11-6-95 agenda•
CITY OF RICHFIELD
MONDAY, NOVEMBER 6, 1995
REGULAR CITY COUNCIL STUDY SESSION
7:00 P.M.
COUNCIL CHAMBERS
AGENDA
CALL TO ORDER
1. 7:00-7:30 P.M. DISCUSSION OF WHETHER TO ALLOW PULLTABS
AT LICENSED LIQUOR ESTABLISHMENTS OTHER
THAN VFW AND AMERICAN LEGION
STUDY SESSION LETTER NO. 31
II. 7:30-7:45 P.M. DISCUSSION OF PROPOSED HRA "TOGETHER WE
CAN" ECONOMIC SELF-SUFFICIENCY PROGRAM
FOR APARTMENT RESIDENTS
STUDY SESSION LETTER NO. 32
III. 7:45-8:00 P.M. DISCUSSION OF ORDINANCE AMENDMENT TO
CHANGE CITY CHARTER TO REFLECT CURRENT
STATE LAW WITH RESPECT TO CONTRACT BID
LAW
STUDY SESSION LETTER NO. 33
IV. 8:00-8:15 P.M. DISCUSSION OF POLICY AND STRATEGY
RECOMMENDATIONS FOR AIRPORT RELATED
ISSUES
STUDY SESSION LETTER NO. 34
8:15 P.M. 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
Study Session Letter No. 34
Agenda November 6, 1995
Issue Statement:
Policy and strategy recommendations for airport related issues.
Background:
Recent developments regarding airport issues include the following:
New Ford Town and Rich Acres Acquisition
Demolition has begun on homes acquired during Phase I of the acquisition. Roughly
70 homes will demolished at the rate of 7 per day. Standard procedure for such
demolitions would require the City's inspector to visually inspect each site prior to the
contracting refilling the hole. Because of the high number being demolished daily, and
the fact that W.D. Schock and MAC have a contract inspector on site, the Public Safety
Director and Building Inspector have given Schock approval to conduct the inspections.
Police will also step up their already heightened patrol of the neighborhoods during the
demolition period to ensure that juveniles and others are not trespassing. The holes
dug during demolition could present a significant personal injury risk for trespassers.
is However, the City does not have any risk exposure since the properties are now owned
by the Metropolitan Airports Commission.
4-22 Extension
The mediation team has selected BBN Systems & Technology of Canoga Park,
California, as the contractor to conduct the citizen survey of airport impacted
communities. Dr. Sanford Fidell, the principal researcher, is a nationally recognized
expert in the study of noise and noise-induced annoyance. Dr. Fidell has conducted
similar surveys in Atlanta, Vancouver, and most recently, in the communities
surrounding SeaTac Airport in Seattle-Tacoma. The contract is in the process of being
circulated for all necessary signatures.
Attached to this report are the statements for services from Steven Pflaum of
McDermott, Will & Emery, and Charles Dayton of Leonard, Street and Deinard,
regarding the Runway 4-22 litigation. The abeyance of the lawsuit is reflected in the
general lack of legal activity.
• Dual Track Airport Planning Process
MAC expects to issue a Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Dual Track to
commissioners in mid-November. The Draft EIS will be available to interested agencies
and persons shortly after that.
0
The City of Rosemount and Dakota County have already issued positions opposing the
new airport alternative. The cities of Eagan and Minneapolis have special committees
investigating the issue, and expect to issue positions after reviewing the Draft EIS.
MAC staff will be meeting with the Richfield City Council in a special meeting prior to
the first regular council meeting in January to discuss the Dual Track.
Part 150 Sound Insulation Program
MAC approved the recommendation from the Part 150 Policy Advisory Committee to
fully include in the Sound Insulation Program any block that is intersected by the 65
DNL Noise Contour. The 65 DNL is the determinant for program eligibility. The FAA
had requested a recommendation, and will now review the issue before making a final
determination. It is unknown at this time when FAA will make that decision.
Joint Airport Planning Effort
The planning group of communities surrounding MSP, as well as the Metropolitan
Council and MAC, finalized a concept package to present to legislators. The package
has been forwarded to Representative Edwina Garcia and Senator Phil Riveness for
preliminary review and comment. Richfield will continue to proceed, based on the
comments from elected state officials, in developing strategy for future legislative
approval. Several of the communities participating in the joint planning have taken a
• wait-and-see approach because of the Dual Track.
Recommended Motion:
Discuss current airport policy issues.
Basis of Recommendation:
It is important for the Council to provide direction to staff on airport policy.
Alternative Recommendation:
Defer discussion to another date.
Discussion/Decision Mode:
This matter will be discussed at the Study Session of November 6, 1995.
Respectfully submitted,
James rosser
City Ma ger
0 JDP:cak
S
0
Privileaed.and Confidential
McDermott, Will & Emery
M E M O R A N D U M
•
EXPENSES NOT DIRECTLY RELATED TO LITIGATION CATEGORIES
August 1995 Fees & Costs $0.00
TO:
FROM:
RE:
I.
James D. Prosser
Steven F. Pflaum and
Mercedes A. Laing
Status Report Regarding Litigation Concerning
Proposed Extension of Runway 4-22
DATE: September 8, 1995
This month's status report includes work performed
through the end of August 1995, and corresponds with the monthly
statements dated September 8, 1995.
We have allocated our litigation-related time by
reference to the categories contained in our memoranda to you
dated September 6 and 26, 1994. A separate category has been
added for work related to the mediation. An estimate of the
percentage of the work that has been performed for each category
of work has also been provided. Work that was not directly
related to a litigation category is grouped separately.
II. BUDGETARY ANALYSIS
This month's activity consisted almost entirely of work
related to the mediation. Virtually no activity took place in
the pending lawsuits.
•
Memo to James D. Prosser
September 8, 1995
Page 2
COMPARISON OF ACTUAL VERSUS ESTIMATED
LITIGATION EXPENSES
Prepare Complaint
Est. Fees & Costs
Estimated Current Month Cumulative (Assumed State
Complete Fees & Costs Fees & Costs Court Lawsuit Only)
100% $0.00 $17,938.30 $11,225.00
Motion for Preliminary Injunction
(Assumes two briefs and oral argument)
Estimated Current-Month Cumulative Estimated
Complete Fees & Costs Fees & Costs Fees & Costs
0% $0.00 $0.00 $40,050.00
client communications
(Assumes No Appearances Before City Council)
Estimated Current Month Cumulative Estimated
Complete Fees & Costs Fees & Costs Fees & Costs
16% $72.5p $2,968.54 $15,000.00
Discovery Activities
(Assumes four depositionslin Minneapolis, preparation of
interrogatories and document requests, and preparation of
responses to discovery requests)
Estimated Current Month Cumulative Estimated
Complete Fees & Costs Fees & Costs Fees & Costs
1%
Pre-Trial Motions
Estimated
Complete
$0.00
Current Month
Fees & Costs
$72.50
Cumulative
Fees & Costs
20% $0.00 $8,001.47
$46,400.00
Estimated
Fees & Costs
$27,675.00
9
LJ
a
I j
0
Memo to James D. Prosser
September 8, 1995
Page 3
Mediation-Related Activities
Estimated Current Month
Complete Fees & Costs
45% $3,039.76
Trial Preparation
(Including Trial Brief)
Estimated
Complete
0%
Current Month
Fees & Costs
$0.00
Cumulative
Fees & Costs
$17,598.87
Cumulative
Fees & Costs
$0.00
Estimated
Fees & Costs
n/a
Estimated
Fees & Costs
$53,975.00
Trial
(Assumes Three-Day Trial)
Estimated
Complete
0%
Current Month
Fees & Costs
$0.00
Cumulative
Fees & Costs
$0.00
Estimated
Fees & Costs
$42,100.00
Preparation of ProDosed Findincs and
Other Post-Trial Activities in Trial Court
Estimated Current Month Cumulative
Complete Fees & Costs Fees & Costs
0% $0.00 $0.00
Estimated
Fees & Costs
$36,500.00
SUMMARY OF COMPARISON OF
ACTUAL VERSUS ESTIMATED LITIGATION EXPENSES
(Limited to Work for Which the Estimate Contained Categories)
Estimated
Complete
13%
Current Month
Fees & Costs
$72.50
Cumulative
Fees & Costs
$28,980.81
Estimated
Fees & Costs
$272,925.00
Memo to James D. Prosser
September 8, 1995
Page 4
III. CONCLUSION
Please let us know if you have any questions.
Respectfully submitted,
By
\31805\010\MEM\50MEMSFP.028
C:
McDERMOTT, WILL & EMERY
ILAw Offices
I )NARD, STREET AND DEINARD
` Professional Association
Suite 2300
150 South Fifth Street
Minneapolis, Minnesota 55402
CONFIDENTIAL
City of Richfield Invoice Number 73005
6700 Portland Avenue Invoice Date 09/20/95
Richfield, Minnesota 55234 Client Number 18638
Matter Number 17412
Attention: James Prosser
cc: Jamie Verbrugge
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
THIS INVOICE IS PAYABLE UPON RECEIPT
For professional services rendered through August 31, 1995
in connection with City of Richfield v. Metropolitan
Airports Commission, et al.:
0-
08/01/95 Review John Bloomberg's proposed
modifications to mediation agreement;
telephone conference with Steven Pflaum
regarding same.
08/04/95 Review Aviation Agreement; telephone
conference with James Prosser regarding
status.
TOTAL FOR PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
Other Expenses:
Long Distance Telephone
TOTAL FOR OTHER EXPENSES
TOTAL AMOUNT OF THIS INVOICE
23.41
125.00
------------
23.41
148.41
0
18638 Richfield, City of Invoice Number 73005 }
17412 v. Metropolitan Airports Commission Page 2
20 SEP 1995 0
*************************** Statement of Account ***************************
Beginning balance as of 08/11/95 9,146.76
Current Invoice 148.41
Payments since 08/11/95 -9,146.76
Adjustments since 08/11/95 0.00
TOTAL BALANCE DUE UPON RECEIPT 148.41
9
EXPENSES, IF ANY, NOT YET BILLED WILL APPEAR ON A
LATER STATEMENT
PLEASE RETURN ACCOUNTING COPY WITH YOUR REMITTANCE
For questions concerning your invoice call your attorney
or the Billing Department at 612-335-1505 •
Federal I.D. 41-1682773
Law Offices
LEONARD, STREET AND DEINARD
" Pro&ssiowl Amweiation
Suite 2300
150 South Fifth Street
Minneapolis, N innesota 55402
CONFIDENTIAL
City of Richfield
6700 Portland Avenue
Richfield, Minnesota 55234
Attention: James Prosser
cc: Jamie Verbrugge
Invoice Number
Invoice Date
Client Number
Matter Number
THIS INVOICE IS PAYABLE UPON RECEIPT
73005
09/20/95
18638
17412
For professional services rendered through August 31, 1995:
Current Invoice
Services:
Expenses:
TOTAL BALANCE DUE:
125.00
23.41
148.41
EXPENSES, IF ANY, NOT YET BILLED WILL APPEAR ON A
LATER STATEMENT
PLEASE RETURN ACCOUNTING COPY WITH YOUR REMITTANCE
For questions concerning your invoice call your attorney
or the Billing Department at 612-335-1505
Federal I.D. 41-1682773
RECEIVED O C 1 u 1995
Privileged and Confidential
McDermott, Will & Emery
M E M O R A N D U M
TO:
FROM:
RE:
James D. Prosser
Steven F. Pflaum and
Mercedes A. Laing
DATE: October 6, 1995
Status Report Regarding Litigation Concerning
Proposed Extension of Runway 4-22
I. INTRODUCTION
This month's status report includes work performed
through the end of September 1995, and corresponds with the
monthly statements dated October 6, 1995.
We have allocated our litigation-related time by
reference to the categories contained in our memoranda to you
dated September 6 and 26, 1994. A separate category has been
added for work related to the mediation. An estimate of the
percentage of the work that has been performed for each category
of work has also been provided. Work that was not directly
related to a litigation category is grouped separately.
II. BUDGETARY ANALYSIS
This month's activity consisted almost entirely of work
related to the mediation. Virtually no activity took place in
the pending lawsuits.
EXPENSES NOT DIRECTLY RELATED TO LITIGATION CATEGORIES
September 1995 Fees & Costs
$0.00
r
0
0
r
1
?J
0
Memo to James D. Prosser
October 6, 1995
Page 2
COMPARISON OF ACTUAL VERSUS ESTIMATED
LITIGATION EXPENSES
Prepare Complaint
Est. Fees & Costs
Estimated Current Month Cumulative (Assumed State
Complete Fees & Costs Fees & Costs Court Lawsuit Only)
100% $0.00 $17,938.30 $11,225.00
Motion for Preliminary Injunction
(Assumes two briefs and oral argument)
Estimated Current Month Cumulative
Complete Fees & Costs Fees & Costs
0% $0.00 $0.00
Client Communications
(Assumes No Appearances Before City Council)
Estimated
complete
16%
Current Month
Fees & Costs
$72.50
Cumulative
Fees & Costs
$3,.041.04
Estimated
Fees & Costs
$40,050.00
Estimated
Fees & Costs
$15,000.00
Discovery Activities
(Assumes four depositions in Minneapolis, preparation of
interrogatories and document requests, and preparation of
responses to discovery requests)
Estimated Current Month Cumulative Estimated
Complete Fees & .Costs Fees & Costs Fees & Costs
it $0.00 $72.50 $46,400.00
Pre-Trial Motions
Estimated $ Current Month
Complete Fees & Costs
20% $0.00
Cumulative
Fees & Costs
$8,001.47
Estimated
Fees & Costs
$27,675.00
.
t
Memo to James D. Prosser
October 6, 1995
Page 3
Mediation-Related Activities
Estimated % Current Month
Complete Fees & Costs
48% .$3,394.92
Trial Preparation
(Including Trial Brief)
Estimated %
Complete
0%
Current Month
Fees & Costs
$0.00
Cumulative
Fees & Costs
$20,993.79
Cumulative
Fees & Costs
$0.00
Estimated
Fees & Costs
n/a
Estimated
Fees & Costs
$53,975.00
Trial
(Assumes Three-Day Trial)
Estimated %
Complete
0%
Current Month
Fees & Costs
$0.00
Cumulative
Fees & Costs
$0.00
Preparation of Proposed Findings and
other Post-Trial Activities in Trial Court
Estimated % Current Month Cumulative
Complete Fees & Costs Fees & Costs
0% $0.00 $0.00
Estimated
Fees & Costs
$42,100.00
Estimated
Fees & Costs
$36,.500.00
SUMMARY OF COMPARISON OF
ACTUAL VERSUS ESTIMATED LITIGATION EXPENSES
(Limited to Work for Which the Estimate Contained Categories)
Estimated % Current Month Cumulative
Complete Fees & Costs Fees & Costs
13% $72.50 $29,053.31
Estimated
Fees & Costs
$272,925.00
•
•
0
I
i
Memo to James D. Prosser
October 6, 1995
Page 4
III. CONCLUSION
Please let us know if you have any questions.
By
\31805\010\MEM\50MEMSFP.029
?J
Respectfully submitted,
McDERMOTT, WILL & EMERY
Steven AZ Pf laum
0
Law Offices
LEONARD, STREET AND DEINARD
Professional Association
Suite 2300
1S0 South Ffth Street
Minneapolis, Minnesota 55402
CONFIDENTIAL
T4
City of Richfield Invoice Number 74067
6700 Portland Avenue Invoice Date 10/18/95
Richfield, Minnesota 55234 Client Number 18638
Matter Number 17412
Attention: James Prosser
cc: Jamie Verbrugge
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
THIS INVOICE IS PAYABLE UPON RECEIPT
For professional services rendered through September 30, 1995
in connection with City of Richfield v. Metropolitan Airports
Commission, et al.:
09/05/95 Telephone conferences with Mercedes Laing
and Steven Pflaum; review correspondence to
8th Circuit Court of Appeals.
09/11/95 Review FAA correspondence.
TOTAL FOR PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 187.50
I
c
f__J
TOTAL AMOUNT OF THIS INVOICE 187.50
I
18638 Richfield, City of Invoice Number 74067
17412 v. Metropolitan Airports Commission Page 2
08 0CT 1995
*************************** Statement of Account ***************************
Beginning balance as of 09/20/95 148.41
Current Invoice 187.50
Payments since 09/20/95 0.00
Adjustments since 09/20/95 0.00
TOTAL BALANCE DUE UPON RECEIPT 335.91
•
EXPENSES, IF ANY, NOT YET BILLED WILL APPEAR ON A
LATER STATEMENT
PLEASE RETURN ACCOUNTING COPY WITH YOUR REMITTANCE
For questions concerning your invoice call your attorney
or the Billing Department at 612-335-1505
Federal I.D. 41-1682773
Law Offices
LEONARD, STREET AND DEINARD
Professional Association
Suite 2300
150 South Fifth Street 4f.? ? .
Minneapolis, Minnesota 55402;
CONFIDENTIAL rv";aw
City of Richfield
6700 Portland Avenue
Richfield, Minnesota 55234
Attention: James Prosser
cc: Jamie Verbrugge
t
Invoice Number 74067
Invoice Date 10/18/95
Client Number 18638
Matter Number 17412
THIS INVOICE IS PAYABLE UPON RECEIPT
For professional services rendered through September 30, 1995:
Beginning balance as of 09/20/95 148.41
Payments since 09/20/95 0.00
Adjustments since 09/20/95 0.00
Current Invoice
Services:
Expenses:
187.50
0.00
TOTAL BALANCE DUE: 335.91
EXPENSES, IF ANY, NOT YET BILLED WILL APPEAR ON A
LATER STATEMENT
PLEASE RETURN ACCOUNTING COPY WITH YOUR REMITTANCE
For questions concerning your invoice call your attorney
or the Billing Department at 612-335-1505
Federal I.D. 41-1682773
r
•
•
•
•
•
E
Resident Contact:
Sound Proofing & Airport Concerns
Thur., Sept. 28 None given. 7400 block of 16th Considering home 4-22 issue explained.
Neighbor referral Avenue improvements. No follow-up
Wants to know if he requested.
will be insulated
before going ahead.
Mon., Oct. 2 Resident 7000 block of Park Would like to know Question answered.
Drop-in Avenue if he is in the sound No follow-up.
proofing area.
Fri., Oct. 6 Resident 6800 block of 21st Why aren't houses Informed he was
Avenue in Rich Acres being
li
h
d
d
h given bad info.
emo
s
e
. Sc
ock Called Schock to
staff told him they confirm that Phase I
would be done last. homes in Rich Acres
Other complaints. would be removed.
Questions answered.
Tues., Oct. 10 None given. 7400 block of 16th When will they be 4-22 issue explained.
Avenue sound proofed? uestions answered.
Q
o follow-up.
Fri., Oct. 13 Resident 6400 block of 15th When will he be Border blocks
Avenue sound proofed? explained.
Planes really bad
hi
i Questions answered.
s morn
t
ng. o follow-up.
Mon., Oct. 16 Resident None given Wants to know $ Referred her to WD
amount some NFT Schock for that
houses sold for. information.
Tues., Oct. 17 Resident 6400 block of 20th Upset about Informed that
Drop-in Avenue appraisal. Asked if
sh
can a
e
l appraisals cannot be
d h
l
d
U
pp
a
.
e er
appea
e
.
rge
to continue working
Schock and contact
staff if further
problems.
Thur., Oct. 19 Resident 6300 block of 5th Received noise info Staff encouraged
sent to him by staff. him to attend
What can he do to MASAC and air his
make MAC respond
- concerns. He will
to noise issues?
ssues. call for follow-up.
Tues., Oct. 23 Resident 6500 block of 15th What is happening Informed him he is
Avenue with sound outside eligible area.
insulation? No follow-up
requested.
•
•
This information was gathered September 28 - November 2, 1995.*
Tues., Oct. 23 None given 6400 block of 14th Is it true that she will Border blocks
Avenue not be sound
f
d? explained. No
f
proo
e ollow-up requested.
Thur., Oct. 26 Non-resident None given Is 6400 16th Avenue House was deferred
in the sound proof by owner. Should
area? He is thinking be included as soon
about buying it. as purchased.
Fri., Oct. 27 Resident 7500 block of 13th Is he going to be 4/22 explained. No
Avenue sound proofed? follow-up requested.
Mon., Oct. 30 Resident 6300 block of Knox Is he in the eligible Question answered.
Avenue area for insulation? No follow-up.
*Note: Names of residents have been deleted for this report. Council Members wishing to respond directly to a
resident's comment or question may do so by contacting the Media Assistant/Airport Issues at ext. 716.
JDV:ttf
0
• CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Study Session Letter No. 33
Agenda November 6, 1995
Issue Statement:
Discussion of an ordinance amendment to change the City Charter to reflect current
state law with respect to Contract Bid Law.
Background:
For several years the City Charter followed the State Statutes regarding the Contract
Bid Law. During that period of time both the City Charter and the State Statutes
required that a formal sealed bidding process be used for all municipal contracts in
excess of $15,000.
The statutory sealed bidding threshold has been periodically increased to reflect
inflation. The City Charter has also been changed periodically to match increases in
the state law. However, the Charter provisions pertaining to the sealed bidding
threshold have not been amended since 1983 and have fallen far below the current
statutory threshold for competitive sealed bids. While the Charter still requires sealed
bidding at the $15,000 threshold, the statutory threshold was increased to $25,000 in
the early 1990s.
• Deloitte & Touche, the City's auditors, and the City Attorney have recommended that
the sealed bidding threshold in the City Charter be amended to mirror current State
Statute threshold limits for sealed bidding.
The process necessary to amend the City Charter is more complex than affecting a
change in the City's Ordinance Code. In order to amend the Charter, the City Council
must first review a proposed ordinance to amend the Charter, then forward it to the
Charter Commission with a request that they make a recommendation on the matter.
The Charter Commission would then review the proposed ordinance and send it back to
the City Council with their recommendation. The City Council would then give the
ordinance first reading and set a public hearing and second reading of the proposed
ordinance. At the second reading, the proposed ordinance must pass by unanimous
vote of the City Council in order to accomplish the change in the City Charter.
In addition, the Charter also requires that the City Manager may make or let contracts
or sales for under $10,000 and may make contracts and/or sales for in excess of
$10,000 but less than $15,000 provided the City Manager first secures City Council
approval.
Further complicating this issue is Resolution 6847 from December 1983 which states
• that all purchases in excess of $5,000 but below $10,000 shall be made only after the
City Manager notifies the City Council on a City Council agenda. In practice, this
becomes another level of approval as a consent calendar item.
• The proposed ordinance now under discussion would amend the City Charter to
increase the threshold for competitive sealed bidding from the current threshold of
$15,000 to the current statutory level of $25,000. There are, however, two distinctly
separate ways of making a change in the Charter:
• The Charter could be amended to simply adopt the statute on competitive
bidding by reference. This would eliminate the categories of purchase, which are
less than the sealed bidding threshold and which require the City Manager to
obtain prior approval.
• The Charter could be amended to raise the limits for sealed bidding from
$15,000 to $25,000. The other limits specified in Section 6.05 of the Charter
could also be commensurately raised or left in place, as the Council chooses.
In addition to the Charter changes, it would also be appropriate to review Resolution
6847 which brings all purchases of $5,000 or more before the City Council for
"notification." This could either be amended to reflect a higher limit, left "as is" or
repealed. In reality, there is no notification in this process as it currently exists.
Instead, all purchases over $5,000 become part of an approval process.
Recommended Motion:
• Discuss the proposed ordinance regarding amendment of the City Charter and related
resolution regarding minimum threshold for sealed competitive bidding of contracts and
possible referral to City Charter Commission for review and request for
recommendation.
Basis of Recommendation:
1. The State Statutes were amended a few years ago to increase the threshold for
sealed competitive bidding of contracts from $15,000 to $25,000. Prior to that
increase the City Charter had mirrored the State Statutes with respect to the sealed
bidding threshold.
2. Both the City Attorney and the City's Auditor's, Deloitte & Touche have
recommended that the City change the current City Charter provision to increase the
competitive sealed bidding threshold from $15,000 to $25,000 to match the statute.
3. Preparing specifications and bidding contracts is a time consuming and costly
process. Contracts under $25,000 would be more efficiently handled through a
process of obtaining competitive quotation as is now the case for City projects under
$15,000.
4. For ease of administration and clarity, it is desirable to have a competitive sealed
• bidding threshold which is equal to that of the State Statute. To that end, both the
current Charter provision and related resolution should be reviewed.
• Alternative Recommendation:
1. The City Council may decide not to further consider this proposed change to the City
Charter.
2. The City Council may decide to consider increasing the sealed bidding threshold to
an amount different than the one suggested in the proposed ordinance.
Discussion/Decision Mode:
Discussion of this item is suggested at the City Council Study Session of November 6,
1995. The process to change the City Charter would require several months to
complete. It would be desirable to implement the new threshold as soon as possible if
the City Council approves such a change.
Respectfu submitted,
James . rosser
City Manager
0 JDP:cak
E
• SECTION I - ADMINISTRATIVE AND OPERATING MATTERS
Management Review of Self-Insurance Reserves:
Observation:
Berkley Administrators is an outside service that performs an analysis of the adequacy of the
incurred but not reported (IBNR) reserve for the City's workers' compensation and property
claims. Berkley Administrators does not provide actuarial services; rather, they develop an
expectation of the level of IBNR reserve required based on the historical lags involved with
claims being filed against the City. Currently, the City records an IBNR reserve equal to the
amount recommended by Berkley Administrators. No separate review as to the adequacy of the
reserve is performed either at the time of recording or in monitoring the reserve using
subsequent data.
Recommendation:
Management should review the IBNR reserve calculated by Berkley Administrators for adequacy
and reasonableness based upon knowledge of actual claims against the City, using historical
trends and known current activity. Also, the City should consider having an actuarial study
done to estimate the workers' compensation IBNR reserve.
Contracting Bid Laws:
Observation:
Based on current state contract bid laws, the requirement for sealed bids on contracts is
$25,000. The City's current policy is conservative in that it requires sealed bids on all contracts
greater than $15,000.
Recommendation:
The City should consider changing its policy to require sealed bids on all contracts greater than
$25,000, rather than $15,000. This will reduce the administrative burden of soliciting bids via
public notice for contracts between $15,000 and $25,000.
0
2
KENNEDY & GRAVEN
CHARTERED
Q0"no,, at Law
BERT A. ALSOP
RONALD H. BATTY
STEPHEN J. BUBUL
JOHN B. DEAN
DANIEL J. GREENSWEIG
CORRINE A. HEINE
DAVID J. KENNEDY
CHARLES L. LEFEVERE
JOHN M. LEFEYRE, JR.
ROBERT J. LINDALL
ROBERT C. LONG
James D. Prosser
City Manager
City of Richfield
6700 Pol-dand Avenue South
Richfield, MN 55423
470 Pillsbury Center; Minneapolis, Minnesota 55402
(612) 337-9300
Facsimile (612) 337-9310
WRITER'S DIRECT DIAL
337-9207
August 10, 1995
RE: Bidding Requirements for Contracts
Dear Jim:
JAMES M. STROMMEN
JAMES J. THOMSON, JR.
LARRY M. WERTHEIM
BONNIE L. WILXTNS
JOE Y. YANG
DAVID L. GRAVEN (1929-1991)
OF COUNSEL
ROBERT C. CARLSON
ROBERT L. DAVIDSON
WELLINGTON H. LAw
T. JAY SALMEN
Both the Richfield Charter and state law establish the maximum dollar value for contracts before
competitive bidding is required.
is The statutory threshold has been raised periodically over the last twenty or so years from about
$5,000 to $25,000. For many years the charter was periodically amended in order to catch up with the
increases in the state law. However, that has not been done for quite some time and the charter threshold
is currently $15,000 - $10,000 under the statutory level.
You may wish to consider amending the Charter again to close the gap.'
In speaking with various staff members, I have gotten certain impressions:
1. Preparing and bidding for contracts under $25,000 takes time, specs are sometimes
difficult to create .
2. Preparing and bidding for contracts under $25,000 costs money.
3. The more informal process of obtaining quotes is more suited to contracts in this range.
I also note that such a change would not in any way diminish the council's role in reviewing and
approving such contracts.
0 JBD:gak
Very truly yours,
hn . Dean
1 The amendment could simply reference the statutory limit thereby eliminating the need for future
charges.
RECEIVED AUG 1 1. 1995
JBD92877
RE160-1
Section 6.03. Departments of Administration. The Council may
create such departments, divisions and bureaus for the administration of
the City's affairs as it may deem necessary, and from time to time alter
their powers and organization. It shall, together with the City
anager, prepare and enact a complete administrative code in the form of
an ordinance, which may be amended from time to time by ordinance. The
Council may by ordinance abolish offices which have been created by
ordinance, and it may combine the duties of various offices as it may
see fit.
Section 6.04. Riaht of City Manager and Other Officers in Council.
The City Manager, the heads of all departments and such other officers
of the City as may be designated by vote of the Council, shall be
entitled to seats in the Council, but shall have no vote therein. The
City Manager shall have the right to take part in the discussion of all
matters coming before the Council, except as provided in Section 6.02,
Subdivision 6, and the department heads and other officers shall be
entitled to take part in all discussions of the Council relating to
their respective offices, departments or agencies.
Section 6.05. Purchases and Contracts. The City Manager may make
or let contracts for the purchase'or sale of supplies, materials,
equipment, or the rental thereof, or any kind of construction or repair
work involving real or personal property, or for the purchase of
personal services, when the amount of such contract does not exceed
$10,000. If such contract exceeds the last stated amount but is not
more than $15,000, same may be made or let by the City Manager after
first obtaining approval of the City Council. If such contract is for
the purchase of personal services and exceeds $15,000, same shall be
Wade or let by the City Manager after first obtaining approval of the
ity Council. Every contract for the sale or purchase of merchandise,
materials or equipment, or the alteration thereof, or for the
construction, alteration, repair or maintenance of real or personal
property, where the amount involved is more than $15,000 shall be let
only by the City Council upon the recommendation of the City Manager to
the lowest responsible bidder,.unless the Council shall otherwise
provide by resolution adopted by a majority of the Council and published
once in the official legal newspaper of the City. The Council may,
however, rejec_ any and all bids. Subject to the provisions of the
Charter, the Council may by ordinance adopt further regulations for
making of bids and letting of contracts. All other contracts shall be
let by the Council. (Bill 1987-21) 8-13-87
Section 6.06. Contracts: How Let. Every contract for the sale or
purchase of merchandise, materials or equipment, or the rental thereof,
or for the construction, alteration, repair or maintenance of real or
personal property, where the amount involved is more than $15,000 shall
be let only by the Council upon the recommendation of the City Manager
to the lowest responsible bidder, unless, the Council shall otherwise
provide by resolution adopted by a vote of a majority of the Council and
published once in the official legal newspaper of the City. The
Council, may, however, reject any and all bids. Subject to the
provisions of the Charter, the Council may by ordinance adopt further
regulations for making of bids and letting of contracts. (Bill 1983-29)
o.2-12-83
471.345 MUNICIPAL RIGHTS, POWERS, DUTIES 1180
47130 [Repealed, 1965 c 670 s 14]
471.31 [Repealed, 1965 c 670 s 14]
471.32 [Repealed, 1965 c 670 s 141
471.323 [Repealed, 1965 c 670 s 14]
471.33 [Repealed, 1965 c 670 s 14]
47134 [Repealed, 1959 c 261 s 4]
471.345 UNIFORM MUNICIPAL CONTRACTING LAW.
Subdivision 1. Municipality defined. For purposes of this section, "municipality"
means a county, town, city, school district or other municipal corporation or political
subdivision of the state authorized by law to enter into contracts.
Subd. 2. Contract defined. A "contract" means an agreement entered into by a
municipality for the sale or purchase of supplies, materials, equipment or the rental
thereof, or the construction, alteration, repair or maintenance of real or personal prop-
erty.
Subd. 3. Contracts over $25,000. If the amount of the contract is estimated. to
exceed $25,000, sealed bids shall be solicited by public notice in the manner and subject
to the requirements of the law governing contracts by the particular municipality or
class thereof provided that with regard to repairs and maintenance of ditches, bids shall
not be required if the estimated amount of the contract does not exceed the amount
specified in section 103E.705, subdivisions 5, 6, and 7.
Subd. 4. Contracts from $10,000 to $25,000. If the amount of the contract is esti-
mated to exceed $10,000 but not to exceed $25,000, the contract may be made either
upon sealed bids or by direct negotiation, by obtaining two or more quotations for the
purchase or sale when possible, and without advertising for bids or otherwise comply-
ing with the requirements of competitive bidding. All quotations obtained shall be kept
on file for a period of at least one year after receipt thereof.
Subd. 5. Contracts less than $10,000. If the amount of the contract is estimated
to be $10,000 or less, the contract may be made either upon quotation or in the open
market, in the discretion of the governing body. If the contract is made upon quotation
it shall be based, so far as practicable, on at least two quotations which shall be kept
on file for a period of at least one year after their receipt.
Subd. 5a. County or town rental contracts. If the amount of a county or town con-
tract for the rental of equipment is estimated to be $60,000 or less, the contract may,
in the discretion of the county or town board, be made by direct negotiation by obtain-
ing two or more quotations for the rental when possible and without advertising for
bids or otherwise complying with the requirements of competitive bidding. All quota-
tions shall be kept on file for a period of at least one year after their receipt.
Subd. 6. Applicability of other laws. The purpose of this section is to establish for
all municipalities, uniform dollar limitations upon contracts which shall or may be
entered into on the basis of competitive bids, quotations or purchase or sale in the open
market. To the extent inconsistent with this purpose, all laws governing contracts by
a particular municipality or class thereof are superseded. In all other respectssuch laws
shall continue applicable.
Subd. 7. Minimum labor standards. Nothing in this section shall be construed to
prohibit any municipality from adopting rules, regulations, or ordinances which estab-
lish the prevailing wage rate as defined in section 177.42, as a minimum standard for
wages and which establish the hours and working conditions prevailing for the largest
number of workers engaged in the same class of labor within the area as a minimum
standard for a contractor's employees which must be agreed to by any contractor before
the contractor may be awarded any contract for the furnishing of any labor, material,
supplies, or service.
Subd. 8. Procurement from economically disadvantaged persons. For purposes of
this subdivision, the following terms shall have the meanings herein ascribed to them:
1181
(a) "Small targeted
16B.19. .
(b) "Business entity
partnership, corporation
Nothing in this sect
ing a resolution, rule, rej
sets aside for awarding t
its anticipated total pro!
which uses either a negol
curement contract unde'
that any award based o
the municipality's estim
the open market and no
Subd. 9. [Repealed,
Subd. 10. Hospital I
to be used in the operati
are purchased or leased
than one hospital purch
hospitals either through
chased without regard t
following conditions are
(1) the hospital's goo
(2) the shared serve
than one source on the
and
(3) the arrangement
tives to review the purch
ments.
Subd. 11. Fuel cond
amount of the contract,
of fuel required for the g
erned by subdivision 4. '
Subd. 12. Procurem
hibits a municipality fro
an annual basis designa
described in section 268
ment of goods and sem
price or bid contract pro
aside program as allowed,
tiated price shall not exq
price for the goods and d
under the set-aside progrr
Subd. 13. Energy efB
vision.
(a) "Energy conserva
designed to reduce energ;
(1) insulation of the
(2) storm windows a:
and doors, heat absorbin;
tems, additional glazing,
modifications that reduce
(3) automatic energy
(4) heating, ventilath
(5) replacement or n
RESOLUTION NO. 6847
RESOLUTION RELATING TO PURCHASING
PRACTICES IN THE CITY OF RICHFIELD
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the
City of Richfield as follows:
1. All purchases of the City of Richfield which are
in excess of $5,000, but below $10,000, shall be
made only after the city manager notifies the
city council by inclusion on a city council
agenda.
Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield this
12th day of December, 1983.
ATTEST:
y' a K. Bergh Cit Clerk
?1
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Study Session Letter No. 32
Agenda November 6, 1995
Issue Statement:
Discussion of the proposed HRA "Together We Can" economic self-sufficiency program
for apartment residents. (A copy of the proposed program is attached to this letter.)
Background:
In August, the HRA was presented with a proposal to initiate a one year pilot economic
self-sufficiency program. They requested additional time for consideration and also the
opinion of the City Council on the proposal.
"Together We Can" (TWC) is an outgrowth of the success of the Community Apartment
Program (CAP). Much of CAP efforts have been directed at apartment owners and
managers. The focus of TWC would be apartment residents. TWC proposes to
eliminate the dependency of some apartment residents on government assistance by
linking them with existing program resources. TWC would have a full-time coordinator
officed in one of the "Sage properties". (Heritage Square or Hampton Place.)
A pilot program has been designed to demonstrate the benefits of providing these
• services. It is intended that this demonstration would provide support for continuing the
program through non-City funding. Specifically, non-for-profit human service agencies
and apartment owners would be encouraged to fund services in the future. For these
reasons, it is intended that funding for TWC would be of limited duration.
TWC would compliment CAP efforts by having as its focus the apartment resident:
• Census data obtained from South Hennepin Regional Planning Agency
(SHeRPA) indicated that approximately 1/3 (72) of the children who live in the
census tract in which Hampton Place and Heritage Square are located live in
poverty.
• Families in poverty face multiple barriers to economic self-sufficiency (lack of
education, lack of skills, lack of transportation, lack of child care, etc.).
• Families in poverty simply do not know what services are available and which
ones they are qualified to receive. (SHeRPA and others have come to this
conclusion.)
• Richfield Apartment Owners and Managers Association (RAMA) members
have expressed frustration with being called upon by apartment residents to
make referrals.
The purpose of the TWC coordinator would be to help participants identify and 'sort out'
their barriers to self-sufficiency and guide them to appropriate existing service
providers.
Beginning in the early 1990's, HUD encouraged housing authorities to initiate self-
sufficiency programs. More recently, if an authority wished to increase its allocation of
Section 8 vouchers, the authority was required to establish a self-sufficiency program.
Several authorities are already administering self-sufficiency programs including:
Bloomington
Red Wing
Duluth
Crookston
Fergus Falls
Kandiyohi/McLeod County
Minneapolis
St. Paul
While the programs vary, the common thread is: 1) the recognition that impoverished
families experience barriers to self-sufficiency; 2) that impoverished families will not be
• able to overcome the barriers unless someone helps them identify available existing
resources designed to deal with the barriers; and 3) assesses their needs and refers
them to the appropriate services.
TWC proposes a pilot program for one year officed in either Heritage Square or
Hampton Place. Its uniqueness would be the coordinator working near the participant's
home from an apartment unit. Also, some of the organizations providing services may
do so from the TWC office. This concept is reflective of the most current thinking on the
delivery of service to clients - that it needs to be relationship based and close to home.
An objective of CAP is to better integrate apartments into the community. The
beginning point was providing support to owners and managers. TWC provides an
opportunity to assist apartment residents with this integration. Economically self-
sufficient apartment residents would participate more fully in the community. Also, self
sufficiency would likely result in increased stable tenancies.
The HRA has approved the acquisition of three apartment communities from the Sage
Company. The HRA will become an apartment owner. A primary reason for the
acceptance of the `gift' was to provide an opportunity to pilot innovations which could be
transferred to other apartment communities. TWC provides such an opportunity for
piloting.
• The TWC report recommends that the HRA enter into a contract with an existing
organization which would supply the services of a coordinator. Being part of a larger
organization, the coordinator would be able to draw on a broader base of support to `get
the job done'. The proposed budget is $54,000 and appears on page 8 of the TWC
Final Report. The HRA proposed budget for'95-'96 (page 19) identifies the
expenditures associated with this proposal. Approximately one-half of the cost would
be funded by the Section 8 Program fund balance and the other half would be provided
by the Development Fund. Section 8 funds are appropriate because HUD has
authorized the use of fund balances for this purpose. Also, since participation would be
open to Section 8 participants and non-Section 8 participants a second source of funds
was identified.
Finally, staff has identified a very unique partnership operating in Brooklyn Park. Real
Estate Equities owns and manages Eden Park of approximately 400 units. Eden Park
was in need of renovation. Real Estate Equities purchased the property with
assistance from the city and federal tax credits. As a corporation, they concluded that
in the 1990's enlightened management should be based on a vision that said people
who resided in Eden Park could have better lives. To achieve this objective they hired
New Foundations of St. Paul a non-profit corporation to offer a full array of supportive
housing services, (see attached flyer titled Eden Park).
Recommended Motion:
Discuss the proposed concept and indicate to the HRA the appropriateness of
undertaking this program.
Basis of Recommendation:
1. Families in poverty face multiple barriers to self-sufficiency.
2. Available data indicates that many apartment residents could benefit from a self-
sufficiency program.
3. TWC offers an opportunity to better integrate apartment residents into the
community which is an objective of CAP.
4. Potential participants do not know what services they need or are available to
them and which ones they may be qualified to utilize or how to access them.
5. Participants would be referred to existing organizations.
6. RAMA members are often called upon by apartment residents to act as referrals
resources which is a further indication of need.
7. HUD has been encouraging all Section 8 authorities to administer self-sufficiency
programs and now, in some instances, requires them.
0 8. A full-time coordinator would be charged with operating the program on a pilot
basis.
9. The HRA is in part accepting the Sage `gift' to try new ideas in apartment
operation and management.
10. Funds are available from the Section 8 fund balance and the Development Fund.
11. Persons who evaluate social service delivery systems have concluded that when
the delivery of those services is personalized success is greater. With the TWC
officing in an apartment, personalization will be achieved.
12. The Richfield Human Services Planning Council has endorsed the TWC concept.
Camillo DeSantis, Chair of the Council, was a member on the TWC advisory
group.
Alternative Recommendation:
1. Reject the proposal.
2. Suggest modifications.
Discussion/Decision Mode:
A response from the City Council on November 6, 1995 would make it appropriate for
the HRA to consider such in November.
Respectfu!N submitted,
James JDY/Prosser
City M ger
JDP:cak
0
Proposal Summary
I for
"Together We Can"
Self-Sufficiency Program
John Szarke
November, 1995
What is economic self-sufficiency?
In this report, economic self-sufficiency means that one is no longer dependent on receiving
food stamps, housing assistance, or other forms of government assistance.
What are the barriers to becoming economically self-sufficient?
A 1993 survey of "Family Needs of Low Income Tenants in Bloomington and Richfield," partially
funded by Richfield's HRA, indicates individuals face multiple barriers to economic self-
sufficiency. They find it difficult to get employment or to retain employment because of a lack
of skills and training, lack of adequate transportation, lack of affordable child care, a need for
counseling, etc.
Why is there a need for a self-sufficiency program?
Service providers have their particular mission and goals but there is not a centralized way for
service providers to work together cooperatively to address an individual's need.
South Hennepin Regional Planning Agency (SHRPA) research indicates that the greatest difficulty
for individuals is accessing the appropriate services they are qualified to receive. Individuals
either don't know what services are available or they don't know what services they are
qualified to receive. The "Together We Can" Coordinator will help participants "sort out" their
issues as to why they are not economically self-sufficient and begin the process of connecting
them to the appropriate services they are qualified to receive. Some of these services may
include; affordable day care, job training, counseling, career counseling, and resources to
address remedial education.
Who would provide assistance?
It is recommended that HRA contract with a service agency, e.g. "Family and Children's
Services," for the necessary services of a full-time coordinator for "Together We Can."
Who would be served?
Residents of the Sage Apartments would be the "pilot group" served by this program. Sage
Apartments include residents from Crestwood, Hampton Place and Heritage Square. (Hampton
Place and Heritage Square are located in Block Group 2 of tract 248.02. In 1989, 30% of the
children lived in poverty in this Block Group [see page 3 of this report].)
Where would the office/center for "Together We Can" be located?
It is recommended the office/center be located in one of the apartments at one of the Sage
Apartments. By having the office located in one of the apartments, it would:
Be highly accessible to residents.
• Facilitate a trusting professional relationship between the coordinator and residents. This
relationship could increase the number of people served and better provide referrals that are
timely and matched to a resident's needs.
• Enable residents to access information and informational materials.
• Provide a space for job support groups and education support groups and various other
services offered through other agencies.
How does the program work?
The coordinator will meet with an individual to access needs and make necessary referrals. The
coordinator will also assist individuals with setting goals and planning the necessary steps to
achieve economic self-sufficiency. Steps may include career counseling, training, getting a
G.E.D., finding affordable child care, or being a part of a job search support group. The
coordinator would "track" the progress of individuals and would provide additional needed
referrals. (See pages 6 and 7 of this report.)
Cost
A one year budget of $54,080 is itemized on page 8 of this report.
When will the program begin?
January of 1996 the "Together We Can" program would begin. A detailed timeline is on page 13
of this report.
Commitment of time
This program will be for one year, subject to review.
E
•
"Together We Can"
Final Report
November, 1995
John Szarke
Throughout this project, I have met regularly with an advisory group consisting of:
Bruce Palmborg, Dennis Johnson, Camillo De Santis, Mike Welsh, Laura Klein and Bill
Schatzlein. I am grateful for their valuable input and assistance in formulating
recommendations for a self-sufficiency program in Richfield.
0
Recommendation for Implementation
40 of "Together We Can"
Self-Sufficiency Program
BACKGROUND
Individuals who are not economically self-sufficient often times feel overwhelmed by barriers
that keep them from self-sufficiency. Barriers such as fear, lack of skills, lack of education,
concerns for meeting basic human needs, and not knowing where to go to get available
resources keep people feeling trapped.
PURPOSE
"Together We Can" is a support service for a "Pilot Group" of Richfield residents who are
seeking to become economically self-sufficient.
go MISSION
"Together We Can" helps individuals overcome barriers to self-sufficiency by providing
information about existing resources, and by offering support services designed to assist
individuals become economically self-sufficient.
GOALS
• To provide individuals referrals to existing resources.
• To provide emotional support to participants.
• To provide timely information to participants.
s
2
NEED
This report confirms that there is a need for developing an economic self sufficiency program in
Richfield.
I have included some observations about poverty within block groups in three different tracts in
Richfield; Block Group 2 of 248.02; Block Group 1 of tract 249.02 and Block Group 1 of tract
249.03 (Exhibit B). These block groups in the selected tracts have a high percentage of renters
as is indicated in the following 1990 census information:
RICHFIELD TRACT TRACT TRACT
CITY 248.02 249.02 249.03
CHARACTERISTIC, 1990 BG2 BG1 BG
Total Population 35170 1415 1121 848
% of households that own 67% 18% 64% 45%
% of households that rent 33% 82% 36% 55%
CIUI.DREN IN POVERTY IN RICHFIELD
IN 1. In the City of Richfield, 9% of children were in poverty in 1989. Poverty among children was
two to three times higher in the selected block groups of tract areas than in Richfield as a
whole.
2. These block groups had the following percentages:
a. In Block Group 2 of tract 248.02, 30% of the children lived in poverty (72 children in
poverty). (Hampton Place and Heritage Square of the Sage Apartments are located in this
block group).
b. In Block Group 1 of tract 249.02, 20% of the children lived in poverty (41 children in
poverty).
c. In Block Group 1 of tract 249.03, 24% of the children lived in poverty (56 children in
poverty).
3. It is also significant that poverty is higher. in single parent households (mostly female
headed) in Richfield, 27% of all single parent families with children under 18 were in poverty
in 1989. 60% of single parent families with children under age five were in poverty in 1989.
4. Eligibility for the free and reduced school lunch program is a reflection of families in
poverty. Eligibility has increased significantly in Richfield during the late 1980s and early
1990s. The number of eligible students increased from 486 in the 1984/85 school year, to 983
in the 1992/93 school year. As a share of total students, eligibility more that doubled. In the
1992/93 school year, 23% of all students were eligible for the free or reduced lunch program.
(Source: School Lunch Program, Richfield School District)
3
Census Block Group Names in Richfield
I
0241.00:4 FLJ__ -7
0241.00:5 1 ..
0244.00:3
00:1
02 1
247.00:5 °
0247.00:1 o,; O N9.01:2
.
0244.00:2 c 0249.01:1
0241.00:3
0241.00:2
0244
00:1
242
00
4 . 0247.00:2 0249.02:3
.
: 0242.00:1
0247.00:4
24
9.02:1
02 2
00
5 0247
00
3
.
: n 0245.00:1 .
:
0245.00:2 °o
0242
00
2
.
:
0242.00:3
a
0248.01:1 0249.02:2
3248
01:3 .
.
0243.00:3 0248.01:2
0
0
243.0
:1
1
00:3
0246
0246
00:4
46.00:1
0248.02:1 O
Q
c
. . 02:3
248 v
. N
O
0243
00:2 8
02
2
2
. 0246.00:2 .
0
4
:
Block Groups Federal Poverty Guideline
Tracts
Family Size Poverty Line
1 person $6,310
2 people $8,076
3 people $9,885
4 people $12,674
5 people $14,990
The poverty line is argued to be too low because it is based on estimates of families' basic needs in
1963. Income is adjusted for inflation, but not in changes in work norms, lifestyles and family structures,
all of which impact basic needs. Child care for example would be considered a basic need today that was
not in 1963. It is estimated that the poverty line today would have to be about 50 percent higher to be
comparable, in terms of minimum consumption needs, to the standard set in 1963 (Ruggles, 1990).
Free and reduced lunch income elioibility guidelines in 1992
Free Lunch Income Guidelines
1992 Reduced Lunch Income Guidelines
1992 Federal Poverty
Guidelines 1992
Family
Size Monthly
household
income Equivalent household
hourly wage at a
full-time job Monthly
household
income Equivalent household
hourly wage at a
full-time job Monthly household
income
1 $738 $4.27 $1,050 $6.07 $567
2 996 6 .1417 8 766
3 1254 7 1784 10 964
4 1512 9 2151 12 1413
5 1770 10 2518 15 1361
4
r?1
BARRIERS TO OVERCOMING POVERTY
In 1993, Richfield HRA helped fund a survey of "Family Needs of Low Income Tenants in
Bloomington and Richfield." Some of the barriers keeping these families from becoming
economically self sufficient are: lack of affordable child care, lack of transportation, lack of
skills, don't know what to do, lack of confidence, don't know how to apply or not motivated.
The following graph indicates, of those surveyed, the percentage of householders for whom
barrier is a "big obstacle."
Lack of affordable child care
Lack of transportation
Lack of skills
Don't know what to do
Lack of time White
householder
Lack of confidence ® (n=114)
Don't know how to apply
Not motivated 3
Lack of affordable child care
Lack of transportation
Lack of skills
Don't know what to do
Lack of time 'Minority
householder
Lack of confidence (n=60)
Don't know how to apply
Not motivated
Percent of householders
i
5
•
BARRIERS TO OVERCOMING POVERTY
South Hennepin Regional Planning Agency (SHRPA) research indicates there are plenty of
services "out there" for people to take advantage of but individuals have difficulty accessing the
services they need. SHRPA recognizes that the complaint of many people needing services is
that the individual does not know of the services available or does not seek the appropriate
service.
Individuals need professional assistance sorting out their needs and connecting them to
appropriate resources. Individuals facing multiple issues (mental health, lack of education, lack
of transportation, lack of affordable child care, etc.) often feel overwhelmed by their situation
and need a professional to help them "sort out" their issues and match their needs to services
they are qualified to receive.
The following example may be helpful to gain further insight into the complexity of multiple
issues facing some individuals. "Deanna and her two year old son were abandoned by her
husband shortly after moving to the Twin Cities. They were left with few possessions, little
money and no support system. Added to this, Deanna was raped less than a month after her
husband left her.
Is Deanna turned to a program like "Together We Can" that connects people to available resources
in the community. Deanna got the help she needed. The Coordinator assessed what she needed
and linked her to the resources she was qualified to receive. The Coordinator followed up with
her to make sure she was receiving the kind of care and assistance she needed. One of the
resources the Coordinator connected her to was a counselor who helped her sort through the
deep emotional wounds from being raped and from being abandoned by her husband. She was
also referred to a career counselor and was connected to affordable child care. Deanna decided
she wanted to go back to school and get a 2-year degree. Deanna applied for, and received
scholarships to finance her degree. After completing her degree, she got a full-time job helping
others faced with multiple issues, connect to resources in the community. Deanna provides
referrals, encouragement and a listening ear to individuals seeking to become economically self
sufficient.
Deanna's self-confidence and pride in her accomplishments is evident as she tells her story but
she adds, "I don't know where I'd be today if it wasn't for the help and support of that
Coordinator who matched my needs to the services I was qualified to receive, at a very critical
time in my life."
E
6
ROLE OF THE COORDINATOR
The primary role of the Coordinator for "Together We Can" would be to assist individuals clarify
and prioritize their needs and link them to various social services.
SERVICES
An individual first coming to the Coordinator of "Together We Can" would:
0
STEP 1
Have an initial interview
with the Coordinator. The
Coordinator would assess
needs of individual and provide
referrals for the individual.
Some referrals may be for
counseling, health care,
educational and career
counseling, child care, job
search support groups,
parenting skills, etc.
STEP 3
The Coordinator meets with the
individual and helps the individual
define their goals and the necessary
steps for becoming self sufficient.
STEP 2
The coordinator would follow-up
with the individual to see if the
referral was sufficient or if other
referrals are necessary.
STEP 4
The Coordinator "tracks" the
individual's progress and invites the
individual to participate in a job
support group or educational
support group that are offered at
"Together We Can."
7
STAFFING RECOMMENDATIONS:
It is recommended that the funding agency contract with an established human service agency to
provide the necessary services of a full-time coordinator.
Coordinator, full time
Responsible for:
• Providing assessments, referrals and "tracking" of individuals served by "Together We Can."
• Initiating cooperation, coordination and/or collaboration with other service providers to best
serve participants effectively and efficiently.
• Recruiting, screening and training volunteers.
• Providing volunteers, job descriptions, support, supervision and recognition.
• Making the services of "Together We Can" known.
• Providing and updating resource information.
• Providing evaluation of the program components.
• Designing and overseeing program improvements.
• Overseeing budget.
• Seeking alternative funding resources. Writing grant proposals to Foundations, etc.
• Providing necessary reports to the Human Service Planning Council and to the Community
Apartment Program.
• Updating RAMA on the progress of the program.
• Serving as human resource person for RAMA by providing resource information, materials, and
suggestions to managers assisting residents needing referral information.
• Providing necessary reports to funding agency.
FUNDING RECOMMENDATIONS
To ensure stability for this program, it is recommended the funding agency provide funds for
these core requirements of the program for a "pilot period" of one year.
Proposed Budget For Year 1995 -1996
Account description Budget
Salary/Benefits (coordinator) $38,000
Rental of Sage Apartment for "Together We Can" 5,400
Center ($450/month) Possible "in kind" contribution
Development (professional training) 500
Mileage 1,000
"Start-up" expenses 2,600
[computer and printer 1700
copier 600
used tables and chairs 300
used office desk and chair
(from existing inventory)]
Telephone ($50/month) 600
Electric ($40/month) 480
General office supplies 1,000
Postage 1,000
Participant incentives/recognition 500
Emergency assistance (bus pass, car repair) 2,500
Miscellaneous 500
'54,080
Less possible "in kind" contribution -5,400
48,680
8
. Marketing Plan
for
"Together We Can"
• Product
• Publics
• Place
• Production
• Promotion
Product
Mission
"Together We Can" helps individuals overcome barriers to self sufficiency by providing
information about existing resources and by offering support services designed to assist
individuals become economically self sufficient.
Goals
• To provide individual referrals to existing resources.
• To provide emotional support to participants.
• To provide timely information to participants.
0 Publics
Primary Publics Desired perception/opinion of
"Together We Can"
Participant Coordinator and volunteers are Accessible;
Responsive; Respectful; Welcoming;
Empowering; Supportive
Other Service Agencies Facilitates in cooperation, coordination, and
collaboration among service providers.
Volunteers Organization that values training,
encouragement and appreciation of volunteers.
Businesses, Organizations, Professional service that takes initiative in
and Foundations exploring ways individuals, businesses,
organizations, and foundations can participate
or support the work of "Together We Can."
9
• Place and Hours of Operation
• Sage Apartments. Hours accessible to participants.
Production
• Able to meet demand for services.
Promotion
Brochures
• Simple. Designed to motivate person to call or drop in.
Atmosphere and Attitude
• Coordinator and/or volunteer; pleasant, courteous, helpful, glad the individual called
or came to The Center.
Word of Mouth
• Earned by fulfilling mission and having a good relationship with publics. Publics feel
informed, enthusiastic and willing to let others know about "Together We Can."
Information Fair
• Designed to make contact with potential participants and/or volunteers.
Networking
• With social service providers, business leaders, and institutional leaders.
Feature Story
• In newsletters and/or newspaper publics will read.
Public Speaking
• To inform and inspire publics.
10
0 EVALUATION
• Evaluation materials will need to be designed that are simple, easy to administer and
reflect the program mission and goals.
• Evaluation materials will be needed for participants, and for volunteers. Evaluation must
be tailored for appropriate group and for the stage of development of the program.
• Evaluation needs to contain measurable data such as the number of individuals using
the support services and referral services of The Center. Measurable data can include the
number of participants who are working on completing educational or skill building
goals, as well as the number of participants who are making progress toward obtaining
employment at a livable wage. Their progress might mean to obtain volunteer work to
build self confidence and skills, or obtaining part-time or full-time employment while
continuing to build additional skills.
• Evaluation needs to include all the components of the program. The components
(coordinator, volunteers, marketing, etc.) need to be working well together to achieve
the best possible results of this program.
• Evaluation of both the results, and the components of the program will provide valuable
insights for future strategic planning and for carrying out a commitment for continued
program improvements.
n
U
11
a Organizational Chart
for
"Together We Can"
Funding Agency
Receives
quarterly reports from
coordinator.
Human Service - - - - - - - - - - - - - Community Apartment
. Planning Council Program (CAP)
Oversees Reviews
policies and /in gether We
evaluates " program
"Together We onjunction
Can" program. other CAP
programs.
Contracting
Agency
Provides coordinator and
supervision of "Together
We Can" program.
= Reporting
- - - - - = Coordinating
12
TIMELINE*
0 NOVEMBER • Presentation of proposal to City Council and HRA.
If the proposal is accepted then:
• Begin selection process of a social service provider.
0
JANUARY • Select a social service provider that will provide coordinator.
AND • Begin "Together We Can" program.
FEBRUARY • Move into facility.
• Set up center.
• Contact various service providers that will serve needs of the participants.
• Begin recruitment, training and screening of volunteers.
• Have initial contact with individuals living at Sage Apartments and make
services of "Together We Can" known to them.
• Begin offering interested residents referral services and job search support
groups for those seeking economic self sufficiency.
MARCH • Normal programming.
APRII. Provide first quarterly report to HRA regarding the progress of program.
• Evaluate program components and make necessary adjustments.
MAY • Normal programming.
• Evaluate program components and make necessary adjustments.
JUNE • Normal programming.
JULY • Quarterly report to HRA.
AUGUST • Normal programming.
SEPTEMBER • Normal programming.
OCTOBER • Quarterly report to HRA.
NOVEMBER • Normal programming.
DECEMBER • Normal programming.
JANUARY • Report to HRA on the progress of "Together We Can". Consideration will be
given to recommendations regarding continuance of program.
* Timeline may need to be adjusted depending on starting date of coordinator.
0
13'
•
.dwH
O
w
a O 00
- 0
ao c a) U a) N
c O as E Q o E
C: 00
N
p `-' Sc
C 7 E
0 :3
O ?_ d N d
co W 12 T- w
0 O? N i a) a) C: N cn _ CD 'Q ! 0 L C i
L L D V ouo E 'on
O a) O ncv
.N - N Q CL E W G 7 C u a) a) o a) c
N
0 a, O w 0 a) C U U = o v avi o _0 4 C2 cu Ln =3 c o c t a) a' a _ a) N a) U -o co
?c g Q o v Y E cco U N +-°i a) °? o f v C:
C2 . L4 0 v o O 0 O _
a) a) co O O L_
tw Q cn m m U w ?7 = 2 Z Z cn Z a`°_ U
w O • • • • • • • • • • • • • •
06
0 _0 c
E &
W u Q E cn Q
L-
M
=
u
O 0 cn cLi u
a C: E
c
u
r;
` 3
?
C o
w D
Q>>5•
L
?.
u
u 0
-0
O
-
trM
Q, a
a) +, >
c 4-J at
C'
-o O
a -p
O co
p
E
a) a)
u
w Ln o o
0
o M
>
m d
E
ao
c
-n
5 w 0 c c . n
co 3 E
E
fC?
L
62
w
¦
¦
¦
¦
¦
¦
¦
¦
¦
¦
¦
¦
¦
¦
¦
¦
¦
L
LD-P
N ? L
L
O
_N
fz
S
V
CC3
N
C
c?
V
0
1
a
cz
O ? ? O
Z
Lo O M
z
a ? Ln Ln
M M
Q i Ln Lo
?? N N
E .c %o
a
Ln o
O
I-
U-
?
0
E
w
o
.w 'o
C: V N U
C W cz u: w O N N O a O C
vi O
O. w O c 'a_ cd- O w E N O N+
4719- a? E E -
m O a o
> '- O -0 L
u mo -C -0
p N c LO 0 0 D E C
O O ccd
0 C ? O a) c L UJ a?
O L O p C? d ? v- p p N
? o E E S (al u p cz °? p E a
a o Q E N c U? 2
L
t, E c o E c E -0 Ln d- a) -G _
m 0 0--o co u Ou ? ? M w V) u 0
CL
V1 ML o
Ln L C 1- N p,p ULO
2 C:
12 °
C- o
'V E _° v-
R3 V C O N- Q) 6 0-0 C C +
C: 0
__Ile 12 -0 -C L-. w E
-0 E vi V O s L w
at O L- •?
:3 a) g! C: 12
qp V
0 I- U CC O co ? C 0 O O ±-?
_0 o
:3
o :
O E N C ta0 ?„
+0 E cu
C O 1 _0 O O N boo 0 J d cv
t V C
C Q) V W E L O L C +1 V '0
-v E m 0 o Q ao O 0 o C C=3 c
co a) D 0 C13
Itko c N d 7 C O N c -? C
O > N E +?- C c 0 O
ctf 4, L O c E C 3 w Q° N +, -o +' L a a) L o
L Q 0? 40 L O 0 in fl:
ro t C C v v co L Q) O '+Q) +-0 ' E N -0 C- O C d O Y tap Q M N O J O LL
Q) o N > w L
ro 0 p o
Q Q) Q) U N E U° 0 O N C: 'n w
•N L N _0 -le tap N C U cu a) o Q co A-' L E C
-0 cnL o
E
c ° a) L 1:2 Q O c ;$
s:3 -0 -0 E E C
Q) E > CA
En V) C: :3
t 0 2 E(L) -o O 2 N
_0 0-
LU cd ID (A
M C co O Q Q) Q O O
L E N N L Q) 0 Q)
L o a) ap ap
E ? L
L C W C E L (/) Q) C
L Q Q)
4 -C
o E - o a.? Q O N C c N o
E ?- c E o c a) c o w V O t= -N W? C +?
C -0 C-
O d tap DO b4 N 0 ?- " i0 n o as ca L
10 +'
a-+ N O
c: ca a- c c: c: 4v 0
C C L Q) ca = -? i? fd L "0 S +1
L
I¦N a) c+:-Dj a) CI- m e E Q?5 4, a) Q) Lu L)
E Q a w e v a, o E U c 3 o v
a) E _0
0 -0 -0 -0
O Q) Q) N W vi L Q) N +, L
O N O. N tV Q c 0
> am c w v- Q) -° o V a L O Q) o E o E
F, ta0 C N ta0 cCd L +? c c b0 N t-i i L N C Q) v
C C Q) + a) cd - tap " Q) C c by O O vi >. Q O c
c t c v -0 E L > -D w +,
a) +?
E co t d W Q) -+, Q) Q C L C> r'j s O Q)
ON
-0 E L `2
ra 'm E E Q) E o c a -° 'ub a) '? -° a
.S t o U H o E CE Z w z Z a s
a) c
u cd 3 O N N i C
N cif ~ C +' i N Y uj
cd E Q) N "D > O 'O u O W Ei=
O p j O> L V) 0 N C: 2
a0 O >
cn X a -
t b0
cd UO ?- O O C O +N-+ Tn a C O
u ra eD CIE@]
;I W `b L 0 cM L a) -0 E ct, S.) D C M Q
a) co a) 2 a) Ln Q) 00 +2 > C c c a) L v Q) L.
V > _? 0 M C L > a) 3 a) L L
L- c Q)
W 0 _0
(V +? N V L I-1 ? a) a) a) cci
-0 Q 0? EL -n ?8 Cid L. co c j? >a) ??+ cL? V U pip L
cd - i Lnn 2 O U > - -o a F- E U i O ?O
?Il
• CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Study Session Letter No. 31
Agenda November 6, 1995
Issue Statement:
Council discussion on whether to allow pulltabs at licensed liquor establishments other
than the V.F.W. and American Legion.
Background:
Currently, Section 519, Subd. 6, essentially prohibits gambling (i.e., pulltabs) by any
organization which does not own or lease their property or the gambling does not occur
within the property which constitutes the principal place of business. The effect of this
ordinance has limited gambling in Richfield to the V.F.W. and American Legion since
they are the only two non-profits (a requirement for a State gambling license) who own
or lease their property, and it is their principal place of business.
Over the years, the City has received numerous requests to expand the ordinance to
allow gambling in other liquor license establishments.
In an Attorney General's opinion, dated October 25, 1988, the City of Cloquet was
contemplating the same action. However, the Attorney General's opinion was that
• Cloquet, by limiting lawful gambling to local organizations, was possibly in violation of
the Equal Protection Clause of the State and/or Federal Constitution.
The Statute (Chapter 349) offers no guidance to local units of government on what is a
good reason for disapproval of a resolution. The Council may recall that they can, by
resolution, disapprove or approve a license; however, all licenses are issued by the
State.
What the City can do is require that a licensed, lawful gambling organization spend all
or a portion of its expenditures in the City's trade area. However, the Council must
define what that trade area is, which must include the cities contiguous to the defining
city (Chapter 349.213, Subd. 1, Paragraph b.). In addition, these regulations must
apply equally to all of the licensed organizations.
In summary, the City can determine what kind of lawful gambling (if any) can take
place; it can specify the hours; and it can determine where in the City it will be
conducted.
A number of charitable organizations, such as the Minneapolis Jaycees, Little Gopher
Baseball and local youth sports groups have expressed interest in conducting lawful
gambling at the licensed liquor establishments. To do this, they would have to lease
• space from the establishments. The proceeds derived would pay State taxes and
support their ventures.
• Recommended Motion:
Staff is seeking direction from the Council on whether they wish to expand lawful
gambling and to what extent within State Statutes, or leave the ordinance as it is.
Basis of Recommendation:
1. Public Safety is comfortable with the status quo or some expansion. This type of
lawful gambling is not a source of problems for the police.
2. This is a community standard issue for the Council to address.
Alternative Recommendation:
1. Defer discussion to another Study Session.
Discussion/Decision Mode:
The issue is presented to the Council for discussion and direction to staff. Rick Jabs,
representing Richfield youth sports, has asked to give a presentation to the Council.
Respectfully submitted,
Jam . Prosser
• City ager
JDP:cak
•
•
0
S.P.O.R.T.Y.
SUPPORTING PROGRAM OPPORTUNITIES FOR RICHFIELD'S
TALENTED YOUTH
SECOND MEETING
APRIL 26, 1994
RICHFIELD, MN 55423
•
S.P.O.R.T.Y.
Supporting Program Opportunities for Richfield's Talented Youth
SECOND MEETING
Tuesday, April 26
7:30 PM
6515 James Ave. So.
Richfield, MN 55423
ATTENDING
Steve Lindgren Executive Director - Chamber of Commerce
Craig Adelman Baseball - East Little League
Rick Jabs Baseball - West Little League & Girls Slow Pitch
Steve Carroll Hockey Association
Tom Mee Jr. Hockey Association
Terry Bredemus Soccer
Dick Hughes Softball Association - Fast Pitch
Scott Freeman Softball Association
AGENDA
Welcome
Introductions
Costs/Proceeds Formula Discussion
Steve Lindgren - Questions/Answers
S.P.O.R.T.Y
Supporting Program Opportunities for Richfield's Talented Youth
GOAL: Cut costs for parents so children can participate in Richfield
programs they are interested in.
The cost for parents of youth programs is more expensive every year. This is
causing parents to cut back on valuable programs for their children. The utilization of
the financial resource that pulltabs provides will allow children to participate in more
programs.
0