Loading...
11-22-05 AgendaCITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 22, 2005 SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL WORKSESSION COUNCIL CHAMBERS 6700 PORTLAND AVENUE 5:30 P.M. Call to order Roll call 5:30 - 6:20 p.m. 1. Discussion regarding proposed Public Works maintenance garage site (Council Memo No. 152) Notes: Adjournment REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING COUNCIL CHAMBERS 6700 PORTLAND AVENUE 6:30 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 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: Pledge of Allegiance Approval of minutes of (1) Regular City Council Meeting of October 25, 2005; (2) Special City Council Meeting of November 2, 2005; (3) Special City Council Worksession of November 7, 2005; and (4) Regular City Council Meeting of November 7, 2005 PRESENTATION 1. Presentation of recommendations from Golf Practice Facility Task Force (Council Memo No. 151) COUNCIL DISCUSSION 2. Council discussion • Hats Off To Hometown Hits Notes: AGENDA APPROVAL 3. Council approval of agenda CONSENT CALENDAR 4. 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 amendment to City Code Section 408, Subsection 408.1 regarding approval of occupancy of dwelling prior to issuance of certificate of housing maintenance compliance certificate and schedule second reading for December 13, 2005 S.R. No. 211 B. Consideration of approval of rescinding Resolution No. 8862, authorizing resolution regarding flight travel during nighttime hours, and authorizing elected official out-of- state travel policy S.R. No. 212 C. Consideration of approval of resolution authorizing acceptance of $1,000 grant from Wal-Mart Corporation for Public Safety Police Division Canine Unit S.R:~No. 213 D. Consideration of approval of resolution authorizing renewal of contract with Minnesota State Fire Marshal's office for hotel inspection services S.R. No. 214 E. Consideration of approval of resolution authorizing renewal of contract with Minnesota State Fire Marshal's office for public school inspection services S.R. No. 215 F. Consideration of approval of resolution designating City's 2006 contribution toward health, term, life and dental insurance premiums for General Services and Management employees S.R. No. 216 G. Consideration of approval of purchase of Records Management System from Crabtree Companies, Inc. in amount of $49,236 S.R. No. 217 H. Consideration of approval of request from State of Minnesota for renewal of currency exchange license for Unbank Company, LLP, 6421 Penn Avenue S.R. No. 218 I. Consideration of approval of request from State of Minnesota for renewal of currency exchange license for Checks Cashed of America, LLC dba Money Xchange, 1508 East 66th Street S.R. No. 219 J. Consideration of approval of request from State of Minnesota for renewal of currency exchange license for Community Money Centers, Inc., dba Money Centers, 6525 Nicollet Avenue S.R. No. 220 Notes: 5. Consideration of items, if any, removed from- Consent Calendar Notes: RESOLUTION 6. Disciplinary hearing regarding resolution imposing civil enforcement on alcohol establishment in Richfield that recently underwent alcohol compliance check conducted by Richfield Public Safety staff and failed by selling alcohol to .underage youth Staff Report No. 221 Notes: OTHER BUSINESS 7. Consideration of ordering feasibility study for proposed improvements at 66th Street and 17th Avenue Staff Report No. 222 Notes: 8. Consideration of stipulation for settlement, settlement agreement and release for workers' compensation claim Staff Report No. 223 Notes: 9. Consideration of canceling December 27; 2005 Regular Council Meeting Staff Report No. 224 Notes: CITY MANAGER'S REPORT 10. City Manager's report Notes: 11. 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 to 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: 12. Special City Council Closed Executive Session in Executive Conference Room to consider offer to purchase real estate Return to Council Chambers for adjournment of Regular City Council Meeting 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. AGENDA SECTION: AGENDA ITEM # REPORT # STAFF REPORT CITY COUNCIL MEETING NOVEMBER 22, 2005 0_l'HER BIISINESS 9 224 REPORT PREPARED BY: CHERYL KRUNIHOLZ, EXEC. COORDINATOR NAME, TITLE COUNCIL PRESENTER: REVIEWED BY CITY MANAGER: ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION: Consideration of canceling the December 27, 2005 Regular City Council. meeting. I. RECOMMENDED ACTION: By Motion: Cancel the December 27, 2005 Regular City Council meeting. II. BPiCKGROUND • The City Council regularly meets the second and fourth Tuesday evening of each month. The fourth Tuesday in December is December 27, 2005. Past practice has been to cancel the Council meeting on the fourth Tuesday of December due to the Christmas holiday. • Agenda items for the December 27 Council meeting can be considered on .December 13, 2005 or carried over to January 10, 2006. Therefore, it is suggested that the Regular Council meeting scheduled for December 27 be canceled. III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION A. POLICY • Past practice has been to cancel -the Council meeting on the fourth Tuesday of December due to the Christmas holiday. 1122cancel B. CRITICAL ISSUES • City Council business can be considered on December 13, 2005 or carried over to January 10, 2006 • This item has been placed on the November 22 City Council agenda so proper notification can be made if the meeting is canceled. IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION~S~ • Do not cancel the December 27 Council meeting. V. ATTACHMENTS • None. VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING • None.. AGENDA SECTION: 0!'HER BIISTNF:SS AGENDA ITEM # g REPORT # 223 STAFF REPORT CITY COUNCIL MEETING NOVEMBER 22, 2005 REPORT PREPARED BY: STEVEN L. DEVICH, CITY MANAGER NAME, TITLE COUNCIL PRESENTER: REVIEWED BY CITY MANAGER: ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION: Consideration of approval of Workers' Compensation claim settlement. I. RECOMMENDED ACTION: By Motion: Approve the Stipulation For Settlement and Settlement Agreement and Release for workers' compensation claim. II. BACKGROUND On September 14, 1970 the claimant was hired by the City to work as a Police Officer for the Public Safety Department. On August 26, 2004 the employee filed a workers' compensation claim for acardiac/artery condition due to work-related stress. Previously, on May 4, 2004 the employee filed a workers' compensation claim for work-related chest pain. The City's workers' compensation administrators denied both of these claims. On August 31, 2004 the employee retired from the City. A stipulation for settlement has been negotiated between representatives of the City and the employee. The settlement provides fora $40,000 lump sum payment to the employee. In addition, the City will reimburse the employee's attorneys $414.88 for taxable costs he's incurred. The City will also pay existing medical claims to medical providers in the amount of $2,196.83. The payments outlined above represent a total settlement pay out of up to $42,611.71. As part of the settlement, the employee waives past, present and future claims related to his cardiac/artery condition including future medical claims and a stipulation that the cardiac/artery condition is not work related to protect the City against a potential death benefit claim. The City also receives a waiver of employment claims such as wrongful 112205 WC Settlement discharge and discrimination along with waiver of future wage loss, chiropractic, osteopathic, in patient pain clinic and psychiatric treatment for prior injuries. This stipulation represents the full, final and complete settlement of all claims related to the claimed occupational injury. Pursuant to the stipulation and state law, the. employee has a rescission period for this settlement agreement and release. Upon the conclusion of the rescission period and approval by the workers' compensation judge, the terms of the agreement will be final. III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION A. POLICY • This settlement fairly represents the interests of both the former employee and the City. B. CRITICAL ISSUES • City staff and legal counsel consider this settlement to be reasonable and recommend accepting it. • This item has been scheduled for November 22, 2005 so that this claim may be concluded as soon as practical. C. FINANCIAL • The payments agreed to in this settlement would be paid from the Selfi Insurance Fund. • The settlement includes $40,000 in payments to the employee; a maximum of $2,196.83 for existing claims; and $414.88 for taxable costs. D. LEGAL • The settlement avoids the additional time, expense and ill will of pursuing this matter in litigation or continuing negotiations on this claim. • The settlement is subject to employee's rescission period pursuant to the stipulation. IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION~S~ • The City Council could disapprove this settlement package, however, it is doubtful that either the former employee or the City's best interest would be heightened by protracting negotiations further or pursuing litigation. V. ATTACHMENTS • None. VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING • None. AGENDA SECTION: OTHER BUSINESS AGENDA ITEM # T REPORT # 222 ~~ STAFF REPORT CITY COUNCIL MEETING NOVEMBER 22, 2005 REPORT PREPARED BY: THOMAS FOLEY, TRANSPORTATION ENGINEER NAME, TITZE COUNCIL PRESENTER: DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR n/ REVIEW: lam/ REVIEWED BY CITY MANAGER: ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION: Order a Feasibility Report for Proposed Improvements at 66th Street and 17th Avenue L RECOMMENDED ACTION: By. Motion: Direct City staff to prepare a Feasibility Report for ro osed im rovements at 66th Street and 17th Avenue. II. BACKGROUND Council recently approved the construction of a new intersection at 66th Street and 17th Avenue and the use of special assessment bonds to finance the improvements. The Council can initiate the special assessment procedures by directing City staff to prepare a feasibility report for the proposed improvement. The process needs to begin so that funding is in place in a timely manner to meet the development schedule for the Cedar Point Commons Project. Road construction is scheduled to begin in July 2006. III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION A. POLICY 1122Feasibility Report • The proposed improvements at 66th Street and 17th Avenue are consistent with the Cedar Avenue Corridor Redevelopment Master Plan. B. CRITICAL ISSUES • The special assessment bonds need to be issued to finance the purchase of homes needed for the new intersection. C. FINANCIAL • The project will need $4.0 million in special assessment bonds including 20% from the developer of Cedar Point Commons. D. LEGAL • The City Attorney has been consulted in preparing this staff report. IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION(S~ • Council may delay calling for the feasibility report. This may delay construction of the improvements at the intersection of 17tH Avenue and 66tH Street. V. ATTACHMENTS • Schedule of improvements at 66th Street and 17th Avenue. VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING • None Anticipated. ~_~ Schedule For Improvements at 66th Street and 17th Avenue Feasibility Report Completed December 2005 Developer Signs City Development Agreement December 2005 City Begins to Acquire Property January 2006 City Obtains Site Control April 15, 2006 City Advertises for Bids May 15, 2006 City Lets Construction Contract June 2006 Construction Begins July 2006 AGENDA SECTION AGENDA ITEM # REPORT # r STAFF REPORT CITY COUNCIL MEETING NOVEMBER 22, 2005 RESOLUTION 6 221 BETSY OSBORN, ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPORT REPORT PREPARED BY: SERVICES MANAGER NAME, TITLE COUNCIL PRESENTER: NAME, TITLE DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR REVIEW: REVIEWED BY CITY MANAGER: ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION: Council consideration of a disciplinary hearing and resolutions regarding civil enforcement for alcohol establishments in Richfield that recently underwent alcohol compliance checks, conducted b Richfield Public Safety staff, and failed by selling alcohol to underage youth. I. RECOMMENDED ACTION: By Motion: Conduct a disciplinary hearing for the establishment that failed an alcohol compliance check, and approve the attached resolution for the first time violating establishment with the following disciplinary actions; • Suspend the license to sell alcohol for five (5) consecutive days; • Levy a fine against the establishment in the amount of $1,000; • Require a meeting with the Public Safety Director to present an individual establishment plan to ensure eliminating any future actions of this kind, and; • Require the establishment to provide proof of the attendance of the manager of the establishment in an alcohol sales awareness programs 1122 Alcohol Non Compliance Violators II. BACKGROUND On September 30, 2005, Richfield Public Safety staff conducted. alcohol compliance checks at all of Richfield's alcohol establishments, assisted by three underage youth that were all 19 years of age. These compliance checks were the second set of checks conducted in 2005. Richfield Public Safety staff made arrangements for the minors to enter the establishments with undercover police officers. In one instance, an underage youth was served alcohol. The business that made a sale to an underage youth on September 30, 2005 is: • Khan's Mongolian Barbeque - 500 East 78th Street This is a first offense for Khan's Mongolian Barbeque. Technically, it is a second violation but because of time elapsed between now and the previous violation, it is considered a first violation. They previously appeared before the City Council on September 10, 2001. At no time did any of the minors consume any of the alcohol. The youth presented their ID's and at no time attempted to convince anyone that they were of legal age. Establishments were visited at a variety of 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 them a citation if they failed. If the underage youth was unsuccessful in securing alcohol, the clerk was congratulated by officers for doing a good job. The employee that sold alcohol will be charged criminally in court. The action being taken today is for civil enforcement and penalties against the business that holds a license to sell alcohol 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 business that failed punitively. Compliance checks will continue to occur in the future. It is also recommended that 15% of the punitive fines be designated for future alcohol and tobacco education efforts within the community. III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION A. POLICY • Resolution No.9511 specifies certain improper conduct of alcohol license holders and delineates the progressive discipline that can be expected when violations occur, such as the sale of alcohol to minors. • Staff recommends that the City Council suspend the first time violating establishment's license to sell alcohol for five (5) consecutive days and levy a fine against the establishment in the amount of $1,000 for the first violation. Staff is also proposing that the. first time. violating establishment attend a mandatory meeting with the Public Safety Director to present their individual establishment's plan to ensure eliminating any future actions of this kind. In addition, one employee, preferably the manager, must attend a mandatory alcohol and sales awareness training session, provided by a private firm approved by Public Safety.. The cost of the training is to be paid for by the establishment. B. CRITICAL ISSUES - • It is a violation of Minnesota State Statute and City ordinance to sell alcohol to underage youth. • Civil enforcement penalties taken in the past by the City Council against several establishments have been severe. This was done to send a message to the establishments and the community that the Council will not tolerate this type of violation to continue in the community and that Richfield youth and their well-being are highly valued. • 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 an alcohol compliance check. • Furthermore, 15% of the punitive fines are designated for future alcohol and tobacco educational efforts within the community. D. LEGAL • N/A IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION(S~ I he Council could decide to take no action against the establishment for the sale of alcohol to a minor that would result in no disciplinary action against the establishment. 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 establishment that sold alcohol to underage youth; however, that would deviate from the guidelines set for progressive discipline in Resolution No. 9511 TTACHMENTS • Resolution s Mongolian Barbeque Discipline VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING Kepresentatives from the establishment are expected to be in attendance at the meeting. They have been notified in writing regarding the City Council meeting date. ~'~ 1 RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION SUSPENDING THE ON-SALE INTOXICATING AND SUNDAY LIQUOR LICENSE FOR KHAN'S MONGOLIAN BARBEQUE, 500 EAST 78TH STREET AND IMPOSING A CIVIL PENALTY FOR FIRST TIME ALCOHOL COMPLIANCE FAILURE WHEREAS, Khan's Mongolian Barbeque ("Licensee") holds an On-Sale Intoxicating and Sunday Liquor license from the City of Richfield; and WHEREAS, on September, 30, 2005 the City of Richfield Public Safety Department conducted a compliance check of the Licensee's establishment; and, during the compliance check, an employee of the Licensee sold alcohol to a minor and; WHEREAS, this is technically their second alcohol compliance check but because of the time that has elapsed between now and the previous failures, it serves as a first failure. Their previous penalties were imposed by the Council at the September 10, 2001 meeting; and WHEREAS, the Licensee appeared before the Richfield City Council on November 22, 2005 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 On-Sale and Sunday Liquor license is hereby suspended for a period of five (5) 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 $1,000 is hereby imposed. On or before December 22, 2005, the Licensee shall deliver a check or money order payable to the City of Richfield in the amount of $1,000. 3. Meet with the Director of Public Safety by December 22, 2005 to present a written action plan to ensure future compliance. 4. One staff member,. preferably the manager, must attend an alcohol compliance and sales awareness presentation conducted by a private firm, approved by Public Safety, with all costs to be paid by the establishment. Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield this 22nd day of November 2005. Martin J. Kirsch, Mayor ATTEST: Nancy Gibbs, City Clerk AGENDA SECTION: COPISENT AGENDA ITEM # 4I REPORT # 219 ~J STAFF REPORT CITY COUNCIL MEETING NOVEMBER 22, 2005 REPORT PREPARED BY: COUNCIL PRESENTER: BETSY CHRISTENSEN, ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPORT SERVICES MANAGER NAME. TITLE NAME, DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR REVIEW: REVIEWED BY CITY MANAGER: ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION: Consideration of the request from the State of Minnesota to review the request for the renewal of a currency exchange license for Checks Cashed of America, LLC d/b/a Money Xchange, 1508 East 66th Street. I. RECOMMENDED ACTION: By Motion: Council approve the request for the renewal of a currency exchange license for Checks Cashed of America, LLC d/b/a Money Xchange, 1508 East 66th Street. II. BACKGROUND On October 20, 2005 the City received notification from the State of Minnesota, Department of Commerce, of a renewal application for a currency exchange license in the name of Checks Cashed of America, LLC d/b/a Money Xchange, 1508 East 66th Street. All of the information required by the State of Minnesota has been provided by Checks Cashed of America, LLC d/b/a Money Xchange. In addition, the background investigation conducted by the Bureau of Criminal Apprehension found no information on the applicants, Sherri Marzario and Mark Smith. 1122 Money Xchange License Renewal There were two Public Safety contacts for this address for the previous year. The Public Safety contacts were in reference to a theft and a disturbance. The applicant has complied with State Statute 53A.04 for a currency exchange license with the State of Minnesota. III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION A. POLICY • A license for this type of business is not required in the City. However, effective on April24, 1992, Minnesota Statute 53A.04 requires that the Department of Commerce submit any application for licensure as a currency exchange license to the governing body of the municipality in which the business proposes to conduct business. • This law also requires the governing municipality to render a decision regarding issuance or denial of the license within 60 days of the receipt of the State's notification. • The State requires that the applicant submit the following information when applying for this type of license: • License fees in the amount of $500. • A current fee schedule used for cashing checks, money orders, or traveler's checks. • A surety bond in the amount of $10,000. • Any owner, partner, director, stockholder (owning 10% or more of the corporate stock) or any employee with the authority to exercise management or policy control over the company must submit to a background investigation by the Bureau of Criminal Apprehension. B. CRITICAL ISSUES • Alt requirements have been satisfied. • City must reach a decision regarding issuance or denial of the license within the 60 days noted above. C. FINANCIAL • N/A D. LEGAL • N/A TERNATIVE Deny the request for the renewal of a currency exchange license for Checks Cashed of America, LLC d/b/a Money Xchange. However, the Public Safety Department has found no reason to deny the requested license. ~ V. ATTACHMENTS VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING • NnnP AGENDA SECTION: CONSENT AGENDA ITEM # ~+J REPORT # 220 STAFF REPORT CITY COUNCIL MEETING NOVEMBER 22, 2005 REPORT PREPARED BY: BETSY OSBORN, ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPORT SERVICES MANAGER NAME, T/TLE COUNCIL PRESENTER: NAME, TITLE DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR REVIEW: REVIEWED BY CITY MANAGER: ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION: Consideration of the request from the State of Minnesota to review the request for the renewal of a currency exchange license for Community Money Centers, Inc. d/b/a Money Centers, 6525 Nicollet Avenue South. I. RECOMMENDED ACTION: By Motion: Approve the request for the renewal of a currency exchange license for Community Money Centers, Inc. d/b/a Money Centers, 6526 Nicollet Avenue II. BACKGROUND On October 31, 2005, the City received notification from the State of Minnesota, Department of Commerce, of a renewal application for a currency exchange license in the name of Community Money Centers, Inc., d/b/a Money Centers, 6525 Nicollet Avenue South. All of the information required by the State of Minnesota has been provided by Community Money Centers, Inc. d/b/a Money Centers. In addition, the background investigation conducted by the Bureau of Criminal Apprehension found no information on the applicants, Cary Geller and Richard Krietzman. 1122 Money Centers License Renewal There were 23 Public Safety/Police contacts for this address for the previous year. The contacts included two frauds, two alarms, one traffic stop, one theft, three disturbances, ten forgeries, one public assist, two extra patrol, and one property damage. The applicant has complied with State Statute 53A.04 for a currency exchange license with the State of Minnesota. III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION A. POLICY • A license for this type of business is not required in the City; however, effective on April 24, 1992, Minnesota Statute 53A.04 requires that the Department of Commerce submit any application for licensure as a currency exchange license to the governing body of the municipality in which the business proposes to conduct business. • This law also requires the governing municipality to render a decision regarding issuance or denial of the license within 60 days of the receipt of the State's notification. • The State requires that the applicant submit the following information when applying for this type of license: • License fees in the amount of $50. • A current fee schedule used for cashing checks, money .orders, or traveler's checks. • A surety bond in the amount of $10,000. • Any owner, partner, director, stockholder (owning 10% or more of the corporate stock) or any employee with the authority to exercise management or policy control over the company must submit to a background investigation by the Bureau of Criminal Apprehension. B. CRITICAL ISSUES • All requirements have been met. C. FINANCIAL • N/A D. LEGAL • N/A ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION(S~ • Deny the request for the renewal of a currency exchange license for Community Money Centers, Inc., d/b/a Money Centers. However, the Public Safety Department has found no reason to deny the requested license. V. ATTACHMENTS. _ • VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING ne. AGENDA SECTION: CONSENT AGENDA ITEM # [Eg REPORT # 218 J STAFF REPORT CITY COUNCIL MEETING NOVEMBER 22, 2005 REPORT PREPARED BY: BETSY OSBORN, ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPORT SERVICES MANAGER NAME, TITLE COUNCIL PRESENTER: DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR REVIEW: REVIEWED BY CITY MANAGER: ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION: Consideration of a request from the State of Minnesota to review the request for the renewal of a currenc exchan a license for Unbank Com an LLP, 6421 Penn Avenue South. I. RECOMMENDED ACTION: By Motion: • Approve a request for the renewal of a currency exchange license for Unbank Companv. LLP, 6421 Penn Avenue South. II. BACKGROUND On October 13, 2005, the City received notification from the State of Minnesota, Department of Commerce, of a renewal application for a currency exchange license in the name of Unbank Company LLP, 6421 Penn Avenue South. All of the information required by the State of Minnesota has been provided by Unbank Company LLP. In addition, the background investigation conducted by the Bureau of Criminal Apprehension found no information on the applicants, Gary A. Dachis and Stuart D. Tapper. 1122 Unbank Company Currency License The only Public Safety contact for this address for the previous year was in reference to an alarm. The applicant has complied with State Statute 53A.04 for a currency exchange license with the State of Minnesota. III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION A. POLICY • A license for this type of business is not required in the City. However, effective on April 24, 1992, Minnesota Statute 53A.04 requires that the Department of Commerce submit any application for licensure as a currency exchange license to the governing body of the municipality in which the business proposes to conduct business. • This law also requires the governing municipality to render a decision regarding issuance or denial of the license within 60 days of the receipt of the State's notification. • The State requires that the applicant submit the following information when applying for this type of license: - License fees in the amount of $500. - A current fee schedule used for cashing checks, money orders, or traveler's checks. - A surety bond in the amount of $10,000. - Any owner, partner, director, stockholder (owning 10% or more of the corporate stock) or any employee with the authority to exercise management or policy control over the company must submit to a background investigation by the Bureau of Criminal Apprehension. B. CRITICAL ISSUES • All requirements have been satisfied. • City must reach a decision regarding issuance or denial of the license within the 60 days noted above. C. FINANCIAL • N/A D. LEGAL • N/A TERNATIVE ueny the request for a currency exchange license for Unbank Company, LLP. However, the Public Safety Department has found no reason to deny the requested license. V. ATTACHMENTS VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING • None ___.~..~. _ ._.~,........ 1.W1~.7L1Y 1 AGENDA ITEM # _ 4 F REPORT # 216 STAFF REPORT CITY COUNCIL MEETING NOVEMBER 22, 2005 REPORT PREPARED BY: COUNCIL PRESENTER: REVIEWED BY CITY MANAGER: STEVEN DEVICH, CITY MANAGER ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION: Consideration of the attached resolution designating City's contribution toward health, term life and dental insurance remiums for General Services and Mana ement em to ees. I. RECOMMENDED ACTION: By Motion: Adopt the attached resolution designating City's contribution toward health, term life and dental insurance premiums for General Services and Management employees. II. BACKGROUND At the present time, the City contributes to the cost of premiums for four kinds of insurance coverages available to City employees. Full-time Management and General Services employee contributions are discussed within this staff report as well as contributions toward health insurance for part-time regular General Services employees. Other employees are covered under terms of labor agreements. LIFE A $25,000 term life insurance policy is provided for all full-time Management and General Services employees. The City pays the full premium for this insurance. The rate for 2006 remains at $4.35 per month per employee. 11-22-05 Benefits DENTAL The second type of insurance provided to full-time Management and General Services employees is aself-funded group dental insurance: In 2005, the City contributed $27 per month per employee for the total cost of employee (not dependent) coverage. For 2006, the City will contribute $30 per month per employee. Employees who desire dependent coverage must pay the full cost of such additional premium, which will be $29 per month for 2006. This is a $3 decrease from 2005. Inasmuch as dental insurance is self-funded, the City establishes the dental rates from year to year internally, based .upon administrative and benefit payout cost data. HEALTH INSURANCE FOR FULL-TIME EMPLOYEES The third type of insurance coverage available to full-time Management and General Services employees is group health coverage. The Local Government Information Systems Association (LOGIS) group will again offer the Medics High Option Plan, Elect/Essential Plan and the deductible MIC1000 plan. In an effort to remain flexible and keep rate increases as low as possible, LOGIS offers a four-tier system, giving employees the choice of employee only, employee plus spouse, employee plus child(ren) and family option. By providing this four-tier rating system some employees are able to benefit by choosing the employee plus spouse option or employee plus child(ren) option. LOGIS health insurance rates increased 12% for 2006. The City will continue to pay the full individual employee premium and provide an additional contribution toward dependent coverage up to a specified maximum insurance premium. In 2006, the City's monthly contribution for Management and General Services employees would be increased from $605 to $655 for the employee plus. spouse and employee plus child(ren) tiers and from $650 to $700 for the family coverage tier. The City's contribution for Management and General Services employees as a percent of premium over the past several years is shown in Attachment 7. Full-time employees have the option to waive health insurance coverage through the City if they prove they have coverage elsewhere. Employees electing to waive coverage will receive an additional $50 per month on their pay check. This $50 will be taxed as regular income. The 2005 and 2006 monthly premium costs of the health plans area 2005 Medics 2006 Medics 2005 Medics 2006 Medics High Option High Option Elect or Medics Elect or Essential Medics Essential Employee Onl $374.75 $419.72 $342.33 $383.41 Employee Plus Spouse $800.37 $896.41 $731.11 $818.84 Employee Plus Child ren) $756.10 $846.83 $690.66 $773.54 Famil $987.70 $1106.22 $902.97 $1010.99 2005 Medica 2006 Medica MIC 100 Plan MIC100 (deductible) Plan Employee Onl $333.87 $373.93 . Employee Plus Spouse $713.02 $798.58 Employee Plus Child ren $673.57 $754.40 Famil $880.35 $985.99 HEALTH INSURANCE FOR PART-TIME REGULAR EMPLOYEES The City will continue to contribute 75% of the single health care premium for part-time regular employees and increase the dependent coverage contribution to $327.50 per month for the employee plus spouse and employee plus child(ren) tiers and $350 for the family coverage tier. Part-time employees may opt out of health insurance altogether. LONG-TERM DISABILITY (LTD) The fourth type of insurance provided to all employee groups is long-term disability insurance (LTD). LTD is provided through a group policy secured by the City. The premium rates remain at 33 cents per $100. III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION A. POLICY • The City is a LOGIS boardmember and has participated in the process of receiving the best possible health insurance rates. • The City continues to provide adequate insurance protection for the Management and General Services employee groups, which are comparable to other City employee groups, as well as employees performing similar jobs in comparable communities. • By providing the same coverages, greater benefit equality is achieved between female classes found in Management and General Services groups and male classes found in-the contracted labor units. B. CRITICAL ISSUES • The City should implement the premium increases for coverages by December 1, 2005. Payroll deductions for January insurance payments, the, beginning of the new insurance period, are calculated in December. C. FINANCIAL • The funding necessary to provide for the premium contributions as recommended will be addressed in the 2006 Revised budget. • Even with the increase recommended, Richfield will be below the average of comparable metro cities. D. LEGAL • In order to provide the requested insurance benefit changes, the City Council must approve the resolution designating the City's contribution toward health, term life and dental insurance premiums for General Services and Management employees. IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION~~S~ • The Council may take no action to increase the insurance premiums beyond the current 2005 funding level. • Defer discussion to another date. V. ATTACHMENTS • Resolution The City's Contribution Toward Dependent Health Insurance as a Percent of Total Premium Cost VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING • None ~~~~ RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION DESIGNATING CITY'S CONTRIBUTION TOWARD HEALTH, TERM LIFE AND DENTAL INSURANCE PREMIUM FOR MANAGEMENT AND GENERAL SERVICES EMPLOYEES WHEREAS, the hospital-medical/surgical group health insurance plan is available from the LOGIS Health Insurance program for City employees and their families; and WHEREAS, a term life and accidental death and dismemberment insurance plan is available from the Local Government Information Systems Association (LOGIS) for City employees; and WHEREAS, aself-funded group dental insurance plan is available to City Management and General Services employees and their families; and WHEREAS, a group short-term and long-term disability program is available to City Management and General Services employees; and WHEREAS, the City Council is required to determine by resolution the City's contribution toward the premium for employee group insurance coverages. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City shall contribute a maximum of $650 per month for family health insurance to full-time employees, and in any event, said contributions shall not exceed the cost of single coverage for employees selecting that option. -The City shall give to full-time employees not participating in the City's health plan, a sum of $50 per month, which will be taxed as regular income. For all full-time Management and General Services employees, the City shall also pay the $30 monthly premium for the offered dental insurance plan, and the $4.35 monthly premium for the term life and accidental death and dismemberment insurance plan for, for a total possible maximum 2006 insurance premium contribution of $734.35 per month. The City shall contribute 75% of the single health care premium for part-time regular employees and a maximum of $350 per month towards dependent coverage. Part-time employees shall also receive a portion of short-term disability insurance dependent upon hours worked. Such contributions shall be for coverage effective January 1, 2006. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City shall contribute the full cost of long-term disability insurance for full-time Management and General Services employees. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Council shall determine the City's contribution toward insurance premiums for all organized employee groups by the adoption of the appropriate resolutions concerning labor contracts with the respective organized employee groups. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this 22nd day of November 2005. ATTEST: Martin J. Kirsch, Mayor Nancy Gibbs, City Clerk The City's Contribution Toward Dep endenf Health Insurance as a Percent of Tofal Premium Cost YEAR HEALTH DEPENDENT CITY CONTRIBUTION CITY CONTRIBUTION PLAN PREMIUM MGMT./GEN. SVCS AVERAGE % OF COST PREMIUM X001 MEDICA High Option * Employee + Spouse $586.98 $455 78% * Employee + Children $554.50 $455 82% * family $724.72 $455 63% Elect Option * Employee + Spouse $536.18 $455 85% * Employee + Children $506.50 $455 90% * Family $661.99 $455 69% Low Option * Employee + Spouse $546.93 $455 83% * Employee + Children $516.66 $455 88% " Family $675.28 $455 67% 2002 MEDICA High Option * Employee + Spouse $636.00 $495 78% * Employee + Children $600.81 $495 82% * Family $785.25 $495 63% Elect Option * Employee + Spouse $580.96 $495 85% * Employee + Children $548.80 $495 g0% * Family $717.28 $495 69% MIC 1000 * Employee + Spouse $534.24 $495 93% * Employee + Children $504.68 $495 98% * Family $659.61 $495 75% 2003 MEDICA High Option * Employee + Spouse $704.43 $515 73% * Employee + Children $665.46 $515 77% * Family $869.74 $530 61 Elect Option * Employee + Spouse $643.47 $515 80% * Employee + Children $607.85 $515 85% * Family $794.46 $530 67% MIC 1000 * Employee + Spouse $591.72 $515 87% * Employee + Children $558.98 $515 92% * Family X730.58 $530 73% 2004 2005 2006 MEDICA q j 'T High Option * Employee + Spouse $800.37 $565 * Employee + Children $756.10 $565 * Family $987.70 $580 Elect/Essentia l Option * Employee + Spouse $731.11 $565 * Employee + Children $690.66 $565 * Family $902.97 $580 MIC 1000 * Employee + Spouse $713.02 $565 * Employee + Children $673.57 $565 * Family $880.35 $580 MEDICA High Option * Employee + Spouse $800.37 $605 * Employee + Children $756.10 $650 * Family $987.70 $650 Elect/Essential Option * Employee + Spouse $731.11 $605 * Employee + Children $690.66 $650 * Family $902.97 $650 MIC 1000 * Employee + Spouse $713.02 $605 * Employee + Children $673.57 $650 * Family $880.35 $650 MEDICA High Option * Employee + Spouse $896.41 $655 * Employee + Children $846.83 $655 * Family $1106.22 $700 Elect/Essential Option * Employee + Spouse $818.84 $655 * Employee + Children $773.54 $655 * Family $1010.99 $700 MIC 1000 * Employee + Spouse $798.58 $655 * Employee + Children $754.40 $655 " Family $985.99 $700 71% 75% 59% 77% 82% 64% 79% 84% 66% 76% 80% 66% 83% 88% 72% 85% 90% 74% 73% 77% 63% 80% 85% 69% 82% 87% 71% AGENDA SECTION: CONSENT AGENDA ITEM # 4G REPORT # 2 j. ] ~~ STAFF REPORT CITY COUNCIL MEETING NOVEMBER 22, 2005 REPORT PREPARED BY: SALLY MORTON, I.T. MANAGER NAME, TITLE COUNCIL PRESENTER: REVIEWED BY CITY MANAGER: ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION: Consideration of purchase of a Records Management System in the amount of $49,236. I. RECOMMENDED ACTION: By Motion: Approve the purchase of a Records Management System from Crabtree Companies, Inc. in the amount of $49,236. ~ II. BACKGROUND i ne c.:ity Council included "Commence an internal analysis of archiving/data storage" among its goals for 2004. In the spring of 2004, staff formed .an internal task force and began investigating options for preserving official documents. After visiting with vendors and staff from other cities, the task force concluded that a records management system that includes document imaging is needed to facilitate the storage and retrieval of these records. "Document imaging" is the process of converting paper documents to an electronic format viewable on a computer. For City purposes, the resulting electronic document must be stored in anon-proprietary and unalterable format such as TIFF so that it meets State requirements for archiving of official government records. Once converted, the paper records can be shredded,thereby alleviating the continually growing need for storage space. Document imaging also incorporates the conversion of documents from one electronic format to another, such as from Word to TIFF. A "records management system" organizes the document images so they can be easily searched, retrieved and distributed. It also facilitates proper records retention and destruction practices by allowing document images to be electronically tagged 1122-RecMgtSystem with their expiration date or marked as a permanent record. Periodically, lists of expired records can be generated, approved for destruction, and purged from the system. In the spring of 2005, staff from all departments participated in an inventory of City records. The types and format of records, approximate number of pages, and required retention periods were all documented. This study revealed that the City has almost 5 million pages of records in storage at various City buildings. Thirteen percent of these pages are stored on the City's computer system and 87% are paper records. Eighty percent of the records must be retained permanently. The remaining 20% have required retention periods of 1 - 20 years. The task force prepared a Request for Proposal (RFP) for a records management system and invited 7 vendors to submit proposals earlier this fall: The criteria included a system that could capture and convert both paper and digital records into a format that meets State requirements. Records retention and destruction management, robust search capabilities, and multiple levels of security were also required. Finally, the task force specified a system that would allow public records to be available through the City's web site, and provided. easy document retrieval from any PC on the City's internal computer network. Six vendors responded to the RFP with four of them proposing the same software solution named LaserFiche. Based on its earlier discussions with other cities, the task force had noted that LaserFiche appeared to be the most common records management system in use. The task force narrowed their RFP review to 3 finalists. All 3 had proposed the LaserFiche solution and pricing'was virtually identical. The task force determined that the deciding factor would be the quality of the on-going support and installation services provided by the vendor. After detailed interviews and reference checks, the task force unanimously selected Crabtree Companies, Inc. of Eagan, Minnesota. Their creative solutions, knowledge of government records practices, large customer base of Minnesota cities, and the enthusiastic endorsement of their references impressed the task force. Staff is requesting Council approval to make the following purchase from Crabtree Companies (all amounts include sales tax): LaserFiche software and user licenses $ 33,808 12 months of LaserFiche maintenance (support/upgrades) $ 7,677 Panasonic scanner (flatbed/feeder/duplex/color/high volume) $ 5,751 Crabtree Companies installation and training services 2 000 Total purchase from Crabtree Companies $ 49,236 If the Council approves this purchase from Crabtree, network equipment and software will need to be acquired to host the LaserFiche system. Staff will purchase these items from three of the City's current suppliers and it will total approximately $16,460, including sales tax. The revised 2005 IT budget includes $48,500 for this project. This budget was based on the start up costs of another local city. The Richfield project turned out to be more complex and requires additional software and licenses. A combination of delaying one lower priority IT project and savings realized in others allows this total purchase to fall within the 2005 revised IT budget. The task force has divided the project into three phases. The first phase includes two pilot projects. One involves records related to City Council activities such as Council agenda packets, minutes, and resolutions. The other pilot project involves the Police Division's case files. Installation of the first phase will begin in December if this purchase is approved. The recommended purchase includes the equipment and software licenses required for the pilot projects. It also includes what is needed to make the City Council documents available on the City's web site and to meet State of Minnesota requirements for electronic document archiving. The second phase of the project includes all permanent records and those ranked as "high priority" due to the need to access them frequently, their importance, or their large storage space requirements. Implementation of this phase will begin early next year following completion of the pilot projects. It is likely to take a couple of years to complete the second phase as it involves about 3 million ,pages of paper records. Additional software licenses and equipment costing approximately $26,000 will need to be acquired next year for this second phase of-the project and funds for this purpose are included in the proposed IT budget for 2006. The third and final phase of the project involves converting all remaining official records. Only minimal additional software and equipment will need to be acquired to complete the final phase. III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION A. POLICY • The proposed records management system is the result of the City Council's 2004 goal to "Commence. an internal analysis of archiving/data storage." • The proposed system will assist with the management of official government records and thereby help to ensure compliance with State requirements. • The proposed system will facilitate easy access to public documents via the City's official web site. • The proposed system will increase staffs access to information and reduce the time needed to locate and retrieve documents. • The proposed system will reduce the amount of storage space required for paper records. B. CRITICAL ISSUES • The task force is anxious to get the pilot projects underway because the vendor is available to do the installation and training in December. C. FINANCIAL • The proposed project is included in the 2005 IT budget. • Although the project turned out to be more complex than anticipated and costs exceed the original estimate, other savings allow this total .purchase to fall within the 2005 revised IT budget. D. LEGAL • The proposed system is in compliance with the State's "Technical Standards for the Reproduction of Government Records Using Imaging Systems", published by the Minnesota Office of Technology (IRM Standard 12 version 1). IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION(S~ • The Council may wish to lower the initial cost of the project by delaying or eliminating the option to provide access to the public documents stored in the records management system via the City's website. The purchase from Crabtree would remain at $49,236. The cost of the network equipment and software needed to host the LaserFiche system would be reduced by $4,244, including-sales tax. However, this would introduce a duplication of effort as many of the documents, such as City Council agendas and minutes, are already regularly posted to the City's website. Once the LaserFiche system is implemented, staff would need to post the documents to both locations. • The Council may choose to take no action at this time. The consequences of this option are that the increased productivity and other advantages listed in the "Policy" section of this report will not be realized and adequate storage space for paper records will remain unresolved. V. ATTACHMENTS innesota cities using LaserFiche systems for records management. I V 1. PRINCIPAL PARTIES ~' XPECTED AT MEETING ~~-l Minnesota Cities Using LaserFiche Systems for Records Management • Andover • New Hope • Apple Valley • Prior Lake • Cannon Falls • Ramsey • Champlin • Red Wing • Chanhassen • Savage • Cologne Shakopee • Coon Rapids Shoreview • Golden Valley • Shorewood • Hastings • Spring Lake Park • Hopkins St. Paul • Hutchinson Wayzata • Maplewood • Waconia • Monticello • League of Minnesota Cities • New Brighton AGENDA SECTION: CONSENT AGENDA ITEM # 4E REPORT # 21S STAFF REPORT CITY COUNCIL MEETING NOVEMBER 22, 2005 REPORT PREPARED BY: BRAD SVEUM, FIRE SERVICES DIRECTOR /CHIEF NAME, TITLE COUNCIL PRESENTER: DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR REVIEW: REVIEWED BY CITY MANAGER: ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION: Consideration of the attached resolution authorizing renewal of contract with the Minnesota State Fire Marshal's office for Public School Inspection Services. I. RECOMMENDED ACTION: By Motion: Adopt the attached resolution authorizing the Public School Inspection Agreement between the City and the Minnesota Department of Public Safety, State Fire Marshal Division. II. BACKGROUND The City has maintained a three year contract with the Minnesota Department of Public Safety, Fire Marshal Division for Public School Inspections since 1991. III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION A. POLICY • This is a recurring agreement pursuant to MN Statues, Section 121.1502. • The contract is due for renewal. 1122FireSchool • The Richfield Fire Department wishes to renew the contract with the Minnesota Department of Public Safety, Fire Marshal Division. B. CRITICAL ISSUES • Contract is currently due for renewal • Inspections are to be completed for each Public School, once during every three year period., • The Richfield Fire Department wishes to conduct their own Fire/Life Safety Inspections of each school on a bi-annual basis anyway. C. FINANCIAL • No budget impact. • The Richfield Fire Department receives free inspection training from the State Fire Marshal as part of this agreement. D. LEGAL • The City Attorney has reviewed and approved the past contract with the Minnesota Department of Public Safety, Fire Marshal Division. IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION~S~ • Do not sign the contract. V. ATTACHMENTS • Resolution authorizing the Richfield Fire Department to renew contract for Public School Inspections with the Minnesota Department of Public Safety, Fire Marshal Division. • Public School Inspection Agreement. VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING • N/A 4 f~'1 RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE RICHFIELD FIRE DEPARTMENT TO RENEW A CONTRACT WITH THE STATE FIRE MARSHAL'S OFFICE TO PROVIDE STATE REQUIRED SCHOOL BUILDING FIRE INSPECTIONS. WHEREAS, the Minnesota State Fire Marshal's office requires public school buildings to be inspected every three years for fire safety interests and the current contract to do so between the City of Richfield and the State Fire Marshal. has expired ;and WHEREAS, this contract is pursuant to MN Statutes, Section 121.1502; and WHEREAS, the City of Richfield will receive free training to do inspections from the State Fire Marshal in conjunction with this contract; and WHEREAS, the City of Richfield is qualified and willing to do this type of inspection. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City of Richfield enter into a contract with the State Fire Marshal to do state required public school inspections through June 30, 2008. Steven L. Devich, City Manager, is hereby authorized to execute such agreements as necessary to implement the project on behalf of the City of Richfield Fire Department. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota the 22"d day of November, 2005 Martin J. Kirsch, Mayor ATTEST: Nancy Gibbs, City Clerk _i ~'~ DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY FIRE MARSHAL DIVISION 444 CEDAR STREET -SUITE 145 ST. PAUL, MINNESOTA 55101-5145 PUBLIC SCHOOL INSPECTION AGREEMENT This agreement is between the State of Minnesota, acting through its Commissioner of Public Safety -State Fire Marshal Division ("State") and the City of Richfield, Fire Department address 6700 Portland Avenue South, Richfield,. Minnesota 55423 ("Contractor"). WHEREAS, the State, pursuant to Minnesota Statutes 299F.47 is required to develop a plan to inspect once every three years every public school facility used for educational purposes, and. WHEREAS, the State is empowered under Minnesota Statutes 471.59, Subd., 10 to engage such assistance as deemed necessary, and WHEREAS, the Fire Chief of the above named fire department, does hereby agree that a representative of the city's fire department will conduct all public school fire inspections within their jurisdiction. To ensure uniformity of enforcement throughout the state, these inspections will be conducted in accordance with standards stated in this contract, and WHEREAS, the Contractor represents that it is duly qualified and willing to perform the services set forth herein, NOW THEREFORE; IT IS AGREED AS FOLLOWS: 1. All public school facilities used for educational purposes within its jurisdiction will be inspected by the Contractor at least once every three (3) years. 2. All public schools within Contractor's jurisdiction will be inspected in accordance with the requirements of the Minnesota State Fire Code (MSFC) and enforced in accordance with the adrr~inistrative policies of the State Fire Marshal Division. 3. The State Fire Marshal Division will provide the necessary training for city fire department personnel contracting to conduct these inspections. The training will include one 6 hour initial training session during the contract period, and then one free registration for the Contractor in the Minnesota State Fire Code update (i.e. new fire code) class given approximately once every 3 years. 4. Copies of inspection reports completed by the Contractor will be filed with the local school board and the State Fire. Marshal Division and must be submitted to these authorities within thirty days following inspection. The Contractor will report to the State Fire Marshal Division using the computerized inspection reporting software provided to the Contractor by the State Fire Marshal Division. 5. All variances to fire code orders must be approved by the State Fire Marshal Division. 6. Cancellation: This contract may be cancelled by the State, or the Contractor at any time, with or without cause; upon written notice to the other party. 7. Term or Contract: This contract shall be effective on January 1, 2005, or upon the date that the final required signature is obtained by the State, pursuant to Minnesota Statute 16C.05, Subdivision 2, whichever occurs later, and shall remain in effect until June 30, 2008, or until all obligations set forth in this contract have been satisfactorily fulfilled, whichever occurs first. 8. State's. Authorized Agent: The State's authorized agent for the purposes of administration of this contract is Patrick Sheehan, Bureau Chief -Inspections, qr his successor ;,, office _ State Fare Marshal Di:~ision. Such went shall have fmal authority for acceptance of the Contractor's services and if such services are accepted as satisfactory. ~~ /~ 9. Assignment. The Contractor shall neither assign nor transfer any rights or obligations under this contract without the prior written consent of the State. 10. Liability. The Contractor and the State agree that each party will be responsible for its own acts and the results thereof to the extent authorized by law and shall not be responsible for the acts of any others anal the results thereof. The Contractor's and State's liability shall be governed by the provisions of the Minnesota Tort Claims Act, Minnesota Statutes, Section 3.376, and other applicable law. 11. State Audits. Under Minn. Stat. § i 6C.05, subd. 5, the Contractor's books, records, documents, and accounting procedures and practices relevant to this contract are subject to examination by the State and/or the State Auditor or Legislative Auditor, as appropriate; for a minimum of six years from the end of this contract. 12 Government Data Practices. The Contractor and State must comply with the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act, Minn. Stat. Ch. 13, as it applies to all data provided by the State under this contract, and as it applies to all data created, collected, received, stored, used, maintained,- or disseminated by the Contractor under this contract. The civil remedies of Mir. Stat. § 13.08 apply to the release of the data referred to in this clause by either the Contractor or the State. If the Contractor receives a request to release the data referred to in this clause, the Contractor must immediately notify the State. The State will give the Contractor instructions concerning the release of the data to the requesting party before the data is released. 13.Venue. Venue for all legal proceedings out of this agreement, or its breach, must be in the appropriate state or federal court with competent jurisdiction in Ramsey County, Minnesota. IIv WITNESS WHERE OF, the parties have caused this contract to be duly executed intending to be bound thereby. APPROVED: CONTRACTOR: (Contractor certifies that the appropriate person(s) have executed the contract on behalf of the Contractor as required by applicable articles, bylaws, resolutions, or ordinances) BY: TITLE: N4 Ay ~ ~ DATE: BY: TITLE: ,~ ,~,t ~3 ~-~-~ DATE: STATE AGENCY OR DEPARTMENT: (with delegated authority) BY: TITLE: COMMISSIONER OF ADMINISTRATION: (with delegated authority) BY: DATE: NO ENCUMBRANCE: (authorized signature) BY: DATE: DATE: STAFF REPORT AGENDA SECTION: AGENDA ITEM # REPORT # CITY COUNCIL MEETING NOVEMBER 22, 2005 CONSENT 4D 214 REPORT PREPARED BY: BRAD SVEUM, FIRE SERVICES DIRECTOR/CHIEF NAME, TrrcE COUNCIL PRESENTER: DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR REVIEW: ~. REVIEWED BY CITY MANAGER: ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION: Consideration of the attached resolution authorizing renewal of contract with the Minnesota State Fire Marshal's office for Hotel Ins ection Services. I. RECOMMENDED ACTION: By Motion: Adopt the attached resolution authorizing the Hotel Inspection Agreement between the City and the Minnesota Department of Public Safety, State Fire Marshal Division. II. BACKGROUND The City has maintained a three year contract with the Minnesota Department of Public Safety, Fire Marshal Division for Hotel Inspections since 1991. III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION A. POLICY • This is a recurring agreement pursuant to MN Statues, Section 121.1502 & 471.59, Subd., 10. • The contract is due for renewal. 1122FireHotel The Richfield Fire ,Department wishes to renew the contract with the Minnesota Department of Public Safety, Fire Marshal Division. B. CRITICAL ISSUES • Contract is currently due for renewal. • .Inspections are to be completed for each hotel, once during every three year period. • The Richfield Fire Department wishes to conduct their own Fire/Life Safety Inspections of each hotel on a bi-annual basis anyway. C. FINANCIAL • No budget impact. • The Richfield Fire Department receives free inspection training from the State Fire Marshal as part of this agreement. D. LEGAL • The City Attorney has reviewed.and approved the past contract with the Minnesota Department of Public Safety, Fire Marshal Division. IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION(S~ • Do not sign the contract. V. ATTACHMENTS • Resolution authorizing the Richfield Fire Department to renew contract for Hotel Inspections with the Minnesota Department of Public Safety, Fire Marshal Division. Hotel Inspection Agreement. VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING • N/A ~~-i RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE RICHFIELD FIRE DEPARTMENT TO RENEW A CONTRACT WITH THE STATE FIRE MARSHAL'S OFFICE TO PROVIDE STATE REQUIRED HOTEL FIRE INSPECTIONS. WHEREAS, the Minnesota State Fire Marshal's office requires hotels to be inspected every three years for fire safety interests and the current contract to do so between the City of Richfield and the State Fire Marshal has expired ;and WHEREAS, this contract is pursuant to MN Statutes, Section 121.1502; and WHEREAS, the City of Richfield will receive free training to do inspections from the State Fire Marshal in conjunction with this contract; and WHEREAS, the City of Richfield is qualified and willing to do this type of inspection. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City of Richfield enter into a contract with the State Fire Marshal to do state required hotel inspections through June 30, 2008. Steven L. Devich, City Manager, is hereby authorized to execute such agreements as necessary to implement the project on behalf of the City of Richfield Fire Department. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota the 22nd day of November, 2005 Martin J. Kirsch, Mayor ATTEST: Nancy Gibbs, City Clerk ~~~~ DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY FIRE MARSHAL DIVISION 444 CEDAR STREET -SUITE 145 ST. PAUL, MINNESOTA 55101-5145 HOTEL INSPECTION AGREEMENT This agreement is made by and between the State of Minnesota, Department of Public Safety -Fire Marshal Division (State) and the City of _Richfield, Fire Department ,Minnesota (Contractor), address 6700. Portland Ave, Richfield: Minnesota 55423 . WHEREAS, the State; pursuant to Minnesota Statutes: Section 299F.46, Subdivision 2, is empowered, to enter into an agreement with any county, two or more contiguous counties, or city or other municipality to perform fire code inspections for hotels, and WHEREAS, the Fire Chief of the above named fire department, does hereby agree that a representative of the city's fire department. will conduct all hotel inspections within their jurisdiction. To Ensure uniformity of'enforcement throughout the state, these inspections will be conducted in accordance with M.S. 299F.46, Subdivision 1; and WHEREAS, CONTRACTOR represents that it is duly qualified and willing to perform the services set forth herein, NOW THEREFORE, IT IS AGREED AS FOLLOWS: 1. All hotels within jurisdiction will be inspected by Contractor at least once every three (3) years. 2. All hotels within the Contractor's jurisdiction will be inspected in accordance with the requirements of the Minnesota State Fire Code (MSFC) and enforced in accordance with the administrative policies of the State Fire Marshal. 3. All inspectors employed for the purpose of this agreement to successfully complete the State Fire Marshal's Fire Code Up-Date Training and be knowledgeable in alI State Fire Code requirements for hotels. (State Fire Marshal Division will provide the necessary training for city fire department personnel . contracting to conduct these inspections.) 4. Copies of all inspection reports to be submitted to the State Fire Marshal within 30 days. 5. All variances to the fire code orders must be approved by the State Fire Marshal. 6. Cancellation: This cor~~act maybe cancelled by the State, or Contractor at any time, wiih or without cause, upon written notice to the other party. 7. Term of Contract: This contract shall be effective January 1, 2005, or upon the date that the final required signature is obtained by the State, pursuant to Minnesota Statute 16C.05, Subdivision 2, whichever occurs later; and shall. remain in effect until June 30, 2008, or until all obligations set forth in this contract have been satisfactorily fulfilled, whichever occurs first. -i ~ `.J 8. State's Authorized Agent: The State's authorized agent for the purpose of administration of this contract is Patrick Sheehan, Bureau Chief -Inspections, or his successor in office, -State Fire Marshal Division. (Such agent shall have final authority for acceptance of Contractor's services and if such services are accepted as satisfactory), 9. Assignment. Contractor shall neither assign nor transfer any rights or obligations under .this contract without the prior written consent of the State. 10. Liability. The Contractor and the State agree that each parry will be responsible for its own acts and the results thereof to the extent authorized by law and shall not be responsible for the acts of any others and the results thereof. The Contractor's and .State's liability shall be governed by tk~e provisions of the Minnesota Tort Claims Act, Minnesota Statutes, Section 3.376, and other applicable law. 1 1. State Audits. Under Minn. Stat. '§ 16C.05, subd. 5, the Contractor's books, records, documents, and accounting procedures and practices relevant to this contract are subject to examination by the State and/or the State Auditor or Legislative Auditor, as appropriate, for a minimum of six years from the end of this contract. 12 Government Data Practices. The Contractor and State must comply with the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act, Minn. Stat. Ch. 13, as 'it applies to all data provided by the State under this contract, and as it applies to all data created, collected, received; stored, used, maintained, or disseminated by the Contractor under this contract. The civil remedies of Minn. Stat. § 13.08 apply to the release of the data referred to in this clause'by either the Contractor or the State. If the Contractorreceives ,a request to release the data referred to in this clause, the Contractor must immediately notify the State. The State will give the Contractor instructions concerning the release of the data to the requesting party before the data is released. 13. Venue. Venue for all legal proceedings out of this agreement, or its breach, must be in the appropriate state or federal court with competent jurisdiction in Ramsey County, Minnesota. IN WITNESS WF~REOF, the parties have caused this agreement to be duly- executed. intending to be bound thereby. APPROVED; CONTRACTOR: (Contractor certifies that the appropriate person(s) have executed the contract on behalf of the Contractor as required by applicable articles, bylaws, resolutions, or ordinances) BY: COMMISSIONER OF ADMIl~ISTRATION: (with delegated authority) BY: DATE: TITLE: ~0 ~~~~ NO ENCUMBRANCE: (Authorized Signature) DATE: BY BY: DATE: TITLE: ~ l~l~, ~ ~ ~~ DATE: STATE AGENCY OR DEPARTMENT: (with delegated authority) BY: TTT'T F DATE: AGENDA SECTION: CONSENT AGENDA ITEM # LFC REPORT # Zj3 J STAFF REPORT CITY COUNCIL MEETING NOVEMBER 22, 2005 REPORT PREPARED BY: JAY HENTHORNE, POLICE LIEUTENANT NAME, TITLE COUNCIL PRESENTER: DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR REVIEW: REVIEWED BY CITY MANAGER: ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION: Consideration of a resolution authorizing the Public Safety Department's acceptance of a grant from the Wal-Mart Cor oration for Richfield's K-9 unit. I. RECOMMENDED ACTION: ~y Motione Approve the attached resolution allowing the acceptance of a $1,000 grant from Wal-Mart to the Public Safety Department, Police Division, for the K-9 Unit. II. BACKGROUND In 2004, the Wal-Mart Corporation funded a $1,000 grant to the City of Richfield, Public Safety Department, earmarked for the Police Division. This grant was obtained through the Bloomington Wal-Mart store and was made possible because of the mutual aid that exists between Bloomington and Richfield police. Those funds were applied to the K-9 Program in Richfield. In July of 2005, Richfield's police staff made application for additional funds to the Wal-Mart Corporation, Bloomington store. The grant was under the Safe Neighborhood Heroes grant program sponsored by Wal-Mart. Notice was received that the grant was approved and was again in the amount of $1,000. 1122 f2esolution to Accept Grant Funds from Wal-Mart In applying for the grant (application attached), staff indicated that the funds would be used to help offset the cost for two K-9 dogs and two handlers. Therefore, the funds will be specified for that use. III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION A. POLICY • Public Safety does not accept financial support unless it is designated for a specific program that will affect the department as a whole. • Minnesota Statute 465.03 requires every acceptance of a grant or devise of real or personal property on terms prescribed by the donor be made by resolution of more than 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 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 • Police Departments in the suburbs of Richfield, Bloomington, Edina and the Airport Police often call upon each other to assist in the pursuit of criminals and to put a stop to criminal activity in their cities. • The Wal-Mart Foundation, through its store in Bloomington, designated Richfield and specifically the K-9 Unit as a recipient of a $1,000 donation to assist in the maintenance of this program. C. FINANCIAL • The $1,000 donation was ear marked for the K-9 Unit only. • Funds for the maintenance of the K-9 Unit are taken from the Forfeiture Fund, and therefore, the donation would be deposited in that particular fund. D. LEGAL • N/A IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION~S~ • Council could deny the resolution and the funds would be returned to the Wal-Mart Foundation. V. ATTACHMENTS • Resolution No. accepting a donation to the Richfield Police K-9 Unit. • Copy of Application for Grant Funding submitted 7/20/05. VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING • Representative from Wal-Mart. r-•i ~ r' RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING RICHFIELD PUBLIC SAFETY/POLICE TO ACCEPT A GRANT IN THE AMOUNT OF $1,000 FROM THE WAL-MART.FOUNDATION TO BE APPLIED TO THE POLICE CANINE UNIT WHEREAS, the Public Safety Department Police division, through its Director, will receive a check for $1,000 from the Wal-Mart Foundation through its Bloomington Wal- Mart Store, designating the funds to be used for the canine unit; and WHEREAS, Minnesota Statute 465.03 requires every acceptance of a grant or devise of real or personal property on terms prescribed by the donor be made by resolution of more than two-thirds majority of the City .Council; and WHEREAS, the donation is a means of assisting Richfield in continuance of the Police K-9 Unit that would possibly used in mutual aide areas of law enforcement with the City of Bloomington. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that Director Dan Scott will accept the donation of $1,000 to be placed in the forfeiture fund and directed for use by the K-9 Unit of the Public Safety Department, Police Division. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this 22nd day of November 2005. Martin J. Kirsch, Mayor ATTEST: Nancy Gibbs, City Clerk t ~~~ co w c .~ O m C 3 ~ m ~~ ~ v I4 ~ V ~ L ~ `O o ~ ~ U~ ~ ~ ~' o a~ d a E E .~.. m Q pp~,,i P i o !., ` M ~,. '?Y~.- .. t S x ~' n ~ c c „ ~ 3 ~` ~ o a ' ! ~ ~ E ~~ a p m ~ c .o ~ _ H i e. U a N .oc Q` ~ ~C~pp L ! Iii ~ ~ m a ~? ai T HO ~ ~ ~ ~• a: • ~ 7~ m ~ ii ~0 I m ~ N ~ ~ vs ~ C 2 s o I ~ s ~ Z i ~ a ~ ~ _~ °~~ ~ Is ~ a o i _I p~ c ~~ ,~ cn ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ Q71 'o ai o ~ O cS ^ ro .4> >, q ~ ~ ~ ~ p, d ~ E s ~ ~ ~ m c L ~ o~a° sg' ~u~ I~ C rn o % a- ~ ~ vl ~ C I O O Q tp ~ _m ~~ c ,2 C D Cl ~ C> ~ ~ O ~ ~ ~ C ~ ~ C ~ ~ccppp ~ c c`~9` O ~ I Q pm N ~ V / ~M ~~~ .I ~ ~ > ~, ~ N m ~ ~f '~- -o I ~ ~ m o o }i a. ~ 19 o ~ I c`Oi m ~ ~ C7 ~ ~ ~~ ~I ~ c o .Q ff a v C~ ~ _ p C Z C U ~ w ' I~ 1f ~ ~ ~ N~I J y ~ .~ V V ^ 'bj' ~ n~ f o ~C ~~~I ~ ~ e V d ~ Q ,~. tD vi ~ (~ d C) I to ~ ( ~ O ~ a ~ ~ ~ ~_ ~ C ~ ~ t ~~ co ~ O ~ w ~ m d~ s N a 2 I I i I ~ ~$ m ~ I O C• ~ C c ~ r~ I fY ~ 1 I ~ I tU; l1~ ~ ~ ~ j ~ ~"~ y~ ~ ~ ~ ~ Q I .~... ~ ~ c I~ O3 g ~ t ~ •c a~ J 5~~ U ~ c~~ .. ~, as Q ~" ~ , C r O! I~ O~~ y d ~~ C Q f~0 '~ ~ C C +L° Nz U ~+ d ~ :p ~ y J y t l J ~ ~ « w ~ C ~ ~ ~ S O ~ ~ ~ ¢ , ~ ~ r ^ 1 O O. ~~66 O w ^ ~ ~i ~ Cf ab ~ y ~'.° a N ~ ,., .v ~ ~ ~ ~ 4 ~ C W M ~ ~~ ~~ ~ m 11 7 d '~ ~ C7 iD _ sc U >0 fl. ~ ~ ~ •~ C >c ~i to ... Qy CN m y c {i7 '~ v ~ ~ `+/ 1~ C ~ ~ ~ U ~ ~i ^ y y '~` ~ o. ~' o ._ ~ rc I I a~ c d ~ rn~~ ~ o ... o~ N d ~~ ~ ~ ~gi ~ .N^ w Oa aE A ate, ~'' a ~ C ~~'wti °~ Z ~ ~'~ «8~ ~ oW~ ~~pp y! _ Q~ ~ N 1cc6 V d 7 V Q` U. ~ N Ilb V h ~ O Z d. d N i t b o o a ~ o O a DC g' s o t a ~ ~ - °+-~ A rn Z9Jtid 96@BSbbZS6 ~131N39 NOISI(1 l~1dW ~dM 92~ZT S@@2-@2-Z@ AGENDA SECTION: ~Qj~$E~ AGENDA ITEM # !}B REPORT # 2 j 2 ~~ _~...~_ ~.. STAFF REPORT CITY COUNCIL MEETING NOVEMBER 22, 2005 REPORT PREPARED BY: PAM DMYTRENKO ASSISTANT TO THE CITY MANAGER NAME, TITLE COUNCIL PRESENTER: REVIEWED BY CITY MANAGER: ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION: Consideration of rescinding Resolution No. 8862, approving a new resolution regarding flight travel durin ni httime hours; and ado tin the Elected Official Out-of-State Travel Polic . I. RECOMMENDED ACTION: By Motion: • Rescind Resolution No. 8862; • Approve new resolution regarding flight travel, during nighttime hours; and • Adoat Elected Official Out-of-State Travel II. BACKGROUND The Minnesota Legislature enacted a new law (State Statute 471.66) that requires cities and school districts to adopt a policy by January 1, 2006 that controls out-of- state travel for its elected officials. The statute specifies what provisions must be included in the policy, how it is to be adopted and subsequently reviewed. Based on recommendations from the League of Minnesota Cities and also from discussions with the City Council during two separate work sessions on August 30, 2005 and November 7, 2005, a policy has been developed to comply. with the statute's requirements. The new Elected Official Out-of-State Travel policy sets forth the conditions under which out-of-state travel will be reimbursed by the City. Because elected officials 1122travel are to use the same travel guidelines and procedures already in place for City staff, the Council has indicated its interest in rescinding Resolution No. 8862, which is associated with the current personnel travel policy. Resolution No. 8862 was adopted in February 2000 and restricts staff from traveling during the designated nighttime hours of 10 p.m. to 7 a.m. Because of the concern that this restriction could create situations in which staff or elected officials might need to stay out of town an extra night in order to avoid flying during restricted hours, the Council directed staff to develop an amended resolution for Council consideration. The amended resolution maintains the spirit of the initial resolution in that it encourages staff and elected officials to make every effort to avoid flying during nighttime hours, but does not strictly prohibit such flights. III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION A. POLICY • State Statute 471.66 requires that the City Council adopt an Elected Official Out-of-State Travel policy by January 1, 2006. This policy must be voted upon, reviewed annually and specify: 1) when travel outside the State is appropriate; 2) applicable expense limits; and 3) set procedures for approval of the travel. B. CRITICAL ISSUES • City Council must comply with State law in adopting an elected officials' travel policy. • The City Council does not want to incur any unnecessary or additional travel expenses by imposing flight restrictions on City staff or elected officials. • In deference to Richfield residents and with a new resolution, the City Council maintains the spirit and intent of Resolution No. 8862 by encouraging staff and elected officials to make every effort to avoid flying for City business during the hours of 10 p.m. to 7 a.m. C. FINANCIAL • None D. LEGAL • None I 1 V . ALTERNATIVE KECOMMENDATION(S) I • Do not rescind Resolution No. 8862 and continue the current practice of restricting nighttime flights for city business between the hours of 10 p.m. to 7 a.m. I V . ATTACHMENTS I • New Kesolution. • Resolution No. 8862 • Elected Official Out-of--State Travel policy VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING • None expected ~~-~ i RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION ENCOURAGING RICHFIELD CITY EMPLOYEES AND ELECTED OFFICIALS NOT TO FLY BETWEEN THE HOURS OF 10 P.M. AND 7 A.M. AND .RESCINDING RESOLUTION NO. 8862 WHEREAS, flights over Richfield residences to and from Minneapolis-St. Paul (MSP) International Airport between 10 p:m. and 7 a.m. create a significant disturbance to the peace and quiet of the community; and WHEREAS, the City does not want to help encourage the proliferation of night time aircraft operations. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that City officials and employees will make all diligent efforts to schedule all work-related travel on flights between the hours of 7 a.m. and 10 p.m. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Metropolitan Airports Commission (MAC) is encouraged to change the definition of night time operations from 10:30 p.m. to 6 a.m. to 10 p.m. to 7 a.m. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the MAC is encouraged to limit the number of night time operations to the absolute minimum. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that Northwest Airlines is encouraged to replace their hush-kilted Stage III aircraft with manufactured Stage III. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that Resolution No. 8862 adopted by the City Council on February 28, 2000 is rescinded. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this 22nd day of November, 2005. Martin J. Kirsch, Mayor ATTEST: Nancy Gibbs, City Clerk l~`~ RESOLUTION NO. 8862 RESOLUTION REQUIRING RICHFIELD CITY EMPLOYEES NOT TO FLY BETWEEN THE HOURS OF 10 P.M. AND 7 A.M. WHEREAS, flights over Richfield residences to and from Minneapolis-St. Paul (MSP) International-Airport between 10 p.m. and 7 a.m. create a significant disturbance to the peace and quiet of the community; and WHEREAS, the City does not want its citizens' tax dollars to be spent on flights that disrupt the peace and quiet of the community; and WHEREAS, the City does not want to help encourage the proliferation of .night time aircraft operations. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that City officials and employees are required to schedule all work-related travel on flights. between the hours of 7 a.m. and 10 p.m. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Metropolitan Airports Commission (MAC) is encouraged to change the definition of night time operations from 10:30 p.m. to 6 a.m. to 10 p.m. to 7 a.m. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the MAC is encouraged to limit the number of night time operations to the absolute minimum. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that Northwest Airlines is encouraged to replace their hush-kitted Stage III aircraft with manufactured Stage III. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that these policies be communicated to all City officials and employees, to Northwest Airlines, and to the MAC. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City's independent boards, business community, and the traveling public be encouraged to adopt similar policies. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this 28th day of February, 2000. Martin J. Kirsch, Mayor ATTEST: Thomas P. Ferber, City Clerk _~ ELECTED OFFICIAL OUT-O~-STATE TRAVEL POLICY CITY OF RICHFIELD PERSONNEL POLICY DATE: November 2005 SUBJECT: Elected Official Out-of-State Travel Guidelines Introduction According to State Statute 471.66, by January 1, 2006, the governing body of cities and school districts must adopt a policy that controls out-of-state travel for elected officials. This policy must be voted upon, reviewed annually, and specify: 1) when travel outside the state is appropriate; 2) applicable expense limits; and 3) procedures for approval of the travel Purpose The City of Richfield recognizes that its elected officials may at times receive value from traveling out of the state for workshops, conferences, events and other assignments. This policy sets forth the conditions under which out-of-state travel will be reimbursed by the City. General Guidelines 1. An event, workshop, conference or assignmentmust be approved in advance by a motion of the City Council at an open meeting and must include an estimate of the cost of the travel. In evaluating the out-of-state travel request, the Council will consider the following: • Whether the elected official will be receiving training on issues relevant to the City or to his or her role as the Mayor or Council Member; • Whether the elected official will be meeting and networking with other elected officials from around the country to exchange ideas on topics of relevance to the City or on the official roles of local elected officials; • Whether the elected official will be viewing a city facility or function that is similar in nature to one that is currently operating at, or under consideration by the City where the purpose for the trip is to study the facility or function to bring back ideas for the consideration of the full Council; • Whether the elected official has been specifically assigned by the Council to visit another city for the purpose of establishing a goodwill relationship such as a "sister-city" relationship; • Whether the elected official has been specifically assigned by the Council to testify on behalf of the City at the United States Congress or to otherwise meet with federal officials on behalf of the City; • Whether the City has sufficient funding available in the budget to pay the cost of the trip. 2. Council Members who attend an out-of-state, City-funded event, workshop or conference shall give an oral report on the results of his/her trip at the next regularly scheduled Council meeting. 3. No reimbursements will be made for attendance at events sponsored by or affiliated with political parties. 4. The City may make payments in advance for- airfare, lodging and registration if specifically approved by the Council. Otherwise, all payments will be made as reimbursements to the elected official. 5. The City will reimburse for transportation, lodging, meals, registration, and incidental costs using the same procedures, limitations and guidelines outlined in the City's out-of-state travel policy for City employees. 6. The City Council may make exceptions to this policy if approved by the majority of the City Council. Approved: City Manager AGENDA SECTION: CONSENT AGENDA ITEM # 4A REPORT # 9 ~ 7 STAFF REPORT CITY COUNCIL MEETING NOVEMBER 22, 2005 REPORT PREPARED BY: RICHARD REGNIER, CHIEF BUILDING OFFICIAL NAME, TITLE COUNCIL PRESENTER: DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR /~ ~ _"- REVIEW: ~ ,~ /~11~~~1~L. REVIEWED BY CITY MANAGER: ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION: First Reading of amendment to Section 408, Subsection 408.01 regarding approving occu anc . I. RECOMMENDED ACTION: ~y nnotione • Approve first reading of the attached amendment to Section 408 of the City Code; Subsection 408.01, regarding the approval of occupancy of a dwelling prior to issuance of the certificate of housing maintenance compliance certificate. • Set second reading for December 13, 2005. II. BACKGROUND The Director of Public Safety can grant permission for a person to occupy a dwelling prior to issuance of the certificate of occupancy. The present ordinance does not provide for occupancy of a dwelling prior to issuance of the certificate unless there's "undue hardship or other extraordinary or exceptional circumstances provided that no such occupancy constitutes an immediate hazard." 1122 Housing Occupancy Amendment First Read The proposed amendment additionally allows the Director of Public Safety to approve occupancy prior to the issuance of the certificate if a cash escrow agreement (form provided by the City) is signed and submitted to the Building Official or designee, accompanied by the fee established in Appendix D. It also addresses re-inspections of the property by the City and states that any re- inspection beyond the initial inspection and one follow-up inspection must be paid for by the applicant fora .certificate according to the fee established in Appendix D. Second reading scheduled for December 13, 2005. III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION A. POLICY • The Director of Public Safety is authorized to grant permission to occupy a dwelling prior to the issuance of a certificate of housing maintenance compliance. The circumstances allowing this authorization are outlined in Subsection 408.01 of the Richfield City Code. B. CRITICAL ISSUES • Required corrections to the dwelling must be made by the compliance dates in the statement of intent or within the terms of the cash escrow agreement. • A cash escrow agreement must be signed and submitted to the Building Official or designee. • The established fees must accompany the forms. C. FINANCIAL • Appendix D sets established fees. D. LEGAL • N/A IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION~S~ • Not approve amendment; however, these changes are necessary to conform with changes to Appendix D. V. ATTACHMENTS • Ordinance. VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING • None yA ~ ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE RELATING TO THE ISSUANCE OF A CERTIFICATE OF HOUSING MAINTENANCE COMPLIANCE FOR SINGLE AND TWO-FAMILY HOMES; AMENDING SUBSECTION 408.01 OF SECTION 408 OF THE RICHFIELD CITY CODE THE CITY OF RICHFIELD DOES ORDAIN: Section 1. Subsection 408.01, Subdivision 6, of the Richfield City Code is hereby amended to read as follows: Subd. Occupancy. A person may be granted permission to occupy a dwelling prior to issuance of the certificate upon the approval of the director of public safety. The approval may be based upon undue hardship or other extraordinary or exceptional circumstances, provided that no such occupancy constitutes an immediate hazard. Approval will not be given until the prospective owner or designated agent has filed on forms supplied by the city, a statement of intent to comply with the housing maintenance code. Compliance dates in the statement of intent to comply will be established by the director of public safety. The director may also approve occupancy prior to issuance of the certificate if a cash escrow agreement is signed and submitted to the Building Official or designee. The cash escrow agreement must be executed on a form provided by the City and accompanied by the fee established in Appendix D of this code. Failure to make the required corrections by the compliance dates in the statement of intent or within the terms of the cash escrow agreement is a violation of this code and will render void any approval given pursuant to this subdivision. If the City conducts any re-inspections beyond the initial inspection and one follow-up inspection, the applicant for a certificate will be required to pay the re-inspection fee as established in Appendix D of this code. Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this 22nd day of November 2005. Martin J. Kirsch, Mayor ATTEST: Nancy Gibbs, City Clerk