03-9-92 agendaa
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
MONDAY, MARCH 9, 1992
REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING
7:00 P.M.
COUNCIL CHAMBERS
AGENDA
INTRODUCTORY PROCEEDINGS
CALL TO ORDER
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF (1) REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF
FEBRUARY 24, 1992; AND (2) CITY COUNCIL STUDY SESSION OF MARCH 2,
1992
PRESENTATIONS
1. OPPORTUNITY FOR PERSONS TO ADDRESS THE COUNCIL ON ITEMS NOT
LISTED ON THE AGENDA
• AGENDA APPROVAL
2. COUNCIL APPROVAL OF AGENDA
CONSENT CALENDAR
NOTE: 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.
3A. CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL.OF RESOLUTION PROVIDING FOR POLLING
PLACES AND DESIGNATING ELECTION JUDGES FOR APRIL 7, 1992
PRESIDENTIAL PRIMARY ELECTION C.L. 55
B. CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF RESOLUTION DECLARING OFFICIAL
INTENT OF CITY TO REIMBURSE CERTAIN EXPENDITURES FROM
PROCEEDS OF BONDS TO BE ISSUED BY THE CITY AND RESCINDING
RESOLUTION NO. 7791 C.L. 56
C. CONSIDERATION OF CONDITIONAL APPROVAL OF 1991 LABOR CONTRACT
FOR THE INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF FIREFIGHTERS LOCAL 1215
• C.L. 57
D. CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF AGREEMENT WITH THE CITY OF
MINNEAPOLIS TO PROVIDE ENGINEERING SERVICES TOWARD COMPLETION
OF APPLICATION FOR NATIONAL POLLUTANT DISCHARGE ELIMINATION
SYSTEM PERMIT C.Z.•58
I
E. CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF AGREEMENT FOR ENGINEERING
SERVICES FROM BRAUN INTERTEC PAVEMENT, INC. TO DESIGN
OVERLAYS ON LYNDALE AVENUE AND 76TH STREET FOR AN AMOUNT NOT
TO EXCEED $21,676 C.L. 59
F. CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF BID MINUTES/TABULATION AND
AUTHORIZATION OF PURCHASE OF TRAILER-MOUNTED VACUUM UNIT FROM
FLEXIBLE PIPE TOOL COMPANY FOR TOTAL SUM OF $19,990 C.L. 60
G. CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF PURCHASE IN EXCESS OF $5,000 FOR
ONE HYDRAULIC CYLINDER FROM M & M HYDRAULIC COMPANY FOR THE
AMOUNT OF $8,667.30 C.L. 61
H. CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF PURCHASE IN EXCESS OF $5,000 FOR
REMOVAL, REPAIR AND INSTALLATION OF DEEP WELL IRRIGATION PUMP
AT RICH ACRES GOLF COURSE FROM LAYNE MINNESOTA COMPANY FOR AN
ESTIMATED AMOUNT OF $10,232 C.L. 62
I. CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF PURCHASE IN EXCESS OF $5,000 FOR
ONE AUTOMATIC MANHOLE CUTTER FROM MACQUEEN EQUIPMENT, INC.
FOR THE AMOUNT OF $12,450 C.L. 63
J. ESTIMATE #5 PAYMENT FOR VETERANS MEMORIAL PARK BUILDING, R.P.
VOGEL & COMPANY, $32,589.00
PUBLIC HEARING
4. PUBLIC HEARING AND CONSIDERATION OF RESOLUTION APPROVING
PROPOSED PROGRAM FOR YEAR XVIII URBAN HENNEPIN COUNTY
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT FUNDS AND AUTHORIZING
SUBMITTAL •
COUNCIL LETTER NO. 64
PROPOSED ORDINANCES
5. CONSIDERATION OF FIRST READING OF AN ORDINANCE AMENDMENT TO
PERMIT SALE OF BEER AND WINE COOLERS AT AUGSBURG PARK, TAFT
PARK AND VETERANS MEMORIAL PARK OF RICHFIELD
COUNCIL LETTER NO. 65
6. CONSIDERATION OF RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING ACQUISITION OF 6501
15TH AVENUE AND FIRST READING OF TRANSITORY ORDINANCE
AUTHORIZING SALE OF 6501 15TH AVENUE
COUNCIL LETTER NO. 66
ADMINISTRATIVE REPORTS & OTHER BUSINESS
7-CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF AUTHORIZATION TO PROCEED WITH
HIRING CONSULTANT TO PREPARE PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS FOR
MINIATURE GOLF COURSE PER ADOPTED 1992 CAPITAL BUDGET
COUNCIL LETTER NO. 67 0
r
AIRPORT BUSINESS
8. AIRPORT STATUS REPORT
CORRESPONDENCE
9. LEGISLATIVE REPORT
COUNCIL CHOICE
10. COUNCIL DISCUSSION ITEMS
11. CLAIMS AND PAYROLLS
ADJOURNMENT
11
40
7
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Council Letter No. 67
Agenda March 9, 1992
Issue Statement:
Authorization to proceed with hiring consultant to prepare plans
and specifications for a miniature golf course per the adopted
1992 Capital Budget.
Background:
The adopted 1992 Capital Budget includes $400,000 for design and
construction of an 18 hole miniature golf course to be located at
Veterans Memorial Park of Richfield. The improvement was
discussed at a City Council Study Session on February 3, 1992.
At that time, Council directed staff to proceed with preparing
the necessary action for Council consideration of this item.
Council also directed staff to provide additional information
including financial proforma and financing mechanism.
A financial proforma is attached. It should be noted that the
projections include attendance based on conservative projection
provided by Maxfield & Associates. Revenues are projected on the
basis of attendance at a rate roughly approximate to the
competitive rate for this type of course.. Expenses are based
upon City staff projections which consider the cost of operation
of similar facilities in other communities.
• The debt service requirement is based upon a fixed level, eight
year amortization period for a seven percent loan. Sources for
the loan include the PIR Fund and the Sewer Fund. Both funds
have sufficient cash balances to advance necessary funds.
Neither fund has a cash requirement during the payback period
which would interfere with the loan. In addition, sufficient
balances are available within these funds to handle unanticipated
uses. Additional information is attached from a municipal course
in Illinois.
Recommended Motion:
Authorize staff to contract with a miniature golf design
consultant to provide design and construction oversight for the
miniature golf course at Veterans Memorial Park of Richfield.
Basis of Recommendation:
1. Miniature golf is scheduled for construction as part of the
1992 Capital Budget.
2. There is sufficient funding for the agreement.
3. Timely completion for the 1993 season requires design work
begin as early as possible.
Alternative Recommendation:
The Council could choose not to proceed with the project at this
time.
1? -l
. Discussion/Decision Mode:
In order to begin work in a timely manner, Council approval is
requested at the March, 9, 1992 Council meeting.
Respectfully submitted,
Ja4s. Prosser
Cit anager
JDP:ds
Attachments
0
9
L
•
------ ------
LO ------
M ------
t0 ------
n -----
C` ------
O
C` M ch CN N n
O ON N ?D In cr ri
C
cl? N
N C9 ? C` co N
N to w
In a+ co
14 v O 10 N r-1
m O O d?
0% N co O co d' r)
P4 (Y) 10
ri
N m N (h N ?D
O %0 H LO N N
co 0 r rn co v v
O+
0% r-4 O LO N d O
rl ch M t0 L? lA ri
r-I
[" In d? rl d?
q* CY)
o
co
LO LO
a,
?
01 O 01 r? m lq ri
rf M N LO H
rl
m ch 10 m N %O
10 N O? d? 10 10 O
o?
o? m o t? r)
rl N N LO %D U)
W ?
a
O
a In %D 0 1-1 C` 10
E W) 10 Co %O N d* CA
H rl N 14 In LO In
----- ---
- -----
------ ------ ------ ------ - - -
ON O v v7 N
ep O d? ?O [? 'd? ?
O? N O M do
ri N O 10 W)
0 0 0 0 N
O
M co LO r) N d' N
O?
01 In I- %D rI d? ch
rl N D• 10 LO In -
N to N to
N
tT
0 O O O
ra
------
------
------
------ o
------
----- 0
------
d?
?
rl U •
r-l 4-4
N Ct) )
C O ri LI
) ?
ro a U N N
0 ?
a
i 4)i (D 4-) a)
4 > a A A U
4-) a) x C a) x
4 a w U) C] w
,d
a)
rl
4-4
x
ro
a)
U
c,
0
0
0
r-I
O
N
A
rn
0
0
4-)
?O
rn
rn
r-I
N
0
44
dP
M
ro
LO
rn
r-I
b
C
co
?r
o+
o?
r-i
$4
0
44
oW
N
a
0
rl
-P
U
4)
0
u
a
A
3
0
H
b)
4)
C
ro
4)
a
ri
ro
C
C
O
ro
4)
N
ro
N
C
dP
d?
C
ro
LO
rn
ON
ri
Fa
0
w
4)
ro
ro
4)
ca
U
G
•rl
a)
U
N
a
4)
x
U
dP
LO
ro
'd
ro
A
3
0
N
b)
Q)
U
C
ro
ro
a
4)
ro
4-4
0
U
C
'O
0
F4
a
ro
N
to
b
4)
U
4)
0
N
a
a)
$4
roN
Q)
0 4-)
? aroi
aY
ri
4)
44
x
ro
ai
U
Sa
C
0
w
>1
r•I
r-I
ro
C
C
C
ro
V)
a)
C
a)
4)
$4
co
N
0
H
O
44
0
oW
LO
ro
b
4)
U
4)
0
u
a
0)
N
ro
N
4)
N
a
x
w
a)
U
4)
N
b
a)
r?
C
N
7
U1
N
ro
a)
O
f-1
0
44
CAP
ro
C
ro
0
ri
O
O
0
LO
N
M
to
ro
ro
4)
E
7
0
co
ro
4)
U
V)
A
a)
a
co
3
0
ri
r4
co
b
r-I
O
3
N
C
0
-i
i-)
0 0
$4 r'1
a4)
N C
N 4-)
a)
U 44
x0
4)
4)
-a
roG
? $4
Ea
C
U 'C
a) co
.C a
E C
U +)
.H
D b)
? C
c4)/) U
0
4-) rO
N H
0
0 4.)
uJ a)
? •rl
C rl
E 04
4.) ro
? a)
bro
ro
ro
cA E
ro0
ro
'd
Oro
4) 44
A -H
V N
r-I Fa
0 aa)
3 '4
r-I
roo
4-) C
Oro
+) 4
U N
•? 4)
44 r-i
a)
V 44
0
ro?
N
U a
W N
r•I N M 10 0
?- z
m
m
N
0
•
•
CU
llz?
O
Qb
07
m
m
co
m
m
r-
m
m
(t7
CD
07
m
?r
rn
rn
m
rn
m
m CS) m m
m m m m
< -?J 4-) U C 0 CU C J L
0
0
?- y
(0
m
cn
(3)
U
X
O
:D
N
-I-J
(O
07 C4 m m
m m m m m
o a m
m m m m
m m m -ui m
m m m m
m m m m
m n m
[wXU0)Cfncn\C
CN1
m
m
N
r-
m
Ql
J
J
m
rn
Ln
rn
rn
Q)
rn
0
?_5
MINIATURE GOLF PROJECT
LOAN PROPOSAL
The budgeted construction of a miniature golf course in 1992 is
expected to require a $325,000 advance from other funds. The
proposed sources of these funds are shown below.
12/31/91 PROPOSED REMAINING
FUND CASH BALANCE LOAN AMOUNT CASH
601 PIR Fund $ 734,565 $160,000 $ 574,565
707 Sewer Fund $1,939,964 $165,000 $1,774,964
$325,000
The loan would be repaid at 7% interest and the repayment
schedule would be semi-annual or annual. Attached are repayment
schedules assuming (1) annual payment of principal and interest,
(2) semi-annual payment of principal and interest, and (3) semi-
annual payments assuming that excess operating income is used to
• pay debt service.
ARK D/STR/CT MEMO
January 14, 1992
To: Edward Clift, Assistant Director
From: Steve Brummeler, Lake Park Manager
Subject: Mountainview Mine Adventure Golf Operating
Overview
Attached are proposals for the operation of the Mountainview Mine
Adventure Golf Course. The numbers for both revenue and expenses
were developed after talking with three operating facilities. They
are:
*Cost of Wisconsin
Elk Grove Park District
Highland Hills Recreation Department, Highland Hills Colorado
*requested that facility name not be used in any documents.
. After discussing daily fees and hours of operations with all three
of the operators, we are recommending the following:
HOURS OF OPERATION:
Open to the public:
Summer
Monday - Thursday 1:00 pm - 10:00 pm
Friday & Saturday 10:00 am - 11:00 pm
Sunday 10:00 am - 10:00 pm
Open to groups (by reservation only)
Monday - Thursday 10:00 am - 1:00 pm
Spring/Fall
Friday 5:00 pm - 10:00 pm
Saturday & Sunday 12:00 pm - 10:00 pm
DAILY FEES:
*$5.00 Adult
*$4.00 Youth (12yrs. and under)
GROUP RATES:
$3.75 groups of 10-50
• $3.50 groups of 51 and up
*Residents receive $1.00 discount with proper I.D.
Administrative & Leisure Center 9 2222 Birch Street 9 Des Plaines, IL 60018-3199 • (708) 296-6106
t
t.
• From my experiences at Lake Park, I am recommending that only high profit,
low overhead products be sold at the concession stand. These products-
include:
Soft drinks- Cdca Cola products per contract
Popcorn
Good Humor Ice Cream
These products all have a high profit, low overhead and preparation costs.
Also, these products require minimal equipment purchases and can be easily
handled by one person, who also will be running the admissions' register.
The operation, will be run by one supervisor, with the ability to call in
additional staff if needed.' During peak use periods, evenings and
weekends, a second staff person will be scheduled. Additional staff will
also be assigned when large groups are scheduled.
The maintenance will be handled by part-time staff. There will be one
part-timer hired from April 15 - October 15. This person will be
responsible for all pre-season start-up and end of year closing duties, as
well as daily cleaning and maintenance. A second staff person will be
hired from May 1 - August 31. The second person will divide their time
with Lake Park. They will be working mornings and weekends at Mountainview
and afternoons at Lake Park. By having two maintenance staff we will be
• able to schedule, at least, one maintenance person at Mountainview 8 hours
per day, 7 days per week.
I feel that the revenue numbers are conserative, but will give us a sound
base from which to develop our budget projections. The expense numbers
will be higher the first year due to start-up costs. I have identified
the yearly costs in exhibit C.
The following items are attached as part of this proposal:
EXHIBIT A. GOLF ROUNDS AND REVENUE
Golf revenue has been figured based on the following:
50% Adult participation
50% youth participation
50% resident
50% non-resident
B. CONCESSION REVENUE
C. PROPOSED BUDGET
0
EXHIBIT A
GOLF ROUNDS AND REVENUE
FULL YEAR OF OPERATION
MAY :
Friday, Saturday and Sunday x 4 weeks
JUNE:
2 full weeks and 2 weekends only
JULY:
4 full weeks
AUGUST:
4 full weeks
SEPTEMBER:
Friday, Saturday and Sunday x 4 weeks
TOTAL ROUNDS
826 ROUNDS
51.070
7,300
6,950
706
20,852
7- dulZ. 10,426 x $5.00 = $52,'130
You-,-"-- 1,426 x $4.00 = $41,704
Total Golf Revenue $:3,834
less Resident Discount $10,426
NET GOLF REVENUE $83,408
CONCESSION REVENUE. $15,631,
TOTAL REVENUE-------------------------------$99,047
? 0
- 1
• EXHIBIT C
MOUNTP_ItiT7IEW MINE ADVENTURE GOLF
PROPOSED EXPENSE BUDGET
I. PERSONNEL
A. OPERATIONAL STAFF EXPENSES:
*Supervisor Shifts
9am "- 3pm 6 hours
3pm - 11:30pm 8 1/2 hours
Concession Shifts
M - F 3pm - 11:30pm 8 1/2 hours
S - S lpm - 5pm 4 hours
5pm - llpm 6 hours
SUMMER:
*Supervisor
6 hours x 7 days x 7.50 x 10 weeks = $3150
8.5 hours x 7 days x 7.50•x 10 weeks = $4463
Concession
M - F 8.5 hours x 5 days x 4.30 x 10 weeks = $1828
•
S - S 10 hours x 2 days x 4.30 x 10 weeks = $ 860
TOTAL SUMMER OPERATIONAL STAFF-----------= ----$10,293
SPRING AND FALL
Supervisor
Friday 6 hours x 1 day x 7.50 x 10 weeks = $ '-z0
Sat & Sun 11 lours x 2 days x 7.50 x 10 weeks= S-_-E0
Concessicn
Friday 5 :--ours x 1 day x 4.30 x 10 weeks = < <= .
Sat & Sun 7 _•_-urs x 2 days x. 4.30 x 10 weeks = $ „`2
TOTAL SPRING AND FALL OPERATIONAL STAFF ------- S 2,917
TOTAL OPERATIONAL STAFF---------------------------------$!3,210
*Budgeted and scheduled for groups on all 4 days. Staff w-41-1-1 not be
.Scheduled until 12:30 pm when there are no group reservations.
0
ATING EXPENSES
:
II. OTHER OPER
A. SUPPLIES AND EXPENSES:
1. OPERATIONS:
Golf Course
*Clubs 300 (4 lengths sml&child) x 7.50/club = $2250
*Balls 2500(209 doz) x 7.00 doz = $1463
*Scorecards (50,000) $2500
Cash Register $3000
Time Clock $1200
*Uniforms $ 500
TOTAL $10,913
Concession
SUPPLIES:
*Cups and Lids 2 sizes 36,000/each $3300
*Napkins $ 90
*Popcorn Boxes $ 180
*Straws $ 30
*Popcorn $ 150
*Flavorcal $ 45
• *Oil $ 90
*Good Humor $2100
*Pop $3000
TOTAL $ 8,985
Equipment:
Popcorn Popper $=?=
**Pop Dispenser
**Icecrear. .^- ree_
2 Straw Dispenses
2 Napkin Dispensers
TOTAL $ 2,100
SUBTOTAL OPERATIONS SUPPLIES AND EQUIPMENT $21,998
**This equipment will be supplied by the vendor as long as their products
are used.
? 0
r
EXHIBIT D
SEASON SUMMARY
FULL SEASON
Rounds 20,852
Golf Revenue $83,408
Concession Revenue $15,639
TOTAL REVENUE $99,047
TOTAL EXPENSES $74,548
NET REVENUE---------------------------$24,499
PARTIAL SEASON PROJECTION:
Net revenue/rounds ratio = $1.18 per round net profit
Not knowing exactly when the adventure golf course will open for the 1992
season, staff felt it was more benefical to use a net profit per round
figure, based on the numbers for a full year of operation.
NOTE: Any surplus funds generated by this facility will be
retained in this fund, to be used for future expansion and
maintenance.
n
U
6L
City of Richfield, Minnesota
Council Letter No. 66
Agenda March 9, 1992
Issue Statement:
Authorization to acquire 6501 15th Avenue to permit the HRA to
proceed with a new construction Vo-Tech project and first reading
of an ordinance authorizing sale of the property to the HRA.
Background:
The HRA has utilized the Voluntary Acquisition Program to acquire
substandard residential properties for redevelopment since 1980.
The Vo-Tech has developed these sites with new housing units for
moderate income families. New HUD rules require that the City
purchase the property and subsequently transfer it to the HRA to
re-sell at the appropriate time. The City would use federal CDBG
YR XVII funds reserved in the HRA's.New Home budget for this
acquisition. City revenues would not be used for this purchase.
The 15th Avenue structure is substandard as to size and room
arrangement and is located at the back of the lot. The owner,
through participation in the Voluntary Acquisition Program, has
stated an interest in selling the property to the HRA. An
independent appraiser valued the property at $50,000. Staff has
negotiated a purchase price of $50,000 and the HRA at their
41 November meeting, indicated support for purchase at this price.
Upon authorization, the City would enter into a purchase
agreement with the owner to acquire the property with CDBG funds.
The City would then sell the property to the HRA for $1.00.
It is anticipated that the City could acquire the property
between mid-March and mid-April, 1992. Sale of the property to
the HRA could occur May 26, 1992 if the Transitory Ordinance is
approved at the April 13, 1992 meeting. The HRA would be
responsible for any holding or maintenance cost incurred at the
property after acquisition by the City. Site clearance and
construction would not begin on the site until the property is
transferred to the HRA.
The redevelopment of the 15th Avenue site is consistent with new
housing activity occurring in the area under the Richfield-
Rediscovered program. Within a four block radius of the 15th
Avenue site, three new homes have been completed and one
additional home is nearing construction start.
The 15th Avenue
intersection of
has a history o
collects in the
structure given
intersection.
site is located at the southeast corner of the
65th Street and 15th Avenue. This intersection
E intermittent flooding. Storm water that
intersection would not impact the proposed
that the parcel is elevated above the
6
Staff had an opportunity to meet with neighbors to discuss the
proposed project. The neighbors expressed no concerns about the
• project. Similarly, the neighbors have expressed no concern
about the Richfield-Rediscovered new home activity in the area.
They did, however, express strong concern about the intermittent
flooding at the intersection of 65th Street and 15th Avenue and a
continuing desire on their part for the City to do something
about this flooding problem. Although the acquisition program
and storm water improvement programs are not related, a
discussion of the flooding situation is attached to this letter
to provide the Council with useful background information.
Recommended Motion:
It is recommended that the City Council take the following
actions:
1. Adopt the attached resolution which authorizes the City
Manager and Mayor to:
A. Enter into a purchase agreement and take other actions
necessary to acquire the property at 6501 15th Avenue
from the owner, Barry Burda, for $50,000.
B. Enter into a sale agreement with the HRA and take
other actions necessary to transfer the property to the
HRA for $1.00
C. Schedule a public hearing and a second reading of the
Transitory Ordinance to accomplish the sale to the HRA
for April 13, 1992.
2. Give first reading to the attached Transitory Ordinance.
Basis of Recommendation:
1. The HRA has identified this property for a new home project
and authorized staff to acquire the property.
2. The property owner is interested in selling the property
through the Voluntary Acquisition Program.
3. The property is substandard and qualifies for acquisition in
accordance with the Voluntary Acquisition Program Guidelines.
4. Funds have been budgeted for acquisition, clearance, and
maintenance from federal YR XVII CDBG. The funds must be
utilized for this purpose and to provide a new home for a
moderate income, first time buying family.
5. Staff is finalizing the preliminary work which would commit
this site to a Vo-Tech construction project in 1992.
6. A finding has been made by the Planning Commission that
acquisition and disposition of the property is in conformance
with the Comprehensive Plan.
6-Q-
7. New HUD rules require a process in which the City acquires
the property and transfers the property to the HRA.
8. The HRA would like to finalize development contracts with
Vo-Tech to initiate the project during spring 1992.
9. City owned property requires the adoption of a Transitory
Ordinance to effectuate a sale.
10. Construction of a new home will not have an adverse input on
storm water control in this area.
Alternative Recommendation:
1. Staff would recommend to not purchase this property if the
site development would be linked to storm sewer
improvements. Staff will continue to study the need and
priority of the storm sewer improvement at this site
independent of the proposed purchase.
2. The City can choose not to acquire the property. However,
the HRA would not be able to proceed with a Vo-Tech project
in a timely manner. No better property acquisition site has
been identified for the HRA first time buyer project.
Discussion/Decision Mode:
The sale from the City to the HRA will require a public hearing
40 and second reading of a transitory ordinance scheduled for April
13, 1992.
lly submitted,
Jam". Prosser
City Manager
JDP:ds
is
6-3
TRANSITORY ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE AUTHORIZING AND PROVIDING FOR THE SALE, TRANSFER OR
OTHER DISPOSITION AND-CONVEYANCE OF CERTAIN CITY OWNED REAL
PROPERTY LOCATED IN THE CITY OF RICHFIELD, COUNTY OF HENNEPIN,
STATE OF MINNESOTA (6501 15th AVENUE SOUTH)
The City of Richfield Does Ordain:
Section 1.
The following described real property located in the City of
Richfield, County of Hennepin, State of Minnesota, is hereby
authorized to be sold, transferred or otherwise disposed of, and
conveyed by the City as herein provided:
Lot 24, Block 5, "Nokomis Gardens Rearrangement of
Blocks 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 "Girard Parkview Addition"
Hennepin County, Minnesota, and having the street
address of 6501 15th Avenue South, Richfield,
Minnesota.
Section 2.
The Mayor and City Manager are hereby authorized to take all
action as is required to sell, transfer, or otherwise dispose of
and convey the real property described in the foregoing Section
1, including, by way of illustration and not limitation, the
execution of all documents, purchase agreements, deeds of
conveyance, and other instruments connected with such sale,
transfer or disposition and conveyance.
Passed this day of 1992 by the
Richfield City Council.
Martin J. Kirsch, Mayor
ATTEST:
Thomas P. Ferber, City Clerk
RESOLUTION NO. 6-V
THE CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
CALLING FOR ACQUISITION AND A PUBLIC HEARING
. ON THE SALE OF CERTAIN LAND
WHEREAS, the City of Richfield, Minnesota (the "City")
proposes to sell the real property to the HRA for $1.00 in
furtherance of HRA housing programs.
WHEREAS, the City has considered the purchase of 6501 15th
Avenue with CDBG funds on behalf of the Richfield HRA for
$50,000. The property is further described as:
Address: 6501 15th Avenue South
PID #: 26-028-24-13-0115
Legal Description:
Lot 24, Block 5, "Nokomis Gardens Rearrangement of
Blocks 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5, "Girard Parkview Addition",
Hennepin County, Minnesota; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to the City Charter, Section 13.04, the
City is authorized to sell its Property following a public
hearing for which notice was published not less than ten days
before such hearing.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the
City of Richfield, Minnesota as follows:
1. The City Manager and Mayor are authorized to take those
actions necessary to purchase 6501.15th Avenue for $50,000.
2. The City shall hold a public hearing and second reading of
the ordinance regarding the sale of the land to the HRA on
Monday, April 13, 1992.
3. The City Clerk is directed to publish notice of such hearing
in the official newspaper of the city and post notice of
said hearing.
Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield this 9th
day of March,-1992.
Martin J. Kirsch, Mayor
ATTEST:
Thomas P. Ferber, City Clerk
(-5
•
Summary of Flooding Situation at the
Intersection of 65th Street and 15th Avenue
A. Neighbor Concerns:
Neighbors, Bonnie Ackerman, 6444 15th Avenue and Cheryl Roth,
6500 15th Avenue have expressed the following concerns to the
City and HRA staff:
1. Storm water accumulates to a depth of.approximately two
feet in the intersection and into their yards during
downpours and heavy rains.
2. Cars parked on the street are subject to flooding and
damage during these storms.
3. Soil erosion and weed problems have occurred to their
lawns, attributed to the ponding of storm water.
4. Debris from the surrounding area is washed into their
yards.
5. There is a continuous fear that water will eventually
damage their homes in heavy storms.
•
6. Federal funds are being allocated to a New Home project,
while no funds are allocated to correct the intersection
flooding problem which affects their properties.
B. City Response:
In past years, these residents have had considerable contact
with City staff:
1. The adequacy of the storm sewer design was reviewed by
the independent consulting firm, OSM, retained by the
City to study drainage issues. This site is one of 40
sites studied by OSM in 1988. OSM has recently
recommended that more detailed analysis and observations
be made in this storm water impacted area. Additional
information will better clarify the severity of the
problem and provide the basis for recommended courses
of action.
2. The intersection has been recognized as a location of
significant storm water ponding during heavy rainfalls.
This is due largely to the topography of the area.
r-7
LJ
3. The problem at the intersection of 65th Street and 15th
Avenue has been evaluated along with other locations in
the City which experience flooding. These areas have
been prioritized in terms of the severity of the flooding
problem. Areas with the most severe flooding problems
were designated for improvements. The flooding problem
at the intersection of 65th Street and 15th Avenue has
not been determined to be severe enough to receive
priority attention.
?- (P
4. While it is technically feasible to construct
modifications which would reduce potential flooding, the
City Council would have to determine whether such
modifications are consistent with the City Council
guidelines on storm drainage improvements.
Improvement to this storm water system must consider
the cost benefit of solving this or several other
locations with equal or worse problems.
5. Federal CDBG funds must be used for housing programs
that benefit low and moderate income persons.
Acquisition and clearance for the construction of new
housing is an eligible activity. CDBG funds may not
be used to repair storm sewer systems.
0
0
5
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Council Letter No. 65
Agenda March 9, 1992
Issue Statement:
First reading of ordinance amendment to permit sale of beer and
wine coolers at Augsburg Park, Taft Park and Veterans Memorial
Park of Richfield.
Background:
At one time, possession and consumption of beer was permitted in
the Richfield park system. Currently, sale, possession, or
consumption of beer is prohibited in the public parks of the
City. A recent history of "Beer in the Parks" for Richfield is
attached.
The Community Services Commission reopened discussion of beer in
the parks about two years ago. City staff conducted a survey of
policies in other cities in March 1990. When the Commission
again discussed the topic in June 1991, a Commission member
provided updated information on the policy of other communities.
These pieces of information are attached.
At the June.ll, 1991 Community Services Commission meeting action
was taken, with one dissenting vote, to recommend the City
Council consider allowing beer and wine coolers in Veterans
Memorial Park of Richfield, Taft Park and Augsburg Park.
Conditions for sale included the understanding that persons
wishing to consume beer or wine coolers in the park shall be
required to make a reservation with the City and obtain a permit
for their function; beer and wine coolers shall be served in non-
glass containers; and beer and wine coolers may be consumed in
the park only between the hours set forth in the permit.
Community Services Commission members attended the July 1991
Council Study Session to join in discussion of this matter. The
attached proposed ordinance amendment was prepared by Public
Safety staff, reviewed by the City Attorney and discussed by the
Community Services Commission. The proposal requires a permit
with a $300 deposit, $100 per day fee, indemnification of the
City, and the permittee must provide adequate insurance coverage..
The Community Services Commission unanimously recommended support
of the proposed "Beer in the Park" ordinance amendment at their
February 11, 1992 regular meeting.
Recommended Motion:
1. Approve first reading of an amendment to Chapter VIII of the
ordinance code to permit sale and consumption of alcoholic
beverages, specifically wine coolers and beer, when
conditions are met; i.e., sale is by a local nonprofit
organization or the City at a civic or community event
• 2. Schedule a public hearing and second reading of the proposed
ordinance amendment for April 13, 1992 Council meeting.
s-i
Basis of Recommendation:
1. There has been interest expressed for an opportunity to
provide nonintoxicating malt liquor and wine coolers at
special events held at Augsburg Park, Taft Park or Veterans
Memorial Park of Richfield.
2. The permit system provides the funds to cover the costs
incurred by the City and affords adequate preparation for and
monitoring of the event.
3. Several other communities have similar ordinances and have
not expressed any problems.
Alternative Recommendation:
1. Do not amend the ordinance.
2. Request a change to the proposed ordinance amendment to
better reflect the best interests of the City and the
community.
Discussion/Decision Mode:
This item is scheduled for the March 9, 1992 Council meeting.
Council may delay first reading action until the March 23 meeting
but this will shorten the time available for public hearing
notification. Second reading should be no later than April if
the ordinance amendment is to be effective this summer season.
Respectfully submitted,
James . Prosser
City pager
JDP:ds
Attachments
0
5-a
March 13, 1990
• RECENT HISTORY OF "BEER IN THE PARKS" IN RICHFIELD
August 25, 1975 An amendment to the ordinance is passed
making the consumption and possession of
alcoholic beverages a misdemeanor
offense.
June 9, 1980 Ordinance amended to permit sale and
consumption of beer in Taft Park and
Augsburg Park on special occasions for
charitable purposes.
April 26, 1982 Ordinance amended. Sale and consumption
of beverages containing not less than
one half of one percent alcohol by
volume is prohibited.
May 9, 1983 Ordinance amended. Sale, possession and
consumption is prohibited in parks;
"beverages containing not less than one
half of one percent alcohol by volume"
removed and replaced with "beer".
is May 23, 1988 Subdivisions 3, 4, and 5, which refer to
permits, are repealed as redundant.
0
S-3
•
March 13, 1990
BEER IN THE PARKS INFORMATION
0
Bloomington - Ordinance prohibits possession or
consumption except by special permit
at designated parks.
Eagan - Ordinance prohibits possession or
consumption except by special permit
(and then only beer in cans or kegs,
no glass containers allowed) at
designated sites.
Eden Prairie - Allows beer in most parks.
- Restricts keg(s) to special permit.
- Prohibits alcohol at specific parks
that involve youth athletics.
Edina - Ordinance prohibits possession or,
consumption in parks anytime.
Minneapolis - Ordinance restricts nothing stronger
than 3.2 beer in parks.
Richfield - Sale, possession and consumption of
alcoholic beverages prohibited (see
attached for recent history)
Roseville - 3.2 beer allowed at/in Central Park
anytime.
- Restricts keg(s) to special permit.
Special permit also available for
picnics or softball tournaments.
St. Louis Park - Ordinance prohibits possession or
consumption in the parks anytime.
St. Paul - Ordinance prohibits possession or
consumption in parks.
Special permit available for
designated parks/facilities for
special activities.
June 7, 1991
POLICY OF BEER IN PARKS OF OTHER MUNICIPALITIES
CITY POLICY
Anoka Beer off limits in most parks. Permits can
be bought for some parks for beer only.
Apple Valley Beer is allowed in all but one park where a
permit is needed.
Bloomington No permit needed. 3.2 beer/wine coolers only.
Burnsville. Beer is allowed, but if group is larger than
25 persons, you need to apply for a permit.
Columbia Heights Beer is allowed only in main park on weekends
only. By Council approval in other parks.
Eden Prairie Beer and wine allowed. No kegs. Must get
permission from parks director and a permit
from the City.
Edina Available at Edinborough and Braemar only.
Fridley Against City ordinance to have any beer in
any park.
Golden Valley Beers in parks allowed.only if you have
shelter reserved with the City. Must submit
letter to Council for approval.
Hopkins Beer allowed in two parks only. Permit needed
for keg or when gathering is 25+ people.
Minneapolis No permit required. 3.2 beer only. No kegs
or other liquor allowed.
Minnetonka Beer allowed in two parks only. Permit needed
• for gatherings of 25+ people and for kegs.
Non-glass containers only.
St. Louis Park No liquor at all.
5-5-
BILL NO. 1992
AMENDMENT TO CHAPTER VIII
OF THE ORDINANCE CODE
OF THE CITY OF RICHFIELD
THE CITY OF RICHFIELD DOES ORDAIN:
Chapter VIII of the Ordinance Code of the City of Richfield entitled
"Streets, Alleys, and Public Grounds" is hereby amended as follows.
840.11. Sale and consumption of beer in parks. Subdivision 1. Definitions.
For purposes of this subsection, terms defined in the subdivision have the
meanings given them.
+b}(a) "Beer Alcoholic beverage" means any beverage
wheiiy or in part frem the brewing ef any grains er realt er malt substitute
axd containing more than one-half of one percent alcohol by volume.
+e+(b) "Local nonprofit organization" means any entity having community
service, religious, veteran, or charitable business activities as its
principal purpose, which has its registered office or principal place of
activity within Richfield, and which qualifies in all respects for the
issuance of a license to sell the type of beer alcoholic beverages to be
furnished at the activity or event for which the permit is being sought.
(c) "Nonintoxicating malt liquor" is malt liquor containina not more
40 than three point two percent (3.2%) alcohol by weight.
(d) "Wine cooler" is a wine product that contains no more than five
percent (5%) alcohol by weight.
+a+(e) "Sale" means all means of furnishing alcoholic beverages and
includes but is not limited to the furnishing for money or other
consideration.
reauirements•
sal Sales must be ancillary to a civic or community event.
. shall be valid only for sales at the fixed location describe
implication and for the duration provided for in the permit.
Subd. 2. Sale and consumption -° The sale, possession with
intent to consume, or consumption of beer alcoholic beverages is prohibited in
the public parks of the city, except that to the extent not otherwise
prohibited by law nonintoxicating malt liquors and wine coolers may be sold in
-b
• (c) Sales are permitted between the hours of 8:00 AM and 10:00 PM only.
(d) A security plan must approved by the Public Safety Director.
(e) Bottles or other glass beverage containers are not permitted.
(f) The applicant must furnish the city with evidence of licruor
liability insurance covering the proposed event in an appropriate amount.
(b) would interfere with other activities previously scheduled at the
park;
(c) would create an unreasonable disturbance for residents of adioining
property; or
40
(a) an indemnity bond holding the city harmless from liability of any
kind and reimbursing the city for any property damage related to the sale; and
(b) a cash deposit or other acceptable security in the amount of three
hundred dollars (S300) to reimburse the city for park cleanup costs.
The permit fee will be refunded if the application is denied. Costs incurred
by the city for park cleanup will be deducted from the security deposit.
cease.
0
(a) would likely cause or create crowd control, traffic, or park
maintenance problems;
(d) would cause or create any other threat to public health, safety, or
welfare.
Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this
day of , 1992.
Martin J. Kirsch, Mayor
ATTEST:
Thomas P. Ferber, City Clerk
0
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
• Council Letter No. 64
Agenda March 9, 1992
,Issue Statement:
Public hearing on the Urban Hennepin County Year XVIII Community
Development Block Grant Allocation.
Background:
The City Council is scheduled to conduct a public hearing on
March 9, 1992 to determine Richfield's use of the Year XVIII
Urban Hennepin County Community Development Block Grant (CDBG)
allocation of $187,099. Requests for $209,030 of Year XVIII
funds have been submitted.
Information concerning Hennepin County's CDBG program objectives,
the project funding requests and the rationale for providing the
funds is attached. Total funds allocated to Richfield in Year
XVIII increased 2.3% from last year.
Again this year, the amount of program income from Year XVII will
not be known until after June 30, 1992. Staff has been asked to
limit public service activities to not exceed 20% with the
realization that adjustments may have to be made later.
Richfield has had two public service agencies funded through the
CDBG allocation - Greater Minneapolis Day Care Association
(G.M.D.C.A.) and the H.O.M.E. programs.
In recent years, the G.M.D.C.A. and H.O.M.E. programs have
received a combined total of 19% of Richfield's allocation.
However, this past year, G.M.D.C.A.'s need for CDBG funding has
decreased. (Eight families in 1991 and four families in 1992.)
And, as their letter of request indicates, they are looking at
phasing out CDBG funding entirely.
This year, the City received a request from Skills 2000 a
Richfield based adult education service program for low income
individuals. Background information is attached. Since
G.M.D.C.A. has been slow to expend their allocation and Skills
2000 has requested funding, a $6,000 allocation is recommended
for this year's program. The Skills 2000 program generally fits
the eligibility requirements for CDBG funding. However, staff
has requested Skills 2000 to provide a means to identify a per
participant cost for their services. The proposed allocations
assume that Skills 2000 will be able to provide the proper
documentation. However, should this not be the case and Skills
2000 is not funded, staff is recommending that the $6,000.
allocation be transferred to the Housing Rehabilitation
allocation. The Rehabilitation program maintains a considerable
waiting list and this adjustment would be appropriate. The CDBG
Year XVIII application proposes a combined total allocation of
16% for public service funding.
Ll I
Since Richfield' s total al location was higher than last year, all
recipient programs share equally in the increase, with the
• exception of the shift in funding from G.M.D.C.A. to Skills 2000.
The chart below summarizes allocation funded, requested and
recommended:
Year XVI Year XVII Year XVIII Year XVIII
Funded Funded
Activity Amount Amount Requested Recommended
G.M.D.C.A. -
Child Day Care $ 18,093 $ 20,110 $ 15,000 $ 7,269
H.O.M.E. $ 13,159 $ 14,622 $ 15,200 $ 15,000
Skills 2000 $ 0 $ 0 $ 20,000 $ 6,000
Housing $ 68,236 $ 75,865, $ 86,620. $ 86,620
Rehabilitation
Scattered Site
Housing S 65,000 S 72,210 $ 72,210 $ 72,210
Total $164,488 $182,807 $209,030 $187,099
Recommended Motion:
Approve the attached resolution which identifies allocation of
Year XVIII CDBG funds as follows:
1. Housing Improvement: .
a. Housing Rehabilitation $ 86,620
• b. Scattered Site Housing $ 72,210
2. Public Service:
a. H.O.M.E. $ 15,000
b. Child Day Care $ 7,269
c. Skills 2000 S 6,000
Total $187,099
Basis of Recommendation:
1. The County's statement of objectives indicates that
communities should limit the number of projects funded to
three and that the minimum project budget to $7,500. The
proposal is divided into two projects, Home Improvement and
Public Service, which meets the objectives stated.
2. Housing Improvement funding be allocated for housing
rehabilitation, and scattered site acquisitions under the New
Home Program. The $72,210 allocated for scattered site is
the minimum required to complete a site project through the
Vo-Tech program. The $86,620 would be used for
rehabilitation of single family homes through the Deferred
Loan program.
3. Public service funding would be allocated for the H.O.M.E.
program to service approximately 16 households. The child
. day care subsidy would be used to service approximately four
families. The Skills 2000 allocation would serve
approximately five individuals. The three programs are
combined into one project entitled public services.
q-2-
4. Public service accounts should be closely maintained at near
the same per cent of total level of funding as proposed this
year. This will allow the County to stay under the 20t
overall limitation of public service funding.
5. If the Skills 2000 program cannot provide the appropriate
documentation of service per individual and is not funded,
the $6,000 allocation would be added to the Rehabilitation of
Private Property.
Alternative Recommendation:
1. Change the amount of funds allocated to each project.
2. Fund other eligible projects which have not been identified
by staff.
Discussion/Decision Mode:
A public hearing on this matter has been scheduled for March 9,
1992. The deadline for submitting the CDBG Year XVIII
application to Hennepin County is Wednesday, April 15, 1992.
lly submitted,
•
JDP:ds
James Prosser
City 4?ager
•
U-3
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION APPROVING PROPOSED PROGRAM FOR YEAR XVIII
URBAN HENNEPIN COUNTY COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT
FUNDS AND AUTHORIZING ITS SUBMITTAL
WHEREAS, the City of Richfield, through execution of a Joint
Cooperation Agreement with Hennepin County, is a cooperating unit
in the Urban Hennepin County Community Development Block Grant
Program; and
WHEREAS, the City of Richfield has developed a proposal for
the use of Urban Hennepin County CDBG funds made available to it,
following a public hearing on March 9, 1992 to obtain the views
of citizens on local and Urban Hennepin County housing and
community development needs and the City's following proposed use
of $187,099 from the Year XVIII Urban Hennepin County Community
Development Block Grant.
Projects Budget
1. Housing Improvement:
a. Housing Rehabilitation $ 86,620
b. Scattered Site Housing $ 72,210
2. Public Service:
• a. H.O.M.E. $ 15,000
b. Child Day Care $ 7,269
C. Skills 2000 S 6,000
Total $187,099
WHEREAS, if the SKILLS 2000 program is not funded, such
allocation will be added to the Housing Rehabilitation project.
BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of Richfield, Minnesota
approves the proposed use of Year XVIII Urban Hennepin County
Community Development Block Grant funds and program related
income and authorizes submittal of the proposal to Hennepin
County for review by the Urban Hennepin County Citizens Advisory
Committee and for inclusion in the Year XVIII, Urban Hennepin
County Community Development Block Grant Program Statement of
Objectives and Projected Use of Funds.
Approved by the City Council of the City of Richfield this
9th day of March, 1992.
ATTEST:
Martin J. Kirsch, Mayor
40 Thomas Ferber, City Clerk
4-Y
RATIONALE FOR FUNDING REHABILITATION DEFERRED LOAN PROJECT
•
The Deferred Loan Program provides the following:
1. Virtually the only means for low income homeowners to fund
major improvements.
The average age of Richfield homes is 35 to 45 years. At
this age, major improvements are needed; furnace replacement,
electrical update, roof replacement, window and siding
update. Weatherization and handicapped accessibility
improvements are also funded by this program.
2. There are 11 homeowners currently waiting for assistance.
The eleven homeowners currently waiting do not yet reflect
the requests usually received in the spring and summer.
There are an estimated 1,800 lower income homeowners who
need deferred loan assistance.
Remaining Year XVII funds received in 1991 will fund
approximately seven households on the waiting list. Year
• XVIII funds requested ($86,620) will provide approximately
eleven loans to serve households currently on the waiting
list and new applicants applying during the spring and
summer.
3. Funds are needed for potential emergency situations.
Approximately four emergency loans are provided each year
to homeowners in distress situations: collapsed sewer lines,
unreliable furnaces and severely deteriorated roofs. In
addition to funding applicants on the waiting list, funds
are also needed to assist homeowners in emergency situations.
4. Deferred loans provide for household stability and
independent living.
Having deferred loans available to elderly home owners often
makes it possible for them to continue to live independently.
The availability
resolve seemingly
their stability.
of deferred loans to families helps them
impossible situations which threaten
[Rationale/Rehab]
q-,5-
RATIONALE FOR FUNDING SCATTERED SITE PROJECT
The*New Home Scattered Site program provides the HRA the
opportunity to expand affordable housing opportunities and
maintain the existing housing stock for lower income-persons.
The project makes longterm improvements when:
- substandard housing is cleared
- vacant land suitable for development is acquired
- buildings are acquired and rehabilitated to create
additional housing
- new housing is developed that.increases the affordable
housing stock.
The New Home Program is-the most active scattered site
acquisition and clearance program occurring in Richfield. During
the last 10 years, on many occasions, the Richfield HRA produced
the only new affordable housing opportunities for young families
in the city.
Funding this project:
1. Allows further removal of approximately 200 substandard homes
that currently exist.
Those properties are difficult to sell in the market place.
The HRA continually receives offers throughout the year from
owners interested in selling. More than 50 property owners
have indicated interest in selling in 1992.
2. Allows blighted housing conditions or abandoned housing
problems to be resolved.
Foreclosures are occurring more often. Housing conditions
are such that HRA involvement through acquisition and
rehabilitation is appropriate. The housing stock,
particularly the garage homes and older cottages, 45 to 50
years old, are approaching replacement age.
3. Ensures reutilization of Richfield house structures within
the City.
The HRA has reused seven Richfield house structures by
relocating and remodeling them on scattered sites throughout
the city. Structures were acquired from properties purchased
for park expansion and commercial and residential
developments.
4. Provides affordable first time home buying opportunities.
A household with the Richfield average income of $30;000
can't afford the average Richfield housing of $83,000. With
cost reductions by Vo-Tech, MHFA mortgages and HRA second
mortgages, purchasing families range in size from 3 to 6
q-6
members with incomes between $29,000 and $35,000. The
. New Home program has provided a stable tenancy. Since
the Vo-Tech program started in 1978, of the twelve properties
developed, 11 have continued with the original owner.
5. Continues a cost effective construction relationship with the
Vo-Tech School.
Working with the Vo-Tech School,
cost of approximately $55,000 to
sell for $83,000 on the average.
construction by contractors has
6. Increase property tax revenue.
new homes can be built at a
$65,000 while existing homes
Recent private new
cost in excess of $100,000.
The increase in tax revenues from properties redeveloped by
the HRA approximates $1,000 per property annually.
7. Continues housing distribution on scattered sites.
Blighted housing conditions and HRA solutions occur on
scattered sites throughout the city as properties become
available. This achieves uniform upgrading of neighborhoods
throughout the city without concentrating assistance in one
location.
8. Provides housing stability in neighborhoods where blight has
continued for lengthy periods of time.
Most acquisitions are encouraged by surrounding neighbors
who seek a solution to a substandard house, which experiences
frequent changes in ownership and progressive deterioration.
9. Continues a process where one scattered site purchase each
year ensures that Vo-Tech will exclusively provide new homes
in a timely manner for sale to low and moderate first time
buyers.
CDBG funds expended in 1991, provide a completed home in
1992 at 6803 Nicollet Ave. So. CDBG funds in 1992 also
provide the opportunity for a completed home in 1993 on
a site to be determined. Approximately two homes are built
each year if yearly CDBG allocations continue.
10. Complements new program initiatives by enabling the HRA to
address a variety of housing needs.
In 1990, staff developed an Expanded New Home Program now
called Richfield-Rediscovered, to increase the rate at which
substandard structures are removed and'new single family
homes are built. The Richfield-Rediscovered program
is funded by an internal revenue source of approximately
$1 million. Given this new program, a question might be
raised as to the continued role of CDBG funds for
q -_7
0
•
acquisition of one
funds are important
needs:
funds are not available.
- CDBG funds provide a mechanism to ensure a continued
relationship with Vo-Tech. ENHP would use private
developers, not Vo-Tech.
or two properties each year. CDBG
in enabling the HRA to meet specific
- New housing opportunities are provided for low and
moderate income first time homebuying families, while
Richfield-Rediscovered homes have above average values and
will be sold at market rates.
- CDBG funds provide a budget for tenant relocation. This
enables deteriorated single family rental property to be
purchased and tenants relocated. The Richfield-
Rediscovered program does not provide relocation funds to
allow the purchase of single-family, tenant occupied rental
property. Those properties are not dealt with if CDBG
<Scattered/NewHome>
1/L5/92
Judith Kunz
City of Richfield
8700 Portland Ave. S.
Richfield, MN 55423
Dear Ms. Kunz:
I am requesting that Richfield use :$15,000 of its CDBG money to
continue funding the child care sliding fee program. The Riohfield
child care sliding fee program has been an important support to
Richfield families who are working or in school.
As .I mentioned in the last letter, the new Federal child care funds
are making the waiting lists for these programs more reasonable.
However, we see the need for some continued funding to support
families who are'now on the program and who are in multi year school
programs.
During the period from July 1, 1990 through June 30th, 1991 Richfield
CDBG funds provided the following service:
• Children Served: 12
Families Served: 8
Single Parent Families: 8
Two Parent Families: 0
There are presently four families on the Riohfield child care sliding
fee program. We are in the process of looking at the impact of the
new federal and state funding on the availability of child care
subsidies. We hope to evolve a plan to phase out the City funded
programs so that cities can use the CDBa funds for other pressing
needs.
Sincerely,
9
Jim Nichoiie
Associate Director
Greater Minneapolis Day Care Association
1628 Elliot Ave. S. • Minneapolis, Minnesota 55404 • (612) 341-1177 • Fax (612) 341-4356
?MC°°yeaUn?g sFn=^d?bnw
N9
40 SENIOR COMMUNITY SERVICES
1600 South 2nd Street, Hopkins, Minnesota 55343 933-9311
BOARD of DIRECTORS
Walter Levesque
President
Tom Ticen
1st Vice President
Bob Miller
2nd Vice President
Linda Stokes
Secretary
Carla Pavone
Treasurer
John Blaser
Past President
Daralyn Peifer
40 ember-at-Large
Ryan Schroeder
Member-at-Large
Toni Anderson
Karl Dansky
Robert DeGhetto
Alison Fuhr
Marty Guritz
Commissioner Tad Jude
Leonard Kopp
Connie McCullough
John Nelson
Senator Gen Olson
Steve Rood
Russell Weinstein
Bob Zagaros
Benjamim F. Withhart
Executive Director & C.E.O.
10
0 A United Way
upported Agency
February 10, 1992
Ms. Judith L. Kunz,
Community Development Assistant
City of Richfield
6700 Portland Ave.
Richfield, MN 55423-2599
Dear Ms. Kunz:
Fax 933-2101
Senior Community Services is requesting $15,200
from the City of Richfield in CDBG Year XVIII (July
1, 1992 - June 30, 1993) to support the HOME
Program. This amount would provide a 4% cost-of
-living-increase above the City's current level
($14,622) of support.
Richfield's CDBG funds are leveraged or matched
more than twice over from client fees, funding from
the Greater Minneapolis Council of Churches (GMCC)
and from donations. The HOME Program operates on a
sliding fee scale. On average clients cover
approximately one-third of the Programs' cost.
GMCC funding, utilizing Federal Title III monies,
helps to subsidize chore services. Friends of
HOME, an organization that solicits private
donations, helps to fill the remaining gap between
the .City's CDBG funds and the total Program
expense.
I have enclosed a copy
Service including that in
If you have any questions,
Council would like to have
presentation, please don't
of the 1991 Summary of
the City of Richfield.
or if the Mayor and City
an informational
hesitate to let me know.
Sincerely,
1.
Ron Bloch
Program Administrator
q_1o
H.O.M.E. ( Household and Outs ide.Ma1ntenance for Elderly)
Summary of Service 1991
MAINTENANCE HOMEMAKER TOTAL
BLOOMINGTON
of Customers 245 106 351
of Households 196 88 284
of Jobs 892 1452 2344
of Hours 2558 3385 5943
EDINA
0 of Customers 104 83 187
0 of Households 87 77 164
0 of Jobs 512 1455 1967
of Hours 1616 3436 5052
RICHFIELD
of Customers 115 46 161
• of Households 102 41 143
of Jobs 719 683 1402
of Hours 1370 1512 2882
EDEN PRAIRIE
of Customers 25 13 38
of Households 18 13 31
of Jobs 38 171 209
of Hours 264 360 624
ST. LOUIS PARK.
of Customers 25 25
of Households 19 19
of Jobs 41 41
of Hours 229 229
TOTAL
of Customers 514 248 762
of Households 422 219 641.
of Jobs 2202 3761 5963
of Hours 6310 8693 15003
.. q-o
SKILLS 2000
Adult Education for Employment Success 6315 Penn Avenue South
0 Richfield, Minnesota 55423
March 2, 1992 861-2361
Ms. Judy Kunz
City of Richfield
6700 Portland Avenue
Richfield, MN 55423
Dear 'Ms . Kunz :
Thank you for your help in explaining the possibility of applying for
Community Development Block Grant Funds from the City of Richfield.
I am requesting $20,000 in Block Grant Funds to serve Richfield residents
at SKILLS 2000.
For over three years, SKILLS 2000 has been an innovative program which
promotes the economic self-sufficiency of low skilled, unemployed or
underemployed parents who face multiple barriers to employment. SKILLS
2000's mission is Adult Education for Employment Success. SKILLS 2000
combines adult basic education for workplace literacy; vocational coun-
seling, job-specific training and other job-related services; and family
• counseling and support. Services are provided through the collaborative
efforts of employers, educators, vocational experts and social service
professionals. -
SKILLS 2000 was initiated in 1988 with pilot funding from the McKnight
Foundation Aid to Families in Poverty Initiative. Since then, SKILLS 2000.
enrolled 132 students. 90% were unemployed at the time of enrollment.
89% were single parents and 75% were receiving AFDC. 39% had physical or
mental disabilities. The average household income at enrollment was $7,856.
Since its beginning, SKILLS 2000 has worked with a total of 30 Richfield
residents. Currently, five participants live in Richfield. These families
face multiple barriers to achieving economic independence.
SKILLS 2000 has demonstrated success in educating people for the workplace
and placing them in permenent jobs. Thirty-seven participants have already
been placed into jobs with an average family income of $14,700 -- double
the average income at enrollment. 80% of the participants who were placed
into jobs more than six months ago continue to be employed, and are receiving
wages and benefits sufficient to be off public assistance. Most other students
enrolled in SKILLS 2000 are continuing in their education or are already in
long term job training as the final step toward reaching their employment
goals. SKILLS 2000 has a dropout rate of.under 20%, well below that which
is standard in traditional ABE programs.
0
A Program of
Employment Action Center, A Division of Mufti Resource Centers, Inc.,
and South Hennepin Adult Programs in Education, A Community Education Service
Ms. Judy Kunz - 2 - March 2, 1992
In 1991 a comprehensive program evaluation was completed by Dr. Rosemarie
Park from the University of Minnesota. The evaluation points out the
unique services of the SKILLS 2000 program. It lists participant satis-
faction, retention rates, employment statistics, and tangible effects on
the quality,of family life as evidence of the program meeting its objec-
tives. A full evaluation report is available.
We are proud of SKILLS 2000's record of success during this period. We
believe that these carefully designed, comprehensive services are a model
for education and employment training for adult students who face multiple
barriers to employment. The enclosed information will provide additional
details about the SKILLS 2000 program. I would welcome the opportunity to
meet with you to discuss our program plans and needs. I plan to attend the
March 9, 1992 City Council Meeting should any questions arise at that time.
Thank you for your interest in SKILLS 2000.
Sincerely,
Jack Swanson
• Director
JS/hk
Encl.
C:
q-13
0
SKILLS 2000: WORKPLACE LITERACY FOR EMPLOYMENT SUCCESS
Contact:
Jack Swanson, Director
SKILLS 2000
6315 Penn Avenue South
Richfield, MN 55423
861-2361
r?
LJ
March 2, 1992
Ll- I q
•
TABLE OF CONTENTS
SUMMARY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
NEED. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
Families in Poverty
Changing Workplace
GOAL AND OBJECTIVES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . S
SERVICES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
Outreach and Accessibility
Intake
Academic Component
Vocational Counseling, Work Internship, Job Placement
• SUPPORT SERVICES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .10
APPLICANT EXPERIENCE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .11
COOPERATING AND SUPPORT ORGANIZATIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . .12
EVALUATION PLAN . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .12
BUDGET AND FISCAL MANAGEMENT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .13
IMPACT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .13
ATTACHMENTS
0
q-1s
9
SUMMARY
SKILLS 2000 is an'innovative program to promote the economic self-
sufficiency of low skilled, unemployed or underemployed parents
who face multiple barriers to employment. SKILLS 2000's mission
is Adult Education for Employment Success. SKILLS 2000 combines
adult basic education for workplace literacy; vocational counseling,
job-specific training and other job related services; and family
counseling and support. Services are provided through the collab-
orative efforts of employers, educators, vocational counselors and
social service professionals.
Program participants are low income parents of dependent children
under age 18. SKILLS 2000 is designed to help participants make
personal and career decisions; improve reading, writing, math
and communication skills needed for employment; develop family
strengths; practice good workplace behaviors and skills; and find
and keep satisfying employment at a livable wage.
SKILLS 2000 was initiated in 1988 by South Hennepin Adult Programs
in Education (SHAPE), a program of Bloomington Public Schools ISD
No. 271, in collaboration with Employment Action Center, a division
of Multi Resource Centers, Inc. Funding for the initial 30-month
• pilot period was provided by The McKnight Foundation Aid to Families
in Poverty Initiative. Because of the initial success of SKILLS
2000, the McKnight Foundation extended partial funding for 212
additional years providing program administrators time to develop
a diversified funding base.
Through a range of comprehensive services, SKILLS 2000 is able to
reduce drop-out rates and increase participant success in employment.
Special features include:
# A strong business advisory council to guide the development of
educational plans relevant to current workplace requirements;
# Utilization of a new curriculum which incorporates material
from participants' intended career areas and is individualized
according to each participant's learning style and job goals;
# On-the-job work internships integrated into the educational
curriculum;
Provision of family support services to enable participants
to overcome multiple barriers and successfully complete their
education and training program.
is
q , I ? -2-
SKILLS 2000 has enrolled 132 students in the first 32 years. Among
that group:
0 82% were unemployed*at the time of enrollment
0 89% were single parents
0 75% were receiving AFDC or other government support.
0 100% were low income with an average household income of $7,856/year
0 70% had not received a high school diploma or GED
0 18% were employed at positions paying an average of $5.66/hour
SKILLS 2000 has demonstrated success in educating people for the
workplace and placing them in permanent jobs. Thirty-seven partic-
ipants have been placed into jobs since the program began with an
average family income of $14,500 -- almost double the average income
at enrollment. Twenty-four of these participants were placed.into
jobs more than six months ago. Twenty-two continue to be employed,
and are receiving wages and benefits sufficient to be off public
assistance. Sixteen other students have been placed in long-term
training as the final step toward reaching their employment goals.
In 1991, SKILLS 2000 contracted for an outside evaluation with
Rosemarie Park, Associate Professor of Education at the University
of Minnesota, recognized internationally for her research and
writings on workplace literacy. Dr. Park has presented the findings
of the evaluation of the program's first three years.
In a random survey of students and former students, all agreed that
the SKILLS 2000 program had helped them. Much of the program's
success was credited to "the intense one-on=one relationships that
staff provides." The evaluation was also designed to compare SKILLS
2000 with other more traditional ABE programs. The dropout rate for
SKILLS 2000 is 18%. This "compares favorably with dropout rates for
most literacy programs which range between 30% and 50%." Programs
costs were compared. The SKILLS 2000 program was found to offer more
services at a lower price per student than other metro area ABE pro-
grams or dislocated worker programs funded by the federal government.
A complete copy of the evaluation is available on request.
NEED
SKILLS 2000 addresses critical individual, family and community
needs: 1) the very apparent needs of families in poverty who also
have low basic skills, who are limited in securing employment by
the lack of a high school diploma or GED, and who, because of family
stresses and other factors, have had difficulty finding and partici-
pating in job-focused education or training programs; 2) the needs
is
- 3 -
q-f 7
of workers to increase knowledge, skills and problem-solving abilities
in order to meet the changing requirements of their jobs, to advance
in employment or find new employment opportunities; 3) the needs of
employers to find skilled employees interested in long-term employment
and to upgrade the skills and knowledge of current employees. Trad-
itional Adult Basic Education (ABE) or other basic skills programs
are often unable to prepare individuals for work or vocational
training, due in part to the lack of coordination between ABE,
vocational training and the workplace.
FAMILIES IN POVERTY
SKILLS 2000 serves low income adults with dependent children.
Participants enter the program with a need for a high school
diploma/GED or with a diploma and a need for basic skill brush-up;
students are typically functioning at an eighth to ninth grade
level. Most students lack competitive work skills and many
have had little or no previous employment.
Without a high school education, few opportunities for advancement
exist within companies. Even for entry level employment, employers
are increasingly looking for education and/or training beyond high.
• school. In addition to the academic education, specific job related
skills are a must for adequate employment. SKILLS 2000 focuses on
serving individuals with low level skills and low academic achieve-
ment, who need on-the-job skill training combined with academic
instruction and support services.
The majority of the students entering the SKILLS 2000 program have
little or no previous work history and none have any marketable job
skill or specific job experience. The intent of the program is to
give students an academic foundation and assist them in transferring
those skills to the workplace.
Without education and specific skill training, participants are
unlikely to find jobs which pay an adequate wage, provide benefits
and have the potential for advancement and long term employment.
Parents on AFDC frequently find that available jobs pay too little
for economic self-sufficiency. Low paying jobs often lack critical
benefits such as health care for the worker and her/his family.
Individuals may be forced to resign from, or not accept, such
positions in order to ensure that medical assistance is available
for their children. Decent pay and benefits are necessities for
economic independence.
0
q--19 -4-
Little attention is paid in traditional ABE programs to family
dynamics involving low skilled ABE clients; yet family issues have
enormous impact on why people originally drop out of school, why
they enter ABE and job training programs, and often why they drop
out of them as well. 81% of SKILLS 2000 students had previously
participated in Adult Basic programs but had dropped out before
completing. Although the SKILLS 2000 program cannot overcome every
obstacle, the intent is to provide enough services, incentives and
flexibility to the adult learner to increase chances of success.
Intensive multi-disciplinary services and advocacy are major com-
ponents of the program. Staff work individually with each student
to identify barriers which may prevent the student from completing
the academic program and/or successfully entering the job market.
Major needs include child care, transportation, family/personal
health needs, chemical dependency/mental health counseling, grooming
and clothing.
CHANGING WORKPLACE
The workplace is changing dramatically. Many of the jobs people
will perform 15 years from now do not exist today. Jobs require
• more sophisticated knowledge and skills in such areas as reading,
writing, math and computer use. Problem solving abilities and the
ability to work cooperatively and collaboratively are increasingly
important. Many applicants for entry level jobs lack qualifications
necessary for employment. Employers note serious deficiencies not
only in writing, math and computer skills but also behavioral skills
such as responsibility, dependability and self-discipline.
SKILLS 2000 trains students for the immediate job requirements as
well as prepares them for the future. The program was designed to
address multiple barriers to employment. simultaneously. The cur-
riculum has, at its core, the workplace reading, writing and math
that participants are, or will be, involved in on the job. The
curriculum is highly individualized, based on the specific job
focus of each student. Vocational counseling, workplace tours
and forums are key elements of the program. Ongoing communication
and cooperation among the teaching staff, counselors, training
coordinator and employers ensure that the program is relevant to
the specific job objectives of the student and the specific require-
ments of the workplace.
Students work closely with a vocational counselor. Each individual's
q-19
- 5 -
•
personal work style, career goals, and needs are considered.
Specific workplace behaviors such as attendance, attitude and
appropriate language are explored. Resume' writing, job appli-
cation skills and interviewing techniques are practiced.
Students are exposed to a variety of occupations and businesses.
Workplace tours are arranged to businesses in which students express
an interest. Tours are also arranged to colleges, technical programs
and vocational schools for students interested in long-term training.
The SKILLS 2000 program integrates the need of students, ABE and
business. Without programs like SKILLS 2000, employers will be faced
with investing a substantial amount of money into basic skill training
for their workers. Smaller companies cannot afford these costs and
ABE alone cannot meet the challenge of preparing individuals for the
workplace. A comprehensive program such as SKILLS 2000 provides a
model for an integration of academic and vocational training.
GOAL AND OBJECTIVES
GOAL
is
SKILLS 2000's
low skilled,
children and
OBJECTIVES
goal is to promote the economic self-sufficiency of
unemployed or underemployed adults who have dependent
who face multiple barriers to employment.
SKILLS 2000 has the following objectives for the next fiscal year,
January 1992 through December 1992.
1. To assist 50 adult learners in improving their academic skill
level by working toward a high school diploma, GED or basic
skill brush-up.
2. To also assist those 50 students vocationally by identifying
realistic, satisfying career objectives which would enable them
to achieve self-sufficiency for themselves and their families.
3. To enable 25 students to develop competitive, job-specific
skills through a work internship.
41
y -ac) _ 6 _
4. To enable 20 students to secure permanent, full-time employment
with a wage of $6.50/hour or above, plus benefits. At least 90%
will remain employed at six-month follow-up.
5. To assist students to secure community support services needed
to continue in and complete their education and training program.
SERVICES
OUTREACH AND ACCESSIBILITY
SKILLS 2000 utilizes a variety of methods for outreach to inform
people about the program. An informational brochure is distributed
through food shelves, unemployment offices, energy assistance appli-
cation sites, human service organizations, the state STRIDE programs,
JTPA programs, laundromats, health clinics, supermarkets, and
emergency service organizations. Flyers are periodically mailed
with public assistance checks to targeted zip codes. Business
partners inform their employees of the program. Radio public service
announcements and newspapers have been utilized to publicize the
program. One of the most satisfying, if not most effective forms
is of recruitment remains "word of mouth" -- former students recommending
the program to a neighbor or someone at the bus stop.
SKILLS 2000 is located in a commercial building on a main thoroughfare
convenient to shopping areas and fast food establishments. The loca-
tion is well-lit for safety at night, has ample free parking-and is
served by excellent bus lines. Because of its accessibility, SKILLS
2000 has served students from throughout the Minneapolis/St. Paul
metropolitan area.
Because SKILLS 2000 serves working and non-working adults, classes
will continue to be offered mornings, afternoons and evenings.
Vocational counseling and job development staff work flexible
schedules so that they are available at times students need to
meet with them. Work internships will be identified which are
geographically accessible and fit the schedules and family commit-
ments of students.
Applicants who meet eligibility criteria are selected without
regard to race, color, national origin, gender, age or handi-
capping condition. According to demographic data, students were
98% female and 2% male; 60% Caucasian, 32% African American,
3% Native American., 2% Hispanic, and 2% Asian. 39% had some
type-of disability and 10% were over 40 years of age.
- 7 - q_Q I
INTAKE
To be eligible, an individual must:
° be at least 21 years of age
° be a parent of dependent children under age 18
° be low income (either unemployed or underemployed)
° have a need for basic skill training (high school diploma, GED
or brush up skills).
In addition, the Intake Specialist looks for a job focus in' appli-
cants, since the program has been specifically designed as a work-
place literacy program with the goal of assisting participants in
finding and keeping satisfying employment.
The intake assessment includes administration of a CASAS (Compre-
hensive Adult Student Assessment System) appraisal test. This
test is designed to give a scaled performance score in reading
and math. Applicants whose scores may fall below the suggested
level are referred to other ABE sites and may be referred back to
SKILLS 2000 when their basic skill level improves. Additionally,
• applicants are asked to write two paragraphs on familiar subjects
to supplement the assessment test.
ACADEMIC COMPONENT
Daytime students participate in 12 hours of classroom instruction
per week, in one of.two daytime class sections: from 9:00 to 12:00
Monday to Thursday, and 1:00 to.4:00 Monday to Thursday; the evening
class meets from 6:00 to 9:00 Monday and Wednesday evenings. These
scheduling options enable students with varying work and family
commitments to participate. The maximum class size is 12 students,
with one teacher and.one assistant. In addition, ten volunteer
tutors assist individual students as needed. This class size
enables students to have a highly individualized instructional
program. SKILLS 2000 encourages students to develop and work as
a team, and provides peer interaction, reinforcement and friendship.
The educational program was developed.combining SHAPE's Adult
Education expertise with Employment Action Center's expertise in
0
Ll - aD.
- 8 -
vocational training and family support. SKILLS 2000 utilizes a
highly invidualized, experiential learning curriculum specifically
designed for adults. The curriculum is revised on an ongoing basis
to emphasize current student needs.
Classroom and curriculum focuses are constantly changing depending
on students interests and needs. Emphasis is placed on critical
thinking, self-esteem, appropriate behavior and inter-personal
skills, parenting, and any other issues as student needs arise.
SKILLS 2000 functions with a team of "learning facilitators,"
consisting of an ABE instructor, vocational counselor and training
coordinator. Each participant works with an individualized planning
guide in which the student's personal, educational and job/career
goals are outlined. The instructor helps the student develop
specific objectives and outlines an individual instructional plan
to achieve the identified goals. Throughout the student's academic
progress, the planning guide is used to evaluate progress and is
revised as objectives are changed and clarified.
Students' academic goals may include completion of a high school
diploma or GED, or undertaking "brush up" work to become more
competitive in the workplace. The basic curriculum has to meet
the diploma requirements of the Bloomington Public Schools Adult
Programs in Education. The core curriculum is planned to teach
skills in writing, spelling, vocabulary, math, science, English
and social studies, and provide elective offerings. The program
has been specifically designed to meet the needs of the SKILLS 2000
target group with a focus on workplace application for each student's
individual interests and goals.
Students who are employed but need skill reinforcement will receive
job specific instructional services to meet their expressed needs.
In.addition to basic reading and math, application completion and
resume' writing, students may be taught work related skills such
as medical terminology, anatomy, nursing math, and business math.
Teaching staff create individualized learning programs based on the
specific needs of the students and their job requirements.
For unemployed students, the academic program initially focuses on
general knowledge and skills needed for success in the workplace.
Emphasis is placed on basic social and workplace behaviors (such
as assertiveness, responsibility, attendance, punctuality, and use
of appropriate workplace language). At the same time, staff will work
with each student to assist in identifying specific job objectives and
0
Lf-a3
- 9 -
0
career goals. Workplace literacy is integrated into the traditional
academic program at a time appropriate for each student. As students
begin to develop job objectives, specific vocabulary and skills will
be introduced.
The academic programemphasizes visual learning techniques to meet
"concrete" learners' needs. Students are free to move around and
chat when necessary to meet individual learning styles. Teacher
presentations, group discussions, academic and workplace texts, work-
place tours and field trips, audio- and video-cassettes, computers
and individual tutoring are among the teaching methods and tools used
in SKILLS 2000.
Outside resource people are brought in as speakers throughout the year.
These speakers provide information about a variety of issues pertinent
to the workplace, and are extremely popular with students. Representa-
tives of business serve as speakers during "A Week in the Workplace,"
a forum offered each semester to expose students to a variety of work
related subjects.
SKILLS 2000 combines the workplace literacy academic program with a struc-
ture which emphasizes appropriate workplace behaviors and expectations,
utilizes incentives, provides immediate feedback and rewards success --
all things which would happen in a workplace setting. An attendance
incentive program has proven to be effective and popular with students.
Students earn points each day they attend class toward certificates
which can be used at local businesses. Students noted that earning
these certificates is a positive motivation for steady attendance.
VOCATIONAL COUNSELING, WORK INTERNSHIP, JOB PLACEMENT
Vocational counseling assists students in understanding the relation-
ships among personal interests, aptitudes, values and family and
personal needs. Each student will be given individualized career
counseling as a continuing part of the program. All students take
interest inventories and vocational aptitude tests. Students will
have access to video-taped career information and career development
books as well as help with job search techniques and resume' writing.
Students will take a GATB test to identify career aptitude in a
variety of areas: verbal, numerical, spacial perception and finger=
manual dexterity.
When a student's academic goals are near completion and a vocational
plan is in place,.he or she may be placed in a work internship site
C7
- 10 -
to gain on-the-job training and experience. Students receive credit
for participation in the Work Internship Program, which is incor-
porated into the academic curriculum. The Work Internship is
popular with students. During the second year of the demonstration
period, 95% of job ready students chose to enter a Work Internship.
Through business partners, a variety of work internships are avail-
able to students. SKILLS 2000's Training Coordinator looks for work
internship sites which are accessible by bus, have openings in a
variety of occupations with good entry level salaries ($6.50 per
hour or above, plus benefits), have full-time openings at entry
levels with the potential for participants to be employed after
completion of the Work Internship, and have the potential for
advancement and long-term employment.
Participants are placed in work settings in a student capacity,
assigned a specific task by.the employer, treated as a part-time
employee and work alongside a professional to be trained for that
particular job. The SKILLS 2000 Training Coordinator meets with
each student on the job at least once each week, and maintains
close contact with the supervisor. If a student is not suited
for a particular job, the Training Coordinator will assist her/him
in finding a different work internship site.
• Students will start with a minimum number of hours per day,
increasing the number of hours per day to the point of 25/30
hours per week. Students will participate in the Work Internship
program for two to five months. SKILLS 2000 staff, the employer,
and the student will work together to determine when the student
has achieved the skill level required for the particular job.
At this point, the student may be offered employment by this
business. If no position is available, or the student chooses
to look for employment elsewhere, the business partner will serve
as a reference.
SUPPORT SERVICES
SKILLS 2000 students require intensive, multi-disciplinary long-
term services and advocacy. The SKILLS 2000 Case Manager works
individually with each student to identify barriers and needs which
might prevent the student from successfully completing the program.
SKILLS 2000 staff provides direct service or a referral to respond
to these needs. Program funds are available to assist the partici-
pant with child care and transportation costs, if those needs are
0
q_as
- 11 -
0
not met by another program such as STRIDE. Job-related short-term
training costs are paid for students with specific needs --
introductory computer, word processing and medical terminology,
or certified nursing assistant training are examples. Any books
or additional costs such as white smocks or shoes are also paid.
Staff will directly assist participants in removing or resolving
problems or barriers which may hinder progress in the academic or
vocational process. Short-term problems are addressed directly:
problems in communicating with a child's schools or teachers;
resolving credit or legal issues; understanding and advocating
for.themselves and their families in health and medical decisions
or budgeting and consumer issues. Referrals are made for such
needs as emergency loans, child protection services, chemical
dependency counseling, food and clothing resources and other
problems confronting families.
Students also have access to short-term personal counseling by.a
licensed psychologist. Issues often arise involving relationships,
children, chemical dependency or abuse. The psychologist is
available on an as needed basis through a contract with the
Bloomington School District. The psychologist also consults
with staff and offers insights, impressions, and recommendations
• on program and individual issues.
Students have described. the availability and accessibility of these
services as a major factor in their ability to successfully con-
tinue the educational program, and focus their attention on their
educational and employment objectives.
APPLICANT ERPERIENCE
SKILLS 2000 was established in June 1988 jointly by Employment
Action Center and SHAPE. Together, the two organizations have
extensive experience in providing literacy and vocational ser-
vices to adults.
SHAPE is a program of the Bloomington Public Schools ISD No. 271,
which serves as fiscal sponsor for SKILLS 2000. SHAPE offers GED
test preparation, basic skill strengthening, an individualized high
school diploma program, English as a Second Language instruction,
and career counseling in self-paced programs for adults.
Employment Action Center (EAC) is a program of Multi-Resource .
Centers, Inc. Since 1976, EAC has helped thousands of Minneapolis
L?
y-a6
- 12 -
0
and St. Paul residents to find jobs. EAC's trained employment
specialists combine human-resources expertise with a concern for
individual needs. All EAC programs offer a combination of services
including: vocational guidance, job seeking skills, training and
access to community resources, employer advocacy, one on one support,
and self-esteem building.
COOPERATING AND SUPPORTING ORGANIZATIONS
Business and community organizations serve on the SKILLS 2000 Advisory
Committee, which meets bi-monthly to provide input into project ser-
vices and approaches, provide information about changing needs in the
workplace, and review curriculum in light of these needs. Cooperating
businesses provide opportunities for internships for students. A variety
of businesses and organizations provide speakers and resource people
throughout the year, as well as site tours. Ten volunteers, trained and
supported by SHAPE, serve as tutors in the classroom. In-kind donations
from businesses and individuals support the program in many ways.
Employers provide training and serve as resources to the classroom.
Business and organizations provide contributions to support the
student incentive program. Lists of Advisory Committee members
• and cooperating business and organizations are attached.
EVALUATION PLAN
Since its inception, SKILLS 2000 has maintained demographic data,
tracked performance and outcomes for all participants, and compared
outcomes in relation to individual goals. Ongoing evaluation by
SKILLS 2000 staff., students and employers monitors student performance
against personal objectives and plans, and is used to make any needed
program changes.
Records are maintained regarding the outcome of each intake; the
status of each student's academic progress, the number of students
entering, continuing in, completing or dropping out of work in-
ternships or on-the-job training; the number of terminations to
employment, long-term training, as well as other positive and
non-positive terminations. SKILLS 2000 tracks occupation, wage
and benefit data on those placed in employment and'does a six month
follow up regarding employment, wages, benefits and changes in
use of public assistance or other services such as food stamps
and medical assistance.
0
Ll-a 7
- 13 -
BUDGET AND FISCAL MANAGEMENT
SKILLS 2000's 1992-budget is $339,455. A detailed budget follows
the proposal narrative. SKILLS 2000 is seeking public and private
support for the program. Private support is needed to continue
the program without interruption while efforts are made to secure
long-term public support.
Bloomington Public Schools serves as fiscal sponsor for SKILLS 2000.
Grants should be made to the Bloomington Public Schools ISD No. 271,
designated for SKILLS 2000.
IMPACT
SKILLS 2000 believes that funds spent on this program are a wise
investment which will result in increased earnings by underemployed
workers, greater employment potential and a more positive employment
future for these workers, successful first time employment for
unemployed adults, a decreased reliance on public assistance, and
a better future for parents and their children.
In the three years SKILLS 2000 has been operational, it is estimated
that the State of Minnesota has saved more than $500,000 in public
assistance, food stamps and medical assistance payments. Thirty-seven
families have become self-sufficient through meaningful employment.
Since these workers have developed competitive job skills and been
placed into jobs with a future, the savings will grow as they continue
to earn income and contribute to the tax rolls. The economic impact
of SKILLS 2000 will increase as more participants complete the
program and secure employment.
In addition to the financial impact, SKILLS 2000 assists parents
and their children to develop a more positive, secure, and hopeful
outlook for the future. Parents develop self-confidence, satisfaction
and pride in successfully achieving personal goals and in being able to
provide for their children. Their children have the opportunity to
grow up with greater economic security, and with a positive model
in seeing a parent overcome multiple barriers to achieve personal
goals.
0
51
• CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Council Letter No. 63
Agenda March 9, 1992
Issue Statement:
Purchase in excess of $5,000 for one automatic manhole cutter.
Background:
The City Council policy resolution on purchasing provides that
when the purchase of merchandise, materials, equipment or
construction exceeds the amount of $5,000, authority to purchase
shall be submitted to the City Council for consideration.
An automatic manhole cutter will significantly reduce the time
involved in safely repairing and improving storm sewer
catchbasins and sanitary sewer manholes while providing increased
safety for sewer personnel. There would be no jackhammering
required, so there would be no flying debris, and the risk of
injury would be reduced when personnel no longer have to lift the
250 lb. cover and casting by hand.
An automatic manhole cutter of the type requested cuts the street
surface surrounding the manhole casting and automatically removes
the casting. The area is repaired and the manhole casting is
replaced. The manhole is backfilled to street level and the road
• surface is immediately safe for vehicle traffic. An automatic
manhole cutter will provide less construction "down time" and
less traffic obstruction. This equipment is operable in any
temperature, allowing for year-round manhole repair.
Staff requested quotations for a Peco Puller'Automatic Manhole
Casting Extractor and received quotes from two vendors as
follows:
MacQueen Equipment, Inc. $12,450
Paulson Equipment Company 12,950
Recommended Motion:
Approve a purchase order to MacQueen Equipment, Inc. for one Peco
Puller Automatic Manhole Casting Extractor in the amount of
$12,450.
Basis of Recommendation:
1.F The manhole cutter will allow manhole repairs to be completed
approximately 25% quicker than current repair method.
2. MacQueen Equipment, Inc. submitted the lowest quotation for
the purchase.
3. The 1992 Adopted Storm Sewer budget includes $13,000 for the
purchase of a manhole cutter.
:5T- /
. Alternative Recommendation:
Council may choose not to accept any of the quotations and
instruct staff to obtain new quotes. However, staff does not
believe better prices will be offered for the specific piece
equipment desired.
Discussion/Decision Mode:
Staff requests approval at the March 9, 1992 Council meeting.
of
Respectf ly submitted,
James D. Prosser
City nager
JDP:ds
•
17-?
314
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Council Letter No. 62
Agenda March 9, 1992
Issue Statement:
Purchase in excess of $5,000 for removal, repair and installation of
deep well irrigation pump at Rich Acres Golf Course.
Background:
The City Council policy resolution on purchasing provides that when
the purchase of merchandise, materials, equipment or construction
exceeds the amount of $5,000, authority to purchase shall be
submitted to the City Council for consideration.
The existing pump assembly, column pipe, shafting and headshaft, for
the deep well irrigation pump at Rich Acres Golf Course, require
replacement and repair as part of normal maintenance for the pump.
Four contractors were contacted for quotations with the following
results:
Layne Minnesota Company $10,232
E.H. Renner and Sons 10,625
Keys Well Drilling Co. 11,400
Bergerson-Caswell, Inc. 11,900
Layne Minnesota submitted the lowest quotation. The quotation
includes all parts, labor, removal and installation of the pumping
• equipment. The $15,000 project listed in the adopted 1992 Capital
Budget includes contract work and in-house work.
Recommended Motion:
Approve a purchase order to Layne Minnesota Company for removal,
repair, and installation of deep well pump, located at 2201 East 66th
Street, for an estimated total of $10,232.
Basis of Recommendation:
1. The existing deep well pump was installed in 1979 and
needs replacement due to column, shaft and pump wear.
2. Layne Minnesota submitted the lowest quotation.
3. There is sufficient funding in the Adopted 1992 Golf Course
Capital Improvement Budget.
Alternative Recommendation:
Council may choose not to accept any of the quotations and instruct
staff to obtain new quotes. However, staff does not believe better
prices can be obtained for the complete repair.
Discussion/Decision Mode:
Staff requests approval at the March 9, 1992 Council meeting.
• Respe fully submitted,
D. Prosser
Ci anager
JDP:ds
,
36-
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Council Letter No. 61
Agenda March 9, 1992
Issue Statement:
Purchase in excess of $5,000 for one hydraulic cylinder.
Background:
The City Council policy resolution on purchasing provides that when
the purchase of merchandise, materials, equipment or construction
exceeds the amount of $5,000, authority to purchase shall be
submitted to the City Council for consideration.
The hydraulic cylinders on the sludge press at the Water Plant exert
pressure on the press plates to hold the plate stack closed during
the press cycle. One of the-two cylinders is pitted from water, and
needs replacing or rebuilding. The Plant is currently operating with
only one cylinder.
Three vendors were contacted for quotations. JWI Equipment, Inc.
offered a quote for a new cylinder and rod, and the other two vendors
submitted quotes to rebuild the existing cylinder and rod. The
quotes are as follows:
M & M Hydraulic Company $8,667.30 (Rebuild Cylinder)
Cylinder City 11,495.00 (Rebuild Cylinder)
JWI Equipment, Inc. 14,365.00 (New Cylinder & rod)
• Recommended Motion:
Approve a purchase order to M & M Hydraulic Company in the amount of
$8,667.30 to rebuild the existing cylinder and rod on the sludge
press.
Basis of Recommendation:
1. The existing cylinder is pitted and in need of repair.
2. M & M Hydraulic Company submitted the low quotation for the
repair work.
3. The 1992 Water Maintenance budget will be revised to contain
money for the repair.
Alternative Recommendation:
Council may choose not to accept any of the quotations and instruct
staff to obtain new quotes. However, staff does not believe better
prices will be offered for the repair.
Discussion/Decision Mode:
Staff requests approval at the March 9, 1992 Council meeting.
Respectf ,Xgly submitted,
James Prosser
City ager
JDP:ds
,?F-
• CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Council Letter No. 60
Agenda March 9, 1992
Issue Statement:
Purchase of a trailer-mounted vacuum machine.
Background:
For the last few years, the present Vac-All has been used by the
Street Maintenance Division all summer for blacktop repair. This
means it is unavailable for sewer work. Last fall, the Sewer
Division rented a vac-trailer for a month, at a cost of $3,000,
because of this scheduling problem.
In combination with some new nozzles for the jet machine, this
experiment at cleaning storm sewers with the rented vac-trailer
worked extremely well, in fact, much better than our old process
of using bucket machines. Average time per block for bucket
removal is one week per block; with the jet and vac-trailer,
removal time is approximately half a week per block.
This new process will save us time and money cleaning storm
sewers. The work loads of both the street and sewer maintenance
divisions is increasing as our sewers and streets get older; the
inefficiency of sharing one Vac-All limits both crews'
effectiveness. To solve this problem, staff would like to revise
• the purchase of.a vac-trailer into the 1992 budget.
A vac-trailer costs about $28,000. Although the bucket machines
are not fully depreciated, $13,000 is "banked" for their
replacement at this time. The balance needed to purchase a vac-
trailer would have to come out of the Sanitary and Storm Sewer
Division budgets which has adequate funds for this expenditure.
There are very few manufacturers of this type of machine. Four
vendors were sent specifications for the type of machine desired.
A formal bid opening was held on Friday, February 21, 1992. One
bid was received:
BASE BID TRADE-IN TOTAL
Flexible Pipe Tool Company $27,990 ($8,000) $19,990
Recommended Motion:
Approve the bid minutes/tabulation and authorize purchase of a
trailer-mounted vacuum unit from Flexible Pipe Tool Company for
$27,990 minus the trade-in of $8,000 for a total sum of $19,990.
Basis for Recommendation:
1. Flexible Pipe Tool Company submitted a reasonable bid for the
type of machinery requested.
2. Funds are available in sanitary and storm sewer cash balances
for this purchase. The 1992 Garage Motor Pool, Storm Sewer
and Sanitary Sewer budgets will be revised to reflect the
change.
3F- I
•
•
3. The trailer-mounted vacuum unit has proven to be more
efficient than our current bucket machines process, will
save the City time and money, and will increase the
efficiency of our maintenance operations.
Alternative Recommendation:
1. Council may reject the bid from Flexible Pipe Tool Company
and direct staff to re-bid.
2. Council may decide not to purchase any trailer-mounted vacuum
unit and to retain the current bucket machines process for
the cleaning of sewer lines. However, staff feels the
proposed equipment is in the City's best interest.
Discussion/Decision Mode:
This item is on the March 9, 1992 Council agenda. Staff is
asking approval of the purchase at this time in order to
facilitate delivery before the summer season. However, Council
may delay a decision until the next Council meeting.
Res ully submitted,
Jam D. Prosser
Cit anager
JDP:ds
Attachment
(3F-,2,-
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Bid Opening
February 21, 1992
11:00 A.M.
Trailer Mounted Vacuum Machine
Bid No. 92-2
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 trailer mounted vacuum machine, bid
no. 92-2, as advertised in the official newspaper on February 5,
1992.
Present: Thomas Ferber, City Clerk
Donald Fondrick, Community Services Director
Cheryl Krumholz, City Manager Representative
Roxi Braa, Administrative Aide /
0
The following bids were submitted and read aloud:
VENDOR
Flexible Pipe Tool Co. Sauk Center
BID
SECURITY
5% Bid Bond
TOTAL
$27,990.00
- 8,000.00
(trade-in)
$19,990.00
The City Clerk announced that the bids would be tabulated and
considered at the March 9, 1992 City Council Meeting.
Thomas P. Ferber City Clerk
0
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Council Letter No. 59
Agenda March 9, 1992
Issue Statement:
Agreement for engineering services from Braun Intertec Pavement,
Inc. to design overlays on Lyndale Avenue and 76th Street.
Background:
Lyndale Avenue between 64th Street and Lakeshore Drive and 76th
Street between the I35W bridge and a point on 76th Street
approximately 500 feet west of the bridge are proposed for a
blacktop overlay. These sections are badly in need of
resurfacing. Lyndale Avenue, which carries between 12,000 and
15,000 vehicles per day, was last overlaid in 1982.
The adopted 1992 Capital Improvement Plan provides $200,000 for
street resurfacing.
The 76th Street approach to I35W bridge was paved in the early
1960's and has also served its design life. Although 76th Street
is in need of an overlay on both sides of the I35W bridge, it is
intended that the easterly bridge approach will be resurfaced in
1993 with the 77th Street construction project.
The overlay of the west approach to the 76th Street bridge over
• I35W has not been programmed into Richfield's Capital Improvement
Program. However, the cost of overlaying Lyndale Avenue is
expected to cost considerably less than the $200,000 which has
been appropriated. The total estimated cost of both improvements
including engineering and project management is $200,000. This
means that both projects can be completed for the amount
budgeted. Braun Intertec is an expert in pavement and performed
deflection tests last year on our streets.
Recommended Motion:
Approve a purchase order in an amount not to exceed $21,676 to
Braun Intertec Pavement, Inc. for preliminary engineering, plans
and specifications, construction observation, on a cost plus
basis for actual hours spent plus expenses such as mileage,
printing and mailing on the Lyndale Avenue and 76th Street
projects.
Basis of Recommendation:
1. Both of the streets proposed to be overlaid are in need of
resurfacing.
2. Sufficient funds are available in Richfield's Municipal State
Aid construction account to complete both proposed projects.
3. Braun Intertec Pavement, Inc. is a consulting engineering
• company that specializes in pavement design and resurfacing.
Braun is the same company that Richfield hired during 1991 to
conduct deflection testing on selected City streets. The
sc-1.
0
purpose of that testing was to compare the condition rating
of City streets as generated by our Pavement Management
Program with actual structural strength testing of our
streets.
4. Both sections on Lyndale Avenue and 76th Street consume the
time of our street repair crews which can be better spent on
our residential streets.
Alternative Recommendation:
1. Order the engineering work for the Lyndale Avenue overlay as
identified in the Capital Improvement Budget and delay the
overlay of 76th Street. However, the west bridge approach on
76th Street is in need of repair.
2. Direct staff to request proposals from several engineering
firms prior to selecting a firm. Staff believes that Braun
Intertec Pavement, Inc. is uniquely suited to address the
specialized problem of permanent overlays.
Discussion/Decision Mode:
Staff is requesting approval at
these projects during the 1992
this time in order to complete
construction season.
Respect lly submitted,
Ja 4e. Prosser
Ciger
JDP:ds
L_J
. CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Council Letter No.58
Agenda March 9, 1992
Issue Statement:
Council approval to enter into an agreement with the City of
Minneapolis to provide engineering services toward the completion
of an application for a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination
System (NPDES) permit.
Background:
On November 16, 1990, the US Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA) issued new regulations requiring municipalities with
populations greater than 100,000 to receive National Pollutant
Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permits for the discharge of
storm water runoff to surface waters. The new regulations also
require communities adjacent to such municipalities, which own
and operate storm sewer systems interrelated with those of said
municipalities, to receive a NPDES storm water discharge permit.
Because the population of Minneapolis exceeds 100,000, and
because Richfield's storm drainage system is interrelated with
that of Minneapolis, the two cities are required to apply for
NPDES permits in 1992. The majority of Richfield could be
covered under Minneapolis' NPDES permit if Richfield and
Minneapolis apply jointly for the permit. Such a cooperative
• agreement between the two cities is acceptable under Minnesota
Statues Section 471.59.
Under the cooperative agreement, the cost to Richfield for the
NPDES permit will not exceed $39,500. The exact cost will depend
on consultant fees and costs associated with testing the water
quality in our storm water system. This amount will cover the
costs associated with Richfield's portion of the NPDES technical
report. The City of Minneapolis will assume the administrative
costs associated with the permit.
The ultimate goal of the NPDES permit process is to improve
surface water quality, which has been adversely affected in-many
areas by storm runoff. The City of Richfield, in cooperation
with Minneapolis, plans to achieve this goal by testing for,
identifying, and subsequently removing troublesome pollutants in
storm water drainage.
Recommended Motion:
Approve the attached Agreement between the City of Richfield and
the City of Minneapolis. The Agreement will provide for
engineering services toward the completion of Parts 1 and 2 of an
application for a NPDES permit, allowing discharge of storm water
runoff for the Minneapolis area.
• Basis of Recommendation:
1. The City of Richfield is required to apply for an NPDES
permit in 1992. By applying jointly with Minneapolis, the
31)-)
• City of Richfield can ensure that it meets the EPA's permit
application process in a timely fashion.
2. The Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) is responsible
for interpreting and implementing the EPA's rules pertaining
to storm water discharge. Much of the MPCA's actions will be
based on information gleaned from the Minneapolis experience.
By participating in the application process with Minneapolis,
the City of Richfield can potentially influence the rule
implementation process upfront.
3. The cost of conducting a separate study and preparing an
individual application would likely exceed the cost to
Richfield of a joint application.
Alternative Recommendation:
Council could choose not to cooperate with Minneapolis, and
prepare its own study. However, the City would lose its
opportunity to have input on the MPCA's implementation process
for the federal storm water discharge rules, and would
unilaterally have to assume all costs associated with the NPDES
permit process.
Discussion/Decision Mode:
Staff is requesting approval of the attached agreement at the
March 9, 1992 Council meeting.
0 Respectfglly submitted,
City
JDP:ds
Attachment
Prosser
0
3p-2
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS
• 203 City Hall
Minneapolis MN 55415-1390
(612) 673-2352
RICHARD L. STRAUB, P.E.
CITY ENGINEER - DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS
MARVIN A. HOSHAW, P.E.
DEPUTY CITY ENGINEER
J. M. GARBER, DIRECTOR, ADMINISTRATION
J. F. HAYEK, DIRECTOR, WATER WORKS
R. KANNANKUTTY, DIRECTOR, ENGR'G DESIGN
M. J. KROENING, DIRECTOR, GEN'L SERVICES
B. J. LOKKESMOE, DIRECTOR, OPERATIONS
A. E. MADISON, MANAGER, FINANCE
M. J. MONAHAN, DIRECTOR, TRAFFIC ENGR'G
T. B. SADLER, SUPERINTENDENT, EQUIPMENT
S. J. SKOKAN, MANAGER, PUBLIC WORKS BILLING
Mr. Mike Eastling
City Engineer
City of Richfield
6700 Portland Ave S
Richfield, MN 55423
• Subject: Agreement for NPDES Permit Application
Dear Mike:
February 20, 1992
inneapolis
city of lakes
Enclosed are four copies of the agreement to become co-applicants for the NPDES storm
water runoff permit. These are ready for Richfield City Council approval and final
signatures. The Minneapolis City Council approved the agreements in October, 1991. We
are prepared to sign these after the Richfield signatures are complete.
As we discussed, I expect the final costs (which will be shared by the co-applicants) to be
considerably less than the original estimate of $500,000. I believe the following is a more
realistic summary of costs:
Salaries to prepare Part 1 report
Salaries to prepare Part 2 report
Consultant fees
Misc. equipment, supplies, printing
Contingency
Total
TDD (612) 673-2157
isRMATIVE ACTION EMPLOYER
$ 75,000
$ 75,000
$150,000
$ 10,000
10,
000
$320,000
pia Printed on Recycled Paper
30-3
. M. Eastling
p. 2
February 20, 1992
Although the final cost to Minneapolis will probably exceed $500,000, we do not believe it is
appropriate to charge to our co-applicants the cost to generate information which is specific
to Minneapolis, nor the cost to purchase the monitoring equipment.
Please let me know whether you need any last minute changes to this agreement.
Sincerely,
jr,4
0
Jodi Polzin
Engineering Design
309 Second Ave S, Room 300
Minneapolis, MN 55401-2268
3 o-y
AGREEMENT TO PROVIDE ENGINEERING SERVICES
TOWARD THE COMPLETION OF PARTS 1 AND 2 OF
AN APPLICATION FOR A NPDES PERMIT TO ALLOW
DISCHARGE OF STORM WATER RUNOFF FOR THE
MINNEAPOLIS AREA
THIS AGREEMENT, made and entered into this day of
1992, by and between the City of Minneapolis, Minnesota, hereinafter
referred to as "Minneapolis", and the City of Richfield, hereinafter referred to as "Richfield;
WHEREAS, The U.S. EPA on November 16, 1990 issued new Regulations requiring
municipalities with populations greater than 100,000 to receive a NPDES Permit for the
discharge of storm water runoff to surface waters, per 40 CFR Part 122;
WHEREAS, Minneapolis is required to apply for and receive this permit;
WHEREAS, 40 CFR Part 122 also requires adjacent municipalities and public
agencies which own and operate storm sewer systems which are interrelated to the
Minneapolis storm sewer system to also receive a NPDES storm water discharge permit;
WHEREAS, Richfield discharges storm water runoff to surface waters located within
the City of Minneapolis;
WHEREAS, Minneapolis has estimated that the cost to prepare Parts I and II of the
Permit Application will be no greater than $500,000;
WHEREAS, Minneapolis plans to enter into similar agreements with each of the other
municipalities and agencies which are affected by this Regulation, including Hennepin
County, Minnesota Department of Transportation, The City of Columbia Heights, the City of
Richfield, the University of Minnesota, and the Minneapolis Park and Recreation Board;
WHEREAS, the parties to this agreement have the legal authority to provide for the
drainage of storm water and to provide for the financing of the same; and
WHEREAS, Minnesota Statutes Section 471.59 provide that two or more
governmental units may enter into a cooperative agreement for the exercise of any power
common to the contracting parties;
L
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS MUTUALLY AGREED By and between the parties
• that:
1. Minneapolis will prepare or will hire qualified professional consultants to
prepare Parts 1 and 2 of the Permit Application as detailed in 40 CFR Part 122. Copies of
each. Part will be submitted to the City Engineer of Richfield for review and comment prior
to submittal to the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency.
2. Minneapolis will request that Richfield will research certain information, as
necessary, which will be used in the Permit Application. Minneapolis will report, on a
regular basis, the status of the permit application process. Minneapolis further agrees to
consult with all parties before finalizing major decisions, such as the location of watersheds
to test the quantity and quality of storm water runoff, or the hiring of a consultant to assist
with the preparation of the permit application.
3. Minneapolis will pay all of the costs as payments become due, from its funds
and from funds received from the other governmental units, subject to the right of
Minneapolis to withhold from contractors for nonperformance and/or customary or
contractually specified reserves.
4. The final costs of the Permit Application shall be apportioned and divided
between the affected parties based on the ratio of drainage area under the jurisdiction of
Richfield divided by the total drainage area which discharges storm water to surface waters
IS within Minneapolis.
5. It is agreed that the maximum total cost Minneapolis will apportion to all
affected governmental units (including the City of Minneapolis) will be $500,000. This cost
estimate does not include those costs to assemble information which is specific to
Minneapolis which costs shall be borne solely by the City of Minneapolis. Should the actual
cost be less than this amount, the actual cost billed to the governmental units will be adjusted
based on the formula described above in Section 4. Minneapolis shall keep detailed records
and accounts as are necessary to establish actual costs. Records and accounts for this purpose
shall be made available for inspection by a representative of Richfield.
6. Based on the formula described in above Section 4, the Richfield drainage area
is 7.9% of the total Minneapolis drainage area. The maximum project cost of $500,000
results in a maximum project cost of $39,5.00.
7. Richfield agrees to pay its share of the cost of this agreement to Minneapolis
upon receipt of a statement from Minneapolis showing the amount due for work and services.
performed by its employees and consultants. Minneapolis may make partial payment
requests through the duration of this agreement. Partial payment requests shall be for
periods no less than 30 days. All estimates for payment shall be submitted to the Richfield
City Engineer for approval. Richfield shall transmit the amount to Minneapolis no later than
30 days after submittal to the Richfield City Engineer.
2
8. The Cities of Richfield and Minneapolis mutually agree to indemnify and hold
harmless each other from any claims, losses, costs, expenses, or damages resulting from the
acts or omissions of the respective officers, agents, or employees relating to activities
conducted by either party under this agreement. Nothing in this agreement shall be deemed
a waiver by either party of the limitations on liability provided by Minnesota Statutes,
Chapter 466.
9. It is agreed that any and all employees of Minneapolis and all other persons
engaged by Minneapolis in the performance of any work or services required, volunteered,
or provided for herein to be performed by Minneapolis shall not be considered employdes of
Richfield and that any claims that may or might arise under the Worker's Compensation Act
of the State of Minnesota on behalf of said employees while so engaged in any of the work
of services provided to be rendered herein, shall in no way be the obligation or responsibility
of Richfield. All _other persons.and other persons employed by the City of Richfield in the
performance of any work or services required or provided for herein to be performed by
Richfield shall not be considered employees of Minneapolis. Any or all claims that may or
might arise under the Worker's Compensation Act of the State of Minnesota on behalf of
said employees while so engaged and any and all claims by any third parties as a
consequence of any act or omission on the part of said employees so engaged in any of the
work or services provided to be rendered herein shall in no way be the obligation or
responsibility of Minneapolis, but the obligation and responsibility of the employer.
10. Before this agreement shall become binding and effective, it shall be approved
• by the respective City Councils of the City of Richfield and the City of Minneapolis.
11. The conditions of this Agreement shall terminate on June 1, 1993. This
agreement does not imply that Richfield and Minneapolis agree to become co-permittees.
Each party reserves the right to determine at some later date, whether to become a co-
permittee with any other party.
r?
L
3
3b^7
IN TESTIMONY WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this agreement to be executed
in their behalf respectively by their proper officers thereunto duly authorized and have caused
their corporate seals to be hereunto affixed as of the day and year first above written.
CITY OF AWgNEAPOLIS
t
Approved as to Form:
• Assistant City Attorney
CITY OF RICHFIELD
Approved as to Form:
Mayor
ATTEST:
City Clerk
COUNTERSIGNED:
Finance Officer
Mayor
ATTEST:
City Clerk
City Manager
4
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Council Letter No-57
Agenda March 9, 1992
• Issue Statement:
Conditional approval of the 1991 labor contract for the
International Association of Firefighters Local 1215.
Background:
City staff .has completed negotiations and binding arbitration
with the International Association of Firefighters Local 1215 on
a labor agreement for the year 1991 subject to City Council
approval.
The bargaining unit is represented by the International
Association of Firefighters to the statewide organization. Local
1215 represents the positions of Firefighters, Fire Lieutenants
and Fire Captains. There are presently 24 employees represented
within this unit.
The 1991 contract is a one-year agreement. The contract article
which was at impasse, and ultimately settled through binding
arbitration, was an article regarding the implementation of a
drug testing policy for members of the bargaining unit. Other
issues contained in the agreement were tentatively agreed to just
prior to the arbitration process.
An arbitration hearing was held on December 17, 1991. At that
hearing both parties had the full opportunity to present the
. merits of their respective cases. The award dated February 20,
1992 fashions a drug testing policy for the labor agreement.
In addition to the drug testing policy, the following issues were
negotiated between the representatives of Local 1215 and the
City:
1. SALARIES
The parties agreed to a 1991 calendar year salary increase of
4% across the board.
2. EMPLOYER'S INSURANCE CONTRIBUTION
The parties agreed that the maximum employer's contribution
for health insurance be increased to $240 per month per
employee. This is at the same level of other employee
groups for 1991. The parties also agreed that the
employer's contribution for dental insurance be set at
$18.00 per month per employee and this is identical to what
other employee groups within the City receive.
3. CLOTHING ALLOWANCE
The parties agreed that the employer increase the annual
clothing allowance from $300 to a maximum of $325 per year.
No other changes in the bargaining agreement were negotiated.
Overall, the package negotiated by the City and Local 1215 is
comparable to other settlements for City employee groups for
1991.
The City and the Firefighters must still agree on precise
language incorporating the arbitrator's award into a drug
3CI
testing article for the labor agreement. In addition, contract
language reflecting the other changes bargained by the parties
must also be signed off. In order for the agreement to be
• finalized, the City and Firefighters must agree to and sign a
completed contract document. Thus, implementation of the labor
agreement including wages-and benefits is made conditional upon
completing this process of drafting and accepting contract
language.
The attached resolution provides for Council ratification of the
agreement once the drug testing article language is agreed upon
and the contract is signed by the Firefighters.
Recommended Motion:
It is recommended that the City Council approve the labor
agreement with the International Association of Firefighters
Local 1215 for the year 1991, conditioned upon prior agreement by
both parties to all language in the labor agreement including the
drug testing article.
Basis of Recommendation:
1. The City is bound under the Public Employee's Labor Relations
. Act by the arbitrator's decision.
2. The City and Local 1215 have negotiated a settlement for a
number of issues contained in the bargaining agreement.
3. The award by the arbitrator dated February 20, 1992 completes
the settlement for the 1991 contract.
• 4. Both parties must conclude agreement on the specific
contract language including the drug testing article.
Alternative Recommendation:
1. The City could challenge the arbitrator's decision with
respect to the drug testing policy. However, the award seems
to be a fair and equitable solution to the dispute concerning
drug testing policy implementation.
2. The City Council could defer ratification.of the contract to
a future meeting after such time as all language has been
finally agreed upon by both parties.
Discussion/Decision Mode:
In order to allow the City's accounting personnel to modify
payroll records in a timely manner and to proceed to process the
entire year of 1991 for wages and benefit changes included in the
contract referenced herein, it is recommended that the City
Council act on March 9, 1992 to adopt the attached resolution
providing for contract changes and implementation effective
January 1, 1991.
Respectfully submitted,
•
Jam D. Prosser
Cit Manager
JDP:cak
3c -a
RESOLUTION NO.
• RESOLUTION APPROVING LABOR AGREEMENT BETWEEN
THE CITY OF RICHFIELD AND THE INTERNATIONAL
ASSOCIATION OF FIREFIGHTERS LOCAL 1215
BARGAINING UNIT FOR THE YEAR 1991
WHEREAS, the International Association of Firefighters.Local
1215 have reached an understanding concerning hours and other
conditions of employment for the year 1991; and
WHEREAS, the arbitrator has rendered an award on the
implementation of a drug testing policy; and
WHEREAS, it is appropriate to proceed with the establishment
of a labor agreement with the International Association of
Firefighters Local 1215 who have negotiated and gone to
arbitration in good faith; and
WHEREAS, the Personnel Ordinance requires that contracts
between the City and an exclusive representative of the
employee's in an appropriate bargaining unit shall be implemented
by Council resolution; and
WHEREAS, the parties have not yet agreed upon final language
for the drug testing article in the labor agreement.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the
• City of Richfield does hereby approve the labor agreement between
the City of Richfield and the International Association of
Firefighters Local 1215 for the year 1991 under the provisions of
the labor agreement and the arbitration award to be implemented
effective January 1, 1991 upon the completion of a signed
agreement by both parties including an article incorporating an
arbitrated drug testing procedure.
Adopted by the City Council of the City of Richfield,
Minnesota this 9th day of March, 1992.
Martin J. Kirsch, Mayor
ATTEST:
Thomas P. Ferber, City Clerk
• CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Council Letter No-56
Agenda March 9, 1992
Issue Statement:
Adoption of a resolution declaring the official intent of the
City to reimburse certain expenditures from the proceeds of bonds
to be issued by the City and rescinding Resolution No. 7791.
Background:
Pursuant to the recommendation of the City Attorney's office, the
City Council on September 9, 1991, adopted a resolution declaring
official intent of the City of Richfield with respect to
reimbursing expenditures from the proceeds of taxable or tax
exempt bonds that may be issued by the City in the future. The
resolution was passed by the City in response to Internal Revenue
Service proposed regulations which would regulate the proceeds of
tax exempt governmental bonds issued to reimburse the issuer for
prior expenditures. The proposed rules applied to bonds issued
after September 7, 1991.
Since that time, the Internal Revenue Service has issued revised
regulations and published them on January 30, 1992. The final
rules are effective for bonds issued after March 2, 1992. Some
of the more cumbersome features of the proposed regulations have
been revised. However, the overall concept remains the same.
• In response to the revised IRS regulations, the City Council
should now adopt a modified resolution declaring intent and
rescind the previous resolution adopted September 9, 1991 so that
any future confusion would be avoided.
In general terms the reimbursement rules provide that:
(i) a declaration of "official intent" by the City must be
made on or before the date of an expenditure that the
City expects to reimburse from bond proceeds;
(ii) the reimbursement from bond proceeds must be made
within a) one year after the expenditure or b) one year
after the project financed was "placed in service,"
whichever date is later; and
(iii) the expenditures to be reimbursed must be "capital
expenditures" under general federal tax law (bond
issuance costs are deemed "capital expenditures").
The attached resolution will place the City in compliance with
the revised rules and will rescind the former resolution. The
proposed resolution sets forth the following three points:
(i) states a general intent to reimburse;
(ii) designates a City official of the City's choice (City
Manager) as the person to declare official intent with
regard to the expenditures; and
36-1
(iii) includes an exhibit describing the expenditures to be
reimbursed and the maximum amount of debt to be issued
for such reimbursement.
Exhibit A, which accompanies the resolution, will specifically
describe the "project" which is being considered for inclusion
in such a reimbursement process. In the past, the City has used
this type of financing method to pay for certain special
assessment projects (alleys and sidewalks, etc.) which were
temporarily funded over a period of two or three years then
bonded for. The interim financing, in those cases, was taken
from the City's Permanent Improvement (PIR) Fund. After the
bonds were issued the PIR Fund was reimbursed.
Recommended Motion:
Adopt the attached resolution declaring official intent of tax
exempt bond proceeds.
Basis of Recommendation:
1. The revised Federal IRS rules have been published and will
affect the ability of cities such as Richfield to sell tax
exempt bonds to reimburse the City for work previously
completed and paid for through other temporary funding
sources.
0
2. The adoption of this resolution should place the City in
compliance with the final rules if the resolution is adopted
prior to the expenditure to be reimbursed.
3. The adoption of this resolution will allow the City to
operate within the IRS rules when bonding for public
improvements under this method of temporary financing prior
to a permanent funding through a bond sale.
4. The City has used the temporary financing method for certain
capital projects to save costs of issuance of small bond
.issues. Instead, all costs are rolled into one large bond
issue.
Alternative Recommendation :
1. City Council could decide not to adopt the attached
resolution. However, it would likely place the City in a
position of not being in compliance with the,revised IRS
rules.
Discussion/Decision Mode:
If the City Council wishes to take action on this matter it
should be done at the March 9, 1992 City Council meeting.
y submitted,
• Jame. Prosser
City nager
JDP:ds
r
36-z
RESOLUTION NO.
• RESOLUTION DECLARING THE OFFICIAL INTENT OF THE CITY OF
RICHFIELD TO REIMBURSE CERTAIN EXPENDITURES
FROM THE PROCEEDS OF BONDS TO BE ISSUED BY
THE CITY AND RESCINDING RESOLUTION 7791
WHEREAS, the Internal Revenue Service has issued Tres. Reg.
1.103-18 providing that proceeds of tax-exempt bonds used to
reimburse prior expenditures will not be deemed spent unless
.certain requirements are met; and
WHEREAS, the City expects to incur certain expenditures
which may be financed temporarily from sources other than bonds,
and reimbursed from the proceeds of a bond; and
WHEREAS, the reimbursement rules apply to bonds issued after
March 2, 1992;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the
City of Richfield (the "City") as follows:
1. The City reasonably intends to make expenditures for the
project described in Exhibit A (the "Project"), and reasonably
intends to reimburse itself for such expenditures from the
proceeds of debt to be issued by the City in the maximum
principal amount described in Exhibit A.
2. The City Manager is authorized to designate appropriate
additions to Exhibit A in circumstances where time is of the
essence, and any such designation shall be reported to the
Council at the earliest practicable date and shall be filed with
the official books and records of the City as provided in Section
3.
3. This resolution shall be maintained as part of the books
and records of the City at the main administrative office of the
City, and shall be continuously available during normal business
hours of the City on every business day of the period beginning
not more than 30 days after adoption of this resolution and
ending on the last date of issue of any bonds issued to reimburse
expenditures described in Exhibit A.
4. This resolution is an expression of the reasonable
expectations of the City based on the facts and circumstances
known to the City as of the date hereof. The anticipated
reimbursements set forth at Exhibit A are consistent with the
City's budgetary and financial circumstances. No sources other
than proceeds of bonds to be issued by the City are, or are
reasonably expected to be, reserved, allocated on a long-term
basis, or otherwise set aside pursuant to the City's budget or
financial policies to pay such Project expenditures. The City
• has not adopted any allocation, budget, or restriction of moneys
or adoption of a requirement or policy to reimburse a fund, the
primary purpose of which is to prevent moneys from being
available to pay an expenditure the City intends to reimburse
with proceeds, of a borrowing.
36-3
5. This resolution is intended to constitute a declaration
of official intent for purposes of Tres. Reg. 1.103-18 and any
. successor law, regulation, or ruling. Resolution No. 7791 of the
City of Richfield is hereby rescinded.
6. The allocation of proceeds of the bonds to be issued to
any Project expenditures described in Exhibit A will be made not
later than the later of one year after the expenditure was paid
or one year after the property was placed in service.
7. The Project expenditures described in Exhibit A are
capital expenditures as defined in Tres. Reg. 1.150-1(h),
including costs of issuance of the bonds to be issued in order to
reimburse the Project expenditures.
8.. Proceeds of the bonds issued to reimburse the Project
expenditures described in Exhibit A will be deemed spent only
when (1) an allocation entry is made on the books or records of
the City with respect to the bonds; (2) the entry identifies an
actual expenditure to be reimbursed, or where the Project is
described as a fund or account, the fund or account from which
the expenditure was paid; and (3) the allocation is effective to
relieve the bond proceeds from restrictions on unspent proceeds
under applicable documents and state laws.
9. No entity or entities possess simultaneously two or more
of the following discretionary and non-ministerial powers with
respect to the City: power to (1) remove without cause a
controlling portion of the City Council; (2) select, approve, or
disapprove a controlling portion of the City Council; (3)
determine the City's budget or require the use of the City's
funds or assets for the other entity's purpose; or (4) approve,
disapprove, or prevent the issuance of debt obligations of the
City.
10. None of the proceeds of the bonds issued to reimburse
the City for the Project expenditures described in Exhibit A will
be used within one year of the allocation (i) to refund another
governmental obligation or (ii) to create or increase the balance
in a sinking fund or replace funds used for such purpose, or
(iii) to create or increase the balance in a reserve or
replacement fund or replace funds used for such purposes; or will
be used at any time to reimburse any person or entity (other than
the City) for expenditures originally paid with the proceeds of a
City obligation (excluding a City inter-fund borrowing); unless
(i) such amounts are deposited in a bona fide debt service fund
or are used to pay debt service in the next one-year period on
any City obligation other than the reimbursement bond, or (ii)
the original issue was not reasonably expected to be used to
finance the expenditure.
11. No action or inaction by the City with respect to the
• allocation of bond proceeds to reimbursement of Project
expenditures will be an artifice or device to avoid, in whole or
in part, arbitrage yield restrictions or arbitrage rebate
requirements.
36 -Y
12. The procedures described in this resolution shall cease
to apply to the extent not required by Tres. Reg. 1.103-18 or any
successor law, regulation, or ruling.
Approved by the City Council of the City of Richfield this
9th day of March, 1992.
Martin J. Kirsch, Mayor
ATTEST:
Thomas P. Ferber, City Clerk
0
EXHIBIT A 315-5
HOLMES & GRAVEN
2/18/92
SUMMARY OF
REIMBURSEMENT REGULATIONS
TRES. REG. f 1.103-18
I. The Reimbursement Rules.
A. General. The reimbursement rules generally apply to
governmental bonds, 501(c) (3) bonds, and private activity bonds used to
finance a governmentally-owned facility. Beginning with such bonds issued
after March 2, 1992, if bond proceeds are used to reimburse an expenditure
made before the bonds were issued, the bond proceeds will not be considered
"spent" unless three basic requirements are met :
1. Declaration of Intent.
(a) General Rule. On or before the date an expenditure
is paid, the issuer or a person or entity authorized to act on its
behalf must declare a reasonable expectation to reimburse the
expenditure with proceeds of a borrowing.
(b) Content of Declaration of Intent. The declaration of
official intent must :
(i) state that the issuer. reasonably expects to
reimburse the expenditure with proceeds of debt to be
incurred by the issuer;
(ii) specifically state that it is a declaration of
official intent under Tres. Reg. Section 1.103-18;
(iii) contain a general functional description of the
project for which the expenditure to be reimbursed is
made, and state the maximum principal amount of debt to
be issued for such purposes. The term "project" means a
property, project or program. The description of the
project is sufficient if it identifies the fund or account
from which the expenditure is paid, and describes the
general functional purpose of the fund or account. Some
examples of sufficient project descriptions are: "Highway
capital improvement program;" "school building
renovation;" "parks and recreation fund--recreational
facility capital improvement program . "
Reasonable deviations between the project as described and as
actually reimbursed are acceptable as long as the actual project
is reasonably related in function to the declared project. For
example, an expenditure for hospital equipment is a reasonable
deviation from a project described as "hospital building
improvements. " By contrast, an expenditure for rehabilitation
SJB29322
FIRM-8 1
?8-?
of a city office building is not a reasonable deviation from a
project described as "highway improvements. "
(c) Reasonableness of the declaration. The declaration
of intent to reimburse is reasonable if the following conditions are
met :
(i) Budgetary and Financial Circumstances. The
expectation to reimburse must be consistent with the
budgetary and financial circumstances of the issuer at the
time of the declaration. Such consistency is demonstrated
if no funds from sources other than the reimbursement
bonds are (or are reasonably expected to be) reserved or
allocated on a long-term basis for the expenditure.
Sources considered include the issuer and all members of
the same "controlled group" (generally, entities whose
powers are significantly controlled by another entity or
group of entities).
(ii) Reasonable Expectation. The expectation to
reimburse must be reasonable based on all the relevant
facts and circumstances at the time of the declaration.
Factors include: the issuer's purposes for declaring
official intent, its history of actual reimbursement for
expenditures for which official intent was declared, and-
its actions taken toward reimbursement of the
expenditures. "Blanket" or excessive declarations will not
be reasonable. A pattern of failing to reimburse in the past
is one factor indicating that the intent is unreasonable,
though an exception is made for extraordinary
circumstances that were unforeseen and beyond the
issuer's control.
(d) Public Availability. The declaration of intent must
be reasonably available for public inspection within a reasonable
period of time after it is made. This requirement if met if the
declaration is available at the issuer's main administrative office
or customary location of records at least 30 days after the date
of the declaration and continuing until the date the bonds are
issued. The requirement will also be met simply by complying
with state or local law governing the public availability of records
of official acts.
(e) Exceptions.
(i) Emergency expenditures. If an expenditure
was not reasonably foreseeable at least 30 days before its
payment, the intent to reimburse may be declared up to 45
days after the date of the payment.
(ii) Preliminary expenditures. No declaration of
official intent is required for preliminary expenditures in
an amount up to 20 percent of the issue price of the
relevant bonds. "Preliminary expenditures" include
SJB29322
FIRM-8 2
,38.
architectural, engineering, surveying, soil testing, bond.
• issuance, and similar costs that are incurred before the
project commences. Land acquisition, site preparation and
similar costs incident to construction are not preliminary
expenditures.
2. Reimbursement Period.
(a) General Rule. The allocation of bond proceeds to
the reimbursement must occur on or after the date of the
expenditure and no later than 1 year after the expenditure was
paid or 1 year after the date the property is placed in service,
whichever is later.
(b) Method of Allocation. An allocation of bond proceeds
to reimburse a prior expenditure:
(i) must be evidenced by an entry on the books
or records of the issuer maintained with respect to the
bonds;
(ii) must identify either an actual prior
expenditure to be reimbursed, or, in the case of a fund or
account, the fund or account from which the expenditure
was paid; and -
• (iii) must be effective to relieve the allocated
proceeds from any restrictions under the relevant legal
documents and applicable state law that apply to unspent
bond proceeds.
(c) Abandonment Exception. If a project is abandoned
before completion, the time limit for allocation of bond proceeds
to reimburse project expenditures is the later of :
(i) 1 year after the date the project is
abandoned; or
(ii) 2 years after the last payment of an
expenditure for the abandoned project that is at least
$25,000 or 5 percent of the project cost, whichever is less.
3. Capital expenditure requirement. The expenditure to be
reimbursed must be a capital expenditure, which means any cost of a
type that is properly chargeable to the capital account under general
federal income tax principles. For the purposes of this regulation,
costs of issuance of the reimbursement bond are treated as capital
expenditures.
B. Anti-abuse Rules.
1. General Rule. A reimbursement allocation is not treated as
an expenditure of bond proceeds if any action or inaction of the issuer
SJB29322
FIRM-8 3
X8_3
is an artifice or device to avoid arbitrage yield restrictions or arbitrage
. rebate requirements.
2. Tax Exempt Refunding of Taxable Bonds. In a tax exempt
refunding of a taxable bond, if proceeds of the taxable bond were
allocated to reimburse a previously paid expenditure, such proceeds
are not deemed to have been spent unless the allocation complied with
federal tax laws and reimbursement allocations applicable to tax-exempt
bonds as of the date of the taxable issue. If the taxable bond proceeds
are deemed unspent, such proceeds are subject to "transfer" to the
tax-exempt refunding bond issue.
3. Other Reimbursement Limitations. An issuer cannot treat
proceeds as spent if the proceeds are used directly or indirectly (i)
within 1 year of the allocation to refund a governmental obligation; (ii)
within 1 year of the allocation to create or increase the balance in a
sinking fund or replace funds used for such purposes; (iii) within 1
year of the allocation to create or increase the balance in a reserve or
replacement fund or replace funds used for such purposes; or (iv) to
reimburse any person or entity other than the issuer for any
expenditure that was originally paid with proceeds of an obligation of
the issuer (excluding an inter-fund borrowing by the issuer).
An exception is made where proceeds are placed in a bona fide debt
service fund or are used to pay debt service in the next one-yeari
period on any obligation of the issuer other than the reimbursement
• bonds, or where the proceeds of the original financing were not
reasonably expected to be used as of the date of the original financing
to finance the expenditure.
C . Application to Private Activity Bonds. In addition to official
action requirements, all private activity bonds are subject to the anti-abuse
rules described above, except as follows : exempt facility bonds and qualified
small issue bonds are subject only to the general anti-abuse rule described in
B. 1. above and the reimbursement limitations described in B. 3. (ii) and (iii)
above. As noted in paragraph A . , governmentally owned exempt facility
bonds and 501(c) (3) bonds are subject to all the reimbursement rules.
D. Effective Date and Transition Rule.
1. Effective Date. The reimbursement and anti-abuse rules
apply to bonds issued after March 2, 1992.
2. Transition Rule. Bonds may be issued after March 2, 1992
to reimburse expenditures made after September 8, 1989 and before
March 2, 1992 without a prior declaration of official intent, if there is
objective evidence that at the time the expenditure was paid, the issuer
reasonably expected to reimburse the expenditure with proceeds of a
borrowing. The reasonableness of the expectation is determined as
described in A. 1 (c), above.
II. Why Regulations Were Issued. The reimbursement regulations were
• issued in response to a perceived abuse. The IRS was concerned that a city might
decide to issue bonds to reimburse itself for old expenditures, such as a two-year-
SJB29322
FIRM-8 4
,?56_/
old library financed with general funds, and then invest bond proceeds without
regard to rebate or yield restriction requirements until spent on a new project.
These bonds began to be referred to as "pyramid bonds," on the theory that an
issuer could rely on this method to reimburse itself for expenditures as far back as
construction of the pyramids. The IRS has taken the position that under certain
circumstances, the reimbursement is not effective and the bond proceeds are in
reality being issued to finance the new expenditures and should be subject to
applicable yield restriction and rebate requirements. The new regulations are
intended to identify under what circumstances bond proceeds used for
reimbursement will be considered "spent" for yield restriction and rebate purposes.
III. The Consequences for Failure to Comply. If an issuer does not comply
with the reimbursement rules, the immediate result is that bond proceeds are not
considered "spent." The bond proceeds, wherever they are, will be deemed to be
subject to whatever yield restrictions and rebate requirements are applicable.
Assume, for example, that the issuer allocates $1,000,000 of bond proceeds to an
expenditure made the prior year and no declaration of official intent was made.
A. Rebate. If the issuer fell within the $5,000,000 small issuer
rebate exemption, rebate is not a problem. If the issuer was attempting to
meet the six-month or two-year spenddown test, however, the issuer will be
treated as if it hasn't spent the $1,000,000 of proceeds. This may cause it to
fail the spenddown requirement. If the issue is subject to rebate, it will owe
rebate on the investment of the $1, 000, 000 even if for its accounting purposes
the issuer considers the money spent.
B . Yield Restriction. Assume the same $1,000,000 reimbursement
. allocation made without a valid official intent. Normally, the issuer has a
three-year temporary period for the expenditure of proceeds to be used for
construction or acquisition of a project based on an expectation that all
amounts will be spent within that three-year period, and any amounts
remaining after three years may be subject to yield restriction. If amounts
subject to yield restriction are invested at a yield in excess of the yield on the
bonds, the bonds become "arbitrage bonds" and lose their tax-exempt status.
Further, if the reimbursement allocation is not spent when made, and in fact
is not spent within three years, the issuer may not be entitled to a temporary
period at all.
•
SJB29322
FIRM-8 5
RECEIVED FEB 2 0 192
HOLMES & GRAVEN
CHARTERED
170 Pillsbury Center, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55102
Telephone (612) 337-9300
Facsimile (612) 337-9310
February 19, 1992
Jean Mitchell
Finance Manager
6700 Portland Avenue
Richfield, 1O 55423
Dear Ms.
In Augut, / 1991, I wrote to you describing the Treasury's proposed
regulation' referred to as the "reimbursement rules"-providing, in general terms,
that proceeds of tax-exempt governmental bonds used to reimburse the issuer for
prior expenditures will not be deemed to have been "spent" unless certain
requirements are met. After receiving many critical comments, the Internal Revenue
Service revised the regulations and published them on January 30, 1992. A summary
of the final reimbursement rules is enclosed for your information.
The final rules are effective for bonds issued after March 2, 1992. Some of the
cumbersome features of the proposed regulations have been revised, but the overall
• concept remains the same.
In most general terms the reimbursement rules provide that :
(i) a declaration of "official intent" by the City must be made on or before
the date of an expenditure that the City expects to reimburse from bond
proceeds;
(ii) the reimbursement from bond proceeds must be made within a) one-year
after the expenditure or b) one year after the project financed was
"placed in service," whichever date is later; and
(iii) the expenditures to be reimbursed must be "capital expenditures"
under general federal tax law (bond issuance costs are deemed "capital
expenditures").
There are two key exceptions to the "official intent" requirement: (1) the
declaration is not required for "preliminary expenditures" (such as engineering,
architectural work, and bond issuance costs) up to 20% of the bond amount; and (2)
"official intent" during the period from September 8, 1989 to March 1, 1992 can be
shown by "objective" evidence that the issuer intended at the time of the
expenditure to reimburse itself from bond proceeds.-
Enclosed is a sample resolution that we think will put the City in compliance with the
final rules if it is adopted prior to the expenditure to be reimbursed. The
resolution :
i W states a general intent to reimburse;
February 19, 1992
• Page 58
(ii) designates a City official of your choice as the person to declare official
intent with regard to the expenditures; and
(iii) includes an exhibit describing the expenditures to be reimbursed and
the maximum amount of debt to be issued for such reimbursement.
Please note that in completing Exhibit A, you will need to provide a "general
functional description" of the project to be reimbursed, or identify a fund or account
and its general functional purpose. For example, it will suffice to describe a project
as"streets and roads capital improvement program" or as "parks and recreation
fund-recreational facility capital improvement program."
One further requirement of the rules is that the issuer's declaration of intent may
be relied upon only if it is "reasonable." This means that the reimbursement must
be consistent with the City's budgetary and financial circumstances, i.e., no other
source of funds are allocated on a long-term basis to pay for the expenditures.
Another factor is whether the issuer has a history of failing to reimburse after
declaring an intent to do so. Therefore, it is not advisable to declare official intent
before making every expenditure; only do so in cases where there is a realistic
expectation (and budgetary need) to bond for the expenditure, and where the
principal amount of bonds can be reasonably estimated.
• We think that the resolution and forms are self-explanatory (to the degree that these
complex rules can be explained), but if you have any questions be sure to contact
me or any of the bond approving lawyers in our office.
The resolution form sent to you last August (designed to comply with the proposed
regulations), in most cases will comply with the final regulations, though it contains
certain restrictions that are now unnecessary. If your Council adopted the prior
resolution, it may wish to adopt the enclosed, revised resolution to avoid confusion
and undue limitations on your financing plans. If convenient, we would like to
receive a certified copy of the resolution after its adoption.
A final note of caution is in order. If the City made expenditures it expected to
reimburse from bond proceeds and those expenditures were made before
September 8, 1989, or the project financed was placed in service more than a year
ago, it is not possible to finance those expenditures tax-exempt. If you think this
is a problem for your City, please contact us to see what, if anything, can be done
to reimburse those expenditures.
Yours very truly,
HOLBy
David J. en y
0 cc: James Prosser
8/4
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Council Letter No. 55
Agenda March 9, 1992
Issue Statement:
Resolution providing for polling places and designating election
judges for the April 7, 1992 Presidential Primary Election.
Background:
Minnesota Statute 204B.21, Subd. 2 provides that election judges
for precincts in a municipality shall be appointed by the
governing body of the municipality and that the appointments be
made at least 25 days before the election at which the election
judges will serve. The new Presidential Primary Election will be
conducted on Tuesday, April 7, 1992. Therefore, the City Council
must appoint election judges to serve at this election.
Recommended Motion:
Adopt the attached resolution designating polling places and
appointing election judges for the Presidential Primary Election
to be held on Tuesday, April 7, 1992.
Basis for Recommendation:
1. Compliance with Minnesota Statute 204B.21, Subd. 2.
2. The proposed resolution contains names of those who have
indicated a willingness and ability to serve as an election
judge for the April 7, 1992 Presidential Primary Election.
The names come from a pool of people who have indicated their
interest in serving as an election judge to the County
Auditor pursuant to the provisions of M.S. 204B.21 subd.l and
those who have previously served or indicated interest in
serving.
Alternative Recommendation:
1. The City Council could chose to appoint others who are not
named in the resolution.
2. If the City Council does not appoint election judges, the
conduct of the election would not be valid:
Discussion/Decision Mode:
The City Council is required by State Statute to make election
judge appointments at least 25 days prior to the election.
Therefore, it is recommended the City Council pass the attached
resolution at this meeting.
Respectfully submitted,
• James Prosser
City nager
JDP:ds
3A-l
0
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION PROVIDING FOR POLLING PLACES
AND DESIGNATING JUDGES FOR
THE PRESIDENTIAL PRIMARY ELECTION
OF APRIL 7, 1992
WHEREAS, a Presidential Primary Election will be held on
Tuesday, April 7, 1992.
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City
of Richfield, that said election shall be held at the polling
places as herein appear specified:
Precinct No. lA Mt. Calvary Education Building
Ward 3 6541 16th Avenue
Precinct No. 2A St. Peter's Catholic Church
Ward 2 6720 Nicollet Avenue
•
Precinct No. 3A Sheridan Hills School
Ward 1 6400 Sheridan Avenue
Precinct No. 4A St. Richard's Catholic Church
Ward 1 7540 Penn Avenue
Precinct No. 5B Richfield Junior High School
Ward 1 7461 Oliver Avenue
Precinct No. 6B Central School Building
Ward 2 7145 Harriet Avenue
Precinct No. 7A Hope Presbyterian Education Facility
Ward 2 7201 4th Avenue
Precinct No. 8A Richfield Intermediate School
Ward 3 7020 12th Avenue
Precinct No. 9A Centennial School
• Ward 3 7315 Bloomington Avenue
3?- z
and, that the following are hereby appointed as judges for
said election:
Shirley Gisselquist (DFL)
Ralph Roberts (IR)
Lois Kovach (DFL)
Joyce Morrell (IR)
Millie Hines (DFL)
Mae Hermansen (IR)
Elaine Gilhousen (IR)
Fern Oreck (DFL)
Myrtle Lindgren (IR)
Lavella Turek (DFL)
Jette Floberg (IR)
Julian Sandsness (IR)
Frederick Moore (DFL)
Helen Hillstrom (DFL)
Jan Andersen (IR)
Linda Bloomgren (DFL)
Rose Hoppenrath (IR)
Helen Moritz (DFL)
Doris Long (IR)
Lois Ball (DFL)
Danette Kamrath (IR)
Gaynelle Buckland (DFL)
Angela Aylward (IR)
Marilyn Sue Wagner (IR)
Ruth Lundquist (DFL)
Patricia Medley (DFL)
Phyllis Reinmuth (IR)
Lois Karnas (IR)
James Harkness (DFL)
Coral Carey (DFL)
Ruth Pafko (DFL)
Edith Nye (IR)
Betty Halloran (IR)
Muriel Bernstein (DFL)
Geraldine Stoffel (IR)
Gladys Hayden (DFL)
Beth Oglesbee (IR)
Joan Pelfrey (DFL)
Betty Obenchain (DFL)
Vernette Carlson (DFL)
Mary Wood (IR)
Alice Dickinson.(IR)
Elizabeth Swanson (DFL)
Emily Day (DFL)
Eloise Friend (IR)
Ethel Hommes (IR)
Gertrude Herll (DEL)
Audrey Winslow (IR)
Ray Johnson (DFL)
Pat Toney (IR)
Marion Horning (DFL)
Michaeline Kvaale (IR)
Corrine Cosgrove (DFL)
Barb Cook (DFL)
Clifford Martinson (IR)
Sue Lewis (IR)
Jack Winslow (IR)
Jean Lofstrom (DFL)
Ilene Holen (IR)
Pat Bunting (DFL)
Nan Znider (DFL)
Stanley Dzik (IR)
Mary Lou Janco (DFL)
Linda Boyd (IR)
Olga Kelash (DFL)
Shirley Koebnick (DFL)
Alice Bjerva (IR)
Martha Prottengeier (IR)
PASSED by the City Council of Richfield, Minnesota this 9th
day of March 1992.
Martin J. Kirsch
ATTEST:
Thomas P. Ferber City Cler
Mayor