Street. c. Floodproof 3 homes. Estimated Construction Cost - $85,000 2. Adams Hill Pond It is our recommendation that a permanent pumping facility be con- structed at Ada-Las Hill Pond. This would also require a new forcemair_ to the proposed pond in Edina. A detailed study will be required to determine the flood levels, outlet capacity, and the effect on existing downstream facilities. Estimated Construction Cost - $210,000 - $350,000 3. 66th and Xerxes Area Due to the high cost and severe downstream problems of constructing a drainage system which will provide the design -level of protection for the 66th and Xerxes area, the engineering advisors do not have a recommendation for the Drainage Committee lregarding this problem area. We suggest that prior to consideration of any of the three alternatives, Hennepin County should be contacted for possible financial participation for the solution.of' the drainage problems in this area. Estimated Construction Cost - $430,000- $700,000 • ci a U C ri L li., i t I t I j I F1 L rt 1000' Q 6th n 66th & Xerxes III 1E yItem EE I[ E IEEE 69th 69th Xerxes System 70th JLJHHLI- 1_T_IF_1 > I-!F CL Adam's Hill Pond System, , c � C i �C X C L L p '• 76th i FIGURE 3 STUDY U AREA MAP ; i l J_ L-7 • z -;DAV. UU-ad IL :1 �00� --A It 5AV uj.iqqsel r GNV s;:�X-4ax 0 -C 0 ------------ 0 4-J C.) V 41 > to Ln ro 0 0 %- C 4-S L- E O ri < u > 4J c C;,% ca ca %3 E • 0 E a 0 41 Ez f-, C) tn ul L- = 1 1 !F70AV 0 Ue-jj F� 1 L- 0 &.i LL.: 0 E any >IJOAI C C 4-S E O ri Ln u > P- E 4.A < 0 41 Ez f-, C) tn ul L- = >. r r) ca 0 4-) -- 4-J 3: E o r— -0 0 Q C) u. .--a 0 `C0 Ll- < rnw L- at 0 X 4-J C- - LU to =D 1 1 !F70AV 0 Ue-jj F� 1 L- i • J Discharge From "Flow -By" Area 69th 1 Lowfl ti handled by; i exist g storm sewer 70th Tributary t Drainage Area to I Adams Hill Pond _ —� azelton --0---0--- JI_il J -i' J,JI- �D�JDl�! P000 JCl�0��0��i H _-TIEFIF ODD] a� t 10" Forcemain Y > < _ � � _�— _>. W Force- c main + x � X FO4 76th �i - -- Existing Pi+e System Proposed Pipe System FIGURE 5 co F1 _F C C a+ a I t Ll �j 1 -494 LLI LLI �9\ ti • _r_ 45 %D Lu j a ��L_�L u. %D N NI 'aAv �Jjok cli LU < �j C z C:) cr ui -aAV aouejj I.- < LU z -j — ft O CD It r. 0 0 C14 rid cz p C) C: 0 ?4 S. :4 ro U co to Wj ci co �4 IQ u 1N to 0 co U) U., ci ri (". ci C) ci :7• PL4 44 Q 0 1 2 0 `.. C <1 7� N 40 f, CITY OF 'RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Office of City Manager I Council Letter No. 222 Agenda July 23, 1979 'I The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Richfield Council Members: - 'n of ti o Subject: Bid Minutes and Tabulations and Rejection Su ' � � Bids for Asphalt H t'B x On July 5, 1979, the City Manager opened bids for an asphalt hot box, in accordance with previous city council authorization. The Public Works Director, Environmental Health Director, Technical Operations Superintendent,, and Deputy City Clerk,,,were also present at the bid;.opening. The bid minutes and tabulations are attached for city council review. The asphalt halt hot box would be used to hea t asphalt patching materials, and would enable the streetdivision to keep a -load of asphalt on hand indefinitely. Acquisition of this eguipment would significantly reduce time-and costs associated with our storage and handling of, asphalt materials used in routine maintenance street and alley patching. On bid-was received for this equipment, from It sca Equipment Company, Savage, in the amount of $12,957. This fig re is far in excess of the budgeted amount of $7,600. Because th bid received is so much higher than the budget, it is the recomme dation of the Acting, Public Works Director, in which I concur, tha the City Council reject the bid received for this equipment, nd direct the staff to identify alternative types of equipment which might' serve- the same purpose. If we can identify some oth r type of equipment, it will be necessary at some future date o request council authorization to call for bids for acquisiti n of that equipment. Respectfully submitted, t Karl Nollenberger City Manager KN:sb cc: Acting Public Works Director CITY OF RICHFIELD Bid Opening July 5, 1979 Asphalt Hot Patcher Pursuant to requirements of Resolution No. 1015, a meeting of the Administrative Staff was called by Karl Nollenberger, City Manager, who announced that the purpose of the meeting was to receive, open and read aloud sealed bids for an Asphalt Hot Patcher, as advertised in the official newspaper on June 20, 1979. Present: Karl Nollenberger, City Manager Carl Marinics, Public Works Director I. Roesler, Environmental Health Director Marshall Raaen, Technical Operations Supt. Sylvia Bergh, Deputy City Clerk The following bid was submitted and read aloud: • BIDDER BID SECURITY TOTAL BID Itasca Equipment Co. B.B. 5% $12,957.00 The City Manager announced that the bid would be tabulated an& considered at the regular city council meeting of July 23, 1979. Thomas J. Moran City Clerk is m t- _ C Z CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Office of City Manager Council Letter No. 221 Agenda July 23, 1979 The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Richfield Council Members Subjects Public Hearing, Alley Improvement Project There is an -;item on the July 23,;1979 city council agenda providing for a public 'hearing on improving and upgrading the city's alleyways. The preliminary engineering report on proposed alley im- provements was reviewed by the city council at their May 14, 1979 city council meeting. City Council Letter No. 144, dated May 14, 1.979 explained in detail the purpose of the proposed alley improve - ment project. A copy of that letter is attached. In summary, the alley improvement project provides that all 11 miles of unpaved alleyways in the City of Richfiela be improved with a permanent surface. ,The_ preliminary engineerin report looked at three possible surface materials to be used in cre ting a perman ent alley 'surface. The oil stabilization process, wh'ch is that surfacing used on Richfield streets prior to. the 'perm nent street improvement project, is relatively inexpensive, but . oes not provide a long -term permanent surface. Asphaliti paving and concrete were the other two resurfacing options studi d in the pre - liminary,engineering report. The preliminary enginee ing report identified concrete as the most desirable (from an engineering standpoint) permanent alley paving material.. A representative of Orr- Schelen- Mayeron, the consulting engineers who prepared the preliminary report on the alley improvement project, will be present at:the July 23, 1979 city council meeting to describe the engineering findings and to answer questions The 1979 1985-Capital Improved Program provide tha-t�,,tlje funding for construction of the alley improvement be by special assess- ments. The cost of the alley improvement program is significant; the Qn.ly feasible 'means for the city to finance these improvements is through the special assessment process, by which the benefited prop- erty owners will share the cost of the improvement. If the city council determines to proceed wit the alley im provement pxQject, it will be .necessary after the cl se of the hearing Council Letter No.. 221 -2 July 23, 1979 c on July 23 . 1979, to establish a special assessment policy w hich will be used in determining the cost of the improvement to :the benefited property;.. It is the opinion of the staff that the ,city's public alleys are provided primarily for the benefit of the adjoin- ,. -ing properties. Public alleys "'are not necessary to transport traffic from.one area to another, nor to collect residential local traffic. The c ty- alleyways do serve as < a practical. access to rear lot garages, storage and refuse area. However, those who have access to their land in this means, via the public .alleys, accrue most of the benefits from the city's alleyway system. If"the council wishes` to establish an 'assessment policy which will provide for the city to share in the cost of the,project in some way (i.e_, contributing the amount of funding which would otherwise be used for alley maintenance over the 25 year life of the permanent alley surfacing,.or contributing the cost difference per foot between concrete and: asphaltic surfacing) the nature of the "city's participation should be .outlined in the special assessment policy. The July 23, 1979 public hearing is on the proposed alley im- provement,project for that area known as the Jefferson, Park Cluster Area.` The attached brochure has been sent to all, property owners in the Jefferson 'Park area, which contains three and one7half, miles of public alleyways.. The alleys in this area are more concentrated than alleys in most other parts of the city, and appear to +offer the most manageable construction project for the first year's program. It will be necessary for the city council to hold a public he ring on the proposed alley improvements in each of the other thre6 areas shown on the attached map before the alley improvement project may be implemented for those areas. It is recommended that the city council take the following actions at the'July 23, 1979, public hearing on this 'improvement project: 10 Request the staff and engineering consultant to provide a brief description of the project, based on the preliminary report; 2. Receive testimony from interested residents; 3. Close the public hearing; 4. Approve the alley improvement project by ordering the Cta. improvement and preparation of final plans and specif- ications, and confirming a special assessor nt policy for the project. Respectfully submitted, Karl Nollenber r city Manager KN /ej a cc:, A c tin g _ P ub is Works Director ct o r Finance Arec or CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA .Office of City Manager The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Richfield �U Council Letter No. 144 Agenda May 14, 1.979 Council Members: Subject: Approval of Preliminary Engineering Report, Alley Improvements There is an item on the May 14, 197 ,9 city council agenda providing for council review and acceptance of the preliminary engineering report on improving and upgrading the city's alley- ways. Background Information There are approximately 11 miles of unpaved alleyways in the City of Richfield. In the past, these alleys have been t`r graded and filled each year by street division personnel. How- ever, because of subsoil conditions, or drainage, and the fact that this grading and filling process is merely temporary, the surface condition of the alleys has continued to deteriorate and has become a constant maintenance problem. During 1978, it cost the city $15,000 just to maintain the existing sur- face of the city's alleys. j Because of the maintenance roblemslwith the 'city's alleyways, the public works department as.been eval- uating alternatives for resurfacing the public alleys in Richfield. Four areas of the city in which alleys ''are concen- trated have been identified. It is the staff's recommenda- tion that each area be paved by a single contractor, with one area to be paved per year for the next four years.'' Grouping the alleys in clusters such as is proposed would result in lower construction costs, and would enable the project to be implemented in workable stages. This approach is comparable to that used during the permanent street paving program. The schedule for this alley paving program provides that construction begin in 1979, with the improvements to be com- pleted by 1982. The Capital Improvement budget provides that funding for construction of these alley improvements would be by special assessment. Council Letter NO. 144 -2- May 14, 1979 On February 12, 1979, the city council adopted a resolu- tion initiating these public improvements and ordering prepa- ration of the preliminary engineering report. A copy of this report is attached. Encrineerinq Report The engineering consultants investigated three paving mater- ials, and selected concrete as the most feasible paving material for a city alley program. This proposal provides that all alleys would be paved with six-- es of concrete,, to a twelve foot :de section with a valle_ V gutter. Al cough the staff ad orig- inally favored asphalt surfacing, due to its lower cost and availability, the engineering study recommends the use of con- crete, for the following reasons: 1. Concrete can be placed to a better accuracy than asphalt. In flat areas, such as Richfield, it becomes important to place the paving material to close grade tolerances to avoid puddling. Con - crete can meet these standards more readily than asphalt. 2. Concrete alleys can be shaped to provide a dis- tinct center valley gutter. This gutter is im- portant to providing adequate drainage between the public avenues and streets. 3. Concrete is more likely to retain its structural integrity throughout its entire.width, which should prevent the alley edges from breaking up and un- ravelling. 4. Concrete can withstand the higher weight loads associated with delivery, garbage trucks,jand other vehicles that frequently use the alleys. It does not need to be constantly compacted to remain structurally sound. 5. Concrete is less prone to fail due to petroleum spills, chemicals., and other volatile substances that are found in garbage and trash containers set in alleys. Representatives of Orr- Schelen- Mayeron Associates, Inc. will be present at the May 14, 1979 city council meeting to discuss the preliminary engineering report and answer ques- tions. It is not intended that the material contained in the preliminary engineering report be the subject of a public hearing on May 14, 1979. However, if the city council wishes w Council Letter No. 144 -3- May 14, 1979 to proceed with any major alley improvement work, it will be necessary for the city council to adopt a resolution receiving .the preliminary report and ordering the public hearing. FINANCING ALLEY IMPROVEMENTS Prior to holding the public hearing, it will be necessary for the City Council to adopt an assessment policy to be used for the alley improvements. As mentioned, the Long Range Capital Improve - ments Program provides that funding for construction of the alley improvements be by special assessments. The cast of this alley improvement program is significant, and the only feasible way of financing such improvements is through the special assessment process It is the opinion of the staff that the city's public alleys are provided for the sole benefit of the adjoining property. Public alleys are not necessary to transport traffic from one area to another, nor even to collect residential local traffic.. The city alleyways do serve as practical accesses to rear lot garages, storage, and refuse areas. However, only those who have access to their land in this means, via the public alleys, accrue the benefits from the city alleyway system. Accordingly, it is .the recommendation of the staff that the city council adopt the attached resolution, providing for assessment of 100% of the cost of the alley improvements to the benefiting properties. The attached map designates the four proposed alley paving districts. It is the recommendation of the public works director, in which I concur, that the 1979 alley paving project be under- taken in the Jefferson Park area. This area includes approximately three and one -half miles of public alleyways. The 'alleys in this area are more concentrated than alleys in most other parts of the city, and would appear to offer the most manageable construction project for the first year's program. Properties within the initial project area, City Project 734, are bounded by 66th Street-on the North, Penn Avenue on -e ast, 70th Street on th and Xerxes Avenue on the Vest. This 32 bloc ent of the Lincoln Hi s a 1 ion con ains 19,90-0----- 1 ys. e total assessible a ey rontage is calculated to be 35,940 Linea eet. --T-He- engineers estimate of- cost to complete e ng program in is area is p urinary assess en as "ds'ti d on this basis. Using this assessment policy, and spreading the total estimated cost over all properties with alley footage, the average property owner would be assessed for this project at a rate of $18.60 per alley foot. Using a typical 50-,foot lot, the average homeowner's assessment for the alley improvement project would be $930. It must be emphasized that these figures are preliminary in nature, and that the actual assessment for any benefiting property would be dependent on the total footage adjacent to the alley, and the actual project cost. However, it must also be remembered that most of the properties with alley footage do not have drive- ways, and did not incur driveway assessments as part of the city's Council Letter No. 144 -4- May 14, 1979 permanent paving program. The attached resolution does provide that the maximum assessment rate per alley front foot-be $18.60, which is the estimated cost for the first year's construction. This effectively establishes a ceiling on the assessments for all of the areas to be constructed over the next three years, so that all property owners may be assessed equally, regardless of when their alley improvements are completed. Recommendation If the city council wishes to proceed with the alley improve - ments described in this letter, it is recommendQd that the following procedure be followed: 1. Adopt a resolution receiving the preliminary engineering report and ordering the public hearing; 2. Adopt the resolution establishing the assessment policy for this alley resurfacing project. It is recommend_edjthat the date for public hearing be scheduled for July 23, 1979. Due to the required assessment hearing.process, it does not appear likely that the work can be started this year. A late start would also disrupt the area throughout the winter as the work could not be completed until the middle of the 1980 construction season. However, final construction drawings and bid specifications can be finalized this year so that construction can begin with the start of the 1980 construction season. Respectfully submitted, Jar, c i q L. Wde Lcting.City Manager JLW /skb cc: Public Works Director 0 r Finance Director • � to ORR- SCHELEN- MAYERON & ASSOCIATES, INC. CONSULTING ENGINEERS MINNEAPOLIS, MINNESOTA PRELIMINARY REPORT AND AND ESTIMATE OF COST PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT NO. 734 CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA I. TYPE OF WORK Alley paving improvements in the Jefferson Park Area or Richfield. I • REASON FOR IMPROVEMENT .The alley paving is proposed as a part of a com- plete alley paving program for the City of Rich- field to provide permanent alley surfacing to benefit abutting properties. III. DATE OF PRELIMINARY REPORT IV. V. VI. May 14, 1979 LOCATION That area of Richfield bounded by 66th Street-on the north, Xerxes Avenue on the west, 70th Street on the south and Penn Avenue on the east, known as the Jefferson Park Cluster. FEASIBILITY The alley paving project is feasible and can best be accomplished as proposed. PROPERTY TO BE ASSESSED All properties within the project area as listed in Item IV above and as listed by description herein: City Project No. 734. The follo:aing described platted properties in the City of Richfield' according to the plats thereof on rile an(', of record in the offices of the County Recorder and Registrar or Titles in and for IIennepi.n ;County, Minneso ta: NMI Blocks 1 -16, Lincoln iIills Adciition Blocks 1 -16, Lincoln iIills Third Addition WE s VII. ESTIMATED PROJECT COST I Construct_on of 19,900 lineal feet of concrete alley surfacing in the project area, Estimated Constriction Cost $560,000 Admin. , Legal, Engineering & Insurance (20%) 110,000 Estimated Project Cost S670,000 VIII. ESTI IhTED PROJECT ASSESS 1E T The cost of the project is pr000sad to be assessed totally against the benefitted properties on a pe- alley footage basis. The assessable alley footage has been determined by totalling the alley footage for all individual parcels of land. When a lot is abutting two alleys (along 66th Street) only one dimension, the shortest of the two dim - ensions, is included. Total Estimated Project Cost $670,000.00 Total Assessable Alley Frontage 35,940 lineal feet Assessment Rate Per Alley Footage $18.60 Typical Assessments Per 50 Ft. Lot $930.00 I hereby certify that this plan, specific - ation or report was prpeared by me or under my direct super,-ison and that I am a duly Registered Processional Engineer under the laws of the State of Minnesota. John A. Harwood Date .(-'I'-lay 1.4, 1979 Reg. 'No. 11047 F 762 ui � 40 CIT OF RICHFIELD PROPOSED PROJECT NO. 734 JEFFERSON PARK COMPLEX ALLEY PAVING 7 2 89 -JLJ 64 i In 6 4 F-� 1Va2 w V16 ji '0(6 2 ST. 7 2 z I i 614 2 cr 11,2 Lu LL U- LLJ C' 6 7 2 AL 1. It "9 flog ( is I I f' , � I Li --1F7 6 4 1 614 fI 5 uj I r L , I 4 14 - 4 4 210 11 2 4 1119 1Z 9 2- ; Uji Iz w O a. Lj L i -I F- gig I I 6�1 1 1 r, 1 621 11136 1 1 11 '6 I I 1186 1 i 1 70th AREA ST- PROJECT A REA LINEAL FEET OF ALLEY 19,900 CITY PROJECT 734 ASSESSABLE FOOTAGE 35,940 / ----------- i ~--' -- -- ` ~~`~ -- .. .. ~- ~~ ~~. � -~. . CL~` ~- ~~� ., -` ~~~ .- CO ou ^-~~- '~'~~ -~~ .�. ~~~ .-.~~ =�� -�~ min .~-. .. 0 ll�� UNJ N I v ~`~'~ -'~^~ ~�~~~ ~~~ .._^� '--~` ~~- '`^~~ ~~~ '--~ ~~� ~-' ~-~ .... ~-` - .. � . - ' so � � � � 7 T ;. ` ` ` ' ' � �_�- . r'� � | ', / RESOLUTION NO. (0081i-- RESOLUTION STIPULATING THE POLICY OF THE CITY COUNCIL ON PERMANENT ALLEY SURFACING AND APPURTENANCES THERETO WHEREAS, it is in the public interest to improve the public alleys by the construction of a permanent pavement surface; and WHEREAS, completing the construction of a permanent concrete pavement surface on the public alleys will improve drainage and access to the abutting lots and parcels of land; and WHEREAS, the construction of permanently paved alleys will benefit the abutting lots and parcels of land in the City of Richfield. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota adopts the following policy in relationship to all proposed assessments for a permanent alley improvement program: 1. That the cost of making the permanent alley improvements be assessed in total to the abutting properties; 2. That the paving material be six inches of unreinforced concrete; � 0 3. That the maximum assessment rate per alley front foot be $18.60; 4. That the term of the assessment be twenty years at an interest rate designated by the City Clerk; 5. That the construction begin as soon as the public hearing and.assessment procedures are satisfied and in all cases as soon as possible. That the cost for preliminary work shall be paid from the Construction Fund, such costs to be reimbursed when financing has been accomplished for the construction project. I Adopted by the City Council of the City of Richfield this" day of ATTEST: Loren L. Law ,Mayor Thomas J. Moran City Clerk A • WHEREAS: Cable Service WHEREAS: is an organiz tered into by CST; and RESOLUTION APPROVING JOINT FRANCHISING PROCESS JOINT RESOLUTION The City of Richfield is included in an approved Territory (CST), and The Southwest Suburban Cable Commission (SWSCC) ation created by an agreement authorized by and en- this city and other cities included in the same WHEREAS: The SWSCC has undertaken studies and has reviewed various procedures for the development of a CATV system for the entire CST; and has developed a process for the franchising of a CATV system for this CST; and WHEREAS: The City of Richfield deems it proper and in the public interest to develop a joint CATV system for the CST in which it is included and after review, agrees that the joint franchising process developed by SWSCC, attached hereto and made part hereof, would serve the needs of this city. NOW, THEREFORE: BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY OF RICHFIELD: I. That the development of a joint CATV system is in the best interest of the City of Richfield and SWSCC is hereby authorized to continue to work to accomplish such a system. II. That the franchising process recommended by SWSCC, attached hereto, is approved. III. That the City of Richfield agrees to.commit itself to the franchising process so that the development of a joint franchise can be achieved and the necessary cooperation and assistance of each of the participating cities can be clearly understood and relied upon by each of them. Adopted this day of , 1979 by the governing body of the City of Richfield. Attest: Thomas J. Moran, City Clerk Loren L. Law, Mayor ,i tl �Z ADRIAN E.HERSST GORDON V.JOHNSON GLENN G.NYBECK HELGE THOMSEN JOHN C.THOMAS JOHN K. BOUOUET G. MARTIN JOHNSON THOMSEN, NYBECK, HERBST & JOHNSON. P.A. LAW OFFICES SUITE 102 -7250 FRANCE AVENUE SOUTH MINNEAPOLIS (EDINA), MINNESOTA 55435 (612) 83S -7000 OF COUNSEL RICHARD D.WILSON ROBERT E.2ECK Mr. C. Wayne Courtney, Chairman Southwest Suburban Cable Commission Edina City Hall Edina, Minnesota 55435 Re: Opinion on Cable Television Dear Mr. Courtney: The following opinion is provided by us, based on our understanding of questions important to the Commission at this time. FACTS The Southwest Suburban CATV Commission (hereinafter IISWSCC") was formulated by a joint and cooperative agreement made pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, § 471.59. The current member cities not having an existing CATV system include: - Minnetonka, Hopkins, Edina, Eden Prairie and Richfield (hereinafter collectively referred to as "The Cities "). Originally, the agreement that was authorized and entered into by The Cities, was for the purpose of creating an organization of "limited dura- tion" to study CATV and a variety of matters relating to it. Subsequently, an amendment to the joint and cooperative agreement was authorized by The Cities. The amendment authorized further authority to SWSCC to advise The Cities how CATV can best serve them and to "develop a uniform approach to the matter of enfranchising, and provide for joint or common action in all matters regarding CATV on a permanent basis ". For some time, SWSCC has regularly met to discuss CATV matters,ias to what approach should be utilized towards the issuance of a franchise. A Cable Service Territory (CST) has been approved and includes each of The Cities. Advisory Commissions to assess the needs of The Citiesi, have been created by each of them and SWSCC is now ready to establish a cooperative and uniform approach towards the issuance of a CATV franchise to serve The Cities. Minnesota law, Statutes 238, et seq., and the regulations adopted Mby authority of this law, has described the procedures to be followed in the franchising process. -2- d. w M 49 4 MCAR § 4.002 defines "Franchising Authority" as follows: "...means a municipality, as herein defined, that has the authority to issue a'Cable Communication Franchise, or a group of municipalities, as herein defined, acting in concert pursuant to a Joint Powers Agreement, that determines to issue a single, Joint Cable Communications Franchise." Questions have arisen about the meaning of the above definition and particularly what role SWSCC is legally empowered, or may be empowered to undertake as an organization created pursuant to a Joint Powers Agreement. Most important, is the question of whether or not SWSCC can legally issue a franchise for a CAN system to serve each of The Cities. If not, then, how may SWSCC assist towards the issuance of a CATV franchise in a uniform approach on behalf of The Cities. The answer to the foregoing is essential to the commencement of the process. Without a clear understanding of its role, SWSCC can do little to accomplish the objectives desired by The Cities. For this reason, this letter opinion is written. I. Question: Can SWSCC legally issue a franchise for a CATV system to serve each of The Cities? Answer: No Basis For Answer: Minnesota Statutes, § 471.59 constitutes the Joint Powers Act in Minnesota. Basically, it allows municipalities to join together and to excercise powers common to each of them. SWSCC was organized under this law. The organization of SWSCC does not confer to it all of the powers that each of The Cities may have. Further, the definition of "Franchising Authority set out above does not create in SWSCC, the legal authority to issue a franchise. The regulations only contain a definition. There is no enabling authority in the statutes or regulations that authorizes a Joint Powers Organization to exercise the legislative authority of the municipalities forming it. The authority to issue a franchise is governed by the Home Rule Charters of The Cities. The Charters we have examined, authorize the city council to issue a franchise by the adoption of-an ordinance. The adoption of an ordinance is a legislative function. This function cannot be delegated by a city council acting singly or to such a board or commission when acting jointly. -3- The following authorities may be referred to as a reference on the question: Delegation of authority by municipalities has been the subject of considerable interpretation. Fora general review refer to 56 Am Jur 2d on Municipal Corporations § 153, and 13A Dunnell, Minnesota Digest, Municipal Corporations § 6576. Our Attorney General has ruled on many questions involving the application of the Joint Powers Act. Applicable here are two Attorney General's opinions: Op. Atty. Gen. 1007 November 21, 1975 and Op. Atty. Gen. 1007 July 8, 1977. See also, a "Manual about Minnesota Joint Powers Act prepared by the Minnesota State Planning Agency. y II, Question: In what way may the SWSCC assist in the franchising process? Answer: The answer to this depends on a number of assumptions. The SWSCC will be assumed to have concluded that a joint CATV system for The Cities is desirable and should be developed in a uniform manner for each of The Cities. It is also important to remember that there are a number of alternative ways of proceeding with this joint organization. However, before any meaningful undertaking can proceed some procedure has to be outlined and clearly understood. It is for this reason we recommend 49 you consider approving the procedure we have outlined below. The minimum franchise procedure, is basically set for th in Chapter 7 of the regulations 4MCAR 4.111 through 4.120. In summary, the procedure required, without the joint participation of more than one franchising authority is as follows: 1. Approve CST 2. Appointment of advisory body A. Acquaint themselves with CATV B. Discuss needs of residents C. Prepare a report to its governing body - make public D. Make recommendations to governing body as to ways of satisfying communication needs of the community E. Governing body determines whether or not to continue the process and if so, set a public hearing to receive bids 3. Invitation for bids A. Develop requirements B. Submit to State Cable Board C. Make available to public D. Publish 4. Establish requirements of applications 5. A hearing on all applications not less than 27 days before franchise ordinance is introduced. • -4- 6. Adopt franchise ordinance 7. Grant franchise within 10 days of the time the ordinance takes effect. 8. Submit ordinance to the State Cable Board for approval. Assuming SWSCC recommends to The Cities governing bodies, that a single system (or Franchisee) be selected for The Cities. The procedure that could be followed by you that we have developed is as follows: 1. Approve CST (done) Y 2. Appointment of the individual city Advisory Body (body) A. Body acquaint with CATV 1) SWSCC should do the same. B. Body assess needs for its residents and prepare a report to its governing body. C. Governing body of each municipality will review the report of its body and refer its requests to the SWSCC after it determines to proceed with the franchising process. D. SWSCC will develop a composite compilation of the individual needs assessments so that they can be adequatly utilized in the invitation for bids and in the development of a franchise ordinance. 3. Invitation for bids to be prepared by SWSCC A. Develop all necessary documentation and requirements for the bidding process and the individual applications. Documenta- tion will include a preliminary franchise ordinance. B. Submit to body of each city and to its governing body for review and approval C. Submit to State Cable Board D. Make available to public E. Publish 4. SWSCC develop a hearing process, to urge each of the governing bodies and their respective advisory body to participate, on all of the applications. 5. SWSCC will undertake the evaluation of the applications., 6. SWSCC prepare a final franchise ordinance to be adopted by each of The Cities and establish the time period within which the CATV franchise is to be granted by them. 7. SWSCC recommends the franchisee in report to The Cities] and The Cities by resolution authorize the execution of the' franchise to the recommended franchisee. -5- A i The procedure outlined would permit the maximum participation by each of The Cities and at the same time allows for the benefits that can be desired by them by acting jointly. The joint participation and selection of a common franchisee is a commitment that each of The Cities has to make, otherwise, deviation by one or more of The Cities could defeat the benefit that each would derive by this common endeavor, and possibly result in one or more of The Cities not being able to receive a CATV franchise for some time. For-this reason, the attached resolution should be approved by each of The Cities governing body at this time. Sincerely, THOMSEN, ECK, HERBST & HNS J, P�A. By Adrian E. Herbst." Attorneys At Law 7250 France Avenue South Edina, MN 55435 (612) 835 -7000 AEH /dj C HIECOMI-ENDED PPOCFDURE for joint cooperation in franchising a cable communications system serving Eden Prai rie, Edina, Hopkins, Minnetonka, and Richfield Southwest Sub - Individual urban CA-TV Local Cable Television ,-1-ties Commission Coordinator Information Ctr. Counsel Develop opinion on joint power: - °ass resoluti on for joint cooperation Appoint advisory bodies Advisory bodies assess needs & report to cities Determine to con- tinue process & refer advisory Compile advisory bod reports to body reports & J: arrange discussions Discussions leading Conduct discussions Discussions Discussions to IFA and Prelim- ina=j ordinance . -Trite draft IFA ; ;ri to prelir.- ine.ry ordinar Review IFA & prelim - inary ordinance, in- viting applicants, advisory bodies and public to respond Revise IFA & review Revise preli- draft ordinance inary ordinar review & approve T_F A & preliminary ordinance Prepare, d;stributc, and publish notice of TFA T .�_S � t.L ,ri b1 to IFA uG rireli mina2:y ord- inance Dev�elo , hear_n;, �_rrange hear_ngs Evaluate applicants' r^ ^e^s r- - 2;roposals ;_eek applicant -Der-formance info -- na ti on ' t t Record -ended Procedurc, Fbze II ual Southwest Sub - urban CATV Cities Commission Review CTIC evaluation Applicants' Applicants' Proposals OR' Proposals Hearings Hearings Recommend franchisee and final ordinance to Cities Authorize execution of franchise to the recommended fran- chisee Cable Television S'.4SCC Infor.-,tation Ctr. Counsel Respond to appli- cants' presentations Preaare final ordinance WorI, with franchisee for state certification Drepared by: Anita Benda/ Viable Television Information Center for Southwest Suburban CATV Study Com:us: ion July 18, 1979 � 0. s L 1( ' CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Off ice of City Manager Council Letter No. 219 Agenda July 23, 1979' The Honorable Mayor ' and` I, Members of the City Council. City of 'Richfield Council Members: Sub'ect: Re uest for Extension of Special Use Permit,, Wepo,,Inc, 1200 E. 78th Street On August 14, 1978, the :city council approved a special use` permit fora "restaurant with on liquor to be located at 12 :00 E. .78th Street. The restaurant is to be .known as "Too Goods ". Mr. Rick Webb''of Wepo;, Inc. the developer, has been unable to complete the restaurant within the 12 month period for which tho' original special'use permit was issuedj. and as per Chapter. 3, Section 3.41, subdivision 7 of the city code, has requested a one -year extension of the special use Permit: Time Subd. 7. Special Use Permit Limitations. h s special use permit expires one year after it a been issued .unless the use for which the permit has been granted. has commenced within such year or unless, - upon written application of the owner of the aff cted land, he council shall: extend the expiration daeof d ._ i such permit` ,for an additional period not to exce d one year. Mr. Webb has indicated that, due to a number of onstruction delays, they will be unable. to begin construction of th restaurant until _ September, 1979. It is recommended that Mr'. Webb's request for a" ne -year ex- tension of the special use permit be granted. Respectfully submitted, Vaal lV Karl Nollenberger City Manager KN /eja cc: -Plannincr an d Redevelopment Director .Q WEPO, INC. RESTAURANT CONSULTANTS 513 SUMMIT AVENUE SAINT PAUL, MINNESOTA 55102 j 612.224.6727 1 July 18, 1979 Richfield City Council 6700 Portland Avenue So. Richfield, Mn. 55423 Re: Special Use Permit 1200 E. 78th. Street Gentlemen: In August 1978 the Richfield City Council approved a special use permit for a restaurant serving liquor at 1200 E. 78th. Street. The pilot restaurant for the proposed restaurant is currently under construction in the St. Anthony Main project at 210 2nd. St. S.E. The pilot restaurant was originally scheduled to be completed in the spring of 1979 with the subsequent commencement of the construction of the restaurant at 1200 E. 78th. Street. Due to a number of unforeseen delays, the pilot restaurant is now scheduled for completion in early September. It is our intention to commence work on the parking facilities for the 1200 E. 78th St. restaurant in September and to commence construction shorly there- after. Consistent with this revised schedule, we request an extention of the special use permit through August 1980. Sincerely, WEPO INC. Rick b RW/gb CITY 3F RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Of f ice of-,:City Manager Council:Letter No. 215 Agenda July 230, 1979, ` The Honorable Mayor. and Members of the City Council City; of Richfield Council Members: Subject: Tabulation of Bids, Minutes and Award of Contract for 'Three Mobile.Radios In accordance with previous city, council authorization, the' Acting City: Manager opened bids on June 28, 1979 for three mobile transceiver radios to be used in the Public Works Street, Division. The three radios will be installed in the'sewer• jet, " vac- all,and a dump truck. The radios will contribute `to the overall efficiencies of manpower by improving communications between the vehicles,and,the home base. The Technical Operations'Superintendenty Environmental Health-,Director, Public Works.Director`, and Finance Department Secretary were also present'at this bid opening. The bid- tabulatidn and y minutes. "are attached.`for city, council review. ' Two bids were received for these mobile radios, one from.Dave's Electronic Service, Faribault,, in the amount of . $3,018; and 'one from General Communications, Inc.; Minneapolis, :.in the amount of $2,832'. It is the recommendation of the Acting Public orks Director, in which I concur, that the city council award the hid to General Communications, Inc. °, in the amount of $2,832. The 1979 budget contains: $2,700 for purchase of these radios, with the overrun to.be absorbed in the remainder of the operating budget. Respectfully submitted, Karl Nollenberger City Manager KN/ ej a cc: Acting Public Works Director Finance Director - r i 1-S r CITY OF RICHFIELD Bid Opening June 28, 1979 UHF Mobile Transceiver Radios Pursuant to requirements of Resolution No. 1015, a meeting of.the Administrative Staff was called by Joyce L. Wilde, Acting City Manager, who announced that the purpose of the meeting was to receive, open and read aloud, sealed bids for UHF Mobile Transceiver Radios, as advertised in the official newspaper on June 13, and 20, 1979. Present: Marshall Raaen, Technical Operations Supt. I. Roesler, Enviornmental Health Director Joyce L. Wilde, Acting City Manager Carl Marinics, Public Works Director Jane Foeller, Secretary The following bids were submitted and read aloud: BIDDER MOBILE ANTENNAS ESTIMATED BID SECURITY RADIOS FOR RADIOS QUANTITY TOTAL COST Dave's Electronic Service Cert. Check $155. $968.50 $37.50 3 $3,018.00 Faribault, MN General Communications,Inc. B. B. 5% $909.00 $35.00 3 $2,832.00 Minneapolis The Acting City Manager announced that the bids would be tabulated and considered at the regular city council meeting of July 9, 1979. Thomas J. Moran City Clerk CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Office of City Manager. Council Letter No.;214. -A Agenda July 232 1979 The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Richfield Gentlemen: Subject: Tabulation of Bids and Award of Contracts, Ice Arena Improvement Project On July 23,.1979,�bids were opened by the city manager.- in accordance with previous city council authorization for floor tiling and work on the wood' beams and deck as related to the Ice Arena Improvement Project. The city.clerk, park and recreation director, planning director, architect and representatives from various bidding firms were also present at the bid opening. The bid minutes and tabulations are attached for city council review. The bids for this project included items contained in the plans approved by the city council, as well as a number of alternates. The bids were divided.into two major categories: wood deck and beams and floor tiling. { Three firs submitted bids for the wood deck and beams. The base bid i'nclu eaning and staining of an _a ire- y o er- the Ice sheet to five feet outside the dasher boards in any direction. The roposal form also reques e a um. rice: for an additional work beyond the specified area.- The . lowest - responsible bidder is A. Shelgren an on wi a ase �d for the deck and beams at $9,428. The uni price or a i tonal cleaning and restaining of beams and decTc Tieyond the specified point is $50�OO1per 100 square feet. Thras submitted bids for the f oor tiling. Base Bid ne_was for the entry or skate Youn4e area, Base Bid Two f r the hQckey team roo area and Base Bid Three for both areas combined. Bidders were allowed to bid product other than the specified'Tuflex. A unit price was requested for provi ing and installing! new rubber flooring beyond the specified areas. The lowest resp nsible bidder for this item was St Paul` Linoleum and Carpet Company, Inc. with a ombined base bid u B (ase Bad Three) ,of�13.000 and a unit price of $24..75. It would be.the recommendation of staff and the park and ee reation advisory. �. 'M� commission that for the wood deck and beams the contract award clude -the base bid of $9.42.8 and that the cit < cil consider addin to the c award the `v c� unit rice for an.estimated additional 10,000 square feet or an f $5,000. This would a ow or on -site determine ion of any non- visible pr beems to be '. corrected while the contractor and equipment are on site. The timing of the project calls for work to commence September l and to be comple September 17 1979x. I� Should ;the entire area not require,cleaning and staining on the beams, a deduct amount would adjust the contract price. It would be the recommendation of the ` .,:staff, and the ,park and recreation advisory commission that for. the floor tiling on y the combined- area°be awarded. The recommended contract award, therefore,`to CITY OF RICHFIELD Bid Opening July 23, 1979 Richfield Ice Arena Improvements Pursuant to requirements of Resolution No. 1015, a meeting of the Administrative- Staff was called by Karl Nollenberger, City Manager, who announced that the purpose of the meeting was to receive, open and read aloud, sealed bids for the Richfield Ice Arena Improvements, as advertised in the official newspaper on July 11, and 18, 1979. Present Karl Nollenberger, City Manager Don Fondrick, Park & Recreation Director Richard:Krier, Planning & Redevelopment Director David Skrien,.Ice Atena Manager Thomas J. Moran, City Clerk The following bids were submitted and read aloud: BID PACKAGE #1(paint) BID PACKAGE #2 (floor) BIDDER AND -BASE UNIT BASE. BASE BASE OVER- UNIT PRICE BID SECURITY BID PRICE BID 1 BID 2 BID 3 HEAD BID 1 Preferred Painting , & Decorating B.B. 5% 9.645 Schuman Bros, Inc. B.B. 5% 14,556 A. Shelgren & Sons B.B. 5% 9,428 $50 .Insulation Sales Co. No Bid Bond $10,441 $7,188 St. Paul Linoleum B.B. 5% 7,575 5,497 $13,000 25 %1 $24.75 Architectural Sales of Minnesota, Inc. B.B. 5% 2 8 634 The City Manager announced that the bids would be tabulated and considered at the regular city council meeting of July 23, 1979. Thomas J. Moran City Clerk I0 RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION ACCEPTING BID AND AWARDING CONTRACT TO A. SHELGREN AND SON FOR CLEANING AND STAINING.OF WOOD DECK AND'BEAMS FOR THE ICE ARENA IMPROVEMENT PROJECT CITY PROJECT NO. 743 BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota, as follows: 1. That it is hereby determined that the bid of A. Shelgren and Son is the lowest bid by a responsible bidder meeting specifications for cleaning and staining of wood deck and beams.at the Richfield Ice Arena. 2. That the bid of A. Shelgren and Son, at the price contained in their proposal of July 23, 1979, with an estimated construction cost of $9,428 is hereby accepted. 3. That the proposed contract between A. Shelgren and Son and the City of Richfield is hereby approved and adopted and the Mayor and Manager are hereby authorized and directed to.execute said contract for or on behalf of the City of Richfield and the City Clerk is authorized and directed to affix the city seal thereto. 4. That payments to be made under the.terms of said contract shall be charged against the Project Fund. 5. That the Corporate Surety Bond in the sum of the estimated contract price which accompanies said proposed contract is hereby accepted and approved. 6 That the City Clerk is authorized and directed to return the security documents to the unsuccessful bidders upon the execution of said proposed contract. Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield,.Minnesota, this 23rd day of July, 1979. ATTEST: Thomas J. Moran City Clerk Loren L. Law Mayor � 0 RESOLUTION NO. I. RESOLUTION ACCEPTING BID AND.AWARDING CONTRACT TO ST. PAUL LINOLEUM AND CARPET COMPANY, INC. FOR RUBBER FLOOR COVERING FOR THE ICE ARENA IMPROVEMENT PROJECT CITY PROJECT NO. 743 BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota, as follows: 1. That it is hereby determdthat bidder Paul meetingLinoleum specificatpons Company, Inc. is the lowest bid b Y a responsible for new rubber floor covering at the Richfield Ice Arena. 2. That the bid of St. Paul Linoleum and Carpet a t Company, a Inc. at cothe price cost contained in their proposal of July 23, 1979, of $13,000 is hereby accepted.. 3. That the proposed contract between aandLadopted and thepMayo�mandyManager and the City of Richfield is hereby approved are hereby authorized and directed .is execute authorized and contract directed to affixhthe city of the City of Richfield and the City Clerk seal thereto. 4. That payments to be made under the terms of said contract shall be charged against the Project Fund. 5. That the Corporate Surety Bocontracteis sum he�eby the acceptedtand contract approvedprice which accompanies said proposed 6. That the City Clerk is authorized and directed to return thecsecurity documents to the unsuccessful bidders upon the execution of s p posed . Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota, this 23rd day of July, 1979. ATTEST: Thomas J. Moran City Clerk Loren L. Law Mayor Council Members: 'Subject: 'Ordinance Amendment Relating to Garbage Collection, Second Reading On June 25, 1979, the city council gave first reading approval to an ordinance amendment relating to refuse, hauling in commercial areas. The proposed amendment would establish a prohibition on hauling between the hours of 8:30 p.m. and 6:30 a..m. from non - residential properties which are adjacent to, or across the alley from, residential dwellings. A copy of the proposed ordinance amendment is attached for 'second reading consideration at the July 23, 1979 city council meeting. Respectfully submitted, Karl Nollenberger City Manager KN /eja cc: Environmental Health Director City Clerk Thomas Moran, City Clerk Loren L. Law, Mayor;, AMENDMENT TO SECTION 6.06 OF THE ORDINANCE CODE OF THE CITY OF RICHFIELD RELATING TO GARBAGE AND REFUSE HAULING. CITY OF RICHFIELD DOES ORDAIN: Section 6.06, Subdivision 11 of the ordinance code of the City of Richfield relating to the permissible hours for commercial hauling of refuse and garbage is hereby amended to read as follows: "Subd. 11. Hours. No person engaged in hauling refuse or garbage for hire from residential dwelling units, or from non - residential units which abut upon or are across the alley from any residential dwelling units, within the city shall do so after 8:30 p.m. or before 6:30 a.m. of any day. There shall be no garbage or refuse pickup from residential dwelling units residences on Sundays." Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this ---day of 1979. Thomas Moran, City Clerk Loren L. Law, Mayor;, CITY OF RICHFIELD,'.MINNESOTA Office of City Manager Council Letter No. 212 Agenda. July 23, 1979 The Honorable Mayor And n Members of the City Council City of Richfield Council Members:'` Subject: Recommendation from Senior /Handicapped Citizens Commission The Metropolitan Transit Commission, effective July 1, 1979, implemented a ten "cent charge for senior citizens to ride the MTC buses. This fee represents a new charge for senior citizens, who previously were able to ride MTC buses at no charge during `'certain hours of the day and c rtai n days of the week. The ten cent charge will need to be reviewed again by the Minnesota Legislature in 1980. At their July 9, "1979 meeting, the Senior /Handicapped Citizens Advisory; Commission adopted the following recommendation . for city council consideration: "Be it recommended that senior citizens be permitted to continue riding free at the times allowed by the Metro- politan Transit Commission in order to protect and main- tain their quality of life and maintain their intellectual, social, and economic assessibility of mobility in their senior. years." It is recommended that the city council respond to this commission recommendation at their July 23, 1979 city council meeting. Respectfully submitted, Karl Nollenberger City Manager KN/ ej a cc:, Community Center Coordinator Park and Recreation Director V CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA. Office" of City Manager Council Letter No. 211 , Agenda July 23, 9979 The Honorable Mayor, and y Members•of"the City Council City of Richf ield ' Council Members : f Subject: Bid Minutes and Tabulations and Rejection of Bids, 12th Avenue Seal Coating On June "4 , 1 -979 bids were received for seal coating coa.ting the portion of 12th Avenue between, 73rd and 78th Streets. At their meeting 'of June 25, 1979, the city council took action to reject' those bids, and authorized the staff to modify the bid specifica- tions and to'readvertise forbids to complete this k. The city manager opened the bids which were received in response to the readvertisement on_July 12, 1979. The public works director, environmental health director, building inspector, technical operations superintendent, and deputy city clerk also represented the city at this bid opening. The bid minutes and tabulations are attached for city council review. Bids were received from two companies, Blacktop Service Co,, Burnsville, in the amount of $6,436.80, and Allied Blacktop Co., Minneapolis, in the amount of $6,048.00.. Although these bids are substantially lower than the first bids received (original low bid was $18,238) -, the bids: are more than. twice as muc as bids .recently received by other cities in our area, to do seal coating work. It appears that the. bids we received to do the 12th Avenue job are excessively high because the job is so small; a contractor's equipment and manpower set -up costs are the same as if he were doing a much larger job. For this reason, the staff is of the opinion that the 12th Avenue seall,coa ing project should be delayed.until the spring of 1980, and be readvertised -to include additional areas in Street Improvement District No. 1 which are likely to need seal coating by that 'time. Bidding a larger project would enable us to obtain a beater unitprice, and result in substantial savings. The city council has previously requested that the st ff develop a plan -to provide for systemmatic and on -going mainte ance of the city's new permanent streets. The plan developed by the 4 staff. -would provide that, in :1980, aPPloxim tely- one- seventh of the city's streets be maintained, ,with seal coating 23 r J' 0 � 0 CITY OF RICHFIELD Bid Opening July 12, 1979 12th Avenue Seal Coat 73rd to 78th Street Bid No. 79 -7, C.P. 746 Pursuant to requirements of Resolution No. 1015, a meeting of the Administrative Staff was called by Karl Nollenberger, City Manager, who announced that the purpose of the meeting was to receive, open and read aloud, sealed bids for The 12th Avenue Seal Coat, 73rd to 78th Street, as advertised in the official newspaper on June 20, 1979. Present: Karl Nollenberger, City Manager Carl Marinics, Public Works Director ,Sylvia K. Bergh, Deputy City Clerk Marshall Raaen, Technical Operations Supt. I. Roesler, Environmental Health Director H. Kuehl, Building Inspector The following bids were submitted and read aloud: BIDDER AND BID SECURITY TOTAL BID Allied Blacktop Co. B.B. 5% $6,048.00 Blacktop Service Co. B.B. 5% $6,436.80 The City Manager announced that the bids would be tabulated and considered at the regular city council meeting of July 23, 1979. Thomas J. Moran City Clerk KW:Vi Y c. Y1 F� A ! N tr z,, ' z'. CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA ;Office o City Manager r Counc i`1' 'Letter No . 210 h Agenda:July�9,.1579 r I've Honorable Ntayor a <nd Members 'of '`,the City Council City =of Richfield 1, � .Council Members: i k { Subf`eet: Application for Bingo License= ;1 l The Church'`, of the- Assumption, 305- E.`77th Street,. has sub- n` miffed :an .appiication f:or " a bingo license for August 1,1 -12, 1979'< The - bingo license is "requested in conjunction with; the „' cYurche`s annual .fun felt, which is to be held. on those; dates. } Assumgtion1'Church has requested that the city,Council -waive the fee for this bingo license. The church "is also asking that the. bingo; games be "permuted to < operate between the ho,f rs of noon .and 9;': 00 ; p.m. , on each of those dates . ' `Section 5 . 9 of the r{ Richfield ';;City. Code stipulates 'that bingo may not";, -p aged for mare than four` . consecutive hours, on any day, .unless the, city councu provides otherwise in issuing the bingo license. A copy of this oridinance provision and of the Chu ch's re- quest..is attac,hed.- Respectfully subaitte , A/ .1 Karl Nollenberger`: City Manager KN /ea ce: City Clerk Public Safety Director' k: s i q 2 t n 11 Church of the Assumption 305 East 77th Street Minneapolis, Minnesota 55423 • 866 -5019 May 23, 1979 City Council City of Richfield 6700 Portland Ave. S. Richfield, Mn. 55423 Dear Council Members: Attached is an application for a daily (two days) bingo license. Inasmuch as it is felt that, the Assumption Fun Fest is, in a sense, a Civic Celebration it is requested that the Council pass a resolution approving the Fun Fest as a Civic Celebration on a daily basis for August 11 - 12, 1979, and that the fee for the bingo license be waived. Additionally, we recognize the fact that Section 5. 19 of the Ordinance Code of the City of Richfield spells out that bingo may be played only for four hours on any one day, however, since we are conducting the Fun Fest as a Civic Celebration it is requested that the hours, as requested on the application, be approved. It's hardly worth the effort to set up a tent, tables, chairs etc, for eight hours of bingo. It is supposed to be a "fun time" for those people who enjoy playing bingo so we feel that they should be entitled to play it anytime during the hours the rest of the Fun Fest facilities are in operation. Thank you for your considerations. STK /mg Enc. 0 Very truly yours, 'i&4xC, Z. t4Ai tv,4-� Steve T. Kuklinski Administrator Served by the Oblates of Mary Immaculate (O.M.I.) 10/12/76 �� l 0i�f?1!4ANt. CODs 130.1 CITY OF RICHFIELD, MIiJ ^1E70l+ ! A _ E (2) Licenses shall be issued only upon applications which are co. ^,iplete in every every respect and have been accompanied by the p,-, ment of the anntinl w'f license fee and filing of the bingo manager'; surer, bond. (3) No license shall'be issued to any organization unless such ot_ani- zation has existed in the city for at least three gears prior to tl:e date of application. This restriction shall not apply if t:;e organization making application is, or is a' subsidiary of, any religions, charitable or fraternal ! organization of national or statewide jurisdict:ior wilic!: has been in existence at least three years. (4) No license shall be issued to am organization which does not have, or file date of application, at least 30 active members. (5) No license sliall be issued to , • organization w1iose designated bingo Y manager is not a memberAn good standing of the organization and who has not been a member for at least two years prior to file date on which applicatior is made. ' (6) o organization may he licensed to conduce bingo on any leased premises without a written lease for a term at 'least equal to the term of' the bingo license sought. Lease payments shall be at a firmed mont;:ly rate or rjite per bingo occasion; not ;subject to change during the term of the l lease. No such lease shall provide that rental payment be'based on a per- ` ' centage of receipts or profits from bins= L o occasions. { Surd. 9. Conditions Governing Conduct of Bingo. �r,7I (1) The bingo manager shall not be the bingo manager for any other 'ti organization. (2) No compensation small 'De paid to ary person in connection with a bingo Occasion except an active member of the organization., or its auxillary, or rile spouse or surviving spouse of an active member, conducting the bingo occasion nor shall any, person not an active member of the organization or i.ts auxillar✓ or the spouse or-surviving spouse of an active member parti.Cipate f in the conduct of a bingo occasion, except by resolution of a majority of tine membership recorded in the official minutes of the organization. Non- manage- 1 ment assistants who are not active members of the organization, 'or its auxillary, or the spouse or surviving spouse of an active member'';, may be hired to assist members in conducting the bingo occasion. Compensation shall not exceed S12.00 per bingo occasion. (3) Unless the city council shall so provide in t';e license, Ino mere than 104 bingo occasions each year or two bingo occasions per week may be conducted by the organization. No bingo occasion shall ConLinUe for more than four consecutive hours, (4) Any person or corporation, other than an organization, which leases any premises chat it owns to two or more organizations for purposes in- cluding the conduct of bingo occasions, shall not allow more than four bingo ! occasions to be conducted on the premises in any weir. t I ( 7) Any organization which le:?SeS aRV pct :RtiSc5 t0 One UC mOrc' ",other OY;aI11Z :1tiUt'c; for plli'pOSeS 1nClitdiv,; tiie ConClltCC' of bingo occasions Shall use the proceeds of the rental, less reasonable sums for maintenance, furnishin -s and ocher necessary expenses, only for lawful purposes as defined in ;Iin "lusk)Lzi Statutes, 1976, Section 3= +9.12. At the end Of each 11CUnse near ,the (1976 -20) 10/12/76 10/12/76 �� l 0i�f?1!4ANt. CODs 130.1 CITY OF RICHFIELD, MIiJ ^1E70l+ !