11-13-01 Agenda-CITY OF RICHFIELD,-MINNESOTA
TUESDAY NOVEMBER 13, 2001
SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL WORKSESSION
COUNCIL CHAMBERS
5:30 P.M.
AGENDA
Call to order
Roll call
I. Discussion of searchlight regulations in Richfield
II. Discussion of fee waiver requests for business licenses and. inspection permits
III. Discussion of delinquent utility bill payment process
IV. Discussion of City Councif Open Forum registration
V. Discussion of Richfield's conditions for Crosstown Commons redesign
• Adjournment
REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING
COUNCIL CHAMBERS
7:00 P.M.
AGENDA
INTRODUCTORY PROCEEDINGS
•
Call to order
Roll call
Open Forum (7-7:15 p.m.)
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:
• Adjournment
Call to order
Roll call
Pledge of Allegiance
Approval of minutes of (1) Special City Council Meeting of October 13, 2001; (2) Special
City Council Worksession of October 17, 2001; (3) Special City Council Meeting of
October 20, 2001; (4) Special-City Council Workses-stot~-af~tflber~2;~~80~ {5)~pecial
City Council Meeting of October 22, 2001:; (6) Regular City.Council=Meeting=of_October 22,
2001; (7) Special City Council Closed Executive Session of October 22, 2001; (8) Special
City Council Meeting of October 23, 2001; (9) Special City Council Meeting of October 24,
2001; (10) Special City Council Meeting-of-Octabec-24,.2001; (11) Special City Council
Meeting of October 30, 2001; (12) Special City Council- Meeting of November 1, 2001
PRESENTATIONS
1. Presentation of proclamation designating American Education Week, -November 11-
17, 2001
2. Annual meeting with the Richfield Charter Commission
• COUNCIL DISCUSSION
• Council attendance at upcoming 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 City's 2002 contribution toward.
health, term life and dental insurance premiums for General Services and
Management employees S.R. No. 272
B. Consideration of approval of first reading of proposed ordinance amendment to City
Administrative Code Chapter III, Subsection 310:37 describing personal leave and
scheduling second reading for December 10, 2001 S.R. No. 273
C. Consideration of approval of first reading of amendment to Section 805 of Richfield
City Code for bus benches and shelters and setting public hearing and second
reading for December 10, 2001 S.R. No. 274
D. Consideration of approval of resolution approving subdivision waiver for 326 Apple
.~_ _ _,.
.,
Lane S.R. No. 275
E. Consideration of approval of resolution. granting new lawful gambling license, with
fee waiver, for Minneapolis-Richfield American Legion Unit #435 Auxiliary, 6501
Portland Avenue S.R. No. 276
F. Consideration of approval of purchase andinstallation of new boiler for City Hall from
Midland Heating and Air Conditioning Co. in amount of $26,870 S.R. No.-277
G. Consideration of approval of agreement with AMI Imaging Systems, Inc. to provide
scanning services to Inspection Division to facilitate copying. of City property files in
.estimated amount of $27,392 S.R. No. 278
H. Consideration of approval of setting December 10, 2001 public hearing regarding
issuance of new on-sale intoxicating and Sunday liquor licenses for The
Frenchman's, 1400 East 66th Street S.R: No. 279
• I. Consideration of approval of setting. December 10, 2001 public hearing regarding
2002 renewal of on-sale wine and on-sale 3.2 percent malt liquor licenses for Red
Pepper Chinese Restaurant, Ketsana's Thai Restaurant and Thompson's Fireside
Pizza S.R. No. 280
J. Consideration of approval of setting December 10, 2001 public hearing regarding
2002 renewal of on-sale intoxicating and Sunday liquor licenses for Chi Chi's
Mexican Restaurante; The Ground Round; Khan's Mongolian Barbeque;
Minneapolis-Richfield American Legion Post 435; Fred Babcock VFW Post No. 5555,
d/b/a Four Nickels Food and Drink; Don Pablo's Operating Corporation, d/b/a Don
Pablo's; Champp's Operating Corporation, d/b/a Champps Sports Cafe; and
Wiltshire Restaurants, LLC, d/b/a Houlihan's Restaurant & Bar S.R. No. 281
K. Consideration of approval of setting December 10, 2001 public hearing regarding
2002 renewal of pawnbroker and secondhand goods dealer licenses for Metro Pawn
and Gun, Inc. and Capital Cash, LLC, d/b/a Hy's Pawn S.R. No. 282
L. Consideration of approval of new residential kennel license for 6430 Logan Avenue;
four cats S.R. No. 283
•
Notes:
PUBLIC HEARING
5. Public hearing and second. reading of ordinance amendment to Richfield City Zoning
Code Section 536.17, Subdivision 3; Section 536.19, Subdivision 1; and Section
546.07, Subsection 4 to conform with newly adopted Minnesota Statute 462.357
Staff Report No. 284
Notes:
RESOLUTIONS
6. Consideration of resolution authorizing continuation of agreements with Hennepin
County and Richfield Community Council and resolution authorizing partnership
agreement with Hennepin South Services Collaborative
Staff Report No. 285
Notes:
OTHER BUSINESS
7. Consideration of new residential kennel license for 6834 Knox Avenue; four dogs
Staff Report No. 286
Notes:
8. Consideration of policy position regarding Crosstown design
(no Staff Report)
Notes:
CITY MANAGER'S REPORT
Notes:
9. Claims and payrolls
10.Adjourn to Special City Council Closed Executive Session in Executive Conference
Room to discuss New Ford Town/Rich Acres Park condemnation litigation
11. Reconvene Regular City Council meeting
12. Report- regarding New Ford Town/Rich Acres Park condemnation litigation
Open Forum (additional 15 minutes if more time needed after first Open Forum and by
majority vote of the City Council)
Each speaker is to keep their comment period #o three minutes to-allow sufficient
time for others. Comments are to be an opportunity to address the Council on items
not on the agenda. Individuals who- wish to address the Council must have
registered prior to the meeting. ~ -
Notes:
13.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:
AGENDA ITEM #
REPORT #
STAFF REPORT
CITY COUNCIL MEETING
C,
•
NOVEMBER 13, 2001
Other Business
286
REPORT PREPARED BY: BETSY CxRISTENSEN, ADMINISTRATIVE
SUPPORT SERVICES MANAGER
NAME, TITLE
REPORT PRESENTER: DAN SCOTT, DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC SAFETY
NAME, TITLE
DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR REVIEW:
SIGNATURE
REVIEWED BY CITY MANAGER:
ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION:
Consideration of a request for a new residential kennel license for Cheryl Scamp, 6834 Knox
Avenue South.
L RECOMMENDED ACTION:
By Motion: Approve or deny the request for a new residential kennel
license for Che I Scam , 6834 Knox Avenue South.
II. BACKGROUND
On October 15, 2001, Cheryl Scamp submitted an application for a new residential
kennel license. She owns four dogs. Her application contains the signatures of
contiguous property owners.
Staff received three phone calls in response to this residential kennel license
request. One caller said he had no problem with the issuance of the requested
license but did not want to see the number of animals' increase. Another caller
indicated that she had no real specific problems with the applicant but feels that
there are already enough animals in the neighborhood. The third caller indicated
that he does not believe the applicant has control of the animals. He stated that the
animals growl all day and are quite disturbing.
1113Scamp Residential Kennel
A Community Service Officer conducted an inspection of the property on October
29, 2001. There were no apparent problems found at that time. However, the
Community Service Officer was unable to enter the home and, therefore, could not
verify if any odor or feces problems existed inside the residence. The exterior of the
property was found to be in good condition with no odors or feces present.
The Environmental Health Division has no history of receiving complaints for this
address.
There were no police reports on or contacts with this address in the past year.
III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION
A. POLICY
• Although this application is for four dogs, it does not exceed the
maximum number of six that was approved by the Council as policy
on July 22, 1991.
• The City has adopted a policy that staff is to notify neighbors
surrounding the area of the residential kennel license. Staff received
three calls regarding this residential kennel license request. The calls
were regarding the number of animals currently in the neighborhood
and barking dog issues.
B. CRITICAL ISSUES
• N/A
C. FINANCIAL
• NA
D. LEGAL
• N/A
IV. ALTERNATNE RECOMMENDATION~S~
• Deny the request for a new residential kennel license for Cheryl Scamp. This
would mean that the applicant would have to decrease the number of
animals she has from four to two.
V. ATTACHMENTS
• None
VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING
• Cheryl Scamp
•
AGENDA SECTION: Resolutions
AGENDA ITEM # 6
•
J STAFF REPORT
REPORT # 2 H S
COUNCIL MEETING DATE:
NOVEMBER 13, 2001
•
•
REPORT PREPARED BY: KATHY FARRIS, HUMAN SERVICES
PLANNER/COORDINATOR
NAME, TITLE
REPORT PRESENTER: KATHY FARRIS, HUMAN SERVICES
PLANNER/COORDINATOR
REVIEWED BY CITY MANAGER: ~ _
ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION:
1. Consideration of a resolution authorizing the City of Richfield to continue to act as the fiscal
agent for Local Collaborative Time Study (LCTS) revenue generated on behalf of the
Richfield community and authorizing the City Manager to execute the revised LCTS Sub-
ContractorAgreement with Hennepin County and renewed Agreement for Fiscal Agent
Services for the Richfield Community Council
2. Consideration of a resolution authorizing the City Manager to execute a Partnership
Agreement with Hennepin South Services Collaborative (HSSC) for the purpose of
contributing in-kind services to the collaborative.
~~ I. RECOMMENDED ACTION: ~~
1. Approve the resolution authorizing the City of Richfield to continue to act as the
fiscal agent for LCTS revenue generated on behalf of the Richfield community and
authorizing the City Manager to execute the revised LCTS Sub-Contractor
Agreement with. Hennepin County and renewed Agreement for Fiscal Agent Services
for the Richfield Community Council.
2. Approve the resolution authorizing the City Manager to execute a Partnership
Agreement with Hennepin South Services Collaborative (HSSC) for the purpose of
contributing the following in-kind services to the collaborative:
• Participation by the Human Services Planner/Coordinator, other City staff or City
commissioners as appropriate on those HSSC Coordination Teams addressing
issues of relevance to the City.
• Participation by the Human Services Planner/Coordinator, the RCHSPC, and other.
City staff or commissioners as appropriate to help identify & collaboratively
address gaps in services, primarily through the HSSC bi-annual strategic
planning process.
• As appropriate, HRA staff to provide training for Resource Center and
Collaborative Partners staff on Section 8 and other housin issues/resources.
II. BACKGROUND
Hennepin County, as administrator of LCTS funds for Family Service and Children's
Mental Health Collaboratives within Hennepin County, has revised the LCTS Sub-
ContractorAgreement to reflect the following changes:
• "The Sub-Contractor agrees to abide by the written policies of the Hennepin County
Alliance, the county-wide partnership among all Family Services Collaboratives and
Children's Mental Health Collaborative operating within the County, of which the Sub-
contractor is a participating member."
• "The Sub-Contractor agrees to the terms of the currently approved LCTS Financing
Framework for Collaboratives in Hennepin County. -After the end of the County's
fiscal year, the County shall return any unused portion of the County's. administrative
fee and any reimbursement of administrative fees withheld by the State."
• Minor changes in terminology, such as from "Sub-Grantee Agreement," to Sub-
ContractorAgreement," and "local collaborative" to "Family Services Collaborative."
The City of Richfield has acted as fiscal agent for the Richfield Community Council since
May 26, 1998.
• The Hennepin South Services Collaborative Partnership Agreement is an interagency
agreement among providers of services and. other supports for families and individuals,
.and outlines general and optional areas of commitment according to the availability of
opportunities and/or the capacity of each partner. This agreement has been created to
replace the"Memorandum of Understanding," which was aone-year agreement
regarding in-kind services to-the Family Services Network.
III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION
A. POLICY
• The City of Richfield is part of the HSSC Joint Powers Agreement, of
which one purpose is to establish and operate a Family Services
Collaborative.
• The Richfield City Council resolved on January 13, 1997 that the City
of Richfield act as fiscal agent for Richfield generated LCTS funds and
authorized the City Manager to execute contractural agreements with
Hennepin County and the Richfield Community Council regarding fiscal
agent responsibilities.
• At its June 6, 2001 meeting, the HSSC Board approved an
organizational restructure which includes all of its activities, not jusf
those of the Family Services Collaborative, as part of the South
• Hennepin Collaborative.
• The City of Richfield committed to a "Memorandum of Understanding,"
with the members of the South Hennepin Family Support Network, now
known as the Hennepin South Services Collaborative and their
associated Partners,-from December 31, 1997 to December 31, 1998.
• B. CRITICAL ISSUES
• The revised LCTS Sub-Contractor Agreement with Hennepin County
must be executed by December 31, 2001.
• The Partnership Agreement with Hennepin South Services
Collaborative (HSSC) must be executed by December 31, 2001.
C. FINANCIAL
• Staff time of the Human Services Planner/Coordinator and-Financial
Manager.
• In-kind contributions. by City of Richfield staff would be during regular
working hours.
D. LEGAL
• The revision to the LCTS Sub-Contractor Agreement was reviewed
and accepted by Corrine H. Thomson of Kennedy & Graven.
IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION(S~
• The Council may decide not to approve the LCTS Sub-Contractor Agreement
and cease acting as fiscal agent for Richfield generated LCTS revenue.
• The Council may decide not to provide in-kind contributions to the HSSC.
V. ATTACHMENTS
• Resolution authorizing continuation of agreements with Hennepin County and
Richfield Community Council
• .Resolution authorizing partnership agreement with HSSC
• Revised LCTS Sub-Contractor Agreement with Hennepin County
• Renewed Agreement for Fiscal Agent Services -for the Richfield Community
Council
Partnership Agreement with Hennepin South Services Collaborative (HSSC)
VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT
MEETING
• None
•
RESOLUTION NO.
• A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING CONTINUATION OF AGREEMENTS
WITH HENNEPIN COUNTY AND THE RICHFIELD COMMUNITY COUNCIL
WHEREAS, Hennepin County needs a fiscal agent to distribute LCTS revenue
generated by the Richfield community to the Richfield Community Council; and
WHEREAS, the City of Richfield has acted as fiscal agent for these LCTS funds
from January 13, 1997 to, the present.
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City of
Richfield enter into the revised LCTS Sub-Contractor Agreement with Hennepin County
and renewed Agreement for Fiscal Agent Services for the Richfield Community Council.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the City Manager be authorized to execute
said agreements with the above organizations summarizing fiscal agent responsibilities.
Passed by the City Council of-the City of Richfield, Minnesota this 13th day of
November, 2001.
Martin J. Kirsch, Mayor
•
ATTEST:
Nancy Gibbs, City Clerk
RESOLUTION NO.
• A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING ENTERING INTO
A PARTNERSHIP AGREEMENT
WITH HENNEPIN SOUTH SERVICES COLLABORATIVE
WHEREAS, The City of Richfield is a member of the Hennepin South Services
Joint Powers Agreement; and
WHEREAS, the City of Richfield, as part of the Hennepin South Services
Collaborative, is committed toward collaborative activities to support its mission and has
in the past contributed in-kind services.
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City of
Richfield enter into a Partnership Agreement with Hennepin South Services
Collaborative (HSSC) for the purpose of contributing in-kind services to the
Collaborative.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the City Manager be authorized to execute
the HSSC Partnership Agreement.
Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this 13th day of
November, 2001.
•
Martin J. Kirsch, Mayor
ATTEST:
Nancy Gibbs, City Clerk
•
LCTS SUB-CONTRACTOR AGREEMENT
(rev 2001 ver South Hennepin & Robbinsdale)
• This Agreement is entered into by and between Hennepin County, in its capacity as
Contractor under that certain Minnesota Department of Human Services Contract To Participate
In The Local Collaborative Time Study (hereinafter the "LCTS Contract") dated as of November
23, 1998, and amended 1\~1ay 24, .2001, between the State of Minnesota Department of Human
Services (hereinafter the "State") and Hennepin County (hereinafter the "County"), and Cit~of
Richfield (hereinafter the "Sub-Contractor"), witnesseth that
WHEREAS, the LCTS Contract provides that Hennepin County. ("County") and others will
act cooperatively to enhance federal funding to local children's mental health collaboratives
and/or family service collaboratives; and
WHEREAS, the County requires the assistance of certain local entities in providing
administrative services under Titles IV-E and XIX of the Social Security Act, and in creating or
implementing a Family Services Collaborative and Children's Mental Health Collaborative and
the Local Collaborative Time Study ("LCTS") as specified in said LCTS Contract, for purposes of
calculating the amount of federal funds earned by a Family Services Collaborative and/or
Children's Mental Health Collaborative and the Sub-Contractor under said Act, and/or
administering said funding on behalf of a Family Services Collaborative or Children's Mental
Health Collaborative; and
• WHEREAS, the Sub-Contractor represents that it is qualified and willing to participate in a
Family Services Collaborative and/or Children's Mental Health Collaborative and to perform the
services set forth herein.
Now therefore, it is agreed as follows:
DEFINITIONS
A. LCTS CONTRACT: The contract between the State of Minnesota acting
through its Department of Human Services and Hennepin County which
authorizes Hennepin County and its partners in Family Services collaboratives
(FSCs) and the Children's Mental Health Collaborative (CMHC) to engage in
the LOTS revenue enhancement activities as described above.
B. LCTS SUB-CONTRACTOR AGREEMENT: A contract between Hennepin
County and each of its partners in the FSCs and CMHC which extends the
LCTS Contract to the partners of those Family Services collaboratives and the
Children's Mental Health Collaborative and defines Hennepin County's role as
over-all fiscal agent for the LCTS revenues generated within Hennepin County.
C. CONTRACTOR: Hennepin County, acting asover-all fiscal agent for Family
Service collaboratives and the Children's Mental Health Collaborative in
• Hennepin County.
Page 1 of 10
D. SUB-CONTRACTOR: Any other local organization working in formal
partnership with Hennepin County in a FSC and/or CMHC.
E. FAMILY SERVICES COLLABORATIVE (FSC): A program defined in
Minnesota law (MN Statutes Section 124D.23) that provides State assistance to
local organizations to work together in addressing the health, developmental,
educational, and family-related needs of children and youth in local
communities. Participation in a FSC approved by the Children's Cabinet (or in
a CMHC, described below) is a required activity in order for an organization to
participate in the LCTS. To qualify as astate-approved FSC, a minimum of one
school district, one county, one public health, and one community action entity
must agree in writing to provide coordinated family services and commit
resources to an integrated fund.
F. CHILDREN'S MENTAL HEALTH COLLABORATIVE (CMHC): A program
defined in Minnesota law (MN Statutes Section. 245.493) that provides State
assistance to local organizations to work together in developing a local
integrated service system to address the mental health and related .needs of
children, youth and their families. Participation in a CMHC approved by the
Children's Cabinet (or in a FSC, see above) is a required activity in order for an
organization to participate in the LCTS. To qualify as astate-approved CMHC,
a minimum of one county, one school district or special education cooperative,
one juvenile justice or corrections entity, and one mental health entity must
agree to the development of a local children's mental health collaborative and
an integrated service system, and to commit resources to provide services
through the children's mental health collaborative.
G. THE ALLIANCE FOR FAMILIES AND CHILDREN IN HENNEPIN
COUNTY (The ALLIANCE): Refers to the Hennepin countywide partnership
among all Family Services Collaboratives and the Children's Mental Health
Collaborative operating within the County.
H. TARGET POPULATION and INITIAL TARGET POPULATION: An
identifiable group of children, youth, and/or families that has been defined by
the Children's Mental Health Collaborative and/or Family Services
Collaboratives or The Alliance in Hennepin County as the focus of their
activities and services. The group may be defined in a variety of ways,
including but not limited to: age, geographic area of residence, legal status, or
type or severity of need.
An INITIAL TARGET POPULATION is a defined group of children, youth
and families that may be the first focus of a FSC or CMHC, with the
expectation that this group will be enlarged upon over time. Specific
requirements for a minimum or initial target population are found in state
legislation and statutes for both the FSC and CMHC.
Page 2 of 10
J. AGENT FOR CLAIMING LOTS REVENUES: Refers to aSub-Contractor in
its role as an entity participating in the LCTS to help generate new federal
• revenues, through their provision offederally-reimbursable administrative
and/or case management services designed to help families and children access
health or health related services, and/or the provision of administrative and/or
case management services for children at risk of foster care and their families,
on behalf of a Family Services Collaborative and/or Children's Mental Health
Collaborative. Such participation includes the administration of the LCTS
within the Sub-Contractor's agency and the proper reporting of staff activities
and costs associated with the LCTS claims.
K. FISCAL AGENT FOR ADMINISTERING LCTS REVENUES: Refers to a
Sub-Contractor who is designated by a Family Services Collaborative or the
Hennepin County Children's Mental Health Collaborative or The Alliance to
receive and disburse LCTS revenues allocated to that Family Services
Collaborative or Children's Mental Health Collaborative. Such activity includes
the preparation of all required reports on base-level expenditures and the
expenditures of LCTS revenues made by all participants in a Family Services
Collaborative and/or Children's Mental Health Collaborative, and the execution
of any necessary legal instruments in order to distribute LCTS revenues to other
parties selected by that FSC or CMHC.
L. OUTCOME-BASED INDICATORS: Identifiable, measurable benchmarks
• defined and agreed-upon by the FSC or CMHC or The Alliance which help to
indicate improvements in the well-being of children and families served by the
FSC or CMHC. State law requires the development and measurement of such
indicators in FSCs and CMHCs (though the choice and definition of specific
indicators is often a decision delegated to the FSC or CMHC).
M. BASE LEVEL OF EXPENDITURES: An identified set of expenditures made
by a FSC or CMHC during a fiscal period determined by State legislation.
Expenditures may include partner expenditures and/or expenditures made
through contracts or grants. This base-level serves as the starting point in
measuring any growth or expansion of services funded by new funds raised
through LCTS. The initial base-level of expenditures must not be reduced in the
FSC or CMHC, in order to participate in LOTS revenue enhancement activities.
N. EXPANSION OF SERVICES: Expenditures made by a FSC or CMHC or its
partners that result in a higher level of spending above the base-level.
Expansion of services may be achieved through a variety of means, including
but not limited to: starting new services, increasing or intensifying current
services, serving additional clients or population groups, or adding additional
staff to cover case-load growth or reduce case-load size.
Page 3 of 10
O. WRITTEN POLICIES (OF A CHILDREN'S MENTAL HEALTH
COLLABORATIVE, A FAMILY SERVICES COLLABORATIVE, OR THE
ALLIANCE): Any grant propos^'~, official minutes, resolutions, written
agreements, and/or contracts related to the CMHC or FSC and its partners,
which have been formally approved by the CMHC, FSC and/or The Alliance,
shall be considered part of the written policies of said CMHC or FSC.
P. DISALLOWANCE: An action taken by the federal or state government which
denies or removes federal or state approval for specific expenditures or
activities made by the Family Services Collaborative and/or Children's Mental
Health Collaborative. Such action may result in the denial of matching federal
funding or loss of state funding for such expenditures or activities, including
retroactive denial of funds that have already been disbursed. A federal
disallowance has broad time limits and can occur months. or years after a LCTS
revenue enhancement claim has been submitted. In such cases, federal
reimbursement may have already been paid out and expended, and must be
refunded to the federal government by the State, and refunded by the Family
Services Collaborative and/or Children's Mental Health Collaborative and/or
one or more of its partners to the State when the disallowance is attributable to
a specific organization or organizations.
Q. GENERIC DISALLOWANCE: Federal action (disallowance) made across the
entire state, and not attributable to the actions of any specific organization,
Family Services Collaborative or Children's Mental Health Collaborative. In
such cases, the burden of repaying the federal government shall be pro-rated
across all agencies or entities participating in the disallowed claim.
R. AUDIT EXCEPTION: An action taken by the federal or state government that
finds that a reported expense or activity has not been properly documented or
recorded. In such cases, an audit exception can result in a reduction in the claim
for federal reimbursement and/or a disallowance.
II. DUTIES OF SUB-CONTRACTOR
A. It is understood and agreed that the Sub-Contractor shall act with the County and
others in providing administrative and/or case management services designed to help
families and children access health or health related services and/or provide
administrative and case management services for children at risk of foster care and
their families under Titles IV-E and XIX of the Social Security Act, and in carrying
out the functions of a Children's Mental Health Collaborative and/or a Family Services
Collaborative as contemplated in the LCTS Contract. The terms of said LCTS
Contract, as may be executed and entered into by the State and the County from time
to time, are, therefore, incorporated by reference herein, and this Sub-Contractor
Agreement shall be interpreted wherever possible to implement the terms of said
LCTS Contract.
Page 4 of 10
~. B. Participation in a Family Services Collaborative and/or Children's Mental Health
Collaborative:
• 1. The Sub-Contractor shall be a full participant in astate-approved Family Services
Collaborative and/or the state-approved Hennepin County Children's Mental
Health Collaborative that shall be a member of The Alliance. Participation in such
shall be documented by the Sub-Contractor's participation in a written
governance agreement, memorandum of understanding, or ajoint-powers
.agreement among the FSC's and/or CMHC's partners.
2. Sub-Contractor agrees to abide by the written policies of any Children's Mental
Health Collaborative and/or Family Services Collaborative in which it is a
participating member and by the written policies of The Alliance.
3. Sub-Contractor shall provide a written description to Contractor of its
participation in a Children's Mental Health Collaborative andlor a Family Services
Collaborative and that FSC's or CMHC's membership in The Alliance. Sub-
Contractor will also identify current or proposed staff who will provide services
within any FSC and/or CMHC and designate the appropriate representatives to
any FSC and/or CMHC.
4. Sub-Contractor shall provide a written description to Contractor of the target
population and outcome based indicators for all of Sub-Contractor's goals .within a
• FSC and/or CMHC. .
C. When Sub-Contractor serves as Fiscal Agent for Administering (disbursing or
spending) LCTS Revenues.
1. On behalf of the FSC and/or the CMHC of which it is a member, the Sub-Contractor
shall identify a plan or system for measuring a base level of expenditures from which
level any expansion of services will then be measured.
a. If Sub-Contractor participates in a Family Services Collaborative, the
proposed base shall be based upon educational, social, health or health-related
services to families and/or children consistent with Minn. Stat. Section
256F.13, Subd. 1, para. b, clause 3, for the period July 1, 1993 to June 30,
1994, or as otherwise specified by the State in the LCTS Contract.
b. If Sub-Contractor. participates in a Children's Mental Health Collaborative, the
proposed base shall be based on services for children with emotional or
behavioral disturbances consistent with Minn. Stat. Section 245.492 subd. 2,
and Minn. Stat. Section 245.4932, subd.l, para. 3, or as otherwise specified by
the State in the LCTS Contract, for the accounting period closest to the State
of Minnesota fiscal year 1993.
r~
U
Page 5 of 10
2. On behalf of the FSC and/or CMHC of which it is a member, the Sub-Contractor
agrees that it will not permit any decrease in expenditures which are base
expenditures except as permitted in Minn. Stat. Chapter 256, and shall provide a
written report to Contractor of any decrease or change in funding within thirty
days of final approval of such change.
a. Sub-Contractor agrees and understands that any change in funding related to
base expenditures may result in a loss of funding to a FSC, CMHC, the Sub-
contractor and the County. Time is of the essence in reporting any change in
base expenditures.
On behalf of the FSC and/or CMHC'of which it is a member, the Sub-Contractor
shall provide a written plan to Contractor for the expansion of services utilizing
all funds received from a FSC and/or CMHC through its participation in the
LCTS, including copies of all written contracts with outside vendors who will
provide services on behalf of the Sub-Contractor and the FSC and/or CHMC of
which Sub-Contractor is a member.
4. Sub-Contractor agrees that base expenditures and enhanced expenditures shall. be
measured and reported as specified by the County and/or State in accordance with
the terms of the LOTS Contract.
5. Sub-Contractor agrees that the County may withhold or deduct from any future
payment, a pro rata share of any generic disallowance imposed on the County by
the State or the Federal government. relating to this program, or any repayments
which are specifically attributable to the Sub-Contractor or any other members of
the Sub-Contractor's FSC and/or CMHC. In all other cases the County shall give
written notice of disallowance and payment shall be due from Sub-Contractor to
the County within thirty (30) days.
6. The Sub-Contractor shall provide written information, reports and data to the
County as needed to complete the FSC's and/or CMHC's reporting requirements
to the State under the LCTS Contract. Information, reports and data shall be
submitted to the County ten (10) days prior to final reporting requirement
imposed by the State in the LCTS Contract.
a. The Sub-Contractor shall designate a representative for any training
requirements imposed by the County and/or State of Minnesota under the
LCTS Contract, and permit required training of all personnel as required in the
LCTS Contract.
b. With regard to any reporting requirements herein, time is of the essence. The Sub-
contractor agrees and understands that the County is acting on behalf of the
Family Services Collaboratives and Children's Mental Health Collaborative in
Hennepin County and in reliance upon the Sub-Contractor's performance in
providing any information, reports or data. Failure to act in a timely manner will
Page 6 of 10
~ result in a loss of funding to the FSCs, CMHC, the Sub-Contractor, and the
County.
D. When Sub-Contractor serves as an Agent for Claiming (earning)'LCTS Revenues:
The Sub-Contractor shall provide written information, reports and data to the County
as needed to complete the FSC's and/or CMHC's reporting requirements to the State
of Minnesota under the LCTS Contract. Information, reports and. data shall be
submitted to the County ten (10) days prior to final reporting requirement imposed
by the State in the LCTS Contract. Late or amended cost reports received by the
County shall be added to subsequent claims for federal reimbursement, subject to
State approval, however, no reports will be considered more than one year past the
original due date.
a. The Sub-Contractor shall designate a representative for any training
requirements imposed by the State of Minnesota under the LCTS Contract,
and permit required training of all personnel as required in the LCTS Contract.
b. With regard to any reporting requirements herein, time is of the essence. The Sub-
contractor agrees and understands that the County is acting on behalf of the FSCs
and CMHC and in reliance upon the Sub-Contractor's performance in providing any.
information, reports or data. Failure to act in a timely manner will result in a loss of
funding to the FSCs, CMHC, the Sub-Contractor, and the County.
2. The Sub-Contractor agrees to report all expenditures according to.the accounting
system required by the State of MN in the LCTS Contract.
Sub-Contractor agrees that the County may withhold or deduct from any future
payment, a pro rata share of any generic disallowance imposed on the County by
the State or the Federal government relating to this program, or any repayments
which are attributable to the Sub-Contractor. In all other cases the County shall
give written notice of disallowance and payment shall be due from Sub-
contractor to the County within thirty (30) days.
IIL DUTIES OF THE COUNTY
A. The County shall act as over-all fiscal agent for the LOTS, The Alliance, and the
Children's Mental Health Collaborative and will receive and distribute, according to the
written policies of the Family Services Collaboratives and Children's Mental Health
Collaborative,. any quarterly reimbursements of LCTS funds made by the federal
government through the State of Minnesota. The County will maintain an integrated
fund from which disbursements are made according to any written policies of the FSCs
and CMHC.
• B. The County shall make all required reports to the State, FSCs and CMHC according to
the terms of the LCTS Contract. Sub-Contractor agrees and understands that the County
Page 7 of 10
must receive all data, reports and information (from the Sub-Contractor) in a timely
manner in order to comply with the reporting requirements of the LCTS Contract.
IV. ADDITIONAL~TERMS
A. Sub-Contractor agrees and understands that according to the terms of the LCTS
Contract, the State of Minnesota will withhold. a five percent (5%) administrative fee
from quarterly reimbursements, and that Hennepin County may also withhold up to a
five percent (5%) administrative fee from quarterly reimbursements to FSCs and
CMHCs (per the terms of the currently approved LCTS Financing Framework for
Collaboratives in Hennepin County). After the end of the County's fiscal year, the
County shall return any unused portion of the County's administrative fee and any
reimbursements of administrative fees withheld by the State.
B. Disallowances, Sanctions, and/or Audit Exceptions:
Sub-Contractor agrees and understands that the County may be liable to the State
of Minnesota for any disallowance, sanction, or audit exception attributable to a
FSC and/or CMHC or its individual members, including federal fiscal
disallowances or sanctions based upon the FSC's or CMHC's implementation of
the LCTS or a statewide random sample, or based upon a FSC and/or CMHC or its
individual members' failure to report any data or expenditures in a timely manner,
or failure to identify or report such expenditures according to the terms of the
LCTS Contract.
2. Sub-Contractor agrees to reimburse the County for any repayments the County
must make to the State of Minnesota which are attributable to the Sub-Contractor,
or are the Sub-Contractor's pro-rata share of any generic disallowance imposed on
the County by the State or Federal government relating to this program.
3. Sub-Contractor agrees that the County may withhold or deduct from any future
payment to the Sub-Contractor, the amount of the repayment due from the Sub-
Contraetor to the County. If such withholding is not available, the County shall
give written notice to the Sub-Contractor of disallowance and payment due, and
repayment shall be due from Sub-Contractor to the County within thirty (30) days.
4. Sub-Contractor agrees to assist in any fact-finding proceeding initiated by the
County, State, or Federal government pursuant to this program.
C. This Agreement shall be effective from the date of execution hereof and shall remain in
effect for seven years unless canceled according to the provisions herein.
D. This Agreement may be amended only by written agreement of the parties hereto. This
Agreement may be canceled upon thirty- (30) day's prior written notice by either party.
Page 8 of 10
E. The undersigned and all Sub-Contractors (and their principals):
1. Are not presently debarred; suspended; proposed for debarment, declared ineligible
or voluntarily excluded from. transacting business by or with any federal; state or
local governmental department or agency; and
2. Have not ~~ithin a three-year period preceding this Contract:
a. Been convicted of or had a civil judgement rendered against them for
commission of fraud or a criminal offense in connection with obtaining,
attempting to obtain or performing a public (federal, state or local)
transaction or contract;
b. Violated any federal or state antitrust statutes; or
c. Committed embezzlement, theft, forgery, bribery, falsification or
destruction of records, making false statements or receiving stolen
property;-and
3. Are not presently indicted or otherwise criminally or civilly charged by a
governmental entity for:
a. Commission of fraud or a criminal offense in connection with obtaining,
attempting to obtain or performing a public (federal, state or local)
transaction;
b. Violating any federal or state antitrust statutes; or
c. Committing embezzlement, theft, forgery, bribery, falsification or
destruction ofrecords, making false statements or receiving stolen property.
.~
Page 9 of 10
COUNTY BOARD APPROVAL
SUB-CONTRACTOR, having signed this contract, and the Hennepin County Board of
Commissioners having duly approved this contract on the day of , 2001, and pursuant to
such approval, the proper County officials having signed this contract,-the parties hereto agree to be
bound by the provisions herein set forth.
Approved as to legality, form,
and execution.
Assistant County Attorney
Date:
COUNTY OF HENNEPIN
STATE OF MINNESOTA
By:
Chair of Its County Board
And:
Associate/County Administrator
ATTEST:
Deputy/Clerk of County Board
SUB-CONTRACTOR
Entity Name: CitYof Richfield
By:
Samantha Orduno, City Manager
Print Date: October 19, 2001, (JH);
Revised Date: February 26, 1998, March 23, 1998, July 13, 2001, August 29, 2001, September 17, 2001,
October 10, 2001
Page 10 of 10
AGREEMENT FOR LCTS FISCAL AGENT SERVICES BETWEEN
RICHFIELD COMMUNITY COUNCIL AND THE CITY OF RICHFIELD
THIS AGREEMENT is made and entered into as of the 27th day of November, 2001 by and between
the City of Richfield, a Minnesota municipal corporation (City) and the Richfield Community Council,
an entity of the South Hennepin Family Services Collaborative (RCC).
The City and RCC hereby agree to work together to assure fiscal and program accountability for
Federal Revenue Enhancement Funds, also referred to as Local Collaborative Time Studies (LCTS).
The duties and responsibilities of the City and RCC are as follows:
The RCC under this agreement agrees to take the following measures:
A. Provision. of BASE-Level. expenditure reportsto the City-by all-required LCTS participants in
the Richfield Community Council of the South Hennepin Family Services Collaborative on a
calendar year basis with 1997 as the base year. The base level of expenditures shall by
based upon educational, social, health or health-related services to families and/or children
consistent with Minn. Stat. Section 256 F. 13, Subd. 1, para. b, clause 3, for the period July 1,
1993 to June 30, 1994 or as otherwise specified by the State in the Grant Agreement.
B. Provision of reports to the City that assures initial (1997) BASE-LEVEL expenditures are being
maintained by the RCC.
C. Provision of reports to the City that show if a higher level of spending above the BASE-LEVEL
year of 1997 is taking place.
D. Provision of all correspondence to the City pertaining to Revenue Enhancement funds. Such
correspondence would include Revenue Enhancement Spending Plans and written contracts
with outside vendors submitted to the County, Requests for Proposals, resolutions, written
agreements and/or contracts which have been approved by the RCC.
E. Provision to the City of measurable benchmarks that indicate progress in meeting goals
outlined by the RCC for Revenue Enhancement Funds.
F. Notification to the City of any action taken by the federal, state or county government which
denies or removes federal, state or county approval for specific expenditures or activities.
G. It will not permit any decrease in expenditures which are base expenditures except as
permitted in Minn. Stat. Chapter 256, and shall provide a written report to City of any decrease
or change in funding within 10 days of final approval of such change.
H. The RCC will-notify Hennepin County and the State of Minnesota Department of Human
Services to request an extension for Spending Revenue Enhancement Funds if the funds for
any calendar year-will not be spent within 24 months of receipt of funds.
The RCC will assure-that earnings from the Local Collaborative Time Study will not be
distributed back to collaborative partners according to who earned it.
The RCC will assure that Revenue Enhancement Funds will not be used to supplant other
revenues or funds out of home placements.
K. Any capital expenditures over $5,000_ will require approval by the State of Minnesota
Department of Human Services. The RCC can approve capital expenditures for equipment,
etc. up to $5,000. per item:-
L. The RCC will establish procedures to assure that payments to vendors are properly
authorized, approved and correct in amount.
The City under this agreement agrees to take the to take the following measures:
A. It will set up a separate fund for Revenue Enhancement transactions.
B. For all expenditures of Revenue Enhancement funds the City will require approval and
authorization by the RCC.
C. The City will set up line item budgets for each of the entities receiving funds as outlined in the
Revenue Enhancement Spending Plans.
D. For those entities receiving Revenue Enhancement funds that have internal fiscal controls as
part of their operations, the City will require semi-annual expenditure reports in such detail and
format as required from time to time.
E. For those entities receiving Revenue Enhancement funds that do not have internal fiscal
controls, the City will maintain the necessary ongoing accounting records to assure fiscal
accountability.
F. No Revenue Enhancement charges will be made by the City for services provided as fiscal
agent.
G. The City will keep track of Revenue Enhancement Funds received in each calendar year and
will notify the RCC in advance if it appears that funds for any calendar year will not be spent
within 24 months of the receipt of funds.
H. The Revenue Enhancement Funds received by the City will be receipted and managed as
public revenue.
III. For the services described in the foregoing Section I and II above,. the City and RCC agree to
accept the following:
A. This agreement may be amended only by written consent of both parties.
B. This agreement is effective from the date of execution until either party withdraws upon 60
days of written notice.
CITY OF RICHFIELD
City Manager
RICHFIELD COMMUNITY COUNCIL
Chair
Date
Date
Fiaw~pin Soutli Se~vioes
HSSC PARTNERSHIP AGREEMENT
Our AAission
.The mission of Hennepin South Services Collaborative is to:
^ Provide research & planning to idenfify emerging needs & gaps in human services
^ Coordinate existing services & develop potential resources to facilitate solutions
We Are Committed To:
• Increasing family & individual driven access to services & supports
• Improving coordination & integration of all appropriate services & supports for families
or individuals.
• Providing the services & supports identified by the. community
• Offering culturally relevant & responsive services & supports
• .Being accessible & responding early when people reach out for services or support
• Working in partnership with families to maintain & strengthen their informal supports
(e.g., family, friends, support groups, peers, clergy...)
• Making sure .there is no wrong door for a family or individual so that no .matter where
.people turn f first for support they will connect with the help they need
Approved 13 September 2001
Purpose of the Partnership Agreement
The HSSC Partnership Agreement is an .interagency agreement among providers of
services & other supports for families & individuals. Together we agree. on collaborative
practices & strategies that help us to realize our mission & support our values, including:
• Focusing on families' & individuals' strengths, needs & goals when offering services
• Working together to identify & address emerging community needs, gaps in services &
barriers to support
• Participating on HSSC Coordination Teams to facilitate solutions & coordinate
responses to human service issues & concerns
• Working with & contributing to FamiLink Resource Center
• Participating. on Support Teams
• Participating in collaborative intake & data sharing as needed
• Participating in collaborative education opportunities.
• Developing practices for identifying & responding to family & individual concerns early
• Helping maintain & strengthen families' & individuals' informal supports
• Providing culturally responsive services
The HSSC Partnership Agreement offers a continuum of choices for those wanting to
become part of Hennepin South Services Collaborative. Organizations & practitioners
choose their level of commitment or involvement. There are a variety of ways to participate
& contribute. Together everyone benefits from working as partners to make a difference
for South Hennepin's families & communities.
H55C 'Partners
Hennepin South Services Collaborative Partners signing the Partnership Agreement include:
^ South Hennepin schools ^
^ South Hennepin municipalities ^
• Public Health •
^ Hennepin County •
Community Action for Suburban Hennepin
Private health & human services providers
South Hennepin businesses
Community organizations serving families & children
Together all these partners create Hennepin South Services Collaborative.
Draft August 1, 2001 2
City of Richfield Agrees to the Following:
(Name of Organization or Individua/Provider)
This section of the agreement specifies practices & strategies participating organizations will
commit to as partners of Hennepin South Services Collaborative in order to best attain the
mission & values of HSSC. There are genera/ areas of commitment or activity for all HSSC
Partners:
A. HSSC Coordination Teams
B. Support Team process
C. Collaborative intake & data sharing processes (as needed & appropriate)
D. Collaborative education
E. Collaboratively identifying & addressing gaps in services & supports
Partners will participate in each of these basic areas in varying degrees according to the
availability of opportunities &/or the capacity of each partner.
In addition to these basic commitments, HSSC Partners can consider more specific areas of
activity or involvement to help HSSC attain its vision. These options/ areas of commitment
include:
A. Facilitation of Support Teams
B. Contribution of staffing & other resources to FamiLink Resource Center
C. Contributions of inkind resources to Hennepin South Services Collaborative
D: Recruitment of new .HSSC Partners
P/ease see the accompanying description detai/ing each area of commitment.
I. Indemnification
< This section primarily refers to the responsibility that organizations or practitioners
acknowledge & accept for their roles in data sharing &/or stoffing the FamiLink Resource
Center
The undersigned organization or practitioner understands & agrees that it is responsible for
all claims,. judgments, awards or costs against itself that are the result of the undersigned
organization's negligence or intentional misconduct in connection with the activities to be
carried out under this Partnership Agreement. The undersigned organization further agrees
to hold harmless, defend & indemnify Hennepin South Services Collaborative & its members
against all such claims, damages, judgments, awards or costs that are the result of the
undersigned organization's negligence or intentional misconduct related to the activities to
be carried out under this Partnership Agreement.
Draft August 1, 2001 3
II. Conflict Resolution
If the involved partners are not able to resolve an issue in dispute between the involved
agencies, the issue shall be referred to the Executive Director of Hennepin South Services
Collaborative for assistance in mediating the issue. If the issue is still not resolved, the
issue will be referred to the Hennepin South Services Collaborative Board, which will propose
solutions to the conflict. Each County Board, Agency Board, City Council, & School District
Board will remain ultimately responsible for the manner in which its agency operates,
notwithstanding matters of dispute.
III. Evaluation of the HSSC Partnership Agreement
The Directors, or designated representatives, of all partners will on a regular basis, not less
than once every two years, meet to review the coordination of efforts being performed & to
discuss issues related to the implementation of this Partnership Agreement. HSSC Partners
will make recommendations to the HSSC. Board regarding any necessary amendments to the
Partnership Agreement.
The HSSC Board will evaluate the outcomes & effectiveness of this Partnership Agreement
biannually & will consider recommendations for amendments.
IV. Modification of this Partnership Agreement
Modification of this Partnership Agreement will be made only by the consent of the HSSC
Board & the undersigned. Proposed modifications will be made in writing & signed by the
HSSC, or its designee, & the undersigned.
V. °i'erm of the Partnership Agreement
This agreement is effective as of the date specified on the signature page until either party
withdraws upon 60 days written notice. Any commitments recorded in Attachment A will be
updated &/or renewed January 1St of each year thereafter.
Oroft August 1, 2001 4
Signature
Participation in the HSSC Partnership Agreement is .entered into by
City of Richfield
(Organization or Individual Provider Name Here)
& Hennepin South Services Collaborative
Reviewed & approved by:
(Signature of Authorized Person of Partner Organization)
Print Name: Samantha Orduno, City Manager
Address: City of Richfield
6700 Portland Avenue South
Richfield Minnesota 55423
•
•
Phone: 612-861-9705 Fax:612-861-9749 E-Mail: Sorduno(c~,ci.richfield.mn.us
Contact Person(s): _Kathy Farris, 612-861-9754, Kfarris(n,ci.richfield.mn.us
Hennepin South Services Collaborative
HSSC Executive Director
HSSC Contact Information:
Hennepin South Services Collaborative
5701 Normandale Road, Room 302
Edina, MN 55424
Phone: 952-922-5999
wwwshfsc.org
Fax: 952-922-3081
Draft
August 1, 2001 5
FlennepOn S~~ Servioas
HSSC PARTNERSHIP AGREEMENT
ATTACHMENT A
Summary of Inkind Contributions
(Optional Areas of Commitment)
Inkind Support & Resources Year Year
Estimated $ Estimated $
Value - Value -
Optional Optional
Contributions to HSSC:
• Facilitation of Support Teams
Number of Support Teams willing to facilitate in one year
• Staffing for FamiLink Resource Center
Number of staff/volunteers contributed to serve at
FamiLink Resource Center
Hours of staffing per week contributed -
Willing to sponsor or recruit volunteers
• Recruitment of HSSC Partners
Number of HSSC Partners willing to recruit in one year
• Additional Contributions
(Please list)
Participation by the Human Services Planner/Coordinator, other City
staff or City Commissioners as appropriate on those HSSC
Coordination Teams addressing issues of relevance to the City.
Participation by the Human Services Planner/Coordinator, the
RCHSPC, and other City Staff or Commissioners as relevant to help
identify & collaboratively address gaps in services, primarily through the
HSSC bi-annual strategic planning process.
As appropriate, HRA Staff to provide training for Resource Center and
Collaborative Partners staff on Section 8 and other housing
issues/resources.
TOTAL INKIND CONTRIBUTIONS TO HSSC
Signature:
Date:
Approved 13 September 2001
ATTACHMENT B
DESCRIPTIONS OF AREAS OF COMMITMENT
I. GENERAL AREAS OF COMMITMENT
A. Commitment to HSSC Coordination Teams
HSSC Coordination Teams develop in response to the emerging needs & gaps in services
identified. through. HSSC's biannual strategic. work plan process. Some Coordination
Teams may also meet to .fulfill the vision for a family services collaborative or to
explore funding opportunities. HSSC Partners, community members & others with
connections to those issues form Coordination Teams to focus on facilitating solutions.
Each Coordination Team determines objectives & outcomes to realize together through
coordinating existing services & developing potential resources in response to a human
service issue or concern.
1. Participate on those HSSC Coordination Teams addressing issues of relevance to you
or your organization.
B. Commitment to Support Team Process
Support Teams are action-oriented circles of support that individuals or families build
around themselves to help them move in the direction they want to go with their lives.
1. Determine if a family/individual wants to participate in the Support Team process.
Work with the Support Team Coach &/or FamiLink Resource Center to initiate this
approach.
2. .Participate on Support Teams for appropriately identified families or individuals
for whom services & other supports are coordinated by other providers of HSSC.
3. Integrate practices to work in partnership with families & individuals to maintain &
strengthen their informal supports.
Approved 13 September 2001
C. Commitment to Collaborative- Intake & Data Sharing Processes
HSSC's Shared Intake Database makes- common intake possible among the Famil.ink
Resource Center &HSSC Partners. HSSC's database allows partners to communicate more
effectively with each other, coordinate resources & services, & electronically share
information nt a person's request. HSSC will provide training & support to those partners
that choose to connect with HSSC's database.
1. Participate in the shared intake & data sharing processes as needed & as developed for
HSSC.
2. When asked by a family or individual, & as needed to facilitate coordinating services &
other supports, share appropriate information with agreed upon parties, with
appropriate release of information forms.
3. Comply with data privacy laws pertinent to your organization & other. applicable
provisions of the Minnesota Government Dnta Practices Act, Chapter 13 of the
Minnesota Statutes.
D. Commitment to Collaborative Education
Providers, agencies & organizations who become n part of HSSC are. invited to participate
in collaborative education. opportunities related to achieving the goals & vision of HSSC..
Training is geared to help HSSC Partners creatively identify & maximize those strategies
that lead to an environment where collaborative, strength-based practices can take place.
Learning opportunities will emphasize the unique aspects of the family support approach &
how to incorporate those into an already existing array of skills that- any practitioner
brings to the job. Other collaborative education will emerge to respond to needs
identified through HSSC Coordination Teams &HSSC Partners.
E. Commitment to Help Identify & Collaboratively Address Gaps in Services
Participate in identifying service & support gaps (needed services or supports which are
unavailable or inaccessible) & work with other HSSC Partners to collaboratively address
those gaps.
Approved 13 September 2001
II. OPTIONAL AREAS OF COMMITMENT
HSSCPartners shoo/d reflect these additions/commitments or contributions on
Attachment A to the HSSCPartnership Agreement.
A. Commitment. to fncilitnte Support Teams
The facilitator of the Support Team process is a guide chosen by the individual or family
to coordinate the team & maintain the clarity of the process. This person may be a friend,
relative, mentor, spiritual director, human services :professional, etc.. A facilitator's
primary responsibility is to facilitate team meetings to ensure the key aspects of the
Support Team process are achieved.
HSSC urges providers to consider facilitating when a family or individual- requests you to
serve this role on a Support Team. Please note that you will only be asked to facilitate
when you are already or will be working with that family or individual.
Persons able to facilitate have attended a Support Team Facilitator Workshop or are
willing to participate in Support Team coaching.
1. Ensure coordinated services for a number of families or individuals by facilitating
Support Teams.
2. On Attachment A, please indicate the specific number of Support Teams you or your
agency is willing to facilitate in one year.
B. Commitment to Contribute Staffing & Other Resources to FamiLink Resource
Center
i. Contribute staff &/or volunteers for 4 or more hours each a week to work at the
FamiLink Resource Center.
2. On Attachment A, please indicate the specific number of staff &/or volunteers &
the number of staffing hours each week that you or your agency is willing to
contribute for one year.
3. Contribute additional inkind resources & support that you or your organization may
choose to provide to the FamiLink Resource Center. Examples include:
^ outreach & marketing
^ reference materials
^ clerical support
•
Approved 13 September 2001
4. Please specify any of these or other additional contributions your organization is
able to provide to the FamiLink Resource Center for a year on Attachment A.
C. Commitment to Contribute Inkind Resources to HSSC
1. Contribute additional inkind resources & support to HSSC's regional, collaborative
efforts. Examples include:
^ office or appointment space for Community Consultants
^ language translation &/or interpretation
^ staff to provide training for collaborative education opportunities
^ staff to provide fund raising or grant writing services
^ consultation
^ screening &/or training of community volunteers
^ meeting space
^ off ice equipment & supplies
^ child care for meetings & trainings
2. Please list any regional contributions you wish to make to HSSC on Attachment A.
®. Commitment to Recruit New HSSC Partners
Z. Contact & meet with other provider organizations & practitioners to encourage
them to sign the HSSC Partnership Agreement.
2. Suggest other providers & practitioners to participate on HSSC Coordination
Teams.
3. On Attachment A, please indicate the number of HSSC Partners which you or your
agency will recruit in one year.
Approved 13 September 2001
•
AGENDA SECTION:
AGENDA ITEM #
REPORT #
STAFF REPORT
CITY COUNCIL. MEETING
NOVEMBER 13, 2001
Public Hearing
284
REPORT PREPARED BY:
REPORT PRESENTER:
DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR REVIEW:
REVIEWED BY CITY MANAGER:
BRUCE. SYLVESTER,
PLANNING & ZONING ADMINISTRATOR
NAME, TITLE
BRUCE PALMBORG,
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR
ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION:
Public hearing and second reading of an ordinance amendment to Richfield City Zoning Code
Section 536.17, Subdivision 3; Section 536.19, Subdivision 1; and Section 546.07, Subdivision
4 to conform with newly adopted Minnesota Statute 462.357.
I. RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Conduct and close the public hearing and by motion: Approve
second reading of the attached ordinance amendment to Richfield
City Zoning Code Section 536.17, Subdivision 3; Section 536.19,
Subdivision 1; and Section 546.07, Subdivision 4 to conform with
newly ado
Minnesota Statute 462.357.
I. BACKGROUND
During the 2001 legislative session, the State of Minnesota amended state statutes
regarding the procedures municipalities must follow when approving a rezoning.
Specifically, Minnesota State Statute section 462.357 has been amended to permit
local governing bodies (City Councils) to approve zoning changes in some cases by
a simple majority rather than requiring atwo-thirds vote. The revised state statutes
do still require an affirmative vote by two-thirds of the City Council for any rezoning
which "changes all or part of the existing classification of a zoning district from
11130rdinanceUpdate.doc
~~ NAME, TITLE
residential to either commercial or industrial..."
In essence, the state has made it easier for City Councils to approve zoning
changes that do not rezone to commercial or industrial uses, while still requiring a
`super majority' vote for rezonings that allow these uses.
Section 536.17, Subdivision 3 and Section 546.07, Subdivision 4 specify city
requirements for approving Planned Unit Developments (PUDs) and. rezonings.
Section 536.19, Subdivision 1 specifies city- requirements for approving Final
Development Plans (FDP) and Conditional Use Permits (CUP) fora PUD. While
the new state statute applies only to rezoning cases (and therefore only to
Richfield's City Codes 536.17 and 546.07), Richfield's City Attorney and Community
Development staff recommend that the requirements for approving a FDP and CUP
(city code 536.19) be consistent with the requirements for approving the PUD. The
attached ordinance amendment reflects this recommendation.
II. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION
A. POLICY
• Richfield's Zoning Codes must be in compliance with state statutes.
By adopting the recommended city code. revisions, Richfield Zoning
Code will include the same requirements for approving zoning
changes as state statues.
B. CRITICAL ISSUES
• Two sections of Richfield's Zoning Ordinance need to be revised to
conform with the new state statutes. Section 536..17, Subdivision 3
addresses City Council consideration of rezonings for Planned Unit
Developments, while Section 546.07, Subdivision 4 addresses City
Council consideration for all other rezonings. Lastly, Section 536.19,
Subdivision 1 addresses requirements for approving a Final
Development Plan and Conditional Use Permit for a Planned Unit
Development project, after the PUD has been approved. Two of these
sections must be amended to conform .with the new state statutes and
the third would provide consistency among the related sections and be
consistent with each other.
C. FINANCIAL
N/A
D. LEGAL
• Richfield's City Attorney has reviewed and approved the attached
zoning ordinance amendment.
• The Planning Commission reviewed this proposed amendment to the
zoning ordinance and recommended approval at its September 25,
2001 meeting.
The City Council conducted a first reading of this proposed ordinance
amendment at its October 8, 2001 meeting.
Legal notice was published in the Sun Current on October 31, 2001.
III. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION~S~
• Reject the recommendation to amend Richfield City Zoning Code Sections
536.17 Subdivision 3; 536.19 Subdivision 1; and 546.07, Subdivision 4 to
conform with newly adopted state statutes.
IV. ATTACHMENTS
• Ordinance amendment
V. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING
• N/A
BILL NO.
AMENDMENT TO RICHFIELD CITY ZONING CODE
SECTIONS 536.17, SUBDIVISION 3;.
536.19, SUBDIVISION 1; AND
546.07, SUBDIVISION 4.
THE CITY OF RICHFIELD DOES ORDAIN:
1. Section 536.17, Subdivision 3 of the zoning code of the City of Richfield is
amended to read as follows:
536.17. Review of PUD application.
Subdivision 3. Council consideration. Following action by the Planning
Commission, the Council shall hold a public hearing and consider rezoning
the area described in the plan. Votes required for approval of the rezoning
shall follow those requirements as outlined in Section 546.07, Subdivision 4
of this zoning code. If the PUD plan is approved, the area shall be rezoned
as one of the six types of PUD districts.-
2. Section 536.19, Subdivision 1 of the zoning code of the City of Richfield is
amended to read as follows:
536.19. Final development plan and conditional use permit.
Subdivision 1. Upon approval of the PUD application and rezoning, but prior to the
commencement of any construction or development of land, an applicant shall
submit a final development plan, together with an application for a conditional use
permit for the development shown in the final development plan, which is consistent
-with the PUD application.
~.~yr~pd,,;~ ~+ fi~,~ +hirrJe..,~ The voting requirements for
approval of the Final Development Plan and Conditional Use Permit are the same
as those set forth at Subsection 546.07, Subdivision 4.
3. Section 546.07, Subdivision 4 of the zoning code of the City of Richfield is
Amended to read as follows:
546.07. Zoning amendments.
Subdivision 4. City Council consideration. After receipt of the
recommendation of the Planning Commission, the Council shall consider the
matter at a first reading. The Council may offer whatever public notice of its
first reading review that it deems necessary. If the application is approved
for first reading, the Council shall set a date for a second reading and public
hearing. Not less than 10 days prior to the public hearing, notice shall be
• published once in the official newspaper. Notice regarding an amendment
which involves a change in the boundaries of a zoning district shall also be
sent by mail to the applicant and all the owners of properties located wholly
or partially within 350 feet. The Council shall act upon the amendment within
60 days of submission of a completed application unless written notice of an
extension is provided to the applicant. The notification must state the
reasons for the extension and its anticipated length, which may not exceed
60 days unless approved by the applicant. If the Council fails to make a
timely decision, the amendment shall be deemed to have been approved.
The Council may adopt an amendment to this code eta} upon an affirmative
vote of a majority of all its members. The adoption or amendment of any
portion of a zoning ordinance which changes all or part of the existing
classification of a zoning district from residential to either commercial or
industrial requires a af-least two-thirds majority vote of all members of the
Council. °f i+~ f'~~II .,•,e,~v,4.orc.hir,.
•
Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this .13th day of
November, 2001.
Martin J. Kirsch, Mayor
ATTEST:
Nancy Gibbs, City Clerk.
•
•
AGENDA SECTION:. Consent
AGENDA ITEM # 4L
REPORT # 283
STAFF REPORT
CITY COUNCIL MEETING
NOVEMBER 13, 2001
REPORT PREPARED BY: BETSY CxRISTENSEN, SUPPORT SERVICES
DIVISION MANAGER
NAME, TITLE
REPORT PRESENTER: DAN SCOTT, DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC SAFETY
NAME, TITLE
DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR REVIEW:
REVIEWED BY CITY MANAGER:
ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION:
Consideration of a request for a new residential kennel license for Linda Kollman, 6430 Logan
Avenue South.
I. RECOMMENDED ACTION:
By Motion: Approve the request for a new residential kennel license
for Linda Kollman, 6430 Lo an Avenue South.
II. BACKGROUND
On September 20, 2001, Linda Kollman submitted an application for a new
residential kennel license. She owns four cats. Ms. Kollman's application contains
the signatures of contiguous property owners.
A Community Service Officer conducted an inspection of the property on October 9,
2001. There were no apparent problems found at that time. The applicant
requested that it be noted that her cats are not left outside overnight, and they are
kept inside her home while she is at work.
The Environmental Health Division received one complaint for this address in the
past year. The complaint was regarding trash cans and recycling sitting out. There
1113 Kollman Residential Kennel
have been no animal related complaints received regarding this property in the past
year.
Police received no calls to this address in the past year.
III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION
A. POLICY
• The City has adopted a policy that staff is to notify neighbors
surrounding the area of the residential kennel license. Staff has not
received any calls regarding this application.
• Although this application is for four cats, it does not exceed the
maximum number of six that was approved by the Council as policy
on July 22, 1991
B. CRITICAL ISSUES
• N/A
C. FINANCIAL
• N/A
D. LEGAL
• N/A
IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION(S~
• Deny the request for the issuance of a new residential kennel license for
Linda Kollman; however, the Public Safety Department has not found any
basis for a denial.
V. ATTACHMENTS
• None
VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING
• Linda Kollman
•
AGENDA SECTION: Consent
AGENDA ITEM # 4K
REPORT # 2 $ 2
STAFF REPORT
CITY COUNCIL MEETING
NOVEMBER 13, 2001
REPORT PREPARED BY: BETSY CHRISTENSEN, ADMINISTRATIVE
SUPPORT SERVICES MANAGER
NAME, T/TLE
REPORT PRESENTER: DAN SCOTT, DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC SAFETY
NAME, TITLE
DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR REVIEW:
SIGNATURE
REVIEWED BY CITY MANAGER: `~ ~2~~P,. ~t
ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION:
Consideration of the renewal of pawnbroker and secondhand goods dealer licenses for 2002
for Metro Pawn and Gun, Inc. and Ca ital Cash, LLC d/b/a H 's Pawn.
I. RECOMMENDED ACTION:
By Motion: Approve a public hearing to be held on December 10,
2001, for the renewal of pawnbroker and secondhand- goods dealer
licenses for 2002 for Metro Pawn and Gun, Inc. and Capital Cash, LLC
d/b/a Hy's Pawn.
II. BACKGROUND
The pawnbroker and secondhand goods dealer licenses will expire on January 1,
2002.
Hearings must be .scheduled and held before a renewal license may be considered.
L'
The renewal process has been initiated.
Holding the public hearing on December 10, 2001 will provide ample time to
complete the licensing process before January 1, 2002.
1113 Set PH Pawn Broker Licenses
III. BASIS OF .RECOMMENDATION
A. POLICY
• City ordinance provides. that the City Council conducts a public
hearing to consider all pawnbroker and secondhand goods dealer
license renewals.
B. CRITICAL ISSUES
• N/A
C. FINANCIAL
• N/A
D. LEGAL
• N/A
IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION(S~
• Schedule the hearing for another date; however, this may delay the licensing
process.
V. ATTACHMENTS
• None
VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING
• None
•
AGENDA SECTION: Consent
AGENDA ITEM # 4J
REPORT # 2 81
J STAFF REPORT
CITY COUNCIL MEETING
NOVEMBER 13, 2001
•
REPORT PREPARED BY: BETSY CxxISTENSEN, ADMINISTRATIVE
SUPPORT SERVICES MANAGER
NAME, TITLE
REPORT PRESENTER: DAN SCOTT, DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC SAFETY
NAME, TITLE
DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR REVIEW:
SIGNATURE
REVIEWED BY CITY MANAGER: ~~
r~ :~~~
ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION:
Consideration of the renewal of on-sale intoxicating and Sunday liquor licenses for 2002 for
the following establishments: Chi Chi's Mexican Restaurant; The Ground Round; Khan's
Mongolian Barbeque; Minneapolis-Richfield American Legion Post 435; Fred Babcock VFW
Post No. 5555, d/b/a Four Nickels Food and Drink; Don Pablo's Operating Corporation, d/b/a
Don Pablo's; Champps Operating Corporation, dba Champps Sports Cafe; and Wiltshire
Restaurants. LLC, dba Houlihan's Restaurant & Bar.
I. RECOMMENDED ACTION:
By Motion: Approve a public hearing to be held December 10, 2001,
for the renewal of on-sale intoxicating and Sunday liquor licenses for
2002 for: Chi Chi's Mexican Restaurant; The Ground Round; Khan's
Mongolian Barbeque; Minneapolis-Richfield American Legion Post
435; Fred Babcock VFW Post No. 5555, d/b/a Four Nickels Food and
Drink; Don Pablo's Operating Corporation, d/b/a Don Pablo's;
Champps Operating Corporation, d/b/a Champps Sports Cafe; and
Wiltshire Restaurants, LLC d/b/a Houlihan's Restaurant & Bar.
11121ntoxicating and Sunday Liquor
II. BACKGROUND
The on-sale liquor licenses for restaurant establishments will expire on January 1,
2002.
Hearings must be scheduled and held before a renewal license may be considered.
The renewal process has been initiated.
Holding the public hearing on December 10, 2001 will provide ample time to
complete the licensing process before January 1, 2002.
III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION
A. POLICY
• City ordinance provides that the City Council conducts a public
hearing to consider all liquor license renewals.
B. CRITICAL ISSUES
• N/A
C. FINANCIAL
• N/A
D. LEGAL
• N/A
IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION(S~
• Schedule the hearing for another date; however, this may delay the licensing
process.
V. ATTACHMENTS
• None
VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING
• None
•
AGENDA SECTION: Consent
AGENDA ITEM # 41
REPORT # _28O
J STAFF REPORT
CITY COUNCIL MEETING
•
NOVEMBER 13, 2001
REPORT PREPARED BY: BETSY CxRISTENSEN, ADMINISTRATIVE
SUPPORT SERVICES MANAGER.
NAME, TITLE
REPORT PRESENTER: DAN SCOTT, DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC SAFETY
NAME, TITLE
DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR REVIEW:
Lo
S/GNATURE
REVIEWED BY CITY MANAGER:
ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION:
Consideration of the renewal of on-sale wine and on-sale 3.2 percent malt liquor licenses for
2002 for Red Pepper Chinese Restaurant, Ketsana's Thai Restaurant and Thompson's
Fireside Pizza.
I. RECOMMENDED ACTION:
By Motion: Approve a public hearing to be held December 10, 2001,
for the renewal of on-sale wine and on-sale 3.2 percent malt liquor
licenses for 2002 for Red Pepper Chinese Restaurant, Ketsana's Thai
Restaurant and Thompson's Fireside Pizza.
II. BACKGROUND
The on-sale wine and on-sale 3.2 percent malt liquor licenses for restaurant
establishments will expire on January 1, 2002.
Hearings must be scheduled and held before a renewal license may be considered.
C:
The renewal process has been initiated.
Holding the public hearing on December 10, 2001 will provide ample time to
complete,the licensing process before January 1, 2002.
1113 Set PH Renewal Wine & Liquor Licenses
III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION
A. POLICY
• City ordinance provides that the City Council conducts a public
hearing to consider all on-sale wine and on-sale 3.2 percent malt
liquor license renewals.
B. CRITICAL ISSUES
• N/A
C. FINANCIAL
• N/A
D. LEGAL
• N/A
IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION(S~
• Schedule the hearing for another date; however, this may delay the licensing
process.
V. ATTACHMENTS
• None
VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING
• None
•
AGENDA SECTION:
AGENDA ITEM #
REPORT #
~~ STAFF REPORT
CITY COUNCIL MEETING
•
NOVEMBER 13, 2001
Consent
4H
279
REPORT PREPARED BY: BETSY CxRISTENSEN, SUPPORT SERVICES
DIVISION MANAGER
NAME, -TITLE
REPORT PRESENTER: DAN SCOTT, DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC SAFETY
NAME, TITLE
DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR REVIEW:
~h J~~
SIGNATURE
REVIEWED BY CITY MANAGER:
~.
ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION:
Consideration of the issuance of new on-sale intoxicating and Sunday liquor licenses for 2002
for The Frenchman's, 1400 East 66th Street.
I. RECOMMENDED ACTION:
By Motion: Approve a public hearing to be held December 10, 2001,
for the issuance of new on-sale intoxicating and Sunday liquor
licenses for The Frenchman's, 1400 East 66th Street.
II. BACKGROUND
An application for new on-sale and Sunday liquor licenses for The Frenchman's was
received by the City on September 14, 2001.
III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION
A. POLICY
• City ordinance provides that the City Council conducts a public
hearing to consider all on-sale intoxicating and Sunday liquor license
applications and that a date be set for the public hearing prior to the
hearing.
1113Set PH FrenchmanNewLiquorLicense
• The Hearing must be scheduled and held before a new license may
• be considered.
• The new process has been initiated.
• Holding the public hearing on December 10, 2001 will provide ample
time to complete the licensing process.
B. CRITICAL ISSUES
• N/A
C. FINANCIAL
• N/A
D. LEGAL
• N/A
IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION(S~
• Reject the application for new on-sale intoxicating and Sunday liquor licenses
for The Frenchman's.
• Schedule the hearing for another date; however, this may delay the licensing
process.
. V. ATTACHMENTS
• None
VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING
• None
AGENDA SECTION: Consent
AGENDA ITEM # 4G
. REPORT # 2 7 8
STAFF REPORT
CITY COUNCIL MEETING
NOVEMBER 13, 2001
REPORT PREPARED BY: RICHARD REGNIER, BUILDING OFFICIAL
NAME, TITLE
REPORT PRESENTER: DAN SCOTT, DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC SAFETY
NAME, TITLE
DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR REVIEW:
SIGNATURE
REVIEWED BY CITY MANAGER: ~ ~„,. /~
ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION:
Consideration of a request for the approval of an agreement with AMI Imaging Systems, Inc.,
to provide scanning services to the City of Richfield's Inspection Division to facilitate the
coavinp of Citv gropertv files.
I. RECOMMENDED ACTION:
By Motion: Approve the attached agreement with AMI Imaging
Systems Inc., to provide scanning services to the City of Richfield's
Insaection Division to facilitate the copying of City property files.
II. BACKGROUND
The City of Richfield's Inspection Division maintains property files for each individual
property within the City. Some of the documents found in these files include;
permits issued prior to 1994, survey certificates, plans, and valuable historical
information. The accumulation of this paperwork has become cumbersome creating
a lack of available space.
Staff believes that by converting these manual files into computer files, the obstacle
of the lack of available space and the possible deterioration or damage to property
file documents would be eliminated.
1113 AMI Scanning Agreement
In addition, scanning these property files could be beneficial to the residents of the
City of Richfield and to the general public. It is possible that the valuable
information contained in these files could be more easily accessible to others using
a computer in the Public Safety lobby.
The Inspections Division consulted two separate documentation service companies
for quotes on scanning services. Of the two consulted, AMI Imaging Systems, Inc.,
was able to offer the most time efficient and cost effective proposal. This proposal
includes the document preparation, the conversion of approximately 11,000
property files, and the electronic clean up.
The City's IT Division has been contacted regarding the feasibility of this scanning
project with the current system. It appears that there should be no problems with
this type of conversion.
III. BASIS OF RECONIMENDATION
A. POLICY
• It is consistent with City policy-for Council's approval of an estimate of
$27,392.
B. CRITICAL ISSUES
• Scanning the City of Richfield's property files would free up about 100
square feet of office space.
• Property information could be more readily available to residents of
the City..
• C. FINANCIAL
• The estimated investment would be approximately $27,392. This
estimate includes document preparation, scanning and electronic
clean up of 11,000 property files into TIFF format.
• The revised 2001 budget included $21,000 for this project. The
additional $6000 will come from a new Building Inspector position in
the 2001 budget that will not be filled because of the delay of the City
Bella project.
D. LEGAL
• N/A
ALTERNATIVE 1ZECONIlVIENDATION(S) ~
• Deny the request by the City of Richfield's Inspection Division for an
agreement with AMI Imaging Systems, Inc. to provide scanning services of
the City's property files. This would result in the property files not being
scanned, the continued accumulation of paper and the difficulty with lack of
available space.
V. ATTACI-IMENTS
s, Inc. Digital Document Conversion Services Proposal.
VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING
• None
r~
/~1~
AMI Imaging Systems, Inc
document and image
management providor:
Digital Document Conversion Services
Proposal Exclusively Prepared For:
Julie Bokusky
City of Richfield
9700 Portland Ave. S. Richfield, MN 55423
Project Assumptions and Estimated Volumes:
- This is a document conversion project [o convert 11,000 property permits, documents, and maps to TIFF format.
- There will be two index fields used, including: Address and PID number. PID number will be auto indexed.
- Green documents require special prepazation and will be scanned separately. All documents must have staples removed before scanning.
- Documents will be scanned at a resolution of 200 DPI, unless otherwise noted, and will include image enhancement services.
- Image files will be delivered via CD-ROM, with CDRequest software, and will include a backup CD for off-site storage.
- Maps will be unfolded and scanned using a different scanner. Maps will need to be merged back electronically with each address.
-The city will supply a text delimited index of address and PID number.
- AMI will give an export table for importing into a GIS system.
Rates for Digital Conversion to CD QTY Rate
Project Setup Fee $ 300.00 /Setup
Scanning Fee Estimated pages to be scanned: 200,000 0.080 /Image
Indexing Fee Estimated number of index keystrokes: 300,000 0.010 /Keystroke
Auto Index Fee Estimated number of fields Auto Indexed: 11,000 0.020 /Field
Large Format Scans Estimated number of large format maps: 1,000 1.210 /Page
• Master CD Estimated number of CDs Required: 13 19.80 / CD
Duplicate CD Estimated number of duplicate CDs: 13 14.85 / CD
Estimated Investment : $27,392.45
(This is only an estimate. Price is determined on actual document images converted and total
keystrokes needed for indexing, as well as, any additional services cempleted under this agreement.)
Special Notes and Information:
All projects are subject to a one time setup fee.
Pick-up and delivery aze chazged at courier service's rate or may be provided by city staff.
We have included 266 hours of document prepazation in the quote. Document preparation is billed at $22.00 per hour.
We have included 8 hours of electronic clean-up in the quote. Clean-up is billed at $45.00 per hour in 15 minute increments.
Document preparation and clean-up time is just an estimate. The total cost of the job may be higher or lower depending on actual time needed.
Approved by: City of Richfield
Date
Document volumes based on customer information, actual billing will be done on a per item basis. Scanning rate is dependant upon the overall quality of the documents provided to AMI. Sample documents
must be provided and test scans made to determine the quality of the documents and to se[ final pricing. AMI reserves the right to make price adjustments should there be a change in the quality of the documents
provided from those used in the pricing test scans. Charges will apply for all services provided under this proposal. MATERIALS PROVIDED MUST BE COPYRIGHT FREE and AMI must be notified of any
other restrictions to the use or copying of any documents under this agreement. No other promises, unless made in writing, are valid under this proposal. This agreement is subject to the published terms and
conditions of AMI.
AMI Imaging Systems, inc. Pricing good for thirty days, sales tax not included.
7815 Telegraph Road Mike Ryan
• Bloomington, MN 55438 Quote Page 1 of 1
952.828.0080 fax 952.828.1976 November 7, 2001
Proposal subject to the established terms and conditions as published by AMI Imaging Systems, Inc.
•
STAFF REPORT
Consent
4F
277
AGENDA SECTION:
AGENDA ITEM #
REPORT #
CITY COUNCIL MEETING
NOVEMBER 13, 2001
•
REPORT PREPARED BY:
REPORT PRESENTER:
DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR REVIEW:
REVIEWED BY CITY MANAGER: L=1
RANDY HUGHES, OPERATIONS
COORDINATOR
NAME, TITLE
MIKE EASTLING, PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR
ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION:
Consideration of purchase of new boiler for City Hall.
RECOMMENDED
By Motion: Approve the purchase and installation of a new boiler for
City Hall from Midland Heating and Air Conditioning Co. in the
amount of $26,870.
III. BACKGROUND ~
The City Hall heating system operates with two boilers. The larger boiler is the
backup heat when the weather is extremely cold. The smaller boiler is a high
efficiency boiler that is used spring and fall and during milder times in the winter.
Last spring staff began to have trouble with the small boiler controls. After months
of discussions with the manufacturer representative and the local service
technician, City staff was finally informed that the circuitry for the controls was no
longer manufactured and could not be repaired or replaced.
• Consequently, staff had two reputable heating and air conditioning firms, Midland
Heating and Encompass/Yale Inc., look at the existing equipment, propose
replacement equipment and provide a quotation for replacement of the defective
smaller boiler.
1113Boiler
NAME, TITLE
. Their quotations were as follows:
Midland $26,870 Complete
Encompass/Yale $26,700 -Electrical hook-up and relocating pipe not Included.
City staff estimates hook-up costs to be about $500.
III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION
A. POLICY
• Chapter Six, Section 6.05 of the City Charter stipulates: Every contract
for the sale or purchase of merchandise,. materials or equipment, or
the alteration thereof, or for the construction, alteration, repair or
maintenance of real or personal property, where the amount involved
is more than the dollar amount contained m Minnesota Statutes,
Section 471.345, Subd. 3 shall be let only by the City Council upon the
recommendation of the City Manager to the lowest responsible bidder.
For purchases of $50,000 or more, sealed- bids are solicited by public
notice and Council considers the award of contract. If the amount of
the contractor purchase exceeds $10,000 but does not exceed
$50,000, the contract or purchase may be made either upon sealed
bids or by direct negotiation by obtaining two or more quotations for
the purchase or sale. when possible. and without advertising for bids.
Purchases in this category are to be submitted to the City Council in
an informational master Council Memo.
• B. CRITICAL ISSUES
• The existing boiler is inoperable and parts are not available.
C. FINANCIAL
• The replacement of this boiler is not in the 2001 adopted or revised
budget and will need to be revised. into the 2001 expenditures.
• The City's insurance company has agreed that this purchase is an
eligible expense that the insurance company will pay.
• There are funds available in the self-insurance fund to cover the
$2,500 deductible.
• Midland provided the lowest installed price.
D. LEGAL
• N/A
IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION(S)
• Council may choose to delay purchase of this equipment but the sooner it is
installed the sooner use of the larger, more inefficient boiler can be reduced.
V. ATTACHMENTS
• None.
VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING
• None.
•
•
AGENDA SECTION: Consent
AGENDA ITEM # 4E
REPORT # 2 7 6
STAFF REPORT
CITY COUNCIL MEETING
NOVEMBER 13, 2001
•
REPORT PREPARED BY: BETSY CxRISTENSEN, SUPPORT SERVICES
DIVISION MANAGER
NAME, TITLE
REPORT PRESENTER: DAN SCOTT, DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC SAFETY
NAME, TITLE
DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR REVIEW: ~ ('
SGT
SIGNATURE
REVIEWED BY CITY MANAGER: ~ ~~~~~~
ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION:
Consideration of a new lawful gambling license for the Mpls-Richfield American Legion Unit
#435 Auxiliary, 6501 Portland Avenue, with a resolution approving the gambling activity
requested by the applicant to replace the previous Resolution No. 9102, that was inaccurately
granted to the Mpls-Richfield American Legion Post #435. Also consider fee waiver re uest.
I. RECOMMENDED ACTION:
By Motion: Approve the request for a new lawful gambling license for
the Mpls-Richfield American- Legion Unit #435 Auxiliary, 6501
Portland Avenue, and the attached .resolution authorizing the
gambling activity requested by the applicant in accordance with
Richfield City Code 1100.13, subd.6, allowing lawful gambling, to
replace the previous Resolution No. 9102 that was inaccurately
granted to the Mpls-Richfield American Legion Post #435, with further
recommendation that the Council waive the investigation fee.
III. BACKGROUND ~
On October 8, 2001, the Richfield City Council passed a resolution approving the
gambling activity for the Mpls-Richfield American Legion Post #435; however, It was
the Mpls-Richfield American Legion Unit #435 Auxiliary group that was actually
1113 Legion Auxiliary Gambling License
requesting the license. Due to a clerical error by the Auxiliary group, the incorrect
club received approval of the gambling license.
Staff is recommending that the amended resolution supercede the previous
Resolution No. 9102.
The Public Safety Department has conducted the required background investigation
and has determined that the applicant has complied with all of the requirements.
The applicant is requesting that the $100 investigation fee be waived.
III. BASIS OF RECOIVIlVIENDATION
A. POLICY
• Richfield City Code 1100.13 requires the Public Safety Department to
review the request for the gambling- license and make its review and
recommendation to the City Council.
B. CRITICAL ISSUES
• The applicant has complied with the State Statutes and City Code
pertaining to lawful gambling.
• The applicant has submitted the request within 60 days of the renewal
of the license.
• The applicant has demonstrated that the gambling activity requested
is a benefit to the community.
• The previous Resolution No. 9102 should be amended.
C. FINANCIAL
• N/A
D. LEGAL
• N/A
IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION(S)
• Deny the requests for the amendment of Resolution No. 9102 and the
issuance of a new lawful gambling license for the Mpls-Richfield American
Legion Unit #435 Auxiliary. This would mean that the applicant would not be
able to conduct gambling activities within their establishment; however, the
Public Safety Department has not found any basis for a denial.
• Deny the request for a fee waiver of the investigation fee.
V. ATTACHMENTS
A reso~ution granting approval for the nnpi:
#435 Auxiliary to conduct lawful gambling.
VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING
• None
ichfield American Legion Unit
n
LJ
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION GRANTING APPROVAL FOR THE MPLS-RICHFIELD AMERICAN
LEGION UNIT #435 AUXILIARY TO CONDUCT LAWFUL GAMBLING
REPLACING RESOLUTION NO. 9102
WHEREAS, a resolution to conduct lawful gambling was inaccurately granted to the
Mpls-Richfield American Legion Post #435; and
WHEREAS, this resolution supercedes the previous Resolution No. 9102; and
WHEREAS, the Mpls-Richfield American Legion Unit #435 Auxiliary has submitted
an application for a new lawful gambling license; and
WHEREAS, the application requests a license to conduct pulltab and raffle
operations; and
WHEREAS, Minnesota State Statute Section 349.213 provides authority for review
of applications by local authorities; and
WHEREAS, Section 1100.13 of the Richfield City. Code provides regulation of
lawful gambling; and
• WHEREAS, the Department of Public Safety has completed an investigation of the
application and finds the application to be in order.
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Richfield,
Minnesota, as follows:
1. That a lawful gambling license be granted to the Mpls-Richfield American Legion
Unit #435 Auxiliary, 6501 Portland Avenue South.
2. The investigation fee be waived.
Adopted by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this 13th day of
November, 2001.
Martin J. Kirsch, Mayor
ATTEST:
•
Nancy Gibbs, City Clerk
•
U
AGENDA SECTION:
AGENDA ITEM #
REPORT #
D
STAFF REPORT
CITY COUNCIL MEETING
NOVEMBER 13, 2001
Consent
4D
275
REPORT PREPARED BY:
REPORT PRESENTER:
DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR REVIEW:
REVIEWED BY CITY MANAGER:
BRUCE SYLVESTER,
PLANNING & ZONING ADMINISTRATOR
NAME, TITLE
BRUCE PALMBORG,
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR
ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION:
Consideration of the attached subdivision waiver for 326 Apple Lane.
I. RECOMMENDED ACTION:
By motion: Adopt the attached resolution approving the subdivision
waiver for 326 Apple Lane.
IL BACKGROUND
The applicant, Ms. Orrine Murdock, is seeking to divide her property so that a
small portion-1,332 square feet-can be sold to the adjoining property owner at
324 Apple Lane. The applicant wants to sell this portion of her property at 326
Apple Lane so the new property line conforms with along-standing fence
between these two properties. A fence has separated these two properties for
many years. A portion of ttie 326 property is located on the "324 side" of this
fence. Moving the fence to conform with the property line would create unusable
space and an odd yard at 326 Apple Lane and would also negatively impact the
yard at 324 Apple Lane. Therefore, moving the fence is not an option. The
applicant. seeks to move the property line to eliminate a title problem which
1113subdivision
NAME, TITLE
. exists because the owner at 324 Apple Lane is maintaining property that actually
belongs to the applicant and owner of 326 Apple Lane. The owner of the
property at 324 Apple Lane is working cooperatively with the applicant to
complete this subdivision waiver.
The applicant received a variance in September 2001 so that the proposed lot
split which this subdivision waiver would allow will not cause the 326 property to
be non-conforming with regards to minimum lot size requirements.
There will be no impact upon the surrounding community and no visible or
noticeable change to this property or the surrounding ones. In effect, the existing
fence will remain as it has been for the last 15 years.
If the subdivision waiver is approved, the applicant will proceed with selling 1,332
square feet of her property to the adjoining property owner at 324 Apple Lane.
III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION
A. POLICY
• Approval of the subdivision waiver would not interfere with the
purposes of platting regulations, Section 500.05.
• Compliance with the regular platting requirements of Section 500.05,
• Subdivision 1 of the Richfield City Code would result in an
unnecessary hardship.
B. CRITICAL ISSUES
• Approval of the subdivision waiver will not create an unusable parcel,
because the applicant will sell the 1,332 square feet she divides from
her property to the adjoining property owner. This adjoining property
owner will in turn combine this divided portion with his parcel at 324
Apple Lane.
C. FINANCIAL
• N/A
D. LEGAL
• N/A
IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION~S~
• Deny this subdivision waiver if a finding of fact determines that the proposal
would have an adverse impact on adjacent properties.
C7
• V. ATTACHMENTS
• City Council resolution
• Survey of proposed parcel
VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT
MEETING
• Mr. Daniel Miller, attorney for the applicant
•
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION AUTHORIZINGA LOT SUBDIVISION
AND COMBINATION, AND WAIVING THE REQUIREMENT OF A FORMAL PLAT
326 APPLE LANE
WHEREAS, an application has been. filed with the City of Richfield (the "City")
which requests approval of the subdivision of the tract of land located at 326 Apple Lane
("Tract 1 ") into two parcels ("Parcels B and C") and the combination. of Parcel B with an
adjacent tract of land ("Parcel A") located at 324 Apple Lane; and
WHEREAS, Tract 1 is legally described on the attached Exhibit A, and is
proposed to be divided into Parcels B and C, which are legally described on the
attached Exhibit B; and
WHEREAS, the proposed Parcel B will be combined with the adjoining Parcel A,
which Parcel A is legally described on the attached Exhibit C;
WHEREAS, the combination of Parcel A and Parcel B will result in a single
parcel of land located at 324 Apple Lane ("Tract 2"), which Tract 2 is legally described
on the attached Exhibit D; and
WHEREAS, after the subdivision and combination are completed, the resulting
two parcels will be Parcel C (with a street address of 326 Apple Lane) and Tract 2 (with
a street address of 324 Apple Lane), as legally described. on Exhibits B and D; and
WHEREAS, the proposed Parcel B, without further combination, would not
comply with Section 521.25 of the City Code relating to lot area and width; and
WHEREAS, the proposed Parcel B, when combined with Parcel A to create Tract
2, will comply with Section 521.25 of the City Code relating to lot area and width; and
WHEREAS, as the result of a variance approved by the City Council in
September 2001 (01-VAR-04), the proposed Parcel C will comply with Section 521.25
of the City Code relating to lot area and width; and
WHEREAS, the City has fully considered the request for approval for the
subdivision waiver and lot combination; and
WHEREAS, the City Council finds that compliance with the City Code Section
500.05, Subdivision 1 would result in unnecessary hardship and that failure to comply
therewith will not interfere with the purposes of the platting regulations of Section
500.01.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of
• Richfield, Minnesota, as follows:
1. A waiver for the subdivision of Tract 1 into Parcels B and C is hereby
granted, on the condition that Parcel B be combined with Parcel A to create
a single parcel of record, being Tract 2; and
2. The land described as Parcel B must be transferred to the owner of Parcel
A; and
3. -After the transfer of Parcel B to the owner of Parcel A, all future transfers of
the lands described in this resolution must utilize the legal descriptions for
Parcel C and Tract 1, until such lands are platted or further subdivided; and
4. City staff is authorized and directed to provide a certified copy of this
resolution to the county auditor and to record a certified copy of this
resolution in the land records of Hennepin County.
Adopted by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this 13th day of
November, 2001.
Martin J. Kirsch, Mayor
ATTEST:
Nancy Gibbs, City Clerk
•
EXHIBIT A
Legal Description (of 326 Apple Lane) Before Subdivision
That part of Lot 19, "Ralph Milner's Addition" described as follows: Beginning at
the most Easterly corner of said Lot 19; thence Northwesterly along the Northeasterly
line of said Lot 19 to its intersection with a line drawn parallel with the North line of said
Lot 19 and 130 feet South at right angles therefrom; thence on an assumed bearing of
South 89 degrees 14 minutes 28 seconds West along said parallel line a distance of
122.34 feet; thence South 46 degrees 9 minutes 44 seconds East a distance of 111.06
feet; thence Southeasterly to a point on the Southeasterly line of Lot 19, which point is
59.94 feet Southwesterly: from said most Easterly corner of Lot 19, as measured along
said Southeasterly line; thence Northwesterly along said Southeasterly line to the point
of beginning.
•
EXHIBIT B
Legal Descriptions (of 326 Apple Lane) After Subdivision
Parcel C: That part of Lot 19, "RALPH MILNER'S ADDITION" described as follows:
Beginning at the most Easterly corner of said Lot 19; thence
Southwesterly along Southeasterly line of said Lot 19 a distance of 59.94
feet; thence on an assumed bearing of North 29 degrees 22 minutes 35
seconds West a distance of 56.51 feet; thence North 38 degrees 53
minutes 25 seconds West a distance of 53.52 feet; thence North 5
degrees 14 minutes 19 seconds West a distance of 39.35 feet, more or
less, to its intersection with a line drawn parallel with the North line of said
Lot 19 and 130 feet South at right angles therefrom, said point being 75.90
feet westerly from the Northeasterly line of said Lot 19 as measured along
said parallel line; thence North 89 degrees 14 minutes 28 seconds East a
distance of 75.90 feet of its intersection with said Northeasterly line of Lot
19; thence Southeasterly along said Northeasterly line of Lot 19 to the
point of beginning;
According to the plat thereof on file and of record in the office of the County Recorder in
and for Hennepin County, Minnesota.
Parcel B: That part of Lot 19, "RALPH MILNER'S ADDITION" described as follows:
Commencing at the most Easterly corner of said Lot 19; thence
Northwesterly along the Northeasterly line of said Lot 19 to its intersection
with a line drawn parallel with the North line of said Lot 19 and 130 feet
South at right angels therefrom; thence on an assumed bearing of South
89 degrees 14 minutes 28 seconds West. along said parallel line a
distance- of 75.90 feet to the actual point of beginning of Parcel B to be
described; thence continuing South 89 degrees 14 minutes 28 seconds
West along said parallel line a distance of-46.44 feet;. thence South 46
degrees 09 minutes 44 seconds East a distance of 111.06 feet; thence
Southeasterly to a point on the Southeasterly line of Lot 19, which point is
59.94 feet Southwesterly from said most Easterly corner of Lot 19, as
measured along said Southeasterly line; thence North 29 degrees 22
minutes 35 seconds West a distance of 56.51 feet; thence. North 38
degrees 53 minutes 25 seconds West a distance of 53.52 feet; thence
north 5 degrees 14 minutes 19 seconds West a distance of 39.35 feet,
more or less, to the point of beginning;
According to the plat thereof on file- and of record in the office of the County Recorder in
and for Hennepin County, Minnesota.
•
EXHIBIT C
Existing Legal Description of Parcel A (324 Apple Lane)
That part of Lots 19 and 20, "RALPH MILNER'S ADDITION" and the East 4 feet
of Lots 2, 3 and 4, Block 3, "RALPH MILNER'S 2ND ADDITION", described as follows:
Beginning at a point on the North line of Lot 5, Block 3, "RALPH MILNER'S 2ND
ADDITION", 4 feet West of the Northeast corner thereof; thence East along the North
line of said Lot 5 and the same extended to its intersection with the Southeasterly line of
said Lot 19, "RALPH MILNER'S ADDITION"; thence Northeasterly along said
Southeasterly line to the most Easterly corner of said Lot 19; thence Northwesterly
along the Northeasterly line of said Lot 19 to its intersection with a line drawn parallel
with the North line thereof and 130 feet South at right angles therefrom; thence West
parallel with the North line of said Lot 19 to a point 4 feet West of the. East line of Block
3, "RALPH MILNER'S 2ND ADDITION"; thence South parallel with said East line to the
point of beginning; EXCEPT that part of said Lot 19 described as follows: Beginning at
the most Easterly corner of said Lot 19; thence Northwesterly along the Northeasterly
line of said Lot 19 to its intersection with a line drawn parallel with the North line of said
Lot 19 and 130 feet South at right angles therefrom; thence on an assumed bearing of
South 89 degrees 14 minutes 28 seconds West along said parallel line a distance of
122.34 feet; thence South 46 degrees 09 minutes 44 seconds East a distance of 111.06
feet; thence Southeasterly to a point on the Southeasterly line of Lot 19, which point is
59.94 feet Southwesterly from said most Easterly corner of Lot 19, as measured along
said Southeasterly line; thence Northeasterly along said Southeasterly line to the point
of beginning of the tract of land to be excepted;
Also that part of Lot 19, "RALPH MILNER'S ADDITION", described as follows:
Commencing at the Northeast corner of Lot 5, Block 3, "RALPH MILNER'S 2ND
ADDITION"; thence East along the extension of the North line of said Lot 5 to the
intersection of said line with the Southeasterly line of said Lot 19 of "RALPH MILNER'S
ADDITION", which point is the actual point of beginning; thence Southwesterly along the
Southeasterly line of said Lot 19 a distance of 15 feet; thence Northwesterly 40 feet to
the intersection with the line running from the Northeast corner of Lot 5, Block 3,
"RALPH MILNER'S 2ND ADDITION" to the actual point of beginning; thence East along
said line to the actual point of beginning;
All according to the plats thereof on file and of record in the office of the County
Recorder in and for Hennepin County, Minnesota.
•
EXHIBIT D
Legal Description of Tract 2 (324 Apple Lane) (After Combination)
That part of Lots 19 and 20, "RALPH MILNER'S ADDITION" and the East 4 feet of
Lots 2, 3 and 4, Block 3, "RALPH MILNER'S 2ND ADDITION", described as follows:
Beginning at a point on the North line of Lot 5, Block 3, "RALPH MILNER'S 2ND
ADDITION", 4 feet West of the Northeast corner thereof, thence East along the North line
of said Lot 5 and the same extended to its intersection with the Southeasterly line of said
Lot 19, "RALPH MILNER'S ADDITION", thence Northeasterly along said Southeasterly line
of said Lot 19 a distance of 58.62 feet, thence North 29°22'35" West a distance of 56.51
feet; thence North 38°53'25" West a distance of 53.52 feet, thence North 5°14'19" West a
distance of 39.35 feet more or less to its intersection with a line drawn parallel with the
North line of Lot 19 and 130 feet South at right angles therefrom; thence West parallel with
the North line of said Lot 19 to a point 4 feet West of the East line of Block 3, "RALPH
MILNER'S 2ND ADDITION", thence South parallel with said East line to the point of
beginning;
Also that part of Lot 19, "RALPH MILNER'S ADDITION", described as follows:
Commencing at the Northeast corner of Lot 5, Block 3, "RALPH MILNER'S 2ND
ADDITION", thence East along the extension of the North line of said Lot 5 to the
intersection of said line with the Southeasterly line of said Lot 19 of "RALPH MILNER'S
ADDITION", which point is the actual point of beginning; thence Southwesterly along the
Southeasterly line of said Lot 19 a distance of 15 feet; thence Northwesterly 40 feet to the
intersection with the line running from the Northeast corner of Lot 5, Block 3, "RALPH
MILNER'S 2ND ADDITION" to the actual point of beginning; thence. East along said line to
the actual point of beginning;
•
s
•
~:
~.
wq # s
y J !.~
i e ~ ,i~ ii ~~ ~ . ~ ~~~ ~ ~ i ~
i ~ i iJ~ ~~~ ~~ ~ ti
ill ~~i ~
~. ~!
~~i
~~~ ~~
$ ~ ~~~~ ~~
• ~ ~ ~~~~
~ , ~~ i~
~ '~~
~ ,~ ~ ~~-
_~
I HOl1l~~ ~ a ~
~~ ~
~ ~
I I- ----1
~ I ~
~ v- I Nd7i'b
a~ I- -~,- - N - - -~- - ~-
'°
~ ( N0111pQ1f I ~NZ I S.H3Niiii ~ I ~ Hdlb3! (
°~ ~ e + :~.,~~a
M i J
O
A
W
O
a
0
x
a
•
STAFF REPORT
AGENDA SECTION:
AGENDA ITEM #
REPORT #
CONSENT
4C
274
CITY COUNCIL MEETING
NOVEMBER 13, 2001
GEORGE L. ATKINSON,
REPORT PREPARED BY: ENGINEERING SUPERVISOR
NaNrE TrTtc
REPORT PRESENTER: MIKE EASTLING, PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR
Naner_, TiTrr;
DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR REVIEW: ~ _
~~~~~
REVIEWED BY CITY MANAGER:
ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION:
Consideration of first reading of amendment to Section 805 of Richfield City Code for bus
benches and shelters and setting the public hearing and second reading for December 10,
2001..
I. RECOMMENDED ACTION:
By Motion: Approve first reading of the attached modified Section 805
of Richfield .City Code for bus benches and shelters and schedule a
Public Hearing and Second Reading of Section. 805 on December 10,
2001.
~ II. BACKGROUND ~
Over a year ago, staff was approached by a private company that wants to place
bus shelters in Richfield. As a result of that proposal the City Attorney was asked to
review the current ordinance that regulates shelters and benches.
Staff has since presented the proposed ordinance amendment to the Community
Services Commission (CSC) and appeared before the City Council at a Study
Session on October 8, 2001.
1113shelter-benchord
Certain changes fo the proposed odinance were suggested. The suggested
changes included the following:
• Allow both a bench and a shelter at the same corner.
• Require bi-weekly maintenance of shelters including garbage pick-up. (The
CSC recommended garbage collection for both shelters and benches.)
• There was a lot of discussion by both the City Council and the Community
Services Commission about regulating advertising content. It is the advice of
the City Attorney that the proposed ordinance not include prohibitions against
liquor, tobacco and political advertising. Advertising of these types is
regulated by other methods. Liquor advertising is controlled by state liquor
laws, tobacco advertising is regulated by the terms of the tobacco law suit
settlement and political advertising is controlled by state election laws.
As a result, the only prohibitions on advertising in the proposed ordinance
are "Advertisements for obscene, immoral or indecent advertising matter is
prohibited on all benches, shelters and booths".and. "No advertising matter
on any bench, shelter or booth may display the words "Stop", "Look", "Drive
In" or any other word, phrase or symbol which might interfere with, mislead
or distract traffic."
III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION
A. POLICY
• Existing ordinances as well as the City's Comprehensive Plan
encourage the use of mass transit. Council has strongly supported
. efforts to encourage mass.transit.
B. CRITICAL ISSUES
• The placement of both a bench and a shelter at the same corner,
inclusion of a garbage container with bi-weekly collection and
advertising content have been considered critical by the CSC, City
Council and the bench and shelter vendors. All of these issues have
been addressed in the current. version of the proposed ordinance.
C. FINANCIAL
• Under the current fee schedule, which will not change under the
proposed ordinance change, applicants for bench or shelter permits
pay $50 for the first year of a permit and $25 each year there after:
These fees are large enough to cover staff expenses incurred in
managing the benches and shelters around the City.
D. LEGAL
• None known at this time. The City Attorney will be present to answer
questions.
IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION(S~
• Council could choose to not adopt the proposed ordinance. That would
result in shelters being placed only in locations where there are no current
benches. Locations that now have a courtesy bench could not have both a
shelter and a bench nor could a bench. be replaced by a shelter.
V. ATTACHMENTS
• A copy of the proposed Ordinance amendment.
• Courtesy Bench and Shelter Location map.
VI. PRINCIl'AL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING
• Representatives of U. S. Bench Corporation and Outdoor Promotions, Inca
were notified of this meeting. Whether they choose to show up is not known.
•
•
BILL NO.
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION 805 OF THE
RICHFIELD CITY CODE; RELATING TO BENCHES,.
SHELTERS AND TELEPHONE BOOTHS
THE CITY OF RICHFIELD DOES ORDAIN:
Section 1. Subsection 805.03 of the Richfield City Code is amended to read as
follows:
805.03. Definitions. Subdivision 1. "Courtesy bench" means a bench placed upon a
public street by a person other than the city, designed for the convenience of the
general public and constructed. and used as an advertising device.
Subd. 2. "Director" means the director of ^^^,.r„^~+~~ °°^~~^°° public works.
Subd. 3. "Shelter" means a shelter placed upon a public street by a person
other than the city, designed for the convenience of the general public and constructed
and used as an advertising device.
Section 2. Subsection 805.07 of the Richfield City Code is amended to read as
follows:
805.07. Permits and Applications. Subdivision 1. Requirements. Application for
permits must be made to the director. The application s must contain the
following information:
(a) location of the bench, shelter or outdoor telephone booth;
(b) name, telephone number and address of the applicant;
(c) detailed plans and .specifications of each proposed bench, shelter or booth
including the general. nature of advertising matter to be posted thereon; and
(d) such other information the director may reasonably require.
Subd. 2. Changed Information. A permit holder shall notify the director of changes in
any of the information required for a permit within a reasonable time.
Section 3. Subsection 805.11 of the Richfield City Code is amended to read as
follows:
805.11. Conditions governing issuance of permits. Subdivision 1. Application.
This subsection governs the issuance of a permit for a courtesy bench, shelter or
• booth.
Subd. 2. Permit for each bench.. A separate permit is required for each
bench, shelter or booth to be constructed, but permits may be granted for more than
one location on the basis of a single application provided the director is satisfied
that all the information required by subsection 805.07 has been obtained for each
• proposed bench, shelter or booth.
Subd. 3. Transfer: if a bench, shelter or booth for which a permit has been
issued is sold or title or control thereof is transferred or assigned, a new one-wear
permit el-call-be is required for its maintenance. Permits expire, unless renewed, on
the first day of January next following the date of issuance.
Subd. 4. Location. No new permit may be issued for the installation of benches,
shelters or booths in the following places:
(a) in an alley; , or
(b) at any location where the distance from the face of the curb to the inside
sidewalk line is less than eight feet; e~
Subd. 5. Permit fees. The permit fee and renewal fee shall be as provided in
appendix D.
Section 4. Subsection 805.15 of the Richfield City Code is amended to read as
• follows:
805.15. Permits. Subdivision 1. Approval and issuance. If the director is satisfied that
all of the conditions enumerated in this section have been met and that the erection
and maintenance of the bench, shelter or booth at the proposed location will not restrict
pedestrian traffic, ^r „+"e^~,;°° t,e ~°'Frimon+.~1 +~ .-...hr.. ~~fo+.~ endanger the health,
safety, order, convenience or general welfare of the City, #~e the Director s will
approve the application.
Subd. 2. Competing applications. In the case of competing applications for one
location that otherwise satisfy the conditions enumerated in this section, the director
shall approve the applicant who will provide a greater public service based on the
needs of the particular location. Based on public need, the director may permit both
one shelter and one bench at the same location. In determining the needs of a given
location, the director may consider the following factors:
~a) nearby traffic density;
(b) effect on pedestrian safety;
~c) effect on pedestrian traffic;
• (d) effect on lines of sight; and
fie) beneficial effect for users of the proposed bench, shelter or booth.
Subd. 3. Application. Competing applications will not be accepted during the
• first nine renewals after installation of a shelter.
Section 5. Subsection 805 of the Richfield City Code is amended by repealing
subsection 805.17.
Section 6. Subsection 805.19 of the Richfield City Code is amended to read as
follows:
805.19. Renewal of Permits. At least 30 days prior to the expiration of a permit, the
permittee may apply. for renewal of the permit. If there is no change in the construction,
location or advertising content and if consent of abutting owners or lessees has not
been withdrawn, the applicant s~4t must so certify and the permit may be reissued by
the director upon payment of the required renewal fee. '~'+t,ere ;~ ~ ,.h.,nne ;~ .,n., „f+ho
reneui•+~ t,~n he .,nnrn.,erl .~nr• ;e. c.~ nor! ~~ ,n_„r;r,;.,.,~ nerrn;+. The director will
promptly notify the permittee of a withdrawal of consent filed with him by any abutting
owner or lessee.
Section 7. Subsection 805.23 of the Richfield City Code is amended to read as
follows:
805.23. Installation and maintenance of benches, shelters and booths. Subdivision 1.
Size and location. Courtesy benches must be installed parallel with the curb and
set back at least 18 inches from the face of the curb.
Subd. 2. Size limitations -courtesy benches.
No courtesy bench shall exceed:
(a) height - 42 inches rY,.,.n;
(b) width - 30 inches ~; and
(c) length -Seven feet ~.
Subd. 3. Size limitations -shelters. No shelter shall exceed 100 square feet.
Subd. 4. Exception. A shelter may exceed the 100 square foot limit if approved
the director. The director may approve an exception to the shelter size limitation if
the level of use at a particular shelter location warrants a larger structure.
Subd. 5. Permit display. Each bench, shelter or booth s~f must display the
permit number in a conspicuous place.
Subd. 6. Conditions. It is the responsibility of the permittee to maintain each
bench, shelter or booth in a safe condition and to keep benches, shelters and booths in
a neat, clean and usable condition. The permittee e~ must insure that the bench,
shelter or booth is kept free of ice and snow and is kept accessible at all times. Every
shelter permittee must install a garbage receptacle of a size sufficient to handle the
location's use. The receptacle must have a cover and must be attached to the bench or
shelter. The permittee must service the receptacle twice per week.
Subd. 7. Advertising Matter. Advertising matter may be displayed only on the
front and rear surfaces of the backrest of a bench. Advertisements for e~ ~eeF
obscene, immoral or indecent advertising matter is
prohibited on all benches, shelters or booths.
. No advertising matter on any bench, shelter or booth may
display the words "Stop", "Look", "Drive. In", "Danger" or any other word, phrase e# or
symbol which might interfere with, mislead or distract traffic.
Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this day of
2001.
Martin J. Kirsch, Mayor
ATTEST:
•
Nancy Gibbs, City Clerk
•
,~~
_. ~ ~ o
D ~
G
m
~~~ / -~~ _ L _.YORK _-. ~~ ~~-.- ~~ --- IIIL AVE.
- -
~Ilfll`
_ 1~ ~ _!~ ~ g XERXES AVE. ~Sbr :'-. _. ~~ -~I
~ UI _
~ -- ~`~ ~ WASHBUR WAS BURN ~ ~ ~ ~ AVE. ~ I ~'J~~ ~ Q I I
~,1~ CtR' VINCENT J AVE. ~`r S. ~~ ~ ~I
1` ~~~ UPTON ~~a ~ '. ~ SAVE. ~~~', ~~~
II,, ~, ~ THOMAS ~ ~~ ~ AVE ~ S~. ~J \~ ~~
~~~~~ J J rn m S CI~~~ ~ a
SHERI DAN > w ~ ° °AVE. ~~ J
I' ~ ~ ~~ ~ 'g AVE. ~ ~ 3' ~ ~ ~~ I
I,\ rn RUSSEL ~~-~ I
~~lht PENN ~ ~ QUEEN a ~ I AVE. ~~~r~--~~ ~ ___-_....: ~It-'J
,~ - - ~~~~
(I~~ ® NEWTO ~~~~~~ AVE. ~~~~'~~ ~ ~~~
D
,I I(I ~ ~~~L~-J AVE. ~ A tmi~ S. i'V~~~ W ~
1'~~ MORGAN -~
LOGAN ~ ~ .yi ~ ~~ .~i AVE. ~ '~ S. ! ~~
KNOX ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ AVE. ~ .~C~ ~ ~ ~
- JAMES ~~ AVE. ~ 1y.'~i~ ~~-'„J~~ ~ ~
w HUMBOLDT ^' ~ IRVI~NG ~ AVE. I '~~~ N
4c ~~~ _._ ~_ _-_ - ,__- ~.~`~J AVE. HUM'BOLDT AVE. ~ °'
~~ ~ U~ GIRA NV BOLDTA VE.AVE. S. S. /L`. ~. ~ to _.
-I G IRARD AVE. S. ~ '~
~0~~ ~~~~00~
~ ~ ~ ~ FRE MONT AVE_ S. ~: --- - ---~~~-/
..c -- ~ _ _
~~~a~ ~m~
~~ MERSON I AVE. ~ \ A Etvy ERSON ~ w ~ ~~
~ ~I 01 ~ (y AVE. 1_-_\\ ~ ~~r \
~ ~ DUPO AVE. u~ \ J.
A ~~~ ~ I ~
COLFAX ~ AVE. ~~'J J O O <9 AVf ~ O ~ C
A
~ I ii~. BRYANT ~ AVE. a S. °. ? Q , ~ ~/ ~ ~ ~~ °
`° o ~
~000~ ~~~~ e<~ Q ~ ~
m AL DRICH AVE S. ~~ ~ ~ O, '" CD .~ °"
~ E. S. .d O ~ ~~
fJi1 ~ ~ ~ LYN DALE -i ~ AV ..~CaD ~ j,~
~~ ~0~~ oa ~.~ , ~ -o
~ AVE. AUG BURG AVE. i ~'
II ~ FIELD ~~~~ GARFIE LD m ~ ~' ~ 1I
~~~I~'~~~'~ HA RIET AVE. ~~LU ~1 AVE. ~C ~r t~~~'"U ~~i I ~~I
A N a w~ N I' n N 1
~ z u a ~z i w ~ CRAND AVE. ~ a ~ GRAND ~ ~ d~ m ~ E. ~ > n S.
~C ~~ ~- ~~ • ~'! C. P. R. Sys.
__ W. PLEASANT AVE. S. I W PLEA SANT ~ AVE ~ S. ~ ®~ ~ '
I- ~V _ -~- I ~~-
Ci, P,. R..Sy$- ~~ PILLS BURY ~~~ w ~ ~ ~ AVE. S. 3. PILLS BURY ~ AVE. 3. S. ~ 3 II ail r°v
gill ~ WENT WORTH AVE. ~ y S. WEN WORT ~ AVE. S ~~ I ~' a
cn BLAIS DELL ~VE. ~ ~ S I ~Ni
BLAIS DELL AVE. ~ S. ~ ~ ~~ ~~ ~ - ~
NIC L LET Z AVE ~ I ~ S ~ '1~~
- ~ ~ ~~ ~
I -- - I - - -y II~.
« ?iT ~ L--_-~~ 1st. _ ~J ~J .N'~ AVE. ~J ~ ~~IJL~ m~ m ~\\`\\ I,
1~II''~ ~ 1 ~~i STE VENS ~~ AVE. ~ ~~ L_~~ ~,Il~~;~._ --~ ~
~ 2nd AVE. S. ~ ~
~ I, ~~~ 3rd ~~ AVE. ~~I,.~ ~ ~
i~~~l~'il m ~ CLIN TON ~~ m AVE. ~~ m S. C `` q! ~ ~ ^'
I ~~~ 4th ~~ AVE. ~~~~~,=~~m ~II
~''a ~ m 5th ~ AVE. ~~ ~~'~_~
_--._...~~~~ ___ ~ -.PORT LAND- ~ AVE;--~~_~~~~_~ ._ __-_ -~~--11__.
J ~ PARK AVE. S. ~
III 3 ~ m ~ COL UMBUS w N AVE. o c°'o ~ S. ~ ~ ~ m ~' ^'
I ~0~~00 AVE. DD ~ S. ~~ W Z
CHI CAGO
III ~~ ELLIOT ~~ AVE. ~~~JJ~I'
I ~~ 10th c ~ AVE. m ~~L~~~~'~~ -^
1 tth ~ ~~ AVE. r. ~ ~ L:J ~~~~! ~ O
~~ 12th ~ AVE. ~~~I.~~~~
~ ~~ ~~ 13th ~~ AVE. ~~I~~~ 1I I'~II~II~~~\I..
h111' ! ~ ~ ~ ~Ni 14th ~ ~ AVE. ~ L-_l ~ L~.J~ ~ ~ ~' L
1 ~~'~ to ~ 15t~/9G' ~ ~ AVE. ~ ~ ~ ~'J ~ ~ fi`n''--'
~iI II ~ ~ ~ BLOOMINGTON (°~ AVE. ~~ ~ S. "i ~~~D~C
N ~I l it l ~ ~ 16th m ~ 9 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~____J°" a w N
~l \ ! O ~ AVE. 5.
-i L-~
~ z ~ ~ ~ z ~I~III ~~ 17th ~ 6! ~~~ AVE. ~~~I1 ~ ~ ~ a ^~'
(/~~ Ii~~ ~~ 18th ~ ~~ ~ AVE. ~~~'~~~ ~ ~ ~
CEDAR ~~~~ AVE. ~~~ ~~
-_ - J~ -- _-~~~ __
~_ S LONGFE LLOW AVE
~~ ~~ ~ - ~ I
LOryGFE LLOW AVE
~~
i
~s ~' r
~t , o ~
O V-i- tQ ~ • ;;~ CD (n
- ~ ~ ~ z
rn
~ ~
co ~
r ~ ~
•
•
D
STAFF REPORT
AGENDA SECTION:
AGENDA ITEM #
REPORT #
CITY COUNCIL MEETING
NOVEMBER 13, 2001
CONSENT
4B
273
REPORT PREPARED BY:
REPORT PRESENTER:
DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR REVIEW:
REVIEWED BY CITY MANAGER:
1=1
ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION:
First reading consideration of amendment to the City Administrative Code Chapter III,
Subsection 310.37 describin ersonal leave.
I. RECOMMENDED ACTION:
By Motion: Approve the first reading of the proposed ordinance
amendment to the City Administrative Code Chapter III, Subsection
310.37 describing personal leave, and schedule second reading for
December 10. 2001.
II. BACKGROUND
In an effort to offer non-Union employees benefits already offered to Union
members, a recommendation is being made to amend Section 1, Subsection
310.37 (Personal Leave) from an accrual rate of 2.55 hours to 2.77 hours of
personal leave biweekly for those employees compensated under the Management
or General Services compensation pay plans.
• These changes would affect those employees included in the General Services and
Management Pay Plans and who are not represented by a Union. The
amendments .are requested so that #hese employees a more equitable Personal
Leave level as someUnion employees.
DAWN WEITZEL,
HUMAN RESOURCESMANAGER
NAME, TITLE
STEVEN L. DEVICH,
AI~I~NIS~TRATIVE SERVICES DIRECTOR
I ~ NAME. TITLE
III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION
• A. POLICY
• An amendment to Subsection 310.37, Personal Leave, aids in
balancing some of the benefits already offered to some City
employees. Those benefits offered to Union employees should not
exceed those benefits offered to employees not represented by
unions. Furthermore; most employees represented by collective
bargaining agreements are males while unions do not represent the
majority of female employees.
B. CRITICAL ISSUES
• It is recommended that the second reading be scheduled for
December 10, 2001.
• A public hearing is not required per State law and the City Charter.
C. FINANCIAL
• By amending Subsection 310.37, Personal Leave, approximately
155 regular and part-time General Services and Management
employees would receive an additional 5.72 hours in 2002.
D. LEGAL
i In order to provide the requested personal leave accrual
enhancement, the .City Council must approve an amendment to the
City's personnel ordinance.
IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION~S~
• Do not amend the ordinance.
Defer discussion to another date.
V. ATTACHMENTS
• Ordinance.
VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING
• None.
•
BILL NO.
• AMENDMENT TO SECTIONS 310.37 OF THE ORDINANCE CODE
OF THE- CITY OF RICHFIELD
THE CITY OF RICHFIELD DOES ORDAIN:
Section 2. Subsection 310.37, Subdivision 1 of the ordinance code of the City of
Richfield entitled "Personal leave" is hereby amended:
310.37. Personal leave. Subdivision 1. Eligibility and accrual. A managerial
employee, a regular full-time or full-time probationary employee,. and a regular part-time or
part-time probationary employee, classified and compensated under the management
compensation- plan or general services pay. plan, as those plans have. been adopted and
may be amended from time to time pursuant to subsection 310.17 of this code, is eligible to
accrue and use personal leave. An eligible full-time employee shall accrue 2:55 2.77 hours
of personal leave. biweekly and may accumulate such leave from year to year up to a
maximum of 204 hours. of personal. leave, unless written authorization. extending this
maximum is obtained-from the department head and the city manager. Hours in excess of
204 hours shall be forfeited by the employee without compensation: Eligible part-time
employees shall accrue personal leave on a proportional basis of the full-time accrual based
on hours worked per payroll period and shall be limited to maximum accruals and
extensions authorized for full-time employees.
• Section 3. This ordinance is effective in accordance with Section 3.09 of the
Richfield City Charter.
Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this .day of
.2001.
Martin J. Kirsch, Mayor
ATTEST:
Debra J. Guiher, Deputy City Clerk
•
•
J STAFF REPORT
CONSENT
4A
272
AGENDA SECTION:
AGENDA ITEM #
REPORT #
CITY COUNCIL MEETING
NOVEMBER 13, 2001
•
REPORT PREPARED BY: DAWN M. WEITZEL, HUMAN RESOURCES
.MANAGER
NAME, TITLE
REPORT PRESENTER: STEVEN L. DEVICH, ADMINISTRATIVE
SER E DIRECTOR
N ,TITLE
DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR REVIEW: •
SIGNATURE
REVIEWED BY CITY MANAGER: ~~
ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION:
Consideration of the 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 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 currently provided for all full-time Management and
General Services employees. The City pays the full premium for this insurance, which is
$4.88 per month per employee. This rate has not been increased from 2001 rates.
1113insurance
DENTAL
The second type of insurance provided to full-time Management and General Services
employees is aself-funded group dental insurance. In 2001, the City contributed $25 per
month per employee for the total cost of employee (not dependent) coverage. In 2002, the
City would contribute $26. Employees who desire dependent coverage must pay the full
cost of such additional premium, which for 2001 was $31. This rate will remain the same
in 2002. 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 once again offer a the Medica High Option Plan
and Elect Plan, but in lieu of the Low Option Plan, will now offer a deductible plan called
MIC1000.
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 options. 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.
The City will continue to pay the full individual employee premium (for employees choosing
the Medica High Option Plan this has increased by 8%) and provide an additional
contribution toward dependent coverage up to a specified maximum insurance premium.
In 2002, the City's monthly contribution for Management and General Services employees
• would be increased by $20 to $495.. The City's contribution for Management and General
Services employees as a percent of premium over the past ten years is shown in
Attachment 1. 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 2001 and 2002 monthly premium costs of the health plans are:
n
U
2001 Medica 2002 Medica
Hi h O tion Hi h O tion
Employee
Onl $274.84 $297.79
Employee Plus
S ouse $586.98 $636.00
Employee Plus
Child ren $554.50 $600.81
Famil $724.72 $785.25
2001 Medica 2002 Medica
Elect Elect
Employee
Onl $251.05 $272.02
Employee Plus
S ouse $536.18 $580.96
Employee Plus
Child ren $506.50 $548.80
Famil $661.99 $717.28
•
2001 Medica 2002 Medica MIC100
Low O tion .,,_ ._, deductible Plan
Employee
Onl $256.09 $250.15
Employee Plus
S ouse $546.93 $534.24
Employee Plus
Child ren $516.66 $504.68
Famil $675.28 $659.61
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 $247.50 per month towards dependent coverage. Part-time
employees may opt out of health insurance altogether.
LONG-TERM DISABILITY (LTD)
The fourth type of insurance provided. to all employee groups, except Firefighters, is long-
term disability insurance (LTD). LTD is provided through a group policy secured by the
City. The premium rate of 24 cents per $100 will -not change for 2002.
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 General Services and Management
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, 2001. Payroll deductions for January insurance
payments, the beginning of the new insurance period, are calculated
in December.
C. FINANCIAL
• The 2002 Budget includes the funding necessary to provide for the
premium contributions as recommended.
• 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 2001 funding level.
• Defer discussion to another date.
V. ATTAC~IMENTS
• 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
PREMIUMS FOR MANAGEMENT AND GENERAL SERVICES EMPLOYEES
WHEREAS, aself-funded group dental insurance plan is available to City
Management and General Services employees and their families; and
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City shall contribute a maximum of
$495 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 $26 monthly premium for the offered
dental insurance~plan, and the $4.88 monthly premium for the term fife and accidental death
and dismemberment insurance plan for, for a total possible maximum 2002 insurance
premium contribution of $525.88 per month. The City shall contribute 75% of the single health
care premium for part-time Regular employees and $247.50 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,
2002.
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, 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.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City shall contribute the full cost of long-term
disability insurance for the Management and General Services employees' coverage.
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 13th day of
November, 2001.
ATTEST:
Martin J. Kirsch, Mayor
Nancy Gibbs, City Clerk
Attachment 1
The Citv's Contribution Toward Dependent Health Insurance as a Percent of Total Premium Cost
YEAR HEALTH DEPENDENT CITY CONTRIBUTION CITY CONTRIBUTION
PLAN PREMIUM MGMT./GEN. SVCS AVERAGE % OF
COST PREMIUM
1993 MEDICA $430.92 $285.00
MCHP $437.25 $285.00 68%
GHI $397.48 $285.00
1994 MEDICA $449.05 $315.00
MCHP $478.35 $315.00. $9.5%
GHI $431.44 $315.00
1995 MEDICA $449.05 $335.00
MCHP. $478.35 $335.00 72%
GHI- $465.86- $335.00
1996 MEDICA $449.03.. $345.00
MCHP` $464.63 $345.00 76%
GHI $443.32 $345.00.
1997 MEDICA $490.85 $365.00
MCHP $451.86 $365.00 81%
• GHI $417.43 $365.00
1998 MEDICA $544.00 $395.00
MCHP $484.67 $395.00 79%
GHI $466.74 $395.00
1999 MEDICA.
High Option $524.92 $415.00 79%
Low Option $480.31 $415.00. 8g%
2000 MEDICA-
High Option
* Employee +
Spouse $524 $435 83%
* Employee +
Children $495 $435 88%
* Family $646.96 $435 g7%
Elect Option
* Employee +
Spouse $469.87 $435 g3%
* Employee +
Children $443.87 $435 98%
* Family • $580.13 $435 87%
Low Option
• * Employee +
Spouse $479.46 $435 g~%
* Employee +
Children $452.93 ~ $435 gg%
* Family $591.97 $435 73%
2001 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 g0%
* 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 7g%
* Employee +
Children $600.81 $495 82%
•
* Family $785.25 $495 63%
Elect Option
* Employee +
Spouse $580.96 $495 85%
* Employee +
Children $548.80 $495 gp%
* Family $717.28 $495 69%
MIC 1000
* Employee +
Spouse. $534.24 $495 93%
* Employee +
Children $504.68 $495 98%
* Family $659.61 $495 75%
•