The URL can be used to link to this page

121410completeagendaCITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA TUESDAY, DECEMBER 14, 2010 REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING COUNCIL CHAMBERS 6700 PORTLAND AVENUE 7:00 P.M. AGENDA INTRODUCTORY PROCEEDINGS Call to order Roll call Open forum (15 minutes maximum) Each speaker is to keep their comment period to three minutes to allow sufficient time for others. Comments are to bean opportunity to address the Council on items not on the agenda. Individuals who wish to address the Council must have registered prior to the meeting. Notes: Pledge of Allegiance Approval of minutes of (1) Special City Council Worksession of November 23, 2010; (2) Regular City Council Meeting of November 23, 2010; and (3) Special City Council Meeting of November 29, 2010 PRESENTATIONS 1. Recognition of Corporate Citizenship to Best Buy 2. Richfield Foundation awarding of grants COUNCIL DISCUSSION 3. Council discussion • Hats Off to Hometown Hits Notes: AGENDA APPROVAL 4. Council approval of agenda CONSENT CALENDAR 5. Consent Calendar contains several separate items, which are acted upon by the City Council in one motion. Once the Consent Calendar has been approved, the individual items and recommended actions have also been approved. No further Council action is necessary. However, any Council Member may request that an item be removed from the Consent Calendar and placed on the regular agenda for Council discussion and action. All items listed on the Consent Calendar are recommended for approval. A. Consideration of approval of first reading of ordinance amending Richfield City Code Appendix D establishing change to fee schedule for Public Works, Section 3, subsection 10 and setting second reading for January 11, 2011 S.R. No. 222 B. Consideration of approval of first reading of ordinance amending Appendix 1 of Richfield City Code rezoning portion of 6528 Penn Avenue from General Commercial and Multiple Use -Community with `Penn Avenue Corridor Overlay to Planned Mixed Use related to proposal for CVS Pharmacy S.R. No. 223 C. Consideration of approval of resolution establishing 60 DNL as airport noise threshold for preventative and corrective land use measures in environs of Minneapolis-St. Paul International Airport S.R. No. 224 D. Consideration of approval of resolution authorizing acceptance of all grants and donations received by Recreation Services Department in 2010 S.R. No. 225 E. Consideration of approval of resolution authorizing conditional use permit to allow construction of 120-foot replacement antenna tower at Richfield Municipal Center, 6700 Portland Avenue S.R. No. 226 F. Consideration of approval of Richfield. Municipal Center change order report for aggregate net effect of $5,371 in items included within project budget S.R. No. 227 G. Consideration of approval of addendum to Hennepin County Residential Recycling Grant Agreement extending through 2011 S.R. No. 228 H. Consideration of approval of City Manager's reappointment of Connie Murray and Paul Wasko for two-year terms as Hearing Examiners S.R. No. 229 I. Consideration of approval of the following 2011 renewal of business licenses for 3.2 percent malt liquor sales and 2011 license renewals to operate businesses in Richfield: S.R. No. 230 License to Sell 3.2 Percent Malt License to Operate in Richfield Liquor A New Star Limousine & Taxi Service - 8 Aldi Foods -Off-Sale vehicles EI Jalapeno -Off-Sale Airport Taxi -11 vehicles Kwik Way Foods -Off-Sale Black & White Taxi - 5 vehicles RBF Corporation of Wisconsin Ecuadorian Express - 3 vehicles (Rainbow Foods) -Off-Sale Gold Star Taxi - 27 vehicles Richfield U.S. -Off-Sale Latino Americano - 8 vehicles Sandy's Tavern - On-Sale Latino Express -10 vehicles SuperAmerica #4186 -Off-Sale Suburban Taxi Corporation - 5 vehicles SuperAmerica #4188 -Off-Sale Twin Cities Airport Taxi - 5 vehicles SuperAmerica #4191 -Off-Sale SuperAmerica #4615 -Off-Sale Paul's Rentals & Sales -Trailers and Trucks Target Corporation -Off-Sale Rental __ Vina Restaurant - On-Sale J. Consideration of approval of resolution amending Flexible Spending Account Benefit Plan document S.R. No. 253 Notes: 6. Consideration of items, if any, removed from Consent Calendar Notes: PUBLIC HEARINGS 7. Public hearings regarding 2011 pawnbroker and secondhand goods dealer license renewals: A. Metro Pawn & Gun, Inc., 7529 Lyndale Avenue S.R. No. 231 B. University Cash Company, LLC d/b/a Avi's Pawn and Jewelry, 6414 Nicollet Avenue S.R. No. 232 Notes: 8. Public hearings regarding 2011 club on-sale and Sunday liquor license renewals: A. Fred Babcock V.F.W. Post No. 5555, Inc., d/b/a Four Nickels Food & Drink; 6715 Lake Shore Drive S.R. No. 233 B. Minneapolis-Richfield American Legion Post 435, 6501 Portland Avenue S.R. No. 234 Notes: 9. Public hearings regarding 2011 on-sale wine and 3.2 percent malt liquor license renewals: A. Chipotle Mexican Grill of Colorado, LLC, 7644 Lyndale Avenue S.R. No. 235 B. Thompson's Fireside Pizza, Inc., d/b/a Fireside Pizza, 6736 Penn Avenue S.R. No. 236 C. Kiang's Red Pepper, Inc., d/b/a Red Pepper Chinese Restaurant, 2902 West 66th Street S.R. No. 237 D. Patrick's French Bakery, Inc. d/b/a Patrick's Bakery & Cafe, 2928 West 66th Street S.R. No. 238 E. The Noodle Shop-Colorado, Inc., d/b/a Noodles and Company, 7630 Lyndale Avenue S.R.. No. 239 F. John.E. Powers & Associates, Inc. d/b/a Lariat Lanes, 6320 Penn Avenue S.R. No. 240 G. Joy's Pattaya Thai Restaurant, LL.C, 7545 Lyndale Avenue S.R. No. 241 Notes: 10. Public hearings regarding 2011 on-sale intoxicating and Sunday liquor license renewals: A. The Frenchman's, 1400 East 66th Street (includes optional 2 a.m. closing) S.R. No. 242 ' B. Paisan Inc., d/b/a Khan's Mongolian Barbeque, 500 East 78th Street S.R. No. 243 C. Wiltshire Restaurants, LLC, d/b/a Houlihan's Restaurant & Bar, 6601 Lyndale Avenue {includes outside service} S.R. No. 244 D. Don Pablo's Operating Corporation, LLC d/b/a Don Pablos, 980 West 78th Street S.R. No. 245 E. Champps Operating Corporation d/b/a Champp's Restaurant, 790 West 66th Street S.R. No. 246 F. EI Tejaban Mexican Grill LLC d/b/a EI Tejaban Mex. Grill, 2 West 66th Street (includes optional 2 a.m. closing) S.R. No. 247 Notes: 11. Public hearing regarding 2011 on-sale intoxicating and Sunday liquor license renewal for HKD Lo, Inc. d/b/a Jun Bo Chinese Restaurant, 7717 Nicollet Avenue Staff Report No. 248 Notes: PROPOSED ORDINANCE 12. Consideration of first reading of zoning designation and Richfield Comprehensive Plan designation of 6901 Penn Avenue Staff.Report No. 249 Notes: RESOLUTIONS 13. Consideration of resolution imposing civil enforcement on establishment in Richfield _ that underwent tobacco compliance check conducted by Richfield Public Safety and failed by selling tobacco to underage youth ~ . Staff Report No. 250 Notes: 14. Consideration of resolution awarding sale of $6,455,000 Tax Increment Refunding Bonds, Series 2010B Staff Report No. 251 Notes: 15. Consideration of resolutions approving 2010 Revised/2011 Proposed budget and tax levy and related resolutions Staff Report No. 252 Notes: CITY MANAGER'S REPORT 16. City Manager's report Notes: 17. Claims and payrolls Open forum (additional 15 minutes if more time needed after first Open Forum and by majority vote of the City Council) Each speaker is to keep their comment period #o three minutes to allow sufficient time for others. Comments are to be an opportunity to address the Council on items not on the agenda. Individuals who wish to address the Council must have registered prior to the meeting. Notes: 18. Adjournment Auxiliary aids for individuals with disabilities are available upon request. Requests must be made at least 96 hours in advance to the City Clerk at 612-861-9738.. r richfield: December 2010 Page 1 of 2 City of Richfield C lender Calendars Net Navigate: 2009 Jan Feb Mar ~ IVlav Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2011 December 2010 ~®n~a T~~Sda we~~es~av ~>~ur~~~ F~~~~ 29 Nov 30 1 Dec 3 7 PM Truth~in-taxation 6 PM Special City 7 PM Transportation 7 PM Arts Commission Council, HRA, Planning Commission @ Community Center Commission & Transportation Commission (possible quorum) -Open House . to review draft plans for future revitalization of 66th St. Corridor, between Cedar & Portland Ave. @ Mt. Calvary Lutheran School Gym, 6541 16th Avenue 7 PM Special Friendship - City Commission Meeting 6 7 8 9 10 7 PM Human Rights 7:00 PM Bike Task 6 PM Stormwater Public Commission Force @ Maintenance Meeting @ Richfield Facility Lunchroom Community Center, 7000 Nicollet Avenue 7 PM Friendship City Commission Meeting {rescheduled from Dec. 16) CANCELED 13 14 15 16 1'1 8 AM Civil Service 4:30 PM FOWL Board Commission Meeting in Meeting @ WLNC Council Chambers 7 PM Regular City Council Meeting 0 21 22 23 24 7 PM HRA Meeting 5:30 PM Hearing City Administrative Examiner in Heredia Offices Closed Room observance of Christmas Day 7 PM Community Services Commission @ Community Center CANCELED 7 28 29 0 31 7 PM Planning 7 PM Regular City City Administrative Commission Council Meeting Offices Closed - CANCELED CANCELED observance of New Years Day 3 5 ~ 6 7 7 PM Human Rights 7 PM Transportation 7 PM Arts Commission 8:30 AM Special City Commission Commission @ Community Center Council Worksession http://www.my.calendars.nettrichfield 1219/2010 richfield: December 2010 PM Special Friendship itv Commission Page 2 of 2 (annual goal setting)@ Richfield High School Board Room, 7001 Harriet Avenue SATURDAY, JANUARY 8 8:30 AM Special City Council Meeting (commission interviews) Display: Year Month Week ~ .Block L~ Condensed Abs Slide Calendars: Search Add Events: Dailv Duration Periodic Administer: This Calendar All meetings held at City Hall (6700 Portland Avenue) unless indicated otherwise Calendars Net free online interactive web calendars http://www.my.calendars.net/richfield 12/9/2010 CITY COUNCIL MINUTES ~ i Richfield, Minnesota Special City Council Worksession November 23, 2010 CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order by Mayor Goettel at 6:00 p.m. ROLL CALL Council Members Present: Debbie Goettel, Mayor; Sue Sandahl; Pat Elliott; Fred Wroge; and Tom Fitzhenry. Staff Present. Steven L. Devich, City Manager; Mike Eastling, Public Works Director; Jeffrey Pearson, Transportation Engineer; and Cheryl Krumholz, Recording Secretary. _ Item #1 DISCUSSION REGARDING 2011 REGIONAL TRANSPORATION PLANS (COUNCIL MEMO NO. 176) Public Works Director Eastling and Transportation Engineer Pearson made a PowerPoint presentation regarding a regional highway transportation update released in 2010 (Clerk's File No. 458). The studies were summarized and explained how the resulting plans affect Richfield and the region. Discussion also included some major questions on these plans, particularly in how limited funding is now balanced with long-term planning. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned by unanimous consent at 6:53 p.m. Date Approved: Debbie Goettel Mayor Cheryl Krumholz Recording Secretary Steven L. Devich _ City Manager CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES Richfield, Minnesota Regular Meeting November 23, 2010 CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order by Mayor Goettel at 7:00 p.m. ROLL CALL Members Present: Debbie Goettel, Mayor; Sue Sandahl; Pat Elliott; Fred Wroge; and Tom Fitzhenry. Staff Present: Steven L. Devich, City Manager; Mike Eastling, Public Works Director; Chris Regis, Finance Manager; Jim Topitzhofer, Recreation Services Director; John Stark, Community Development Director; Mary Tietjen, City Attorney; and Cheryl Krumholz, Recording Secretary. OPEN FORUM None PRESENTATION OF COLORS AND PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Mayor Goettel led the audience in the Pledge of Allegiance. APPROVAL OF MINUTES M/Fitzhenry, S/Sandahl to approve the minutes of (1) Special City Council Workession of November 9 2010 and (2) Regular Citv Council Meeting of November 9, 2010. Motion carried 5-0. Council Meeting Minutes -2- November 23, 2010 Item #1 COUNCIL DISCUSSION • HATS OFF TO HOMETOWN HITS David Butler, representing the Band Boosters, announced the December 5, 2010 Richfield Symphonic Band Concert. Council Member Elliott discussed his recent tour of the new Municipal Center project. Council Member Elliott discussed the Planninq~ Commission's approval of Planned Unit Development and site plan for a proposed CVS at 66 Street and Penn Avenue. Council Member Fitzhenry reported on the recent Noise Oversight Committee meeting. Item #2 COUNCIL APPROVAL OF AGENDA Mayor Goettel moved Item #3F to Item #4 and added Item #3G to the agenda. M/Wroge, S/Fitzhenry to approve the agenda as amended. Motion carried 5-0. Item #3 CONSENT CALENDAR A. Consideration of approval of resolution authorizing issuance and sale of Educational Facilities Revenue Bonds (Academy of Holy Angels project), Series 2010A, in original aggregate principal amount of $1,000,000 and taxable Educational Facility Revenue Bonds (Academy of Holy Angels project), Series 20106, in original aggregate principal amount of $250,000 S.R. No. 212 RESOLUTION NO. 10442 RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE ISSUANCE AND SALE OF EDUCATIONAL FACILITIES REVENUE BONDS (ACADEMY OF HOLY ANGELS PROJECT), SERIES 2010A, IN THE ORIGINAL AGGREGATE PRINCIPAL AMOUNT OF $1,000,000, AND TAXABLE EDUCATIONAL FACILITY REVENUE BONDS (ACADEMY OF HOLY ANGELS PROJECT), SERIES 20106, IN THE ORIGINAL AGGREGATE PRINCIPAL AMOUNT OF $250,000; APPROVING THE FORM OF AND AUTHORIZING THE EXECUTION AND DELIVERY OF THE BONDS AND CERTAIN RELATED DOCUMENTS; AND PROVIDING FOR THE SECURITY, RIGHTS, AND REMEDIES WITH RESPECT TO THE BONDS This resolution appears as Resolution No. 10442. B. Consideration of approval of resolution authorizing $1,000,000 internal loan to fund capital improvements within City's water utility infrastructure S.R. No. 213 RESOLUTION NO. 10443 Council Meeting Minutes -3- November 23, 2010 RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING $1,000,000 INTERNAL LOAN FOR CAPITAL IMPROVMENTS AT THE CITY'S WATER UTILITY OPERATION This resolution appears as Resolution No. 10443. C. Consideration of approval of resolution authorizing acceptance of grant funds from State of Minnesota, Commissioner of Public Safety, State Patrol Division, used for payment of overtime for officers involved in DWI Enforcement Grant Program formerly known as Nightcap S.R. No. 214 RESOLUTION NO. 10444 RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE CITY OF RICHFIELD/POLICE TO PARTICIPATE JOINTLY WITH THE MINNESOTA STATE PATROL IN AN AGREEMENT WITH AND TO RECEIVE GRANT FUNDS FROM THE STATE OF MINNSOTA, COMMISIONER OF PUBLIC SAFETY, TO PAY OVERTIME TO OFFICERS INVOLVED IN THE DWI ENFORCEMENT GRANT PROGRAM FORMERLY KNOWN AS "NIGHTCAP" This resolution appears as Resolution No. 10444. D. Consideration of approval of Richfield Municipal Center change order report for aggregate net effect of $5,568 in items included within project budget S.R. No. 215 E. Consideration of approval of extending current agreement with Graymont (WI), LLC Company for 1,400 tons of quick lime for water treatment in amount of $168,000 ($120/ton) for 2011 S.R. No. 216 F. Moved to Item #4. G. Consideration of approval of resolution accepting 2011 funding from Hennepin County of Human Services and Public Health for Police Cadet Program in amount of $30,000 S.R. No. 221. RESOLUTION NO. 10448 RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY/POLICE TO ACCEPT FUNDING FROM THE HENNEPIN COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES AND PUBLIC HEALTH FOR A POLICE CADET PROGRAM This resolution appears as Resolution No. 10448. M/Sandahl, S/Goettel to approve the Consent Calendar as amended. Motion carried 5-0. Item #4 CONSIDERATION OF ITEMS, IF ANY, REMOVED FROM CONSENT CALENDAR F. Consideration of approval of remaining contract change proposals for renovation of Lincoln Athletic Complex in amount of $4,896.80 S.R. No. 217 Mayor Goettel questioned who should pay for the drainage issue costs. Recreation Services Director Topitzhofer explained there was an error in design. The contractor performed the work as designed and should be paid. He added a letter has been sent to the architect regarding participating in drainage costs. Council Meeting Minutes -4- November 23, 2010 M/Goettel, S/Wroge that the following resolution be adopted and that it be made part of these minutes: RESOLUTION NO. 10448 RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY/POLICE TO ACCEPT FUNDING FROM THE HENNEPIN COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES AND PUBLIC HEALTH FOR A POLICE CADET PROGRAM Motion carried 5-0. This resolution appears as Resolution No. 10448. Item #5 CONSIDERATION OF SECOND READING OF ORDINANCE AMENDING RICHFIELD CITY CODE APPENDIX 1 TO REZONE CERTAIN PROPERTIES . THROUGHOUT CITY IN ORDER TO COMPLY WITH RICHFIELD COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING SUMMARY PUBLICATION OF ORDINANCE AMENDMENT (STAFF REPORT N0.218) Council Member Elliott presented Staff Report No. 218. M/Elliott, S/Fitzhenry that this constitute the second reading of Ordinance No. 2010-22 amending Richfield City Code Appendix 1 to rezone certain properties throughout City in order to comply with Richfield Comprehensive Plan and that the following resolution be adopted and that it be made part of these minutes. RESOLUTION NO. 10445 RESOLUTION APPROVING SUMMARY PUBLICATION OF BILL NO. 2010-22 Motion carried 5-0. This resolution appears as Resolution No. 10445. Item #6 CONSIDERATION OF RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING USE OF PUBLIC EMPLOYEES RETIREMENT ASSOCIATION POLICE AND FIRE PENSION REFUND FUND RESIDUAL ASSET FOR POLICE AND FIRE EXPENDITURES RELATED TO RICHFIELD MUNICIPAL CENTER (STAFF REPORT N0.219) Council Member Wroge presented Staff Report No. 219. M/Wroge, S/Goettel that the following resolution be adopted and that it be made part of these minutes: RESOLUTION NO. 10446 RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE USE OF PUBLIC EMPLOYEES RETIREMENT ASSOCIATION POLICE AND FIRE REFUND FUND RESIDUAL ASSETS FOR POLICE AND FIRE EXPENDITURES RELATED TO THE RICHFIELD MUNICIPAL CENTER City Manager Devich stated the City Council may wish to consider utilizing the entire current balance of the residual pension asset amount of $7,749,493 plus 2010 interest earnings for funding of the Richfield Municipal Center. M/Wroge, S/Goettel amended the motion to utilize the entire current balance. Council Meeting Minutes -5- November 23, 2010 Motion carried 5-0. This resolution appears as Resolution No. 10446. Item #7 CONSIDERATION OF RESOLUTION DESIGNATION CITY'S CONTRIBUTION TOWARD HEALTH, TERM LIFE AND DENTAL INSURANCE PREMIUMS FOR GENERAL SERVICES AND MANAGEMENT EMPLOYEES (STAFF REPORT NO. 220) Council Member Sandahl presented Staff Report No. 220. M/Sandahl, S/Wroge that the following resolution be adopted and that it be made part of these minutes: RESOLUTION NO. 10447 RESOLUTION DESIGNATING CITY'S CONTRIBUTION TOWARD HEALTH, TERM LIFE AND DENTAL INSURANCE PREMIUM FOR MANAGEMENT AND GENERAL SERVICES EMPLOYEES Motion carried 5-0. This resolution appears as Resolution No. 10447. Item #8 CITY MANAGER'S REPORT • Annual goalsetting facilitator discussion City Manager Devich discussed the LMCIT Land Use Training Incentive and encouraged the City Council to participate. All City Council Members indicated they would participate. Public Works Director Eastling discussed the Minnehaha Creek Watershed Districts approval of the plan and funding for the Taft Park area in north Richfield. The City Council consensus was not have a facilitator lead the January 7, 2011 goalsetting session. Amid year update on goals be provided was requested. Council Member Wroge requested the Metropolitan Council's requirement of the number of affordable housing units be discussed at the goal session. Item #9 CLAIMS AND PAYROLLS M/Wroge, S/Sandahl that the following claims and payrolls be approved: U.S. Bank 11/23/2010 A/P Checks: 199149-199546 $ 2,585,897.20 Payroll: $ 505,789.24 TOTAL $ 3, 091, 686.44 Motion carried 5-0. Council Meeting Minutes -li- November 23, 2010 OPEN FORUM None. ADJOURNMENT The City Council meeting was adjourned by unanimous consent at 7:44 p.m. Date Approved: Debbie Goettel Mayor Cheryl Krumholz Recording Secretary Steven L. Devich City Manager CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES Richfield, Minnesota Special Meeting November 29, 2010 CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order by Mayor Goettel at 7:00 p.m. ROLL CALL Members Present: Debbie Goettel, Mayor; Sue Sandahl (arrived at 7:15 p.m.); Pat Elliott; and Tom Fitzhenry. Members Excused: Fred Wroge Staff Present: Steven L. Devich, City Manager; Mike Eastling, Public Works Director; Chris Regis, Finance Manager; Pam Dmytrenko, Assistant to the City Manager; Barry Fritz, Public Safety Director/Chief; Brad Sveum, Fire Chief; William Fillmore, Municipal Liquor Operations Director; Jim Topitzhofer, Recreation Services Director; John Stark, Community Development Director; and Cheryl Krumholz, Recording Secretary. M/Goettel, S/Fitzhenry to excuse Council Member Wroge from the November 29. 2010 Special City Council Meeting. Motion carried 3-0. Item #1 TRUTH IN TAXATION PUBLIC HEARING REGARDING 2011 PROPERTY TAX LEVY AND 2010 REVISED/2011 PROPOSED BUDGET AND PROPOSED 2011 WATER, WASTEWATER AND STORM SEWER UTILITY RATES (STAFF REPORT NO. 221) Finance Manager Regis gave a PowerPoint presentation (City Clerk's File No. 459) as a general overview of the proposed budget and tax levy. City Manager Devich discussed the impacts of the reduction in local government aid (LGA) and that the emphasis of funding local services has shifted to local taxes. Mayor Goettel stated feedback from residents is important to determine what City services they would be willing to pay for or reduce/eliminate. She added that City staff continues to be creative and innovative in maintaining quality services. Council Meeting Minutes -2- November 29, 2010 Kevin Overson, 6612 Knox Avenue, expressed appreciation for the conservative approach but tax increases should not be made every year, rather the City should make do with less and live within its means. City Manager Devich explained a public sector wage freeze or decrease must be negotiated with unions and are more likely to be handled by staffing level reductions. He added there may come a time when some City services need to be reduced or eliminated. Everil Niebuhr, 2905 West 74~" Street, questioned the property valuation and tax disparities. Finance Manager Regis explained the significant impact in the shift in tax capacity values from commercial to residential properties. Council Member Elliott suggested improved communication to the public. City Manager Devich discussed the status of Tax Increment Financing Districts. Patricia Peare, 7415 Fremont Avenue S., stated the assessed value on her property was too high and requested a review by the assessor. John Detuncq, 6301 11~"Avenue, expressed concern over continued tax increases. Finance Manager Regis explained the market value change impacts over-the years and that the City's goal is to minimize any tax levy increase. M/Sandahl, S/Elliott to close the Truth-in-Taxation public hearing. Motion carried 4-0. ADJOURNMENT The City Council meeting was adjourned by unanimous consent at 7:57 p.m. Date Approved: Debbie Goettel Mayor Cheryl Krumholz Recording Secretary Steven L. Devich City Manager AGENDA SECTION: CONSENT AGENDA ITEM # SA REPORT # 222 ~~ STAFF REPORT CITY COUNCIL MEETING DECEMBER 14, 2010 REPORT PREPARED BY: DEPARTMENT bIRECTOR REVIEW: REVIEWED BY CITY MANAGER: KATIE PORATH, DEPUTY CITY CLERK NAME, T/TLE ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION: Consider an ordinance amendment to Richfield City Code Appendix D establishing a change to the fee for Public Works Section 3, Subsection 10 and to move the fees to the Appendix D resolution and set a second reading for January 11, 2011. I. RECOMMENDED ACTION: By Motion: • Approve first reading of the attached or-dinance amendment to Richfield City Code Appendix D establishing a change to the fee schedule for Public Works section 3, subsection 10. • Set second reading for January 11, 2011. II. BACKGROUND Appendix D to the Richfield City Code consists of the schedule of fees adopted by the City Council, including those adopted by resolution and those adopted by ordinance. On an annual basis, as part of the budget process, departments are asked to review the schedule of fees that apply to their departments. The departments review their fees for services and compare the fees charged with the costs incurred in providing that service. If it is found that costs exceed the fee charged, the respective departments will adjust their fees accordingly. 121410 - Appendix D Fee Changes The proposed ordinance includes all fees that are required to be established by ordinance. Other fees, including rental licensing fees, are established via resolution (as opposed to ordinance). Revisions to these fees require only one hearing, which will be conducted at the December 14, 2010 Regular City Council Meeting. It has been determined by the City Attorney that the portion of the ordinance referencing Public Works fees should be categorized under the resolution portion of Appendix D changes. Therefore it is recommended that this section be moved to the resolution and removed from the ordinance resulting in a need to amend the current ordinance. The increase in the Public Works fees for 2011 is reflected in the Resolution amending Appendix D. III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION A. POLICY • Minnesota Statutes, Section 462-.353 requires that certain fees be established by ordinance. • The City attempts to establish fees that appropriately reflect the City's costs of administering the permit-or application for which the fee is charged. - B. CRITICAL, TIMING ISSUES • It is important to approve this amendment to the ordinance so that fees in Public Works Section 3, Subsection 10 of the resolution to Appendix D can become effective in a timely fashion. C. FINANCIAL • It is important for the City to annually review fees to ensure that the fees charged are in line with the costs of the service provided. • The ordinance will be effective February 18, 2011. D. LEGAL • N/A E. ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS - • N/A IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATIONS • N/A V. ATTACxMENTS • Ordinance VI. PRINCIl'AL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING • None Gil •~ r BILL NO.2010- TRANSITORY ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE AMENDING APPENDIX D TO THE RICHFIELD CITY. CODE; ESTABLISHING A FEE SCHEDULE FOR CERTAIN PERMITS AND APPLICATIONS THE CITY OF RICHFIELD DOES ORDAIN: Section 1. Background -1.01 Appendix D to the Richfield City Code consists of the schedule of fees adopted by the City Council, including those adopted by resolution and those adopted by ordinance. 1.02 Minnesota Statutes, Section 462.353 requires that certain fees be adopted by ordinance. The City Council has previously established certain fees by Transitory Ordinance No. The City Council has established other fees by resolution, which resolution is also part of Appendix D. 1.03 The City Council has determined the need to update the schedule of fees under Transitory Ordinance No. Section 2. Fee Schedule Adopted 2.01 The fees set forth in the attached Exhibit A are hereby adopted by ordinance. 2.02 The fees adopted at Section 2.01 of this Ordinance shall be amended only by ordinance. Any fees established by resolution, other than those adopted at Section 2.01 of this Ordinance, may be amended from time to time by resolution of the City Council. Section 3. Effective date; codification. 3.01 This ordinance is effective as of January 1, 2011. 3.02 A copy of this ordinance shall be included in Appendix D to the Richfield City Code, immediately prior to the resolution establishing fees. 3.03 This ordinance supersedes Transitory Ordinance No. to the extent that Transitory Ordinance No. is inconsistent with this ordinance. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this day of 2010. Debbie Goettel, Mayor ATTEST: Nancy Gibbs, City Clerk s~ a EXHIBIT A CONSTRUCTION AND RELATED PERMIT FEES AND CHARGES A. Investigation Fees: Work without a Permit: Investigation. Whenever any work for which a permit is required by this code has been commenced without first obtaining said permit, a special investigation shall be made before a permit maybe issued for such work. Fee. An investigation fee, in addition to the permit fee, shall be collected whether or not a permit is then or subsequently issued. The investigation fee shall be equal to the amount of the permit fee required by this code. The minimum investigation fee shall be the same as the minimum fee set forth in Section 2. The payment of such investigation fee shall not exempt any person from compliance with all other provisions of this code nor from any penalty prescribed by law. B. Permit fee refunds: The building official may authorize refunding of not more than 80 percent of the pe~nit-fee-paid_ - ---- -- -- when no work has been done under a permit issued in accordance with this code. The building official may authorize refunding of not more than 80 percent of the plan review fee paid when an application for a permit for which a plan review fee has been paid is withdrawn or canceled before any plan reviewing is done. The building official shall not authorize refunding of any fee paid except on written application filed by the original permitted not later than 180 days after the date of fee payment. TYPE OF PERMIT SECTION DESCRIPTION FEE OR LICENSE REQUIRING (a) Inspections outside of normal business hours $60.00 (minimum charge -two hours) per hour (b) Reinspection fees $60.00 (minimum charge $35.00) - - per hour (c) Inspections for which no fee is specifically $60.00 indicated minimum char e -one-half hour er hour (d) Additional plan review required by changes, $60.00 additions or revision to plans (minimum charge per hour -two hours (e) Fee to reissue building inspection record $35.00 card *Or the total hourly cost to the jurisdiction, whichever is the greatest. This cost shall include supervision, overhead, a ui ment, hour wa es and frin a benefits of the em to ee involved. (1) Building Permits 400.03-400.09 $1 to $500 $35.00 (includes one inspection) Each additional ins ection $35.00 $501 to $2,000 $25.00 for the first $500 plus $3.25 each additional $100, or fraction thereof, to and including $2,000 with a minimum fee of $35.00. $2,001 to $25,000 $73.50 for the first $2,000 plus $14.75 for each additional $1,000, or fraction thereof, to and includin $25,000. $25,001 to $50,000 $415.75 for the first $25,000 plus $10.75 for each additional $1,000, or fraction thereof, to and including $50,000. BOLD represents added/amended fees A-1 SA -3 TYPE OF PERMIT SECTION DESCRIPTION FEE OR LICENSE REQUIRING $50,001 to $100,000 $682.50 for the first $50,000 plus $7.50 for each additional $1,000, or fraction thereof, to and includin $100,000. $100,001 to $500,000 $1,053.50 for the first $100,000 plus $6.00 for each additional $1,000, or fraction thereof, to and including $500,000. $500,001 to $1,000,000 $3,427.75 for the first $500,000 plus $5.00 for each additional $1,000, or fraction thereof, to and including $1,000,000. 1,000,001 and up $5,945.25 for the first $1,000,000 plus $4.00 for each additional $1,000, or fraction thereof. (2) Driveway, Parking 515.05 (no permit fee for sidewalks) $ 35.00 Area Permits (3) Swimming 420.00 Permanent or portable pools are based on building permit fees with a minimum of $ 35.00 (4J Plan Review Fee 400.03-400.09 35% of building permit fee for one and two family dwelling detached garages and basement remodels 65% of building permit fee for all other building permits, except no fee for the following: (a) Existing single family dwelling minor nonstructural alterations. (b) Single and two family dwelling repair and maintenance work. (c) Commercial and industrial repair and maintenance work not exceeding $1,000 or where plans are not required. Plan review fee for Maximum 25% of permit fee based on Minnesota State Building similar buildings Code 1300.0160 (5) Contractors License Charged once each time a contractor applies for $ 5.00 Verification Fee ermit s (6) Moving - 845 Moving Permit Fee $ 50.00 Buildin s (7) Structure 400.00-400.09 (a) Commercial Demolition Demolition cost as per Building Permit Schedule with a minimum of $ 50.00 (b) Dwelling One or two story $ 50.00 Residential - Gara a and lesser structure $ 35.00 BOLD represents added/amended fees A-2 S~- - ~ TYPE OF PERMR SECTION DESCRIPTION FEE OR LICENSE REQUIRING (8) Plumbing 400.03-400.09 Residential Permit Minimum Fee 2% of Total Job cost with a minimum of $ 35.00 (includes one inspection) Each additional ins ection $ 35.00 (9) Plumbing 400.03-400.09 Commercial/Industrial/Multi-family Based on Total Permit Job cost 2% of Estimated Job cost with a minimum of $ 45.00 (includes one inspection) Each additional inspection $ 35.00 Plan Review 10% of permit fee when the job cost exceeds $50,000 (10) Electrical Permit 400.03-.400.09 Residential (a) Minimum Fee which includes one inspection $ 35.00 (b) Each additional Inspection $ 35.00 (c) Complete Wiring Fee: $ 150.00 Single Family Dwelling and each dwelling unit of a two family dwelling and includes not more than three inspections. (d) New Service - up to 200 amps $ 55.00 (e) Temporary Service - (for construction) $ 45.00 (f) Installation, addition alteration, or repair of each circuit or feeder $ 8.00 Swimmin ool or exterior hot tub $ 55.00 (11) Electrical Permit 400.03-400.09 Commercial, Industrial and multiple dwellings Commercial (more than two units) and Technology systems: Minimum Fee which includes one inspection $ 45.00 Each additional inspection $ 35.00 (a) Based on total job cost - 2% of estimated job cost with a minimum of $ 45.00 - Over $50,000 -Fee/ $1,000.00 plus 1 1 /2% of cost over $50,000.00 (b) Traffic Signals: Per Intersection $ 185.00 (c) ~ Fire Alarm: Based on 3/4% of cost of electrical job to customer with a minimum of $ 45.00 (d) Carnivals, festivals and similar events plus $35.00 for each service on generator $ 110.00 (12) Electrical Permit 4.03-400.09 Based on 2% of cost of electrical job to customer with Signs a minimum of $ 45.00 se arate electrical ermit re wired for si ns (13) Residential 400.03-400.09 Central Systems and Additions, Alterations and Repairs Heating, 1 1 /2% estimated cost with a minimum of $ 35.00 Ventilating, Air (Includes one inspection) Conditioning Each additional inspection $ 35.00 and Refrigeration $ 45.00 Commercial Central Systems and Additions, Alterations and Repairs Heating, 1 1 /2% estimated cost with a minimum of Ventilating, Air Conditioning and Refrigeration Plan Review of 10% of permff fee when the job cost exceeds $50,000. (14) Sign Installation 415.01-415.11 (a) Temporary sign permit $ 35.00 (b) Permanent sign (any size) $ 100.00 Building permit is required for sign support structures Fees based on buildin ermit fee schedule A-3 ~~~~ BOLD represents added/amended fees ZONING, LAND USE AND RELATED CHARGES TYPE OF PERMIT SECTION DESCRIPTION FEE OR LICENSE REQUIRING (1) Planned Unit 542 (a) $500 plus $5/ $1,000 of project value up to a Development maximum fee of $ 3,500.00 (b) PUD Plan Amendment fee -major $ 550.00 c PUD Plan Amendment fee -minor $ 350.00 (2) Site Plan Review 547 (a) $500 plus $.50 / $1,000 of project value to a maximum fee of $ 3,500.00 (b) Major amendment $ 500.00 c Minor amendment $ 350.00 (3) Variance 547 Residential $ 250.00 Non Residential $ 450.00 Extension $ 75.00 Variance Appeal Residential and Non Residential $ 150.00 (4) Conditional Use 547 (a) $500 + $.50/$1,000 of project value to a Permit maximum fee of $ 3,500.00 (b) Major amendment $ 500.00 (cj Minor amendment $ 350.00 5 Interim Use Permit 547 $ 500.00 (6) *Zoning District 547 $ 500.00 Chan e (7) *Subdivision 500.01-500.05 $ 500.00 Approval Subdivision Waiver 500.05-Subd. 2 $ 350.00 (8) Street Vacation 820 $ 350.00 (9) Appeal to Board of 547 $ 350.00 Adj. & Appeals (10) Special Request to $ 350.00 City Council (11) Zoning Compliance $ 50.00 Letter (12) Comprehensive $ 600.00 Plan Amend. (13) Plat: preliminary & $ 500.00 final "`Any additional expense of notification necessitated by applicants request for continuance will be charged to the a licant. BOLD represents added/amended fees A-4 ~~ - FIRE SERVICES FEES TYPE OF PERMIT SECTION DESCRIPTION FEE OR LICENSE REQUIRING (6) Fire F~ctinguishing Based on Building Permit fee schedule with a System Permit minimum of: $ 50.00 Plan review fee: 65% of building permit fee, except no fee for the following: a no char a for valuation of $1,000 or less (7) Fre Alarm Systems Based on Building Permit fee schedule with a minimum of: $ 50.00 Plan review fee: 65% of building permit fee, except no fee for the following: a no char a for valuation of $1,000 or less (8) Flammable or Tanks (installation or modification $ 150.00 Combustible Liquid or Gas Installation or alteration of piping Storage Tanks Each unit or dispenser $ 50.00 and Piping Under round Tank Removal $ 100.00/Tank MISCELLANEOUS FEES TYPE OF PERMIT OR LICENSE SECTION REQUIRING DESCRIPTION FEE (3) Antenna 426 (a) CWTS antenna permit application fee $ 100.00 Commercial (b) Antenna permit fee for additional antennas $ 35.00 Wireless added to an existing antenna location Telecommunication Service CWTS BOLD represents addedlamended fees A-5 AGENDA SECTION: CONSENT AGENDA ITEM # SB REPORT # 223 STAFF REPORT CITY COUNCIL MEETING DECEMBER 14, 2010 REPORT PREPARED BY: DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR REVIEW: REVIEWED BY CITY MANAGER: MELISSA POEHLMAN, CITY PLANNER ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION: Conduct a first reading of an ordinance rezoning a portion of the property located at 6528 Penn Avenue from the General Commercial and Mixed Use -Community with the Penn Avenue Corridor Overlay Districts to Planned Mixed Use. This rezoning is related to a proposal for a CVS Pharmacy. I. RECOMMENDED ACTION: By Motion: Approve a first reading of an ordinance amending Appendix 1 of the Richfield City Code rezoning a portion of 6528 Penn Avenue from General Commercial and Multiple Use -Community with the Penn Avenue Corridor Overlay to Planned Mixed Use. II. BACKGROUND Velmeir Companies has submitted an application for development of a CVS Pharmacy (CVS) at 6528 Penn Avenue. The proposal involves the demolition of the southern half of the existing shopping center, division of the property and construction of a new 12,900 square foot CVS with drive thru service. The Arc's Value Village store will remain in the existing building and minor changes will be made related to the location of trash facilities. Area Vision • In October of 2008, the City Council adopted the Penn Avenue Master Plan and Design Guidelines to direct redevelopment and revitalization efforts along Penn Avenue between Highway 62 and 68th Street. Properties were subsequently 121410 - 1st Reading 6528 Penn -CVS Rezone rezoned to Mixed Use -Community and the Penn Avenue Overlay was created to address items unique to this area. (Note -the small "panhandle" of 6528 Penn Avenue remained as (C-2) General Commercial.) The intent of these changes was to encourage improvements that would "create a traditional neighborhood center that is a vibrant, pedestrian-oriented district...[accommodating] residential, shopping, recreational and business uses in a flexible arrangement..." (Richfield Comprehensive Plan 4-23). Zoning District Guidelines The applicant has applied for a change in the zoning designation of the property because of the unique characteristic of this site. Designation as Planned Mixed Use (PMU) requires consideration of the regulations of the underlying Multiple Use - Community (MU-C) and the Penn Avenue Corridor (PAC) Districts; however, it also allows for flexibility in order to encourage the efficient use of land and resources, so long as the development is well-designed and can be successfully integrated into the neighborhood. The proposed development meets most underlying MU-C and PAC District requirements including parking, pedestrian access, architectural design, impervious surface and building orientation. Flexibility is requested in terms of the location of the drive-thru facility, the front setback of the building and permission for off-site signage to allow Arc's Value Village sign to remain at the intersection. III. BASIS OF RECONIlVIENDATION A. POLICY • In 2008 and 2009 the City Council approved a Master Plan and zoning regulations that would encourage and direct the revitalization of this area. At a public hearing held on November 22, 2010, the Planning Commission found that the proposed development and rezoning were consistent with the Comprehensive Plan (7-1, Schuller dissenting). The following findings are necessary for approval of a Planned Unit Development (PUD) application (542.09, Subd. 3) 1. The proposed development conforms to the goals and objectives of the City's Comprehensive Plan and any applicable redevelopment plans; The Comprehensive Plan and Penn Avenue Master Plan designate this property a part of a larger mixed use district stretching along Penn Avenue from Highway 62 to 68th Street. A commercial development intended to serve the surrounding community is consistent with these plans. 2. The proposed development is designed in such a manner as to form a desirable and unified environment within its own boundaries; This requirement is met. 3. The development is in substantial conformance with the purpose and intent of the guiding district and departures from the guiding district regulations are justified by the design of the development; The MU-C District is intended to include shops and services that support the surrounding community and include commercial, office and higher density residential uses. The intent of the PAC District is to provide for a balanced mix of commercial, office and residential uses that together create a cohesive and pedestrian- friendly area. The development is in substantial compliance with the intent of guiding MU-C and PAC Districts. The development is in substantial compliance with the guiding MU-C and PAC District regulations. The proposed setbacks adequately project adjacent uses and the proposed ground sign is justified by the shared parking.and access between the two parcels. 4. The development will not create an excessive burden on parks, schools, streets or other public facilities and utilities that serve or are proposed to serve the development; Access to and from the development will remain the same and there is no change in the proposed class of use of the properly (retail to retail). The developer will work with the Public Works Department to upgrade utilities where necessary and no issues are anticipated. 5. The development will not have undue adverse impacts on neighboring properties; As above, no access changes are proposed and the property will continue to be used for retail purposes. The City has ordinances in place to restrict noise from the drive-thru service window, to significantly limit lighting (1 footcandle) where adjacent to residential properties and is working with the operator to limit delivery hours. 6. The terms and conditions proposed to maintain the integrity of the plan are sufficient to protect the public interest; The final development plan, which establishes the terms-and conditions of the development, will be considered in detail in conjunction with the second reading of this ordinance on January 11, 2011; however, the Planning Commission found that the stipulations in place are sufficient to protect the public. The rezoning of property requires two readings before the City Council. A second reading is scheduled for January 11, 2011. Consideration of the final development plan and conditional use permit will also take place on January 11, 2011. B. CRITICAL TIlVIING ISSUES • The City is required to issue a decision within 60 days of submission of a complete application unless a letter extending the deadline (up to an additional 60 days) is sent. The 60-day deadline for a decision on this application is December 28, 2010. Because the second meeting in December has been cancelled, the City has issued a letter extending the deadline for a decision to January 11, 2011. • The property owner and applicant have indicated that delay could impact the feasibility of the project. C. FINANCIAL • The required application fee has been paid. D. LEGAL • N/A E. ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS • N/A IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION(S~ • Deny the request for rezoning with findings that the criteria necessary for the creation of a Planned Unit Development are not met. V. ATTAC~IlVIENTS • Ordinance Proposed site plan Planning & zoning maps VI. PRINCIl'AL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING • Jon Lennander, Velmeir Companies • Bill Wolfson, property owner Sg-~ BILL NO.2011- AMENDMENT TO APPENDIX 1 OF THE CODE OF THE CITY OF RICHFIELD (CVS Planned Unit Development Plan and Rezoning) THE CITY OF RICHFIELD DOES ORDAIN: Section 1. Findings of Fact. The City Council hereby makes the following findings of fact: A. The City's zoning ordinance establishes zoning classifications for individual property. The property located at 6528 Penn Avenue is zoned C-2 (General Commercial), MU-C (Mixed Use -Community) and is within the PAC (Penn Avenue Corridor) Overlay District. B. Velmeir Companies has submitted an application to the City for a planned unit development plan [the "PUD plan"] for the south approximately 200 feet of 6528 Penn Avenue [the "subject area"]. The PUD plan proposes to construct a 12,900 square foot retail building with drive-thru service and 58 parking stalls. C. The City has reviewed the zoning ordinance and determined that it would be appropriate to rezone the subject area as PMU (planned mixed use) and approve the PUD plan to establish the regulations governing the PMU district. D. The Planning Commission has conducted a public hearing concerning the PUD plan and amending the zoning ordinance in the subject area. The Planning Commission recommended approval of the PUD plan and zoning ordinance amendment on November 22, 2010. The City Council held a first reading of the rezoning on December 14, 2010 and second reading and consideration of the PUD plan on January 11, 2011. E. The City's zoning ordinance provides criteria for approving a PUD plan and rezoning of property to a planned unit development. The City Council finds that the PUD plan and rezoning of property in the subject area meets the criteria in the following ways: 1) The proposed development conforms with the goals and objectives of the City's Comprehensive Development Plan and any applicable redevelopment plans: a) The PUD plan is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan designation of this property as part of a larger mixed use district stretching along Penn Avenue from Highway 62 to 68th Street. b) The PUD plan is consistent with the described intent of this designation to "create a traditional neighborhood center that is a vibrant, pedestrian- Sg / ~- oriented district... [that] would accommodate residential, shopping, recreational and business uses in a flexible arrangement that captures the spirit and intent of the Penn Avenue Revitalization Master Plan." [4-22] c) The PUD plan is consistent with the Penn Avenue Master Plan vision for this area as a continued home for the Arc's Value Village store, additional retail and surface parking. The PUD plan is consistent with the Penn Avenue Design Guidelines in that it appropriately transitions between the public street and private development. d) The PUD plan and rezoning are also consistent with the expressed desire for "enhance[d] business opportunities...either as part of upgrading existing retail areas, expanding new retail business opportunities and/or seeking new and/or redevelopment opportunities for offices, entertainment and service businesses." (4-16] 2) The proposed development is designed in such a manner as to form a desirable and unified environment within its own boundaries: The building is designed to accommodate customers for the proposed business, as well as continued shared access with the adjoining property. Drive-thru service is separated from the general parking area to prevent traffic congestion within the site. Enhanced crosswalk treatments onsite will allow for safe pedestrian movement within the development and to/from -the adjoining property and public street. 3) The development is in substantial conformity with the purpose and intent of the original MU-C and PAC zoning districts, and departures from the original district regulations are justified by the design of the development: The MU-C District is intended to include shops and services that support the surrounding community and include commercial, office and higher density residential uses. The intent of the PAC District is to provide for a balanced mix of commercial, office and residential uses that together create a cohesive and pedestrian-friendly area. The development is in substantial compliance with the intent of guiding MU-C and PAC Districts. Setbacks have been adjusted based on the particulars of the site -specifically, the significant grade change from the intersection to the northwest corner of the property and property's relationship to the adjacent residential buildings to the west. -The proposed ground sign with that will contain advertising for the business on the northern half of the divided property is justified based on the shared parking and access for the two uses. 4) The development will not create an excessive burden on parks, schools, streets, or other public facilities and utilities which serve or are proposed to serve the development: Access tow Sg - 3 and from the development will remain the same and there is no change in the proposed class of use of the property (retail to retail). The developer will work with the Public Works Department to upgrade utilities where necessary and no issues are anticipated. 5) The development will not have undue adverse impacts on neighboring properties: No access changes are proposed and there is no change in the class of use of the parcel. The use is significantly separated and screened from the residential parcels to the west by a grade change and existing tree cover that will remain. 6) The terms and conditions proposed to maintain the integrity of the plan are sufficient to protect the public interests: A final development plan, which establishes the terms and conditions of the development, is required before construction can commence. Section 2. Appendix 1 of the zoning ordinance code of the City of Richfield entitled "Richfield Zoning Code: Boundaries of Zoning Districts" is hereby amended: A. Section 3, Paragraph (6) is repealed. B. Section 16, Paragraph (6) is amended to read as follows: (6) M-9, 10 (W of Penn, 62 to 67t", except 66t" & Penn corner) That area lying between the center lines of state highway 62 and 67t" Street, and between the center lines of Penn Avenue and Queen Avenue extended north, except that part of Lot 16, "Richfield Gardens", which lies southerly of a line described as commencing at the southeast corner of said Lot 16;_th_ence northerly, along the easterly line of said Lot 16, a distance of 219.69 feet to the point of beginning of the line to be described; thence westerly, deflectin tq o the left 90 degrees 00 minutes 00 seconds, to the west line of said Lot 16 and said line there terminating; together with: Lot 3, Block 3, Harry Tickner's Subdivision of Lot 15, Richfield Gardens. (Amended, Bill No. C. Anew Section 8 titled Planned Mixed Use (PMU) is added as follows, and by now renumbering all following sections accordingly. (1) M-9 (Northwest corner 66t" & Penn) That part of Lot 16, "Richfield Gardens", which lies southerly of a line described as commencing at the southeast corner of said Lot 16; thence northerly, along the easterly line of said Lot 16, a distance of 219.69 feet to the point of beginning of the line to be described; thence westerly, deflecting to the left 90 degrees 00 minutes 00 seconds, to the west line of said Lot 16 and said line there terminating; together with: Lot 3, Block 3, Harry Tickner's ~1 ~ r (~ Subdivision of Lot 15, Richfield Gardens. (Added, Bill No. ~• Section 3. This amendment constitutes a rezoning of the south half of 6528 Penn Avenue. Section 4. This ordinance is effective in accordance with Section 3.09 of the Richfield City Charter. Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this 11th day of January, 2011. Debbie Goettel, Mayor ATTEST: Nancy Gibbs, City Clerk 652 Penn Ave - PU® 1'x/10 Surrounding Zoning ~~ r R R R PMR R ~ R R R R R R R R R R MU-C/PAC MU-C/PAC R I R I R/ /R-1~ MU-C/PAC M MU-C/PAC ~ MU-C/PAC i MU-C/PAC MU-C/PAC MU-C/PAC MU-C/PAC MU-C/PAC MU-C/PAC MU-C/PAC MU-C/PAC MU-C/PAC Proposed Development. MR R Parcel 'New Zone - PMU MU-C/P U-C/PA W - Z 66TF9 STREET a z z C-2 MR-2 C_2 MU-C/PAC d MU-C/PAC MU-C/PAC MU-C/PAC R MU-C/PAC MR-2 MU-C/ MU-C/PAC MR-2 C-2 R N 0 62.5 125 250 375 500 Fast LEGEND R -Single Family Residential MR -Multi-Family Residential (discontinued) MR-2 -Multi-Family Residential PMR -Planned Multi-Family Residential C-2 -General Commercial MU-C -Mixed Use -Community D/1(~ Dnnn Minn~~n /~nrrirlnr rlvnr~nv -- - -- - 658 Penn Ave - P U D 11 /10- ~ - ~~ --~ Comprehensive Plan LDR LDR HDR HDR HDR HDR HDR HDR HDR HDR LDR M MIXED MIXED MIXED I p MIXED M MIXED MIXED MIXED MIXED MIXED MIXED MIXED MIXED MIXED MIXED LD HDR HDR HDR HDR MIXED R Proposed Deve MHD HDR HDR Parcel 66TH STREET CCO CCO CCO CCO CCO LDR LDR ~ MIXED MHD MI D MIXED MIXED I W z W Q z z MIXED d MIXED MIXED MIX MIXED LDR MIXED ....._ MIXED N 0 62.5 125 250 375 500 Fast LEGEND LDR -Low Density Residential MHD -Medium High Density Residential HDR -High Density Residential CCO -Community Commercial/Office MIXED -Mixed Use ~$ J~ I Pmleq wenre; I ~ °- i PQ ooa xa•e esPOas s,rwart~ ~\~ I . SITE DATA WARNING ALIPAVEMENTMARIONGSSHOWNSHAILBEINSTALLEDPER ~i i ZONING , MMIJTCD. -~I~• ' ~? CURRENT ZONING; MU-C MIXED, USECOMNERCIAL ~~~~~(~ WARNING NJ. OVERLAYDLSTRICT: PUD LEFTHANDENTRANCE ALL CONSTRUCTION & POST-CONSTRUCTKN ~ _81•s AREA NWC PARIONGSHALlBEON-SITE NOON-STRCET PARKRNGILCVsDINGJUNLOADINGALLOWED. ~ ~~' TOTALSREARFA o1,50ACRES PENN AVENUES ~I, IMPERVIOUS SURFACE AREA =0.92ACRF5 Awp WARNING I e '' BUILDINGSURFACEARFA =0.30 ACRES 66THSTREETW _~ . PERVIOUSSURFACE'AREA =0.26ACRE5 I CVSCS#4S8S1 ALL PUBLIC SIDEWALKS SHALL NOT OE ' - - - - - - - - I ~ SETBACKS Y CVS STORE R 02152 OBSTRUCTED. ~. ..l~..l~l' .5. ~ _..<..•.v.:,„ ,.1.. • ~:}~ _I.'' FRONT YARD: 0.FTMIN&15•FTMAX CTIYOFRICHFlaD HENNEPRd CCXINIY, NN STORAGE OF MATERIALS OR EQUIPMENT J I~' INTERIOR SIDE YARD: iFT SHALL NOT BE ALLOWED ON PUBLIC STREETS '`•ti ~- I' SURFACE PARKNG lhwe N°1A0N OR WITHINPUBUCRIGHT-0F-WAY. <~~-- -I~' ~; _--- / `- 6x TOTAIPROPOSED SBSTAllS ~®/ STREET LIGHTING AND INTERCONNECT , I • CONDUIT MUST BE EXPOSED FOR CITY - - - - '-'~ ~ ~ '~" Toro ~ w~0 g '.+_ ~Lq~ I,,;, - ACCESSIBLE PARKING q~7gpt~, g~ q~q INSPECTION PRK)R TO POURING CONCRCTE Ip ~~ Paovmm ' i s ~~~~~ I.' I?• P OPOS D 3STALIS 3VANI `~""` OR BACKFlLLWGEXCAVATIONSINCffY I ~ y.~!~ $~ 1", I.: COMPANIES RIGHT-0F-WAY. / ~ ,~_ ~~ SITE PLAN NOTES - INSTALLCROSSWALKPAVEMENTMARKINGSIN ~ / ~ sLe ,~,: ',,y- g I,> I''' 1. MINNESOTA STATE STATUTE REQUIRESNOTIFICATIDNPER°GOPHER ~`~ ACCORDANCEWTTHMMUTCD. ALLPUBIK:SIGNAUSTREETLIGHTINGWORK ~ AAam+a -,; I,: STATE ONE CALL°~PRIORTD COMMENCING ANY GRADING,FXCAYATN)N - ~ ~, sWaroem OR UNDERGROUND WORK. A ALONGPUBLICRIGHT-0F-WAYSHALL BE IN ~ ~ I:' ASS~IATES N PlmPOSEOeo~sleoom '--b ~ -,~ 2.CONT&~1LTORSHALLFIELDVCRIFYLOCATIONSANDaEVATIONSOF ACCORDANCE WITH BLOOMINGTON a ONE s~ ~ I:'~ EXISTING UTILITIES ANDTOPOCRAPHICfFAIURESPRI0RT0 a'~E"8°~'~'nd~e ENGINEERBdG'SSTANDARDSPECIFICATIONS ~ ~ WAY .-- _ ~ `a s,mxpeAmimmw•nxuavnvei FOR STREETUGHTINGANDSTANDARD ~ I ~ :; m COMMENCEMENT OF CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITY. THECONTRACfOR ~ SPECIFlCATIONSFORTRAFFlCCOMROL ..;a DPRO~TM~ PAVEYFNI -+ ~ I'' SHALL NOTIFYTHFCidGINEEROFANYDISCREPANCIFSORVARIATI0N5 ~p~,,,.~,yp ssammlas ~' FROM THE PLANS. ~~•M"~+ei~ DEVICES, WTESTVERSIONS. / ,1~ ~~~ o~ L~PEoRort~~ , : i - a. CONSTRUCTSIDEWALKRAMPSWffHMEI'AL ~ p•e b ~ ~ PuA+ ~"' ~- ~e,.0. I ; 3, THE CONTRACTOR SHALL BE REQUIREDT008TAINALLPERMTTSFROM ®x'o+ ~'°"~d"""°' TRUNCATED DOME PANELS,PERRICHFIELD, / / \ ,Y'ry - -+- -- .9,T ~ a THECTTYASREQUIREDFORALLWORKWITHTHESTREETANDPUBLIC iuxA: \ I "!. ADAANDNNDOTREQUIREM[NTS• ~ w \° •• $ RIGHT OF WAY. f { • a \ Iw o ~ 4. OFF-SITE IMPROVFMEMS TO BE CONSTRUCTED PER CITY OF RICHFIELD _ / ~ ~ i o i pnTEe ~ o ~~~ ~ I ~o• REQUIREMENTS• .. ~, '~ - T 5. ALL DIMENSIONSARE SHOWN TO THE FACE OF CURB UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED, I ~: ~- PROPOSED ~ ~'/o ~ I ,' Z ~\ j~ \ i~ S5S • ~ I' 6.PROVIDEA3FOOTTAPERATALLCURBTERMINI. ~ ~ ~' P~ ~ I ! 7. ALL PAVING,CONCRETECURB,GUTTCRANDSIDEWALKSHALLBE ~ ~0"~ ~ ®i -4 ~ aaweTw PHARMACY ~+~~ ~~, WaY ,: I ~: FURNISHEDANDINSTALLEDINACCORDANCEWfIHTHFDEI'AILS ~ ~ ~~~ ~ ~ ~ NORTHERN TYPE A-12,9005( ° SHOWN PERSHEET C&1 AND THE REQUIREMEPITS OF THE CITY. SEE >~mmmmmuwaa mm.om,m I; LANDSCAPE AND ARCHITECTURAL PLANS FOR ANY ADDRIONAL a~w mne.°~ai ~Am~ 96'iD°x137'6" '4' w.o a o Lao g Q ~e~~a ~ I ~ - - - - -I ~ Pi~wsveum 52 STALLS REQUIRED ~ ~ HARDSCAPE APPLICATWPIS, ~ °S .~m~,.~.a~,n,~ (~ 58 STALLS PROVIDED a~.~ ~~'~ Y ~ ~ sn~ ; I s~ B. THE CITY DEPARTMENTCF ENGINEERING AND BUILDING INSPECTIONS ~ ~ ~~ ~p ~~~~~ ~o I'': DEPT. AND THE CONSTRUCTION ENGINEER SHALL BE NOTIFIED AT LEAS'( s7~ ewR7~~ ~ ~ 46 HOURS PRIOR TO ANY WDRK Wff HIN THE STREET RIGHT OF WAY Submeu: PmtsTU ~ ~~• o, ~ I 'E (SIDEWALK, STREET OR DRNEWAY5) wmea wrow~aa IWUOVEO/~LacATe9 .. m a;"%' oaosswax ~ - ~~„__~ - I '..: ~:.'.s',i. ~..•.•?.•T ...~;. P '~ I ~ 9. SEECOMRAC'TSPECIFICATIONSFORANYREMOVAIDETAIIS. oosmre aa' elaa I i C~ '} a¢r PAw~iro> ~ I •' o - ~4 ~• ` ~ ~ ~ ::: ~ ~ p' 10. ANY SIGN 0~ FIXTURES REMOVED WITH IN THE RIGHT OF WAY OR AS 0 PEO PA eiE Q PART OF THE SITE WORK SHAH BE REPLACED BY THE COMRACTOR BJ I .- ~.1~ o,. .2~, ~V ACCORDANCE WITH THECTFYREQUIREMEMS.iHECONTRACiORSHALL _ fj'" ~• L, p~~e pg'® ~~~o L{ , nsTAUeaxAOE ~: , "`0 P ~ PRESERVEANDMAINTAINANYGXIS'I'INGSTRCETLIGFITSANDTRAI•TIC - ~ ,,,, J ~ s¢e Ta •+.r•X I TP ~uutM ~' caLUea ~YeMypn% a ®, •' !' ~~ ~ rcceu ~ SIGNS PER THE R~QUIRE,MENTS OF THE CITY• 1 ~ ?o ~ ~.0 ~ ~ ~ R,1p uAmaroa ~ g~ xAUP o , .. ~ Pox OR~i ° { - 11. CLEAR AND GRUB AND REMOVE ALL TREES, VEGETATION AND SITE ~,. I p a,,. L 1 ATE O; II •o a a ';P ~~;`• DEBRIS PRIOR TO GRADWG. ALL REMOVED MATERIAL SHALL BE HAULED i T ~ , s• '~ FROM THE SITE DAILY. ALl CLEARING AND GRUBBING AND REMOVALS -ee~ esE ~: yT SHALL BE PERFORMED PERTHECONTRACTSPECIFICATIDNS.EROSION _ , L ~ ~ " ~ • CONTROL MEASURESSHALL BE IMMEDIATELY ESI'ABLRFiED UPON ,.. .. •. yT~9n ;~,~p' ..~?'..; rd~:;.`{~ REMOVAL.4SEESHEETC3.1) P ssiowSlsnaNm~ ,... .., inmpw,hmmmxo~.mu~oa® ...., xex soeaue ~5 12. A SIGNIFICANT PORTION OF SITE IMPROVEMEMS NOT SHOWN ON "~'~"~"1Ada°°°u~Pdv°i0a - - - - - - - - - - - -~ ` ~ ~ ~ ~ Y ~ ~~ -----~ THIS SHEETARE DESCRIBED AND PROVIDED IN FURTHER DETAIL ON THE amwemw»n aBe°4B'!2°W 42LJ5 ARC}iITECTURAL AND LANDSCAPE PLANS. THIS WCLUDFS LANDSCAPING, LIGHTING AND OTHER FIXTURES, wall'°an °`0'"' - ans~ iauno U. 8612 CONCRETE CURB AND GUTTER SHALL 8E INSTALLED ATTHE ~ ~ EDGE DF ALL COMA40N DRNES AND PARKING LOTS. ~Iro; ~~ p® 14. SEE SHEETSC3.IANDCMiFORGRADBdGANDUTILTTIES, 15. ALL PARKING LOT PAVEMENT MARKINGS SHALL BE 4° WIDE WHRE ,*. 1 7118 . ~ •.'•:.•.;.:,...a,,..,, r"; PAINTED STRIPING. . ,. 16. DLSABIEU PARKING SIGNAGE & PAVEMENT MARKINGS SHALL BE IN qu ~x~T NOTES et~OEeY ~~LS ACCORDANCE WITH ADA&MMLITCD. ai ~ienxrsastea~nu: p•1 A~fWM 1. CONTRACTOR SHALL OBTAIN A PUBLIC WORKS PERMIT APPLICATION ui oumxnnx FOR OBSTRUCTIONS AND CONCRETE WORKWITHWRIGHT-0F-WAY. ~a.i ~^'^'" PERPAIT IS REQUIRED PRIOR TO RCMOVALS OR INSTALLATION. °-' `'"~"Ae"1' 2. PUBLIC WORKS PERNJTAI'PLICATION FONUNDERGROUND WORK -_ WI'f IiIN THE RIGHT-0F-WAY IS REQUIRED PRIOR TO R[MOVAL OR _ INSTALLATION OF SANITARY, WATER OR STORM WORK WRFiIN THE PUBLIC RIGHT-0F•WAY. - _ WARNING S6eorulr THE COMRACiOR SHALL eE RESPONSIBLE FOR CALLING FOR ' LOCATIONS OF ALL EXISTING UTILTIES. THEY SHALL COOPERATE WITH NORTIL ALLUTIUTYCOMPANIESINMAINTAININGTHEIRSERVICEANU/ON SITE PLAN RELOCATION OF LINES. CALL BEFORE rou olcl ~~ Gopher State One Call 0 30 80 THE CONTRACTOR SHALL CONTACT GOPHER51'ATEONECALLAT 651.454.0002 AT (EAST 48 HOURS IN ADVANCE FOR THE LOCATIONS Pm'ert wu TOFU. Fp'RttEE:~i-E~BB252 %a~ OFALC UNDERGROUND WIRES, CABLfS,CONDUTTS, PWES. MANHOLES, Loucks Pro ect # 07420 VALVES OR OTHER BURIED STRUCTURES BEFORE DIGGING. THE SCALE' IN FEET CONTRACTOR SHALL REPABi OR REPLACE THE ABOVE WHEN Slmu Na DAMAGED DURING CONSTRUCTION AT NO COST TO THE OWNER. '~ C2-1 AGENDA SECTION: CONSENT AGENDA TI'EM # SC REPORT # 224 STAFF REPORT CITY COUNCIL MEETING DECEMBER 14, 2010 REPORT PREPARED BY: DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR REVIEW: REVIEWED BY CITY MANAGER: CHRISTINE COSTELLO, COMMUNITY ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION: Consideration of a resolution regarding the establishment of 60 DNL as the airport noise threshold for preventative and corrective land use measures in the environs of the Minneapolis-St. Paul International Airport. I. RECOMMENDED ACTION: By Motion: Approve a resolution establishing the 60 DNL as the airport noise threshold for preventative and corrective land use measures in the environs of the Minneapolis-St. Paul International Airaort. II. BACKGROUND In 1996, the Minnesota Legislature decided to expand the existing Minneapolis-St. Paul International Airport (MSP) and directed the Metropolitan Airports Commission (MAC) to develop a noise mitigation plan examining measures to the 60 day-night average sound level (DNL). The DNL is designed to evaluate land use compatibility based on human tolerance of noise in certain facilities, such as single family homes. Since 1996, the 60 DNL has become the standard for corrective and preventive land use measures in the MSP environs and, in fact, the MAC has subsequently used that standard in its two Part 150 updates since that time. Although the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) designates the 65 DNL as the qualifying level for noise mitigation, it does allow local communities to set their own 121410-Support 60 DNL Resolution.doc DEVELOPMENT SPECIALIST standards rather than simply accept the 65 DNL as the significant noise threshold. The FAA Advisory Circular 150/5020-1 states: "The responsibility for determining the acceptable and permissible land uses remains with the local authorities. FAA determinations under Part 150 are not intended to substitute federally determined land uses for those detem~ined to be appropriate by local authorities in response to locally determined needs and values in achieving noise compatible land uses." The City of Richfield's establishment of the 60 DNL as the airport noise threshold for preventive and corrective land use measures in the environs of MSP is important in order to solidify our community's long standing position to the Metropolitan Council and the MAC as those entities continue to address airport operation impacts. Of concern is the MAC's Long Term Comprehensive Plan which projects that by 2030 there will be an expansion of the noise footprint around MSP with an additional 5,600 single family homes and 3,160 multi-family homes in the 60-64 DNL contours in the communities surrounding MSP. Of those homes, 1,578 single family and 1,256 multi-family homes are located in Richfield. Although the MAC's 2010 noise mitigation plan was conditioned on addressing noise to the 60 DNL, the MAC's 2030 program does not. The adoption of the attached resolution will make Richfield the third community which borders MSP (following Minneapolis and Eagan) to set the 60 DNL as the standard threshold for noise mitigation. Mendota Heights is also considering such action. III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION A. POLICY • In 1996, the MSP Noise Mitigation Committee recommended that all homes be mitigated to the 60 DNL. The MAC concurred as part of its expansion program and subsequently used the 60 DNL as a standard in its two Part 150 updates since that time. • The MAC's Comprehensive Plan projects that noise contours are expected. to grow, not decrease over time. The MAC addressed noise to the 60 DNL in its 2010 program. The communities surrounding MSP are seeking similar treatment for homes anticipated to be affected in the MAC's future expansion plans. • Richfield addressed the above concern to the Metropolitan Council during the MAC's Comprehensive Plan update in the spring of 2010, but the Metropolitan Council made no changes to address this concern citing the lack of cities having formally adopted the 60 DNL as the standard threshold for noise mitigation. Adopting the attached resolution will solidify the City's position and is responsive to the concern raised by the Metropolitan Council. • The City Councils of the cities of Minneapolis and Eagan approved resolutions for the~establishment of 60 DNL as the standard for airport noise for which corrective and preventative land use measures shall be undertaken on November 5, 2010 and on November 16, 2010, respectively. • The City of Mendota Heights is discussing a potential resolution with its Airport Relations Committee. B. CRITICAL TIMING ISSUES • N/A C. FINANCIAL • NIA D. LEGAL • Legal counsel has reviewed the attached resolution. E. ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS • Excessive noise is a serious hazard to the public health, welfare, safety, and the quality of life and a substantial body of science and technology exists by which excessive noise can be substantially abated. IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOlVIlV1ENDATION(S~ • Do not approve a resolution establishing the 60 DNL as the airport noise threshold for preventative and corrective land use measures in the environs of the Minneapolis-St. Paul International Airport. However, formally establishing the 60 DNL as the noise threshold unifies Richfield with other cities surrounding MSP as they seek support for future residential mitigation at the state level. V. ATTACI-IMENTS • Resolution VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING • N/A 5~-l RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING 60 DNL AS THE AIRPORT NOISE THRESHOLD FOR PREVENTIVE AND CORRECTIVE MEASURES IN THE ENVIRONS OF THE MINNEAPOLIS-ST. PAUL INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT WHEREAS, the City of Richfield residents are subject to airport noise as a result of operations at Minneapolis-St. Paul International Airport (MSP)and will continue to be subject to airport noise for the foreseeable future; and WHEREAS, FAA has determined that the responsibility for determining acceptable and permissible land uses 'and the relationships between specific properties and noise contours in response to locally determined needs and values in achieving compatible land uses rests with local authorities; and WHEREAS, in 1996 the Minnesota Legislature decided to expand the existing MSP and directed Metropolitan Airport Commission (MAC) to develop a noise mitigation plan examining measures to the 60 Day-Night Level ("DNL") contour; and WHEREAS, in 1996 the MSP Noise Mitigation Committee adopted recommendations including noise mitigation to the 60 DNL and recommended a modified program to homes through the 55 DNL contour; and WHEREAS, on October 28, 1996- MAC approved the MSP Noise Mitigation Committee recommendations including extending the residential sound insulation program for the area encompassed by the 2005 DNL 60 contour but did not approve a modified program to the 55 DNL contour; and WHEREAS, the State of Minnesota Advisory Council on Metropolitan Airport Planning, pursuant to the Legislature's direction to review the recommendation and comment to the Legislature, reviewed the recommendation and concurred with the Commission's recommendation; and WHEREAS, in its 2001 and 2004 Part 150 studies, the MAC stated that it considered a standard of 60 dB for eligibility for the MAC Sound Insulation Program; and WHEREAS, Metropolitan Council's Land Use Policy guidance indicates that residential land use within the 60 DNL contour is inconsistent without sound attenuation. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council affirms and ratifies that the 60 DNL contour is the City of Richfield's airport noise threshold for preventive and corrective noise mitigation in the environs of the Minneapolis-St. Paul International Airport. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this14th day of December 2010. Debbie Goettel, Mayor ATTEST: ancy Gibbs, City Clerk AGENDA SECTION: CONSENT AGENDA ITEM # SD '~ REPORT # 225 STAFF REPORT CITY COUNCIL MEETING DECEMBER 14, 2010 REPORT PREPARED BY: DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR REVIEW: REVIEWED BY CITY MANAGER: JIM TOPITZHOFER, RECREATION SERVICES DIRECTOR NAME, TITLE ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION: Consideration of a resolution authorizing acceptance of all grants and donations received by the Richfield Recreation Services Department and to authorize the city to administer the funds in accordance with grant a reements and terms rescried b donors. I. RECOMMENDED ACTION: By Motion: Approve the resolution authorizing acceptance of all grants and donations received by the Richfield Recreation Services Department and to authorize the city to administer the funds in accordance with grant agreements and terms prescribed by donors. II. BACKGROUND The Richfield Recreation Services Department received several grants and donations from various sources and to fund different projects. III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION A. POLICY • Minnesota Statute 465.03 requires every acceptance of a grant or devise of real or personal property of more two-thirds majority of the City Council. • The Administrative Services Department issued a memo on November 9, 2004 requiring that all grants and restricted donations to 1214 Rec Services Grants departments be received by resolution and by more than two-thirds majority of the City Council in accordance with Minnesota Statute 465.03. B. CRITICAL ISSUES • None C. FINANCIAL • All of the donations listed were given without obligation to provide any additional matching funds. D. LEGAL • Minnesota Statute 465.03 requires every acceptance of a grant or devise of real or personal property of more two-thirds majority of the City Council. E. ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS • None IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION(S~ • None V. ATTACHMENTS • Council Resolution VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING N/A 50-~ RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING ACCEPTANCE OF ALL GRANTS AND DONATIONS RECEIVED BY THE CITY OF RICHFIELD AND TO AUTHORIZE THE CITY TO ADMINISTER THE FUNDS IN ACCORDANCE WITH GRANT AGREEMENTS AND ' TERMS PRESCRIBED BY DONORS WHEREAS, Minnesota Statute 465.03 reads in part as follows: Any city, county, school district or town may accept a grant or devise of real or personal property and maintain such property for the benefi# of its citizens in accordance with the terms prescribed by the donor. Nothing herein shall authorize such acceptance or use for religious or sectarian purposes. Every acceptance shall be by resolution of the council adopted by two-thirds majority of its members, expressing such terms in full, and WHEREAS, the City of Richfield has received grants and donations as described below: DATE DONOR AMOtJ'NT June 2010 Qwest Famil and Work Develo ment Grant $1,000 June 2010 Nancy Nelson and Friends-Wood Lake Grant $11,000 July 2010 Best Bu Grant-Wood Lake $1,000 July-September 2010 Lunch Pro ram Federal Reimbursement Grant $56,180 August 2010 Betty Carr $5,000 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota, as follows: That the City Council of the City of Richfield hereby accepts all grants and donations as listed above for the year 2010 and authorizes the City to administer the funds in accordance with grant agreements and terms prescribed by donors. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this 14th day of December, 2010. Debbie Goettel, Mayor ATTEST: Nancy Gibbs, City Clerk AGENDA SECTION: CONSENT AGENDA ITEM # SE ~ REPORT # 226 J STAFF REPORT CITY COUNCIL MEETING DECEMBER 14, 2010 REPORT PREPARED BY: MELISSA POEHLMAN, CITY PLANNER NAME. TITLE DEPARTMENT DIlZECTOR REVIEW: REVIEWED BY CITY MANAGER: ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION: Consideration of a conditional use permit to allow construction of a 120-foot replacement antenna tower (replacing the existing 144-foot tower) at the Richfield Municipal Center. I. RECOMMENDED ACTION: By Motion: Approve a conditional use permit to allow construction of a 120-foot replacement antenna tower at 6700 Portland Avenue. II. BACKGROUND There is an existing 144-foot antenna tower currently located at the northwest corner of Richfield City Hall. This tower provides necessary equipment for the Richfield Public Safety Dispatch Center, Richfield Fire Department paging, Hennepin County microwave dishes and Sprint cellar antennas. The tower is a legally nonconforming structure as current regulations require antenna towers to be . of a monopole design and a maximum of 75-feet tall. As part of the construction of the new Richfield Municipal Center, the existing antenna tower must be removed and replaced. Given the tower's status as legally nonconforming, City regulations allow its replacement at the existing height and design; however, the City has worked with contractor Motorola to design a tower that will be less visible, of the preferred monopole design, and shorter. The replacement tower will be 120-feet tall with the Richfield Fire Department paging equipment occupying the top-most location on the tower. 121410 - 6700 Portland CUP tower III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION A. POLICY Legally nonconforming structures may be continued, including through repair, replacement, restoration, maintenance or improvement in accordance with Section 509.25 of the Zoning Code. While the existing tower could be replaced as is in accordance with the Code, the City has worked with contractor Motorola to meet current requirements where possible. In. the Single-Family Residential District (R), telecommunication towers are conditionally permitted on government, school, utility and institutional site when in conformance with the applicable provisions of Section 544.25 of the Zoning Code. The proposed tower meets co-location, integration, structure-type (monopole), lighting, advertising and screening requirements. As mentioned above, current requirements permit towers of up to 75 feet in residential districts. The legally nonconforming status of the existing tower permits the replacement of a tower that exceeds this requirement. The new tower will be 24 feet shorter than the existing structure. The current Code also requires that monopoles maintain a minimum distance of twice the height of the tower from residential structures. There are twro instances where this setback (240 feet) is not met: 416-67th'Street and 500-67th Street. In both cases, the distance between the tower and residential structure is greatly increased and is permitted based on the legally nonconforming status of the existing structure. B. CRITICAL TIMING ISSUES • _ Approval of a tower is needed very soon in order to keep the Municipal Center project on time. C. FINANCIAL • N/A D. LEGAL • A public hearing was held before the Planning Commission on November 22, 2010. No members of the public spoke. • Notice of the public hearing was published in the Sun Current Newspaper and sent to residents and property owners within 350 feet of the affected parcel. • The Planning Commission recommended approval of the proposed tower (8=0). E. ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS • None N. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION(S~ • None V. ATTACHMENTS • Resolution Site plan Setback exhibit Tower equipment exhibit VI. PRINCIl'AL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING • None S~ ~ t RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION APPROVING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO ALLOW CONSTRUCTION OF A 120-FOOT TELECOMMUNICATION TOWER AT 6700 PORTLAND AVENUE (RICHFIELD MUNICIPAL CENTER) WHEREAS, an application has been filed with the City of Richfield which requests a conditional use permit to allow the construction of a 120-foot telecommunication tower at property commonly known. as 6700 Portland Avenue (Richfield Municipal Center), property legally described as: _ Lot 1, Block 1, Richfield City Hall, Hennepin County, Minnesota WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Richfield recommended approval of this requested conditional use permit at 6700 Portland Avenue at its November 22, 2010 meeting; and WHEREAS, this requested conditional use permit at 6700 Portland Avenue meets the requirements necessary for issuing a conditional use permit as specified in Richfield's Zoning Code, Section 547.09; and WHEREAS, this requested conditional use permit at 6700 Portland Avenue meets the requirements necessary for issuing a conditional use permit for a telecommunication tower and related features as specified in Richfield's Zoning Code, Section 544.25 with the exception of legally ,nonconforming items that are allowed to continue through replacement and improvement; and WHEREAS, the City has fully considered the request for approval of the conditional use permit; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota, as follows: 1. A conditional use permit is issued to allow a 120-foot telecommunication tower, as described in City Council Letter No. , on the Subject Property legally described above. 2. _This amended conditional use permit at 6700 Portland Avenue is subJ'ect to the following condition in addition to those specified in Section 547.09 of the City's Zoning Ordinance: • That the recipient apply for building permits as required-prior to any work beginning; and • That the recipient of this conditional use permit record this Resolution with the Coun ,pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Section 462.36, Subd. 1 and the City's~oning Ordinance Section 546.05, Subd. 7. 3. The conditional use permit shall remain in effect for so long as conditions regulating it are observed, and the conditional use permit shall expire if normal operation of the use has been discontinued for 12 or more months, as required by the City's Zoning Ordinance, Section 547.09, Subd. 9. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this 14th day of December 2010. e ie oette, ayor ATTEST: ancy i s, ity er V~ ••~ TG ' G $ 6 r 6 '6 g 8485 TG TG TG 84L8 II4Y=897~ ~ ~ ~' TG 7 TL TG 842.4 8428 .~G TG 844$ ' 896 T -S9~~-~. 8° GIP ~~ X840$ ~ 4 T j / TL G 2 ~ iNY=837.4 A/~/lO7G' Z' T An~.A^J \x' ~~ x6`13.9 xb~fl3~ %84?.8~ 7~ r-- ~7a 8446 844.1 IiGa fG Q/ •r.,. II1/a .9 8494 ~:^'X~-'~~ ~` ~,/'~ 847 { A ~ fwd ...^d 847+4 X7'4 846 , f 63 F ! 847.2 GW "aaa1777 843.4. EP ~--~- 848 6 FT. IdGH x 3 ~ ` 1 g~ A ._ .. _. ~~. i 1 WOOD P81Ce 9 I ~ Gs4 .. _. 847`4' Kl Y AGH ~ ~ F!WLE 84 ~• y 89$.7 ,~~yy ,$$h x8439 x&}9.7 x 6 P!. H[GN 647R~ m~ I WOOD x I I FI T:: +~1.[r: l~lra FH4GP 7s &17 ~ TENNIS COURTS 8472 .9 8 8A9$x x645.9 845.7% 847 TENN7& GOUfi'TS a ~. rasp 6 vaaD ~e4ce 73 x847.4 $4'1 ~ B~9 x648.1 ix 814'3, x84'$.9 ~ 81Y 847.1 ' 44 ~_ ^_' sn $ ~ Fr.1¢61+ Y'~ d1 847J ". I `~ LLB: ~R ~ ~~ Oi~'GRE7t ti RR"" ~~ ~,. m `6460 "- 842 ` at<sa _ ~,~..~~,,~,847J 847 8 ~ P o "'-~ -~ ~'~`~ . t 3 x a4~.a pse I rr~D rg x 847A ~ 08475 - 847 8 ~~y. $ &}7 847. p ~Jl ~ ~ 7ef ~ 5 ~ ~ ® ~Y ~ &177 x ®5 t ARE,4 ~ 1 "'~, ,^ 1 647s u ~ ~ ~ ~ 1 , s475 84 9 x &17.7 ~ ~5p ~Y,ST~E'T 1. ~ \ gat r,: .t b .4..... asoet t%. .,gs2,,~ ='~; L7 5 ~ •r A6P ~.7 8946 g 9449 ~, 1 H? x ~~ TL ~ Yx ~ ~~ 8 \ I 4 ~ JCS ' ~ k 4 :`41PF'ORT~` I I yg ,_ ~~ddl('i {I ,6 71,7 ~O ~~R ul F ~ ~ 6 Tg"2G ' T ~i~4 $ ~ e4sa x a'82 E 84L2 K+ ~ . L~" E+FTE x ~ 8 ~' 4. 842.1 +w.g y ~ t ry t9~ ~ 84429 054 On IE~9 ~~ 8 F i. I~P.6 i7 JD~ ~~~~~ f i ,~ sa22 ce woor ~~ ~l i TG ~ ~ z ~ r-Etta ~M Fcv TING Bl.'ZGK G.t'TY 6700 PORTL.4Ap VISROR PARK1NG 42 STALLS ~' 1` 't n Asa I 17 ~F_ -3 ~• ~~ r ~.. `~. ,t U1tAW.11VG A Rich{field Fire paging antenna at 110 feet. Ila•- D.oo"---~--- SpY'int III,I cel].ulaY 106' ~- o.oR° --_. ___ __ _ _I~" dntennas at 1.05 10 _. ~ feet ° Hennepin County microwave dish III at 94 ft . ~i ~''I / J 92' - 0.00" -- -- LAP SPI.I CE ° 3Jf-00" '~ ` ~: 5~-:, ~ IiIM NO ID CICRO FEA TURFS UNLI ; {FIGHT - I - i - - srrTlRV n vnNDi~F ~z B Inr~" it-i( i iz cRe l - 41E IGHi (LRSI z w - (LBSI 2 -- 1 1 -.- 1 ~ _ 51 L FIDN U VAI IfONT 5-77 O f8U' ilil( (n~72 GR65) .__ -..-- __- ____..--_ __-_ Sr _ . - 1 !i07 2.611 - 1.507 _ f TION C VAf 11D~JT !,-22 O. IBB" 7111C ~A572 GRF?7 ---~~ ------ E40 6AI4 A I 4 l10_T f01 CAGI: Pl ATF _ 7 _ _ ~ .' ANCHOR OUI I I.CNf IfI 9 UO' AGIS GR 75 141 6A __ I lii 1 MATE ynLnnvr 5 Sr a 7 o rnK tns7z cRSOi - ens -6a~ -, 1 _ _ inl fAGL PLATC (REIAOVC RLfOR E SEi Tl NC POLE) g7 97 -._ _ I _ _ SAII I}' CL IL1RINn C.A81_L II (IJGTH -~ 100.0(1'1 0 2 _.. _ -- cnmfvnNG ~ilr 6 _ BG _ - ---- fi Al V/NT/It'G ~ _ -- -- z - ~ - -4 - __ _ 91 _ ;TII ANO CI-IP (\AL140NT 6TAfJDADDI -- -- LH2 - - IB7 - - 7 2 _ TIAI (1 1101 C 7D l i r 2A 1 @ 0` 180° 1 40 46 9 _ _8 9 1 ~ I IAt 0 HDLC _ 70 (_G 18 1 L 0° , l?0°_240° - } B -- 6 -4 I_o 3 IIAI D IIOI L f5 B I 0 0° IDO° iinnn r ' 15 -- ~ - 30 MDI E , D u, x fa 7 D o°, i7a24o° - IB - - s4 _ ___ _I_ POI. C- f,AP _ 13 13 HDLe conRns _- tirnr.HEGI -- I 1 31' ----- Tl'P ~y z-cnnnn r-G.an{SD -- --- --- [{2.63" I10LE 1A RERn) L'2.7 ~ _ _ -- ~2_7~ - --- c o ~_ 7.25,. ivP -- --~--1-- ~- -% - -- - 0.0 41.75'. tvP ~ ~ R2.00" (z neap) rlnns R9.oo° 1. BASE PLATO ifl[CKNE55 = 2.250• (2 REOD) I 2. BASE FI ATL ALLOHAOL[ STRESS (KSI) = 50 '' 3. VEIVT ANO ^FlA IN HOLES PFlOV IDED A. N7.%Il:ll;~i 001.T CIRCLE DANE TER - 35 95' ' ,~ t!AX [I lU"A CAGE IENPLA TC OIANF. TER . 41 95" . BASE f'I_ATE ~iVCHORAGE CHARACTERI>TiCS -~ - ~~ IVU I L ~: I fhf iORED-FlEAC T_[_g IJ 1=nFl F041NOflTION DI:SIG^l . GI(1FTftJT f,H31 ftJ-KIPS -- SHEAR = 7,001 ' VGRTtf.At. 10, 681 ? 7. GAL VAIJIZEO PER A67tA A-123. 3. UESIGN CRI iTRl A: AFJSI/T[/. 222-G A, THIS STRUC TUnE I1AS UELIJ DLS [GkED F011 THE FOLLO4I IIJG LOADING f%P0511HE CAIEGDRV 0 `TR(1Ci11R[ C.l.A6S iF [CATION - 3 : i(JPOGIIAPfIV f.ATEGOA'/ I WINO l(IAD CASEB l.RE BASER DN 3 SECONIJ GUST ffJD 1 00 V1-AR HIND R ETURN PER I A. CASE: I: WIIJD 90 MT'tl f![IJ(J SPEED !T. CASE 2' W[ND = 50 HPH ICE AND WIIJD SPEED OD DEIGN [CE iI11 CKME5S 1 00 iNCll C. CASE 3' W[NO = 60 MPH HTNO SPEE^ U. [OIJTPFIEIJT J4TG C.ENTROIR R[II IOUI [CE 177 TH I CE OL6CI7IPTION Hi. HT. (FI) (FT) EPA 41T (FT*t21 (1.85) (F 1'P~2-) (LBS) 0[SICiIJ LAP SPLICE ~ aA.00' ------ I -30Fi I_IGIITNIJJG RRR 110 00 125 00 - ----- 11 95 300 . I -P0220 110.00 121 00 6-IJRX-G513D5-VTN . 3.36 38 29 09 10.78 1072 :139 110.00 I11.IA 3-ANOFlF:H EItJ190V512UO 110.00 110 A2 ' 9.78 126 3 09 90 19.90 1098 . 1 -13 IDII PROF ILE PI.A TFORFI ;J/ 110.00 111.50 - ' . 26.08 1688 7.23 70 25 447 4761 A i IIIGIi PF.ITFnRI4A1JC[(6GHZ) 94.00 `14.00 7-10022-~I 17.18 253 . 22.25 678 25.00 25.00 3-T-nRIJ. 3 F1 SihfJU-DFF, i3 F 25 00 25 00 (1.67 119 0 13 678 ]B 62 ' 649 . 5 FEEDL.[NES AHC PLACED [(JTERI DR TD POLE SIIAET (UI'JL . ESS NO1 EU OTI IE 1 i.99 RIlT 6C) 1683 plllll~ Richf..iel.d Dispatch control station antennas at 25 ft. 23' - 0.00" -- -- 3'- 0 00" U' - 0.00' IID1' Oi~ EASE PLATEI C` J SECTION II Dld 1A1 ION I TEt1 IRI LEIJG 111 BASE DOI IOP 0(1 r it ll(_ f! II -- - - __ l 2 - 6 00 2).n0 #j 70 CU I 0 18B" A 77 Ch i(.,I r-) 1 Inn Ir! r,l ( 111 r IE OniE e~en 2 I - 2.00 21. 6 iA 9tf' 0 100__ / /! 6 ICST- - ..09089 1 0100 (17 ~ nn1E ~ Of /29/10 KIIO 3 23 7 00 I.~. BG i~ IS' U IBH' ,°7) f.i 1(S1 T cpI TInJ J.II T(1(T[ll n !IJ(. I 1 0 PUI f- ,III IIICHFIFI R I:.J O~UB AGENDA SECTION: CONSENT AGENDA ITEM # SF REPORT # 227 r STAFF REPORT CITY COUNCIL MEETING DECEMBER 14, 2010 REPORT PREPARED BY: REVIEWED BY CITY ~' ; -' MANAGER: ~. ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION: Accept the change order report for the Richfield Municipal Project for an aggregate net effect of $5,371 in items included in the project budget. I. RECOMMENDED ACTION: By Motion: Accept the Richfield Municipal Center change order report for an aggregate net effect of $5,371 in items included within the ro'ect bud et. II. BACKGROUND Resolution No. 10309 provides the City Manager the authority to approve change orders for all contracts awarded by the City Council for the construction of the new Richfield Municipal Center subject to the following limitations: • Up to an aggregate of $25,000 for non-budgeted items • Up to an aggregate of $100,000 for items within the project budget Following the approval of such change orders, the City Manager must report this information to the City Council. Attached is the list of the approved project change orders since the November 23, 2010 City Council meeting. Some change orders represent an increase to the originally awarded contract and some represent a decrease. The aggregate net effect of the change orders before the Council on December 14, 2010 is $5,371. All of the change orders are budgeted items. Total net project change orders to-date is $55,463. 1214C0 PAM DMYTRENKO, ASSISTANT TO III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION A. POLICY • In order to maintain the construction schedule of the Richfield Municipal Center project and respond to change order requests in a timely manner, the City Council has authorized (Resolution No. 10309) the City Manager to approve change orders up to an aggregate value of $100,000 for budgeted items and up to an aggregate value of $25,000 for non-budgeted items. B. CRITICAL TIMING ISSUES • The City Manager must report approved change orders for the Richfield Municipal Center to the City Council at the next Council meeting. • These change orders have already been approved and, in most cases, implemented. C. FINANCIAL • The change orders before the Council for review on December 14, 2010, represent a net effect of $5,371 for budgeted items. • Total net project change orders to-date is $55,463. D. LEGAL • NA E. ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS • NA IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION~S~ • None V. ATTACHMENTS • Richfield Municipal Center Change Order Log VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING • None Change Order Loq COR # PR # Description Amount Subcontractor(s) - 1058 24 Transfer Duct Main Level Area 'A' _ _ - - 2,095.00 Thelen, Vinco 1071 _ 30 Exhaust Fan Revisions ___ _ _ _ __ _ 1,695.00 ( -- - Thelen, Vinco -1074 33 __ __ Stoop at Door A003B _ __ ___ _ 473.OO~ _ _ __ Gresser, Hollen back , lmperial _ 1075 _ 34 Revision to Electrical Room A002 _ (811.00) _ _ __ _ Hollenback, Kendell 10_78 __ 36 Generator Floor Drain _ _ 1,410.00 Egan, Thelen 1080 38 _ Canopy Revision at Grid 12 between 'N' and 'O' 1,612.00 _ _ _ Division V, RTL 1081 39 _ Transformer Location Revision No. 2 - _ _- 666.00 Imperial Developers, Vinco 1091 42 Revisions at Police Patio (4,052.00) AIW, AME 1092 _ 43 _ Lighting, Power, and Systems Revisions to Firing Range _ 1,338.00 Action Target, Vinco, Sonus 1094 ------- 46 -- Revisions at Retaining Wall -North of Exhaust Tower - _- (4,418.00) Gresser, AIW, AME 1096 -- - 47 -- __ _ Shaft Wall Revisions at Stairwa s _ - - Y _ __ (1,516.00) - -- - RTL 1103 ____~ -___- - Patch on 67th, sidewalk, entrance to tennis court, ravel arkin _____ _ - _ _ g p g ~ 6,535.00 -- T.A. Schifsky & Sons 1104 - _ Raise 2 Duct Openings in Apparatus Bay Mezzanine ~ 1,188.00 Hollenback 1111 55 _ "Rope wicks" at window, SF & CW sills _ ~ - 2,546.00 WL Hall - --- -- -- ------ - Net Change Orders --- ------- --- ~ 5,371.00 - - 'C`I AGENDA SECTION: CONSENT AGENDA ITEM # SG REPORT # 228 STAFF REPORT CITY COUNCIL MEETING DECEMBER 14, 2010 REPORT PREPARED BY: JIM TOPITZHOFER, RECREATION SERVICES DIRECTOR DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR REVIEW: REVIEWED BY CITY MANAGER: e' NAME, TITLE -~+~- ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION: Consideration of an addendum to the Hennepin County Residential Recycling Grant Agreement. I. RECOMMENDED ACTION: By Motion: Approve the addendum to the Hennepin County Residential Recycling Grant Agreement, extending the agreement through 2011. II. BACKGROUND The City of Richfield receives a municipal recycling grant from Hennepin County each year to coordinate recycling initiatives. 90% of this grant is given to Richfield residents as a quarterly utility bill refund and 10% is used to cover administrative costs of the recycling program. The City of Richfield's annual waste-tonnage report to Hennepin County serves as the application for the program. The amount of the grant varies from one agreement to another; the 2010 grant was approximately $87,000. Hennepin County has requested that this addendum to the 2008-2010 agreement be processed by the end of 2010 to extend the agreement through 2011. 1214 Recycling Addendum III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION A. POLICY • Richfield supports a residential recycling program as part of local environmental management. $. CRITICAL 'T'IMING ISSUES • Hennepin County requires the approval of this addendum by the end of 2010 to continue the agreement through 2011. C. FINANCIAL • The City acts as a community partner and, with this grant, no expenses are incurred to administer this program. D. LEGAL N/A E. ENVIlZONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS • Wood Lake Nature Center Manager Karen Shragg is the Recycling Coordinator and promotes and educates people about practices that are friendly to the environment. IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION~S~ • Do not approve the agreement, preventing the implementation of the recycling program. • Deferring action is not an alternative as the grant deadline needs to be met. V. ATTACHMENTS • Addendum to Recycling Grant Agreement with Hennepin County. VI. PRINCII'AL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING None .~ ~ - i Amendment 1 to Contract No: A081248 AMENDMENT 1 TO RESII)EN'TIAL RECYCLING GRANT AGREEMENT This Amendment 1 to Residential Recycling Grant Agreement (the "Amendment") is between the COUNTY OF HENNEPIN, STATE OF MINNESOTA (the "COUNTY") A-2300 Government Center, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55487, on behalf of the Hennepin County Department of Environmental Services, 417 North Fifth Street, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55401-1397 ("DEPARTMENT") and the CITY OF RICHFIELD, 6700 Portland Avenue South, Richfield, Minnesota 55423-2599 ("CITY"). WHEREAS, the COUNTY and the CITY entered into athree-year Residential Recycling Grant Agreement, Contract No. A081248 (the "Agreement"), for a residential recycling grant commencing on January 1, 2008; and WHEREAS, the County Board, by Resolution No. 10-0486, adopted on November 16, 2010, approved the Hennepin County Residential Recycling Funding Policy for the period January 1, 2008, through December 31, 201 1, and authorized grant funding for municipal recycling programs consistent with said policy; and WHEREAS, the parties desire to amend the Agreement to extend the term. NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual promises and agreements contained herein, the parties agree as follow: 1. Paragraph a. of Section 1, TERM AND COST OF THE AGREEMENT, shall be amended to read as follows: This Agreement shall commence on execution and terminate on December 31, 2011, unless terminated earlier pursuant to the provisions set forth herein. 2. Paragraph b.4. of Section 2, SERVICES TO BE PROVIDED, shall be amended to read as follows: The CITY shall submit, on forms provided by the COUNTY, a Final 2008 Report by February 15, 2009; a Final 2009 Report by February 15, 2010; a Fina12010 Report by February 15, 201 l; and a Final 2011 Report by February 15, 2012. The CITY shall submit an updated Grant Application by February 15 of each year. 3. Except as hereinabove amended, the terms, conditions and provisions of the Agreement shall remain in full force and effect. ~V ~~ COUNTY BOARD AUTHORIZATION Reviewed by the County Attorney's Office Assistant County Attorney Date: COUNTY OF HENNEPIN STATE OF MINNESOTA By: Chair of Its County Board ATTEST: Deputy/Clerk of County Board Rec®mmended f®r Approval By: Director, Department of Environmental Services Date: Date: By: Richard P. Johnson, County Administrator Date: By: Assistant County Administrator, Public Works Date: CITY OF RICHFIELD CITY warrants that the person who executed this Agreement is authorized to do so on behalf of CITY as required by applicable articles, bylaws, resolutions or ordinances.* Signature:, Printed Name: Date: *CITY shall submit applicable documentation (articles, bylaws, resolutions or ordinances) that confirms the signatory's delegation of authority. This documentation shall be submitted at the time CONTRACTOR returns the Agreement to the COUNTY. Documentation is not required for a sole proprietorship. AGENDA SECTION: CONSENT AGENDA ITEM # SH REPORT # 229 ~~ STAFF REPORT CITY COUNCIL MEETING DECEMBER 14, 2010 REPORT PREPARED BY: DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR REVIEW: REVIEWED BY CITY MANAGER: MELISSA POEHLMAN, CITY PLANNER ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION: City Council confirmation of City Manager's reappointment of Hearing Examiners Connie Murray and Paul Wasko. I. RECOMMENDED ACTION: By Motion: Confirm the City Manager's reappointment of Connie Murray and Paul Wasko fortwo-year terms as Hearing Examiners. II. BACKGROUND The hearing officer procedure was established by the City Council in 1985 to hear and decide requests for variances to the literal provisions of the zoning code where unique circumstances and undue hardship are present. City ordinances provide for the appointment of Hearing Examiners by the City Manager subject to confirmation by the Council (547.11 Subd. 2). The current terms of Hearing Examiners Connie Murray and Paul Wasko expire December 31, 2010. III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION A. POLICY • Both Ms. Murray and Mr. Wasko have experience, training and knowledge of land use issues and warrant reappointment. 121410 -Hearing Examiners Ms. Murray has served as a Hearing Examiner since 1985. Mr. Wasko has served as a Hearing Examiner since 1997. B. CRITICAL TIMING ISSUES • The current appointments expire December 31, 2010. C. FINANCIAL • NIA D. LEGAL • N/A E. ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS • N/A IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION~S~ • Deny confirmation of the appointment of either or both Hearing Examiners. V. ATTACHMENTS • N/A VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING • N/A AGENDA SECTION: CONSENT AGENDA ITEM # SI REPORT # 230 STAFF REPORT CITY COUNCIL MEETING DECEMBER 14, 2010 REPORT PREPARED BY: BETSY OSBORN, SUPPORT SERVICES MANAGER NAME, TITLE DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR REVIEW: S/GNA' ,,,~ 4, REVIEWED BY CITY MANAGER: ~ ._ ~ ' .. .... .. ,:,. 4 Rr ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION: Consideration of the renewal of 2011 business licenses for 3.2 percent malt liquor sales and licenses to do business in Richfield. I. RECOMMENDED ACTION: By Motion: • Approve the 2011 renewal of named business licenses for 3.2 percent malt liquor sales; and • Approve licenses to operate named businesses in the City of Richfield. II. BACKGROUND The below listed businesses have not been required to have a staff report prepared in the past, nor is there a requirement for a public hearing to be held for renewal of these type of licenses. Staff has presented a report for each business at the time that they originally applied for and received Council approval to operate their businesses or to sell malt liquor at their businesses in the City of Richfield. For the sake of preserving time, the license renewal requests were placed on the consent calendar. However, a staff report is presented to the City Council for informational purposes. The businesses named below with the corresponding licenses are presented for Council approval on this date. 1214 Annual Renewal of Consent Licenses Licenses to Operate in Richfield • Airport Taxi - 11 vehicles • A New Star Limousine & Taxi Service - 8 vehicles • Suburban Taxi Corporation - 5 vehicles • Gold Star Taxi - 27 vehicles • Black & White Taxi - 5 vehicles • Latino Express - 10 vehicles • Ecuadorian Express - 3 vehicles • Twin Cities Airport Taxi - 5 vehicles • Latino Americano - 8 vehicles • Paul's Rentals & Sales: Trailers and Trucks Rental License to Sell 3.2 Percent Malt Liquor • Aldi Foods -Off-Sale • EI Jalapeno -Off-Sale • Kwik Way Foods -Off Sale • RBF Corporation of Wisconsin (Rainbow Foods) -Off-Sale • Richfield U.S. -Off-Sale • Sandy's Tavern - On-Sale • SuperAmerica #4186 -Off-Sale • SuperAmerica #4188 -Off-Sale • SuperAmerica #4191 -Off-Sale • SuperAmerica #4615 -Off-Sale • Target Corporation -Off-Sale • Vina Restaurant - On-Safe III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION A. POLICY • All businesses must annually request renewal of their licenses to the City Council. • Businesses must meet the set requirements for renewal of their licenses. B. CRITICAL ISSUES • All license fees must be paid and application forms submitted in order to be considered for license renewal. C. FINANCIAL • All businesses listed have met the requirements and paid the required fees. D. LEGAL • N/A E. ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS • N/A IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION~S~ • Deny the request for the renewal of 2011 business licenses for 3.2 percent malt liquor sales and licenses to do business in Richfield. This would result in the applicants not being able to conduct business within the City in 2011. However, there have been no issues with any of these establishments and the Public Safety Department has found no reason to deny any of the requested licenses. V. ATTACHMENTS • None VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING • None; however, businesses have been notified of the date of presentation to the City Council. AGENDA SECTION: CONSENT AGENDA ITEM # SJ REPORT # 253 STAFF REPORT ~- CITY COUNCIL MEETING 3 - DECEMBER 14, 2010 REPORT PREPARED BY: DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR REVIEW: REVIEWED BY CITY MANAGER: r~ l~ FRANCIE FLETCHER HUMAN RESOURCES COORDINATOR NAME, T/TLE ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION: Consideration of the attached resolution amendment to the Flexible Spending Account Benefit Plan Document. I. RECOMMENDED ACTION: By Motion: Adopt the attached resolution amending the Flexible Spendin Account Plan Document. II. BACKGROUND The City of Richfield provides City employees a Flexible Spending Account Plan benefit that is regulated by federal law. The Flexible Spending Account Plan allows employees to designate and set aside a biweekly deduction that may be used on a pre-tax basis for IRS approved medical, insurance and childcare-related expenditures. Total Administration Services Corporation (TASC) has been the administrator of City's Flexible Spending Account Plan since 2008. The City researched other Flexible Spending Account administrators in early 2010 and found that Alliance Benefit Group, inc. (ABG) allows for better management of cash flow within the City's Self Insurance Fund. Significantly, by changing to ABG, the City will retain contributions to the fund, in contrast to TASC that required the City to prepay claims upfront. In addition, ABG offers employees the ability to use a debit card for withdrawals from their account and is more customer friendly for employee claims submitted. FIexPlanRev 12-14-10 In order to change vendors, it is necessary for the City Council to adopt a resolution formally approving a new Plan Document for the City Flexible Spending Accounts. III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION A. POLICY • The City offers a Flexible Spending Account Plan to eligible City employees. • The Plan Document follows federal regulations for such plans. B. CRITICAL ISSUES • Changing administrators does not interfere with federal regulations. • The basic Plan Document mirrors the existing Plan Document in every other way. C. FINANCIAL • The City will benefit from this change because it will no longer be required to submit a quarterly deposit to the claims administrator for claims that have not yet occurred. D. LEGAL • The proposed change conforms to federal law for such plans. IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION~S~ • None V. ATTACHMENTS • Plan amendment resolution VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING None. RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING AMENDMENT TO THE CITY OF RICHFIELD HEALTH CARE AND DEPENDENT DAY CARE FLEXIBLE SPENDING ACCOUNT PLAN WHEREAS,- the City of Richfield previously adopted the City of Richfield Health Care and Dependent Day Care Expense Reimbursement Plan (Plan) January 1, 1991; and WHEREAS, the City of Richfield desires to amend and restate such Plan as presented to the City Council; and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City of Richfield Health Care and Dependent Day Care Expense Reimbursement Plan be amended, restated and adopted in the form presented to the City Council. The stated change will be effective January 1, 2011; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that any authorized persons of the City are hereby authorized to make such contributions from the funds of the City as are necessary to carry out the provisions of said Plan at any time; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that in the event any conflict arises between the provisions of said Plan and the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (FRIBA) or any other applicable law or regulation (as such law or regulation may be interpreted or amended), the City shall resolve such conflict in a manner which complies with ERISA or such law or regulation. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this 14th day of December 2010. Debbie Goettel, Mayor ATTEST: Nancy Gibbs, City Clerk AGENDA SECTION: PUBLIC HEARINGS AGENDA ITEM # 7A REPORT # 231 STAFF REPORT CITY COUNCIL MEETING ~ DECEMBER 14, 2010 REPORT PREPARED BY BETSY OSBORN, SUPPORT SERVICES MANAGER NAMty T/7ZG' DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR (; , REVIEW: REVIEWED BY CITY MANAGER: ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION: Public hearing for consideration of the renewal of 2011 pawnbroker and secondhand goods dealer licenses for Metro Pawn & Gun, Inc. I. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Conduct and Close the Public Hearing and By Motion: • Approve the renewal of the 2011 pawnbroker and secondhand goods dealer licenses for Metro Pawn & Gun, Inc., 7529 Lyndale Avenue South. II. BACKGROUND On November 2, 2010 the City received the renewal application and other required documents for pawnbroker and secondhand goods dealer licenses for Metro Pawn & Gun, Inc. The applicant has paid the required license fees. The Public Safety background investigation has been completed and reveals the following: Mark and Elizabeth Nichols are the owners of this establishment. John Alan Kunst serves as the store manager. None of these individuals has any known criminal record. A current list of officers is attached. The applicants are the owners of the property located at 7529 Lyndale. 1214 PH Metro Pawn & Secondhand Goods Licenses Renewal for 2011 All general sales, real estate and withholding taxes have been paid and are current. The $5,000 bond has been submitted. There were 70 Public Safety/Police contacts with Metro Pawn & Gun, Inc. from October 2009 through September 2010. This compares with 16 contacts for the previous year. Although this number appears to have increased a considerable amount, the majority of these contacts were due to extra patrol. A breakdown of these contacts is attached to this report. Environmental Health staff have received no complaints regarding Metro Pawn & Gun, Inc. in the previous year. The owner of the business continues to act in a cooperative manner with the Public Safety Department on the recovery of stolen articles. The notice of public hearing was published in the Sun Current newspaper on November 25, 2010. III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION A. POLICY • The applicant has complied with all of the provisions of the City codes pertaining to pawnbroker and secondhand goods dealer licensing. • Based on the information supplied by the applicant and the investigation conducted, there appears to be no reason to deny the issuance of the licenses requested. B. CRITICAL ISSUES • N/A C. FINANCIAL • NIA D. LEGAL • N/a E. ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS • N/A IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION(S~ This agenda item is the first request out of two for the renewal of pawnbroker and secondhand goods dealers' licenses. If no Council Member objects, the Council may conduct a single public hearing for all of the license approvals and may pass all of the resolutions with a single motion. If a single/individual public hearing is called for, the Mayor should require each speaker to identify the particular license to which the person is speaking. Any Council Member may request that the question be divided, if the Council Member wishes to address any one or all of the proposed resolutions by a separate motion. The Council could decide to continue the hearing. However, if the hearing is continued beyond January 1, 2011, the Council should consider granting a temporary license to allow the applicant to continue the pawnbroker and secondhand goods dealer business until the rescheduled hearing can be conducted. V. ATTACHMENTS • List of officers. Breakdown of Public Safety Contacts. VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING Mark Nicols, Owner of the Establishment. John Kunst, Manager ~~~] METRO PAWN & GUN, INC. Officers Mark Nichols Elizabeth Nichols John Alan Kunst Owner Owner Store Manager PUBLIC SAFETY CONTACTS October 2009 -September 2010 Metro Pawn & Gun, Inc. 2009 2010 TOTAL CONTACTS 16 70 CRIMINAL CONTACTS 12 6 Incidents (see bottom of page for specifics) (11) (6) Alarm (1) (0) MISC. NON-CRIMINAL 4 64 Assists (4) (63) Traffic (0) (0) Inspections/Licensing (0) (0) Medical/Fire (0) (1) The criminal contacts from October 2009 through September 2010 were: three thefts, one suspicious person/activity, one recovered stolen p roperty, and one harassing communication. (Numbers in parenthesis are included in total cont act figures) AGENDA SECTION: PUBLIC HEARINGS AGENDA ITEM # 7B REPORT # 232 ~' STAFF REPORT CITY COUNCIL MEETING DECEMBER 14, 2010 REPORT PREPARED BY: BETSY OSBORN, SUPPORT SERVICES MANAGER Nanrc, TITLE DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR ,.'- ~. REVIEW: ,` SIGNAl'U~ ° v - -- REVIEWED BY CITY `,, ~r. _ ~,~ "~ MANAGER: '~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~~. f` I: _ 'T - - ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION: Public hearing for consideration of the renewal of 2011 pawnbroker and secondhand goods dealer licenses for University Cash Company, LLC d/b/a Avi's Pawn & Jewelry, 6414 Nicollet Avenue South. I. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Conduct and Close Public Hearing and By Motion: • Approve the renewal of pawnbroker and secondhand goods dealer licenses for University Cash Company, LLC d/b/a Avi's Pawn & Jewelry, 6414 Nicollet Avenue South. II. BACKGROUND On November 3, 2010, the City received the renewal application and other required documents for pawnbroker and secondhand goods dealer licenses for University Cash Company, LLC d/b/a Avi's Pawn & Jewelry, 6414 Nicollet Avenue South. The applicant has paid the required fees. The Public Safety background investigation has been completed and reveals the following: Andy Jason Strauss is the sole owner of the establishment and also serves as the store manager. He has no known criminal record. 1214 PH Avi's Pawn and Secondhand Goods Licenses Renewal The lease between the applicant and the property owner is in effect with all payments current. All general sales, real estate and withholding taxes have been paid and are current. A $5,000 bond has been submitted. There were 59 Public Safety contacts with Avi's Pawn from October 2009 through September 2010. This compares with 10 contacts for the previous year. Although this number appears to have increased a considerable amount, the majority of these contacts were extra patrol due to a previous robbery at this location. A breakdown of these contacts is attached to this report. Environmental Health staff has received no complaints regarding Avi's Pawn in the past year. The owner of the business continues to act in a cooperative manner with the Public Safety Department on the recovery of stolen articles. The notice of public hearing was published in the Sun Current newspaper on November 25, 2010. III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION ~ A. POLICY • The applicant has complied with all of the provisions of the City codes pertaining to pawnbroker and secondhand goods dealer licensing. • Based on the information supplied by the applicant and the investigation conducted, there appears to be no reason to deny the issuance of the licenses requested. B. CRITICAL IssvEs • N/A C. FINANCIAL • N/A D. LEGAL • N/A E. ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS N/A IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION~S~ • The Council could decide to continue the hearing. However, if the hearing is continued beyond January 1, 2011, the Counci! should consider the granting of temporary licenses to allow the applicant to continue the pawnbroker and secondhand good deal business until the rescheduled hearing can be conducted. V. ATTACHMENTS List of officers. Breakdown of Public Safety contacts. VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING • Andy Strauss, Owner X8-1 CAPITAL CASH, LLC d/b/a/ AVI'S PAWN & JEWELRY Officers Andy Strauss Owner PUBLIC SAFETY CONTACTS October 2009 -September 2010 Avi's Pawn & Jewelry 2009 2010 TOTAL CONTACTS 10 59 CRIMINAL CONTACTS 9 5 Incidents (see bottom of page for specifics) (5) (5) Alarm (4) (0) MISC. NON-CRIMINAL 1 54 Assists (1) (53) Traffic (0) (0) Inspections/Licensing (0) (0) Medical/Fire (0) (1) The criminal contacts from October 2009 through September 2010 were: three thefts, one suspicious person/activity, and one harassing communication. (Numbers in parenthesis are included in total contact figures) AGENDA SECTION: PUBLIC HEARINGS AGENDA ITEM # 8A REPORT # 233 ~' STAFF REPORT CITY COUNCIL MEETING DECEMBER 14, 2010 REPORT PREPARED BY: DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR REVIEW: REVIEWED BY CITY Lrl ~, MANAGER: NaNrc, Tirc,c ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION: Public hearing for consideration of the renewal of 2011 club on-sale and Sunday liquor licenses for Fred Babcock V.F.W. Post No. 5555, Inc., d/b/a Four Nickels Food and Drink, 6715 Lake Shore Drive. I. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Conduct and Close the Public Hearing and By Motion: • Approve the renewal of 2011 club on-sale and Sunday liquor licenses for Fred Babcock V.F.W. Post No. 5555, Inc., d/b/a Four Nickels Food and Drink, 6715 Lake Shore Drive. II. BACKGROUND On October 29, 2010, the City received the renewal application and other required documents for-club on-sale and Sunday liquor licenses for Fred Babcock V.F.W. Post No. 5555, Inc., d/b/a Four Nickels Food and Drink. The Public Safety background investigation has been completed and reveals the following: John Ellis continues to serve as Chair of the House Committee. The on-premise General Manager is Gin Ng. Neither of these individuals has any known criminal record. A current list of officers is attached. BETSY OSBORN, SUPPORT SERVICES MANAGER 1214 PH Fred Babcock VFW Club On-sale and Sunday Liquor Licenses Renewal for 2011 All general real estate and withholding taxes have been paid and are current. The property is owned by Gramarcy Park Cooperative. The required proof of liquor liability insurance coverage has been received showing Integrity Mutual Insurance Company affording the required coverage. Proof of workers' compensation insurance coverage has also been supplied. An accountant's statement has been submitted covering the period of October 2009 through September 2010 and indicates that food sales accounted for 41.8% of the total sales, while alcohol accounted for 51.7% of the total sales. Miscellaneous sales accounted for 6.5% of the total sales. The VFW is exempt from meeting the 50% or more food sales requirement due to the fact that they are aclub/veterans organization and are exempt. There were nine Public Safety/Police contacts with Fred Babcock VFW Post No. 5555 from October 2009 through September 2010. This compares with two for the previous year. A breakdown of these contacts is attached to this report. Environmental Health staff received no complaints regarding the VFW in the past year. Club on-sale and Sunday liquor licenses require owners of these establishments to comply with Resolution No. 9511, which outlines discipline they can expect if any ongoing problems occur. A copy has been given to the establishment. There are no distance requirements for notifying neighbors of the issuance or renewal of a club on-sale and Sunday liquor licenses. The Notice of Public Hearing was published in the Richfield Sun Current on November 25, 2010. The most recent violation for the sale of alcohol to underage youth with Fred Babcock VFW Post No. 5555 was April 3, 2008. This was considered a second violation. Technically, it is a fifth violation, but due to the time that has elapsed between this violation and the previous violations on July 15, 1999, August 8, 2000, November 9, 2004 and April 13, 2007, it was counted as a second violation. There have been no other violations since 2008. III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION A. POLICY • The applicant has complied with all of the provisions of both City Codes and State Statutes pertaining to club on-sale and Sunday liquor licensing. • Based on the information supplied by the applicant and the investigation conducted, there appears to be no reason to deny the issuance of the licenses requested. B. CRITICAL ISSUES • The requirements of Resolution No. 9511 must be met. C. FINANCIAL • N/A D. LEGAL • N/A E. ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS • N/A IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION(S~ • This agenda item is the first request out of two for the renewal of club on-sale and Sunday liquor licenses. If no Council Member objects, the Council may conduct a single public hearing for all of the license approvals and may pass all of the resolutions with a single motion. If a single/individual public hearing is called, the Mayor should require each speaker to identify the particular license to which the person is speaking. Any Council Member may request that the question be divided, if the Council Member wishes to address any one or all of the proposed resolutions by a separate motion. • Continue the hearing. However, if the hearing is continued beyond January 1, 2011 the Council should consider the granting of license extensions to allow the applicant to continue to sell liquor until the rescheduled hearing can be conducted. • Suspend or revoke the licenses. Any suspension or revocation must, according to Minnesota Statute 340A.415, be based upon a finding that the licensee has failed to comply with an applicable statute, rule or ordinance relating to alcoholic beverages. The Council must also note that no revocation or suspension takes effect until the licensee has been afforded an opportunity for a hearing under Sections 14.57 to 14.70 of the Administrative Procedure Act. V. ATTACHMENTS • List of Officers Breakdown of Public Safety Contacts VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING • Gin Ng, Manager 8~ - I V.F.W. POST NO. 5555, INC. Post Officers John Ellis Gin Ng Chair of the House Committee On-Premise Manager PUBLIC SAFETY CONTACTS October 2009 -September 2010 FRED BABCOCK V.F.W. POST NO. 5555 2009 2010 TOTAL CONTACTS 2 9 CRIMINAL CONTACTS 1 6 Incidents (see bottom of page for specifics) (1) (4) Alarm (0) (2) MISC. NON-CRIMINAL 1 3 Assists (0) (1) Traffic (0) (0) Inspections/Licensing (0) (0) Medical/Fire (1) (2) The criminal contacts from October 2009 through September 2010 were: two disturbances, two alarms, one property damage accident, and one theft. (Numbers in parenthesis are included in total contact figures) AGENDA SECTION: PUBLIC HEARINGS AGENDA ITEM # 8B REPORT # 234 ~~' STAFF REPORT CITY COUNCIL MEETING DECEMBER 14, 2010 REPORT PREPARED BY: BETSY OSBORN, SUPPORT SERVICES MANAGER NAME, TITLE DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR REVIEW: f., ~ - -~ f' SIGN RE ~ ~~,~ ~ _ / REVIEWED BY CITY MANAGER: ~ '~`~ ~ ~`~ + :. .. ~. --= , ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION: Public hearing for consideration of the renewal of 2011 club on-sale and Sunday liquor licenses for Minneapolis-Richfield American Legion Post 435, 6501 Portland Avenue South. I. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Conduct and Close the Public Hearing and By Motion: • Approve the renewal of 2011 club on-sale and Sunday liquor licenses for Minneapolis-Richfield American Legion Post 435, 6501 Portland Avenue South. II. BACKGROUND On October 27, 2010, the City received the application and other required documents for the renewal of club on-sale and Sunday liquor licenses for Minneapolis-Richfield American Legion Post 435. The applicant has paid the require license fees. The Public Safety background investigation has been completed and reveals the following: The structure of the organization remains unchanged from the previous year. Craig Anthony Deneen serves as President; Mervyn Becker serves as Treasurer; and Roger Wysong continues to serve as the Club Manager. None of these individuals has any known criminal record. A current list of officers is attached. 1214 PH American Legion club on-sale and Sunday Liquor Licenses All general real estate and withholding taxes have been paid and are current. The property and building continue to be owned by the American Legion. Proof of liquor liability insurance has been received showing Integrity Mutual Insurance Company affording the coverage. Proof of worker's compensation insurance coverage has also been supplied. An accountant's statement has been prepared and submitted. This statement covers the period from October 2009 through September 2010 and indicates that food sales accounted for 20.5% of the total sales, while liquor sales accounted for 79.5% of the total sales. The Minneapolis-Richfield American Legion is exempt from meeting the 50% or more food sales requirement due to the fact that they are a club/veterans organization. There were 18 Public Safety/Police contacts with the American Legion from October 2009 through September 2010. This compares with 19 contacts for the previous year. A breakdown of these contacts is attached to this report. Environmental Health staff received no complaints regarding the Minneapolis- Richfield American Legion Post #435 in the past year. Club on-sale and Sunday liquor licenses require owners of these establishments to comply with Resolution No. 9511, which outlines the discipline they can expect if any ongoing problems occur. A copy of this resolution has been given to the owner of the establishment. There are no distance requirements to notify neighbors of the issuance or renewal of club on-sale and Sunday liquor licenses. The Notice of Public Hearing was published in the Richfield Sun Current on November 25, 2010. The most recent violation for the sale of alcohol to underage youth with the Minneapolis-Richfield American Legion was March 19, 2010. This was considered a first violation. Technically, it was a third violation, but due to the time that had elapsed between this violation and the previous violations, in April 2002 and July 1999, it was considered a first violation. III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION A. POLICY • The applicant has complied with all of the provisions of both City Codes and State Statutes pertaining to club on-sale and Sunday liquor licensing. • Based on the information supplied by the applicant and the investigation conducted, there appears to be no reason to deny the issuance of the licenses requested. B. CRITICAL ISSUES • The requirements of Resolution No. 9511 must be met. C. FINANCIAL • N/A D. LEGAL • N/A E. ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS • N/A IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATIONr;S~ • Continue the hearing. However, if the hearing is continued beyond January 1, 2011, the Council should consider the granting of license extensions to allow the applicant to continue to sell liquor until the rescheduled hearing can be conducted. • Suspend or revoke the licenses. Any suspension or revocation must, according to Minnesota State Statute 340A.415, be based upon a finding that the licensee has failed to comply with an applicable statute, rule or ordinance relating to alcoholic beverages. The Council must also note that no revocation or suspension takes effect until the licensee has been afforded an opportunity for a hearing under Sections 14.57 to 14.70 of the Administrative Procedure Act. V. ATTACHMENTS • List of Officers Breakdown of Public Safety Contacts VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING • American Legion Club Officer Sg - ~ MINNEAPOLIS-RICHFIELD AMERICAN LEGION Craig Deneen Mervyn Becker Roger Wysong President Treasurer Club Manager PUBLIC SAFETY CONTACTS October 2009 -September 2010 Mpls-Richfield American Legion 2009 2010 TOTAL CONTACTS 19 18 CRIMINAL CONTACTS 11 11 Incidents (see bottom of page for specifics) (10) (11) Alarm (1) (0) MISCELLANEOUS NON-CRIMINAL 8 7 Assists (0) (3) Traffic (3) (2) Inspections/Licensing (2) (1) Medical/Fire (2) (1) Animal (1) (0) The criminal contacts from October 2009 through September 2010 were: four suspicious persons, two drunkenness, one theft, one fight, one found property, one theft from vehicle and one juvenile arrest. (Numbers in parenthesis are included in total contact figures) AGENDA SECTION: PUBLIC HEARINGS AGENDA ITEM # 9A REPORT # 235 STAFF REPORT CITY COUNCIL MEETING ~ DECEMBER 14, 2010 REPORT PREPARED BY: DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR REVIEW: r REVIEWED BY CITY MANAGER: ~, ._.__. BETSY OSBORN, SUPPORT SERVICES MANAGER N~,ur:, TITLE ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION: Public hearing for consideration of the renewal of 2011 on-sale wine and 3.2 percent malt liquor licenses for Chipotle Mexican Grill of Colorado, LLC, 7644 Lyndale Avenue South, Richfield, MN. I. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Conduct and close the public hearing and by motion: • Approve the renewal of 2011 on-sale wine and 3.2 percent malt liquor licenses for Chipotle Mexican Grill of Colorado, LLC, 7644 Lyndale Avenue South. __ II. BACKGROUND On October 22, 2010, the City received the renewal application and other required documents for on-sale wine and 3.2 percent malt liquor licenses for Chipotle Mexican Grill of Colorado, LLC, 7644 Lyndale Avenue South. The applicant has paid the required license fees. The Public Safety background investigation has been completed and reveals the following: The corporate structure of the organization remains unchanged from the previous year: Montgomery Frederick Moran serves as the LLC Manager out of Boulder, Colorado and Matthew Steven Ells serves as the LLC Manager out of Denver, 1214 PH Chipotle On-Sale Wine and Malt Liquor Licenses for 2011 Colorado. Flor Hernandez Pineda serves as the On-premises Manager. None of these individuals has any known criminal record. All general real estate, state sales and withholding taxes have been paid and are current. The property is owned by Lyndale Gateway, LLC. The lease between the applicant and the landlord are in effect with all payments current. Proof of liquor liability insurance coverage has been received showing Zurich American Insurance Company affording the coverage. Proof of workers' compensation insurance has also been supplied. The accountant's statement has been prepared and submitted. This statement covers the period from October 2009 through September 2010, and indicates that food sales accounted for 91.77% of the total sales, while alcohol accounted for .33% of the total sales, and miscellaneous sales accounted for 7.9% of the total sales. There were 14 Public Safety/Police contacts with Chipotle Mexican Grill from October 2009 through September 2010. This compares with nine (9) contacts for the previous year. A breakdown of these contacts is attached to this report. Environmental Health staff received no complaints for Chipotle Mexican Grill in 2010. On-sale wine and 3.2 percent malt liquor licenses require owners of these establishments to comply with Resolution No. 9511, which outlines discipline they can expect if any on-going problems occur. A copy of this resolution has been given to the owner of the establishment. There are no distance requirements to notify neighbors of the issuance or renewal of on-sale wine and 3.2 percent malt liquor licenses. The Notice of Public Hearing was published in the Richfield Sun Current on November 25, 2010. Chipotle Mexican Grill of Colorado has received no violations for the sale of alcohol to underage youth. III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION A. POLICY ~ • The applicant has complied with all of the provisions of both City Codes and State Statutes pertaining to on-sale wine and 3.2 percent malt liquor licenses. Based on the information supplied by the applicant and the investigation conducted, there appears to be no reason to deny the issuance of the licenses requested. B. CRITICAL ISSUES • The requirements in Resolution No. 9511 must be met. C. FINANCIAL • N/A D. LEGAL • N/A E. ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS • N/A IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION(S~ • This agenda item is the first request out of seven for the renewal of the on- sale wine and 3.2 percent malt liquor licenses. If no Council Member objects, the Council may conduct a single public hearing for all of the license approvals and may pass all of the resolutions with a single motion. If a single/individual public hearing is called, the Mayor should require each speaker to identify the particular license to which the person is speaking. Any Council Member may request that the question be divided, if the Council Member wishes to address any one or all of the proposed resolutions by a separate motion. • Continue the hearing. However, if the hearing is continued beyond January 1, 2011, the Council should consider the granting of a license extension to allow the applicant to continue to sell liquor until the rescheduled hearing can be conducted. • Suspend or revoke the licenses. Any suspension or revocation must, according to Minnesota State Statute 340A.415, be based upon a finding that the licensee has failed to comply with an applicable statute, rule or ordinance relating to alcoholic beverages. The Council must also note that no revocation or suspension takes effect until the licensee has been afforded an opportunity for a hearing under Section 14.57 to 14.70 of the Administrative Procedure Act. V. ATTACHMENTS • List of Officers Breakdown of Public Safety Contacts VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING • Flor Hernandez Pineda, On-Premises Manager q~-~ Chipotle Mexican Grill of Colorado, LLC Directors and Officers Matthew Steven Ells Montgomery Frederick Moran Flor Hernandez Pineda LLC Manager -Denver, Co. LLC Manager -Boulder, Co. On-premise Manager PUBLIC SAFETY CONTACTS October 2009- September 2010 Chipotle Mexican Grill of Colorado, LLC 2009 2010 TOTAL CONTACTS 9 14 CRIMINAL CONTACTS 6 9 Incidents (see bottom of page for specifics) (4) (5) Alarm (2) (4) MISC. NON-CRIMINAL 3 5 Assists (1) (2) Traffic (2) (1) Inspections/Licensing (0) (1) Medical/Fire (0) (1) The criminal contacts from October 2009 through September 2010 were: two property damage accidents, one open door/window, one property hit and run accident, one domestic, and four alarms. (Numbers in parenthesis are included in total contact figures.) AGENDA SECTION: PUBLIC HEARINGS AGENDA ITEM # 9B REPORT # 236 ~' STAFF REPORT CITY COUNCIL MEETING DECEMBER 14, 2010 REPORT PREPARED BY: BETSY OSBORN, SUPPORT SERVICES MANAGER DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR REVIEW: REVIEWED BY CITY MANAGER: o' NAMB', TITLL' 1 ~...~ ~ ~~ ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION: Public hearing for consideration of the renewal of 2011 on-sale wine and 3.2 percent malt liquor licenses for Thompson's Fireside Pizza, Inc., d/b/a Fireside Pizza, 6736 Penn Avenue South. I. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Conduct and close the public hearing and by motion: • Approve the renewal of 2011 on-sale wine and 3.2 percent malt liquor licenses for Thompson's Fireside Pizza, Inc., d/b/a Fireside Pizza, 6736 Penn Avenue South. II. BACKGROUND On November 19, 2010, the City received the renewal application and other required documents for on-sale wine and 3.2 percent malt liquor licenses for Thompson's Fireside Pizza, tnc. d/b/a Fireside Pizza, 6736 Penn Avenue South. The applicant has paid the required license fees. The Public Safety background investigation has been completed and reveals the following: Richard Bruce Thompson is the sole owner of the establishment and continues to serve as the General Manager of the restaurant. He has no known criminal record. A current list of officers is attached. 1214 PH Thompson's Fireside Pizza Wine and Malt Liquor Licenses for 2011 The applicant is the sole owner of the premises located at 6736 Penn Avenue South. All general real estate taxes, state sales and withholding taxes have been paid and are current. The required proof of liquor liability insurance has been received showing West Bend Mutual affording the required coverage. Workers' Compensation insurance has also been supplied. An accountant's statement has been prepared and submitted. This statement covers the period from October 2009 through September 2010 and indicates that food sales accounted for 90.48% of the total sales, while alcohol accounted for 9.52% of the total sales. There were two Public Safety/Police contacts with Thompson's Fireside Pizza from October 2009 through September 2010. This compares with one contact for the previous year. A breakdown of these contacts is attached to this report. Environmental Health staff received no complaints regarding Thompson's Fireside Pizza in the previous year. On-sale wine and 3.2 percent malt liquor licenses require owners of these establishments to comply with Resolution No. 9511 which outlines discipline they can expect if any ongoing problems occur. A copy of this resolution has been given to the owner of the establishment. There are no distance requirements to notify neighbors of the issuance or renewal of on-sale wine and 3.2 percent malt liquor licenses. The Notice of Public Hearing was published in the Richfield Sun Current on November 25, 2010. Thompson's Fireside Pizza has received no violations for the sale of alcohol to underage youth. III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION A. POLICY • The applicant has complied with all of the provisions of both City Codes and State Statutes pertaining to on-sale wine and 3.2 percent malt liquor licensing. • Based on the information supplied by the applicant and the investigation conducted, there appears to be no reason to deny the issuance of the license requested. B. CRITICAL ISSUES • The requirements in Resolution No. 9511 must be met. C. FINANCIAL • N/A D. LEGAL • N/A E. ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS • N/A IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION(S~ • Continue the hearing. However, if the hearing is continued beyond January 1, 2011 the Council should consider the granting of license extensions to allow the applicant to continue to sell liquor until the rescheduled hearing can be conducted. Suspend or revoke the licenses. Any suspension or revocation must, according to Minnesota State Statute 340A.415, be based upon a finding that the licensee has failed to comply with an applicable statute, rule or ordinance relating to alcoholic beverages. The Council must also note that no revocation or suspension takes effect until the licensee has been afforded an opportunity for a hearing under Section 14.57 to 14.70 of the Administrative Procedure Act. V. ATTACHMENTS • List of Officers Breakdown of Public Safety contacts VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING • Richard Bruce Thompson, Owner q8-~ Thompson's Fireside Pizza, Inc. Fireside Pizza Directors and Officers Richard Thompson President/Owner -Manager PUBLIC SAFETY CONTACTS October 2009 through September 2010 Thompson's Fireside Pizza, Inc. 2009 2010 TOTAL CONTACTS 1 2 CRIMINAL CONTACTS 0 1 Incidents (see bottom of page for specifics) (0) (1) Alarm (0) (0) MISC. NON-CRIMINAL 1 1 Assists ~ (0) (0) Traffic (1) (0) Inspections/Licensing (0) (0) Medical/Fire (0) (1) The criminal contact from October 2009 through September 2010 was: One theft from auto. (Numbers in parenthesis are included in total contact figures) AGENDA SECTION: PUBLIC HEARINGS A AGENDA ITEM # 9C REPORT # 237 R ~J STAFF REPORT CITY COUNCIL MEETING DECEMBER 14, 2 ~ 1 ~ REPORT PREPARED BY: DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR REVIEW: REVIEWED BY CITY MANAGER ~~ BETSY OSBORN, SUPPORT SERVICES DIVISION MANAGER NAME, TITLF. d ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION: Public hearing for consideration of the renewal of 2011 on-sale wine and 3.2 percent malt liquor licenses for Kiang's Red Pepper, Inc., d/b/a Red Pepper Chinese Restaurant, 2902 West 66th Street. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Conduct and close the public hearing and by motion: • Approve the renewal of the 2011 on-sale wine and 3.2 percent malt liquor licenses for Kiang's Red Pepper, Inc., d/b/a Red Pepper Chinese Restaurant, 2902 West 66th Street. II. BACKGROUND On November 16, 2010, the City received the renewal application and other required documents for on-sale wine and 3.2 percent malt liquor licenses for Kiang's Red Pepper, Inc., d/b/a Red Pepper Chinese Restaurant. The applicant has paid the required license fees. The Public Safety background investigation has been completed and reveals the following: The corporate structure of the organization remains unchanged. Ricky Kiang is serving as President, Vice-President, Secretary and Treasurer. Sui Fun Kiang serves as the General Manager of the restaurant. Neither of these individuals has any known criminal record. 1214 PH Red Pepper On-Sale Wine and Malt Liquor Licenses for 2011 All general real estate taxes, state sales and withholding taxes have been paid and are current. The lease between the applicant and the property owner, Principle Life Insurance Company, continues to be in effect with all payments current. Proof of liquor liability insurance has been received showing Truck Insurance Exchange affording the required coverage. Proof of workers' compensation insurance coverage has also been supplied. An accountant's statement has been prepared and submitted. This statement covers the period from October 2009 through September 2010 and indicates that food sales accounted for 97.99% of the total sales, while 3.2 percent malt liquor and on-sale wine sales accounted for 2.01 % of the total sales. There were two Public Safety/Police contacts with Red Pepper from October 2009 through September 2010. This compares with one contact for the previous year. A breakdown of these contacts is attached to this report. Environmental Health staff received no complaints for Red Pepper for the past year. On-sale wine and 3.2 percent malt liquor licenses require owners of these establishments to comply with Resolution No. 9511, which outlines discipline they can expect if any ongoing problems occur. A copy of this resolution has been given to the owner of the establishment. There are no distance requirements to notify neighbors of the issuance or renewal of on-sale wine and 3.2 percent malt liquor licenses. The Notice of Public Hearing was published in the Richfield Sun Current on November 25, 2010. Red Pepper has received no violations for the sale of alcohol to underage youth. III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION A. POLICY • The applicant has complied with all of the provisions of both City Codes and State Statutes pertaining to on-sale wine and 3.2 percent malt liquor licensing. • Based on the information supplied by the applicant and the investigation conducted, there appears to be no reason to deny the issuance of the license requested. B. CRITICAL ISSUES • The requirements in Resolution No. 9511 must be met. C. FINANCIAL • N/A D. LEGAL • N/A E. ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS • N/A IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION(S~ • Continue the hearing. However, if the hearing is continued beyond January 1, 2011, the Council should consider the granting of license extensions to allow the applicant to continue to sell liquor until the rescheduled hearing can be conducted. • Suspend or revoke the licenses. Any suspension or revocation must, according to Minnesota State Statute 340A.415, be based upon a finding that the licensee has failed to comply with an applicable statute, rule or ordinance relating to alcoholic beverages. The Council must also note that no revocation or suspension takes effect until the licensee has been afforded an opportunity for a hearing under Section 14.57 to 14.70 of the Administrative Procedure Act. V. ATTACHMENTS • List of Officers • Breakdown of Public Safety Contacts VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING • Ricky Kiang, Owner of the establishment ~~-~ Kiang's Red Pepper Inc. d/b/a Red Pepper Chinese Restaurant Directors and Officers Ricky Kiang President, Vice-President, Secretary and Treasurer Sui Fun Kiang General Manager PUBLIC SAFETY CONTACTS October 2009 through September 2010 Red Pepper Chinese Restaurant 2009 2010 TOTAL CONTACTS 0 2 CRIMINAL CONTACTS 1 1 Incidents (see bottom of page for specifics) (1) (1) Alarm (0) 0) MISC. NON-CRIMINAL 0 1 Assists (0) (0) Traffic (0) (0) Inspections/Licensing (0) (0) Medical/Fire (0) (1) The criminal contact for 2010 was: One suspicious person/activity. (Numbers in parenthesis are included in total contact figures) AGENDA SECTION: PUBLIC HEARINGS AGENDA ITEM # 9D REPORT # 238 J STAFF REPORT CITY COUNCIL MEETING DECEMBER 14, 2010 REPORT PREPARED BY: BETSY OSBORN, SUPPORT SERVICES MANAGER NAME, TITLE DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR REVIEW: REVIEWED BY CITY MANAGER: ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION: Public Hearing for consideration of the renewal of 2011 on-sale wine and 3.2 percent malt liquor licenses for Patrick's French Bakery, Inc., d/b/a Patrick's Bakery & Cafe, 2928 W. 66th Street, Richfield, MN. I. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Conduct and close the public hearing and by motion: • Approve the renewal of the 2011 on-sale wine and 3.2 percent malt liquor licenses for Patrick's French Bakery, Inc., d/b/a Patrick's Bakerv & Cafe, 2928 W. 66th Street, Richfield, MN. __ II. BACKGROUND On October 29, 2010, the City received the application and other required documents for on-sale wine and 3.2 percent malt liquor licenses for Patrick's French Bakery, Inc., d/b/a Patrick's Bakery & Cafe. The applicant has paid the required fees. The Public Safety background investigation has been completed and reveals the following: The corporate structure of the organization remains unchanged from last year. Patrick Bernet serves as the President of the organization and Rafieh Bernet serves as the Vice-President. Rafieh Bernet also serves as manager of the establishment. 1214 Patrick's Bakery On-Sale Wine and Malt Liquor Licenses for 2011 Neither of these individuals has any known criminal record. A list of officers is attached. The required proof of liquor liability insurance coverage has been received showing American Fire & Casualty Company affording the coverage. Proof of workers' compensation insurance has also been supplied. The property is owned by Principal Life Insurance Company c/o Madison Marquette. The lease between the applicant and the landlord is in effect with all payments current. An accountant's statement has not yet been submitted. However, it will be provided to staff prior to the evening of the Public Hearing. All general sales, real estate and withholding taxes have been paid and are current. There were eight Public Safety/Police contacts with Patrick's Bakery & Cafe from October 2009 through September 2010. This compares to 18 contacts for the previous year. A breakdown of these contacts is attached to this report. Environmental Health staff has received no complaints regarding Patrick's Bakery & Cafe during the past year. On-sale wine and 3.2 percent malt liquor licenses require owners of these establishments to comply with Resolution No. 9511, which outlines discipline they can expect if any on-going problems occur. A copy of this resolution has been given to the owner of the establishment. There are no distance requirements to notify neighbors of the issuance of on-sale wine and 3.2 percent malt liquor licenses. The Notice of Public Hearing was published in the Richfield Sun Current on November 25, 2010. The most recent violation for the sale of alcohol to underage youth with Patrick's French Bakery was April 3, 2008. This was their first violation. There have been no other violations since that time. III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION A. POLICY The applicant has complied with all of the provisions of both City Codes and State Statutes pertaining to on-sale wine and 3.2 percent malt liquor licenses. Based on the information supplied by the applicant and the investigation conducted, there appears to be no reason to deny the issuance of the licenses requested. B. CRITICAL ISSUES That the requirements in Resolution 9511 are met. C. FINANCIAL N/A D. LEGAL • NIA E. ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS • N/A IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION(S~ Continue the hearing. However, if the hearing is continued beyond January 1, 2011, the Council should consider the granting of a license extension to allow the applicant to continue to sell liquor until the rescheduled hearing can be conducted. • Suspend or revoke the licenses. Any suspension or revocation must, according to Minnesota State Statute 340.415, be based upon a finding that the licensee has failed to comply with an applicable statute, rule or ordinance relating to alcoholic beverages. The Council must also note that no revocation or suspension takes effect until the licensee has been afforded an opportunity for a hearing under Section 14.57 to 14.70 of the Administrative Procedure Act. V. ATTACHMENTS List of Officers Breakdown of Public Safety Contacts VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING Patrick Bernet, Owner Rafieh Bernet, Owner/Manager qD-l Patrick's Bakery & Cafe Directors and Officers Patrick Bernet President Rafieh Bernet Vice-President and On-Premise Manager PUBLIC SAFETY CONTACTS October 2009 -September 2010 Patrick's Bakery & Cafe 2009 2010 TOTAL CONTACTS 18 $ CRIMINAL CONTACTS 6 5 Incidents (see bottom of page for specifics) (6) (5) Alarm (0) (0) MISC. NON-CRIMINAL 12 3 Assists (11) (1) Traffic (0) (2) Inspections/Licensing (1) (0) Medical/Fire (0) (0) The criminal contacts for 2010 were: Two suspicious activity/persons, one drunkenness, one property damage accident, and one hit and run accident. (Numbers in parenthesis are included in total contact figures) AGENDA SECTION: PUBLIC HEARINGS AGENDA ITEM # 9E REPORT # 239 ~~' STAFF REPORT CITY COUNCIL MEETING DECEMBER 14, 2010 REPORT PREPARED BY: DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR REVIEW: REVIEWED BY CITY MANAGER: ~..K. BETSY OSBORN, SUPPORT SERVICES MANAGER ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION: Public Hearing for consideration of the renewal of 2011 on-sale wine and 3.2 percent malt j liquor licenses for The Noodle Shop -Colorado Inc., d/b/a Noodles and Company, 7630 Lyndale Avenue South. I. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Conduct and close the public hearing and by motion: • Approve the renewal of the 2011 on-sale wine and 3.2 percent malt liquor licenses for The Noodle Shop -Colorado Inc., d/b/a Noodles and Company, 7630 Lyndale Avenue South. II. BACKGROUND On October 13, 2010, the City received the renewal applications and other required documents for on-sale wine and 3.2 percent malt liquor licenses for The Noodle Shop, d/b/a Noodles and Company. The applicant has paid the required fees. The Public Safety background investigation has been completed and reveals the following: The corporate structure of the organization remains unchanged from the previous year. Keith Joseph Kinsey serves as the President/Director and the Secretary of the organization. Paul A. Strasen serves as the Vice President. Brenton Henderson continues to serve as the On-premises Manager. None of these individuals has any known criminal record. A current list of officers is attached. 1214 PH Noodles On Sale Wine & Malt Liquor Licenses for 2011 The required proof of liquor liability insurance coverage has been received showing Federal Insurance Company affording the coverage. Proof of workers' compensation insurance has also been supplied. The property is owned by Lyndale Gateway LLC. The lease between the applicant and the landlord is in effect with all payments current. An accountant's statement has been prepared and submitted covering the period from October 2009 through September 2010, and indicates that food sales accounted for 93.1 % of the total sales, while liquor sales accounted for 6.9% of the total sales. All general sales, real estate and withholding taxes have been paid and are current. There were 12 Public Safety contacts with Noodles and Company from October 2009 through September 2010. This compares to 16 contacts from the previous year. A breakdown of these contacts is attached to this report. Environmental Health staff received no complaints regarding Noodles and Company for the past year. On-sale wine and 3.2 percent malt liquor licenses require owners of these establishments to comply with Resolution No. 9511, which outlines discipline they can expect if any on-going problems occur. A copy of this resolution has been given to the owner of the establishment. There are no distance requirements to notify neighbors of the issuance or renewal of on-sale wine and 3.2 percent malt liquor licenses. The Notice of Public Hearing was published in the Richfield Sun Current on November 25, 2010. The most recent violation for the sale of alcohol to underage youth with Noodles and Company was April 13, 2007. This was their first violation. There have been no other violations since this time. III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION A. POLICY The applicant has complied with all of the provisions of both City Codes and State Statutes pertaining to on-sale wine and 3.2 percent malt liquor licenses. • Based on the information supplied by the applicant and the investigation conducted, there appears to be no reason to deny the issuance of the licenses requested. B. CRITICAL ISSUES • That the requirements in Resolution 9511 are met. C. FINANCIAL • N/A D. LEGAL • N/A E. ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS • N/A IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION(S~ • Continue the hearing. However, if the hearing is continued beyond January 1, 2011, the Council should consider the granting of license extensions to allow the applicant to continue to sell liquor until the rescheduled hearing can be conducted. • Suspend or revoke the licenses. Any suspension or revocation must, according to Minnesota State Statute 340.415, be based upon a finding that the licensee has failed to comply with an applicable statute, rule or ordinance relating to alcoholic beverages. The Council must also note that no revocation or suspension takes effect until the licensee has been afforded an opportunity for a hearing under Section 14.57 to 14.70 of the Administrative Procedure Act. V. ATTACHMENTS List of Officers Breakdown of Public Safety Contacts VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING • Representative(s) of Noodles and Company q~ - I The Noodle Shop-Colorado, Inc. d/b/a Noodles and Company Directors and Officers Keith Joseph Kinsey President/Director/Secretary Paul A. Strasen Vice President Brenton Henderson On-Premise Manager PUBLIC SAFETY CONTACTS October 2009 -September 2010 The Noodle Shop -Colorado Inc., DBA Noodles and Company TOTAL CONTACTS 2009 2010 16 12 CRIMINAL CONTACTS 14 9 Incidents (see bottom of page for specifics) (7) (3) Alarm (7) (6) MISC. NON-CRIMINAL 2 3 Assists (1) (3) Traffic (0) (0) Inspections/Licensing (0) (0) Medical/Fire (1) (0) The criminal contacts for 2010 were: one theft, one disturbance, one property damage accident, and six alarms. (Numbers in parenthesis are included in total contact figures) AGENDA SECTION AGENDA ITEM # REPORT # STAFF REPORT CITY COUNCIL MEETING DECEMBER 14, 2010 PUBLIC HEARINGS 9F 240 ~---- REPORT PREPARED BY: DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR REVIEW: REVIEWED BY CITY f: MANAGER: BETSY OSBORN, SUPPORT SERVICES MANAGER NAMC, TITLE ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION: Public Hearing for consideration of the renewal of 2011 on-sale wine and 3.2 percent malt liquor licenses for John E. Powers & Associates, Inc. d/b/a Lariat Lanes, 6320 Penn Avenue South, Richfield, MN. I. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Conduct and close the public hearing and by motion: • Approve the renewal of 2011 on-sale wine and 3.2 percent malt liquor license for John E. Powers & Associates, Inc. d/b/a Lariat Lanes, 6320 Penn Avenue South, Richfield, MN. II. BACKGROUND On October 28, 2010, the City received the renewal application and other required documents for on-sale wine and 3.2 percent malt liquor licenses for Lariat Lanes, 6320 Penn Avenue South. The applicant has paid the required license fees. The Public Safety background investigation has been completed and reveals the following: The corporate structure of the organization remains unchanged. John Edwin Powers, Sr. serves as the President; John Edwin Powers, Jr. serves as the Vice President; David Matthew Powers serves as the Secretary; and Jeff Earl Powers serves as the Treasurer. Brandi Lea James continues to serve as the on-premise manager. A criminal history check was conducted on these individuals. John 1214 PH Lariat Lanes On-sale Wine & 3.2 Liquor License Renewals Powers Sr., John Powers, Jr. and David Powers have no criminal records. Jeff Powers has a misdemeanor DWI from 1999. His criminal history indicated a DWI; however, it is listed on his driving record as careless driving. There are no other convictions listed. Brandi James has a misdemeanor DWI conviction from 2007. There are no other criminal records. A current list of officers is attached. All general real estate, state sales and withholding taxes have been paid and are current. Proof of liquor liability insurance coverage has been received showing Illinois Casualty affording the coverage. Proof of workers' compensation insurance coverage has also been supplied. The accountant's statement has been prepared and submitted. This statement covers the period from October 2009 through September 2010, and indicates that food sales accounted for 20% of the total sales, while alcohol accounted for 15%. Miscellaneous sales such as bowling, shoe rental and merchandise accounted for 65% of the total sales. There were eight Public Safety/Police contacts with Lariat Lanes from October 2009 through September 2010. This compares with six contacts for the previous year. A breakdown of these contacts is attached to this report. Environmental Health staff received no complaints for Lariat Lanes in 2010. On-sale wine licenses require owners of these establishments to comply with Resolution No. 9511, which outlines discipline they can expect if any on-going problems occur. A copy of this resolution has been given to the owner of the establishmerit. There are no distance requirements to notify neighbors of the issuance of an on- sale wine and 3.2 percent malt liquor licenses. The Notice of Public Hearing was published in the Richfield Sun Current on November 25, 2010. Lariat Lanes has received no violations for the sale of alcohol to underage youth. III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION A. POLICY • The applicant has complied with all of the provisions of both City Codes and State Statues pertaining to an on-sale wine and 3.2 percent malt liquor licenses. Based on the information supplied by the applicant and the investigation conducted, there appears to be no reason to deny the issuance of the licenses requested. B. CRITICAL ISSUES That the requirements in Resolution 9511 are met. C. FINANCIAL N/A D. LEGAL • N/A E. ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS N/A IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION(S~ Continue the hearing. However, if the hearing is continued beyond January 1, 2011, the Council should consider the granting of a license extension to allow the applicant to continue to sell liquor until the rescheduled hearing can be conducted. Suspend or revoke the licenses. Any suspension or revocation must, according to Minnesota State Statute 340.415, be based upon a finding that the licensee has failed to comply with an applicable statute, rule or ordinance relating to alcoholic beverages. The Council must also note that no revocation or suspension takes effect until the licensee has been afforded an opportunity for a hearing under Section 14.57 to 14.70 of the Administrative Procedure Act. V. ATTACHMENTS List of Officers Breakdown of Public Safety Contacts VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING • Brandi James, Manager ~~-~~ John E. Powers & Associates, Inc. d/b/a Lariat Lanes Directors and Officers John E. Powers, Sr. President John E. Powers, Jr. Vice President David M. Powers Secretary Jeff E. Powers Treasurer Brandi L. James On-Premise Manager PUBLIC SAFETY CONTACTS October 2009 -September 2010 Lariat Lanes 2009 2010 TOTAL CONTACTS 6 $ CRIMINAL CONTACTS 4 5 Incidents (see bottom of page for specifics) (3) (5) Alarm (1) (0) MISC. NON-CRIMINAL 2 3 Assists (2) (2) Traffic (0) (0) Inspections/Licensing (0) (0) Medical/Fire (0) (1) The criminal contacts for 2010 were; three suspicious persons/activity, one domestic, and one fraud. (Numbers in parenthesis are included in total contact figures.) AGENDA SECTION: PUBLIC HEARINGS AGENDA ITEM # 9G _ REPORT # 241 ~~ STAFF REPORT CITY COUNCIL MEETING DECEMBER 14, 2010 REPORT PREPARED BY: BETSY OSBORN, SUPPORT SERVICES MANAGER DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR REVIEW: REVIEWED BY CITY ~'~`'~ ~ ~~ - "" 1J ,~" `x` `,~- MANAGER: ~ ~,! _.-,~ ~~ ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION: Public Hearing for consideration of the renewal of 2011 on-sale wine and 3.2 percent malt liquor licenses for Joy's Pattaya Thai Restaurant, LLC, 7545 Lyndale Avenue South, Richfield, MN. I. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Conduct and close the Public Hearing and by motion: • Approve the renewal of the 2011 on-sale wine and 3.2 percent malt liquor licenses for Joy's Pattaya Thai Restaurant, LLC, 7545 Lvndale Avenue South, Richfield, MN . II. BACKGROUND On October 28, 2010, the City received the application and other required documents for on-sale wine and 3.2 percent malt liquor licenses for Joy's Pattaya Thai Restaurant, LLC. The applicant has paid the required fees. The Public Safety background investigation has been completed and reveals the following: The structure of the organization remains unchanged from earlier this year when these licenses were originally approved. Dale Lynn Mueller and Buathan Mueller are the joint owners of the establishment. Temsiri Green Schneider continues to 1214 PH Joy's Pattaya Thai Restaurant On-Sale Wine and Malt liquor licenses for 2011. serve as the on-premise manager. None of these individuals has any known criminal record. A list of officers is attached to this report. The required proof of liquor liability insurance coverage has been received showing Travelers Casualty Insurance Company of America affording the coverage. Proof of workers' compensation insurance has also been supplied. The property is owned by Kenneth Donald Johnson. The lease between the applicant and the landlord are in effect with all payments current. An accountant's statement has been submitted covering the period of October 2009 through September 2010 and indicates that food sales accounted for 98.05% of the total sales, while alcohol accounted for 1.95% of the total sales. All general real estate and withholding taxes have been paid and are current. There were no Public Safety contacts with Joy's Pattaya Thai Restaurant from October 2009 through September 2010. In addition, since the liquor licenses were just issued to Joy's Pattaya Thai Restaurant this year, there are no previous Public Safety contacts to compare. Environmental Health staff has received no complaints for Joy's Pattaya Thai Restaurant. On-sale wine and 3.2 percent malt liquor licenses require owners of these establishments to comply with Resolution No. 9511, which outlines discipline they can expect if any on-going problems occur. A copy of this resolution has been given to the owner of the establishment. There are no distance requirements to notify neighbors of the issuance of on-sale wine and 3.2 percent malt liquor licenses. The Notice of Public Hearing was published in the Richfield Sun Current on November 25, 2010. III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION A. POLICY • The applicant has complied with all of the provisions of both City Codes and State Statues pertaining to on-sale wine and 3.2 percent malt liquor licenses. • Based on the information supplied by the applicant and the investigation conducted, there appears to be no reason to deny the issuance of the licenses requested. B. CRITICAL ISSUES • That the requirements in Resolution 9511 are met. C. FINANCIAL • N/A D. LEGAL • N/A E. ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS • N/A IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION(S~ Continue the hearing. However, if the hearing is continued beyond January 1, 2011, the Council should consider the granting of a license extension to allow the applicant to continue to sell liquor until the rescheduled hearing can be conducted. Suspend or revoke the licenses. Any suspension or revocation must, according to Minnesota State Statute 340.415, be based upon a finding that the licensee has failed to comply with an applicable statute, rule or ordinance relating to alcoholic beverages. The Council must also note that no revocation or suspension takes effect until the licensee has been afforded an opportunity for a hearing under Section 14.57 to 14.70 of the Administrative Procedure Act. V. ATTACHMENTS • List of Officers • Breakdown of Public Safety Contacts VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING • Dale Mueller, Owner "1 l~ Joy's Pattaya Thai Restaurant, LLC d/b/a Joy's Pattaya Thai Restaurant Directors and Officers Dale Mueller Buathan Mueller Owner Owner and On-Premise Manager PUBLIC SAFETY CONTACTS October 2009 -September 2010 Joy's Pattaya Thai Restaurant 2010 TOTAL CONTACTS 0 CRIMINAL CONTACTS 0 Incidents (see bottom of page for specifics) (0) Alarm (0) MISC. NON-CRIMINAL 0 Assists (0) Traffic (0) Inspections/Licensing (0) Medical/Fire (0) The criminal contacts for 2010 were: None. (Numbers in parenthesis are included in total contact figures) AGENDA SECTION: PUBLIC HEARINGS AGENDA ITEM # l0A REPORT # 242 ~~ STAFF REPORT CITY COUNCIL MEETING DECEMBER 14, 2010 REPORT PREPARED BY: BETSY OSBORN, SUPPORT SERVICES MANAGER NAME, TITLE DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR REVIEW: REVIEWED BY CITY MANAGER: ITEM FOR COL7NCIL CONSIDERATION: Public hearing for consideration of the renewal of 2011 on-sale intoxicating and Sunday liquor licenses, with optional 2 a.m. closing, for The Frenchman's, 1400 East 66th Street. I. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Conduct and close the public hearing and by motion: • Approve the renewal of 2011 on-sale intoxicating and Sunday liquor licenses, with optional 2 a.m. closing, for The Frenchman's, 1400 East 66th Street. II. BACKGROUND On October 30, 2010, the City received the application and other required documents for On-sale intoxicating and Sunday liquor licenses for The Frenchman's. The applicant has paid the required license fees. The Public Safety background investigation has been completed and reveals the following: Mary Christine Blake is the sole owner of the establishment. She also serves as the General Manager of the restaurant. Ms. Blake has no known criminal record. Mary Blake is the owner of the property and Venture Bank in Bloomington is the Mortgage Company. All payments are current. 1214 PH Frenchman's On Sale Intoxicating and Sunday Liquor Licenses for 2011 All general real estate, state sales and withholding taxes have been paid and are current. Proof of liquor liability insurance has been received showing Illinois Casualty as affording the required coverage. Proof of workers' compensation insurance coverage has also been supplied. An accountant's statement has been prepared and submitted. This statement covers the period from October 2009 through September 2010, and indicates that food sales accounted for 54.3% of the total sales, while liquor sales accounted for 45.7% of the total sales. There were 56 Public Safety/Police contacts with The Frenchman's from October 2009 through September 2010. This compares with 88 contacts for the previous year. A breakdown of these contacts is attached to this report. Environmental Health staff received no complaints regarding The Frenchman's during the past year. On-sale Intoxicating and Sunday liquor licenses require owners of these establishments to comply with Resolution No. 9511, which outlines discipline they can expect if any ongoing problems occur. A copy of this resolution has been given to the owner of the establishment. There are no distance requirements to notify neighbors of the issuance or renewal of on-sale intoxicating and Sunday liquor licenses. The Notice of Public Hearing was published in the Richfield Sun Current on November 25, 2010. The most recent violation for the sale of alcohol to underage youth with The Frenchman's was June 8, 2004. This was considered a second violation. Technically, it is a third violation, but due to the time that has elapsed between this violation and the previous violations on December 4, 2003 and July 1999, it was counted as a second violation. There have been no other violations since June 2004. III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION ~ A. POLICY The applicant has complied with all of the provisions of both City Codes and State Statutes pertaining to on-sale intoxicating and Sunday liquor licensing. Based on the information supplied by the applicant and the investigation conducted, there appears to be no reason to deny the licenses requested. B. CRITICAL ISSUES The requirements in Resolution No. 9511 must be met. C. FINANCIAL • N/A D. LEGAL • N/A E. ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS • N/A IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION(S~ • This agenda item is the first request out of seven for the renewal of the on- sale intoxicating and Sunday liquor licenses. Staff is recommending that one of the seven, Jun Bo Chinese restaurant, be pulled from this group and be considered a single public hearing to be reviewed separately. Of the remaining six, if no Council Member objects, the Council may conduct a single public hearing for all of the license approvals and may pass all of the resolutions with a single motion. If a single/individual public hearing is called, the Mayor should require each speaker to identify the particular license to which the person is speaking. Any Council Member may request that the question be divided, if the Council Member wishes to address any one or all of the proposed resolutions by a separate motion. • Continue the hearing. However, if the hearing is continued beyond January 1, 2011, the Council should consider the granting of license extensions to allow the applicant to continue to sell liquor until the rescheduled hearing can be conducted. • Suspend or revoke the licenses. Any suspension or revocation must, according to Minnesota State Statute 340A.415, be based upon a finding that the licensee has failed to comply with an applicable statute, rule or ordinance relating to alcoholic beverages. The Council must also note that no revocation or suspension takes effect until the licensee has been afforded an opportunity for a hearing under Sections 14.57 to 14.70 of the Administrative Procedure Act. V. ATTACHMENTS List of Officers Breakdown of Public Safety contacts VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING • Mary Christine Blake, Owner of the establishment lob-~ The Frenchmans Directors and Officers Mary Christine Blake Owner and General Manager PUBLIC SAFETY CONTACTS October 2009 through September 2010 The Frenchman's 2009 2010 TOTAL CONTACTS 88 56 CRIMINAL CONTACTS 37 30 Incidents (see bottom of page for specifics) (27) (26) Alarm (10) (4) MISC. NON-CRIMINAL 51 26 Assists (49) (23) Traffic (1) (2) Inspections/Licensing (0) (0) Medical/Fire (1) (1) The criminal contacts from October 2009 through September 2010 were: five suspicious persons/activity, three drunkenness, one theft, four disturbances, two property damage hit & run accidents, three fights, two drugs, one weapon, three assaults, one found property, one property damage and four alarms. (Numbers in parenthesis are included in total contact figures) AGENDA SECTION: PUBLIC HEARINGS AGENDA ITEM # l OB REPORT # 243 STAFF REPORT CITY COUNCIL MEETING DECEMBER 14, 2~1U REPORT PREPARED BY: DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR REVIEW: BETSY OSBORN, SUPPORT SERVICES MANAGER NAME. TITLE d REVIEWED BY CITY MANAGER ~' k ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION: Public hearing for consideration of the renewal of 2011 on-sale intoxicating and Sunday liquor licenses for Paisan, Inc. d/b/a Khan's Mongolian Barbeque, 500 East 78th Street. I. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Conduct and close the public hearing and by motion: • Approve the renewal of the 2011 on-sale intoxicating and Sunday liquor licenses for Paisan, Inc., d/b/a Khan's Mongolian Barbeque, 500 East 78th Street. __ II. BACKGROUND On November 1, 2010, the City received the renewal application and other required documents for the on-sale intoxicating and Sunday liquor licenses for Paisan, Inc., d/b/a Khan's Mongolian Barbeque. The applicant has paid the required fees. The Public Safety background investigation has been completed and reveals the following: The corporate structure of the organization remains unchanged from last year. Mitchell Law and Sherri (Paisan) Law are the owners of the establishment. Mitchell Law continues to serve as the General Manger of the restaurant. Neither of these individuals has any known criminal record. The lease between the applicant and the property owner, Roy A. Bogen, is in effect with all payments current. 1214 PH Khans On-Sale Intoxicating & Sunday Liquor Licenses Renewal All general sales, real estate and withholding taxes have been paid and are current. Proof of liquor liability insurance has been received showing Unitrin affording the coverage. Workers' compensation insurance has also been supplied. An accountant's statement has been prepared and submitted. This statement covers the period from October 2009 through September 2010, and indicates that food sales accounted for 89% of the total sales, while liquor sales accounted for 11% of the total sales. There were nine Public Safety contacts with Khan's from October 2009 through September 2010. This compares with nine contacts for the previous year. A breakdown of these contacts is attached to this report. Environmental Health staff received no complaints for Khan's Mongolian Barbeque in the past year. On-sale and Sunday liquor licenses require owners of these establishments to comply with Resolution No. 9511, which outlines discipline they can expect if any ongoing problems occur. A copy of this resolution has been given to the owner of the establishment. There are no distance requirements in which to notify neighbors of the issuance or renewal of on-sale and Sunday liquor licenses. The Notice of Public Hearing was published in the Richfield Sun Current on November 25, 2010. The most recent violation for the sale of alcohol to underage youth with Khan's Mongolian Barbeque was September 3, 2005. There have been no other violations since this time. III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION A. PoI_,ICv The applicant has complied with all of the provisions of both City Codes and State Statutes pertaining to on-sale intoxicating and Sunday liquor licensing. Based on the information supplied by the applicant and the investigation conducted, there appears to be no reason to deny the issuance of the license requested. B. CRITICAL ISSUES ~~ The requirements of Resolution No. 9511 must be met. C. FINANCIAL N/A D. LEGAL N/A E. ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS • N/A IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION~S~ • Continue the hearing. However, if the hearing is continued beyond January 1, 2011, the Council should consider the granting of license extensions to allow the applicant to continue to sell liquor until the rescheduled hearing can be conducted. • Suspend or revoke the licenses. Any suspension or revocation must, according to Minnesota State Statute 340A.415, be based upon a finding that the licensee has failed to comply with an applicable statute, rule or ordinance relating to .alcoholic beverages. The Council must also note that no revocation or suspension takes effect until the licensee has been afforded an opportunity for a hearing under Section 14.57 to 14.70 of the Administrative Procedure Act, V. ATTACHMENTS • List of Officers Breakdown of Public Safety contacts ~VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING • Mitchell Law [bg-~ KHAN'S MONGOLIAN BARBEQUE Officer and Directors Mitchell Law President & On-Premises Manager Sherri (Paisan) Law Vice President/Treasurer PUBLIC SAFETY CONTACTS October 2009 -September 2010 Khan's Mongolian Barbeque 2009 2010 TOTAL CONTACTS 9 9 CRIMINAL CONTACTS 7 7 Incidents (see bottom of page for specifics) (5) (6) Alarm (2) (1) MISC. NON-CRIMINAL 2 2 Assists (1) (2) Traffic (1) (0) Inspections/Licensing (0) (0) Medical/Fire (0) (0) The criminal contacts from October 2009 through September 2010 were: two property damage accidents, one disturbance, one alarm and three thefts from auto. (Numbers in parenthesis are included in total contact figures) AGENDA SECTION: PUBLIC HEARINGS AGENDA ITEM # lOC REPORT # 244 ~~' STAFF REPORT CITY COUNCIL MEETING DECEMBER 14, 2010 REPORT PREPARED BY: DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR REVIEW REVIEWED BY CITY MANAGER: BETSY OSBORN, SUPPORT SERVICES MANAGER Natirc, TITlc C ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION: Public hearing for consideration of the renewal of 2011 on-sale intoxicating and Sunday liquor licenses, with outside service, for Wiltshire Restaurants, LLC d/b/a Houlihan's Restaurant & Bar, 6601 Lyndale Avenue South. L RECOMMENDED ACTION: Conduct and close the public hearing and by motion: • Approve the renewal of the 2011 on-sale intoxicating and Sunday liquor licenses, with outside service, for Wiltshire Restaurants, LLC d/b/a Houlihan's Restaurant & Bar, 6601 Lyndale Avenue South. II. BACKGROUND On October 29, 2010, the City received the renewal application and other required documents for the on-sale intoxicating and Sunday liquor licenses, with outside service, for Wiltshire Restaurants, LLC d/b/a Houlihan's Restaurant & Bar. The applicant has paid the required fees. The Public Safety background investigation has been completed and reveals the following: The structure of the organization has changed from last year. Paul Smith Kirwin now serves as President and Robin Louise O'Neill serves as the on-premises 1214 Houlihan's On-Sale Intoxicating and Sunday Liquor License Renewal manager. Neither of these individuals has any known criminal record. A current list of officers is attached. The property being leased by Houlihan's Restaurant & Bar is owned by Woodlake- VEF IV, LLC. The lease between the applicant and the landlord are in effect with all payments current. Proof of liquor liability insurance coverage has been received showing Regent Insurance Company affording the required coverage. Proof of workers' compensation insurance coverage has also been supplied. A financial statement has been prepared and submitted. This statement covers the period from October 2009 through August 2010 and indicates that food sales accounted for 66.8% of the total sales, while liquor sales accounted for 33.2% of the total sales. Environmental Health staff received no complaints regarding Houlihan's Restaurant & Bar in the past year. There were 24 Public Safety/Police contacts with Houlihan's Restaurant & Bar from October 2009 through September 2010. This compares with 29 contacts for the previous year. A breakdown of these contacts is attached to this report. There are no distance requirements to notify neighbors of the issuance of an on- sale intoxicating and Sunday liquor licenses. On-sale intoxicating and Sunday liquor licenses require owners of these establishments to comply with Resolution No. 9511, which outlines discipline they can expect if any ongoing problems occur. A copy of this resolution has been given to the owner of the establishment. The Notice of Public Hearing was published in the Richfield Sun Current on November 25, 2010. The most recent violation for the sale of alcohol to underage youth with Houlihan's Restaurant was July 16, 2001. This was their first violation. There have been no other violations since that time. III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION ~ A. POLICY • The applicant has complied with all of the provisions of both City Codes and State Statutes pertaining to on-sale intoxicating and Sunday liquor licensing. • Based upon the information supplied by the applicant and the investigation conducted, there appears to be no reason to deny the licenses requested. B. CRITICAL ISSUES • The requirements in Resolution No. 9511 must be met. C. FINANCIAL • N/A D. LEGAL • N/A E. ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERNS • N/A IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION~S~ • Continue the hearing. However, if the hearing is continued beyond January 1, 2011, the Council should consider the granting of license extensions to allow the applicant to continue to sell liquor until the rescheduled hearing can be conducted. Suspend or revoke the licenses. Any suspension or revocation must, according to Minnesota State Statute 340A.415, be based upon a finding that the licensee has failed to comply with an applicable statute, rule or ordinance relating to alcoholic beverages. The Council must also note that no revocation or suspension takes effect until the licensee has been afforded an opportunity for a hearing under Section 14.57 to 14.70 of the Administrative Procedure Act. V. ATTACHMENTS • List of Officers Breakdown of Public Safety contacts VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING • Houlihan's Staff ~oC-f Houlihan's Restaurant & Bar Officers Paul Smith Kirwin Robin Louise O'Neill CEO/President On-Premises Manager PUBLIC SAFETY CONTACTS October 2009 through September 2010 Houlihan's Restaurant & Bar 2009 2010 TOTAL CONTACTS 29 24 CRIMINAL CONTACTS 22 15 Incidents (see bottom of page for specifics) (20) (14) Alarm (2) (1) MISC. NON-CRIMINAL 7 9 Assists (4) (6) Traffic (1) (1) Inspections/Licensing (0) (1) Medical/Fire (2) (1) The criminal contacts from October 2009 through September 2010 were: five suspicious persons/activity, one property damage hit and run accident, one theft, one drunkenness, two juvenile, one property damage accident, one vehicle theft, one property damage, one death and one alarm. (Numbers in parenthesis are included in total contact figures) AGENDA SECTION: PUBLIC HEARINGS AGENDA ITEM # l OD REPORT # 245 STAFF REPORT CITY COUNCIL MEETING DECEMBER 14, 2010 REPORT PREPARED BY: BETSY OSBORN, SUPPORT SERVICES DIVISION MANAGER NAMG, DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR REVIEW: REVIEWED BY CITY MANAGER: ~~:._..- ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION: Public hearing for consideration of the renewal of the 2011 on-sale intoxicating and Sunday liquor licenses for Don Pablo's Operating, LLC d/b/a Don Pablos, 980 West 78th Street. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Conduct and close the public hearing and by motion: • Approve the renewal of 2011 on-sale intoxicating and Sunday liquor licenses for Don Pablo's Operating, LLC d/b/a Don Pablos, 980 West 78th Street. II. BACKGROUND On October 22, 2010, the City received the renewal application and other required documents for the on-sale intoxicating and Sunday liquor licenses for Don Pablo's Operating, LLC d/b/a Don Pablos. The applicant has paid the required fees. The Public Safety background investigation has been completed and reveals the following: The corporate structure of the organization remains unchanged from last year. Paul Joseph Seidman continues to serve as COO/President and Don Sobiech serves as the On-premise manager. There are currently no acting Secretary or Treasurer. Neither of these individuals has any known criminal record. A current list of officers is attached. 12141 PH Don Pablo's On sale Intoxicating & Sunday Liquor License Renewal All general sales, real estate and withholding taxes have been paid and are current. The lease between the applicant and the property owner, CSM Investors, Inc. is in effect with all payments current. Proof of liquor liability insurance has been received showing Liberty Mutual Insurance Companies affording the coverage. Workers' compensation insurance has also been supplied. An accountant's statement has been prepared and submitted. This statement covers the period from October 2009 through September 2010 and indicates that food sales accounted for 81.5% of the total sales, while alcohol accounted for 18.5% of the total sales. There were 28 Public Safety contacts with Don Pablo's from October 2009 through September 2010. This compares with 11 contacts for the previous year. A breakdown of these contacts is attached to this report. Environmental Health staff received no complaints regarding Don Pablos during the past year. On-sale intoxicating and Sunday liquor licenses require owners of these establishments to comply with Resolution No. 9511, which outlines discipline they can expect if any ongoing problems occur. A copy of this Resolution has been given to the owner of the establishment. There are no distance requirements to notify neighbors of the issuance or renewal of on-sale intoxicating and Sunday liquor licenses. The Notice of Public Hearing was published in the Richfield Sun Current on November 25, 2010. The-most recent violation for the sale of alcohol to underage youth with Don Pablo's was October 5, 2006. There have been no other violations since that time. III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION A. POLICY • The applicant has complied with all of the provisions of both City Codes and State Statutes pertaining to on-safe intoxicating and Sunday liquor licenses. • Based on the information supplied by the applicant and the investigation conducted, there appears to be no reason to deny the issuance of the license requested. B. CRITICAL ISSUES The requirements of Resolution No. 9511 must be met. C. FINANCIAL • N/A D. LEGAL • N/A E. ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS N/A IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION(S~ • Continue the hearing. However, if the hearing is continued beyond January 1, 2011, the Council should consider the granting of license extensions to allow the applicant to continue to sell liquor until the rescheduled hearing can be conducted. • Suspend or revoke the licenses. Any suspension or revocation must, according to Minnesota State Statute 340A.415, be based upon a finding that the licensee has failed to comply with an applicable statute, rule or ordinance relating to alcoholic beverages. The Council must also note that no revocation or suspension takes effect until the licensee has been afforded an opportunity for a hearing under Section 14.57 to 14.70 of the Administrative Procedure Act. V. ATTACHMENTS List of Officers Breakdown of Public Safety contacts VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING • Don Pablos staff X00-1 Don Pablo's Operating Corporation Don Pablos Officers and Directors Paul Joseph Seidman COO/President Don Sobiech On-Premise Manager ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ PUBLIC SAFETY CONTACTS October 2009 -September 2010 Don Pablo's 2009 2010 TOTAL CONTACTS 11 28 CRIMINAL CONTACTS 10 23 Incidents (see bottom of page for specifics) (5) (11) Alarm (5) (12) MISC. NON-CRIMINAL 1 5 Assists (1) (3) Traffic (0) (2) Inspections/Licensing (0) (0) Medical/Fire (0) (0) The criminal contacts from October 2009 through September 2010 were: three suspicious persons/activity, two thefts, one burglary, one drunkenness, two no pay thefts, one property damage, one theft from auto and twelve alarms. (Numbers in parenthesis are included in total contact figures) AGENDA SECTION: PUBLIC HEARINGS AGENDA ITEM # l0E REPORT # 246 ~~- STAFF REPORT CITY COUNCIL MEETING DECEMBER 14, 2010 REPORT PREPARED BY: DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR REVIEW REVIEWED BY CITY MANAGER: BETSY OSBORN, SUPPORT SERVICES MANAGER NAME, T/T LE <~, ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION: Public hearing for consideration of the renewal of on-sale intoxicating and Sunday liquor licenses for 2011 for Champps Operating Corporation d/b/a Champps Restaurant, 790 West 66th Street. I. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Conduct and close the public hearing and by motion: • Approve the renewal of the 2011 on-sale intoxicating and Sunday liquor licenses for Champps Operating Corporation d/b/a Champps Restaurant, 790 West 66th Street. II. BACKGROUND On October 26, 2010, the City received the renewal application and other required documents for on-sale intoxicating and Sunday liquor licenses for Champps Operating Corporation d/b/a Champps Restaurant. The applicant has paid the required licensing fees. The Public Safety background investigation has been completed and reveals the following: The corporate structure of the organization remains unchanged from last year: James Keith Zielke serves as President and Kimberly Kay Fowles serves as Secretary. Jenny Gail Meyerink serves as the On Premise manager. None of these individuals has any known criminal record. A current list of officers is attached. 1214 PH Champps On sale Intoxicating & Sunday Liquor Licenses for 2011 All general sales, real estate and withholding taxes have been paid and are current. The lease between the applicant and the property owner, Market Plaza Commercial, LTD., c/o G. & P. Properties, Inc. is in effect with all payments current. Proof of liquor liability insurance coverage has been received showing Zurich American Insurance Company affording the required coverage. Proof of workers' compensation insurance coverage has also been supplied. An accountant's statement has been prepared and submitted. This statement covers the period from October 2009 through September 2010, and indicates that food sales accounted for 61.75% of the total sales, while alcohol accounted for 38.25% of the total sales. There were 35 Public Safety/Police contacts with Champps restaurant from October 2009 through September 2010. This compares with 33 contacts for the previous year. A breakdown of these contacts is attached to this report. Environmental Health staff received no complaints for Champps in the previous year. On-sale intoxicating and Sunday Liquor licenses require owners of these establishments to comply with Resolution No. 9511, which outlines discipline they can expect if any ongoing problems occur. A copy of this resolution has been given to the owner of the establishment. There are no distance requirements to notify neighbors of the issuance or renewal of on-sale intoxicating and Sunday liquor licenses. The Notice of Public Hearing was published in the Richfield Sun Current on November 25, 2010. The most recent violation for the sale of alcohol to underage youth with Champps Restaurant was March 20, 2008. This was considered a first violation. Technically, it is a fourth violation, but due to the time that had elapsed between this violation and the previous violations on April 4, 2002, November 1999 and July 1999, it was counted as a first violation. There have been no other violations since that time. III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION A. POLICY The applicant has complied with all of the provisions of both City Codes and State Statutes pertaining to on-sale intoxicating and Sunday liquor licensing. • Based on the information supplied by the applicant and the investigation conducted, there appears to be no reason to deny the issuance of the licenses requested. B. CRITICAL ISSUES • The requirements of Resolution No. 9511 must be met. C. FINANCIAL • N/A D. LEGAL • N/A E. ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS • N/A IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION~S~ • Continue the hearing. However, if the hearing is continued beyond January 1, 2011, the Council should consider the granting of license extensions to allow the applicant to continue to sell liquor until the rescheduled hearing can be conducted. Suspend or revoke the licenses. Any suspension or revocation must, according to Minnesota State Statute 340A.415, be based upon a finding that the licensee has failed to comply with an applicable statute, rule or ordinance relating to alcoholic beverages. The Council must also note that no revocation or suspension takes effect until the licensee has been afforded an opportunity for a hearing under Sections 14.57 to 14.70 of the Administrative Procedure Act. V. ATTACHMENTS • List of Officers Breakdown of Public Safety contacts VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING • Champps staff ror_ -t Champps Operating Corporation d/b/a Champps Restaurant Officers and Directors James Keith Zielke President Kimberly Kay Fowles Secretary Jenny Gail Meyerink Manager PUBLIC SAFETY CONTACTS October 2009- September 2010 Champps Restaurant 2009 2010 TOTAL CONTACTS 33 35 CRIMINAL CONTACTS 20 21 Incidents (see bottom of page for specifics) (19) (20) Alarm (1) (1) MISC. NON-CRIMINAL 13 14 Assists (5) (2) Traffic (6) (~) Inspections/Licensing (0) (4) Medical/Fire (2) (1) The criminal contacts from October 2009 through September 2010 were: two thefts, four suspicious persons/activity, four disturbances, two fights, three no-pay thefts, one fraud, one order for protection, one hit and run accident, two thefts from auto, and one alarm. (Numbers in parenthesis are included in total contact figures) AGENDA SECTION: PUBLIC HEARINGS AGENDA ITEM # l OF REPORT # 247 STAFF REPORT CITY COUNCIL MEETING DECEMBER 14, 2010 REPORT PREPARED BY: DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR REVIEW: REVIEWED BY CITY MANAGER: BETSY OSBORN, SUPPORT SERVICES MANAGER ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION: Public hearing for consideration of the renewal of on-sale intoxicating and Sunday liquor licenses, with optional 2 a.m. closing, for EI Tejaban Mexican Grill LLC d/b/a EI Tejaban Mex. Grill, 2 West 66th Street. I. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Conduct and close the public hearing and by motion: • Approve the renewal of the 2011 on-sale intoxicating and Sunday liquor licenses, with optional 2 a.m. closing, for EI Tejaban Mexican Grill LLC d/b/a EI Tejaban Mex. Grill, 2 West 66th Street. II. BACKGROUND On October 12, 2010, the City received the renewal application and other required documents for on-sale intoxicating and Sunday liquor licenses, with optional 2 a.m. closing, for EI Tejaban Mexican Grill LLC d/b/a EI Tejaban Mex. Grill. The applicant has paid the required licensing fees. The Public Safety background investigation has been completed and reveals the following: The corporate structure of the organization remains unchanged from last year. Miguel Angel Hernandez and Rosa Isela Zambrano Medina continue to be the co- owners of the establishment. Miguel continues to serve as the General Manager. Neither of these individuals has any known criminal record. A current list of officers is attached. 9214 PH EI Tejaban Mex. Grill On-Sale Intoxicating & Sunday Liquor License renewal for 2011 All general sales, real estate and withholding taxes have been paid and are current. The lease between the applicant and the property owner, Centro Bradley SPE LLC is in effect with all payments current. Proof of liquor liability insurance coverage has been received showing Truck Insurance Exchange affording the required coverage. Proof of workers' compensation insurance coverage has also been supplied. An accountant's statement has been prepared and submitted covering the period of October 2009 through September 2010 and indicates that food sales accounted for 84% of the total sales, while alcohol accounted for 16% of the total sales. There were eight (8) Public Safety/Police contacts with EI Tejaban Mexican Grill from October 2009 through September 2010. This compares to two (2) contacts for the previous year. A breakdown of these contacts is attached to this report. Environmental Health staff received no complaints for EI Tejaban in 2010. On-sale intoxicating and Sunday Liquor licenses require owners of these establishments to comply with Resolution No. 9511, which outlines discipline they can expect if any ongoing problems occur. A copy of this resolution has been given to the owners of the establishment. There are no distance requirements to notify neighbors of the issuance or renewal of on-sale intoxicating and Sunday liquor licenses. The Notice of Public Hearing was published in the Richfield Sun Current on November 25, 2010. There have been no violations for the sale of alcohol to underage youth for EI Tejaban Mexican Grill. III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION A. POLICY • The applicant has complied with all of the provisions of both City Codes and State Statutes pertaining to on-sale intoxicating and Sunday liquor licensing. • Based on the information supplied by the applicant and the investigation conducted, there appears to be no reason to deny the issuance of the licenses requested. $. CRITICAL ISSUES The requirements of Resolution No. 9511 must be met. C. FINANCIAL • The required background investigation and licensing fees have been received. D. LEGAL • N/A IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION~S~ • Continue the hearing. However, if the hearing is continued beyond January 1, 2011, the Council should consider the granting of license extensions to allow the applicant to continue to sell liquor until the rescheduled hearing can be conducted. • Suspend or revoke the licenses. Any suspension or revocation must, according to Minnesota State Statute 340A.415, be based upon a finding that the licensee has failed to comply with an applicable statute, rule or ordinance relating to alcoholic beverages. The Council must also note that no revocation or suspension takes effect until the licensee has been afforded an opportunity for a hearing under Sections 14.57 to 14.70 of the Administrative Procedure Act. V. ATTACHMENTS • List of Officers Breakdown of Public Safety Contacts VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING • Miguel Hernandez, Owner of EI Tejaban Mex. Grill • Rosa Zambrano Medina, Owner of EI Tejaban Mex. Grill Luis Cairo, Interpreter IbF - I Tejaban Mexican Grill LLC d/b/a EI Tejaban Mex. Grill Owners Miguel Hernandez President/ On-Premise Manager Rosa Zambrano Medina Vice-President PUBLIC SAFETY CONTACTS October 2009 -September 2010 EI Tejaban Mexican Grill 2009 2010 TOTAL CONTACTS 2 $ CRIMINAL CONTACTS 0 5 Incidents (see bottom of page for specifics) (0) (5) Alarm (0) (0) MISC. NON-CRIMINAL 2 3 Assists (2) (3) Traffic (0) (0) Inspections/Licensing (0) (0) Medical/Fire (0) (0) The criminal contacts from October 2009 through September 2010 were: One suspicious activity, one domestic, one assault, one vehicle theft, and one robbery. (Numbers in parenthesis are included in total contact figures) AGENDA SECTION: PUBLIC HEARINGS AGENDA ITEM # 11 REPORT # 248 STAFF REPORT CITY COUNCIL MEETING DECEMBER 14, 2010 REPORT PREPARED BY: DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR REVIEW: r REVIEWED BY CITY MANAGER: ~w~.~ w q_., _.....,. BETSY OSBORN, SUPPORT SERVICES MANAGER ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION: Public hearing for consideration of the renewal of 2011 on-sale intoxicating and Sunday liquor licenses for HKD Lo, Inc. d/b/a Jun Bo Chinese Restaurant, 7717 Nicollet Avenue South. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Conduct and close the public hearing and by motion: • Consider the renewal of 2011 on-sale intoxicating and Sunday liquor licenses for HKD Lo, Inc., d/b/a Jun Bo Chinese Restaurant, 7717 Nicollet Avenue South. II. BACKGROUND On October 5, 2010, the City received the renewal application and other required documents for on-sale intoxicating and Sunday liquor licenses for HKD Lo, Inc. d/b/a Jun Bo Chinese Restaurant, 7717 Nicollet Avenue South. The applicant has paid the required license fees. The Public Safety background investigation has been completed and reveals the following: The corporate structure of the organization remains unchanged. Yik Lo serves as president and Yau Lo serves as Secretary. Kee Lo serves as the on-premise manager. None of these individuals has any known criminal record. A current list of officers is attached. 1214 PH Jun Bo On-Sale Intoxicating & Sunday Liquor Licenses for 2011 In July 2010, the City received notification from the Attorney General's office that HKD Lo, Inc, d/b/a/Jun Bo Chinese Restaurant was under investigation for failure to pay sales/use taxes. Jun Bo disputed the state's allegations, and the matter is pending before the court. In October 2010, the City confirmed that a final determination has not been made. The required proof of liquor liability insurance coverage has been received showing Founders Insurance Company affording the required coverage. Proof of workers' compensation insurance coverage has also been supplied. An accountant's statement has been prepared and submitted. This statement covers the period from August 2009 through September 2010 and indicates that food sales accounted for 69.2% of the total sales, while liquor sales accounted for 30.8% of the total sales. There were 163 Public Safety contacts with Jun Bo from October 2009 through September 2010. This compares to 81 calls from the previous year. Although this number has almost doubled, nearly one-half of these calls were for extra patrol. It should be noted, however, that even while on extra patrol approximately 16 incidents categorized as "assists" or "extra patrol" occurred that were of concern to Public Safety. A breakdown of these contacts is attached to this report. In December of 2007, the City Council reviewed the request from staff to approve Jun Bo's alcohol license for the year 2008. At that time, there were a higher number of criminal contact types of calls than the Council wanted to see (there were 82 calls for service in 2007). Council conditionally approved Jun Bo's license for 2008 with the requirement that staff would monitor the establishment on a quarterly basis and report that information to the City Council. The end result was that the criminal contact types of calls were lowered in 2008 to 69. In August of 2009, staff became concerned that the number of criminal type calls were again heading toward the level that they were in 2007. It also appeared that the calls were getting more severe in nature. As it can be clearly identified by the number of Public Safety contacts for 2009, it does appear that the number of calls has again increased to the amount they were at in 2007. Staff is not recommending approval or denial of their license but, based on past history, expects this will be of concern to the City Council and conditions to their license could occur. It appears that the number of Public Safety contacts in 2010 has again increased. The increase in the amount and severity of the number of Public Safety contacts results in a significant amount of time our officers spend responding to these calls as well as the amount of time our officers spend routinely patrolling the area of this establishment. Large dance radio promotions draw large numbers of patrons and appear to be especially problematic. There are also concerns about the possible over-service of alcohol as many are very intoxicated when police arrive and make contact. They do employ on-site security, yet Public Safety contacts remain high. On August 11, 2010, staff met with the licensees who are listed on the application to discuss the on-going issues that staff has with the manner in which the establishment is managing the criminal contact types of calls. Staff specifically reviewed Resolution No, 9511 which clearly spells out the progressive discipline an alcohol establishment can expect if they violate any of the categories listed. The licensees indicated that they understood the focus of the meeting. After the meeting, staff followed up by sending a summary letter to the licensees clearly identifying the issues of concern that were discussed. Staff is confident that the licensees understood the concerns and would work toward making changes to improve on their criminal contact incidents. At that meeting, Jun Bo indicated that they would be discontinuing the service of buckets of beer to tables as well as no longer allowing entrance for anyone under 18 years of age. These steps do appear to have resulted in fewer calls for service since that change. Environmental Health staff received no complaints regarding Jun Bo Chinese Restaurant during the past year. On-sale intoxicating and Sunday liquor licenses require owners of these establishments to comply with Resolution No. 9511, which outlines discipline they can expect if any on-going problems occur. A copy of this resolution has been given to the owner of the establishment. There are no distance requirements to notify neighbors of the issuance or renewal of on-sale intoxicating and Sunday liquor licenses. The Notice of Public-Hearing was published. in the Richfield Sun Current on November 25, 2010. On July 27, 2010, the City Council considered potential discipline against Jun Bo for allowing minor consumption on the premises, which allegedly occurred on April 5, 2010; May 9, 2010; and May 24, 2010. Jun Bo denied the allegations, and participated in discussions with Richfield City staff and the City Attorney. The City Attorney has determined to dismiss the alleged violation on May 24, 2010, and the other two matters have been referred to the Office of Administrative Hearings for contested hearings. III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION A. POLICY • The applicant has complied with all of the provisions of both City Codes and State Statutes pertaining to on-sale intoxicating and Sunday liquor licensing. B. CRITICAL TIMING ISSUES • The requirements of Resolution No. 9511 must be met. • Reduction in the number of Public Safety calls concerning, drunkenness, assaults, disturbances, fights and weapon related offenses must occur. City staff would like to see the calls decreased by at least half, which is still more than the average of all other on-sale intoxicating liquor establishments. Non-compliance with the reduction of Public Safety calls will result in staff requesting that the City Council discuss the issues with them personally at a future Council meeting to include licensing. C. FINANCIAL • N/A D. LEGAL • The Council may renew the license without conditions, renew the license with conditions (provided the conditions remedy deficiencies that would otherwise result in denial of the license), or deny the license renewal. If the Council is inclined to deny the license, it is recommended that the Council continue the hearing to a future council meeting, extend the license to the date of the hearing, and request the staff to provide a resolution with proposed findings of fact to support the denial. E. ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS • N/A IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION(S) • Continue the hearing. However, if the hearing is continued beyond January 1, 2011, the Council should consider the granting of license extensions to allow the applicant to continue to sell liquor until the rescheduled hearing can be conducted. V. ATTACHMENTS • List of Officers. Breakdown of Public Safety Contacts. Spread Sheet of Public Safety Contact. VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING • Representative(s) of Jun Bo Chinese Restaurant. 1 1 HKD Lo, Inc. d/b/a Jun Bo Chinese Restaurant Directors and Officers Yik Chi Lo President Yau Mai Lo Vice-President Kee Lo On-Premise Manager PUBLIC SAFETY CONTACTS October 2009 through September 2010 HKD Lo, Inc. d/b/a Jun Bo Chinese Restaurant 2009 2010 TOTAL CONTACTS 81 163 CRIMINAL CONTACTS 49 66 Incidents (see bottom of page for specifics) (44) (57) Alarm (5) (9) MISC. NON-CRIMINAL 32 97 Assists (22) (88) Traffic ($) ($) Inspections/Licensing (0) (0) Medical/Fire (2) (1) The criminal contacts from October 2009 through September 2010 were: ten drunkenness, three underage consumption citations, fourteen suspicious activities/persons, one DWI's, nine disturbances, four assaults, three disorderly conduct, four fights, one drug call, one domestic, two property damage accidents, three weapons violations, one fraud, one criminal sexual conduct, and nine alarms. (Numbers in parenthesis are included in total contact figures) Public Safety Contacts Criminal Incidents and Assists and "Routine Patrol" Contacts DATE BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF ACTIVITY 9/12/2009 Extra Patrol -Routine Check 9/12/2009 Extra Patrol -Routine Check 9/14/2009 Disturbance -Large group of approx. 50 fighting -assault with unknown weapon -suspect fled 9/17/2009 Suspicious Person/Activity -Cleared - No Report 9/19/2009 Extra Patrol -Routine Check 9/19/2009 Extra Patrol -Routine Check 9/19/2009 Extra Patrol -Routine Check 9/25/2009 Theft - No Report -Cancelled 10/4/2009 Suspicious Person/Activity - No Report -Cleared 10/19/2009 Disturbance -Cleared - No Report 10/23/2009 Extra Patrol -Routine Check 10/24/2009 Disturbance -Officer observed a male punch a female in the face outside of etablishment 10/25/2009 Extra Patrol -Routine Check 10/26/2009 Weapon -Altercation in parking lot involving ahandgun -Two females fighting -male displayed gun 10/30/2009 Extra Patrol -Routine Check 10/31 /2009 Extra Patrol -Routine Check 11/7/2009 Extra Patrol -Routine Check 11 /7/2009 Extra Patrol -Routine Check 11/7/2009 Extra Patrol -Routine Check 11 /7/2009 Extra Patrol -Routine Check 11/7/2009 Extra Patrol -Routine Check 11/8/2009 Extra Patrol -Routine Check 11/20/2009 Extra Patrol -Routine Check 11 /21 /2009 Extra Patrol -Routine Check 11/22/2009 Extra Patrol -Routine Check 12/7/2009 Suspicious Person/Activity -Cleared - No Report 12/19/2009 Weapon - 4 males -kicked out -one male said he would come back and shoot them up 12/20/2009 Fight -Officers responded to a call of a large fight of about 10 males in lot. 12/20/2009 Property Damage -Vehicle tire was slashed and vehicle was "keyed" after altercation inside 12/23/2009 Suspicious Person/Activity -Cleared - No Report 12/24/2009 Domestic - No Report -Gone on arrival 12/27/2009 Disturbance -Cleared - No Report CATEGORY Non-criminal Non-criminal Criminal Criminal Non-Criminal Non-criminal Non-criminal Criminal Criminal Criminal Non-criminal Criminal Non-criminal Criminal Non-criminal Non-criminal Non-criminal Non-criminal Non-criminal Non-criminal Non-criminal Non-criminal Non-criminal Non-criminal Non-criminal Criminal Criminal Criminal Criminal Criminal Criminal Criminal I /" 12/27/2009 Drunkenness -Cleared - No Report Criminal 1/2/2010 Extra Patrol -Routine Check Non-criminal 1/9/2010 Drunkenness -Cleared - No Report Criminal 1 /16/2010 Extra Patrol -Routine Check Non-criminal 1/16/2010 Extra Patrol -Routine Check Non-criminal 1/17/2010 Extra Patrol -Routine Check Non-criminal 1/17/2010 Fight -Cleared - No Report Criminal 1/18/2010 Extra Patrol -Routine Check Non-criminal 1/24/2010 Weapon -Drive by Shooting -males fighting in lot -left lot and drove past establishment shooting at sec Criminal 1/25/2010 Extra Patrol -Routine Check Non-criminal 1 /29/2010 Extra Patrol -Routine Check -All parties inside are calm with no incidents Non-criminal 1/30/2010 Drunkenness -Cleared - No Report Criminal 1/30/2010 Extra Patrol -Routine Check Non-criminal 1/30/2010 Extra Patrol -Routine Check Non-criminal 1 /30/2010 Extra Patrol -Routine Check Non-criminal 1/30/2010 Extra Patrol -Routine Check Non-criminal 1/31/2010 Extra Patrol -Routine Check Criminal 2/1/2010 Extra Patrol -Drunk indiv. In vehicle ready to leave -Citation issued for Underage Consumption Extra Patrol/Criminal 2/5/2010 Suspicious Person/Activity -Cleared - No Report Criminal 2/6/2010 Extra Patrol -Routine Check Non-criminal 2/7/2010 Extra Patrol -Routine Check Non-criminal 2/12!2010 Extra Patrol -Routine Check Non-criminal 2/13/2010 Extra Patrol -Full Lot with overflow lot partially full -several indiv. under 21 but not appearing intox. Extra Patrol -Non-Criminal 2/13/2010 Extra Patrol -Routine check of large crowd -several under 21 -none were observed drinking. Extra Patrol -Non-Criminal 2/13/2010 Extra Patrol -Routine Check Non-Criminal 2/14/2010 Extra patrol -indiv. extremely intox. -Wrist band taken -security left, two more beers were ordered. Extra Patrol/Criminal 2/14/2010 Extra Patrol -Five individuals extremely intoxicated outside of entry -possible overservice Extra Patrol/Criminal 2/14/2010 Suspicious Person/Activity -intoxicated individuals being assisted by friends to vehicles Criminal 2/15/2010 Extra Patrol -Female who appeared to be oversewed as she needed assistance to walk. Extra Patrol/Criminal 2/15/2010 Extra Patrol -Routine Check Non-criminal 2/20/2010 Suspicious Person/Activity -S.I.U. Investigations Criminal 2/21/2010 Extra Patrol -Routine Check Non-criminal 2/22/2010 Extra Patrol -Routine Check Non-criminal 2/27/2010 Extra Patrol -Numerous over serviced Patrons. Extra Patrol/Criminal 2/28/2010 Extra Patrol -Routine Check Non-criminal 3/1/2010 Extra Patrol -Two individuals fighting in lot. Citations issued for Disorderly Conduct Extra Patrol/Criminal 3/6/2010 Extra Patrol -Routine Check Non-criminal 3/7/2010 Extra Patrol -Routine Check Non-criminal 3/8/2010 Extra Patrol -Routine Check Non-criminal 3/13/2010 Extra Patrol -Routine Check Non-criminal -- 3/13/2010 Extra Patrol -Routine Check 3/14/2010 Extra Patrol -Routine Check 3/15/2010 Extra Patrol -intoxicated females screaming in lot at close -Officers Advised and sent 3/21/2010 Extra Patrol -Routine Check 3/26/2010 Extra Patrol -Routine Check 3/27/2010 Extra Patrol -Routine Check 3/27/2010 Extra Patrol -Routine Check 3/27/2010 Extra Patrol -Routine Check 3/29/2010 Criminal Sexual Conduct -Indecent Exposure -Male urinating outside of estblishment -Cited 3/29/2010 Fraud - No Report Written 3/29/2010 Exra Patrol -Fight -Advised to leave. 4/4/2010 Drunkenness -Intoxicated individual causing adisturbance -Left in cab prior to police arrival 4/5/2010 Disturbance -Security physically removed unruly customer who appeared to be intoxicated 4/5/2010 Extra Patrol -Individual squeeling tires in parking lot -later cited for underage consumption 4/10/2010 Suspicious Person/Activity -Cleared - No Report 4/10/2010 Extra Patrol -Routine Check 4/12/2010 Extra Patrol -Routine Check 4/19/2010 Extra Patrol -Routine Check 4/20/2010 Extra Patrol -Routine Check 4/24/2010 Extra Patrol - Intox. person hitting another inside vehicle -Cited for Disorderly Conduct 4/24/2010 Extra Patrol -Routine Check 4/25/2010 Extra Patrol -Routine Check 4/26/2010 Extra Patrol -Routine Check 4/26/2010 Extra Patrol -Routine Check 5/3/2010 Disturbance -Cleared - No Report 5/6/2010 Assault -two male cab drivers assulting each other in the parking lot 5/8/2010 Extra Patrol -Routine Check 5/8/2010 Extra Patrol -Routine Check 5/9/2010 Extra Patrol -Routine Check 5/9/2010 Extra Patrol -Routine Check 5/9/2010 DWI -Exhibition driving in lot -Arrested and cited for underage consumption and 4th degree DWI 5/17/2010 Suspicious Person/Activity -Cleared - No Report 5/17/2010 Extra Patrol -Routine Check 5/18/2010 Suspicious Person/Activity -Cleared - No Report 5/22/2010 Extra Patrol -Routine Check 5/22/2010 Extra Patrol -Routine Check 5/23/2010 Extra Patrol -Routine Check 5/23/2010 Extra Patrol -Routine Check 5/23/2010 Disturbance -Male escorted out by security -Slamming front door - Intoxocated 5/24/2010 Extra Patrol -Two Individuals fighting in lot -Cited for Underage Consumption. Extra Patrol/Criminal Non-criminal Non-criminal Non-Criminal Non-criminal Non-criminal Non-criminal Non-criminal Criminal Criminal Extra Patrol/Criminal Criminal Criminal Extra Patrol/Criminal Criminal Non-criminal Non-criminal Non-criminal Non-criminal Extra Patrol/Criminal Non-criminal Non-criminal Non-criminal Non-criminal Criminal Criminal Non-criminal Non-criminal Non-criminal Non-criminal Criminal Criminal Non-criminal Criminal Non-criminal Non-criminal Non-criminal Non-criminal Criminal Extra Patrol/Criminal ..f; 5/24/2010 Extra Patrol -Routine Check 5/28/2010 Extra Patrol -Routine Check 5/30/2010 Extra Patrol -Routine Check 5/31/2010 Suspicious Person/Activity -Cleared - No Report 6/5/2010 Extra Patrol -Routine Check 6/5/2010 Extra Patrol -Routine Check 6/6/2010 Extra Patrol -Routine Check 6/13/2010 Extra Patrol -Routine Check 6/14/2010 Extra Patrol -Routine Check 6/18/2010 Extra Patrol -Routine Check 6/19/2010 Extra Patrol -Routine Check 6/19/2010 Accident -Male in vehicle in parking lot trying to ram another vehicle 6/20/2010 Extra Patrol -Routine Check 6/21 /2010 Assault -Two females fighting inside establishment -Later continued outsisde -Citations issued 6/21/2010 Fight -Two females fighting -Citations issued 6/22/2010 Assault -Male victim alleged that he was assaulted by Jun Bo security 7/3/2010 Extra Patrol -Routine Check 7/3/2010 Extra Patrol -Routine Check 7/4/2010 Extra Patrol -Routine Check 7/4/2010 Extra Patrol -Routine Check 7/4/2010 Suspicious Person/Activity -Person driving without lights on -Arrested for 3rd Degree DWI 7/5/2010 Extra Patrol -Two parties fighting while exiting establishment -Cited for Disorderly Cond. 7/5/2010 Extra Patrol -Routine Check 7/11/2010 Suspicious Person/Activity -complaints of drug sales inside establishment 7/16/2010 Extra Patrol -Routine Check 7/18/2010 Extra Patrol -Routine Check 7/19/2010 Assault -Call to 911 -Police sent to residence -report of two females assaulting victim at Jun Bo 7/19/2010 Extra Patrol -Two parties fighting in lot -Cited for Disorderly Conduct 7/19/2010 Extra Patrol -Routine Check 8/7/2010 Extra Patrol -Routine Check 8/16/2010 Extra Patrol -Routine Check 8/28/2010 Extra Patrol -Vehicle stop while exiting parking lot -Charged with 4th Degree DWI 9/20/2010 Suspicious Person/Activity -Cleared - No Report Non-criminal Non-criminal Non-criminal Criminal Non-criminal Non-criminal Non-criminal Non-criminal Non-criminal Non-criminal Non-criminal Criminal Non-criminal Criminal Criminal Criminal Non-criminal Non-criminal Non-criminal Non-criminal Criminal Extra Patrol/Criminal Non-criminal Criminal Non-criminal Non-criminal Criminal Extra Patrol/Criminal Non-criminal Non-criminal Non-criminal Extra Patrol/Criminal Criminal v 1 AGENDA SECTION: PROPOSED ORDINANCE AGENDA ITEM # 12 REPORT # 249 J STAFF REPORT CITY COUNCIL MEETING DECEMBER 14, 2~1U REPORT PREPARED BY: DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR REVIEW: REVIEWED BY CITY MANAGER: ~ " ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION: Consideration of the zoning designation and Richfield Comprehensive Plan designation of 6901 Penn Avenue. Move to approve a first reading of an ordinance amending the zoning designation from Multi-Family Residential (MR-2) to Single-Family Residential (R) to comply with the Comprehensive Plan; OR move to deny a first reading of the ordinance and direct staff to pursue an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan so as to agree with the existing zoning designation. I. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Conduct a first reading and make one of the following motions: A) Approve a first reading of the attached ordinance amending Richfield City Code Appendix 1 to change the zoning designation of 6901 Penn Avenue from MR-2 (Multi-Family Residential) to R (Single-Family Residential); OR B) Deny a first reading of the attached ordinance and direct staff to pursue an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan so as to agree with the existing zoning designation. II. BACKGROUND Preparation and Implementation of the Comprehensive Plan Minnesota State Statute (473.864 Subd. 2) requires that cities prepare and review a comprehensive plan at least once every 10 years. That plan must include 121410 - 1St Reading 6901 Penn Rezone MELISSA POEHLMAN, CITY PLANNER information regarding a city's vision and provide specific recommendations for future land use, housing, parks, utilities and transportation. On June 23, 2009, the City Council adopted a final Comprehensive Plan (Plan) to guide future growth within Richfield. In addition to the requirement to prepare and periodically update a comprehensive plan, State Law requires that cities amend zoning regulations to comply with that plan (MN §473.865). In Richfield's case, there were approximately 300 properties throughout the City that required a change in zoning in order to comply with the adopted Plan. Facts about rezoning • Rezoning does not impact the current use of the property. • Property owners may continue to use the property in the current manner indefinitely. • Owners may sell their property and the buyer may use the property in the same manner. • The City Attorney has confirmed that the nonconforming status of the property would not affect a buyer's ability to qualify to a Federal Housing Administration (FHA) Loan. • Taxes -The Hennepin County Assessor's Office stated that they designate a property's Class (and thereby its Class Rate) by the current use rather than the zoning. For instance, as long as a given property continues to be used as asingle-family home, the Class Rate would not increase. • Home Values -City staff spoke with two appraisers regarding the issue of valuation. Both appraisers stated that the value of a property is based on the "highest and best use" that is allowed and economically viable on the property. If appraising multiple lots as an assembled property, they would likely consider the highest and best use as multi-family housing which is worth more per-square-foot than land for single-family homes. If appraising only a single property, then it would be appraised as asingle-family home and rezoning should have no effect on the property value. • The new zoning designation impacts the future use of the property IF it is redeveloped or IF the use changes (including enlargement). On November 23, 2010, the City Council approved the rezoning of most of the properties impacted by State requirements. As noted in the staff report related to those rezonings, the building located at 6901 Penn Avenue was included in the rezoning map, but due to the conversion of the building into condominiums, was omitted from the list of properties. In order to be certain that everyone impacted was aware of the proposal, the zoning change for this property was republished and a new mailed notice sent. Planning Commission Recommendation The Planning Commission discussed whether or not this site would be a practical or desirable site for single-family homes in the future, and the wisdom of planning for less density when Metropolitan Council forecasts continue to push for increases. The Commission concluded that this was not the best direction in which to move, and recommended that the City Council direct staff to pursue a Comprehensive Plan amendment at this location rather than rezoning the site to the Single-Family Residential District. III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION A. POLICY • MN §473 requires that cities amend their zoning ordinance so as to not conflict with the comprehensive plan. • The current zoning designation of 6901 Penn Avenue as MR-2 (Multi- Family Residential) does not agree with the Comprehensive Plan designation of this property as LDR (Low-Density Residential). • Either the zoning designation or the Comprehensive Plan designation of this property must be changed. B. CRITICAL TIMING ISSUES • Cities have nine months following adoption of a comprehensive plan to amend their ordinances. The Metropolitan Council is aware of the fact that Richfield is working to bring properties into agreement with the City's Plan. C. FINANCIAL • Failure to comply with Metropolitan Council requirements could impact the City's ability to receive funding provided by the Council. D. LEGAL • Failure to comply with Metropolitan Council requirements leaves the City open. to litigation. • A public hearing was held before the Planning Commission on November 22, 2010. One resident of 6901 Penn Avenue asked for clarification related to the proposal. • Notice of the public hearing was published in the Sun Current Newspaper and was mailed to subject property owners and owners within 350 feet. • The Planning Commission recommended denial (8-0). • If approved, a second reading of the ordinance will take place on January 11, 2011. E. ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS • N/A ~ IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION(S) ~ • Alternative listed m mam motion. ~ V. ATTACHMENTS ~ • Ordinance • Zoning & Comprehensive Plan Maps - 6901 Penn Ave and surrounding area VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING • Interested property owners ~a-~ ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE RELATING TO ZONING; AMENDING APPENDIX 1 TO THE RICHFIELD CITY CODE BY REZONING 6901 PENN AVENUE FROM MULTI- FAMILY RESIDENTIAL TO SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL THE CITY OF RICHFIELD DOES ORDAIN: Section 1. Appendix 1 of the Richfield Zoning Code is amended by repealing Section 12, paragraph 24. Sec. 2. This ordinance is effective in accordance with Section 3.09 of the Richfield City Charter. Debbie Goettel, Mayor ATTEST: Nancy Gibbs, City Clerk 6901 Pe n n Ave Current Zoning „~ - -_ _~' ,~< -- ~ ~J r ~. 6ti~'H - i , --- i - -- ~--- _ _ ~ - -- - - - - - - - -- i __ -- u~ __ - - - _ -- _.._ _ 1 ~ ~ - - -~ - i ; . ~_ ,_ 9TIi i -- - _--~ _ _ - - ~- _ - _ _ ~_ ~_ ~. ~ ' ,__ _` _ i~ , ~ ~ - . - _- ~ i - i - i- ~ - __' _ i1 ` J _ ! = ii~ i i ,~~ - ~ - -~ -- l - - __ Legend - - L== ~-- - - - R single-Family Residential R-1 Low-Density single-Family MR-~ Multi-Family Res. C-2 General Commercial ~/ Mt9~ CIPAC MU-C wl Penn Corridor overlay ,_ i ~. ~_ ~ .%~ is i y.- ~i. L ~ (-.. N A Legend L a Low Density Residential Medium Density Residential High Density Residential ~ ~;> Mixed Use Park 1:1GISIGommunity DevelopmPntl~tatilY~elissalPrnjectslZoniny Cases16901 Penn Rc;zoning.mxd Comprehensive Plan AGENDA SECTION AGENDA ITEM # REPORT # =..Y.~. STAFF REPORT CITY COUNCIL MEETING DECEMBER 14, 2010 PROPOSED ORDINANCE 13 250 REPORT PREPARED BY: BETSY OSBORN, SUPPORT SERVICES DIVISION MANAGER NAME, TLTLE DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR REVIEW: REVIEWED BY CITY MANAGER: r, ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION: Council consideration of a disciplinary hearing and resolution regarding civil enforcement for an establishment in Richfield that underwent tobacco compliance checks that were conducted by Richfield Public Safety staff, and failed by selling tobacco to underage youth. I. RECOMMENDED ACTION: By Motion: Conduct a disciplinary hearing and approve the attached resolution: 1. Suspending the license to sell tobacco for two (2) consecutive days for the second time violating establishment; 2. Levying a fine against the establishment in the amount of $400 for a second time violation; and, 3. Proposing that the Public Safety Director select the two consecutive davs that the license will be suspended. IL BACKGROUND On November 20, 2010, Richfield Public Safety staff conducted tobacco compliance checks at all of the establishments in Richfield that sell tobacco. They were assisted by two underage youth that were 16 years of age. These compliance checks were the second checks conducted in 2010. 1214 Resolution Tobacco Compliance Failures On November 20, 2010, the police division made arrangements for the minors to enter the establishments with undercover police officers. In three instances, tobacco was sold to underage youth. The businesses that sold tobacco to underage youth on November 20, 2010 are: • Asian Direct - 607 E. 67th St. • Richfield U.S. - 6744 Penn Ave. S. • Short Stop Superette - 7034 Cedar Ave. S. This is a first offense for Asian Direct. Their license will not be suspended nor are they required to appear before the City Council. They. will, however, be fined $200. Asian Direct has had no prior failures. This is a first offense for Richfield U.S. Their license will not be suspended nor are they required to appear before the City Council. They will, however, be fined $200. Richfield U.S. has one prior failure in August of 2001. This is a second offense for Short Stop Superette. Technically, it is a fourth violation; however, due to the step back option (two consecutive compliance check passes), it is considered a second offense. Past failures occurred on May 25, 2004, March 20, 2008, and November 13, 2009. At no time did any of the minors use the tobacco products. The youth presented their IDs, if requested, and at no time attempted to convince anyone that they were of legal age. Establishments were visited at various times, busy or not busy, in an effort to determine if busy times produced more successful buys. It doesn't appear to have made a difference at either time. After each attempt, successful or unsuccessful, the officers identified themselves to the clerks and issued a citation if they failed. If tobacco was not sold to the underage youth, the clerk was congratulated by officers. The employee that sold tobacco will be charged criminally in court. The action being taken today is for civil enforcement and penalties against the businesses that hold a license to self tobacco within the City. The fines being recommended at this time are intended to recover 100% of the costs for conducting the compliance checks and to penalize the businesses punitively. Compliance checks will continue to occur in the future. It is also recommended that 15% of the punitive fines be designated for future tobacco and alcohol education efforts within the community. III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION A. POLICY • Richfield City Code section 1146 specifies certain improper conduct of tobacco license holders and delineates the progressive discipline that can be expected when violations occur, such as the sale of tobacco to minors. • Staff recommends that the City Council suspend the license to sell tobacco for two (2) consecutive days for the second time violating establishment; levying a fine against the establishment in the amount of $400. Staff further recommends that the Public Safety Director select the two (2) consecutive days that the license will be suspended. B. CRITICAL TIMING ISSUES • It is a violation of Minnesota State Statute and City ordinance to sell tobacco to underage youth. • Citizen representatives of the Richfield Advisory Board of Health support severe actions against establishments in an effort to protect the youth of the community and to send a message that youth and their well-being are a high priority in this City. C. FINANCIAL • All costs of conducting compliance checks will be reimbursed through the fines that are levied against an establishment for failing a tobacco compliance check. Furthermore, 15% of the punitive fines are designated for future tobacco and alcohol educational efforts within the community. D. LEGAL • N/A E. ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS • N/A N. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION~S~ • The Council could decide to take no action against the establishments for the sale of tobacco to a minor, which would result in no disciplinary actions against the establishments. This would, however, send a message to the community that children and their well being are not a priority in Richfield. • The Council may consider taking more or less severe action against the establishments that sold tobacco to underage youth; however; that would deviate from the guidelines set for progressive discipline in City Code 1146. V. ATTACHMENTS • Resolution for Short Stop Superette. VL PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING • A representative from the establishment is expected to be in attendance at the meeting. They have been notified in writing of this requirement. 13-t RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION SUSPENDING THE TOBACCO LICENSE FOR SHORT STOP SUPERETTE, 7034 CEDAR AVENUE SOUTH, AND IMPOSING A CIVIL PENALTY FOR SECOND TIME TOBACCO COMPLIANCE FAILURE WHEREAS, Short Stop Superette ("Licensee") holds a license to sell tobacco products within the City of Richfield; and, WHEREAS, on November 20, 2010, the City of Richfield Public Safety Department/Police conducted a compliance check of the Licensee's establishment, and during the compliance check, an employee of the Licensee sold tobacco to a minor; and, WHEREAS, this is technically their fourth failed tobacco compliance check; however, due to the step back option (two consecutive compliance check passes), it is considered their second offense; and, WHEREAS, the Licensee appeared before the City Council on December 14, 2010 and admitted the violation and stipulated to the suspension and penalty imposed by this resolution. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Richfield as follows: 1. The Licensee's tobacco license is hereby suspended for a period of two (2) consecutive days, commencing on a date to be determined by the Public Safety Director, but to take place within 30 days of their Council appearance. 2. A civil penalty of $400 is hereby imposed. On or before January 14, 2011, the Licensee shall deliver a check or money order payable to the City of Richfield in the amount of $400. Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield this 14th day of December 2010. Debbie Goettel ,Mayor ATTEST: Nancy Gibbs, City Clerk AGENDA SECTION: PROPOSED ORDINANCE ~ AGENDA ITEM # 14 ~ REPORT # 251 ~. STAFF REPORT CITY COUNCIL MEETING DECEMBER 14, 2010 REPORT PREPARED BY: CHRIS REGIS, FINANCE MANAGER NAME, TITLE DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR REVIEW: REVIEWED BY CITY MANAGER: ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION: Consideration of the attached resolution awarding the sale of $6,455,000 Tax Increment Refunding Bonds, Series 20108. I. RECOMMENDED ACTION: By Motion: Approve the attached resolution awarding the sale of General Obligation Tax Increment Refunding Bonds, Series 20106, in the original aggregate principal amount of $6,455,000; Fixing their form and specifications; Directing their execution and delivery; Providing for their payment; Providing for the escrowing and investment of the proceeds thereof; And providing for the redemption of bonds refunded thereby. II. BACKGROUND In 2001 the City issued $8,350,000 G.O. Tax Increment Bonds, Series 2001A for the purpose of financing the construction of the Penn Avenue Bridge associated with the Best Buy Development. With interest rates at historical lows, staff has requested Ehlers & Associates, Inc. to review this bond issue to determine if refunding was feasible at this time. Upon review of this bond issue, Ehlers & Associates, Inc. recommends undertaking a bond refunding to take advantage of the low-interest rates. 1214Award of Sales Refunding 2001A Bonds The type of refunding being presented is a crossover refunding. In a crossover refunding, bonds are issued in advance of a specified call date. The proceeds of the issue are invested in government securities and held in escrow. The money in the escrow account is used to pay interest on the new issue until the call date. At the call date, the funds in the escrow are then used to prepay the bonds to be called. The City would then begin to make payments on the newly issued "refunding bonds." Accordingly, the Series 20106 bonds are being issued to provide funds sufficient for a crossover refunding on August 1, 2011, of all of the City's callable G.O. Tax Increment Bonds, Series 2001 A, dated April 1, 2001. The par amount of the Series 2001A bonds to be called on the call date is $6,275,000. The funds currently being used to service the 2001A Bonds for the Penn Avenue Bridge are derived from tax increment generated by Best Buy redevelopment. Under the terms of the existing Development Agreement between Best Buy and the Richfield Housing and Redevelopment Authority (HRA), any tax increment financing (TIF) funds that exceeded the bridge bond debt service and a capped payment to the HRA for reimbursement of administrative costs and payment into the Housing and Redevelopment Fund would be provided to Best Buy. Best Buy has generously offered, however, to amend the Development Agreement in a way that allows 100% of the savings resulting from the bond refinance to go into the Housing and Redevelopment Fund. Accordingly, at the November 9, 2010 City Council meeting, the City Council approved a resolution authorizing the refunding of the $8,350,000 G.O. Tax Increment Bonds, Series 2001 A, with the $6,455,000 G.O. Tax Increment Refunding Bonds, Series 20106. Bids on the bonds are due in the offices of Ehlers & Associates, Inc. on Tuesday December 14, 2010. A representative from Ehlers & Associates, Inc. will be at the City Council meeting to recommend the successful bidder and provide information that is absent from the resolution and available only after the bidding on the bonds has closed. Following Ehlers & Associates, Inc. recommendation it would be appropriate for the City Council to award the bond sale to the qualified buyer and undertake other related actions as necessary as delineated in the approving resolution. The anticipated closing on the 20106 Bonds is scheduled for late December 2010. III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION A. POLICY • The City Council approved the refunding of the $8,350,000 G.O. Tax Increment Bonds, Series 2001A on November 9, 2010. B. CRITICAL TIMING ISSUES • The sale of the refunding bonds at this time will allow the City to take advantage of the low interest rates and realize savings. C. FINANCIAL • On the basis of Ehlers & Associates, Inc. review, it appears that the current interest rate climate makes it feasible to refund the bond issue. • The $6,455,000 G.O. Tax Increment Refunding Bonds, Series 20106 are being issued to provide funds for a crossover refunding on August 1, 2011, on all of the City's callable G.O. Tax Increment Bonds, Series 2001 A. The par amount of the Series 2001 A bonds which will be callable on August 1, 2011 total $6,275,000, which will have maturities on February 1 in the years 2011 through 2024. • It is estimated that this refinancing under current rates would reduce the principle and interest costs of paying this debt by approximately $1,017,750 (which equates to an annual savings of approximately $78,000). • This savings expressed in present value terms is around 13.2% of the refunded principal. The minimum savings required by Minnesota state law for an advanced refunding is a present value savings of 3.00%. • The annual savings realized by the refunding will be deposited into the Richfield Housing and Redevelopment Authority's (RBA's) Housing and Redevelopment Fund. Staff will bring recommendations to the City Council and HRA in the future with recommendations on how to use the annual savings. • It is the intent of the City to continue to use tax increment revenues from the Interchange West and Lyndale Gateway Tax Increment Financing District to pay the debt service. • The bonds are being issued fora 13-year period; this does not extend the term of the original issue. The maturity date of the new refunding issue will be the same as the current outstanding issue. D. LEGAL • Only one crossover refunding of the Series 2001A bonds is legally allowed. • The Escrow and Pledge agreements related to the refunding of the bonds are on file in the City Clerks office. E. ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS • NA IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION(S~ Disregard the current refunding option, continue to retire the bonded debt as presently scheduled, and forego the projected savings. V. ATTACHMENTS Resolution. VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING Representative from Ehlers & Associates, Inc. ~~- t Extract of Minutes of Meeting of the City Council of the City of Richfield, Hennepin County, Minnesota Pursuant to due call and notice thereof, a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota, was duly held in the City Ha11 in said City on Tuesday, December 14, 2010, commencing at 7:00 P.M. The following members were present: and the following were absent: The Mayor announced that the next order of business was consideration of the proposals which had been received for the purchase of the City's General Obligation Tax Increment Refunding Bonds, Series 2010B, proposed to be issued in the original aggregate principal amount of $6,455,000. The City Manager presented a tabulation of the proposals which had been received in the manner specified in the Terms of Proposal for the Bonds. The proposals were as set forth in EXHIBIT A attached. After due consideration of the proposals, Member then introduced the following written resolution, the reading of which was dispensed with by unanimous consent, and moved its adoption: ~u-a RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION AWARDING THE SALE OF GENERAL OBLIGATION TAX INCREMENT REFUNDING BONDS, SERIES 2010B, IN THE ORIGINAL AGGREGATE PRINCIPAL AMOUNT OF $6,455,000; FIXING THEIR FORM AND SPECIFICATIONS; DIRECTING THEIR EXECUTION AND DELIVERY; PROVIDING FOR THEIR PAYMENT; PROVIDING FOR THE ESCROWING AND INVESTMENT OF THE PROCEEDS THEREOF; AND PROVIDING FOR THE REDEMPTION OF BONDS REFUNDED THEREBY BE IT RESOLVED By the City Council of the City of Richfield, Hennepin County, Minnesota (the "City") as follows: Section 1. Findings; Sale of Bonds. 1.01. Findings. It is hereby determined that: (a) The City and the Housing and Redevelopment Authority in and for the City of Richfield (the "Authority") have duly established the Interchange West and Lyndale Gateway Tax Increment District (the "TIF District") within the Richfield Redevelopment Project Area (the "Project Area") pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Sections 469.001 to 469.047, as amended and Sections 469.174 to 469.1799, as amended (collectively, the "TIF Act"). (b) Pursuant to Section 469.178 of the TIF Act and Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 475, as amended (the "Municipal Debt Act"), the City previously agreed to finance certain public redevelopment costs to be incurred by the Authority or the City in the Project Area through the issuance of the City's General Obligation Tax Increment Bonds, Series 2001A (the "Prior Bonds"), dated April 1, 2001, in the original aggregate principal amount of $8,350,000. (c) The City is authorized by Section 475.67, Subdivision 13, of the Municipal Debt Act to issue and sell its general obligation bonds to refund outstanding bonds when determined by the City Council to be necessary and desirable. (d) The City finds it necessary and desirable to issue its General Obligation Tax Increment Refunding Bonds, Series 2010B (the "Bonds"), in the original aggregate principal amount of $6,455,000, to refund in advance of maturity and at their redemption date the Prior Bonds, currently outstanding in the aggregate principal amount of $6,610,000, of which $6,275,000 in principal amount will be callable on August 1, 2011. (e) Proceeds of the Bonds are expected to be expended as follows: 2 1 ~-I 3 Project Designation & Description Total Project Cost Deposit to Escrow Fund $6,355,389.16 Costs of Issuance 44,000.00 Underwriter's Compensation 51,640.00 Rounding Amount 3,970.84 Total $6,455,000.00 (f) The City is authorized by Section 475.60, Subdivision 2(9) of the Municipal Debt Act to negotiate the sale of the Bonds, it being determined that the City has retained an independent financial advisor in connection with such sale. The actions of the City staff and financial advisors in negotiating the sale of the Bonds are ratified and confirmed in all aspects. 1.02. Award to the Purchaser and Interest Rates. The proposal of (the "Purchaser") to purchase the Bonds of the City is determined to be a reasonable offer and is accepted, the proposal being to purchase the Bonds price of $ (par amount of $6,455,000, [plus original issue premium of $ ,] [less original issue discount of $ ,] less underwriter's discount of $~, plus accrued interest to date of delivery, if any, for Bonds bearing interest as follows: Year Interest Rate Year Interest Rate 2012 % 2019 2013 2020 2014 2021 2015 2022 2016 2023 2017 2024 2018 True interest cost: 1.03. Purchase Contract. The sum of $ ,being the amount proposed by the Purchaser in excess of $6,403,360, shall be credited to the Debt Service Fund hereinafter created or the Escrow Fund hereinafter created unless the funds are determined to be deposited in another fund by action of the City's Finance Manager in consultation with the City's financial advisor. The Finance Manager of the City is directed to deposit the good faith check of the Purchaser, pending completion of the sale of the Bonds, and to return the good faith checks of the unsuccessful proposers forthwith. The Mayor and City Manager are directed to execute a contract with the Purchaser on behalf of the City. 1.04. Terms and Principal Amount of Bonds. The City will forthwith issue and sell the Bonds pursuant to the Municipal Debt Act in the original aggregate principal amount of $6,455,000, originally dated December 30, 2010, in the denomination of $5,000 each or any integral multiple thereof, numbered No. R-l, upward, bearing interest as above set forth, and maturing serially on February 1 in the years and amounts as follows: 3 iu-~I Year Amount Year Amount 2012 $ 2019 $ 2013 2020 2014 2021 2015 2022 2016 2023 2017 2024 2018 1.05. Optional Redemption. The City may elect on February 1, 2019, and on any day thereafter to prepay Bonds due on or after February 1, 2020. Redemption may be in whole or in part and if in part, at the option of the City and in such manner as the City will determine. If less than all Bonds of a maturity are called for redemption, the City will notify DTC (as defined in Section 8 hereof) of the particular amount of such maturity to be prepaid. DTC will determine by lot the amount of each participant's interest in such maturity to be redeemed and each participant will then select by lot the beneficial ownership interests in such maturity to be redeemed. Prepayments will be at a price of par plus accrued interest. [1.06. Term Bonds; Mandatory Redemption. To be completed if Term Bonds are requested by the Purchaser.] Section 2. Registration and Payment. 2.01. Registered Form. The Bonds will be issued only in fully registered form. The interest thereon and, upon surrender of each Bond, the principal amount thereof, is payable by check or draft issued by the Registrar described herein. 2.02. Dates; Interest Payment Dates. Each Bond will be dated as of the last interest payment date preceding the date of authentication to which interest on the Bond has been paid or made available for payment, unless (i) the date of authentication is an interest payment date to which interest has been paid or made available for payment, in which case the Bond will be dated as of the date of authentication, or (ii) the date of authentication is prior to the first interest payment date, in which case the Bond will be dated as of the date of original issue. The interest on the Bonds is payable on February 1 and August 1 of each year, commencing August 1, 2011, to the. registered owners of record as of the close of business on the fifteenth day of the immediately preceding month, whether or not that day is a business day. 2.03. Registration. The City will appoint a bond registrar, transfer agent, authenticating agent and paying agent (the "Registrar"). The effect of registration and the rights and duties of the City and the Registrar with respect thereto are as follows: (a) Re ig~ster. The Registrar must keep at its principal corporate trust office a bond register in which the Registrar provides for the registration of ownership of Bonds and the registration of transfers and exchanges of Bonds entitled to be registered, transferred or exchanged. (b) Transfer of Bonds. Upon surrender for transfer of a Bond duly endorsed by the registered owner thereof or accompanied by a written instrument of transfer, in form satisfactory to the Registrar, duly executed by the registered owner thereof or by an attorney duly authorized by the registered owner in writing, the Registrar will authenticate and deliver, in the name of the designated transferee or transferees, one or more new Bonds of a like aggregate principal amount and maturity, as requested by the transferor. The Registrar may, however, close the books for registration of any 4 lu-5 transfer after the fifteenth day of the month preceding each interest payment date and until that interest payment date. (c) Exchange of Bonds. When Bonds are surrendered by the registered owner for exchange the Registrar will authenticate and deliver one or more new Bonds of a like aggregate principal amount and maturity as requested by the registered owner or the owner's attorney in writing. (d) Cancellation. Bonds surrendered upon transfer or exchange will be promptly cancelled by the Registrar and thereafter disposed of as directed by the City. (e) Improper or Unauthorized Transfer. When a Bond is presented to the Registrar for transfer, the Registrar may refuse to transfer the Bond until the Registrar is satisfied that the endorsement on the Bond or separate instrument of transfer is valid and genuine and that the requested transfer is legally authorized. The Registrar will incur no liability for the refusal, in good faith, to make transfers which it, in its judgment, deems improper or unauthorized. (f) Persons Deemed Owners. The City and the Registrar may treat the person in whose name a Bond is registered in the bond register as the absolute owner of the Bond, whether the Bond is overdue or not, for the purpose of receiving payment of, or on account of, the principal of and interest on the Bond and for all other purposes, and payments so made to a registered owner or upon the owner's order will be valid and effectual to satisfy and discharge the liability upon the Bond to the extent of the sum or sums so paid. (g) Taxes, Fees and Charles. The Registrar may impose a charge upon the owner thereof for a transfer or exchange of Bonds sufficient to reimburse the Registrar for any tax, fee or other governmental charge required to be paid with respect to the transfer or exchange. (h) Mutilated, Lost, Stolen or Destroyed Bonds. If a Bond becomes mutilated or is destroyed, stolen or lost, the Registrar will deliver a new Bond of like amount, number, maturity date and tenor in exchange and substitution for and upon cancellation of the mutilated Bond or in lieu of and in substitution for any Bond destroyed, stolen or lost, upon the payment of the reasonable expenses and charges of the Registrar in connection therewith; and, in the case of a Bond destroyed, stolen or lost, upon filing with the Registrar of evidence satisfactory to it that the Bond was destroyed, stolen or Lost, and of the ownership thereof, and upon furnishing to the Registrar an appropriate bond or indemnity in form, substance and amount satisfactory to it and as provided by law, in which both the City and the Registrar must be named as obligees. Bonds so surrendered to the Registrar will be cancelled by the Registrar and evidence of such cancellation must be given to the City. If the mutilated, destroyed, stolen or lost Bond has already matured or been called for redemption in accordance with its terms it is not necessary to issue a new Bond prior to payment. (i) Redemption. In the event any of the Bonds are called for redemption, notice thereof identifying the Bonds to be redeemed will be given by the Registrar by mailing a copy of the redemption notice by first class mail (postage prepaid) to the registered owner of each Bond to be redeemed at the address shown on the registration books kept by the Registrar and by publishing the notice if required by law. Failure to give notice by publication or by mail to any registered owner, or any defect therein, will not affect the validity of any proceeding for the redemption of Bonds. Bonds so called for redemption will cease to bear interest after the specified redemption date, provided that the funds for the redemption are on deposit with the place of payment at that time. i~ -~ 2.04. Appointment of Initial Re ig sear. The City appoints Wells Fargo Bank, National Association, Minneapolis, Minnesota, as the initial Registrar. The Mayor and the City Manager are authorized to execute and deliver, on behalf of the City, a contract with the Registrar. Upon merger or consolidation of the Registrar with another corporation, if the resulting corporation is a bank or trust company authorized by law to conduct such business, the resulting corporation is authorized to act as successor Registrar. The City agrees to pay the reasonable and customary charges of the Registrar for the services performed. The City reserves the right to remove the Registrar upon 30 days' notice and upon the appointment of a successor Registrar, in which event the predecessor Registrar must deliver all cash and Bonds in its possession to the successor Registrar and must deliver the bond register to the successor Registrar. On or before each principal or interest due date, without further order of this Council, the Finance Manager must transmit to the Registrar moneys sufficient for the payment of all principal and interest then due. 2.05. Execution Authentication and Delivery. The Bonds will be prepared under the direction of the City Manager and executed on behalf of the City by the signatures of the Mayor and the City Manager, provided that those signatures may be printed, engraved or lithographed facsimiles of the originals. If an officer whose signature or a facsimile of whose signature appears on the Bonds ceases to be such officer before the delivery of a Bond, that signature or facsimile will nevertheless be valid and sufficient for all purposes, the same as if the officer had remained in office until delivery. Notwithstanding such execution, a Bond will not be valid or obligatory for any purpose or entitled to any security or benefit under this Resolution unless and until a certificate of authentication on the Bond has been duly executed by the manual signature of an authorized representative of the Registrar. Certificates of authentication on different Bonds need not be signed by the same representative. The executed certificate of authentication on a Bond is conclusive evidence that it has been authenticated and delivered under this Resolution. When the Bonds have been so prepared, executed and authenticated, the City Manager will deliver the same to the Purchaser upon payment of the purchase price in accordance with the contract of sale heretofore made and executed, and the Purchaser is not obligated to see to the application of the purchase price. 2.06. Temporary Bonds. The City may elect to deliver in lieu of printed definitive Bonds one or more typewritten temporary Bonds in substantially the form set forth in EXHIBIT B attached hereto, with such changes as may be necessary to reflect more than one maturity in a single temporary bond. Upon the execution and delivery of definitive Bonds the temporary Bonds will be exchanged therefor and cancelled. Section 3. Form of Bond. 3.01. Execution of the Bonds. The Bonds will be printed or typewritten in substantially the form attached hereto as EXHIBIT B. 3.02. Approving Le ag 1 Opinion. The City Manager is authorized and directed to obtain a copy of the proposed approving legal opinion of Kennedy & Graven, Chartered, Minneapolis, Minnesota, which is to be complete except as to dating thereof and cause the opinion to be printed on or accompany each Bond. Section 4. Bonds; Security; Escrow. 4.01. Debt Service Fund. For the convenience and proper administration of the moneys to be borrowed and repaid on the Bonds, and to provide adequate and specific security for the Purchaser and holders from time to time of the Bonds, there is hereby created a special fund to be designated the Tax Increment Refunding Bonds, Series 2010B Debt Service Fund (the "Debt Service Fund") to be administered and maintained by the Finance Manager as a bookkeeping account separate and apart from all other funds maintained in the official financial records of the City. The Debt Service Fund will be maintained in the 6 i~ -~ manner herein specified until all of the Prior Bonds have been paid and until all of the Bonds and the interest thereon have been fully paid. To the Debt Service Fund there is hereby pledged and irrevocably appropriated and there will be credited: (i) any balance remitted to the City upon the termination of the Escrow Agreement (as defined herein); (ii) the tax increment revenues resulting from increases in taxable valuation of real property in the TIF District (the "Tax Increment Revenues") pledged to the payment of the Bonds and interest thereon pursuant to the Pledge Agreement (as defined herein); (iii) all investment earnings on funds in the Debt Service Fund; and (iv) any and all other moneys which are properly available and are appropriated by the City Council to the Debt Service Fund. The amount of any surplus remaining in the Debt Service Fund when the Bonds and interest thereon are paid will be used as provided in Section 475.61, Subdivision 4 of the Municipal Debt Act. There is hereby appropriated to the Debt Service Fund (i) any amount over the minimum purchase price paid by the Purchaser, to the extent designated for deposit in the Debt Service Fund in accordance with Section 1.03; and (ii) the accrued interest paid by the Purchaser upon closing and delivery of the Bonds, if any. If a payment of principal or interest on the Bonds becomes due when there is not sufficient money in the Debt Service Fund to pay the same, the Finance Manager will pay such principal or interest from the general fund of the City, and the general fund will be reimbursed for those advances out of the proceeds of the Tax Increment Revenues when received. The debt service fund heretofore established for the Prior Bonds pursuant to the resolution authorizing the sale and issuance of the Prior Bonds (the "Prior Bonds Resolution") shall be terminated on August 1, 2011, following the redemption of the Prior Bonds, and all monies therein are hereby transferred to the Debt Service Fund herein created. 4.02. Escrow Fund. A portion of the proceeds of the Bonds in the amount of $ will be deposited in a separate fund (the "Escrow Fund") maintained by Wells Fargo Bank, National Association, in Minneapolis, Minnesota, acting as escrow agent (the "Escrow Agent"). Such funds will be received by the Escrow Agent and applied to fund the Escrow Fund or to pay costs of issuing the Bonds. Proceeds of the Bonds not used to pay costs of issuance on the Bonds are hereby irrevocably pledged and appropriated to the Escrow Fund, together with all investment earnings thereon. The Escrow Fund will be invested in securities maturing or callable at the option of the holder on such dates and bearing interest at such rates as will be required to provide sufficient funds, together with any cash or other funds retained in the Escrow Fund to (i) pay when due the interest to accrue on the Bonds to and including August 1, 2011 (the "Redemption Date"); and (ii) pay on the Redemption Date the principal amount of the Prior Bonds then outstanding. The Escrow Fund will be irrevocably appropriated to the payment of the principal of and interest on the Prior Bonds until the proceeds of the Bonds therein are applied to prepayment of the Prior Bonds. The moneys in the Escrow Fund will be used solely for the purposes herein set forth and for no other purpose, except that any surplus in the Escrow Fund may be remitted to the City, all in accordance with the Escrow Agreement by and between the City and the Escrow Agent. Any moneys remitted to the City upon termination of the Escrow Agreement will be deposited in the Debt Service Fund. 4.03. Pledge Agreement. A Tax Increment Pledge Agreement between the City and the Authority, dated on or after December 1, 2010 (the "TIF Pledge Agreement"), is hereby approved and shall be executed in substantially the form on file with the City, with such additions, deletions, and other changes as are approved by the City Manager. The TIF Pledge Agreement is to be executed and delivered in order to satisfy the requirements of Section 469.178, subdivision 2 of the TIF Act and Section 475.58, subdivision 1, and Section 475.61, subdivision 1, of the Municipal Debt Act. The TIF Pledge Agreement creates rights in the City and the Authority but is not intended to create duties or obligations of the City or the Authority to any other persons (including the beneficial or registered owners of the Bonds) with respect to the Tax Increment Revenues or other revenues described or referenced in the TIF Pledge Agreement, except to the extent required by applicable law, and is not intended to create Iy -~ rights in or claims by any other persons (including the beneficial or registered owners of the Bonds) with respect to the Tax Increment Revenues or other revenues described or referenced in the TIF Pledge Agreement, except to the extent required by applicable law. 4.04. Findings. It is hereby found and determined that based upon information presently available from the City's financial advisors, the issuance of the Bonds will result in a reduction of debt service cost to the City on the Prior Bonds, such that the present value of such debt service or interest cost savings (the "Reduction") is at least 3.00% of the debt service on the Prior Bonds. The Reduction, after the inclusion of all authorized expenses of refunding in the computation of the effective interest rate on the Bonds, is adequate to authorize the issuance of the Bonds as provided by Section 475.67, Subdivisions 12 and 13 of the Municipal Debt Act. 4.05. No Tax Levy Required. It is determined that the estimated collection of Tax Increment Revenues for payment of principal and interest on the Bonds will produce at least five percent in excess of the amount needed to meet, when due, the principal and interest payments on the Bonds and that no tax levy is needed at this time. 4.06. Filing of Resolution. The City Manager is authorized and directed to file a certified copy of this resolution with the Taxpayer Services Division Manager of Hennepin County and to obtain the certificate required by Section 475.63 of the Municipal Debt Act. Section 5. Refunding; Findings• Redemption of Prior Bonds. 5.01. Purpose of Refunding. The Prior Bonds are the City's General Obligation Tax Increment Bonds, Series 2001A, dated April 1, 2001, and issued in the original aggregate principal amount of $8,350,000. The 2012 through 2024 maturities of the Prior Bonds will be called for redemption on August 1, 2011 in the amount of $6,275,000. It is hereby found and determined that based upon information presently available from the City's financial advisor, the issuance of the Bonds, a portion of which will be used to redeem and prepay the Prior Bonds, is consistent with covenants made with the holders of the Prior Bonds. 5.02. Proceeds Pledged to the Escrow Fund. As of the date of delivery of and payment for the Bonds, proceeds of the Bonds in the amount of $ are hereby pledged and appropriated and will be deposited in the Escrow Fund for the purposes of redeeming the Prior Bonds on August 1, 2011, and paying interest on the Bonds through August 1, 2011. 5.03. Notice of Redemption. The Prior Bonds maturing on February 1, 2012, and thereafter will be redeemed and prepaid on the Redemption Date in accordance with their terms and in accordance with the terms and conditions set forth in the form of Notice of Call for Redemption attached hereto as EXHIBIT C, which terms and conditions are hereby approved and incorporated herein by reference. The Registrar for the Prior Bonds is authorized and directed to send a copy of the Notice of Redemption to each registered holder of the Prior Bonds. 5.04. Escrow Agreement. On or prior to the delivery of the Bonds, the Mayor and the City Manager are hereby authorized and directed to execute on behalf of the City an escrow agreement (the "Escrow Agreement") with the Escrow Agent in substantially the form now on file with the City Manager. All essential terms and conditions of the Escrow Agreement including payment by the City of reasonable charges for the services of the Escrow Agent, are hereby approved and adopted and made a part of this resolution, and the City covenants that it will promptly enforce all provisions thereof in the event of default thereunder by the Escrow Agent. ly _~ Section 6. Authentication of Transcript. 6.01. City Proceedings and Records. The officers of the City are authorized and directed to prepare and furnish to the Purchaser and to the attorneys approving the Bonds, certified copies of proceedings and records of the City relating to the Bonds and to the financial condition and affairs of the City, and such other certificates, affidavits and transcripts as maybe required to show the facts within their knowledge or as shown by the books and records in their custody and under their control, relating to the validity and marketability of the Bonds, and such instruments, including any heretofore furnished, may be deemed representations of the City as to the facts stated therein. 6.02. Certification as to Official Statement. The Mayor, City Manager, and Finance Manager are hereby authorized and directed to certify that they have examined the Official Statement prepared and circulated in connection with the issuance and sale of the Bonds and that to the best of their knowledge and belief the Official Statement is a complete and accurate representation of the facts and representations made therein as of the date of the Official Statement. 6.03. Other Certificates. The Mayor and City Manager are hereby authorized and directed to furnish to the Purchaser at the closing such certificates as are required as a condition of sale. Unless litigation shall have been commenced and be pending questioning the Bonds or the organization of the City or incumbency of its officers, at the closing the Mayor and the City Manager shall also execute and deliver to the Purchaser a suitable certificate as to absence of material litigation, and the City Manager shall also execute and deliver a certificate as to payment for and delivery of the Bonds. 6.04. Payment of Costs of Issuance. The City authorizes the Purchaser to forward the amount of Bond proceeds allocable to the payment of issuance expenses (other than amounts payable to Kennedy & Graven, Chartered, as Bond Counsel) to K1einBank, Chaska, Minnesota on the closing date for further distribution as directed by the City's financial advisor, Ehlers & Associates, Inc. Section 7. Tax Covenants. 7.01. Tax-Exempt Bonds. The City covenants and agrees with the holders from time to time of the Bonds that it will not take or permit to be taken by any of its officers, employees or agents any action which would cause the interest on the Bonds to become subject to taxation under the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended (the "Code"), and the Treasury Regulations promulgated thereunder, in effect at the time of such actions, and that it will take or cause its officers, employees or agents to take, all affirmative action within its power that may be necessary to ensure that such interest will not become subject to taxation under the Code and applicable Treasury Regulations, as presently existing or as hereafter amended and made applicable to the Bonds. 7.02. Not Private Activi Bonds. The City further covenants not to use the proceeds of the Bonds or to cause or permit them or any of them to be used, in such a manner as to cause the Bonds to be "private activity bonds" within the meaning of Sections 103 and 141 through 150 of the Code. 7.03. Qualified Tax-Exempt Obli atg ions. In order to qualify the Bonds as "qualified tax-exempt obligations" within the meaning of Section 265(b)(3) of the Code, the City makes the following factual statements and representations: (a) the Bonds are not "private activity bonds" as defined in Section 141 of the Code; (b) the City hereby designates the Bonds as "qualified tax-exempt obligations" for purposes of Section 265(b)(3) of the Code; 9 ~U - 16 (c) the reasonably anticipated amount of tax-exempt obligations (other than private activity bonds) which will be issued by the City (and all subordinate entities of the City) during calendar year 2010 will not exceed $30,000,000; and (d) not more than $30,000,000 of obligations issued by the City during calendar year 2010 have been designated for purposes of Section 265(b)(3) of the Code. 7.04. Procedural Requirements. The City will use its best efforts to comply with any federal procedural requirements which may apply in order to effectuate the designations made by this section. Section 8. Book-Entry System• Limited Obligation of City. 8.01. The Depository Trust Company. The Bonds will be initially issued in the form of a separate single typewritten or printed fully registered Bond for each of the maturities set forth in Section 1.04 hereof. Upon initial issuance, the ownership of each such Bond will be registered in the registration books kept by the Registrar in the name of Cede & Co., as nominee for The Depository Trust Company, New York, New York, and its successors and assigns ("DTC"). Except as provided in this section, all of the outstanding Bonds will be registered in the registration books kept by the Registrar in the name of Cede & Co., as nominee of DTC. 8.02. Participants. With respect to Bonds registered in the registration books kept by the Registrar in the name of Cede & Co., as nominee of DTC, the City, the Registrar and the Paying Agent will have no responsibility or obligation to any broker dealers, banks and other financial institutions from time to time for which DTC holds Bonds as securities depository (the "Participants") or to any other person on behalf of which a Participant holds an interest in the Bonds, including but not limited to any responsibility or obligation with respect to (i) the accuracy of the records of DTC, Cede & Co. or any Participant with respect to any ownership interest in the Bonds, (ii) the delivery to any Participant or any other person (other than a registered owner of Bonds, as shown by the registration books kept by the Registrar), of any notice with respect to the Bonds, including any notice of redemption, or (iii) the payment to any Participant or any other person, other than a registered owner of Bonds, of any amount with respect to principal of, premium, if any, or interest on the Bonds. The City, the Registrar and the Paying Agent may treat and consider the person in whose name each Bond is registered in the registration books kept by the Registrar as the holder and absolute owner of such Bond for the purpose of payment of principal, premium and interest with respect to such Bond, for the purpose of registering transfers with respect to such Bonds, and for all other purposes. The Paying Agent will pay all principal of, premium, if any, and interest on the Bonds only to or on the order of the respective registered owners, as shown in the registration books kept by the Registrar, and all such payments will be valid and effectual to fully satisfy and discharge the City's obligations with respect to payment of principal of, premium, if any, or interest on the Bonds to the extent of the sum or sums so paid. No person other than a registered owner of Bonds, as shown in the registration books kept by the Registrar, will receive a certificated Bond evidencing the obligation of this resolution. Upon delivery by DTC to the City Manager of a written notice to_ the effect that DTC has determined to substitute a new nominee in place of Cede & Co., the words "Cede & Co." will refer to such new nominee of DTC; and upon receipt of such a notice, the City Manager will promptly deliver a copy of the same to the Registrar and Paying Agent. 8.03. Representation Letter. The City has heretofore executed and delivered to DTC a Blanket Issuer Letter of Representations (the "Representation Letter") which shall govern payment of principal of, premium, if any, and interest on the Bonds and notices with respect to the Bonds. Any Paying Agent or Registrar subsequently appointed by the City with respect to the Bonds will agree to take all action necessary for all representations of the City in the Representation Letter with respect to the Registrar and Paying Agent, respectively, to be complied with at all times. 10 ~~- II 8.04. Transfers Outside Book-Entry System. hi the event the City, by resolution of the City Council, determines that it is in the best interests of the persons having beneficial interests in the Bonds that they be able to obtain Bond certificates, the City will notify DTC, whereupon DTC will notify the Participants, of the availability through DTC of Bond certificates. In such event the City will issue, transfer and exchange Bond certificates as requested by DTC and any other registered owners in accordance with the provisions of this Resolution. DTC may determine to discontinue providing its services with respect to the Bonds at any time by giving notice to the City and discharging its responsibilities with respect thereto under applicable law. In such event, if no successor securities depository is appointed, the City will issue and the Registrar will authenticate Bond certificates in accordance with this resolution and the provisions hereof will apply to the transfer, exchange and method of payment thereof. 8.05. Payments to Cede & Co. Notwithstanding any other provision of this Resolution to the contrary, so long as a Bond is registered in the name of Cede & Co., as nominee of DTC, payments with respect to principal of, premium, if any, and interest on the Bond and notices with respect to the Bond will be made and given, respectively in the manner provided in DTC's Operational Arrangements, as set forth in the Representation Letter. Section 9. Continuing Disclosure. 9.01. City Compliance with Provisions of Continuine Disclosure Certificate. The City hereby covenants and agrees that it will comply with and carry out all of the provisions of the Continuing Disclosure Certificate. Notwithstanding any other provision of this Resolution, failure of the City to comply with the Continuing Disclosure Certificate is not to be considered an event of default with respect to the Bonds; however, any Bondholder may take such actions as may be necessary and appropriate, including seeking mandate or specific performance by court order, to cause the City to comply with its obligations under this section. 9.02. Execution of Continuing Disclosure Certificate. "Continuing Disclosure Certificate" means that certain Continuing Disclosure Certificate executed by the Mayor and City Manager and dated the date of issuance and delivery of the Bonds, as originally executed and as it may be amended from time to time in accordance with the terms thereof. Section 10. Defeasance. When all Bonds and all interest thereon have been discharged as provided in this section, all pledges, covenants and other rights granted by this resolution to the holders of the Bonds will cease, except that the pledge of the full faith and credit of the City for the prompt and full payment of the principal of and interest on the Bonds will remain in full force and effect. The City may discharge all Bonds which are due on any date by depositing with the Registrar on or before that date a sum sufficient for the payment thereof in full. If any Bond should not be paid when due, it may nevertheless be discharged by depositing with the Registrar a sum sufficient for the payment thereof in full with interest accrued to the date of such deposit. 11 ~y - ~~- The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by Member and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: and the following voted against the same: whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. 12 ~ ~-I - 13 Passed and adopted this 14th day of December, 2010. Attest: City Clerk CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Mayor City Manager 13 I y ~- Iu EXHIBIT A PROPOSALS A-1 ~y-!5 EXHIBIT B FORM OF BOND No. R- UNITED STATES OF AMERICA $. STATE OF MINNESOTA COUNTY OF HENNEPIN CITY OF RICHFIELD GENERAL OBLIGATION REFUNDING BOND SERIES 2010B Date of Rate Maturi Original Issue CUSIP February 1, 20_ December 30, 2010 Registered Owner: Cede & Co. The City of Richfield, Minnesota, a duly organized and existing municipal corporation in Hennepin County, Minnesota (the "City"), acknowledges itself to be indebted and for value received promises to pay to the Registered Owner specified above or registered assigns, the principal sum of $ on the maturity date specified above, with interest thereon from the date hereof at the annual rate specified above, payable February 1 and August 1 in each year, commencing August 1, 2011, to the person in whose name this Bond is registered at the close of business on the fifteenth day (whether or not a business day) of the immediately preceding month. The interest hereon and, upon presentation and surrender hereof, the principal hereof are payable in lawful money of the United States of America by check or draft by Wells Fargo Bank, National Association, Minneapolis, Minnesota as Registrar, Paying Agent, Transfer Agent and Authenticating Agent, or its designated successor under the Resolution described herein. For the prompt and full payment of such principal and interest as the same respectively become due, the full faith and credit and taxing powers of the City have been and are hereby irrevocably pledged. The City may elect on February 1, 2019, and on any day thereafter to prepay Bonds due on or after February 1, 2020. Redemption maybe in whole or in part and if in part, at the option of the City and in such manner as the City will determine. If less than all Bonds of a maturity are called for redemption, the City will notify Depository Trust Company ("DTC") of the particular amount of such maturity to be prepaid. DTC will determine by lot the amount of each participant's interest in such maturity to be redeemed and each participant will then select by lot the beneficial ownership interests in such maturity to be redeemed. Prepayments will be at a price of par plus accrued interest. The City Council has designated the issue of Bonds of which this Bond forms a part as "qualified tax-exempt obligations" within the meaning of Section 265(b)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended (the "Code") relating to disallowance of interest expense for financial institutions and within the $30 million limit allowed by the Code for the calendar year of issue. This Bond is one of an issue in the aggregate principal amount of $6,455,000 all of like original issue date and tenor, except as to number, maturity date, and interest rate, all issued pursuant to a resolution adopted by the City Council on December 14, 2010 (the "Resolution"), for the purpose of providing money B-1 ly-i~ to refund in advance of maturity on August 1, 2011 (the "Redemption Date") a portion of certain general obligation bonds of the City, pursuant to and in full conformity with the home rule charter of the City and the Constitution and laws of the State of Minnesota, including Minnesota Statutes, Chapters 469 and 475, as amended, and Minnesota Statutes, Section 475.67, Subdivision 13. The interest hereon is payable until the Redemption Date primarily out of an escrow fund held by an escrow agent and a debt service fund and thereafter from tax increment revenues resulting from increases in taxable valuation of real property in the Interchange West and Lyndale Gateway Tax Increment District within the Richfield Redevelopment Project Area, as set forth in the Resolution to which reference is made for a full statement of rights and powers thereby conferred. The full faith and credit of the City are irrevocably pledged for payment of this Bond and the City Council has obligated itself to levy ad valorem taxes on all taxable property in the City in the event of any deficiency in tax increments pledged, which taxes may be levied without limitation as to rate or amount. The Bonds of this series are issued only as fully registered Bonds in denominations of $5,000 or any integral multiple thereof of single maturities. As provided in the Resolution and subject to certain limitations set forth therein, this Bond is transferable upon the books of the City at the principal office of the Registrar, by the registered owner hereof in person or by the owner's attorney duly authorized in writing, upon surrender hereof together with a written instrument of transfer satisfactory to the Registrar, duly executed by the registered owner or the owner's attorney; and may also be surrendered in exchange for Bonds of other authorized denominations. Upon such transfer or exchange the City will cause a new Bond or Bonds to be issued in the name of the transferee or registered owner, of the same aggregate principal amount, bearing interest at the same rate and maturing on the same date, subject to reimbursement for any tax, fee or governmental charge required to be paid with respect to such transfer or exchange. The City and the Registrar may deem and treat the person in whose name this Bond is registered as the absolute owner hereof, whether this Bond is overdue or not, for the purpose of receiving payment and for all other purposes, and neither the City nor the Registrar will be affected by any notice to the contrary. IT IS HEREBY CERTIFIED, RECITED, COVENANTED AND AGREED that all acts, conditions and things required by the home rule charter of the City and the Constitution and laws of the State of Minnesota to be done, to exist, to happen and to be performed preliminary to and in the issuance of this Bond in order to make it a valid and binding general obligation of the City in accordance with its terms, have been done, do exist, have happened and have been performed as so required, and that the issuance of this Bond does not cause the indebtedness of the City to exceed any constitutional, statutory, or charter limitation of indebtedness. This Bond is not valid or obligatory for any purpose or entitled to any security or benefit under the Resolution until the Certificate of Authentication hereon has been executed by the Registrar by manual signature of one of its authorized representatives. B-2 ~y-i~ IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the City of Richfield, Hennepin County, Minnesota, by its City Council, has caused this, Bond to be executed on its behalf by the facsimile or manual signatures of the Mayor and City Manager and has caused this Bond to be dated as of the date set forth below. Dated: December 30, 2010 CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA (Facsimile) (Facsimi Mayor City Manager CERTIFICATE OF AUTHENTICATION This is one of the Bonds delivered pursuant to the Resolution mentioned within. WELLS FARGO ASSOCIATION By BANK, NATIONAL Its Authorized Officer ABBREVIATIONS The following abbreviations, when used in the inscription on the face of this Bond, will be construed as though they were written out in full according to applicable laws or regulations: TEN COM -- as tenants in common TEN ENT -- as tenants by entireties JT TEN -- as joint tenants with right of survivorship and not as tenants in common UNIF GIFT MIN ACT Custodian (Gust) (Minor) under Uniform Gifts or Transfers to Minors Act, State of Additional abbreviations may also be used though not in the above list. B-3 1LI- ~~ ASSIGNMENT For value received, the undersigned hereby sells, assigns and transfers unto the within Bond and all rights thereunder, and does hereby irrevocably constitute and appoint attorney to transfer the said Bond on the books kept for registration of the within Bond, with full power of substitution in the premises. Dated: Notice: The assignor's signature to this assignment must correspond with the name as it appears upon the face of the within Bond in every particular, without alteration or any change whatever. Signature Guaranteed: NOTICE: Signature(s) must be guaranteed by a financial institution that is a member of the Securities Transfer Agent Medallion Program ("STAMP"), the Stock Exchange Medallion Program ("SEMP"), the New York Stock Exchange, Inc. Medallion Signatures Program ("MSP") or other such "signature guarantee program" as may be determined by the Registrar in addition to, or in substitution for, STAMP, SEMP or MSP, all in accordance with the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended. The Registrar will not effect transfer of this Bond unless the information concerning the assignee requested below is provided. Name and Address: (Include information for all joint owners if this Bond is held by joint account.) Please insert social security or other identifying number of assignee B-4 I ~-I - Iq PROVISIONS AS TO REGISTRATION The ownership of the principal of and interest on the within Bond has been registered on the books of the Registrar in the name of the person last noted below. Date of Registration Registered Owner Cede & Co. Federal ID #13-2555119 Signature of Officer of Re i€, stray B-5 ,~., _ ao EXHIBIT C NOTICE OF CALL FOR REDEMPTION NOTICE OF CALL FOR REDEMPTION $8,350,000 GENERAL OBLIGATION TAX INCREMENT BONDS SERIES 2001 A CITY OF RICHFIELD HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that, by order of the City Council of the City of Richfield, Hennepin County, Minnesota (the "City"), there have been called for redemption and prepayment on August 1, 2011 all outstanding bonds of the City designated as General Obligation Tax Increment Bonds, Series 2001A, dated April 1, 2001, having stated maturity dates of February 1 in the years 2012 through 2024, both inclusive, totaling $6,275,000 in principal amount, and with the following CUSII' numbers: Year of Maturity Amount CUSIl' Number 2012 $355,000 763325 F28 2013 370,000 763325 F36 2014 385,000 763325 F44 2015 405,000 763325 F51 2016 425,000 763325 F69 2017 450,000 763325 F77 2019 965,000 763325 F93 2021 1,075,000 763325 G35 2024 1,845,000 763325 G68 The bonds are being called at a price of par plus accrued interest to August 1, 2011, on which date all interest on said bonds will cease to accrue. Holders of the bonds hereby called for redemption are requested to present their bonds for payment at the main office of Wells Fargo Bank, National Association (formerly known as Wells Fargo Bank Minnesota, National Association), Minneapolis, Minnesota, on or before August 1, 2011. Wells Fargo Bank, National Association Attention: Corporate Trust Operations Sixth Street and Marquette Avenue MAC 9303-121 Minneapolis, MN 55479 Important Notice: In compliance with the Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2003, the City is required to withhold a specified percentage of the principal amount of the redemption C-1 i4 - ai price payable to the holder of any Bonds subject to redemption and prepayment on the Redemption Date, unless the City is provided with the Social Security Number or Federal Employer Identification Number of the holder, properly certified. Submission of a fully executed Request for Taxpayer Identification Number and Certification, Form W-9 (Rev. October 2007), will satisfy the requirements of this paragraph. Dated: BY ORDER OF THE CITY COUNCIL, By /s/ Steven Devich City Manager City of Richfield, Minnesota C-2 ~ 4 - aa- STATE OF MINNESOTA ) COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) SS. CITY OF RICHFIELD ) I, the undersigned, being the duly qualified and acting City Clerk of the City of Richfield, Minnesota (the "City"), do hereby certify that I have carefully compared the attached and foregoing extract of minutes of a regular meeting of the City Council of the City held on December 14, 2010, with the original minutes on file in my office and the extract is a full, true and correct copy of the minutes insofar as they relate to the issuance and sale of the City's General Obligation Tax Increment Refunding Bonds, Series 2010B, in the original aggregate principal amount of $6,455,000. WITNESS My hand officially as such City Clerk and the corporate seal of the City this day of December, 2010. City Clerk Richfield, Minnesota (SEAL) y4 - a3 STATE OF MINNESOTA CERTIFICATE OF TAXPAYER SERVICES DNISION MANAGER COUNTY OF HENNEPIN AS TO REGISTRATION WHERE NO AD VALOREM TAX LEVY I, the undersigned Taxpayer Services Division Manager of Hennepin County, Minnesota, hereby certify that a certified copy of a resolution adopted by the governing body of the City of Richfield, Minnesota (the "City"), on December 14, 2010, relating to the City's General Obligation Tax Increment Refunding Bonds, Series 2010B, issued in the aggregate principal amount of $6,455,000 and dated December 30, 2010, has been filed in my office and said bonds have been entered on the register of obligations in my office. WITNESS My hand and official seal this day of December, 2010. Taxpayer Services Division Manager Hennepin County, Minnesota (SEAL) Deputy RC145-617 (JAE) 378986v1 AGENDA SECTION AGENDA ITEM # REPORT # J STAFF REPORT CITY COUNCIL MEETING DECEMBER 14, 2010 PROPOSED ORDINANCE 15 252 REPORT PREPARED BY: CP~~]~G S, FINANCE MANAGER ~~ NAME, T LE ~, ; , ~ 1i REVIEWED BY CITY MANAGER: °`~`" ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION: Consideration of resolutions approving the 2010 Revised/2011 Proposed budget and tax levy and related resolutions and I. RECOMMENDED ACTION: By motion: Adopt the resolutions approving the 2010 Revised/2011 Proposed budget and tax levy and related resolutions. II. BACKGROUND In September 2010, the City Council approved and certified a preliminary tax levy of $16,330,041 to Hennepin County. The final tax levy must now be considered and approved by the City Council. The final levy may be less but cannot be greater than the preliminary levy amount. Taxpayers have received individual parcel specific tax notices in anticipation of the truth-in-taxation hearing. The City of Richfield has conducted and closed its 2010 truth-in-taxation hearing on November 29, 2010. During the course of the public hearing, there was an opportunity for testimony from the general public. Information was also presented by staff regarding the proposed levy and budget. No official City Council action to act on the levy was permissible on the day of the public hearing. Since the initial publication of the 2011 City of Richfield proposed budget document, the original 2010 General Fund budget has realized a net reduction of $80,640. The reduction is a combination of a reduction in pay plan increases for 2011 and capital outlay with the Fire Department and recognition of $550,000 of Local Government Aid (LGA). The recognition of LGA had the effect to reduce the original proposed tax levy. 12146udget Staff Report III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION A. POLICY • A revised 2010 budget and final 2011 budget and tax levy must be adopted on or before December 28, 2010. • Cities then have five working days after December 20 or no later than December 28 to prepare all the documentation necessary to certify a final levy to the County Auditor and State Department of Revenue. • A proposed 2011 tax levy has been submitted to the City Council for consideration. • Several related resolutions included within the total budget document need to be considered. These related resolutions are itemized in the attachment section of this staff report. B. CRITICAL TIMING ISSUES • The fee changes detailed in Section 3, subsection 10, Public Works Fees, of the resolution portion of Appendix D, attached to this Staff Report, will not be effective until February 18, 2011 due to an amendment to the ordinance section of Appendix D regarding these same fees. C. FINANCIAL • The proposed gross tax levy for 2011 is now $16,330,041. • The gross tax levy for 2011 reflects a 6.82% increase from the previous year's gross levy. • The levy increase comprises three components as follows: • General Fund Levy 3.66% • Debt Service Levy (1.64%) • Tax Abatement Levy .03% • LGA & MVHC Levy 4.77% 6.82% D. LEGAL • Atruth-in-taxation public hearing for the 2011 proposed budget and tax levy was conducted on November 29, 2010. The resolution relating to the purchasing practices in the City of Richfield .has been amended for 2011. The amendment increases the purchasing authority of the City Manager from $25,000 to $50,000 for all non-budgeted purchases. This increase is still below what state statutes and the City Charter recommend. E. ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS • N./A I~. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION~S~ • The City Council could adopt a final 2011 budget and tax levy in any amount, which does not exceed the preliminary levy of $16,330,041. V. ATTACHMENTS • Resolution adopting a proposed budget and tax levy for the year 2011. • Resolution authorizing budget revisions. • Resolution authorizing revision of 2010 budget of various departments. • Resolution authorizing adjustment to City's mileage reimbursement rate to conform to Internal Revenue Service statutory mileage reimbursement rate. • Resolution adopting the 2011 Capital Improvement Budget. • Resolution adopting the 2012-2015 Capital Improvement Program. • Resolution relating to purchasing practices in the City of Richfield. • Resolution establishing wastewater service rates and charges, water rates and charges, special water service charges, storm sewer rates and charges, and 6.5% penalty on past due accounts. • Resolution establishing a Public Works On-Call compensation policy. • Resolution establishing 2011 license, permit and miscellaneous fees pursuant to the provisions of appendix D of the ordinance code of the City of Richfield. VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING • None Is-1 RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION ADOPTING A PROPOSED BUDGET AND TAX LEVY FOR THE YEAR 2011 WHEREAS, the Minnesota Truth in Taxation law provides for a proposed tax levy to be certified to the County Auditor by September 15, 2010 and then recertified before December 28, 2010. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota as follows: The budget for the City of Richfield for the year 2011 is hereby approved and adopted with appropriations for each of the departments to be as follows: General Fund Legislative/Executive Administrative Services Public Safety Fire Services Community Development Public Works Recreation Services TOTAL GENERAL FUND $ 748,070 1,121,320 7,620,560 3,388,230 1,114,520 4,131,850 1,588,260 $19,712,810 2. The estimated gross revenue of the City of Richfield from all sources, including general ad valorem tax levies as hereinafter set forth for the year 2011 which are more fully detailed in the City Manager's official copy of the 2011 budget, are hereby found and determined to be as follows: TOTAL GENERAL FUND $19,712,810 3. There is hereby levied upon all taxable property in the City of Richfield a direct ad valorem tax in the year 2010, payable in 2011 for the following purposes and in the following amounts: PURPOSE AMOUNT Generals $13,403,4822 Debt Service 1,923,656 Cedar Point Tax Abatement 242,320 2008 LGA Unallotment Levy 760,583 ~ Provision has been made in the General Fund for the payment of the City's contributory share to Public Employees' Retirement Association. 2 General Fund Levy included all fiscal disparities distribution amounts. 4. The budget for the Housing and Redevelopment Authority of Richfield for the year 2011 is hereby ratified and approved. There is hereby levied upon all taxable property in the City of Richfield a direct ad valorem tax in the year 2010, payable in 2011 for the following purposes: ~s-~ PURPOSE AMOUNT Housing and Redevelopment Authority $552,812 5. A certified copy of this resolution shall be transmitted to the County Auditor. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this 14th day of December 2010. Debbie Goettel, Mayor ATTEST: Nancy Gibbs, City Clerk 15-3 RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING BUDGET REVISIONS WHEREAS., the City Charter and Minnesota Statutes provide for a process for adopting an annual budget and tax levy; and WHEREAS, the City Charter provides certain authority for the City Manager and/or City Council to revise the annual budget; and WHEREAS, it would be beneficial to restate such authority with the adoption of the budget. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota as follows: 1. The City Manager may increase the budget by City Council action provided that unbudgeted receipts will be available to equal or exceed the increased expenditures. 2. The City Manager may authorize transfers between divisions within a department providing the transfers do not increase or decrease the department or total budget. 3. The City Manager may transfer budgeted amounts between departments only with the approval of the City Council. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this 14th day of December, 2010. Debbie Goettel, Mayor ATTEST: Nancy Gibbs, City Clerk 15-U RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING REVISION OF 2010 .BUDGET OF VARIOUS DEPARTMENTS WHEREAS, Resolution No. 10319 appropriated funds for personal services, other expenses and capital outlays for each department of the City for the year of 2010; and WHEREAS, The City Charter, Chapter 7, Section 7.09, gives the Council authority to transfer unencumbered appropriation balances from one department to another within the same fund at the request of the City Manager; and WHEREAS, The City Manager has requested a revision of the 2010 budget appropriations in accordance with Charter provisions and as detailed in the Proposed 2011 budget document. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota as follows: 1. That the 2010 appropriations for each department of the General Fund be amended to establish the following totals: General Fund Leg islative/Executive Administrative Services Public Safety Fire Services Community Development Public Works Recreation Services TOTAL GENERAL FUND DECREASE $ 752,510 1,097,250 7,311,470 3,276,060 1,083,380 4,010,400 1,550,260 $19,081,330 $ 100,350 2. Estimated 2010 gross revenue of the City of Richfield from all sources, as the same are more fully detailed in the City Manager's official copy of the proposed 2011 budget, are hereby revised as follows: DECREASE $100,350 3. That the City Manager and the Finance Manager bring into effect the provisions of this resolution. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this 14th day of December 2010. Debbie Goettel, Mayor ATTEST: Nancy Gibbs, City Clerk IS-S RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING ADJUSTMENT TO CITY'S MILEAGE REIMBURSEMENT RATE TO CONFORM TO INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE STATUTORY MILEAGE REIMBURSEMENT RATE WHEREAS, the Internal Revenue Service periodically adjusts the business mileage reimbursement rate; and WHEREAS, the City of Richfield's present mileage reimbursement is in conformance with the Internal Revenue Service business mileage reimbursement rate; and NOW ,THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota: 1. That the City Manager of Richfield is hereby authorized and directed to adjust the City's mileage reimbursement rate to be in conformance with Internal Revenue Service guidelines. 2. That the City's mileage reimbursement rate is not to exceed the Internal Revenue Service guidelines. Approved by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this 14th day of December, 2010. Debbie Goettel, Mayor ATTEST Nancy Gibbs, City Clerk '~J ~ to RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION ADOPTING THE 2011 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT BUDGET WHEREAS, a proposed Capital Improvement Budget for 2011 has been prepared and submitted for review by the City Council in accordance with charter requirements; and WHEREAS, the City Council has received the recommendations and benefit of review of these proposed documents by the Planning Commission and has itself reviewed these proposals. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the 2011 Capital Improvement Budget in the sum total of $9,446,380 is hereby approved as amended and adopted with full recognition of the fact that the cost estimates are approximate and are subject to final cost estimates and that all awards of contracts for these projects are subject to necessary hearings and must be approved by the City Council in accordance with established laws and practices governing such action, and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Manager is hereby authorized and directed to initiate the procedures which will lead to more formal and detailed consideration of these projects in accordance with the aforementioned laws and practices. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this 14th day of December, 2010. Debbie Goettel, Mayor ATTEST: Nancy Gibbs, City Clerk es -~ RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION ADOPTING THE 2012-2015 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM WHEREAS, a proposed Capital Improvement Program 2012-2015 has been prepared for review by the Planning Commission in accordance with charter requirements; and WHEREAS, the City Council has received the recommendations and benefit of review of these proposed documents by the Planning Commission and has itself reviewed these proposals. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the 2012-2015 Capital Improvement Program is hereby approved and adopted subject to annual review and revision; BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Manager is hereby authorized and directed to initiate the procedures which will lead to more formal and detailed consideration of these projects in accordance with the aforementioned laws and practices. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this 14th day of December, 2010. Debbie Goettel, Mayor ATTEST: Nancy Gibbs, City Clerk ~~-8 RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION RELATING TO PURCHASING PRACTICES IN THE CITY OF RICHFIELD AMENDING RESOLUTION NO. 10322 WHEREAS, the City Manager of the City of Richfield has purchasing authority pursuant to the City Charter and Administrative Ordinance Code; and WHEREAS, the City Charter and Administrative Ordinance Code expressly state a purchasing authority limit for the City Manager, and WHEREAS, all non-budgeted purchases in excess of $50,000 will require approval by City Council. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Richfield as follows: That the City Manager of the City of Richfield is hereby granted the authority to enter into contracts or approve purchases on behalf of the City of Richfield up to, but not to exceed $50,000. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this 14th day of December, 2010. Debbie Goettel, Mayor ATTEST: Nancy Gibbs, City Clerk ~~-9 RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING WASTEWATER SERVICE RATES AND CHARGES, WATER RATES AND CHARGES, SPECIAL WATER SERVICE CHARGES, STORM SEWER RATES AND CHARGES, AND 6.5% PENALTY ON PAST DUE ACCOUNTS BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota, as follows: SANITARY SEWER SERVICE RATES AND CHARGES FOR 2011 1. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 7.05 of the Ordinance Code of the City of Richfield, the rates and charges for use and service of the sanitary sewer system are hereby established to be those set forth in the following paragraphs of this resolution which rescinds Resolution No. 10178: 2. Where the rate is not based upon the metered use of water, the following quarterly flat charges are established effective January 1, 2011 for each billing district as defined in paragraph 3 of this resolution. 2011 A) Residential per unit $ 66.60 B) Commercial For the equivalent of 10 or less persons $ 66.60 More than 10, less than 16 121.40 More than 15, less than 21 169.90 More than 20, less than 26 226.80 C) Institutional - For each public or private school the quarterly flat charge shall be charged whether the school is in session or not (rates being charged upon average yearly use); shall be based upon the number of students enrolled at the beginning of the quarterly billing period or the preceding period if school is not then in session; and shall be as follows: 2011 For each 100 grade school students or fraction $ 79.50 in excess thereof For each 100 junior high school students or high 199.60 School students or fraction thereof D) In addition to the above flat rates there shall be a customer Charge on each invoice as determined in paragraph 4 of this resolution and a certification charge as determined in Section 7.05 of the City Ordinance Code. 3. Where the rate for sanitary sewer service is based upon the metered use of water on the premises, such rates shall be as follows: A) For all residential premises the rate shall be based on ~~_~o The actual use, or less of water for the preceding winter quarter, per thousand gallons with a minimum of 7,000 gallons, effective January 1, 2011, for each 2011 customer billing district and shall be as follows: $ 3.32 For the purpose of this paragraph A), the winter quarter shall be the winter quarter as specified in Subdivision 3 of said section 7.05. B) For all commercial, institutional, industrial, and other premises, the rate per thousand gallons of water effective January 1, 2011, shall be as follows: $ 3.32 C) A customer charge shall be made for each invoice rendered effective January 1, 2011 as follows: $ 5.00 If the invoice is for water service, as well as sanitary sewer service, the customer charge, when collected, shall be allocated proportionally between the City's water fund, sewer fund, and its storm sewer fund based on the user fees billed for by each fund. D) Where the metered use of water on the premises for the preceding winter quarter was not normal, the rate may be adjusted as provided in Subdivision 3 of said Section 7.05. 4. The foregoing rates and charges are in addition to, and not in lieu of, other rates and charges established by ordinance or resolution. 5. The Metropolitan Airports Commission (MAC) will be charged a sanitary sewer rate based on the Met Council Environmental Services (MCES) rate plus 15% for Inflow/Infiltration and $1,000.00 per quarter for administration costs. WATER RATES AND CHARGES FOR 2011 1. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 7.15 of the Ordinance Code of the City of Richfield, the rates and charges for City water and water service are hereby established to be those set forth in the following paragraphs of this resolution: The charges due and payable to the City by each water customer of the City, during any quarter shall be based upon the Conservation Rate Structure. Water-Tier 1: The first tier rate is ($2.70 per thousand) charged for consumption of the first 25,000 gallons. Water-Tier 2: The second tier rate is ($2.97 per thousand) charged for consumption of 26,000 gallons but less or equal to 50,000 gallons. Water-Tier 3: The third tier rate is ($3.24 per thousand) charged for consumption in excess of 51,000 gallons. Irrigation accounts: All consumption will be charged at the ($3.24 per thousand) water-tier 3 rate. i5 _,~ The Conservation Rate Structure applies to multi-unit and residential premises. Commercial, institutional or industrial will only be subject to the Water-tier 1 rates for domestic use, irrigation accounts will be subject to the Water-tier 3 rate. Water charges shall be payable quarterly, and all bills issued after January 1, 2011 shall be at this rate. SPECIAL WATER SERVICE CHARGES FOR 2011 1. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 7.15 of the Ordinance Code of the City of Richfield, the rates and charges for special customer services are hereby established to be those set forth in the following paragraphs of this resolution: 2. The charge for establishing a new customer account shall be $13.50 per account. 3. The charge for installation of meters or outside meter readers shall be $50.00 per installation. 4. The charge to flush and maintain fire hydrants located on privately owned property within the City shall be $75.00 per hydrant per year plus any required parts. 5. The charge to thaw and service water pipes on customer property shall be actual cost to the City plus thirty percent. 6. The charge for any other services not covered by the above shall be based on actual hourly cost to the City plus thirty percent. 7. The MN lab fee will is $6.36. STORM SEWER RATES AND CHARGES FOR 2011 1. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 7.20 of the Ordinance Code of the City of Richfield, the rates and charges for City storm sewer service are hereby established to be those set forth in the following paragraphs of this resolution: 2. The rates and charges for the use and availability of the system are determined through the use of a "Residential Equivalent Factor" (REF). One REF is defined as the ratio of the average volume of surface runoff coming from one acre of land and subjected to a particular use, to the average volume of runoff coming from one acre of land subjected to typical single-family residential use within the City during a standard one year rainfall event. The REF's for the following land uses within the City and the billing classifications for such land uses are as follows: LAND USES REF CLASSIFICATION Cemeteries .25 1 Parks and railroads .75 2 Two-family residential 1.00 3 Single-family residential 1.00 4 Public and private schools and institutional uses 1.25 5 Multiple-family residential is-~~ uses and churches 3.00 6 Commercial, industrial, and Warehouse uses 5.00 7 3. The basic system quarterly rate for storm sewer service is $54.80 per acre of land. $10.96 is the quarterly rate for asingle-family residence, which is considered to have an acreage of one-fifth acre. The charge made against each parcel of land is then determined by multiplying the REF for the parcel's land use classification times the parcel's acreage times the basic system rate. 6.5% PENALTY ON PAST DUE ACCOUNTS Customers will have twenty eight (28) days to pay their water, sanitary sewer, and storm sewer quarterly bills from the date of the mailing by the City. Any unpaid amount will be added to the next quarterly bill along with a 6.5% penalty on the delinquent amount. 2. The penalty charge when billed on past due accounts shall be allocated proportionally between the City's water fund, sewer fund, and storm sewer fund based on the user fees billed for each fund. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this 14th day of December, 2010. Debbie Goettel, Mayor ATTEST: Nancy Gibbs, City Clerk IS - t3 RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING A PUBLIC WORKS ON-CALL COMPENSATION POLICY WHEREAS, the City Council has determined to provide Public Works Superintendent/Managers/City Engineer compensation for being on-call for possible Public Works emergencies; and WHEREAS, the good judgment of a Public Works Superintendent/Manager/City Engineer is needed to provide quality response to Public Works emergencies such as water main breaks, street light knock downs, and sewer main back ups; and WHEREAS, the City Council finds it necessary to establish a policy to provide such employees with on-call compensation. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Richfield hereby adopts the .following On-call Compensation Policy: Public Works Superintendent/Managers/City Engineer who remain on-call by carrying the emergency cell phone (or similar device) for a period of one week will be compensated at a rate established annually as part of the budget preparation process, beginning with $150 a week in 2011. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this 14th day of December 2010. Debbie Goettel, Mayor ATTEST: Nancy Gibbs, City Clerk ~ s - i~t RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING 2011 LICENSE, PERMIT AND MISCELLANEOUS FEES PURSUANT TO THE PROVISIONS OF APPENDIX D OF THE ORDINANCE CODE OF THE CITY OF RICHFIELD RESCINDING RESOLUTION NO. 10290 BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota as follows: SECTION 1. ESTABLISHING FEES A. License, permit and miscellaneous fees required under the ordinances of the City of Richfield shall be as stated in the sections of this Resolution. B. A period of no less than 30 days will be allowed for the remittance of City Business license renewal fees contained in Sections 5, 6, 7, 8 and 9 of this resolution. C. A 10% administrative surcharge will be assessed upon all renewals contained in Section 5, 6, 7, 8 and 9 of the resolution if not received by the City on or before December 31st of each year. The 10% surcharge will be based upon the cost of the license. D. Nothing in this section shall be deemed to require the City to issue or renew apy license for which the fee has not been paid in a timely manner. SECTION 2. CONSTRUCTION AND RELATED LICENSE FEES TYPE OF PERMIT OR LICENSE SECTION REQUIRING DESCRIPTION FEE (1) Heating and Ventilating Installer 400.07 1 Year $ 80.00 (2) Sign Installer 416.01-416.13 1 Year $ 80.00 (3) Electrical Installer 400.03-400.09 State License Required (4) Plumber 400.03-400.09 State License Required (5) Well Driller 620 State License Required SECTION 3. PUBLIC WORKS FEES TYPE OF PERMIT SECTION DESCRIPTION FEE OR LICENSE REQUIRING (1) Benches 805.01-805.27 First Year $ 80.00 Renewal $ 30.00 (2) Boulevard feature 81 1.07 a) Application to place a privately owned feature in $ 50.00 Permit the boulevard b) If applied for after installation of feature has begun $ 100.00 (3) Excavation in 800.01-800.15 a) For each transverse excavation and each 100 feet $ 125.00 Public Right of way or portion thereof longitudinal excavation and for each 100 feet of curb and gutter or portion thereof installed or driveway apron installed, except when survey and grade stakes are set by City b) If applied for after excavation has begun $ 250.00 D-1 a~ -is SECTION 3. PUBLIC WORKS FEES (CONTINUED) TYPE OF PERMIT SECTION DESCRIPTION FEE OR LICENSE REQUIRING (4) Forestry Permit 810 Applies only to trees on City property and public ROW $ 50.00 (5) Seasonal Load a) Per load $ 25.00 Limit Exemption b) If applied for after delivery $ 50.00 (6) Obstruction Permit 802.17 (a) Short term, temporary lane closure of less than four No fee hours (b) Lane closures longer than four hours duration (or if between 7:00 a.m. and 9:00 a.m. or between 3:30 p.m. and 6:00 p.m.) Arterial/Collector/Distributor Day (per block or portion thereof) $ 30.00 Week (per block or portion thereof) $ 125.00 Local/Residential Day (per block or portion thereof) $ 15.00 Week (per block or portion thereof) $ 50.00 Parking lane/sidewalk Day (per block or portion thereof) $ 7.50 Week (per block or portion thereof) $ 31.25 If applied for after obstruction closure has begun (c) Short term, temporary lane closure of less than four No fee hours (d) Lane closures longer than four hours duration (or if between 7:00 a.m. and 9:00 a.m. or between 3:30 p.m. and 6:00 p.m.) Arterial/Collector/Distributor $ 60.00 Day (per block or portion thereof) $ 250.00 Week (per block or portion thereof) Local/Residential $ 30.00 Day (per block or portion thereof) $ 100.00 Week (per block or portion thereof) Parking lane/sidewalk $ 15.00 Day (per block or portion thereof) $ 62.50 Week (per block or portion thereof) (7) Noise Ordinance 930.35 (a) With conditions added as required $ 50.00 Exemption (b) If applied for after violation $ 100.00 (8) Certification 705.03-705.21 All delinquent accounts $ 50.00 Char e 9 NSF Check Char e $ 50.00 (10) Utility Services Sanitary Sewer 700.05 All land uses New Service $ 125.00 Repair $ 125.00 Disconnect $ 125.00 Replacement $ 125.00 Water Service 715:01 All land uses New Service $ 125.00 Repair $ 125.00 Disconnect $ 125.00 Replacement $ 125.00 Turn on/off $ 75.00 Meter Installation $ 50.00 Private Hydrant $ 75.00 Storm Sewer 720 All land uses D-2 ~s-i~ New Service $ 125,00 Repair $ 125,00 Disconnect $ 125,00 Re lacement $ 125,00 SECTION 4. FIRE SERVICES FEES TYPE OF PERMIT SECTION DESCRIPTION FEE OR LICENSE REQUIRING (1) Fire Prevention 400.21-400.29 For initial fee required under code Per year $ 60.00 Code For each additional fee required under code Peryear $ 15.00 Penalty If not renewed within 2 months of notification $ 30.00 2 Da care/Adult Foster Care Facilit Ins ection $ 50.00 3 Reimbursement Fee for Fire/Rescue Unit Per Hour $ 250.00 (4) Sale of Consumer 1 131 (a) License per location selling only Per Year $ 350.00 Fireworks consumer fireworks (b) License per location of each other retail Per Year $ 100.00 seller BOLD represents added/amended fees ~ 5 - t'1 SECTION 5. AMUSEMENT AND RECREATION LICENSES AND PERMITS TYPE OF PERMIT. SECTION DESCRIPTION FEE OR LICENSE RE4UIRING (1) Arcade 1105 1 Year $ 455.00 (2) Amusement 1 100.01 (a) Mechanical Amusement Device (Pinball) 1 Year $ 15.00 Device (b) Mechanical Music Box 1 Year $ 15.00 (c) Video Games 1 Year $ 15.00 (3) Lawful Gambling 1 100.13 Bingo, Tipboard, Paddle Wheel, Raffle, Pull Tabs (a) Lawful Gambling Permit (those exempt from State Licensure) (State Statute 349.213) 1 Year $ 100.00 (b) Lawful Gambling Investigative Fee (State Statute 349.16) 1 Year $ 100.00 STATE LICENSE REQUIRED (4) Itinerant Place of 1 100.05-1 100.1 1 1 day $ 244.00 Amusement (5) Public Dance 1 1 10.03 For each day dances are held - $3 1 month $ 41.00 No fee for locations holding tavern licenses. (6) General 1 i 00.03 (a) Billiard, Pool or Pigeonhole table (each) 1 Year $ 15.00 Amusement 1. Coin operated 1 Year $ 15.00 (b) Bowling Alley (per lane) 1 Year $ 41.00 (c) Circus 1 Year $ 196.00 (d) Dance Hall 1 Day $ 196.00 (e) Golf 1. Miniature 1 Year $ 46.00 2. Driving Tee 1 Year $ 46.00 (f) Mountback 1 Day $ 187.00 (g) Rides, mechanical/animal of any kind (ea) 1 Year $ 15.00 (h) Shows, any kind 1 Day $ 187.00 (i) Shuffleboard (each lane) 1 Year $ 16.00 (j) Other games 1 Day $ 15.00 (7) Musical Concert 1 1 10.01 Per event $ 41.00 (8) Theatre Cinema 1 120 1 Year $ 191.00 Plus a notice publication fee $ 6.50 (9) Roller Rink 1 1 15 1 year or portion thereof $ 191.00 (10) Commercial Adult- 605 1 Year $ 2,271.00 Oriented Enterprises Investigation fee 1 Year $ 2,271.00 (1 1) Masseur/Masseuse 605 Certificate fee 1 Year $ 77.00 Investi anon fee 1 Year $ 191.00 (12) Public Baths 610 1 Year $ 2,630.00 Investi anon fee actual cost minimum $ 2,630.00 (13) Fortune Teller and 1 130.05-1 130.07 1 Day $ 152.00 related trade 1 Week $ 454.00 1 Month $ 906.00 1 Year $ 1,514.00 (14) Adult 1 196 Annual license 1 Year $ 2,270.00 Establishments Investi anon fee new license $ 2,270.00 BOLD represents added/amended fees D-3 ~5 -18 SECTION 6. ANIMAL LICENSES AND PERMITS TYPE OF PERMIT OR LICENSE SECTION REQUIRING DESCRIPTION FEE (1) Animals 905.01-905.29 (a) Animals (Spayed or Neutered) with 1 Year $ 15.00 option to purchase amulti-year license (b) Animals (Not Spayed or Neutered 1 Year $ 25.00 (c) Duplicate Animal License $ 7.00 (d) Late Penalty $ 10.00 905.31-905.33 (e) Commercial Kennel 1 Year $ 217,00 (f) Residential Kennel 1 Year $ 164.00 (g) Veterinary $ 217.00 905.37-905.39 (h) Pigeons 1 Year $ 43 00 905.41 (i) Non-domestic Animals (Temporary Permit) . 905.01-905.29 (j) Impounding (each animal) 1st time $ 30.00 2nd Time $ 64.00 3rd time (each impound after) $ 127.00 $ 191.00 (k) Dangerous dog registration fee (State Statute 347.51) $ 500.00 SECTION 7. VEHICLE AND TRANSPORTATION LICENSE AND PERMIT FEES TYPE OF PERMIT SECTION DESCRIPTION FEE OR LICENSE REQUIRING (1) Aircraft 1340 1 Day $ 45.00 (2) Garbage and 601.01-601.33 Commercial and Residential Refuse Collection First vehicle 1 Year $ 227.00 Each additional vehicle 1 Year $ 48.00 (3) Motor Vehicle 1 155 Per place of business 1 Year $ 340.00 Dealer Each additional place of business 1 Year $ 129.00 (4) Motor Bicycle 1 160 Per place of business 1 Year $ 197.00 Business Per place of business to sell, rent or least 1 Year $ 90.00 (5) Sound Truck 1 165 Per vehicle 1 Year $ 197.00 Per Vehicle 1 Day $ 30.00 (6) Taxicab 1 170 First vehicle or auto livery 1 Year $ 490.00 Each additional vehicle or auto livery operated at any time within license period 1 Year $ 61.00 (7) Taxicab Driver 1 175 1 Year $ 46.00 (8) Rental or Utility 1 185 Each place of business 1 Year $ 90.00 Trailers and Trucks BOLD represents-added/amended fees D-4 I ~_ ~q SECTION 8. COMMERCIAL BUSINESS AND TRADE LICENSES AND PERMITS TYPE OF PERMIT OR LICENSE SECTION REQUIRING DESCRIPTION FEE (1) Firearms Dealer 920.01-920.05 1 Year $ 1,514.00 (2) Food 617 (A) Type I Establishment, a large high-risk 1 Year Establishments food establishment serving on average 500 or more meals per day; having 175 or more seats; or having 500 or more customers per day (1) Food service or retail food $ 680.00 establishment (2) School, kindergarten through $ 600.00 grade 12 (3) Daycare Center or Preschool $ 500.00 (B) Type II Establishment, a small high-risk food establishment serving on average fewer than 500 meals per day; having fewer than 175 seats; or having fewer than 500 customers per day $ 625.00 (1) Food service or retail food establishment $ 625.00 (2) School, kindergarten through grade 12 $ 400.00 (3) Daycare Center or Preschool (C) Type III Establishment, a medium risk food establishment serving mainly non-potentially hazardous foods and potentially hazardous foods prepared elsewhere and only heated or held cold onsite; or serving or retailing foods such as pizza carryout or delivery, requiring handling followed by heat treatment. (1) Food service or retail food $ 500.00 establishment (2) School, kindergarten through grade $ 250.00 12 (3) Daycare Center or Preschool $ 250.00 (D) Type IV Establishment, a food establishment with minimal food handling such as preparing coffee, hot dogs, blended or mixed drinks, packaged foods customers heat onsite, continental breakfasts, unpackaged baked goods made elsewhere (1) Food service or retail food $ 325.00 establishment $ 150.00 (2) School, kindergarten through grade 12 (3) Daycare Center or Preschool $ 150.00 (E) Type V Establishment, a food establishment with non-potentially hazardous food or food products sold in the original packaging $ 200.00 (1) Food service or retail food establishment $ 125.00 (2) School, kindergarten through grade 12 $ 125.00 (3) Daycare Center or Preschool (F) Supplemental Facility D-5 ~~ ~ f!~'~ {1) High Supplemental Facility (like Type $ 125.00 I and II) (2) Medium Supplemental Facility (like $ 100.00 Type III and IV) (3) Catering Supplemental Facility (for $ 150.00 Food Catering Vehicle(s) and equipment) (4) Low Supplemental Facility (like Type $ 75.00 V) (G) Temporary Food Establishment (1) Complex Temporary 1 to 3 days (like $ 125.00 Type I and II) $ 225.00 (2) Complex Temporary 4 to 21 days (like Type I and II) $ 50.00 (3) Simple Temporary 1 to 3 days (like Type III, IV and V) $ 120.00 (4) Simple Temporary 4 to 21 days (like Type III, IV and V) (H) Farmer's Market Stand (stands not $ 150.00 exempted from licensing in Minnesota Statue Chapter 28A) (I) Vending Machines (1) Food and beverage (except items in $ 20.00 2) (2) Nuts, gum balls, hard candy and $ 15.00 unsorted confections (3) Automobile 1 125 Per calendar year or fraction thereof $ 152.00 Washing Establishment (4) Scavenger 600.25 Each vehicle 1 Year $ 45.00 Permit fee for opening cesspool or dumping contents of each cesspool into City sewer $ 21.00 (5) Incinerator 600.01-600.23 1 Year $ 45.00 (6) Tobacco 1 146.01 (MS Retail Sale and Distribution -License issued $ 380.00 461.12) on calendar year (cigarette vending machines prohibited) (Bill No. 1998-19) 7 Transient Merchant 1 181.01-1 181.09 1 Da $ 97.00 8 Wa on Peddler 1 181 1 Year $ 228.00 (9) State hawker or 1 181 6 month/per person covered $ 56.00 Peddler license BOLD represents added/amended fees is - at SECTION 8. COMMERCIAL BUSINESS AND TRADE LICENSES AND PERMITS (CONTINUED) TYPE OF PERMIT SECTION DESCRIPTION FEE OR LICENSE REQUIRING (10) Canvasser or 1 181 6 month/per person covered $ 56.00 Solicitor (1 1) Christmas Tree Sale 1 130.03 1 Year $ 123.00 (12) Lodging 618 (A) Hotel/Motel $ 210.00 Establishments (1) Each Guestroom $ 15.00 (B) Lodging House, lodging accommodation for 5 or more regular roomers, no food provided (1) Five to 25 beds $ 200.00 (2) 26 or more beds, each bed $ 8.50 (C) Small Boarding House, food and lodging accommodations for 5 to 10 regular boarders. Food license included. (1) Five to 10 beds $ 200.00 (D) Large Boarding House, food and lodging accommodations for 1 1 or more. A separate food license is required. $ 200.00 (1) 1 1 to 25 beds $ 8.50 (2) 26 or more beds, each bed (E) Bed and Breakfast, food license is $ 200.00 included (13) Outdoor 1 135 Permit $ 96.00 Merchandising (14) Storage Enclosure 1 135 Per Enclosure $ 82.00 (15) Pawnbroker 1 187 (a) Pawnbroker 1 Year $ 3,947.00 (b) Owner investigation fee (nonrefundable) 1 Year $ 2,269.00 (c) Manager investigation fee 1 Year $ 821.00 (nonrefundable) (d) Employee investigation fee 1 Year $ 79.00 (nonrefundable) (e) Transaction fee -per transaction $ 2.00 (16) Secondhand 1 186 (a) Secondhand Goods Dealer 1 Year $ 433.00 Goods Dealer (b) Initial investigation fee (nonrefundable) actual costs in excess of above with total not exceeding $ 1,815.00 Applicant shall deposit $1200.00 with Licensing Clerk along with application. Amount in excess of actual application costs shall be refunded. (17) Auto Detailing 1 195.01 1 Year $ 338.00 Establishment (18) Tattoo, Body 630 (a) Tattoo, body piercing, body painting or Piercing, Body body branding 1 Year $ 756.00 Painting or Body (b) Initial investigation fee (nonrefundable) 1 Year $ 2,269.00 Branding (19) Temporary Tattoo, 630 Per booth $ 45.00 Body Piercing, Body Branding and Body painting events D-6 is - aa- (20) Massage Therapy 1 188 Annual license 1 Year $ 755.00 Enterprise License Investigation fee (new license) $ 755.00 (Business license) Massage Therapist Annual license 1 Year $ 77.00 License (Individual Investigation fee (new license) $ 77.00 license) Temporary Per temporary location $ 151.00 Massage Therapist License (21) Public Swimming 619 (A) Indoor Pools (1) Firstpool $ 200.00 (2) Each additional pool $ 100.00 (B) Outdoor (1) Firstpool $ 200.00 (2) Each additional pool $ 100.00 (C) School, K through grade 12, pools (1) First pool $ 130.00 (2) Each additional pool $ 75.00 BOLD represents added/amended fees I ~ r ~~ SECTION 8 COMMERCIAL BUSINESS AND TRADE LICENSES AND PERMITS (CONTINUED) PLAN REVIEW FEE FOR FOOD, THERAPEUTIC MASSAGE AND LODGING PERCENTAGE OF FACILITY INVOLVED WILL BE DETERMINED BY STAFF Descriptions: Tvpe I Establishment, a large high-risk food establishment serving on average 500 or more meals per day; having 175 or more seats; or having 500 or more customers per day. Tvpe II Establishment, a small high-risk food establishment serving on average fewer than 500 meals per day; having fewer than 175 seats; or having fewer than 500 customers per day. Tvpe III Establishment, a medium risk food establishment serving mainly non- potentially hazardous foods and potentially hazardous foods prepared elsewhere and only heated or held cold onsite; or serving or retailing foods such as pizza carryout or delivery, requiring handling followed by heat treatment. Tvpe IV Establishment, a food establishment with minimal food handling such as preparing coffee, hot dogs, blended mixed drinks, packaged foods customers heat onsite, continental breakfasts, unpackaged baked goods made elsewhere. Tvpe V Establishment, a food establishment with non-potentially hazardous food or food products sold in the original packaging. Environmental plan review -includes the physical remodeling, updating, equipment replacement, equipment additions and the general overall review of all plans/work. This also includes all new development projects. New Construction Extensive Minor Remodel Non-remodel and/or Major Remodel (25- (0-24% of facility) approval Remodel (over 50% 50~ of facility) consultation of facility involved) ($5,000 or less in costs T e I $2,413 $1,258 $679 $115 T e II $1,662 $909 $505 $115 T e III $909 $506 $302 $115 T e IV $446 $174 $87 No fee Type V New project or Minor remodel - change of owner - permit but no $115 Ian check fee Thera eutic Massa e $115 $115 $115 $115 Lod in $2,011 $1,083 $564 $115 SECTION 9. LIQUOR AND RELATED LICENSE AND PERMIT FEES TYPE OF PERMIT OR LICENSE SECTION REQUIRING DESCRIPTION FEE (1) 3.2 Malt Liquor 1202.05 (a) On-Sale 1 Year $ 834.00 (b) Tavern (dance) 1 Year $ 682.00 (c) Wholesale 1 Year $ 41.00 (d) Off-Sale 1 Year $ 242.00 (e) Club (Bottle Club) 1 Year $ 551.00 (f) Temporary per event $ 61.00 (2) Liquor 1202.05 (a) On-Sale 1 Year $13,760.00 (b) Sunday (Fee set by state law) 1 Year $ 200.00 (c) Wine 1 Year $ 1,213.00 1 Year D-8 ~ s -au (d) Veterans' Organization (Ex-Sunday) per event (e) Temporary $ 790.00 $ 125.00 (3) Employee License 1208.01 Effective 10/1 /95 all licenses issued shall be $ 34.00 On-Sale Liquor valid for a period of two years from the date Establishments of initial application (4) Investigation Fee 1202.01-1202.21 (a) On-Sale liquor including Veterans' $ 754.00 and Organization each person shown on application actual costs in excess of above Each additional investigation for each person not listed on original or renewal application $ 226.00 1202.1 1 (b) Wine - Original Application initial Fee $ 418.00 and actual costs in excess of above with total fee not to exceed $ 3,190.00 Renewal Application Initial Fee $ 94.00 and actual costs in excess of above with total cost not to exceed $ 3,190.00 1202.1 1 Additional Investigation under 1200.09 Subd. 3 $ 185.00 and not to exceed $ 3,190.00 Investigation of substitute manager $ 94.00 BOLD represents added/amended fees is-as SECTION 10. HOUSING INSPECTION AND RENTAL LICENSE FEES TYPE OF PERMIT SECTION OR LICENSE REQUIRING DESCRIPTION FEE (1) License for 405 (a) Apartment House 1 Year $ 135.00 Apartment Houses Each unit $ 14.00 and Rental Homes (b) Rental Home -single family dwelling 1 Year $ 135.00 (c) Duplexes/double bungalows First unit 1 Year $ 135.00 Each additional rental unit 1 Year $ 80.00 (d) Late Fee $ 100.00 $100 penalty for each month or portion per month thereof during which said fee remains unpaid. (e) License Transfer Fee $ 40.00 (f) Reinstatement of suspended license 50% of license fee (minimum $80) (g) Reinstatement of Revoked license 100% of license fee (h) Re-Inspection Fee 1. multi-family $ 80.00 ea. 2. single family & duplex $ 50.00 ea. (Inspection over standard 2 inspections) Reinspection fees shall be payable at the time of license renewal and no renewal license shall be issued unless all inspection fees are paid (i) Provisional license for apartment house 1 Year $ 270.00 Includes first unit Each additional unit $ 28.00 Provisional license for Rental Home- single family dwelling $ 270.00 Provisional license for duplex First unit $ 270.00 Each additional unit $ 160.00 (j) Investigation fee for operating a rental $ 200.00 property without a license (2) Certificate of 405.26 Single family home (includes one reinspection) $ 145.00 Housing 2-family home (includes one reinspection) $ 225.00 maintenance Compliance Reinspection Fee $ 50.00 Fee to rocess cash escrow a reement $ 50.00 (3) Permit Fee for 405.19 1 Year $ 170.00 Rooming House BOLD represents added/amended fees D-9 ~s -a~ SECTION 11. MISCELLANEOUS FEES TYPE OF PERMIT SECTION DESCRIPTION FEE OR LICENSE REQUIRING (1) Permit to reside 1 190 In motel for more than six months $ 17.00 (2) Permit to Carry a Permit Issued By County Gun (3) False Alarms (a) in excess of 2 for calendar year $ 100.00 (billable) (b) in excess of 10 for calendar year $ 200.00 (c) in excess of 20 for calendar year $ 300.00 (4) Nuisance Conduct 925 Third call to a property for nuisance conduct $ 250.00 Fee within a 365-da eriod (5) Copying Services Flat rate (per page) $ .25 Provided Special rate (a) Black & White Photocopy rate 8.5 x 1 1 (per side) $ .25 8.5 x 14 (per side) $ .25 MN Statute 13.03C 1 1 x 17 (each) $ .50 24 x 36 (each) $ 2.50 X-large $ 2.50 Color Photocopy rate 8.5 x 1 1 (per side) $ 1.00 8.5 x 14 (per side) $ 2.00 1 1 x 17 (each) $ 4.00 24 x 36 (each) $ 18.00 X-large $ 3.OOsq./ft. (b) Labor hourly wage & 33% (c) Postage prevailing rate (d) Fax per page $ .50 (e) Audio tape of meeting (per tape) $ 5.00 (f) Video tape of meeting (per tape) $ 15.00 (g) Electronic copies (cd or disk) $ 5.00 (h) As builts (per image) $ .50 (6) Notary Fee Fee Set By State (7) Candidate Filing City Charter $ 25.00 Fee 4.04 (8) Photo Fee Includes 2 photos $ 16.00 includin tax BOLD represents added/amended fees D- ] 0 is -a~ SECTION 11. MISCELLANEOUS FEES (CONTINUED) TYPE OF PERMIT OR LICENSE SECTION REQUIRING DESCRIPTION FEE (9) Assessing Fees Special Abatement for Filing Homestead $25.00 Special Assessment Searches One property indemnifications number (PID) search free per day, if more than one $3.00 each Assessment Search Report $15.00 per Property Identification Number (PID) Creation of New or Special $25.00 minimum fee. Report Fees to be based on time and materials to create report Review of Comparable Property Records Residential Field Card Report $ .25 per copy for up to five comparable properties Commercial/Industrial/Apartment Field Card Report $2.00 per copy Certified Card Report $3.00 SECTION 12. ROOM AND PARK SHELTER RENTAL FEES LOCATION DESCRIPTION CLASSIFECATION FEE Richfield City Hall Council Chambers Non-Profit Weekend: $ 72.00/Hr Weekday: $ 49.00/Hr Resident: Private Weekend: $ 72.00/Hr Weekday: $ 62.00/Hr Non-Resident: Private Weekend: $ 82.00/Hr Weekday: $ 72.00/Hr Richfield Community Center Augsburg Room Non-Profit $ 28.00/Hr Nicollet Ruth Johnson or Fireside Room Resident: Private $ 33.00/Hr Non-Resident: Private $ 39.00/Hr BOLD represents added/amended fees D-11 ~s -a~ SECTION 12. ROOM AND PARK SHELTER RENTAL FEES (CONTINUED) LOCATION DESCRIPTION CLASSIFECATION FEE Richfield Community Center Combined Non-Profit $ 51.00/Hr Nicollet/Augsburg or Richfield Room Resident: Private $ 64.00/Hr Non-Resident: Private $ 75.00/Hr Wood Lake Nature Center Auditorium Non-Profit $ 32.00/Hr Resident $ 42.00/Hr Private Non-Resident $ 47.00/Hr Private Veterans Park Picnic Shelter Resident Day: 4- 1 Section: $93.00 Hour Block 2 Sections: $165.00 3 Sections: $235.00 Resident Evening: 1 Section: $68.00 3-Hour Block 2 Sections: $120.00 3 Sections: $175.00 Non-Resident 1 Section: $100.00 Day: 4-Hour Block 2 Sections: $180.00 3 Sections: $250.00 Non-Resident 1 Section: $75.00 Evening: 3-Hour 2 Sections: $135.00 Block 3 Sections: $190.00 BOLD represents added/amended fees D-12 IS'~9 SECTION 12. ROOM AND PARK SHELTER RENTAL FEES (CONTINUED) LOCATION DESCRIPTION CLASSIFECATION FEE Augsburg Park Park Buildings Resident $ 25.00/Hr Christian Park $ 21.00/Hr (3+ Hrs) Donaldson Park-East Jefferson Park Non-Resident $ 30.00/Hr Madison Park $ 26.00/Hr (3+ Hrs) Taft Park-North Washin ton Park Fairwood Park Open Picnic Shelters Resident $ 20.00/Hr Monroe Park $ 17.00/Hr (3+ Hrs) Augsburg Park Non-Resident $ 25.00/Hr $ 22.00/Hr 3+ Hrs Sheridan Park Open Picnic Shelter Resident $ 23.00/Hr $ 20.00/Hr (3+ Hrs) Non-Resident $ 27.00/Hr $ 24.00/Hr (3+ Hrs) Veterans Park Picnic Shelter Resident Day: 4- 1 Section: $93.00 Hour Block 2 Sections: $165.00 3 Sections: $235.00 Resident Evening: 1 Section: $68.00 3-Hour Block 2 Sections: $120.00 3 Sections: $175.00 Non-Resident 1 Section: $100.00 Day: 4-Hour Block 2 Sections: $180.00 3 Sections: $250.00 Non-Resident 1 Section: $75.00 Evening: 3-Hour 2 Sections: $135.00 Block 3 Sections: $190.00 Athletic Fields Baseball/Softball Fields Category A Renters Weekday: No fee Weekend: No Fee, only applicable staff costs Category B Renters Weekday: $ 32.50/Hr 1- 2 hours Weekend: $ 32.50/Hr + applicable staff costs Category B Renters 2 hours $ 32.50/Hr 4 hours $ 65.00/Hr 8 hours $ 80.00/Hr Add'I hours over 8 $ 32.50/Hr Tennis Courts Augsburg, Christian, Donaldson, Fairwood, $ 4.50/Hr Jefferson, Heredia, Madison, Nicollet, Roosevelt, and Washin ton Parks. Athletic Facility Light Use Softball Fields $ 20.00/Hr Baseball Fields $ 25.00/Hr Football/Soccer Field $ 25.00/Hr Tennis Courts $ 3.00/Hr BOLD represents added/amended fees D-13 IS-3° Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield this 14'" day of December, 2010. Debbie Goettel Mayor ATTEST: Nancy Gibbs City Clerk