10-26-98 agendaCITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
MONDAY, OCTOBER 26, 1998
REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING
7:00 P.M.
COUNCIL CHAMBERS
AGENDA
.-.INTROD.UCTORY PROCEEDINGS
CALL TO ORDER
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
ROLL CALL
APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF OCTOBER
12, 1998
PRESENTATION
INDIVIDUALS WHO WISH TO ADDRESS THE COUNCIL ARE REQUESTED TO
S PRINT THEIR NAME AND ADDRESS ON THE SPEAKER'S REGISTER FOR THE
RECORD.
1. OPPORTUNITY FOR CITIZENS TO ADDRESS THE COUNCIL ON ITEMS NOT
ON THE AGENDA
2. RECREATION SERVICES DEPARTMENT REPORT REGARDING SUMMER
RECREATION PROGRAMS FOR 1998
COUNCIL LETTER NO. 268
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 APPOINTING YEAR
2000 PROJECT COORDINATOR C.L. 269
B. CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF STATE ISSUANCE OF CURRENCY
EXCHANGE LICENSE FOR YOUNGE, POTTS, WIEZER, & COMPANY, INC.,
7620 LYNDALE AVENUE C.L. 270
C. CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF BID MINUTES/TABULATION AND
PURCHASE ORDER TO S.& A LAND. CLEARING,.JNC...IN..SUM-OF $28,000
C.L. 271
D. CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF MASTER PURCHASE ORDER FOR
ROCK SALT FOR ICE CONTROL DURING 1998/99 WINTER SEASON FROM
I.M.C. SALT, INC. FOR ESTIMATED TOTAL OF $45,841.86 C.L. 272
PUBLIC HEARING
•
5. PUBLIC HEARING AND SECOND READING OF ORDINANCE RELATING TO
RULES OF COUNCIL PROCEDURE AMENDING SUBSECTIONS 205.05, 205.09
AND 205.13 OF RICHFIELD CITY CODE AND CONSIDERATION OF
RESOLUTION ADOPTING RULES OF PROCEDURE AND DECORUM FOR CITY
COUNCIL MEETINGS
COUNCIL LETTER NO. 273
ADMINISTRATIVE REPORTS AND OTHER BUSINESS
6. CONSIDERATION OF AWARD OF CONTRACT TO MAX STEININGER, INC. FOR
EXCAVATION AND SITE EARTHWORK FOR SECOND ICE SHEET AT
RICHFIELD ICE ARENA IN AMOUNT OF $221,895 AND CONSIDERATION OF
RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING PROCEDURES RELATING TO COMPLIANCE
WITH REIMBURSEMENT BOND REGULATIONS UNDER INTERNAL REVENUE
SERVICE
COUNCIL LETTER NO. 274
AIRPORT BUSINESS
7. CONSIDERATION OF RESOLUTION REQUESTING METROPOLITAN AIRCRAFT
SOUND ABATEMENT COUNCIL TO DEVELOP MITIGATION STUDY FOR LOW
FREQUENCY NOISE IMPACTS
COUNCIL LETTER NO. 275
8. AIRPORT STATUS REPORT
0 CORRESPONDENCE
9. LEGISLATIVE REPORT
COUNCIL CHOICE
10. COUNCIL DISCUSSION ITEMS
11-CLAIMS AND.. PAYROLLS
12. 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.
1]
7
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Council Letter No. 275
Agenda October 26, 1998
Issue Statement:
Consideration of a resolution requesting the Metropolitan Aircraft Sound Abatement
Council to develop a mitigation study for low frequency noise impacts.
Background:
The Metropolitan Aircraft Sound Abatement Council was formally incorporated in 1969
with the goal of reducing aircraft noise, as well as increasing public knowledge and
awareness of the issue. MASAC is responsible for the study and evaluation of existing
noise abatement policies and the proposal and initiation of new programs. This
requires that all council members be well informed on a wide range of noise abatement
procedures and plans.
Since noise abatement is the primary goal of all MASAC activity, the committee should
be actively studying the community impacts of ground level noise. Basically, aircraft
ground noise is a generic term describing noise produced by both stationary and
moving aircraft at airport facilities. Examples of aircraft ground noise include that with
which is produced during powered pushbacks.from gates, engine maintenance- "ground
run-ups", taxiing, queuing for takeoff, takeoff roll, and landing (including deployment of
thrust reversers).
Aircraft engines produce noise over a wide range of frequencies. A basic characteristic
of aircraft ground noise, especially as heard in communities near airports, is its
prominent low frequency content. As applied to aircraft noise emissions, "low
frequency noise" refers to noise produced by aircraft in the frequency region below
about 100 Hz. This type of noise is best measured using a C-weighted scale.
The basis on which MAC currently measures noise excludes meaningful analysis of low
frequency noise. The Metropolitan Airports Commission's uncritical reliance on noise
metrics that employ the A-weighting network for purposes of disclosing noise impacts of
aircraft ground noise in residential settings, and for predicting community response to
aircraft ground noise, is demonstrably inadequate and misleading. Specific
consideration of the considerable low frequency content of aircraft ground noise is
essential for such purposes.
Recommended Motion:
Approve the resolution requesting the Metropolitan Aircraft Sound Abatement Council
to develop a mitigation study for low frequency noise impacts.
0
Basis of Recommendation:
1. The Metropolitan Aircraft Sound Abatement Council (MASAC) was formally
incorporated in 1969 with the goal of reducing aircraft noise, as well as increasing
public knowledge and awareness of the issue.
2. MASAC is responsible for the study and evaluation of existing noise abatement
policies and the proposal and initiation of new programs, thus requiring that all
council members be well informed on a wide range of noise abatement procedures
and plans; and
3. Complaints regarding ground noise are currently being received from residents
living in Richfield.
4. Studies have proven that construction of a new North-South Runway located two
blocks away from dense residential development will have a significant adverse low
frequency noise impact on Richfield.
Alternative Recommendation:
1. Defer the resolution to a later Council meeting.
2. Do not approve the resolution requesting the Metropolitan Aircraft Sound
Abatement Council to develop a mitigation study for low frequency noise impacts.
Discussion/Decision Mode:
This item is placed on the October 26 agenda for Council consideration. The resolution
and request will be brought forth at the October 27 MASAC meeting.
4&n ly submitted,
Devich
Acting City Manager
SLD:cak
0
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION REQUESTING THE METROPOLITAN AIRCRAFT
SOUND ABATEMENT COUNCIL TO DEVELOP A MITIGATION
STUDY FOR LOW FREQUENCY NOISE IMPACTS
WHEREAS, the Metropolitan Aircraft Sound Abatement Council (MASAC) was
formally incorporated in 1969 with the goal of reducing aircraft noise, as well as
increasing public knowledge and awareness of the issue; and
WHEREAS, MASAC is responsible for the study and evaluation of existing noise
abatement policies and the proposal and initiation of new programs, thus requiring that
all council members be well informed on a wide range of noise abatement procedures
and plans; and
WHEREAS, the current levels of ground level noise (its major component being
low frequency noise) account for over half the complaints the City receives on a
monthly basis; and
WHEREAS, Richfield has repeatedly requested that MASAC address impacts of
low frequency noise on communities; and
WHEREAS, studies have proven that construction of a new North-South Runway
located two blocks away from dense residential development will have a significant
adverse low frequency noise impact on Richfield; and
WHEREAS, this runway will be located closer to residential property than any
runway recently constructed in the United States; and
WHEREAS, several independent studies support the need for mitigation of low
frequency noise; and
WHEREAS, studies have demonstrated that low frequency noise produces
levels of annoyance which require mitigation; and
WHEREAS, the Baltimore-Washington International Airport has included
mitigation of moderate levels of low frequency noise impacts into its Sound Insulation
Program; and
WHEREAS, at high levels of impact low frequency noise cannot be mitigated
using noise insulation methods currently utilized for protection against overflight noise.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of
• Richfield, Minnesota, as follows:
1-?)
1. Mitigation measures be developed for protection against low frequency noise.
2. That residents are provided protection against impacts of low frequency
(ground) noise.
3. That the remote monitoring sites in neighboring communities measure C-
weighted, as well as A-weighted noise scales and are included with monthly
informational reports.
4. That low frequency (ground) noise impacts are studied and mitigated on the
same level as high frequency (overflight) noise.
Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield this 26th day of October,
1998.
Martin J. Kirsch, Mayor
ATTEST:
•
Thomas P. Ferber, City Clerk
0
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Council Letter No. 274
Agenda October 26, 1998
Issue Statement:
Consideration of award of contract for excavation and site earthwork for a second ice
sheet and resolution establishing procedures relating to compliance with reimbursement
bond regulations under the Internal Revenue Service.
Background:
On August 24, 1998 the City Council gave second reading approval of an ordinance to
authorize the construction of a second ice sheet. The ordinance became effective in
early October according to the City Charter. Thus, the City is in a position to proceed
with the components of a construction project to build the second ice sheet.
The first step in the construction process is to correct the soils east of the existing arena
to accommodate the second sheet addition. The soil correction and site preparation
should be completed in the next several weeks in order to have the site prepared for
construction of the facility in the spring of 1999. This work anticipates an opening of the
second ice sheet in September 1999.
Bids for the excavation and site earthwork were properly published and noticed with
• bids opened on October 21 at 2 p.m. The results of the bid opening were as follows:
Contractor Base Bid Alternate A Alternate B Alternate C
CS McCrossan $392,347.21 $8,795.17 ($1,790.63) ($3,450.00)
Julian M. Johnson $378,000.00 $8,500.00 N/C ($1,500.00)
Max Steininger $215,895.00 $6,000.00 N/C ($4,000.00)
Belair Excavating $338,436.00 $9,311.00 N/C N/C
Dobozenski & Sons $239,346.00 $4,500.00 ($1,250.00) ($2,590.00)
M.J. Ryan $307,435.00 $8,745.00 ($4,500.00) ($2,575.00)
Ingram Exc. $364,000.00 $6,000.00 N/C ($4,000.00)
Northwest Asphalt $249.765.00 $5,500.00 ($6,900.00) ($3,000.00)
Based upon an analysis of the bids, Kraus Anderson, the Construction Manager for the
project, and City staff recommend that the bid be awarded to the Max Steininger firm,
the low bidder for the project. In addition to the base bid three alternates were also
considered.
Alternate A: ($6,000) represents the additional cost necessary to correct the soil for a
future dedicated locker-room addition.
Alternate B: (No charge) represents the use of six inches of sand fill instead of 12
inches under the concrete pad.
(0,1
Alternate C: (-$4,000) represents the reduction in contract cost if a water main is not
encountered in the area. This will not be known until after the work has been initiated.
The recommendation is that in addition to the base bid that Alternate A also be
approved. The soil correction for potential future dedicated locker-rooms for the High
School and/or Holy Angels would be a very good investment at this point in the project.
A second part of the bid opened on October 21, was for the purchase of an ice rink
refrigeration system. One new system and one used system were proposed and bid.
Further analysis on this item is needed before a decision can be made as to whether to
award any part of the bid or to rebid at a later date.
Another consideration is the funding of this portion of the project. The overall funding
for the second ice sheet will consist of an interfund loan of $500,000 reimbursed
through liquor profits and a Recreation Revenue Bond issue. Those bonds would most
likely be sold sometime in the next several months assuming that the City follows
through with the construction of this project. While the City could fund this segment of
the contract with the interfund loan portion of the project, it would be very desirable to
establish a resolution which would allow the City to reimburse itself for this expenditure
from the future Recreation Revenue Bond proceeds for this project. The attached
resolution preserves the City's right to reimburse itself from such bond proceeds but
does not authorize the sale of the bond nor does it obligate the City to do so at any time
in the future.
Recommended Motion:
Recommend that the City Council take the following two actions:
1. Award the contract for excavation and site earthwork for the second ice sheet to
Max Steininger, Inc. in the amount of $221,895 for the base bid and Alternate A and
authorize the City Manager to execute all related contract documents.
2. Adopt a resolution establishing procedures relating to compliance with
reimbursement bond regulations under the Internal Revenue Service.
Basis of Recommendation:
1. The City Council has previously authorized this project in compliance with the City
Charter.
2. The first step in the construction of this project is the soil correction work necessary
on the site.
3. Bids for the site preparation has been advertised and opened, with the low bidder
well within the architects/construction manager's original cost estimate of $250,000.
4. Alternate A is a logical addition to the project at this time in case the future
dedicated locker-room space is needed.
5. The attached resolution preserves the City's right to reimburse itself for the cost of
this work from a future bond sale if the City chooses to issue such bonds sometime
in the future.
Alternative Recommendation:
1. The City Council could reject all bids and stop the project at this point.
2. The City Council could reject all bids and ask that the work be rebid.
3. The City Council could select another bidder to be awarded the project.
Discussion/Decision Mode:
Action on this work is needed on October 26 if the soil correction work is to be
completed in the fall of 1998 as planned and the opening of the second ice sheet is not
delayed. Action on the resolution must be taken within 30 days of the award of this
contract in order to preserve the City's right to future reimbursement.
R tfully sub tted,
.?
en L. evic
Acting City Manager
SLD:ds
0
RESOLUTION NO. (p"; 3
RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING PROCEDURES
RELATING TO COMPLIANCE WITH R1EINIBURSEMENT BOND
REGULATIONS UNDER THE INTERNAL REVENUE CODE
BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council (the "Council") of the City of Richfield, Minnesota (the "City"),
as follows:
Recitals.
(a) The Internal Revenue Service has issued Treasury Regulations, Section 1.150-2
(as the same may be amended or supplemented, the "Regulations"), dealing with "reimbursement
bond" proceeds, being proceeds of the City's bonds used to reimburse the City for any project
expenditure paid by the City prior to the time of the issuance of those bonds.
(b) The Regulations generally require that the City make a declaration of intent to
reimburse itself for such prior expenditures out of the proceeds of subsequently issued bonds,
that such declaration be made not later than 60 days after the expenditure is actually paid, and
that the bonding occur and the written reimbursement allocation be made from the proceeds of
such bonds within 18 months after the later of (1) the date of payment of the expenditure or (2)
the date the project is placed in service (but in no event more than 3 years after actual payment).
(c) The City heretofore implemented procedures for compliance with the
predecessor versions of the Regulations and desires to amend and supplement those procedures
to ensure compliance with the Regulations.
(d) The City's bond counsel has advised the City that the Regulations do not apply,
and hence the provisions of this Resolution are intended to have no application to payments of
City project costs first made by the City out of the proceeds of bonds issued prior to the date of
such payments.
2. Official Intent Declaration. The Regulations, in the situations in which they apply,
require the City to have declared an official intent (the "Declaration") to reimburse itself for previously
paid project expenditures out of the proceeds of subsequently issued bonds. The Council hereby
authorizes the City Manager to make the City's Declarations or to delegate from time to time that
responsibility to other appropriate City employees. Each Declaration shall comply with the requirements
of the Regulations, including without limitation the following:
(a) Each Declaration shall be made not later than 60 days after payment of the
applicable project cost and shall state that the City reasonably expects to reimburse itself for the
expenditure out of the proceeds of a bond issue or similar borrowing. Each Declaration may be
made substantially in the form of the Exhibit A which is attached to and made a part of this
Resolution, or in any other format which may at the time comply with the Regulations.
(b) Each Declaration shall (1) contain a reasonably accurate description of the
"project." as defined in the Regulations (which may include the property or program to be
916757.01
(P-ginanced' as applicable), to which the expenditure relates and (2) state the maximum principal
ID amount of bonding expected to be issued for that project.
(c) Care shall be taken so that the City, or its authorized representatives under this
Resolution, not make Declarations in cases where the City does not reasonably expect to issue
reimbursement bonds to finance the subject project costs, and the City officials are hereby
authorized to consult with bond counsel to the City concerning the requirements of the
Regulations and their application in particular circumstances.
(d) The Council shall be advised from time to time on the desirability and timing of
the issuance of reimbursement bonds relating to project expenditures for which the City has
made Declarations.
3_ Reimbursement Allocations. The designated City officials shall also be responsible for
making the "reimbursement allocations" described in the Regulations, being generally written allocations
that evidence the City's use of the applicable bond proceeds to reimburse the original expenditures.
4. Effect. This Resolution shall amend and supplement all prior resolutions and/or
procedures adopted by the City for compliance with the Regulations (or their predecessor versions), and,
henceforth, in the event of any inconsistency, the provisions of this Resolution shall apply and govern.
Adopted this 26tbday of October ,1998, by the Richfield City Council.
ATTEST:
Thomas P. Ferber, City Clerk
•
Martin J. Kirsch, Mayor
sw-s^.o1 2
6-5
EXHIBIT A
Declaration of Official Intent
The undersigned, being the duly appointed and acting City Manager of the City of Richfield,
Minnesota (the "City"), pursuant to and for purposes of compliance with Treasury Regulations, Section
1.150.2 (the "Regulations"), under the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended, hereby states and
certifies on behalf of the City as follows:
1. The undersigned has been and is on the date hereof duly authorized by the Richfield City
Council to male and execute this Declaration of Official Intent (the "Declaration") for and on behalf of
the Citv.
2. This Declaration relates to the following project, property or program (the "Project") and
the costs thereof to be financed:
ICE ARENA SECOND SHEET
Uses of Funds
Construction 2,800,000
Capitalized Interest 83,768
Underwriters Discount 40,863
Costs of Issuance 55,000
Debt Service Reserve 206,000
Contingency M
Total 3,186,000
3. The City reasonably expects to reimburse itself for the payment of certain costs of the
Project out of the proceeds of a bond issue or similar borrowing (the "Bonds") to be issued by the City
after the date of payment of such costs. As of the date hereof, the City reasonably expects that
$2,600,000 is the maximum principal amount of the Bonds which will be issued to finance the
Project.
4. Each expenditure to be reimbursed from the Bonds is or will be a capital expenditure or a
cost of issuance, or any of the other types of expenditures described in Section 1.150-2(d)(3) of the
Regulations.
5. As of the date hereof, the statements and expectations contained in this Declaration are
believed to be reasonable and accurate.
Date:
City Manager
City of Richfield, Minnesota
6-(0
CERTIFICATION
The undersigned, being the duly qualified and acting City Clerk of the City of Richfield,
Minnesota, hereby certifies the following:
The foregoing is a true and correct copy of a Resolution on file and of official, publicly available
record in the offices of the City, which Resolution relates to procedures of the City for compliance with
certain IRS Regulations on reimbursement bonds. Said Resolution was duly adopted by the governing
body of the City (the "Council") at a regular or special meeting of the Council held on
199. Said meeting was duly called, regularly held, open to the public, and held at
the place at which meetings of the Council are regularly held. Councilmember
moved the adoption of the Resolution, which motion was seconded by Councilmember
A vote being taken on the motion, the following members of the Council voted
in favor of the motion to adopt the Resolution:
and the following voted against the same:
Whereupon said Resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. The Resolution is in full force and
effect and no action has been taken by the Council which would in any way alter or amend the
Resolution.
WITNESS MY HAND officially as the City Clerk of the City of Richfield. Minnesota, this
day of '199-,
City Clerk
City of Richfield, Minnesota
N:1Mi nnsota\RICHFIEL\Arena\RE1?VI B.RES
•
916757.01
r
H
O
N E
W Q.
Z
Z C)
?N
C
•? 00
CL 0)
0 CD
?
r
(? m N
LL O
rO
V
O
Q
a U
W
N
CIS
O
c =
O Cc
(9
Q W
Y :C
aD >
Ua
U ?
? O
N O
N ?
Q
LL
CL U
0
ca -°
N
C U
O
a c
O
C
U
N O
t?
3 .0
Co a
cQ
Lf O
N_ O
C cu
C
Q a
.C c6
.«. C
O O
rn
a? >
E U
ca
O
Ul)
r f!1
O Z
Z CO
CO v-
7
75
.fl
p O
o N0
N O C
C O
E fl- N
CL
cr 3
$a c
C 'V
> °F=
0 O
7
cc ?L+
O am
a)
U
Q.
•O ?
a) a
«r c
Y ? O
U Q N
OD U t
U- N
0
E: N
O > N
H cn U
C
N
'a
7
O
O
a
(c
a
C
f?
a
O
N
3
N
L
0
0
L
a
r
Q
Q
m "
`w
3
r
T
>
?O
N
to
C4
"'
$
H 8
O
8
h
O
g
H 8
S
N
z
w
o
o x
E
G
C
m 8
8
H
$
N
Z O
8
o
H
Z s
°
°
Q
v
u?,
C
m
O
?
h
?
? 8
,ri
Q
°
Q
G7
N
N
$
?
H
°o
?
co 0°
°
O
N o°
?
n
h
N H v v
N
C
H _
LU
Q
m ?S
C
N
} S
?
C4 In
C4
y
ap
N O
0
S
?
N O
N
'?
v p
8
P
N
v
O
Q
c
LU
O
m _
d
x
W
` U)
m °•
co
V)
N
y
N o
O
Z
Z
d h N
m
m
m
LU
o
to c
y
d
; °
LA
tN
S
N
$
N $
z
Z 00
o
O
v
O
W
Q
Q
m
t
-%
C
d
b
m
} p
8
^
c?
N
8
H
8
N
8
co
vs
Z
g
O
to
.-
7
LU
Q
m 0
`?
go
U
m
N
V
go
?
li
N
v
C4
y
a
C
y
?
8
°a
v
L
?
d
W
Q
am ?
?
U)
o
W
Q
Q
Q
°
N
to
U
a
m
=a
?
:5
U
m
Q
Q
m
`v
E
m
Q V
m
Q
is
m
a
c
m
Q V
.v
m
Q
U
m
a
c
m
Q
6-7
c
U
O
C)
0)
T
C
N
L
O
U
O
L
cu
a
cn
c
O
U
a
c
cu
a
O
cu
L
c0
N
.a
3
.Q
N
L
c0
L
a
U
C
O
O
C
c
c0
Y
U
U
L
F-
Y
U
U
a?
L
N
Li-
CL
O
.C
F-•
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Council Letter No. 273
Agenda October 26, 1998
• Issue Statement:
Public hearing and second reading of an ordinance relating to rules of Council
procedure amending subsections 205.05, 205.09 and 205.13 of the Richfield City Code
and consideration of a resolution adopting rules of procedure and decorum for City
Council meetings.
•
Background:
In 1992, the City Council directed staff to investigate options for rules of procedure and
decorum for the guidance in the conduct of Council and Commission meetings. The
City Council passed Resolution No. 7885 on June 8, 1992 adopting rules of procedure
and decorum for a trail period. The rules provided for parliamentary procedures to be
governed by the Sturgis Standard Code of Parliamentary Procedure.
The City Attorney has reviewed the rules of procedure adopted at that time and
provided an updated draft resolution for council consideration. The City Attorney has
also prepared a proposed ordinance amendment that would provide for the adoption of
the rules of procedure and decorum.
The City Council has been operating for the past six years under these rules on a trial
basis and it would be appropriate to consider adoption at this time by making the
necessary ordinance amendments.
Recommended Motion:
Conduct the public hearing and approve second reading of an ordinance relating to
rules of Council procedure amending subsections 205.05, 205.09, and 205.13 of the
Richfield City Code and to approve a resolution to adopt the rules of procedure and
decorum for City Council meetings.
Basis of Recommendation:
1. The rules of procedure and decorum provide an outline of appropriate measures for
conduct of Council meetings.
2. The Council previously adopted rules of procedure and decorum on a trial basis.
3. The City Attorney recommends adoption of the proposed ordinance amendment
and resolution.
Alternative Recommendation:
1. The Council may decide not to adopt the proposed rules of procedure and
decorum.
2. The Council may decide to modify the proposed rules of procedures and decorum.
Discussion/Decision Mode:
First reading of the proposed amendment occurred on September 28, 1998. A public
hea;Lng and second reading were scheduled for October 26, 1998.
Ily su
ActragCiity Manager
SLD:cak
BILL NO. 1998- 5-1
AN ORDINANCE RELATING TO RULES OF COUNCIL
t PROCEDURE; AMENDING SUBSECTIONS 205.05, 205.09
and 205.13 OF THE RICHFIELD CITY CODE
THE CITY OF RICHFIELD DOES ORDAIN:
Section 1. Subsection 205.05 of the Richfield City Code is amended to read as
follows:
205.05. Order of business. At the hour appointed for the meeting the
members shall be called to order by the mayor. The clerk shall note the
absentees. If a quorum is present the council shall then proceed with its
business.
Feval e
) a
m inutes ef
pp
.
(e
/f1 resel utieRs; a
f
/n\ ether h? ,ranee. Rd
c•_
The items of business and order of business shall be determined from time
to time by resolution of the council.
Sec. 2. Subsection 205.09, subdivision 1 of the Richfield City Code is amended to
read as follows:
Subdivision 1. Contents. The manager shall prepare an agenda for each
regular meeting. The agenda shall include the items
206.05 of business as determined from time to time by resolution of the
council.
Sec. 3. Subsection 205.09, subdivision 2 of the Richfield City Code is amended to
read as follows:
Subd. 2. Completion of agenda: deadline. The agenda for any
regular meeting shall be compiled and completed by 4:30 p.m. on the
Thursday Friday preceding a meeting.
• met. he Treg? aFded an an4ien if ° at the Meeti„n@-- :-# ??hinh they we
„- ee??,
The council may by resolution establish rules for considering
items not appearing on the agenda, including items brought to the Council's
attention by members of the general public.
Bill No. 1998- -2-
Sec. 4. Subsection 205.13, subdivision 2 of the Richfield City Code is amended to
read as follows:
Subd. 2. Special rules. The following special rules apply to council
procedure:
(a) a member may be excused from voting on a matter properly
before the council only with the unanimous consent of the other members
present, unless the member is required by law to abstain from voting;
(b) a motion before the council shall be reduced to writing by the
clerk at the request of any council member; and
(c) such other special rules as may be adopted by ordinance or
resolution as the council from time to time deems necessary.
Sec. 5. Subsection 205.13, subd. 3 of the Richfield City Code is amended to read
as follows:
Subd. 3. General rules. Except as otherwise provided in this code
or in rules of procedure adopted from time to time by resolution of the
council, council parliamentary procedure is governed by the latest printed
edition of "°Prt'A Rules of QW& "Sturgis Standard Code of
Parliamentary Procedure."
Adopted by the City of Richfield this 26th day of October 1998.
Martin J. Kirsch, Mayor
ATTEST:
Thomas P. Ferber, City Clerk
0
RESOLUTION NO. ?3
RESOLUTION ADOPTING RULES OF PROCEDURE AND DECORUM
is FOR CITY COUNCIL MEETINGS
WHEREAS, it is appropriate for the City Council to establish rules of procedure
and decorum for council meetings and Board and Commission meetings; and
WHEREAS, the Richfield City Code, section 205.13, subd. 2(c) provides that the
City Council may adopt such special rules by ordinance or resolution from time to time as
necessary; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has determined that it is appropriate to adopt these
special rules of procedure and decorum.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Mayor and City Council of the City
of Richfield, as follows:
1. The attached rules of procedure and decorum are hereby established.
2. These rules shall remain in effect until modified by resolution of the City
Council.
3. These rules shall be interpreted, wherever possible, so as to be consistent with
the rules set forth in the City Code. In the case of any irreconcilable conflict
• between these rules and the rules in the City Code, the rules in the City Code
shall prevail.
Adopted by the City Council of the City of Richfield this 26th day of October 1998.
Martin J. Kirsch, Mayor
ATTEST:
Thomas Ferber, City Clerk
0
•
Resolution No.
RULES OF PROCEDURE AND DECORUM
CITY COUNCIL MEETINGS
RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
SECTION 1. PURPOSE
Attachment
Subd. 1. General. It is recognized that in order to enhance the concept of
effective and democratic government, it is essential that a legislative
body establish formal rules of procedure and decorum so that a true
deliberative process will be observed and not disturbed.
SECTION 2. GENERAL
Subd. 1. Law. The City Charter, Ordinances and State Statutes governing the
City Council shall be followed and supplemented by the Rules of
Procedure and Decorum of the City Council.
Subd. 2. General Rules. In all matters of parliamentary procedures, the Council
shall be governed by the latest printed edition of the STURGIS
STANDARD CODE OF PARLIAMENTARY PROCEDURE as
published from time to time except as modified by these rules and the
rules set forth in Section 205 of the City Code.
0 SECTION 3. PRESIDING OFFICER.
Subd. 1. Who Presides. The Mayor shall preside at all meetings of the Council.
In the absence of the Mayor, the Mayor Pro Tern shall preside. The
presiding officer shall have the power to preserve strict order and
decorum at meetings, enforce the rules of procedure, and determine
without debate, subject to the final decision of the Council on appeal,
all questions of procedure and order.
Subd. 2. Appeal of the Ruling of the Presiding Officer. Any member of the
Council may appeal from a ruling of the presiding officer. If the appeal
is seconded, the member may speak once solely on the question
involved and the presiding officer may explain the ruling, but no other
Council Member shall participate in the discussion. The appeal shall
be sustained if it is approved by a majority vote.
Subd. 3. Rights of the Presiding Officer. The presiding officer may speak on
any question and make motions and second motions.
SECTION 4. AGENDA
• Subd.1. Matters for Consideration. Matters for Council action shall be
submitted by members of the Council and residents to the City
Manager.
Resolution No. 5--5 -2-
Subd. 2. Preparation. An agenda of business for each regular meeting shall be
prepared in the office of the City Manager and copies thereof delivered
to each Council Member as far in advance of the meeting as time for
preparation will permit.
Subd. 3. Order of Business at Regular Meetings. At the hour appointed for the
regular meeting of the City Council, the meeting shall be called to
order by the presiding officer. If a quorum is present, the City Council
shall then proceed with its business in the following manner:
(a) approval of minutes of previous meeting;
(b) presentations;
(c) public comment opportunity;
(d) agenda approval;
(e) consent calendar;
(f) public hearings, including ordinance hearings;
(g) proposed ordinances;
(h) resolutions;
(i) administrative reports;
0) correspondence; and
(k) other business.
0 Subd. 4. Varying Order of Business. The presiding officer may vary the order of
business.
Subd. 5. Consent Agenda. In the preparation of the agenda for a meeting, the
City Manager may place certain items of business on a consent
calendar. A member of the Council wishing to remove any item from
the consent calendar may do so at the time that the consent calendar
is reached on the general Council agenda. Any item removed from
the consent calendar shall become one of the regular agenda items of
the meeting and shall be taken up after the consent calendar. All
items not so removed from the consent calendar may be passed by a
single, non-debatable motion. Matters proposed by the City Manager
for the consent agenda shall be those that the Manager deems to be
of a routine, non-controversial nature.
Subd. 6. Items Not on the Agenda. The Council may consider items not
appearing on the agenda as normal business if a Council Member
does not raise an objection. If a Council Member raises an objection,
a vote of the majority of the Council Members present shall determine
the appropriateness of further consideration of the matter at that time.
The Council may not take action on any item that requires public
notice or hearing.
Resolution No. -3-Jr--_(o
•
Subd. 7.
Public Participation. Members of the public may address the City
Council during:
I?
U
SECTION 5.
(a) Public hearings.
(b) Public comment opportunity. The agenda for each regular
Council meeting shall include an opportunity for members of the
general public to appear and make comment to the Council on
matters not appearing on the printed agenda. The City Council
may by majority vote limit this portion of the meeting to thirty
minutes. Individuals shall be requested to limit their individual
comments to four minutes or less. Matters commented upon
during this period are not required to be considered as action
items at the meetings at which they are introduced.
(c) Specific issues scheduled on the agenda, other than public
hearings, if no Council Member raises an objection. If a Council
Member raises an objection, a vote of the majority of Council
Members present shall determine the appropriateness of
accepting public comment on the matter under consideration.
VOTING
Subd. 1. Procedure. The votes of the members on any ordinance, resolution or
motion pending before the Council shall be by voice vote, unless the
Mayor or any Council Member requests that a roll call vote be taken.
The presiding officer shall call for a roll call vote whenever a voice vote
of the Council is not clear as to the disposition of the action before the
Council.
Subd. 2. Abstention. A Council Member may be excused from voting on a
matter properly before the council only with the unanimous consent
of the other members present, unless the Member is required by law
to abstain from voting. The Council Member must announce the
Member's intention to abstain prior to the vote being taken. The
clerk shall record the abstention as "Abstain-name."
Subd. 3. Voting Order for Roll Call. The Secretary to the Council shall call for
the vote in consecutive order of wards. The presiding officer shall
always vote last.
SECTION 6. RULES OF DECORUM
Subd. 1. Council. While the Council is in session, the members must preserve
is order and decorum, and a member shall neither, by conversation or
otherwise, delay or interrupt the proceedings or the peace of the
Council nor disturb any member while speaking or refuse to obey the
orders of the presiding officer.
Resolution No. 5-1 -4-
Subd. 2. Recognition. No person or member of the Council shall address the
41 Council without being recognized by the presiding officer.
Subd. 3. Discussion. At the request of any Council Member or the Mayor,
Council discussion shall be limited as provided in this subdivision.
When the rules of this subdivision are invoked, no member of the
Council shall speak more than twice on any question, nor more than
five minutes each time without consent of the Council.
Subd. 4. Staff. Members of the City staff shall observe the same rules of order
and decorum as are applicable to the City Council.
Subd. 5. Pertinent to Matter Under Debate. Members of the Council, staff and
public shall confine remarks to the matter under debate.
Subd. 6. Addressing the Council. Each member of the public addressing the
Council shall step up to the microphone provided for the use of the
public after being recognized by the presiding officer and give his/her
name and address in an audible tone of voice for the records, state the
subject to be discussed, and state who the speaker is representing if
representing an organization or other persons. All remarks shall be
addressed to the Council as a whole and not to any member thereof.
No person other than members of the Council and the person having
the floor shall be permitted to enter into any discussion, either directly
or through a member of the Council, without permission of the
presiding officer. No question may be asked a Council Member or a
member of the staff without the permission of the presiding officer.
The presiding officer may impose a four-minute time limit on remarks
by speakers, whenever in the presiding officer's judgment, a time limit
is necessary in order to expedite the progress of the meeting or
ensure the opportunity for other speakers to be heard. The City
Council may by majority vote extend the time limit imposed by the
presiding officer.
Subd. 7. Spokesman for Group of Persons. In order to expedite matters and to
avoid repetitious presentations, whenever any group of persons
wishes to address the Council on the same subject matter, it shall be
proper for the presiding officer to request that a spokesperson be
chosen by the group to address the Council and, in case additional
matters are to be presented by any other member of said group, to
limit the number of such persons addressing the Council.
Subd. 8. After Motion. After a motion has been made or a public hearing has
been closed, no member of the public shall address the Council from
the audience on the matter under consideration without first securing
the permission to do so by a majority vote of the City Council.
Resolution No. -5- 57-?
Subd. 9. Conduct. Any member of the Council, staff or person indulging in
personalities or making impertinent, slanderous, or profane remarks or
who willfully utters loud, threatening or abusive language, or engages
in any disorderly conduct which would impede, disrupt, or disturb the
orderly conduct of any meeting, hearing or other proceeding, shall be
called to order by the presiding officer and, if such conduct continues,
may at the discretion of the presiding officer, be ordered barred from
further audience before the Council during that meeting.
Subd. 10. Members of the Audience. No person in the audience shall engage in
disorderly conduct such as hand clapping, stamping of feet, whistling,
using profane language, yelling, and similar demonstrations, which
conduct disturbs the peace and good order of the meeting.
SECTION 7. ENFORCEMENTS OF DECORUM
Subd. 1. Warning. All persons shall, at the request of the presiding officer, be
silent. If, after receiving a warning from the presiding officer, a person
persists in disturbing the meeting, said officer may order the person
removed from the meeting. If the person does not remove
himself/herself, the presiding officer may order that the Sergeant-at-
Arms remove the person.
Subd. 2. Sergeant-at-Arms. The Public Safety Director, or such member or
members of the police department, shall be Sergeant-at-Arms of the
Council meetings. The Public Safety Director or such member or
members of the police department shall carry out all orders and
instructions given by the presiding officer for the purpose of
maintaining order and decorum at the Council meeting. Upon
instruction of the presiding officer it shall be the duty of the Sergeant-
at-Arms to remove from the meeting any person who intentionally
disturbs the proceedings of the Council.
Subd. 3. Resisting Removal. Any person who resists removal by the Sergeant-
at-Arms may be charged with violating City Ordinance.
Subd. 4. Motions to Enforce. Any Council Member may move to require the
presiding officer to enforce these rules and the affirmative vote of a
majority of the Council shall require the presiding officer to do so.
Subd. 5. Adjournment. In the event that any meeting is willfully disturbed by a
person or group of persons so as that orderly conduct of the meeting
is not feasible, and when order cannot be restored by the removal of
individuals who are creating the disturbance, the meeting may be
adjourned with the remaining business considered at the next regular
meeting or at a special meeting called by the presiding officer.
Resolution No. 5,9 -6-
SECTION 8. WORKSHOP MEETINGS
40
Subd. 1. General. The regular meeting of the City Council that is held on the
first Monday of each month shall be a workshop meeting. Additional
workshop meetings of the City Council may be held at the call of the
Mayor. No official Council action will be taken at workshop meetings.
Subd.2. Rules of Procedure and Decorum. The Rules of Procedure and
Decorum of the City Council shall be observed in workshops so far as
they are applicable.
SECTION 9. CAMERA AND RECORDING DEVICES
Subd. 1. Use of Cameras and Recording Devices Limited. Cameras, including
television and motion picture cameras, electronic sound recording
devices and any other mechanical, electrical or electronic recording
devices may be used in the Council Chamber, but only in such a
manner as will cause a minimum of interference with or disturbance of
the proceeding of the Council
•
SECTION 10. SEPARABILITY
Subd. 1. General. If any section, subdivision, sentence, clause, phrase or
portion of these Rules of Procedure and Decorum is for any reason
held invalid or unconstitutional by any court of competent jurisdiction,
such portion shall be deemed a separate, distinct and independent
provision and such holding shall not affect the validity of the remaining
portions thereof.
0
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Council Letter No. 272 qb
Agenda October 26, 1998 • Issue Statement:
Master purchase order for salt to be used in ice control during the 1998/99 winter
season.
Background:
Each year, the City purchases rock salt, which is usually mixed with sand, to control ice
on road surfaces during the winter season. A recent history of prices for this product is:
Year Unit Price Delive Total
89/90 26.48/ton 1.85/ton 28.33/ton
90/91 26.27/ton 1.50/ton 27.77/ton
91/92 26.27/ton 1.50/ton 27.77/ton
92/93 25.66/ton Included 25.66/ton (500 ton)
92/93 36.92/ton Included 36.92/ton (500 ton)
93/94 25.66/ton Included 25.66/ton
94/95 27.46/ton Included 27.46/ton
95/96 28.21 /ton Included 28.21/ton
96/97 27.81/ton Included 27.81 /ton
97/98 27.69/ton Included 27.69/ton
Funding for this purchase is included in the 1998 and 1999 operating budgets for street
maintenance.
Recommended Motion:
Approve the purchase of an estimated 1,700 ton of rock salt for the 1998/99 winter
season from I.M.C. Salt, Inc., Overland Park, Kansas, at a unit price of
$25.32/ton/delivered plus tax of approximately $2,797.86 for an estimated total
purchase price of $45,841.86.
Basis of Recommendation:
1. The City participates in a joint purchasing agreement with the State of Minnesota.
2. The State of Minnesota solicited bids for all the participants in the joint purchase
agreement.
3. Under this particular joint purchase agreement, the City of Richfield has an obligation
to purchase from the low bidder.
4. I. M. C. Salt, Inc. was the lowest responsible bidder for rock salt.
Alternative Recommendation:
Council may delay a decision on this purchase for one Council meeting. However, the
price quoted is the lowest price for rock salt in ten years and, in case of early snowfall,
staff may need to order rock salt without formal Council approval.
Discussion/Decision Mode:
Staff is requesting approval at the October 26, 1998 Council meeting.
R ully submi d,
cting City Manager
SLD:cak
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Council Letter No. 271
Agenda October 26, 1998
• Issue Statement:
Approve a purchase order for removal and disposal of wood mulch debris.
Background:
The 1998 summer storms produced an overwhelming amount of wood waste in the City
of Richfield this year. Staff has given some of the mulch away, filled bins at the Central
Garage for residents to pick up for free, hauled some to Fort Snelling Cemetery, and
yet approximately 18,000 cubic yards of the wood mulch is left. Some of the
mulch/debris is at Taft Park at 63rd Street and Cedar Avenue (the temporary disposal
site), and the majority of the debris is on airport property at 1-494 and Cedar Avenue.
Staff wrote specifications for the removal and disposal of the leftover wood debris. Ten
contractors either were sent or picked up copies of the specifications. Six of the
contractors bid at the formal bid opening held on October 8, 1998, with the following
results.
S & A Land Clearing, Inc. $28,000
Veit & Company, Inc. 32,800
Klingberg Trucking, Inc. 36,500
Ceres, Inc. 49,500
Elgard Excavating, Inc. 74,105
Jay Bros., Inc. 89,600
Staffs estimate to remove and dispose of the mulch was approximately $25,000 -
$30,000. This money was not an anticipated expense, so it is not in the 1998 revised
• budget, but it is 100% Federal Emergency Management Authority (FEMA)
reimbursable.
Recommended Motion:
Accept the bid minutes/tabulation and approve a purchase order to S & A Land
Clearing, Inc. in the sum of $28,000.
Basis of Recommendation:
1. S & A Land Clearing submitted the low bid for the work.
n
2. The remaining wood debris needs to be disposed of before the end of the year in
order to qualify for FEMA reimbursement.
Alternative Recommendation:
None.
Discussion/Decision Mode:
Staff is asking for approval at the October 26, 1998 regular Council meeting in order to
expedite removal and disposal of the wood debris, and to qualify for FEMA
reimbursement.
ng City Manager
SLD:cak
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA `T C 1
U
Bid Opening
October 8, 1998
11:00 a.m.
Removal and Disposal of Wood Mulch
City Bid No. 98-17
Pursuant to requirements of Resolution No. 1015, a meeting of the Administrative Staff
was called by Thomas P. Ferber, City Clerk, who announced that the purpose of the
meeting was to receive, open and read aloud, bids for removal and disposal of wood
mulch, city bid no. 98-17, as advertised in the official newspaper on September 30,
1998.
Present: Thomas Ferber, City Clerk
Randy Hughes, Public Works Representative
Doris Swanson, City Manager Representative
Roxi Braa, Administrative Aide
n
LJ
The following bids were submitted and read aloud:
Bidder's Name/City Bid Security Total Bid Amount
S & A Land Clearing Cashier's Check $ 28,000.00
Klingberg Trucking Cashier's Check $ 36,500.00
Ceres 5% Bid Bond $ 49,500.00
Jay Bros. 5% Bid Bond $ 89,600.00
Elgard Cashier's Check $ 74,105.00
Veit 5% Bid Bond $ 32,800.00
The City Clerk announced that the bids would be tabulated and considered at the
October 25, 1996 City Council Meeting.
Thomas P. Ferber City Clerk
48
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Council Letter No. 270
Agenda October 26, 1998
Issue Statement:
Request from the State of Minnesota to review the renewal of a currency
exchange license for Younge, Potts, Wiezer, & Company Inc., 7620 Lyndale
Avenue.
Background:
On October 2, 1998, the City received notification from the State of Minnesota,
Department of Commerce, of a renewal application for a currency exchange
license in the name of Younge, Potts, Wiezer, & Company Inc., 7620 Lyndale
Avenue.
A license for this type of business is not required in the City; however, effective
on April 24, 1992, Minnesota Statute 53A.04 requires that the Department of
Commerce submit any application for licensure as a currency exchange to the
governing body of the municipality in which the business proposes to conduct
business.
This law also requires the governing municipality to render a decision regarding
• issuance or denial of the license within 60 days of the receipt of the State's
notification.
The State requires that the applicant submit the following information when
applying for this type of license:
• License fees in the amount of $50.
• A current fee schedule used for cashing checks, money orders or traveler's
checks.
• A surety bond in the amount of $10,000.
• Any owner, partner, officer, director, stockholder (owning 10% or more of the
corporate stock) or any employee with the authority to exercise management
or policy control over the company must submit to a background investigation
by the Bureau of Criminal Apprehension.
All of this information has been provided to the State of Minnesota, and
background investigation conducted by the Bureau of Criminal Apprehension
found no information on the applicant, Curt Potts. Curt Potts resides in
Minneapolis.
Richfield Public Safety Department has conducted a background investigation on
• the applicant. No criminal history was found.
qb-i
There were no Public Safety contacts with this establishment from September 1,
1997 through August 30, 1998. This compares to one contact in the previous
year.
Recommended Motion:
Staff recommends that the Council approve state issuance of a currency
exchange license for Younge, Potts, Wiezer, & Company, Inc., 7620 Lyndale
Avenue.
Basis for Recommendation:
1. The applicant has complied with State Statute 53A.04 for a currency
exchange license with the State of Minnesota.
2. A background investigation of the applicants finds no reason to recommend
denial of the license.
Alternative Recommendation:
1. The Council could deny the license request; however, staff has determined
that there is no basis for this alternative.
Discussion/Decision Mode:
Approval of the issuance of a currency exchange license by the State of
Is Minnesota for Younge, Potts, Wiezer, & Company, Inc., 7620 Lyndale Avenue, is
submitted for City Council consideration at this time.
Re ectf Ily submitted,
?S
t Devi h
Acting City Manager
SLD:cak
0
qA
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
. Council Letter No. 269
Agenda October 26, 1998
Issue Statement:
Resolution appointing Year 2000 Project Coordinator.
Background:
On January 1, 2000 a number of potential problems involving the delivery of public and
private services could occur. The reason is that the turn of the century could adversely
affect computers and equipment with embedded chips that may not be able to
accurately read and interpret the date correctly. The majority of year 2000 problems
stem from systems and equipment originally programmed to read and calculate the
year as a two digit number (such as "98 representing" 1998). Years ago when the
computer industry was rapidly developing for the consumer market, computer memory
and storage were very costly. Computer manufacturers, therefore, used the two digit
date system to make their products more affordable. Unfortunately, with two digit date
computers and micro chips are not able to distinguish between centuries.' As a result,
when a date with the year 2000 is encountered, the "00" would be interpreted to mean
the year 1900. This mistake could cause a wide variety of problems ranging from
immediate total system or equipment failures to malfunctions,-minor nuisances or
perhaps no impact at all.
In an effort to address this problem, private and public entities across the country are
implementing a systematic approach to defining and addressing the year 2000 (Y2k)
problems within their own respective organizations. The City of Richfield has already
begun to inventory and identify where Y2k problems could affect delivery of public
services. In many cases year 2000 compliant computer systems have already replaced
non-compliant systems within the City and accommodations have already been made
to insure that the Y2k problem will not affect City equipment. The City, however, will
continue in this endeavor over the next year to insure that all such known problems are
identified and corrected before January 1, 2000.
As part of that effort, cities across the State of Minnesota are all being asked to adopt a
resolution appointing a year 2000 Project Coordinator. In the City of Richfield, staff is
recommending that City Manager James Prosser, be officially named as the Year 2000
Project Coordinator. In turn, the City Manager has directed that each Department
Director conduct an analysis of potential Y2k problems within their respective
department and to report back to the City Manager with actions that have or will be
taken to address those concerns. The attached resolution would appoint the Y2k
Project Coordinator.
Recommended Motion:
Adopt the attached resolution appointing the Year 2000 Project Coordinator for the City
of Richfield.
LIA-1
Basis of Recommendation:
1. There is a very real potential that systems across the country will cease to function
on January 1, 2000 unless corrected measures are taken prior to that time to insure
systems will recognize the turn of the century.
2. Such an approach in every entity must be a systematic one with a project
coordinator.
3. The resolution presented here before the City Council formally appoints a Year
2000 Project Coordinator for the City of Richfield.
Alternative Recommendation:
1. The City Council could decide not to appoint a Year 2000 Project Coordinator.
2. The City Council may decide to appoint a different individual as the appointed
Project Coordinator for the City of Richfield.
Discussion/Decision Mode:
It is requested that this item be considered at the October 26, 1998 City Council
meeting as progress on this project is already in place and the resolution formalizes the
appointment of a project coordinator.
j R fully submitted,
L. Devich
Acting City Manager
SLD:cak
0
yA?
RESOLUTION NO.
is RESOLUTION APPOINTING YEAR 2000 COORDINATOR
WHEREAS, the City of Richfield recognizes that the Year 2000 problem involves
more than just a computer issue; and
WHEREAS, the City recognizes that all of its departments and services may be
impacted by the Year 2000 problem; and
WHEREAS, the City has adopted a policy establishing the Year 2000 problem as
a top priority for all City operations; and
WHEREAS, the City in this policy sets forth its commitment to identify, address
and resolve potential problems created by Year 2000 issues and to make its best effort
to ensure continuity of essential City services; and
WHEREAS, the City's efforts to minimize the potential impact of the Year 200
problem will likely involve multiple City operations and outside organizations; and
WHEREAS, the City believes that coordination of all persons working on the
Year 2000 problem on behalf of the City is essential to the efficiency and effectiveness
of the City's overall Year 2000 effort; and
WHEREAS, the City pledges to create contingency and community
preparedness plans to reduce the possible effects of computer and operational system
failures throughout the community; and
WHEREAS, the League of Minnesota Cities has requested that cities designate
a contact person to receive information on the Year 2000 problem.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City of Richfield hereby
appoints City Manager James D. Prosser to serve as the City's Year 2000 Project
Coordinator.
Adopted by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this 26 day of
October, 1998.
Martin J. Kirsch, Mayor
ATTEST:
Thomas P. Ferber, City Clerk
a
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Council Letter No. 268
Agenda October 26, 1998
Issue Statement:
Recreation Services Department report to the City Council regarding summer recreation
programs for 1998.
Background:
In conjunction with the "Recreation: The Benefits are Endless" initiative, the Recreation
Services Department is presenting a summary of the various summer programs for
1998.
This presentation is offered as an opportunity for the Council to observe and consider
the positive effects that recreation programs have on the community.
Recommended Motion:
Accept and consider the presentation and related information.
Basis of Recommendation:
The Recreation Services Department had a successful summer with the benefits
extending throughout the community.
Alternative Recommendation:
None.
Discussion/Decision Mode:
Presenting summaries of the Recreation Services summer programs and services at
the October 26 Council meeting will be Lil Hipp, Community Center Manager, and
Frank White, Recreation Programs and Athletic Manager.
Re ctfully submitted,
e 'ch
Acting City Manager
SLD:cak