02-26-02 agendaCITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 26, 2002
SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL WORKSESSION
COUNCIL CHAMBERS
5:00 P.M.
AGENDA
Call to order
Roll call
Status report on "I-35W ramp at 76th Streef
Adjournment
REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING
COUNCIL CHAMBERS
6:30 P.M.
AGENDA
INTRODUCTORY. PROCEEDINGS
Call to order
Roll call
_,
Open.Forum (15 minutes maximum)
Each speaker is asked to complete a speaker's form and provide it to staff member.
Speakers are asked 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.
Notes:
Pledge of Allegiance
Approval of minutes of (1) Special City Council Meeting of January 30, 2002; (2) Special
City Council Meeting of February 7, 2002; (3) Special City Council Worksession of
February 12, 2002; and (4) Regular City Council Meeting of February 12, 2002
PRESENTATIONS
Presentation by Kristin Abel, City of Richfield Adaptive Recreation Supervisor, to
promote new Adaptive Recreation & Learning Exchange (AR&LE) Theater Program
2. Presentation of proclamation designating Saturday, March 16, 2002 as Human Rights
Day in Richfield
COUNCIL DISCUSSION
~ Council attendance at community meetings
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 resolution designating increase in City's contribution
toward health insurance premiums for Law Enforcement Labor Services, Local 123
S.R. No: 44
B. Consideration of approval of resolution designating increase in City's contribution
#oward health insurance premiums for Law Enforcement Labor Services, Local 162
S.R. No. 45
C. Consideration of approval of resolution granting extension of time to file approved
plat for Best Buy Campus S.R. No. 46
D. Consideration of approval of condemnation commissioners' award of $163,000 for
6509 Cedar Avenue (Parcel 18) (KBL Cablesystems of the Southwest, Inc., dba
Time-Warner); 66th Street/Trunk Highway 77 Interchange Project S.R. No. 47
E. Consideration of approval of new residential- kennel license for 209 Pillsbury Lane;
four dogs S.R. No. 48
Notes:
PUBLIC HEARINGS
5. Public hearing regarding resolution amending Comprehensive Plan for increasing
allowable density of housing in parcels designated as high-density single-family
residential from 12 units per acre to 15 units per acre and authorize submittal of
amendment to Metropolitan Council
Staff Report No. 49
Notes:
6. Public hearing regarding transfer of $28,600 in Community Development Block Grant
funds for remediation activity at Lake Shore Drive Condominium
Staff Report No. 50
Notes:
OTHER BUSINESS
7. Consideration of acquisition of three parcels of land from Best Buy Company for future
reconstruction of I-494 Project
Staff Report No. 51
Notes:
8. City Manager's report
Notes:
9. 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 asked to complete a speaker's form and provide it to a staff
member. Speakers are also asked 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.
Notes:
10.Adjournment
Auxiliary aids for individuals with disabilities are available upon request. Requests must be
made at least 96 hours in advance to the Administrative Services Director at 612-861-9702.
~` /`
AGENDA SECTION: Other Business
AGENDA ITEM #
REPORT # 51
STAFF REPORT
CITY COUNCIL MEETING
FEBRUARY 26, 2002
`~ J
REPORT PREPARED BY:
REPORT PRESENTER:
DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR REVIEW:
REVIEWED BY CITY MANAGER:
THOMAS FOLEY, TRANSPORTATION
ENGINEER
NAME, T/TLE
MIKE EASTLiNG, PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR
ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION:
Consideration to purchase parcels for I-494 Reconstruction from Best Buy Company.
I. RECOMMENDED ACTION:
By Motion: Approve the acquisition of three parcels of land from the
Best Buy Company for the future reconstruction of I-494 Project.
III. BACKGROUND ~
As part of the Best Buy development agreement with the City of Richfield and its
Housing and Redevelopment Authority (HRA), the Best Buy Company agreed to
sell to the City three parcels of land that are needed for the future widening of I-494.
The parcels are identified as Outlots A, B and C on the final plat (attached) for the
Best Buy Campus.
The City hired two appraisers to establish fair market value of each property to be
acquired. The three parcels are valued in excess of $7.0 million. The Best Buy
Company has agreed to sell the three parcels for $7.0 million. Funding to purchase
the properties comes from the Metropolitan Council's Right of Way Acquisition Loan
Fund (KALE) and is designed to reserve right of way in areas where the cost of land
is escalating. The RALF loan is azero-interest loan from the Metropolitan Council
to the City of Richfield. The principal of the loan does not have to be paid back until
0226RALF
NAME, TITLE
the Minnesota Department of Transportation (MnDOT) needs the property to rebuild
-494. At that time MnDOT will pay the City $7.0 million for the land. The City will
n then pay off the loan with the Metropolitan Council.
III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION
A. POLICY
• The purchase of land needed for reconstructing I-494 is consistent
with the City's Comprehensive Plan to improve surrounding freeways
to protect local streets from carrying regional traffic.
B. CRITICAL ISSUES
• The purchase of the property using RALF loan funds reserves the land
for future highway use and controls the cost of its purchase in an area
where land values are rising.
C. FINANCIAL
• The City of Richfield will obtain a zero interest $7.0 million loan from
the Metropolitan Council to purchase the three parcels of land needed
for reconstruction of I-494 from the Best Buy Company.
D. LEGAL
• The City attorneys have reviewed the legal documents for purchase of
the three parcels of land.
IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION~S~
• Delay purchase of the parcels pending receipt of additional information.
V. ATTACHMENTS
• Map showing Outlots A, B and C of Best Buy plat to be acquired by the City.
VI. PRINCII'AL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING
• None anticipated.
N
n
I
R
i '~ I Sf
-'JVI 3
~~~ I r
y3~_ pp
3~ lj Oy
Y..b IL•
tT•.
°' W tt I
~'~ xl
_~ hm ~ I
8p mx1
yds Iqb p
'!~}}_ I~N ~O
"„ CC O~
m2u 2:
~. „ ,
arx: K ''.
K
3 `~
4,
U ;~IFC N
p p C I O 01
J ~ y p
K b- Nh
a. _
W.
€~~~'
~~ ~q ~IW
Q Uyl"~`\
1
V _ JK~ ~Y~31
N.AE ~ 3rR1
i.171y$ -
h $ I
~tt h ti
2 9L
I~~t,
I-E Q ..
W ~[
ID~ b
Ih b
1 W
J=~ '
K ~-{
If_'1LS a~"
r.9rr$ b` ~
.YO:M.1t ~~
n
~V W
I ~
~~~,' i
I:~ h
I~~~, ~ o
I= . , -8
.1~
~_n
-J tt ~ 1
S +Xa'r
~~ R ,
b ~ _
I i N ,7
(~ J ~.
i O ,+i
',1On
_a,^ ~ ~ '
I ~ 1
~ /.. ..cT.LO,c.o.. 1 Aj
- I ~~~Yn ~ 1NIJM1 1 - ON ~.. ~
tl 71Y39 Y ' ? R
: ~ blE.r 11 '..R . ,.., , .. _., ,. 9.,. , r ~ 8 00'05
x s ~.,~... --a
~_ _ 3 azr
~- 'Na9 OWL wuuw 9rM 'L9ID OIM_i
-'1f91D On x'E9aM'. rLS9pM. 'r tlw p aMl 'A tt Y6 p ./r .
1 'n1 AY)~all p./r O7wp1
S~M.+L;;y ~;-~ x I R I 71LL p Y aT1r S 7
LWit lr lMlpa
W~
o ~~
3 €yf
a~
~ ~:
~°
u~
22 - G~
j - m
~~~a
CO r5 riY G]
.i..- I~ ~JI •]
-~~ R:m <:~3~
IC
d
o r.~
Y
m N
d
d
-Ee- _~\
a ~
~: kn ~~~ I ~
u
uv°I'~x ~~s:3 I
I ;~h
~ ~ ~~ ~
~~~m
•m
~
„ ~ ~ 5~
~
7---98.-1-z -~~o
/M,9Y,11~0$ '
:bO YL KM3S I ~ I_
~,9, -,
~..i v r i~ a
~~ I
~
" h
ff'SZl _
LI,OI,OS -8~ m
o.i Cn
11
=' I I \
mt 0
I
_ W.
33~~
Sj
3LY/,//,ON I
1 I~ e~ G
------- ~~ ~ ~1 (3) E8
_~___ 3 S~ be
Onh4 ~ i ~-'"'1 8 ~~
~.~ ,; .i
o ~~~:~fl. , _ I ~_~ `
_~.~/ ' -r---~_
.~_-_ Ja1.__ ~__ ~ ILL
--r--,r~\1 ~~~
L]
-=` 9T'6oar-e fi fi
,, 3-------~~, ,Yr'-, t~-
a h. ^a `.~I:ni ~1`
a
a O O ` _ ' -1
/BfY4' I 3.OL,f/,ON 9 IOL.t1.W ~ ;~~:; /f 8.
"~3,OL,P/.ON 111/ 18~;:'
--~ ~ ' aaT 7.ocnax ~ --
:;d ~ ~ ,
\ -p 3111 M/x lSV3 'm'av '!~ 'il• ~i
1 R 7E p 7Y1 iT7x O
1 1! (R 7E p j 7w wr IITTYYtl alTi va>~ ~~'~~o
am lri .f v
I x 1 Ga«.,,
i~~
I ~_q
~~ i ~ y
m--~~ ~;
"{ ~ - -~- ~
$ , K OE
~~~
3.OL.C1.M
'rrY'0 '0a 'NIl3M 0r71a! \
K 77tl reL 'aMl 'K -'
J75 p rcxaoa xS
_ /
915p Y/I ISp / r ',n,r
~b_ \aaaY C'w yarn nN I~N hN ,_~~.. vrY .._.., ..,::r; ~~_~
a wl. mNwe : s
1_ 09 YS9 M,9Y,//,OS +a`'w ~ 7"^ a'~ a.,at p mNapa x als 'ox 'sp'a •a
f ...~~~~~~-~~~~.. .-I]vwp3rn3
R ~ .T I nLas 60.90.E I-O - I-..... --r-_~; L~_~-~---
RY I -icvr~,' _ c Tax. •...._. Z09LY i M, 91,//,05
91i ox T'a'a W'901 ~1 52'OS'I2'E ~ t'?-.'er-~-t~c-_1_w.,>~~`_
.-a 1. .- a' ~~Y laves p axrl ] .f['L9Y~N. .60,}6., ~ T-1BL'f9:. 1. ~ ~,
-p-~~`~y' ¢SM.[f.i I,05 ~1N3AY XON.VI ~ ~~ W
x0 h - __\~'---'-1 ~ ~~ v.. ''62.,0. ~ tY ~ •__--__ \~~
~~~ M.LO.zl.os Lis .. or•u l.i='f J~' `\~````.\5r1}' ~, I R'_ =~~ ~„ ~~• .~
1 {~ N90MYL loxSSSiii Bg "L9's9r.tl c> ~ .. '\~
1~ ~S I ~ ,If,BO,Cl.O a. \ ~~ [ 1 •ala ox s~- 'a-~ ~•
J..'°;~!'j~i/, Y ~ .: .• °' ~fia `~ 'T ' ~ I rr~oatpy, awl p aNri s .' ~~ .`\
y~,- .N •s't;a4ey, .q!a. 1 nix p./'.s ala "ox s~'u 'a _ I'1_~ ~ ~ av an ax 1,
n •.{~'IrP~ .Q ,~{,QY •_p.Nras pS7bav 30YW pY3WUa xx _~`v ~ 'l..a E'n raxa .Q.m.r-a~~
H h •SV'~a~ •Yy,. ~M1~)6. S' awp3N113 ~'I' ~°_ I\_19 d1 Y"1'a 'a U3O1vOIfY3 MnYY Cl(v~~I}~~I
C M1' r'tlS ~ / ~+~ lawl p Y3NaDa MS
~ ~S 4c??. ~:. ,
e tt ~a a, ~, ~a !• I I x;; I
-./I xs 31LL p 3Y1 ~ a,n
n S _`•u°'.' - ~.°.IT3,!{F---i++ti5`G'T-.rsi:~+~r:-- `r': s~~,~e`e E
I I ar ~y?-oc ~ a.a,lo tisd= ~ I\~ / %~ I ! I
I ..v,,,hnl. ,~,~i:' ~i;.; ~'I ;Y I N I :I; I ~ 7.fsa cz~y''-~'a~o eZ.aLS 11. ~~"I y~Ir-J~~I
i.~vv ~~~ .I I 7.sa.cs.ers II =C'~," u
~ f~r
J ~~ ~ I
7r11 ww Tmwra 1
n ~7s p 7xn ~• I ___L_ ~-L~~ I u I oc a I ~~'~,~;; ~ ~~ I .
R ~~
ZSTISI 3.OZ.CI,ON R v 3Mi
a a ~___ --ter .; it JI
~~III~~1,,~ ///~~Y
1 '~
I Cv I.: ,'Y_J Li"v rl ~lyn r/f.v V • /l ~. ~ I SO'.L .F~'v'i ,.I I
3.92.9..1 %"-:,.'/ N ~ rv I ~i
., ; 1
1'~ „a'L' II
~~ r~.~V~ dal, I V I I '.~..~ '~ ~~~ I~
;„
U
. or st.Q1$IIT ~ ~ _ °C or ~ 'Wa ~~ I ~~~°,
..9f•~ I ~~ ~~~ I m \ ~ ~ rl_m
~i•fo~6661 a '~ __ _
-..85,10.1 ~V I"Y ~' ' I of IOb_'~~NI ` I e_ ~i „Y, `~ I
II J:i.~, nv I =„h r l t I W
":1 '5981 a .n, 6=~ 'i~ 1~ I~'
scso,L ~ ~aeo _ I ~ ,' ~ /~
~ I I I I I -~ ~:, /I
'i 3,L/-L/.ON +L'^.-_ ~..,.J,,. o....::T-.~.,. I I //Y cep//1•„yw ~~
~~ ~ wT ~ ac 2\ 09 ~ ~ ~ ~\ / i e~:
II M1= 3 ~,'~'y\I..,"Y ~,1I^,,~,n ~~ ;;~ir ' ( o I m f~~~$ ~,~'Y Yom' 'S°iro.wE:~ `Rf~'_
+~1 E _~ '4 ~r v . /n •• n t s'°•woa-..:' _.f sica: x~r•1 w g
1` M~a9p /1 +M 7u ~.l1,t~l } ~v° l,: ~---n
-l.,'~~ p /1 53wpi/1 3w_~ r~~l. .'. jam (,.
„n ,
~ .: s_
\ '-. p -U aC11 5 3w p ]rx1 M I- ~ro--
ii 1t=x2oYi ~____ ______ ______~'• as c¢~ 1'P._ _ .:~ :~ •+~F
fw,
:,~'
h
0
9a
Z
AGENDA SECTION:
AGENDA ITEM #
REPORT #
STAFF REPORT
CITY COUNCIL MEETING
FEBRUARY 26, 2002
Public Hearings
6
50
REPORT PREPARED BY:
BRUCE NORDQUIST, HOUSING AND
REDEVELOPMENT MANAGER
NAME, TITLE
REPORT PRESENTER:
DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR REVIEW:
REVIEWED BY CITY MANAGER:
BRUCE PALMBORG, COMMUNITY
DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR
NAME, TITLE
ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION:
Public hearing and consideration of using Community Development Block Grant funds for
remediation activit at Lake Shore Drive Condominium.
I. RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Conduct and close a public hearing and by motion: Approve the
transfer of $28,600 in Community Development Block Grant funds for
a remediation activity at Lake Shore Drive.
II. BACKGROUND
Federal Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) funds are allocated to
Richfield through Hennepin County on an annual basis. Richfield uses CDBG funds
for housing rehabilitation, removal of substandard homes followed by new
construction for first time buyers, and for public service programs.
On February 19, the HRA reviewed and approved a program to assist with a
remediation activity at Lake Shore Drive Condominium. The program was in
response to a request by the Condominium Association to explore funding
possibilities to help individual homeowners in repairing toilets and showers that had
leaking seals that had caused, over almost 20 years, water damage and mold that
was not easy to detect.
022602CDBG
Lake Shore Drive is a 179-unit condominium development for seniors built in 1983.
It is currently the most affordable senior ownership housing available in Richfield. In
2001, units had assessed values in the $60,000 to $126,000 range, and most
owners are on fixed incomes.
The Condominium Association hired an inspector and discovered that 31 of the
units were experiencing unusual mold and moisture problems in the bathrooms.
The source of the problem appears to be related to the deterioration of the caulk
around the toilets and shower stalls. When several units were experiencing the
problem, an inspection of all the units was conducted, which concluded that 31 are
affected. Of those units, some units were fixed before the scope of the problem had
been determined; therefore, 26 remain to be repaired.
Estimates are being obtained by the owners' association for the repair work, which
would be done by one contractor for all units. The cost of the repairs is estimated to
range from $5,000 to $7,000 per unit. Since these are interior repairs, they are the
responsibility of each affected owner, and not provided for by association reserves.
In addition to repairing floors and walls, the scope of work also includes the proper
mitigation of mold. Mold and mildew are issues of indoor air quality, but are not
addressed by grants from state or regional sources, unlike other environmental
problems such as radon, asbestos or lead. Staff is proposing using $1,000 of
CDBG funds for each unit as a grant, which would be a total grant for the program
n of $26,000.
The balance of the repairs would be made through loans provided by Richfield Bank
and Trust, which has agreed to provide a special loan to owners at one percent
below the market rate. The Housing and Redevelopment Authority's (NBA's)
administrative work will be covered by a $20 fee per unit, in addition to $2,600 in
CDBG funds. Therefore the total CDBG expenditure (grants and administration)
would be $28,600. The Lake Shore Drive Association is also assuming
administrative work by obtaining the cost estimates, selecting the contractor, and
monitoring work completion.
To meet CDBG requirements, all of the owners that participate would have incomes
less than 80 percent of the median. ($38,100 annually for one person household,
$43,500 annually for two person household.) Some owners may not wish to receive
the grant, but the grant opportunity will be extended to all 26 affected owners.
Because of CDBG rules on prior work, owners that already made repairs would not
be able to receive a grant, nor would grant funds be used for the two affected
guestrooms that are owned and managed by the Association.
III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION
A. POLICY
• The HRA develops programs to meet Richfield's housing needs. The
City Council, the recipient of CDBG funds, is required by the
Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) to approve the
allocation of funds following public hearing.
• HUD and Hennepin County, Richfield's CDBG providers, support
individual communities to solve problems as they deem appropriate.
The use of CDBG funds in this instance assists lower income
homeowners with a remediation problem in collaboration with the Lake
Shore Drive Association and Richfield Bank and Trust. Both HUD and
Hennepin County have approved this proposal.
B. CRITICAL ISSUES
• The HRA's grant program would primarily fund the mold remediation
with the individual homeowners using assets or loans for funding a
majority of the repairs.
• Homeowners need to meet the general eligibility (income, ownership)
requirements that are being outlined by HUD and Hennepin County.
• A grant rather than a loan was determined the best way to distribute
the funds given the higher cost associated with filing and monitoring
repayment agreements, the property liens anticipated for the work not
funded by CDBG, and for small amount of grant money per unit.
C. FINANCIAL
• The CDBG funds provided would be in the form of a $1,000 grant to
each eligible homeowner.
• The maximum amount of CDBG funds used would be $28,600 (grants
and grant administration).
• The $26,000 proposed for 26 homeowners compares to the $25,000
maximum amount available for one single-family home through the
HRA's Rehabilitation Deferred Loan program. Thus, impact to the
regular program would be minimal.
• Funds are available to reprogram.
D. LEGAL
• CDBG funds, procedures and requirements are established and
prescribed by HUD and Hennepin County.
IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION~S~
• Do not support a remediation program using CDBG funds for the described
purpose.
V. ATTACHMENTS
• N/A
VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING
• A representative of the Lake Shore Drive Condominium Association.
AGENDA SECTION: public Hearings
AGENDA ITEM # 5
REPORT # ~ A
STAFF REPORT
CITY COUNCIL MEETING
FEBRUARY 26, 2002
REPORT PREPARED BY:
NAME, TITLE
REPORT PRESENTER:
NAME, TITLE
n
DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR REVIEW:
REVIEWED BY CITY ~/IANAGER:
BRUCE SYLVESTER, ZONING
ADMINISTRATOR
BRUCE PALMBORG,
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR
SIGNATURE
.ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION:
Public hearing regarding consideration of a resolution amending the Comprehensive Plan for
increasing allowable densities from 12 units per acre to 15 units per acre for. parcels
desi Hated as "hi h-densit ,sin le-famil residential" in the Com rehensive Plan.
I. RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Conduct and close a public hearing and by motion: Approve the
attached resolution amending the Comprehensive Plan that would
increase the allowable density of housing in parcels designated as
"high-density single-family residential" from 12 units per acre to 15
units. per acre and authorize submittal of the amendment to the
Metro olitan Council.
II. BACKGROUND
The Planning Commission reviewed the City's Comprehensive Plan and Zoning
Code at its December, 2001 Worksession. At that meeting, the commission
discussed changes that were necessary so both documents supported each other
and were more responsive to current conditions in Richfield. The Planning
Commission identified the need to modify the City's Comprehensive Plan to better
accommodate current market trends for townhouse and other, higher-density,
single-family residential developments.
0226-CompPlanAmend.doc
After reviewing densities for various types of development, including single-family
detached housing on various sized lots and townhouse projects of various densities,
the commission recommended revising the allowable density of residential uses in
parcels designated as "high-density, single-family attached" in the Comprehensive
Plan. Currently, the Comprehensive Plan allows densities up to 12 units per acre.
To accommodate higher densities and a wider variety of housing options and styles,
the Planning Commission recommended that this figure be increased to allow
densities on these parcels up to 15 units per-acre. This increase will cause the
Comprehensive Plan to be more consistent with market trends in housing,
especially townhouses.
For comparison purposes, examples of housing densities in Richfield include:
1) Atypical Richfield city block is 600 feet long by 270 feet wide for
162,000 square feet or 3.72 acres. A block with 50 foot lots contains
12 houses per side or 24 houses total. The density for this type of
residential block is 6.5 houses per acre.
2) Wood Lake Village along the north side of 66th Street between Rae
Drive and Emerson Avenue includes 92 townhouses and
encompasses 255,856 square feet of area or 5.87 acres. The density
for this housing example is 15.7 units per acre.
2) Casteel Place, at Garfield Avenue and 76th Street behind Main Street
Village includes 40 townhouse units on a parcel that is 522.11 feet
long and 134.41 feet wide for 70,177 square feet or 1.61 acres. The
density for this housing example is 24.8 units per acre.
3) The Oaks orr Pleasant is a townhouse development included in the
-
Wood Lake Centre and
includes 138 units. The Oaks on Pleasant.
occupies a parcel that is 593-feet. long and 309 feet wide for 183,984
square feet or 4.22 acres. The density for this housing example is
32.7 units per acre.
III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION
A. POLICY
• The Comprehensive Plan should be reviewed periodically to insure
that it is relevant to current conditions in the community and
amendments should be made as appropriate.
• The goals and objectives of the Comprehensive Plan are supportive of
the proposed amendment.
• The Comprehensive Plan calls for high-density, single-family
residential development along many portions of arterial streets in
Richfield. The current allowed maximum density of 12 units per acre
is not sufficient to allow many standard townhouse or other high-
density, single-family residential developments.
B. CRITICAL ISSUES
• The Planning Commission is simultaneously reviewing the City's
zoning code and will be suggesting similar zoning code changes to
accommodate higher densities along major arterial streets in Richfield.
C. FINANCIAL
• N/A
D. LEGAL
• The City Council must adopt and amend the Comprehensive Plan by
resolution by two-thirds vote of the full Council.
• The amendment would be contingent upon Metropolitan Council
approval.
• On January 28, 2002, the Planning Commission conducted a public
hearing on the recommended amendment and voted unanimously to
support the amendment.
• The City Council is not required by state statute to conduct a public
hearing on a Comprehensive Plan amendment; however, it has been
City policy for both the Planning Commission and City Council to hold
a public hearing.
• Notice of the public hearing was published in the Sun-Current on
February 6, 2002.
IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION(S~
• Deny the amendment.
V. ATTACHMENTS
• Resolution amending the City's Comprehensive Plan concerning allowable
densities in .areas designated as "high-density, single-family residential".
• Attachment A; excerpts from the Comprehensive Plan.
• Attachment B, Comprehensive Plan map.
VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING
• Residents who may be interested in housing density issues may be present.
n
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION AMENDING THE CITY'S COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
CONCERNING ALLOWABLE DENSITIES IN AREAS DESIGNATED AS
HIGH-DENSITY SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL
WHEREAS, the City's Comprehensive Plan provides a Guide Plan establishing
classifications for individual property; and
WHEREAS, the Comprehensive Plan designates many parcels along arterial
streets in Richfield for use as high-density, single-family residential; and
WHEREAS, the City has reviewed the Guide Plan classifications and determined
that it would be appropriate to increase the allowable densities in parcels designated as
high-density, single-family residential from 12 units per acre to 15 units per acre; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has conducted a public hearing on January
28, 2002 concerning modifying the Guide Plan to allow densities of 15 units per acre on
those parcels designated as high-density, single-family residential; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission approved the modification on January 28,
2002 following a public hearing; and
WHEREAS, the City Council held a public hearing on the amendment on February
26, 2002.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Richfield,
Minnesota that the City's Comprehensive Plan is hereby amended to change the allowable
densities on those parcels designated as high-density,. single-family residential from 12
units per acre to 15 units per acre, contingent upon the following:
1. The revision is submitted to and approved by the Metropolitan Council.
Adopted by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this 26th day of
February, 2002.
Martin J. Kirsch, Mayor
ATTEST:
Nancy Gibbs, City Clerk
Attachment A
n RICHFIELD COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
Volume Three: Plan Elements
PART ONE Land Use and Density
1.1 Residential
Residential will continue as the dominant land use in Richfield as the existing low-density
residential neighborhoods and multiple-family developments are. maintained and upgraded.
The Plan graphics show four residential land use areas as follows:
A. Single-family (all undesignated areas) detached and attached residential use areas
with densities of up to five units per acre represent most of the developed areas in
Richfield. Attached housing (duplexes only on 9,000 square feet) sites should be
permitted in single-family areas, but limited to no more than eight units in any eight block
area. The sites for attached housing should be developed on the basis of opportunity
(distressed housing), natural conditions, adjacent non-residential land uses, available utility
and other community services and related planning factors. Current programs that support
maintenance, upgrading and replacement of the existing housing stock must continue and
be expanded as the housing stock ages. Nothing in the Plan is more important to the
preservation of the "small town" character value than maintaining the quality, appearance
~ and marketability of the single-family residential housing stock throughout the City.
~~~ ~'
B. High-density, single-family attached residential use areas with densities of up to -1-~
15 units per acre are shown on the Plan graphics as R-SFH (residential single-family, high-
density). These areas are selected on the basis of existing use, adjacent non-residential.
or multiple land uses, street access, available public and private services and related
planning and economic factors. Manufactured housing would be included in this use
category if the lots are owned by the occupants and the streets and open spaces are
public orquasi-public and operated by an association. If the development is operated as a
business, a conditional use permit would be required. All of the. areas designated for R-
SFH use are described in subarea plans in 6.2.
C. Medium density, multiple-family residential use areas with densities of up to 24 units
per acre are shown on the Plan graphics as R-MM (residential multiple, medium density).
Richfield has too much of this form of housing, so several existing developments along 1-
494 have been redesignated for regional commercial or office use. Two developments
(Century Court and Fountainhead) have been designated as high-density multiple, and
one (The Colony) has been designated for single-family .use. No new medium density,
multiple housing areas are proposed in the Plan. The proposed areas are described in
more detail in the sub-area plan graphics for the I-494 East and West and Interstate-
Lyndale-Nicollet (ILN) areas in Section 6.2 of this document.
D. High-density, multiple-family residential use areas with densities over 24 units per
acre are shown on the Plan graphics as R-MH. The ultimate result of these densities is
high-rise structures. For that reason,. R-MH uses are appropriate in locations where
transportation, utility, security, shopping and social services are in abundance in order to
support larger numbers of people.
J V O ~ L~ U
N J E ~~ vioCOp y
a1 d ._
~ ~ U O O ~..~ 'O la ~ O ~
E X22 ~? O
~ O >, ~ E - 2 r
U=~~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ v ~ rn
e4 ~ U O O LL h N d d ~ ~ ~ ~`
Z O EZUU O NQ'~f3'Q' V N~~ p N 3 rn
~ ~ ~ ~ E V ~~ ±' ~ ` R 7 7 t /a Y_ Y
? O O d N O~ ~ >> 7 7 ~6 3 t t V~
JQ Q: c~ z Q: c~ O cn ni ~ ~ ~ a a Q U c) v~ C~ m ~
a .. a~ ® ~o pan _~ ~ z a
I~ !~IIID~'I~~
~n~ 1lUmlllflll-1'ffiIIIII~
l~l7f~lm~i~~n~;I~lllrllllL~J
_IIIIII71L1IDTI1<LII1p11111111L1$ r„ i6 °c 5 £ 5 £ £ S
I IJ IIi II~ ~ ~ _ _ ~ n n ~ °n n ~ ~ `Or
aV030
418 L
4lL L
4l9 L
Z NOl~JNIWOOlB
4lS L
Q 4141
J 4l£L
~ 41ZL
__ 4lL L
410 L
lOfll3
/~ O'JVOIHO
//\
~ Sn8Wnl00
//~ ~lavd
W ONYI)iV0
ONMlaOd
-
4iS fTLLP
W ~b
NOlNIIO ~j
~
p~E
u _
. I 1
P
Z
SN3n31S
!~ .
il..
O 15L
13llOOIN r~
U
1130SIV18
Q H1aOM1N3M
AanBSllld
J 1NVSF/3ld
W
^NHa0 J ~~
~ 131aaVH
Ol31daVJ
3lVONAI
~"i
V HOILKIIV
~ 1NVAa9
~, ~ XVdl00
1NOdn0
NOSa3W3
1NOW3ad
OaValO III] i]':~~L. f: 0 Il Illl I
laloewnH ~'~ ~ ii°lilil
i~ ~ ~
oNlnal ' ~
sawvr _ ~,_
XON~i
NV~JOI
NVJaOW
_.
..
NO1M3N ,
~
a3nll0 z
O
NN3d
N33nD ~
ll3SSna O
NVORI3HS
StlWOHl
NOldn I Ll
IIII. ILI '
_ I lJ
1N30NIn ". I-~~l .iii
,._ILI~i_. .
NanBHSVM ,
S3Xa3X
D O L_ L_
N ~ ~
~ ~ N ~
N
N
O
O
O
N
O
O
O
Q=
O
0
O
0
avaao
478 L
41L L
439 L
NOlONIWOOlB
43S L
4l4 L
4l£ L
4lZ L
41L L
410 L
lOlll3
O`JYJIHO
snewnloo
~lavd
O N71)7 VO
ONVIlaOd
4LS
434
NOlNll0
PEE
PuZ
SN3n31S
3SL
1311OO1N
1130SIV18
HlaOM1N3M
Aan9Sll Id
1NVSV3ld
ONVa~J
131aaVH
Ol31daVJ
3lVONAI
HOIaOIH
1NVAa8
XVdl00
1NOdn0
NOSa3W3
1NOW3ad
Davalo
lOloawnH
ownal
S3WYf
XONN
NVOOI
NH~JaOW
NO1M3N
a3nll0
NN3d
N33nD
ll3SSna
NVOIa3HS
SVWOHl
NOldn
1N30NIn
NanBHSVM
S3Xa3X
e
t L L L ~V N ~1 L L L L L L <
rD !~ ~ rY1 s ~ (V M V in r0 t` ~
so co so ro ~ ~ r ~ ~ r ~ r ~ r` n -
r- n
°' °' o0
F ~ N
~(n S
~~U
~~~
aa~
000
~ w W
a~~
O
oww
a~~
a
m
`m
a
E
U
N
m
0
a
m
m
`o
V
w
n
n
~.J
n
AGENDA SECTION: Consent
AGENDA ITEM # 4E
REPORT # G R
D
STAFF REPORT
CITY COUNCIL MEETING
FEBRUARY 26, 2002
REPORT PREPARED BY: BETSY CxRISTENSEN, ADMINISTRATIVE
SUPPORT SERVICES MANAGER
NAME, TITLE
REPORT PRESENTER: DAN SCOTT, DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC SAFETY
NAME, TITLE
DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR REVIEW: ~ ~
~.ltl~,
SIGNATURE
REVIEWED BY CITY MANAGER:
ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION:
Consideration of a request for a new residential kennel license for Herbert Kiessling, 209
Pillsbu Lane.
I. RECOMMENDED ACTION:
By Motion: Approve the request for a new residential kennel license
for Herbert Kiesslin , 209 Pillsbu Lane.
II. BACKGROUND
On January 6, 2002, Herbert Kiessling submitted an application for a new
residential kennel license. He owns four dogs. Mr. Kiessling's application contains
the signatures of contiguous property owners.
A Community Service Officer conducted an inspection of the property on February
12, 2002. The CSO noted some piles of feces on the side yard but indicated that it
was not a large amount. The interior of the home was found to be very clean and
free of any odors.
This property. has no history of environmental health complaints and the animals
appear healthy and well cared for.
0226Kiessling Kennel License
The Public Safety Department has received one call regarding this address in the
past year. The call was regarding an animal at large.
~_~
Although this application is for four dogs, it does not exceed the maximum number
of six animals that was approved by the Council as policy on July 22, 1991.
III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION
A. POLICY
• The City has adopted a policy that staff notifies neighbors surrounding
the area of the residential kennel license. Staff received one phone
call regarding this application. The caller indicated that he did not feel
the size of the yard was adequate and that he has had problems with
odor in the past.
B. CRITICAL ISSUES
• N/A
C. FINANCIAL
• N/A
~~ D. LEGAL
~`~J • N/A
IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION(S~
• Deny the request by Mr. Kiessling for a residential kennel license. This
would mean that the applicant would have to decrease the number of
animals he has from four to two; however, the Public Safety Department has
not found any basis for a denial.
V. ATTACHMENTS
• None
VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING
• Herbert Kiessling
AGENDA SECTION: Consent
AGENDA ITEM # 4D
REPORT # 4 ]
STAFF REPORT
CITY COUNCIL MEETING
FEBRUARY 26, 2002
r.
REPORT PREPARED BY:
REPORT PRESENTER:
DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR REVIEW:
REVIEWED BY CITY MANAGER:
KATIA MEDVETSKI,
REDEVELOPMENT SPECIALIST
NAME, TITLE
BRUCE PALMBORG,
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR
NAME, TITLE
ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION:
Approval of the condemnation commissioners' award of $163,000 for 6509 Cedar Avenue
(Parcel 18) (KBL Cablesystems of the Southwest, Inc., dba Time-Warner) (66th Street /Trunk
Highway 77 Interchange Project).
I. RECOMMENDED ACTION:
By Motion: Approve the condemnation commissioners' award of
$163,000 for 6509 Cedar Avenue (Parcel 18) (KBL Cablesystems of the
Southwest, Inc., dba Time-Warner) (66th Street /Trunk Highway 77
Interchange Project).
(~ ,?
III. BACKGROUND ~
The City acquired 6509 Cedar Avenue (Parcel 18) (KBL Cablesystems of the
Southwest, Inc., dba Time-Warner) by eminent domain proceedings in November,
2000 for the realignment and expansion of the Trunk Highway 77 and East 66th
Street Interchange. KBL purchased the property in 1998 and razed the single-
family home that was on site. Two structures and a fence were then constructed.
The structures contained electronic equipment and served as KBL's hub for cable
distribution throughout the surrounding region.
0226KBL
The City's appraiser established a value of $65,000 (plus immovable fixtures of
$7,150, or $72,150 total); KBL's appraised value was $227,600 (plus relocation
costs); and the condemnation commissioners established an award of $163,000
which included immovable fixtures. It appears that the condemnation
commissioners gave more weight to KBL since they incurred large costs in
purchasing and converting the site to their specific needs. It was the City's position,
however, that various expenditures by KBL were related to enhancing their
business and not increasing the market value of the subject parcel.
City Attorney, Robert Lindall, recommends accepting the condemnation
commissioners' award. The Metropolitan Airports Commission (MAC) has reviewed
the award and concurs to accept the award.
III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION
A. POLICY
• The subject property was identified for purchase for the project.
• The Memorandum of Understanding between the City, the Minnesota
Department of Transportation (MnDOT), and the MAC, approved by the
Council on February 28, 2000, outlines the responsibilities for each
participating agency.
• An agreement between the City and the MAC, dated February 28, 2000,
allows the use of condemnation proceedings as a means of acquiring
property.
• In accordance with-the agreement, the MAC is responsible for approving
and recommending to the City just compensation and condemnation
settlement payments with property owners.
• It has been the policy of the City Council to accept the value set by the
~~ condemnation commissioners if the City Attorney recommends doing so.
B. CRITICAL ISSUES
• This award may be appealed by either party to district court.
C. FINANCIAL
• The MAC is paying for the acquisition of property along Cedar Avenue
and has concurred with the City Attorney to accept the condemnation
commissioners' award of $163,000.
D. LEGAL
• The City Attorney recommends the acceptance of the award.
TERNATIVE KECOMMENDATION(S) ~
Do not accept the condemnation commissioners' award and instruct the City
Attorney to appeal the award. However, this is not recommended by the City
Attorney. An appeal would only be undertaken if the property owner would
first appeal
I V . ATTACHMENTS I
~ VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING ~
AGENDA SECTION: Consent
AGENDA ITEM # 4 C
REPORT # 46
/ STAFF REPORT
CITY COUNCIL MEETING
FEBRUARY 26, 2002
BRUCE SYLVESTER,
REPORT PREPARED BY: PLANNING BL ZONING ADMINISTRATOR
NAME, TITLE
BRUCE PALMBORG,
REPORT PRESENTER: COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR
NAME, TITLE
DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR REVIEW: /!~ , .
REVIEWED BY CITY MANAGER:
ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION:
Consideration of the attached resolution for an extension for recording the Best Buy plat.
I. RECOMMENDED ACTION:
By Motion: Approve the attached resolution for an extension for
recording the Best Buy plat.
II. BACKGROUND
After the City approved the final plat for the Best Buy Campus on January 8, 2002,
Best Buy and Opus Northwest, LLC were given 30 days to record the plat with
Hennepin County. Due to Complications regarding easements over the property for
the water main that serves the City of Bloomington, Best Buy and Opus Northwest,
LLC required an extension for the time needed to record the plat with the County.
At the January 22 City Council meeting, the Council approved an extension until
February 27, 2002 for the plat to be filed.
~ The plat is currently being reviewed by two County departments--the Registrar and
~__? the Assessor. Because of delays from these two County departments, the plat will
not be ready for recording by the February 27, 2002 deadline and an extension is
therefore necessary.
02266 BPIatExtension. doc
A suggested modified deadline for recording the final plat will be indicated to the
City Council at the February 26 meeting. As of this writing we are awaiting word
from the County.
III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION
A. POLICY
• City Code section 500.29, Subdivision 3 outlines requirements for plats
to be recorded with the County once approved by the City.
B. CRITICAL ISSUES
• N/A
C. FINANCIAL
• N/A
D. LEGAL
• N/A
IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION(S~
• Deny the request for an extension for the time to record the Best Buy Campus plat
with the County.
V. ATTACHMENTS
• City Council Resolution
VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING
• N/A
t , ,1
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION GRANTING EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE
APPROVED PLAT FOR BEST BUY CAMPUS
WHEREAS, by Resolution No. 9138, adopted on January 8, 2002, the City Council
approved the final plat for a proposed subdivision to be known as BEST BUY CAMPUS;
and
WHEREAS, Subsection 500.29, subdivision 3 of the Richfield City Code requires
that approved final plats be recorded in the county land records within 30 days after
approval, unless good cause is shown for an extension; and
WHEREAS, the City staff has identified a need to extend the time for Opus
Northwest, LLC, the applicant for the subdivision (the "Applicant"), to file the plat; and
WHEREAS, additional time is needed for the Hennepin County Registrar's Office
and the Hennepin County Surveyor's Office to review the plat before it is ready for
recording; and
WHEREAS, the City Council wishes to accommodate Hennepin County's review
timeline without causing undue hardship to the Applicant.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Richfield,
as follows:
1. The City Council finds that good cause exists to extend the time for Opus
Northwest LLC to record the approved plat of BEST BUY CAMPUS.
2. The deadline for recording the final plat with the Hennepin County Recorder or
Hennepin County Registrar of Titles is hereby extended to
2002.
Adopted by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this 26th day of
February, 2002.
Martin J. Kirsch, Mayor
ATTEST:
Nancy Gibbs, City Clerk
n
AGENDA SECTION: COI1S0rit
AGENDA ITEM # 4B
REPORT # 4 5
STAFF REPORT
CITY COUNCIL MEETING
FEBRUARY 26, 2002
REPORT PREPARED BY:
NAME, TITLE
REPORT PRESENTER:
DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR REVIEW:
REVIEWED BY CITY MANAGER:
DAWN WEITZEL
HUMAN RESOURCES MANAGER
STEVEN L. DEVICH
ADMINISTRATNE SERVICES DIRECTOR
NAME, E
~ ~~
~~
' ~ SIGNATURE
.ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION:
Consideration of a resolution approving an amendment to the 2001-2002 labor contract with
the Law Enforcement Labor Services, Local 162.
I. RECOMMENDED ACTION:
By Motion: Adopt the resolution designating an increase in the City's
contribution toward health insurance premiums for the Law
Enforcement Labor Services, Local 162.
II. BACKGROUND
City staff has completed labor negotiations with the Law Enforcement Labor
Services (EELS), Local 162, for the contract re-opener (insurance) of its 2001.-2002
contract subject to Council approval. EELS Local 162 represents the positions of
Police Supervisors, which includes: Police Captain (1), Lieutenants (3) and
Sergeants (8). The City pays the full individual employee premium for those
employees choosing single coverage, and for employees covered under the Law
Enforcement Labor Services, Local 162 contract, the City is currently contributing
$475 for dependent care coverage. General Services, Management, and Local 49,
are currently receiving $495 for dependent health care coverage.
It is recommended that the City increase its dependent coverage from $475 per
month to $495 per month. These changes would affect those employees
represented by the Law Enforcement Labor Services, Local 162 contract. The
increase is requested so that these employees are offered the same insurance
contribution levels already given to some Union and all eligible Non-Union
employees.
III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION
A. POLICY ~
• The City is a LOGIS board member and has participated in the
process of receiving the best possible health insurance rates.
• The City has met and negotiated with the Union and is bound under
the Public Employers' Labor Relations Act to meet and bargain over
the terms and conditions of employment. The 2002 proposed
settlement is similar to other City employee groups and is well within
the range for police bargaining groups in similar cities.
B. CRITICAL ISSUES
• In order to allow the City's accounting personnel to modify payroll
records in a timely manner for 2002 wages and benefits, it is
recommended that-the City Council act on February 26, 2002 to adopt
the attached resolution providing for contract changes, effective
January 1, 2002.
l~ /'
C. FINANCIAL
• 10 full-time Police Supervisors would receive an increase in City
contributionlevel to health insurance. This would cost the City
approximately $200 per month.
D. LEGAL
• In order to provide the requested health insurance contribution
changes, the City Council must approve the resolution designating
City's contribution toward .health insurance: premiums for employees
covered by the Law Enforcement Labor Services, Local 162 contract.
~ IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION(S) ~
• i ne ~ouncn may taKe no action t~
the current 2001 funding level.
• Defer discussion to another date.
ncrease the insurance premiums beyond
V. ATTACHMENTS
• KeSOIUtIOn
• Letter of Agreement
I V I. YRINCII'AL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING I
• NOne
n
0226policesergeants
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION DESIGNATING CITY'S CONTRIBUTION
TOWARD HEALTH INSURANCE
PREMIUMS FOR EMPLOYEES COVERED BY THE
LAW ENFORCEMENT LABOR SERVICES, LOCAL 162
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, the City of Richfield and Law Enforcement Labor Services, Local 162,
have a signed bargaining agreement covering a two year period ending December 31, 2002;
and
WHEREAS, the labor agreement covers all terms and conditions of employment
including the City contribution for health insurance benefits; and
WHEREAS, the City has historically provided the same level of health insurance
contribution to all eligible City employees, both union and non-union; and
WHEREAS, the City desires #o maintain such a position of equity; and
WHEREAS, the current health benefit for Law Enforcement Labor Services, Local 162,
is $20 per month below the $495 .contribution given to some other employee groups; and
`J" WHEREAS, the City Councif is required to determine b resolution the Cit 's
Y Y
contribution. toward the premium for:employee group- insurance coverages.
NOW, THEREFORE,: BE IT RESOLVED. that the City shall contribute a maximum of
$495 per month for family health insurance, and in any event, said contributions shall not
exceed the cost of single coverage for employees selecting that option. Such contributions
shall be for coverage effective January 1, 2002.
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 26th day of
February 2002.
ATTEST:
n
Nancy Gibbs, City Clerk
Martin J. Kirsch,. Mayor
0226policesergeants
U"L/ly/LUUL ll:ua rAA n51 [as ULU3 LArv n~vrux~mm~iri ~~vs~x
Feb 19 02 10:03a
LETTER OF AGREEIYtEN_ T
BETWEEN THE
CITY OF IRICHFlELD
POLICE SUPERVISORS
AFFILIATED VI~TH LAW ENFORCEMENT LABOR SERVICES
L~AL N0.962
The above named parties hereby agree to administer the provisions of Article ~ ~,
Section 1-Insurance, in accordance with the terms set forth below.
The terms of this Agreement are as follows:
IQ.JUU1
p.2
ARTICt,E 17 INSURANCE
Section 1 The EMPLOYER will contribute up to a maximum of four hundred ninety-
n
five dollars ($495) per month per employee for group health coverage
beginning January 1, 2002.
The Undersigned do hereby agree this ~'~--day of 2002.
or the U i Fort it •
~l
n
r.
AGENDA SECTION:
AGENDA ITEM #
REPORT #
J STAFF REPORT
Consent
4A
44
CITY COUNCIL MEETING
FEBRUARY 26, 2002
REPORT PREPARED BY:
DAWN WEITZEL
HUMAN RESOURCES MANAGER
NAME, TITLE
REPORT PRESENTER: STEVEN L. DEVICH
ADM~TISTRATIVE SERVICES DIRECTOR
~~" NAME, TI(2)E w
DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR REVIEW:
' ~ SIGNATURE ' `~
REVIEWED BY CITY MANAGER: ~'
ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION:
Consideration of a resolution approving an amendment to the 2001-2002 labor contract with
~ the Law Enforcement Labor Services, Local 123.
I. RECOMMENDED ACTION:
By Motion: Adopt the attached resolution designating an increase in
the City's contribution toward health insurance premiums for the Law
Enforcement Labor Services, Local 123.
n
III. BACKGROUND ~
City staff has completed labor negotiations with the Law Enforcement Labor
Services (EELS), Local 123,. for the contract re-opener (insurance) of its 2001-2002
contract subject to Council approval. EELS Local 123. represents the positions of
Police Officers and Detectives. There are 31 employees represented in the unit.
The City pays the full individualemployee premium for those employeeschoosing
single coverage, and for employees covered under the Law Enforcement Labor
Services, Local 123 contract, the City is currently contributing $475 for dependent
care coverage. General Services, Management, and Local 49, are currently
receiving $495 for dependent health care coverage.
It is recommended that the City increase its dependent coverage from $475 per
month to $495 per month. These changes would affect those employees
represented by the Law Enforcement Labor Services, Local 123 contract. The
increase is requested so that these employees are offered the same insurance
contribution levels already given to some Union and all eligible Non-Union
(~~ employees.
III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION
A. POLICY
• The City is a LOGIS board member and has participated in the
process of receiving the best possible health insurance rates.
• The City has met and negotiated with the Union and is bound under
the Public Employers' Labor Relations Act to meet and bargain over
the terms and conditions of employment. The 2002 proposed
settlement is similar to other City employee groups and is well within
the range for police bargaining groups in similar cities.
B. CRITICAL ISSUES
• In order to allow the City's accounting personnel to modify payroll
records in a timely .manner for 2002 wages and benefits, it is
recommended that the City Council act on February 26, 2002 to adopt
the attached resolution providing for contract changes, effective
January 1, 2002.
C. FINANCIAL
• 14 full-time Police Officers and/or Agents would receive an increase in
City contribution level to health insurance. This would cost the City
approximately $280 per month.
D. LEGAL
• In order to provide the requested health insurance contribution
changes, the City Council must approve the resolution designating
City's contribution toward health insurance premiums for employees
covered by the Law Enforcement Labor Services, Locale 123 contract.
IV. ALTERNATNE RECOMMENDATION S
• The Council may take no action to increase the insurance premiums beyond
the current 2001 funding level.
• Defer discussion to another date.
V. ATTACHMENTS
• Resolution
• Letter of Agreement
VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING
• None.
0226policeofficers
RESOLUTION NO.
'~ J RESOLUTION DESIGNATING CITY'S CONTRIBUTION
TOWARD HEALTH INSURANCE
PREMIUMS FOR EMPLOYEES COVERED BY THE
LAW ENFORCEMENT LABOR SERVICES, LOCAL 123
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, the City of Richfield and Law Enforcement Labor Services, Local 123,
have a signed bargaining agreement covering a two year period ending December 31, 2002;
and
WHEREAS, the labor agreement covers all terms and conditions of employment
including the City contribution for health insurance benefits; and
WHEREAS, the City has historically provided the same level of health insurance
contribution to all eligible City employees, both union and non-union; and
WHEREAS, the City desires to maintain such a position of equity; and
WHEREAS, the current health benefit for Law Enforcement Labor Services, Local 123,
is $20 per month below the $495 contribution given 'to some other employee groups; 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 Cityshall contribute a maximum of
$495 per month for family health insurance, and in any event, said contributions shall not
exceed the cost of single coverage for employees selecting that option. Such contributions
shall be for coverage effective January 1', 2002.
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 he City of Richfield, Minnesota this 26th day of
February 2002.
ATTEST:
n
Nancy Gibbs, City Clerk
Martin J. Kirsch, Mayor
0226policeofficers
02/19/2002 11:31 FAX 651 293 0203 LAW ENFORCEMENT LABOR
~ ~ a ~.~ it a cur ruDL l t. bh't't I T
\ /
[~ 002/002
612 866 0297 P.02/02
LETTER OF.AGREEMENT
.. Berv~EN THe
CITY Ol: RICHFIELD
AND THE
Douce o>=s=icERs
AFFILIATED WITH LAW ENFORCEMENT LABOR SERVICES
LOCAL NO.123
~., J
The above named parties hereby agree to administer the provisions of Article 16,
Section 1-Insurance, in accordance with the terms set fiorth below.
The terms of this Agreement are as follows:
ARTICLE ',~6 INSURANCE
Section. l The EMPLOYER will contribute up to a maximum of four hundred ninety-
five dollars ($495) per month per employee for group health coverage
beginning January 1, 2002.
The uhdersigned do hereby agree this _1~day of , 2002.
Forth Union:
~ ~, y
w~
TOTAL P. 02