Loading...
01-26-98 agendaCITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA MONDAY, JANUARY 26, 1998 REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING 7:00 P.M. COUNCIL CHAMBERS AGENDA INTRODUCTORY PROCEEDINGS CALL TO ORDER PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE ROLL CALL APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF THE (1) REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF JANUARY 12,1998; (2) SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF JANUARY 21,1998; AND (3) SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF JANUARY 22, 1998 PRESENTATIONS INDIVIDUALS WHO WISH TO ADDRESS THE COUNCIL ARE REQUESTED TO PRINT THEIR NAME AND ADDRESS ON THE SPEAKER'S REGISTER FOR THE RECORD. 1. INTRODUCTION OF UNDEFEATED "RICHFIELD COMETS", RICHFIELD .SOCCER ASSOCIATION BOYS UNDER 12, DIVISION 3 WINNERS OF MINNESOTA YOUTH SOCCER ASSOCIATION STATE TOURNAMENT 2. PRESENTATION OF NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF COUNTIES ACHIEVEMENT AWARD FOR RICHFIELD RESPONSE TEAM 3. PRESENTATION OF PROCLAMATION DESIGNATING AUGSBURG PARKAS REGISTERED PEACE SITE COUNCIL LETTER NO. 13 4. PRESENTATION OF PROCLAMATION DESIGNATING FEBRUARY 5, 1998 AS NATIONAL GIRLS AND WOMEN IN SPORTS DAY IN RICHFIELD COUNCIL LETTER NO. 14 5. OPPORTUNITY FOR CITIZENS TO ADDRESS THE COUNCIL ON ITEMS NOT ON THE AGENDA AGENDA APPROVAL 6. COUNCIL APPROVAL OF AGENDA CONSENT CALENDAR 7. 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 SETTING MAY 4, 1998 FOR 1998 LOCAL BOARD OF REVIEW C.L. 15 B. CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF FILING PAY EQUITY REPORT WITH MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT OF EMPLOYEE RELATIONS C.L. 16 C. CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF AUTHORIZATION FOR MAYOR TO SIGN CONSENT AND CONFLICT WAIVER RELATED TO WARDEN OIL SITE C.L. 17 D. CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF PURCHASE OF THREE MIDSIZE VEHICLES FROM SUPERIOR FORD, INC. THROUGH HENNEPIN COUNTY JOINT PURCHASING AGREEMENT FOR PUBLIC SAFETY DEPARTMENT ADMINISTRATIVE USE IN TOTAL AMOUNT OF $44,058 C.L. 18 E. CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF PURCHASE OF FIVE FORD CROWN VICTORIAS FULL-SIZED POLICE SEDANS THROUGH HENNEPIN COUNTY COOPERATIVE PURCHASING PROGRAM FOR PUBLIC SAFETY DEPARTMENT SQUAD CAR USE IN TOTAL AMOUNT OF $100,800 C.L. 19 F. CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF PURCHASE OF THREE SINGLE AXLE GROSS WEIGHT CAB CHASSIS FROM BOYER TRUCKS, INC. THROUGH HENNEPIN COUNTY COOPERATIVE PURCHASING PLAN FOR USE AS DUMP TRUCKS BY STREET MAINTENANCE DIVISION OF PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT IN TOTAL AMOUNT OF $142,935 C.L. 20 PUBLIC HEARING 8. PUBLIC HEARING AND SECOND READING OF ORDINANCE AMENDMENTS TO RICHFIELD CITY CODE AND ZONING CODE RELATED TO STORM WATER COUNCIL LETTER NO. 21 0 ADMINISTRATIVE REPORTS AND OTHER BUSINESS 9. CONSIDERATION OF APPOINTMENTS TO VARIOUS CITY ADVISORY BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS COUNCIL LETTER NO. 22 10. CONSIDERATION OF FEASIBILITY STUDY AND OTHER PERTINENT INFORMATION REGARDING CONSTRUCTION OF SECOND INDOOR SHEET OF ICE AT VETERANS MEMORIAL PARK OF RICHFIELD COUNCIL LETTER NO. 23 11. CONSIDERATION OF PROPOSAL TO ESTABLISH RICHFIELD COMMUNITY FEEDBACK NETWORK COUNCIL LETTER NO. 24 AIRPORT BUSINESS 12. AIRPORT STATUS REPORT CORRESPONDENCE 13. LEGISLATIVE REPORT COUNCIL CHOICE 14. COUNCIL DISCUSSION ITEMS 15. CLAIMS AND PAYROLLS 16. 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 861-9702. • • CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Council Letter No. 24 Agenda January 26, 1998 Issue Statement: Consideration of a proposal to establish the Richfield Community Feedback Network. Background: The City Council has previously directed staff to expand ways of communication within Richfield. The direction included special emphasis on receiving feedback from residents regarding views on development proposals, capital improvements, general community needs, adequacy of information about projects, requests for services, feedback on staff performance, feedback on City services and other similar issues. The concept of a community feedback network includes the following basic elements: • Volunteers from the community would be requested to serve as members of the Community Feedback Network. Special emphasis would be placed on including individuals not previously involved with City government. Ideally, 50 to 100 individuals would be recruited for these positions. • Community organizations, churches, civic groups, service clubs and representatives` • from school organizations would be specifically solicited to participate in the network. • A mechanism would be established to assure that network members would receive detailed information on community issues they identify as important. • A mechanism would be established to report feedback received from network members to the City Council and staff in order to shape public policy, improve communication and service to the community. The information would also be used to help identify priorities, future challenges, previously unidentified problems, service enhancements and service refinements. • Network members would be requested to meet with neighbors, friends and others from the community as a basis for expanding feedback to the City. Support for this expanded network would be provided as requested by the network members. • The League of Women Voters will be requested to assist the City in establishing and supporting the network. Recommended Motion: Authorize establishment of the Richfield Community Feedback Network. Basis of Recommendation: 1. The Community Feedback Network would serve as an additional dimension of communications within the community. 0 2. Development of feedback mechanisms provides an opportunity for the Council, staff and commissions to receive important information from an expanded group of individuals from within the City. Alternative Recommendation: The Council may decide to provide refinements to this concept. Discussion/Decision Mode: This matter will presented for consideration at the Council meeting of January 26. Respectfully submitted, Jam D. Prosser City Manager JDP:cak 0 /O CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Council Letter No. 23 Agenda January 26, 1998 Issue Statement: Consideration of a feasibility study and other pertinent information regarding the construction of a second indoor sheet of ice at Veterans Memorial Park of Richfield. Background: At the December 22 City Council meeting a group of individuals representing various hockey interests in the community addressed the City Council with their request that the City Council give consideration to the construction of a second indoor ice sheet at the Richfield Ice Arena in Veterans Memorial Park of Richfield. The City Council advised the group to pursue this matter with the Community Services Commission at their January 13 meeting. The group met with the commission and is now seeking preliminary action by the City Council to review this matter further. At the January 13 Community Services Commission meeting the hockey group made a presentation regarding the need for a second sheet of ice. While the commission had some concerns regarding the ultimate economic feasibility of a second ice sheet, there was a general recognition of a need to address the ice availability issues facing the community now with one ice sheet and the virtual certainty of greater programming for girls hockey in the near future. A motion was passed by the Community Services Commission to recommend to the City Council that staff proceed with a feasibility study to include the position of the DNR, appropriate costs and all other information pertinent to the construction of a second ice sheet. The issue now before the City Council is whether to proceed further with this proposal by contracting with the appropriate professional consultants to assist the City in completing a feasibility study for the project. This analysis would include an examination of the need for the project, the cost of construction of a second enclosed ice sheet including site and soil conditions, architectural considerations, potential operating cost impacts and the implications of receiving DNR approval for the construction of a building which will likely approach 34,000 square feet. The City has contacted a number of firms that could assist the City in performing a financial and architectural feasibility study of a second ice sheet. One firm, Cluts, O'Brien, Strother Architects, has participated in the construction of several similar second ice sheets in the area and would perform this service for about $6,000. The actual feasibility work would likely take about six weeks to complete. Recommended Motion: The City Council should consider whether to proceed with the preliminary work including a feasibility study and other pertinent information regarding the construction of a second enclosed ice sheet. Basis of Recommendation: 1. A group of individuals in the community has approached the City Council and Community Services Commission with a request to construct a second indoor ice sheet to be attached to the present ice arena. 2. A number of important issues regarding a project such as construction costs, operating costs, architectural and site consideration, DNR approval and other pertinent matters must be investigated before such a proposal can be given more serious consideration. 3. There is a current shortage of prime ice time at the Richfield Ice Arena that will be more severe with the addition of girls junior varsity hockey programs in the near future. 4. The Community Services Commission passed a motion to have staff proceed with a feasibility study and other pertinent information regarding the construction of a second enclosed ice sheet. The Commission did have concerns regarding the costs of constructing and operating a second sheet and the priority of this project in relation to other previously identified projects for the community. Alternative Recommendation: 1. The City Council could decide to drop this idea now without further study. 2. The City Council could decide to proceed further without a feasibility study and related information. 3. The City Council could choose another process to accomplish further study of this proposal. Discussion/Decision Mode: If any action to initiate a second indoor ice sheet is to be undertaken to meet the needs of the 1998-1999 hockey and skating season, preliminary work on this project is needed immediately. Respectfully submitted, James. Prosser City Manager JDP:cak 0 9 • CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Council Letter No. 22 Agenda January 26, 1998 Issue Statement: Consideration of appointments to various City advisory boards and commissions. Background: Several terms of City board and commission members expire on January 31, 1998. In addition, there are mid-term vacancies due to resignations which need to be filled. Vacancies were advertised in the Richfield Sun Current, cable television channel 34 and as a feature article in the December 1997 Your City newsletter. Applicants were interviewed on January 21 and 22, 1998. Recommended Motion: Appoint persons to fill the terms on the various City boards and commissions. Basis of Recommendation: 1. Terms of several board and commission members expire on January 31, 1998. 2. There are mid-term vacancies which need to be filled. 3. In order to assure quorums for future meetings, appointments should be made at this time. Alternative Recommendation: 1. Defer appointments to a later Council meeting. Discussion/Decision Mode: This item is placed on the January 26, 1998 agenda for Council consideration. Appointments will become effective February 1, 1998. Respectfully submitted, rosser Jam ?anagaer City JDP:cak • 9-/ 0) CD • N T • N W V z Q V Q z O O V T T T T T T T T T 0) T T T T T T T T T O O O O O O O O O O 0 0 0 O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O N N N N N N N N N r- N N N N N N N N N T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T mmcMCMco co McMMCM MMM MMM MMM Z???2!% S Z2, ?2? zL, ? 2:, si'?, zsi->% ca ca ca ca ca co ca ca ca ca co co ca ca ca ca ca ca ca 7 :3 =3 :3 :3 :3 :3 :3 :3 :3 :3 =1 =3 =) :3 :3 = :3 :3 C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C ca ca ca ca ca ca ca ca ca ca ca ca m ca ca ca ca ca ca CO) a) U C co U ca LO 2 f- J W LL D a m O °a U C fa U ca T z O W w U) J V CO) a? U C ca U ca d' z O N O N W w z D O N CO) N U C U M > N U ? co U > ., M Z O ca cu > z O v) N M ? U) O O U) V aa) = O v O z a = cn = z Q a w w 0 CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Council Letter No. 21 Agenda January 26, 1998 Issue Statement: Public hearing and second reading of ordinance amendments to the Richfield City Code and Zoning Code related to storm water. Background: On December 8, 1997 the City Council conducted the First Reading of proposed ordinance amendments designed to bring the Richfield City Code and Zoning Code into compliance with requirements of the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District To obtain compliance with Minnehaha Creek Watershed District requirements, the City's Code of Ordinances including the Zoning Code must include certain language. The proposed amendments focus on storm water management, drainage and erosion control, required approvals, and exceptions. Recommended Motion: Conduct the public hearing and approve second reading of an amendment to sections 835.03, Subdivision 2; 835.05; and 720.19 of the Richfield City Code and amendment to Sections 526.43 and 541.19 of the Richfield Zoning Code. Basis of Recommendation: 1. The proposed amendments are necessary to be in compliance with Minnehaha Creek Watershed District requirements. • 2. The proposed amendments are in keeping with City practices and procedures. Alternative Recommendation: 1. The City Council could decide not to adopt these amendments; however, this would mean the City of Richfield would not be in compliance with Minnehaha Creek Watershed District requirements. This could mean it would be difficult, if not impossible, for improvements to take place in the portions of the City of Richfield which are included in the District. 2. The City Council could further modify the proposed amendments. Modifications could be more stringent than those proposed and continue to meet Minnehaha Creek Watershed District requirements. Less stringent amendments could pose the problem as outlined above. Discussion/Decision Mode: Council is requested to conduct a public hearing and approve the second reading of an ordinance amending Sections 835.03, Subdivision 2; 835.05; and 720.19 of the Richfield City Code and amendment to Sections 526.43 and 641.19 of the Richfield Zoning Code at its regularly scheduled meeting of January 26, 1998. Respectfully submitted, Jam .Prosser City anager JDP:ds • BILL NO. AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTIONS 835.03, SUBDIVISION 2; 835.05; AND 720.19 OF THE CITY CODE OF THE CITY OF RICHFIELD; AND AMENDING SECTIONS 526.43 AND 541.19 OF THE ZONING CODE OF THE CITY OF RICHFIELD THE CITY OF RICHFIELD DOES ORDAIN: Section 835, Bodies of Water, Subsection 835.03 entitled Definitions, Subd. 2 of the ordinance code of the City of Richfield City Code is hereby amended to read as follows: Subd. 2. "Bodies of water" means Richfield Lake, Wood Lake, Legion Lake, Mother's Lake, and all other lakes, streams, ponds, wetlands, marshes, water courses, and bodies of water situated in whole or in part within the city, and any lands immediately adjacent to or abutting the bodies of water, including the 100-year flood plain of the bodies of water. Section 835, Bodies of Water, Subsection 835.05 entitled General Rule, Subd. 2 of the ordinance code of the City of Richfield City Code is hereby amended to read as follows: Subd. 2. Exceptions. This section does not apply to the following: (a) the placing of any obstruction as part of a planned development which has been authorized in accordance with this code, provided such obstruction is not inconsistent with the city's comprehensive surface water management plan or has received a variance from appropriate water management organization as necessary; (b) an obstruction made in accordance with a permit issued by the department of natural resources of the state of Minnesota for the dredging, excavation, or lake level or shore line change of a body of water provided such obstruction is not inconsistent with the city's comprehensive surface water management plan or has received a variance from the appropriate water manaaement organization as necessary; or (c) an obstruction in which the 100-year flood plain storage volume lost is compensated for within the same 100-year flood plain by expanding the existing 100- year flood plain volume in another location: or {c} JdJ an obstruction placed pursuant to a variance granted in the case of unique hardship to property by the Council acting as the board of adjustments and appeals pursuant to the zoning code; provided such obstruction is not inconsistent with the city's comprehensive surface water management plan or has received a variance from the appropriate water management organization as necessary. Section 720, Storm Sewer System, Subsection 720.19 entitled Drainage and erosion control, Subdivision 1 of the ordinance code of the City of Richfield is hereby amended to read as follows: Subdivision 1. Drainage plan. In. the development, improvement or alteration of land, the direction, quantity or quality of drainage shall not be changed unless plans for the development are submitted to the city engineer, and are found to be in compliance with the citv's comprehensive surface water management plan or have received a variance from the appropriate water management oraanization as necessary. Run-off shall be properly channeled into a storm drain, watercourse, ponding area or other public facility. Section 526, Zoning: Commercial Districts, Subsection 526.43 entitled Site Plan Approval, Subd. 2 of the Richfield Zoning Code is hereby amended to read as follows: Subd. 2. Approval required. It shall be unlawful to do any of the following within the C-3 District without first obtaining site plan approval: 0 a) construct a building; b) move a building to any lot; c) expand or change the use of a building or lot or modify a building, accessory structure, or site or land feature in any manner which results in a different intensity of use, including the requirement for additional parking; d) grade or take other actions to prepare a lot for development, except in conformance with a permit or an approved plan which complies with the city's comprehensive surface water management plan or has received a variance from the appropriate water management organization as necessary; or e) remove earth, soils, gravel, or other natural material from or place the same on a lot, except in conformance with a permit or an approved plan which complies with the city's comprehensive surface water management plan or has received a variance from the appropriate water management organization as necessary. Section 541, Zoning: Performance Standards, Subsection 541.19 entitled Stormwater Management of the Richfield Zoning Code is hereby amended to read as follows: J-3 541.19. Storm water management. All new and modified developments shall comply, to the extent pFaGtin.?hlewith the City's comprehensive surface water ezoFmwaiar management plan as administered through the Gity F= giReeF'c (l ,.e office of the Director of Public Works or receive a variance from the appropriate water management organization as necessary. Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this day of ,19 Martin J. Kirsch, Mayor ATTEST: Thomas P. Ferber, City Clerk 0 CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Council Letter No. 20 Agenda January 26, 1998 Issue Statement: Purchase of three single axle gross vehicle weight (GVVV) cab chassis for use as dump trucks for use by the Street Maintenance Division of the Public Works Department. Background: Unit No. 168 (a WABCO grader) and Units No. 313 and 314 (Ford dump trucks) are fully depreciated and scheduled for replacement in the approved 1998 budget. All three vehicles are proposed to be replaced by dump trucks. This letter is for purchase of the three cab chassis. The approved 1998 Motor Pool budget contains $220,000 for this purchase. Purchase of new vehicles has been coordinated with the Hennepin County Cooperative Purchasing Plan. The lowest responsible bid for the cab chassis required was submitted by Boyer Trucks, Inc. at a base price of $41,289 per chassis. Add-on options of $6,356 for each chassis in order to make the vehicle "dump box and hydraulics-ready" will bring the per-cab chassis price to $47,645. Recommended Motion: Authorize the purchase of three Sterling brand single axle 33,000 GVW cab chassis's from Boyer Trucks, Inc. for a total purchase price of $142,935. The remaining amount budgeted ($77,065) will be used to purchase hydraulics, dump boxes, sanders and controls and lighting for these trucks. An additional $50,000 is also budgeted for front plows and wing plows for the three vehicles. Basis of Recommendation: 1. Boyer Ford Trucks, Inc. was the lowest responsible bidder for the type of cab chassis required. 2. The Motor Pool budget contains adequate funds for this purchase. Alternative Recommendation: Council may choose to reject this bid and request staff to obtain bids from other sources in an attempt to receive a lower purchase price. However, staff does not believe a better price can be obtained from a responsible dealer than through the Hennepin County Cooperative Purchasing Plan. Discussion/Decision Mode: Staff is requesting approval at the January 26, 1998 Council meeting in order to facilitate delivery of these vehicles. Respec Ily submitted, Jam D. Prosser City anager JDP:ds `7 C CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Council Letter No. 19 Agenda January 26, 1998 Issue Statement: Purchase of squad cars for use by Public Safety Department. Background: Five full size sedans (Units No. 9672, 9673, 9674, 9675 and 9676) being used by the Public Safety Department are scheduled to be replaced in 1998. All five of the squad cars currently in use were purchased in 1996 and all five will be fully depreciated in 1998. The extent and nature of the use of the squad cars indicates a two year replacement program. Purchase of new vehicles has been coordinated with the Hennepin County Cooperative Purchasing Program. The lowest responsible bid for the type of vehicle required was submitted by Superior Ford, Inc. The approved 1998 Central Garage Capital Outlay budget includes $100,000 for the purchase of the five cars. Actual cost per 1996 marked squad car was $18,751, and for 1997 the cost per squad was $19,763. The per squad price for 1998 is $20,160, which includes $267 in deduct options plus $70 in add-on options from a base price of $20,333. The total for 1998 would be $100,800. The additional $800 will be revised into the 1998 budget. Staff does not believe a better price can be obtained than through the Hennepin County Cooperative Purchasing Program. Recommended Motion: Authorize the purchase of five Ford Crown Victoria full sized police sedans through the Hennepin County Cooperative Purchasing Program for a total purchase price of $100,800. Basis of Recommendation: 1. Superior Ford, Inc. was the lowest responsible bidder for the type of car requested. 2. The City of Richfield is in need of replacing five fully depreciated squad cars. Alternative Recommendation: 1. Council may choose to reject this bid and request staff to obtain bids from other sources in an attempt to receive a lower purchase price. However, staff does not believe a better price can be obtained from a responsible dealer. Discussion/Decision Mode: Staff is requesting approval at the January 26, 1998 Council meeting in order to facilitate delivery of the squad cars. Respectfully submitted, Jame . Prosser City Manager JDP:ds U • 171 • CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Council Letter No. 18 Agenda January 26, 1998 Issue Statement: Purchase of three administrative vehicles for use by the Public Safety Department. Background: Three vehicles used by the Public Safety Department are fully depreciated and due to be replaced in 1998. The three vehicles are Units No. 9354, 9356 and 9357, all 1993 Chevy Luminas. Purchase of new vehicles has been coordinated with Hennepin County through the joint purchasing agreement. Superior Ford, Inc. submitted the low bid on midsize administrative vehicles, bidding Ford Taurus's at $14,449 per car, plus an option with power door locks, which is another $237 per car. Vehicles similar to these were purchased for $14, 411 in 1993. Recommended Motion: Approve a 1998 purchase order to Superior Ford, Inc. for three midsize vehicles at $14,686, for a total of $44,058. Basis of Recommendation: 1. The three vehicles currently in the motor pool are fully depreciated and due to be replaced in 1998. 2. Purchasing vehicles through county contracts assures the lowest possible price for the type of vehicle required. 3. The approved 1998 Motor Pool budget contains $51,000.00 for this purchase. Alternative Recommendation: 1. Council may choose to deny approval and direct staff to obtain new bids for these vehicles; however, staff does not believe a lower price can be obtained from a reputable dealer than through the Hennepin County joint purchase contract. Discussion/Decision Mode: In order to take advantage of these prices, staff is requesting approval at the January 26, 1998 Council meeting. Respectfully submitted, Jame . Prosser City Manager JDP:ds • CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Council Letter No. 17 Agenda January 26,1998 Issue Statement: Consideration to authorize the Mayor to sign a consent and conflict waiver Background: Chuck Dayton is an attorney with Leonard, Street and Deinard. This firm is currently providing local representation in conjunction with Steve Pflaum on airport litigation. Mr. Dayton has advised us that his firm has become aware of a potential conflict of interest regarding the Warden Oil site. That site is in the City of Minneapolis and was used between 1927 and 1992 for oil refining operations. The City of Richfield has been identified as a customer of that site and therefore a potentially responsible party. The City has been represented in addressing these issues by Bob Lindall of Kennedy and Graven. Leonard, Street and Deinard is -representing the interest of Soo Line Railroad Company, also identified as a customer, in connection with this site. Soo Line is also a potentially responsible party. It is appropriate in cases like this for the attorney to seek a consent and conflict waiver. The conflict waiver request has been reviewed by our City Attorney. Recommended Motion: Authorize Mayor to execute the conflict waiver. Basis of Recommendation: The City Attorney has reviewed and determined that there is no reason not to execute the conflict waiver. Alternative Recommendation: The Council may decide not to authorize the conflict waiver. If this would occur, Leonard, Street and Deinard would need to consider resigning representation to either the City or Soo Line. Discussion/Decision Mode: This matter will be presented for Council consideration at the meeting of January 26, 1998. Respectfully submitted, James . Prosser City Manager JDP:cak v Grav-en H A R T E R E D 470 Pillsbury Center 200 South Sixth Street Minneapolis MN 55402 (612) 337-9300 telephone (612) 337-9310 fax e-mail: attys@kenned7-graven.com RECEIVED JAN 2 0 1998 `7 e- l CORRINE H. THOMSON Attorney at Law Direct Dial (612) 337-9217 0 • January 19, 1998 Jim Prosser City of Richfield 6700 Portland Avenue South Richfield, MN 55423 RE: Warden Oil Site Dear Jim: I have reviewed Chuck Dayton's letter of January 8, 1998, in which he asked that the City consent to his law firm's representation of Soo Line Railroad Company in the Warden Oil Site matter. I also discussed the letter with Robert Lindall, who is representing the City's interests in the Warden Oil matter. Neither Mr. Lindall nor I have a problem with Mr. Dayton's request. The airport litigation and Warden Oil site matters are completely unrelated, and we do not foresee a problem with Mr. Dayton's continued representation of the City in the airport litigation. Accordingly, we recommend that the City consent to Mr. Dayton's request. The city council should formally act upon the request. I believe it can be handled as a consent agenda item. Sincerely, Corrine H. Thomson cc: Robert Lindall CAH136762 RC125-154 RECEIVED JAN 0 J 199$ LEONARD, STREET AND DEINARD PROFESSIONAL ASSOCIATION January 8, 1998 Mr. James D. Prosser Richfield City Manager 6700 Portland Avenue Richfield, MN 55423 Re: Warden Oil Site Dear Jim: C oL Charles K Dayton 612-335-1665 ckd1665@leonard.com Leonard, Street and Deinard has become aware of a potential conflict of interest with respect to the above-referenced file. The Warden Oil Site is a contaminated site in Minneapolis which, between 1927 and 1992, was used for oil re-refining operations. Based on information which the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) has obtained about Warden Oil Company customers, some 45 "potentially responsible parties" (PRPs) have been identified, and there may be many more.. Leonard, Street and Deinard has been representing the interests of Soo Line Railroad Company in connection with the Warden Oil Site. According to MPCA records, Soo Line is the largest known contributor of used oil to the Warden Oil Company. The City of Richfield, which is also one of the PRPs identified by the MPCA, has been represented by Bob Lindall of Kennedy & Graven. I am not in any way involved with the firm's representation of Soo Line in connection with the Warden Oil Site. However, I understand from my colleagues that most of the 45 PRPs, including Soo Line and the City of Richfield, have formed a PRP group and are working together to identify and undertake a cost-effective plan for dealing with the contamination. The Warden Oil matter is not a litigated matter, and by all accounts, the identified PRPs are cooperating and working together to keep costs down. However, there is a potential for conflict between Soo Line and the City of Richfield. While the firm does not believe that a conflict will develop between Soo Line and the City, it is possible that the PRPs could become adverse to each other if the PRPs are not able to agree on an allocation of the costs of addressing the site. This letter is a formal request that the City of Richfield consent to this law firm's representation of Soo Line in this matter and waive any potential conflict of interest as it relates to the firm's representation of Soo Line in the Warden Oil matter and its representation of the City on airport 150 SOUTH FIFTH STREET SUITE 2300 MINNEAPOLIS, MINNESOTA 55402 TEL 612-335-1500 FAx 612-335-1657 LAW OFFICES IN MINNEAPOLIS, SAINT PAUL AND MANKATO r7 C 3 Mr. James D. Prosser January 8, 1998 Page 2 noise issues. We will be asking Soo Line for a similar waiver. Additionally, as a precautionary measure, the firm will establish an "ethical wall" between persons at the firm who are providing legal service to the City of Richfield and those who are representing Soo Line in connection with the Warden Oil Site. An ethical wall provides further assurance that no confidential client information of any sort can pass from attorneys and firm employees on one side of the wall to attorneys and employees on the other side. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to call or send an e-mail. If you have no questions and the City is willing to waive the potential conflict arising from this firm's representation of Soo Line on the Warden Oil Site and the City of Richfield on airport noise issues, please sign both of the enclosed original "Consent & Conflict Waiver" forms and return one original waiver to me. Thank you. Very truly yours, LEONARD, STREET AND DEINARD Charles K. Dayton Enclosure 0 0 CONSENT & CONFLICT WAIVER With respect to Leonard, Street and Deinard's representation of Soo Line Railroad Company in connection with the Warden Oil Site, the City of Richfield hereby consents to said representation and waives any conflict that may arise as a result of Leonard, Street and Deinard's representation of the City of Richfield in other matters, specifically matters relating to the Minneapolis-St. Paul International Airport. City of Richfield By: Its: 0 7 ] ?6 0 CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Council Letter No. 16 Agenda January 26, 1998 Issue Statement: Filing of Pay Equity Report with Minnesota Department of Employee Relations. Background: Minnesota Statutes require that every municipality file a report with the Minnesota Department of Employee Relations (DOER) once every three years to indicate equitable pay relationships between male and female employees. The data compiled for the report is in accordance with strict standards determined by DOER and is reported in a summary format for submission to DOER. The City has completed its work on the Pay Equity Report for the period ending December 31, 1997 and is ready for the report to be signed by the Mayor and sent to the DOER. The preliminary summary results would indicate that the City continues to be in compliance with the Minnesota Pay Equity Act. However, DOER will make an official determination after the report is analyzed. Recommended Motion: Accept the Pay Equity Report and forward it to the Minnesota Department of Employee Relations. Basis of Recommendation: • 1. All cities in Minnesota must file a report with the State once every three years to comply with the Pay Equity Act. 2. Richfield must file a report with DOER on or before January 31, 1998 based on data as of December 31, 1997. 3. The report has been completed and seems to indicate that Richfield male and female pay relationships are in compliance with the Pay Equity Act. Alternative Recommendation: None, the report is based on actual data and must be filed with the State in accordance with the statutory timeline. Discussion/Decision Mode: This matter must be considered at the January 26, 1998 City Council meeting so the report may be forwarded immediately to the State of Minnesota. Respectfully submitted, (2c, Ja D. Prosser City Manager JDP:cak 9 Pay Equity Implementation Report Send completed report to: Pay Equity Coordinator • Department of Employee Relations 200 Centennial Building 658 Cedar Street St. Paul, MN 55155-1603 (612) 296-2653 (Voice) (612) 297-2003 (TDD) For Department Use Only Postmark Date of Report Jurisdiction ID Number I ,- Name of Jurisdiction ? City of Richfield o $K City ? County ? School ? Other: L v Address City State Zi p 6700 Portland Ave. So. Richfield MN _ 55423 t Contact Person Phone d Steve Devich, Adm. Services Director ( 612 ) 861-9702 0 The job evaluation system used measured skill, effort, © No salary ranges/performance differences. responsibility and working conditions and the same system was used for all classes of employees. ? Check here if both of the following apply; otherwise, leave Check the system used:,.. blank. ? State Job Match . a. Jurisdiction does not have a salary range for any job class. ? Designed Own (specify) b. Upon request, jurisdiction will supply documentation showing that inequities between male. and female c I Consultant's System (specify). classes are due to performance differences. rw PDI Inc Note: Do not include any documentation regarding , . ? O performance with this form. ;,: ther (specify) Q An official notice has been posted at © Health insurance benefits for male and female classes City Hall bulletin boards & other sit of comparable value have been evaluated and: (prominent location) C ? Th informing employees that the Pay Equity Implementation ere is no difference and female classes are not Report has been filed and is available to employees upon m at a disadvantage. request. A copy of the notice has been sent to each exclusive t 4 There is a difference and the maximum salaries - representative, if any, and also to the public library. The report reported include the monthly amount paid by the l f r h l was approved b City Council emp oyer o ea th insurance. (govemingbody) Q Information in this report is complete.and accurate. Martin J. Kirsch (chief elected official, print) Q The report includes all classes of employees over which the jurisdiction has final budgetary approval authority. (chief elected official, signature) . Mayor 1--26-98-- (title) (date) Result from Salary Range Worksheet o H a 86.28 % is the result of average years to salary range maximum for male classes divided by the t average years to salary range maximum for female classes. 1! c Results from Exceptional Service Pay Worksheet C;? «d ; ? 20% or less of male classes receive ESP. t ° x 0 0 102.42 % is the result of the percentage of female classes receiving ESP divided by the percentage =6 w of male classes receiving ESP. W ? c t 0 $ 11 , 178.672.6i6 the annual payroll for the calendar year just ended December 31. a (Part F on Back) s P&YegrPtPm6 000 01 rn N N Cd G cd h v A A O .. a a U a? >r a? N O n ON I C L 00 a ? u e A- S -1 II ?4-1 4 v O C) W O O z 4J W O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O E r o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 I 1 N c7 c ° C 4 N ?O --4 ON 01 \?O I'D I'D O Lr) 01 O O% ON I ?o M \.o n u1 M M r` i` r? rn O u1 co Lrn Lr) •- --? i . a -? - i .-i N N N N N H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O s r\ C r- Cl) N O O CO M CO CO e C, M cy, - Lr \Z O N O O "? ? ^ a. rj T ? ra ? ? N N N N ^3. ? ,p H- H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H .O. fi' ^ y C . O C fC 1. ? 7 N 1/'1 S=' m? u1 n n O CO O O O M M M rn'o 'o n n H y •° W E Y N N N N N M M M M M M M y Z a p U a1 W W =1 ZI W W P '-l FTa W 4 U ?' E? O O M t\ O - O O N O Ln Ln y :e u _. o m W ,^ V ? d t .C m Z W M M ''-+ O O n N O O •-+ -?' O N O O o 2 M N !t1 u1 'L7 r--I w .0 O U ?} a Z "I cvi y LL. K ? W S R V1 U N ? o? x I ?1 ?Y ?t ?7 ?1 ?t d ?7 ?t -:r v1 tf1 Ln ?f1 Q 49 0 a-) H ? ~ G ri U U ? q O C N H X, a 14 w 1 d L r ? U 9? z a 41 N •ri O -r-i tJ .Cl 34 ca O 0 N a I A 1 1 1 1 1 N U ..n fV M 4 VY 'd r.: 00 a ? .•+ .N• •?• ? ^ ?• i ? a 0 N a DO d a ?A E °O>Q R, N cn G7 N u N N 3 N N N `? v w U o ? E V a d N N 34 cd sC ti Q r 0 G sr C O y W U A 0 ti W a • o u D ? 'J J J C J a) ?j ., N v N N N d N N N al I h K O O O O O O O tx l a a a s a a a a s u c u a `off Ln L, L!'y sr) V1 v1 'n Lfl u1 Ln U1 Lr1 Ln Ln O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O o, rn rn o, rn F- c, O O O "D O O O O O ? ? ? '.0 a o a u1 00 00 CO Lr) 00 00 00 w w O O O O O N N N N M N N N N N M M M M M L H H H H H H H H H H H H. H H H H O O O O. O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O ^` 00 M M M 17 Cl) M M M M .-4 ^+ .-i -f .-4 - o t\ n t\ n n n t` n. En L c p N N N 00 N N N N N -,Y :J- N N N N N N N N N N N C N N N ' - H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H ` o 0 u? o o u h o h p u C0 o. Y tf) sr) Ln 1.0 Lr) Ln Lr) Ul) W) Lr) Lr) ul V) Lr1 _ . u3^ H 1 j W r -I Z W W W ,'F'., O UI" [sa Fz, W LQ W Z = 0 C ? u c U a N N bf ca P-4 b r-I N •r-I 4-I U = •? o U w O ^ O ? C •E-I ? ?z N a 0 0 ? U 4= •- ,--1 't r? - i -+ O - N M N O N M %O O ii = Z Z N O '-+ N O O N + O O 0 00 .W .--i co . N W Q O ? H H < i H x ?4 E-'I V w m _, a b m w H a G 4J c-2 O V ? fn ? ? ? cC ? O v ? CZ P4 •v O G N N t~ O O p Ni y i Cd U w u u A d U U U 'C „ ° 34 d W ?4 O -H •rl p u U a) O A z ? a x H V a a V ? ? ? v? V h * n O C? O - q N M d' Lr1 %D n 00 C? O .-d N U .-r -4 N 04 N N N N N N N N M M M c ? H I ? I U o C U i m v ? o ? u a G ? N 3 ? o q e O ? 0 'J L u ? c i ? s _. R o ? V ? N e V E o s N u G ° y a 6 _o n a •e Y ? C ? C ? E V L a a u c e G U 3 a i 10 7 3 i i i I , U 0 > O_ P1 f•'1 h O N N N N N N U U 6 N N a4 td O G cd ~7 u a 0 a C V h Q U Q GQ . 1i C > > > a i a i a i NF? ? a a C u ° u a `off ?t -t ?t u u u H 41 > > > > a N v 0 0 0 0 0 ` P-4 a a a s I r,l LrIl L"I r'l Lr,l LrIlU'll O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O c ? ? u1 Ln C M M M C? 1 i .4 M -, M ?t 't -t -It ul ul Ln 10 ?t ?7 ?t 10 ?t 1D Q o N N N O M Cl , M u1 M u1 . M M M Cn M M M M M M M M M M H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H C :) O c o O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O T --? -4 N N M M M --l --i F c ?O %O V) in L r) lf1 to I- m Ol Oh 10 m 10 c o w ?t ?t d N N N N 10 10 10 00 l0 00 N N N N M M M N N N N N N N u T ? H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H o u ll ° E o Q L C u u 7 ,,,, ? - 00 O 00 O O O O N N N N M u1 ° c Lr) Lr) u1 u1 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 = L) 67 Fr ?1 M Z W P14 W V - C O d ` !? u U a - N O O O . -? •- O -+ N O -? O Z tz E U a. `o y u O Q -°- O O 00 O O N O O O N O --l Z M N . OU co a v 'b r•? •r•I w u < x 2 4i O 0 u N 4j T 1.. H r U ? h Z < U P 41 N N x x' 0 O, ? 3 3 u x x 1.1 w I cd 3 3 V) •rl U U O1 P4 Pi 1? r-I •rl G cd U • td •rl •ri w 0 U 14 P N r1 rl O O U U1 S"+ 1.! JJ V] N G ? ? H 6 U 0 w G bt ? ?i O O •Utnr+ ? 0 41 41 O p ? ? ? U d x r4 -4 I -q -I u a r4 1-4 0 a w a 4 w W 7-d ?4 N 1J N 0 w 0 0 cd 04 3 3 3 4 x A cd o v ? O G ?4 U u v a, a? H + Pa U JJ t4-4 u U ? cd > O M 4j td r-I tl) O }+ O 4J •r•I i (A fA r. > 4 U U Pi H I ; 9 M ?t ul 10 ? O0 ? O •-- N M 1 u1 10 00 M M M M M M M ?Y' ?t ?t ?t ?t ?t ?t ?t ?' to O b _N h v? Z m L d H U u 'L y 7 O o U T ? c n u ? N C O m u Q m y C V u g 0 L N N q 3 c ° o m Q C ? u V u u u ° c c m ? yo ° gQ ?? U en r, N N N a %6 r? V Y NN 0 3 NN N .° ;o a u ti U o e a ? u c 6 • 00 a, rn N N H ca r71 u O 0 L L' O R C i W ?r y R U 0 GSt C Gr ? 4-J 4-J 4J 4J 1 o u G Gl N N 41 01 G) y 0 • O a O O a O a O a L' u o >. ? u `off } .. L' u'1 L" U'1 Ln U1 to ul -1 tP1 U•1 tr1 Ln O O O O O O O, O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O F ^ n .--1 M ol .--I .--1 r-1 "D .-i ..-I :T M M D c' O N 00 try - M W 01 O\ d1 -:I- C7, m 'o w w v? 00 00 00 lO o0 00 ?t ?t M M C4 M^ ^ M CY M ((?'^? M M M H N H H H {/} H H H H H 49 H H H H O O O O p c> O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 0 -+ M :t 't 7 M M N M N M N -4 M M N M N M M N M 'N en - c c o m - Ln M N - t %.p 00 "o O ?p 00 N C\ C ? ti H M H H N H N H N H M H M H M H M H N H M H M H N H cn H M H Q o O o u E _ C rq -° O1 ° o ? ? c-, c o RV LY o o ? ? . o ? ^ E- E E V ?r e 0 a U u c 0 a q ? p U W W W W Z W W W z 44 r.. I u u U V O --? i O O -i O Z? `o 2_ '-•? O O O O - O O O N O go -1 l Z N co Pa N •r•I W P-i C 0 O ? a 41 C -C N ? Z v < v U v w O aJ W N H 1"+ m N d) .b Gl ?.J cd p N M b' d) d' 7 JJ ••`!4 co p 41 41 3 0) -H a ?4 P O N cd cd ? Cdd ca N U N O:01 O O U 4J 4J tFd G7 C!? H Y+ O 0 0 0 JJ -H •H ca a a -) JJ O iJ 1J -r-4 O O N ?i 41 U (/] cA N N 41 r--i q G7 ?'+ C. -rq -H a •r•I O •r U N U O 34 U 0 a1 V) . Pa •r1 0) U }4 .'y O W y.l O co D Q) •r1 N r-4 ?4 •r-I O • H a o U ? W U N l c? O 1? N M 1t 1; 1? n 00 1? O 1? N M ? 17 Ln V) tf1 to tf•1 Ln tf1 u'1 tf1 Ln \o 1.0 %o %O NO O b N Z a c a C tVi d bS N N Y = N N 3 NN N `O .Q a fJ. U ? o ? U c a i00 rn 01 N u m t 0 a a V E iX W F?f y U O ti W ?a a 1 i u u ?' ? /1 ,// 4 - i i . / ? ar ¦ ) x v1 0. G G G G G G G G G ? V ° ° ° a a a a T m c ft 9 '?I v1 u'1 u'1 Lr1 U'1 v'1 ?f1 M ?' v1 M 1 l O u1 -) u'1 O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O c r t -? -1 1-1 -4 1-1 r-i ON -4 M N M -f 00 N .D p c M M m m zT f- N ?,O ?t m m ,O L1 M m M 07 CO M M 00 M .-I -4 O Ln M -.4 :T N ? .. M M M M M M M ?t ?t ?' trl ?t M ?' ? ? H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H _ O O O O Q O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O Q O O O ' ? M M M M M M .--I O ?t 00 D\ M ?t ul ?O N N N N N N m Ln IX) m 1- 00 N m O CO -4 Llj C? -4 T M M M M M M N M M -t M M M H M H M H H H H H H H H H H H H H H • r 1 O C m L O h O p a m C u G to n n 00 00 G- O --r d' _ h E F C n t\ t\ n n n n t\ 00 00 00 Co Z E v3 ? G Q pp (?J T C ?1 .?r W ?1 ?1 ?1 fa W' ?-I ?-1 r4 ?-1 F1 P4 ?I ?- z 0 y " u d p u u T U m m u U -1 O O 1 N 1 . O -i r-1 O O O --1 .? --1 O E y Lm e O ? 3 {L N ? U a Z `o b' O r? N O (=>O C 'I N v1 M O O O - n E ? ^' Z cry a) b0 cd Pa ' v b a) •rl 4-1 .C U Rya 4 w O v 4J - c .? C N U ? ? o u ? N z U p O a) G W O -H -0 41 0 cd 41 41 N •rq ,H .C ca u u Ri P4 Z G 4-1 a) ca U) -H ;> ?> a) ' w " o RS O m ? F I d a) rn 1J 61 4 cc r-I w O G 1? a) .u 'b cti > O M co CL U) co Q) a) -H H G G G N y H H O W P 41 p `? H UU `H -H 0 19 m rl 4J 0 a w co N ? ? c o G •rl a) • a) p •ra id q V ? a) a) J ri W U b U O G ?+ G O • O W U U b O P ri -H r-I Ej d a) N O .r{ O G O •rl ^d w u G W Pa M P-4 a d Pa d H 00 C ? O .-a N M ?t u'1 1O 9 00 C? O %0 lU I- I- r-, n n r- r- n n t\ 00 .. u Q > eg N N X ? N N 3 == 6m r O ? E ? u z 6 ?00 O, O1 r-I N N ?4 Cd 0 0 fd ti u a n O V C O L iv h R U A 0 ti w ) 4 W 4 T ??? 41 -H 41 •r4 41 •H 4-) -H 4.) •ri 41 •ri JW •rl 41 •r1 4-1 •r•I 4-) •rl 41 -H 41 -H 41 -H o > > > > > > > > > > > > > _ U b U U U U U U a? U U -z w 00 V 4> O O O O O O O O O O O O 0 W a a a a a a a a a a a a a ? u .? u 0 ' u a 01 .. ° cf O O t O O O O O O O O O O M O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 p 00 00 00 N O a\ O? a1 O1 a\ l! ) L(1 ?t d> C al - Cn "0 cl? v) ON ''t zr m M v1 't a ? uy U) Ln Ln f-, Ln -4 .--I 1-1 1-1 -4 r-1 00 00 M r+ ? w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w ?t -t ?t -t ?t ?t L' L L' L,7 L u•1 vl ul L L' H N H H H N H H H H H N H N H N _ 0 0 O O O. O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O E a. ?p rn u1 rn -a rn - I 14 r? N N 9 1 c ?D a0 %.D 00 ID 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 %.D %O Lr1. .00 en = c- M -It M Ln m r- r- rl r` r\ w r` N N 00 r- M M ?t M ?7 M M M M M M M -t -t -t M T V ?• H E u H H H N H H H N N H H H H H H o 0 t3? = T O '0 - 00 00 tf 1 U1 t!1 ul u1 ?D 00 co 00 I O O u - a y 47 F- 1! 07 00 d7 w w Ol O? .a\ a1 (D N S U 3 y ?y a ?y ?y U6. m?y PP ?y FL z ?y ZF1 F? ?y F? .y ?.1 Z1?y ?,z z z z n V T F 0 ? c U a b r-I 4) •r•I w U •rl ?i 0 _O •U `o c z u `o u U _ O N O 1 O O O O O O O -4 O O O O z `o u m M M O - . 1 N - 7 Z a, N d T U bD td 0 U > ?4 p w w O 0 p a) 0 4-) ar N •rl N O w •r W W W Ix (1) > 4-4 FZ4 co co w G Q) o W b . 01 ?4 ca ?4 ::J bt ra • G w O G O N . C -H 0 O Q1 •r1 •rl u O O U 41 O w ? co U N CO ] V G r I N al J..1 •ri S-1 U W C.'' •rl 14 a o G a) W •H •? PL (3) P4 4-J 4-J Q) b ? co -H rq fA 41 H 4I r•-I ?4 41 0 a) > aJ r+ N M ?t Ln 00 O, O r i N M ?t u1 ?.O w 00 O 00 m 00 m w w O. rn rn m m m m r? 0 N V OVO o- u T n G. z m a C h 0 V d o 00 o U n N V p0 N = o m' u m 2 u e V v 8 ? N N Vi 3 C O 0 q •4 V C; O d u u 7 T u p C G h F uA u C av u N N 'c V X N N 0 3 vv N ° U u fi e E = c u ? p u a b 00 rn rn N N 7-1 cd C+" Cd u D r 0 C O S!" rat N y CC U 0 ti Lw a • d u y T U ??o a a u c j G e h z m 4 C y? O 7 'o U T ? c v? N ? u ? o Cf u m L m C v V 8 ? N N y 3 c o ° p C ? u u u ? T u ° c c E `? a u0 ?+ u ? tF vv a V N N d o u ° Y N N E 0 3 NN N vv r N E _ ° u ? = u Lo' a O U c a) bC cd P+ T7 N 4-1 " C O V H •_ U ° t z 11 41 11 1J ? a.) u > 7 7 > y D o u al W al a) a) a) to 00 U bf Z G.1 "? O O O O O O ?' a a a a a A (% C .: ? J O O O M O O tl1 O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O G B " m u1 ul ".4 00 O m x c i° r?+ 00 00 r- O a u 1 ?1 L L4 ?D r? 00 M H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O c T .- 4 N N i- .--+ -4 ,o O _4 c 00 %D %D r,- .•-a --i O O n m I? N N r 1 1? I? ; L4 ?t ?t u'1 00 N H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H o P u C T o u E o v u = m _ --? d > O .-? 00 'D °= a ? r O O -O N N N N M M Ln o u _ C7 a Y .-i -? .? rl -4 --i ?- e E u3^ o ? u U E-° O O O O -? O O z O m 2- _ i O 1-1 C-1 ? C :'l O Z ?4 4J N < ? G O ? o i a U P4 w O O •rl a) a) 34 ?4 ro m n 00 m O N M ` D1 a1 O O 0 0 O CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Council Letter No. 15 Agenda January 26, 1998 • Issue Statement: Setting a date for the 1998 Local Board of Review. Background: Minnesota Statute 274.01 provides that the County Assessor shall establish a date for Local Boards of Review each year, for the purpose of reviewing the assessment of property within each respective city in Hennepin County. The meetings are to be held between March 1 and May 31 and must be preceded by at least 10 days published notice before the date of the first meeting. The Board of Review must complete its work within 20 days of the first local Board meeting each year, unless a longer period of time is approved by the Commissioner of Revenue. However, the Commissioner will not issue an extension past May 31. The County Assessor has recommended Monday, May 4, 1998 as the date of the 1998 Local Board of Review meeting for Richfield. The meeting will be scheduled to begin at 7:00 p.m. The City of Richfield has typically held its Board of Review meeting the last Monday in April or the first Monday in May. Approximately a month prior to the Local Board of Review meeting, the Administrative Services Director and staff of the Hennepin County Assessor's office assigned to Richfield will brief Council Members on the Board of Review process and of typical cases that may come before the Board. Recommended Motion: It is recommended that the City Council confirm the County Assessor's selection of Monday, May 4, 1998 at 7:00 p.m. for the 1998 Board of Review meeting. Basis for Recommendation: 1. The County Assessor coordinates the scheduling of all Local Boards of Review in Hennepin County. He has recommended Monday, May 4, 1998. 2. This meeting date allows ample time for the City to conclude its Board business. Alternative Recommendation: 1. The City Council could select another date for the Local Board of Review Hearing and submit the date to the County Assessor. Discussion/Decision Mode: Hennepin County must make a schedule of Local Board of Review hearings to facilitate the County Board hearings and to ensure that needed information has been compiled prior to the Local Board of Review meetings. Notification to Hennepin County should be made as soon as possible, especially if an alternative day is requested. Respectfully submitted, Jam s .Prosser City g nager JDP:cak • ?~~ MI To: Thomas P. Ferber, Richfield City Clerk From: Thomas May, Hennepin County Assessor Date: December 29, 1997 Re: 1998 Local Board of Review Dates Monday May 4, 1998 Day of the Week Date Minnesota Law requires that I, as County Assessor, set the date for your Local Board of Review Meeting. After reviewing previous meeting days and your suggestions of last year, the above date was selected. I sincerely hope that it is agreeable with your council. As there must be a quorum, I would suggest that an informal review of your members with a request that they mark their calendars would be appropriate. Please confirm the -date set out or call Bill Effertz at 348-3046 with your alternative date by January 23, so that our printing order can be completed on time. We suggest starting times of 6:30, 7:00 or 7:30 p.m., but will discuss it with you if you wish a different time. Your early completion and return of the attached tear off trip will be appreciated and we will send your official. notice for posting as required by law. Please return to JoDee Nelson, A-2103 Government Center, Minneapolis, MN 55487 CONFIRMATION 0 Municipality: Date: Time: Placer For selecting meeting dates in future years, the following information will be helpful 7p CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Council Letter No. 14 Agenda January 26, 1998 Issue Statement: Proclamation designating Thursday, February 5, 1998 as National Girls and Women in Sports Day in Richfield. Background: Richfield joins all of the Minnesota sponsoring organizations in participating in the fourth annual Minnesota Girls and Women in Sports Day and the Breaking Barriers award program; this program was established in 1994 to honor individuals and organizations that have made an impact on girls' sports programs in their community. The Minnesota celebration is also in support on the 12th Annual National Girls and Women in Sports Day celebrated on February 5, 1998. Recommended Motion: Approve an official proclamation by the Mayor designating Thursday, February 5, 1998 as Richfield Girls and Women in Sports Day and recognizing the following local sports organizations for their dedication to providing opportunities in sports for our communities young female athletes: East Richfield Baseball; West Richfield Little League; Richfield Girls Softball Association; Richfield Girls Fast Pitch, Inc.; Richfield Youth Soccer Association; Richfield Basketball Association; Richfield Gymnastics Club; and Richfield Hockey Association. Basis of Recommendation: Richfield, through its Recreation Services Department, youth sports organizations and volunteers, has much to be proud of in the way it has served the young female athletes of the community. Alternative Recommendation: None. Discussion/Decision Mode: This item is scheduled for the January 26, 1998 Council meeting. Recreation Services Director Gretchen Blank will be present to accept the proclamation. Respectfully submitted, I .. I r James . Prosser City Manager JDP:cak . CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Council Letter No. 13 3 Agenda January 26, 1998 Issue Statement: Proclamation designating Augsburg Park as a registered Peace Site. .Background: In cooperation with the staff of Spartan Elementary School and Augsburg Park Library, the Recreation Services Department has planned a joint Peace Site and Winter Family Fun Day Celebration on Sunday, February 8, 1998. This event has been registered with the World Citizen Inc., the organization that officially registers Peace Sites. A registered Peace Site is a place where people are involved and committed to: • Protecting the environment. • Promoting intercultural understanding and celebrating cultural differences. • Seeking peace within themselves and relationships with others. • Reaching out in service to others. • Working towards world law with justice. These statements fit within the overall philosophy of people participating in Richfield parks. Recommended Motion: Approve an official proclamation by the Mayor designating Augsburg Park as an official Peace Site. Basis of Recommendation: Richfield, through its Recreation Services Department, the Richfield School District and Hennepin County, has much to be proud of in the way it has served its constituents and added to the aesthetics of the community. Alternative Recommendation: None Discussion/Decision Mode: This item is scheduled for the January 26, 1998 Council meeting. Recreation Services Department Director Gretchen Blank will be present to accept the proclamation. Respectf II submitted, James D. Prosser City Manager JDP:cak