Loading...
2-12-90 agenda~~ CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Council Letter No. 5a: Agenda February 12, 1990 Issue Statement: Council designation of Mayor Pro Tempore and Acting City Manager Background It is necessary to designate persons to serve as the Mayor Pro Tempore and the Acting City Manager for those times when either the Mayor or City Manager are absent from the city. Past Mayor Pro Tempores' are: 1989 - Martin Kirsch 1988 - Michael Sandahl 1987 - Ivan Ludeman 1986 - Ivan Ludeman 1985 - Michael Sandahl The Director of Administrative Services is usually designated as the Acting City .Manager. Recommended Motion: (1) Designate a Council Member to serve as Mayor Pro Tempore for 1990. (2) Designate Steve Devich, Director Administrative Services, as the Acting City Manager. Basis for Recommendation: 1. These appointments are necessary to insure continuation of city operations during the absence of the Mayor or the City Manager. Alternative Recommendation: 1. Defer one or both of these appointments to a later council meeting. Discussion/Decision Mode: This matter has been placed on the February 12, 1990 council agenda for council consideration. Respectf ly submitted, James Prosser City Manager JDP/ej a ~~ CITY O~ RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Council Letter No. 54 February 12, 1990 Issue Statement: Reappointments to Advisory Board of Health, Community Services Commission and Human Rights Commission. Background: At the January 22, 1990 city council meeting, the city council made several appointments and reappointments to the city's boards and commission. The names of Lois DeConda and Kevin Keller from the Advisory Board of Health, Rebecca Jaggars, of the Community Services Commission, and Mahesh Gundovi, student member of the Human Rights Commission, were inadvertently omitted from the reappointment list. Recommended Motion: Reappoint Lois DeConda and Kevin Keller to the Advisory Board of Health for two-year terms which will expire January 31, 1992; reappoint Rebecca Jaggars to the Community Services Commission for a three-year a term which will expire January 31, 1993; and Mahesh Gundovi as student member to the Human Rights Commission for a one-year term which will expire January 31, 1991. Basis for Recommendation: 1. The council has previously agreed to reappoint these individuals. 2. The .names were omitted in error from the reappointment recommendations. Alternative Recommendation: 1. Do not reappoint, and advertise the vacancies. Discussion/Decision Mode: This item has been placed on to assure continuity on these the February 12, 1990 council agenda commissions. Respectf y submitted, James Prosser City Manager JDP/ej a ~~~ CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Council Letter No. 53 Agenda February 12, 1990 Issue Statement: Council liaison appointments. Background• Members of•the city council serve as the city's representative on various metropolitan agencies and the city's boards and commissions. Each year, the council appoints council members to serve on the various agencies. Recommended Motion: Designate representatives for the various boards and agencies. Basis for Recommendation: 1. The city needs representation on these boards and agencies. Alternative Recommendation: 1. None Discussion/Decision Mode: This item has been placed on the February 12, 1990 city council - agenda for council consideration. Respect ully submitted, Jam D. Prosser Cit Manager JDP/eja ~i~~~ h z w H z H O a Q z 0 w H Q H a z 0 H H E E O U z 0 w H H a 0 a~ rn z w H Q H a rn .--I z w C7 Q +~ as a~ a a • fd ~ ~ ro a~ ~ro o~ ~ a a~ y ~ ~ ~ !~ H ~ o O •~ O ~ ro ro cad a~ ~ a ~ aai m ~ ~ O ~ C o m '~ _~ .. ~ a~i ~ ~~ o~ ~ +~oa~ro ~i ~Ucd~1 ~a~aa~ •~~~+~ A A ~ ~ a~i ~ ~ .c Ul c~ ~ U Ua ~ ~ •rl oa~ro~ ~b~a~ a ~ o~ A a ~ a~ a~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~roma~ ro ~ +~ +~ h H U) (/~ a~ a~i o 0 ro~ ~ ~~O ~ ~~ mbh O ~ rl +~ ro •~ ,3a zm ~ os~+~~ H O UI S-I ~~~ro V~ U •ri ;~ ~~wro ~•~+ ••h oro ~ ~ 3 ~ ~ HH~ a U a~ +~ cd O a~i •~m ~+~a~o ~ ~'. ~ ~-I ~ ~ r1 ~ a~n~+~ a ~ ~~ .~~ gab a~i O ~ ~ UI ~-I N td to c~ACn O o a~ ~ •~~a c~ ~ a~ ~aco~ •rl ,L•' ~ 3 ~ U E roo•~m WAEh W W t9rwn oa zwAwEo Hxzw Fcn +~fZE~Wf~!!~~ s~o ~cnx wH ~oozHOxH 3f~rQU~W HHE-~ ~ ~EOW3W .in xrnwau~ a~i a~i ~ow°iz~a ~~ a ,~ cnza xHow +~ oaoc~zoa ~ •M °zHO~vw ~ ~n~z xHwx a~ a~ owxzxH O cd ~UQEOEW ~ G roz Aau~~ ~ ~~ a~i~'~HQaa a ~ ~owxozw ~3roHHHwz~a H a~ +~ (tl 0 +~ a a~ a~ . ~ ~ ~ Rf O ~~ o~ a a~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ h w H F H U N 0 w w z z H w 0 W a W a N x ~i ro C'. (d H a~ ro .t: U .r., E w w H O z a~ ~ ~ ~-i roa a~ a~i ~ A ~ . ~ ~ro ~~ o~ ~ a~ a~ ro y .L: N U ~~ a~ c~ H ~ro H d-~ •rt F ~~ HNro~ Aoroa a o ~ +~ o x~ ~o ~ rnw ~ A rOi t!! aa~••~ wrou~c~ GH~+ON~ xGa~o HOSE x 0 ~ R3 0 ~ ~ ~ •~ a~ •~ ~ as ai ~ ~ ~ -~ ~ x O ~ro ~~ wa 'x' ~ m~ -'~ H a 0 a~ ~~ ro ~ ~ ~b c'~d N a~ F o~ +~ ~~ ~w .~ .~ .. ~ ~ ~ ai OE /~,~. • a~ a~ a~ a~ a~ oro oro o~ m ~ aro ro ago 00 oro o oar oa o ~~ ~~ ~o ~ ~+~ ~~ ~ •~ a~ •.~ a~ •~ ~ a a~ •~ ro •~ a~ o a~ A +~ ro +~ ro a~ o +~ ro o ro +~ o +~ .~ a~ a~ •~Q a a~ aQ •~Q ~ a ro +~ ro ro~ .oro ro aro ~~ ~ro asp b a~ o •.~ •~ o •~ o o •~ a~ ocn ~o oro •o cn ~o .~ ro~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~ro cn o •~ ro ro a~ roro •~ ro •~ ro ro o a xo o ~ o o x~ xc~ a ~ n oz m ~ ~ a ~ ~ ~ • ~ a~ ~ - a~ - ~ a~ cn ~ ro ~b b ~ ~ro ro~ rob ~ m • ~h ~W WH U)W ~(/~ ~W t/]h E ~ a a a o ~ o ° ° a~ o a~ • o a~ a~ a~ ro +~ O H +~ l~ ~ •• ~ ~ o ro•• mro ro~ ro ro ~ o~ ~o o z~ o a a~ x s~ H ~I 'Jy ~ o~ ~ a w b ~+~ Hai ~roro za~~ Hai a~ zwC: H~ a+~ ~ ~+~b o+~ ro ~+~ +~ o ro o H ro Q~ ro OH iA HH'~ ~H H H}~ ~ ~: Wro'~ Uro~ C/)roU1 Hro ro EaUI~~ o a~ ro~ x o ~ ~ a~ z a~ xaa~o ago ma~H Hro~ ~ro oar zap a hob-~ wow wo ~~H o~ Ha aa•• o a~+~ oo Uob Eo Uo cno wocno Q N~ b H ~ O +~ i/~ E +~ O S-I ~ r-I A • ~I ~ • O U • UI t/~ H z • N wo o ao-~ aao a~ w~ o HONL~ ~+~u~cn ao~ woa~ cno-~ Uo ~o o~ Q U ~ O O r~ E~ u~ u~ cJ~ E-~ to G4 H r~ O cn ~+ U~ . C~ N i-i GU •~i •~i x •.i ~ •~-t U •~-1 E •~I ~+ ~ ro ~ro oro aro ro Hro •ro Z •,~ .. ~ ~, .,~ .. Ei .~ .. H .,~ .. W •rl U •~ U •~1 Sa 'd ¢b w~ x~ ~ H~ to a~ to cn~ z~ ~--~ a~ ~ ~ +~ a~ o +~ z +~ +~ H a A ~ x a~ a~ a~ cn a~ a~ o a~ a~ z a~ a~ z a~ z a~ w a~ ~ ~ 700z HOO EGN ~~N G z0 E~O.~ oE~- o~ o~ oE ~o o o ~H n Q U ~ a ~ .~~y~,~ RESOLUTION DESIGNATING DIRECTOR AND ALTERNATE DIRECTOR TO THE SUBURBAN RATE AUTHORITY BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Minnesota, as follows: is hereby designated to serve as a director of the Suburban Rate Authority, and is hereby designated to serve as alternate director of the Suburban Rate Authority for the year 1990 and until their successors are appointed. STATE OF MINNESOTA ) COUNTY OF ) CITY OF ) I, the undersigned, being the duly qualified and acting Clerk of the City of hereby certify that the attached and foregoing is a true and correct copy of a resolution duly adopted by the City Council of at its meeting on 1990, as the same is recorded in the minutes of the meeting of such council for said date, on file and of record in my office. Dated this day of 1990. City Clerk 4 (SEAL) City of /~` CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Council Letter No. 52 Agenda of February 12, 1990 Issue Statement: Authorization to execute 1989-1990 (Year XV) Urban Hennepin County Community Block Grant (CDBG) Third Party Agreement with Senior Community Services for the HOME Program. Background• The City Council authorized execution of a Third Party Agreement with South Hennepin Human Services on October 23, 1989 for Year XV (FY 1989) CDBG funds for the Household and Outside Maintenance for Elderly (HOME) Program. Senior Community Services has assumed administrative responsibility for the HOME Program from South Hennepin Human Services Council as of January 1, 1990. A new Third Party Agreement must be executed with Senior Community Services in order to continue to support the HOME Program and disburse Year XV CDBG funds for expenditures after January 1, 1990. Over 200 elderly or handicapped Richfield families are provided services through the HOME Program. Recommended Motion: Authorize execution of the Third Party Agreement with Senior Community Services for the HOME Program. Basis of Recommendation: The execution of the Third Party Agreement for the HOME Program has previously been approved by the City Council. The execution of the. new Third Party Agreement would allow Hennepin County to disperse the funds expended after 1/1/90. Alternative Recommendation: None. Discussion/Decision Mode: The agreement must be acted upon at the February 12, 1990 meeting to assure prompt reimbursement of HOME disbursements by Hennepin County. Respe tfully submitted, Ja D. Prosser Ci Manager JDP:dkh ~i~ CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA _ Council Letter No. 51 Agenda February 12, 1990 Issue Statement• Recommendation by the Richfield Advisory Board of Health of an ordinance which would prohibit the sale of cigarettes or tobacco products from vending machines in the City of Richfield. Background• The Advisory Board of Health believes that the sale of cigarettes or tobacco products from vending machines should be prohibited so that cigarettes and tobacco products are not easily accessible to the youth of Richfield. At their November 20, 1989 meeting, the Richfield Advisory Board of Health approved a motion to endorse and recommend to the Richfield City Council that an ordinance be drafted which would prohibit the sale of cigarettes or tobacco products from vending machines in the City of Richfield. At the February 5, 1990 Council study session, staff was directed to draft an ordinance which would be consistent with the Advisory Board of Health recommendation. Recommended Motion: First reading of an ordinance prohibiting the sale of cigarettes or tobacco products from vending machines in the City of Richfield and that a second reading and public hearing be scheduled for March 12, 1990. Basis for Recommendation: 1. The Advisory Board of Health's charge is to "advise, consult with or make recommendations to the Board of Health (City Council) on matters relating to the development, maintenance, funding and evaluation of community health services in the City of Richfield." Alternative Recommendation: 1. The Council could decide not to proceed with this ordinance. This would mean that cigarettes and tobacco products would continue to be dispensed by vending machines in the City of Richfield. Discussion/Decision Mode: First reading of an ordinance which would prohibit the sale of cigarettes and tobacco products from vending machines and setting the second reading and public hearing for March 12, 1990. Res tfully Submitted, Jam D. Prosser Cit anager JDP:bac ~~~/ /'/ The Issue: You#h Access to Tobacco • The tobacco industry must rernut over 5000 new smokers each day to smoking in order to maintain constant dgarette use levels. • Tobacco is a gateway drug-. Youth who smoke are 15 times more likely than non- smokers to "graduate" to narcotic drugs. • University of Minnesota study (school survey, tenth grades, 1987; 9-11 grades 1989). - 87% of youth who smoke report having purchased tobacco through a vending machine at least once. - Over 79% of students said that cigarettes would be very easy for them to get. This includes 79% of non-smokers as well as 97°k of youth who smoke. - Over half of tenth graders who smoke named vending machines as a primary source of cigarettes. - The great majority of teenagers obtain their dgarettes by purchasing them. Only 19% of the tenth graders reported getting them at home. • Almost 60% of people who smoke start by age of 14; 909b begin smoking by the age of 19. More people start smoking at age 13 than any other. • More than 6 million American under the age of IS use tobacco; it is estimated that 81,000 Minnesotans 14-18 years old smoke on a daily basis. • The earlier a child starts using tobacco, the more likely it is that he or she will be unable to quit, and to subsequently die of tobacco-induced disease. • A child who smokes just one pack of dgarettes will develop a substantial tolerance to the drug effect of nicotine, which is the critical first step in the addiction process. • Nicotine, an addictive substance found in cigarettes, may be harder to quit using than heroin. More than one-half of high school seniors who smoke daily have tried to quite without success. • Making tobacco inaccessible to youth gives a consistent message that~tobacco use is not a youth activity. • As parents and concerned community members, we have the right to expect that our children will not be sold products which are illegal for them to use. Prepared by. Minnesota Tobacco-Free Youth Project Dr. Jean L. Forster. Ph.D., M.P.H., Assistant Professor Mary Houriga:t, M.PI-i., Project Coordinator University of Minnesota Departa+ertt of Public Health (6l2) 625400 )L.F~7otyao Matetiah 12-12-09 lrlrl T~~/ Eliminating Tobacco Vending Machines • Former U.S. Surgeon General C. Everett Koop has recently called for an end to the availability of dgarettes to youth through vending machines. "With the evidence that tobacco is addicting, is it appropriate for tobacco products to be sold through vending machines, which are are easily accessible to children? Should the sale of tobacco be treated Iess seriously than the sale of alcoholic beverages, for which specific license is required (and revoked for repeated sales to minors)?" 1988 A 1988 survey of residents of six Minnesota cities revealed that more than half of all respondents favored a law prohibiting the sale of cigarettes in vending machines. • Vending machines are easy purchase points for youth A University of Minnesota study in Apri1,1989 reported that I2-15 year olds were successful in over-the-counter cigarette purchases about 53% of the time, but were able to purchase from vending machines about 80% of attempts. University of Minnesota researchers looked at the impact of the recent increase in the penalty for sale of tobacco to minors. The new penalty reduced over-the-counter sales to minors . significantly but had no impact on vending machine sales. • Retail managers; police, and aty officials say that as long as cigarettes are available through vending machines minors cannot be prevented from purchasing cigarettes. Prepared by. Minnesota Tobxco-Free Ywth Project Dr. Jean L Forstez, Ph.D. MPI-I., .~ssstant Profrssor Mary Hourigan, MP.H., Project Coordisutor Llniverary o! Minnesota, Department of Public Health (612) 624.5400 )uTobaao Matertak:l2.72~9 ~r4~ Community Oytions to Limit Access of Tobacco to Children What are options at the local community level? 1. Sport merchants' voluntary efforts a. Information about law and penalties b. Training for employees c. Signs for employees reminding them to check I.D.s d. Recognition and publicsty for merchants' efforts and successes 2. Enforce and strengthen existin lg aws a. City government direct police to make enforcement a priority b. Raise license fees to cover tost of surveillance c. Make compliance with age of sale law a condition of licensure 3. New ordinances or administrative directives a. Restrict vending machine sales b. Restrict age of tobacco sellers c Require sign at point of purchase d. Require plans for surveillance to be included in zoning approval 4. Restrictions of advertising a. Prohibit advertising on public property and in public buildings b. Work with local publications to increase refusal of tobacco advertising 5. Pricin a. Prohibit discounting of tobacco products //-v Prepared by: Minnesota Tobacoo-Free Youth Project Dr. Jean Forster, Ph.D., M.P.H., Assistant Professor Mary Haurigan, M.P.H., Project coozdinator Univeristy of Minnesota, Department of Public Health (612) 6245400 CONCERNS ABOUT THE EFFECTS OF BANNING VENDING MACHINES Impact On Local Merchants With Vending Machines • Loss of revenue A primary concern is that if a ban were imposed, small businesses would suffer ecro nomic hardship. However, businesses can sell tobacco over-the-counter and in fact, businesses stand a good chance of making more money through over-the-counter sales. Tobacco industry sales representatives have dispensing and display cabinets available free to businesses wishing to sell tobacco over-the~ounter. • Tobacco vendors have said that a ban on vending machine sales would not have a significant impact on theiz business since dgarettes play a minor and decreasing role in their sales. • Inconvenience For some businesses, it is inconvenient to sell tobacco over-the-counter. However, employees of bars, liquor stores, and restaurants already attend to the needs of the customer; they could dispense tobacco. • Fairness to over the counter vendors To penalize over-the-counter vendors for selling directly to youth while vending ma chines continue to be widely accessible to youth, creates a gross inequity for over-the~ounter vendors. • Bars and private establishments Some would argue that most vending machines are in bars and private clubs where youth are not allowed. However, children are not forbidden by law to enter such establishments, and in a University of.Minnesota study, teens age 13-15 were able to purchase tobacco in bars and private clubs in 74% of attempts. Impact On People Who Smoke • Inconvenience for,~eople who smoke Tobacco is widely available at 24-hour convenience stores as well as a multitude of other establish- ments. Vending machines are generally not a major source of tobacco for adults who smoke. If tobacco vending machines were no longer avaiIable, people would quickly learn not to depend on the machines for their source of cigarettes. • Inconvenience for smokers at work Many companies are adopting smoke-free worksite policies and removing tobacco vending machines is often the first step in that process. This ordinance may assist employee with decisions that are contro- versial. If tobacco vending machines were not available, employees would not depend on them as a source for cigarettes. • Most smoker do not use vending machines regularly because of the added expense. According to Census Bureau data from 1982, vending machine sales of agarettes represents only 62~ of all cigarette sales, suggesting that the absence of vending machines would result in little inconvenience to adults who smoke. '~"' ~ ~ Prepared by : Minnesota Tobacco-Free Youth Project Dr. lean Forster, Ph.D., M.P.H., Assistant Professor Mary Hourigan, M.P.H., Project Coordinator University of Minnesota, Department of Public Health (612) 6245400 -~~~-s ORDINANCE NO. AMENDMENT TO CHAPTER XI OF THE ORDINANCE CODE OF THE CITY OF RICHFIELD THE CITY OF RICHFIELD DOES ORDAIN: Chapter XI of the Ordinance Code of the City of Richfield is hereby amended by amending Subsection 1145.03 thereof to read as follows: Subsection 1145.03 Sale and distribution of tobacco. Subdivision 1. License required. Ale-ge~serz--dl~ee~l~-ems lxell~eetly--tiperz-arty-p~e~erzse--e~-Hy-~tearzs-ef -~erZdirZg-~aeklr~es-ems aay-etl3e~-ele~iee,--may-x~ar~r~~ae~a~e--sel ~ ,--e~e~iar~ge--el~sgese-ef ,- glxe-away-ems-keel-few-sale-axe-eiga~e~~es--elga~et~e-w~agge~s--ems e~ke~-~et~aeee-p~edxe~s-wi~ket~~-~'i~s~-~ia~ir~g-eb~a}reel-a-lieer~se- No nprann Thal 1 k .pn fir rpta; 1 gal p~ Cpl l a+ rptai 1 [~r nthpr~ri Qp dlfinnSP. cif an~7 Ci crarPttp [~r and toharrc~ nrnduCt car ri warp++p l~anpr car r.i cJarP1-1-p ~7rapt~'~pr af- anY warp ; n +hp C; t-v w; t-hc~i~~t- a 1. i C Sub. 2. License application. Application for a license shall be made to the ele~}~ Puh1;r. Safety Dirprtor on a form provided for that purpose. The fee shall accompany the application. D. Sub. 3. License fees. The license fee is fixed by appendix Sub. 4. Approval and issuance. The application shall be reviewed and action taken on it by either the ele~}~ Puhl;r. Safety D;r~~r~+.~~ or the council. Applications may be disapproved only by the council. Sub. 5 Licenses non-transferable. Licenses granted under this subsection are non-transferable. St~H--6---Eiga~e~te-~erdirg-~ae~iires:--leea~ler---lr-all es~ablisk~ter~s-lri-wkiek-t~ie-sale-e~-el~s~~~Ht~~ler-a€-eiga~ettes-ems ~eHaeee-p~eelt~e~s-is-ef'f'eteeel-~e-~l~e-gt~b~ie--a~ ~-e~ga~ette-ems tebaeee-b*er~elirg-x~aekires-shall-be-si~t~ateel-lrslele-eke estaHllsk~ert-ar~el-lse}red-witklr~-lA-st~el~-a-plaee-se-as-fie-He ~~s~b~e-fie-the-~~e~~~ete~-ef-~~ie-es~a~~~sk~en~- ~~~~ St~H--~ Suh_ 6_ Cigarette and tobacco establishments: prohibited acts. The following acts involving cigarettes and tobacco establishments are prohibited: (a) the sale of tobacco in any form to a person under the age of 18 years; and Fl~~---€a~~~~e-te-a€~'#~-~aHe~~r~g-te-e~ga~ette-xer~d~ag x~aek~xes-~~ek~b~t~r~g-t~se-1~~-~e~ser~s-r~et- ~ 8 -~*ea~s-e~ age--as-~ee~t~~~eel-Hy-A4~AAeseta-8tatt~tes--seet~ex 3~5E-8~- Nn nPr~c~n ahal 1 Ral 1 car cYi vE? away any r.i cTarQ-l-tP car and tc~harrc~ rcxiiir.t, ri garPttP paper car r:~arPttP wrap~Pr tc~ anv pPraon »nder the a~ cif Pic;htPPn ( 1R ~yPara Nn nPra~n ahall aPl1 nr rliat~Pn~P any rigarPttP~ nr tnharrc~ nrcx3i~rt,` r.i~arPttP p_ap_Pr c~arPttP wra Pr thrrn~clh the i~aP cif a vPncl~ mach; nP _ Passed and adopted by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minensota this day of 1990. Steven J. Quam, Mayor ATTEST: Thomas P. Ferber, City Clerk RC125-003 ~ ~ ~"/ CIGARETTE MACHINE LOCATIONS IN RICHFIELD Airport-Bowl Chi Chi's Arnold's Restaurant American Legion (2) Broadway Pizza Canteen Company Champp's Elsen's Service Embers Restaurant Embers Restaurant Frenchman's Tavern Hampton Inn Ground Round Restaurant Lund's Foods Naegele Advertising Sandy's Tavern VFW (2) 7711 14th. Avenue 7701 Nicollet Avenue 6519 1/2 Nicollet Avenue 6501 Portland Avenue 7514 Lyndale 6300 Penn 790 W. 66th 7730 Portland 7700 Nicollet 6500 Penn 1400 E. 66th 7745 Lyndale 1500 E. 78th 6228 Penn 1700 W. 78th 6612 Penn 710 Lake Shore Dr. 1~ RAF T ~~~_° February 13, 1990 Dear Business Owner: On February 5, 1990, the Richfield Advisory Board of Health made a recommendation to the ..Richfield City .Council .that an ordinance be drafted which would prohibit the sale of cigarettes or tobacco products through vending machines in the City of Richfield. City records indicate that you currently have a cigarette vending machine at your business location. This is to make you aware that an ordinance has been drafted (see enclosed) and went before the City Council for a first reading on Monday, February 12, 1990. A second reading and public hearing of the ordinance has been. scheduled for March 12, 1990 at which time interested persons will have an opportunity to address the council. If you are unable to attend the public hearing on March 12, 1990, you may submit written testimony to my attention by March 5, 1990. If you should have any questions concerning this ordinance, I can be reached at 861-9881. Sincerely, Betsy Christensen Business Licensing Manager Richfield Public Safety Department bac:ttf Enclosure RI CHFI EL D INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT 280 "RECOGNIZED FOR EXCELLENCE" PU B L lC / , / SCHOOLS 612/861-8201 7001 HARRIET LOwEU D. LaR50N, Superintendent AVENUE SOUTH RICHFIELD MINNESOTA 55423 February 6, 1990 Betsy Christensen Richfield Advisory Board of Health 6700 Portland Avenue South Richfield, Minnesota 55423 Dear Betsy: Last night at the Board of Education meeting, the Richfield School Board reviewed the attached resolution supporting a city ordinance which prohibits the sale of tobacco products through vending machines in the City of Richfield. The School Board was generally supportive of the resolution, but by policy do not vote on new business at the first reading. The next Board meeting is scheduled for Tuesday, February 20, 1990. The resolution will be on the agenda for action at that time. Please call me if you have any questions. Sincerel , `. Lowell D. arson Superintendent LDL: jm AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER r //-/c RESOLUTION SUPPORTING THE PASSAGE OF A RICHFIELD CITY ORDINANCE WHICH PROHIBITS THE SALE OF TOBACCO PRODUCTS THROUGH VENDING MACHINES WHEREAS, the Richfield School District through policy promotes a tobacco free environment, and WHEREAS, selling tobacco products to persons under the age of 18 is prohibited by law, and WHEREAS, it is almost impossible to restrict vending machine sales to legal buyers, NOW THEREFORE BE lT RESOLVED, that the Richfield School Board go on record as supporting the passage of a Richfield city ordinance which prohibits the sale of tobacco products through vending machines, and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Richfield School Board forward a copy of this resolution to the Richfield City Council. AND BE lT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Richfield School Board send a copy of this resolution to other local governmental units that fall totally or partly in the Richfield School District in order to apprise them of the School Board's support of this ordinance. ~~/ 7-// ~:>I ii::,;.. a (..i:; l Ci . 1. 1. ~; E:.1 faif;~i~l i is ; t.. .}, i:,: ..l. i...l I•~ .... ,'... ;:,:....: .. ...:Iii?:' .. t_ .:. :-~;':.... _ , . :.; ..... t ..:. .._ .... ._ :.: .,. 1 k ~' i. (I i i;:: ].._~ P~ i t_t; -1 :i. t:: i. t :; _ ; ]. ?: t 1. . ;~. i~ a. }...1 r .j ...; I,.,I r.., , , ... _ . .._ ....: , s.... .. _ .. _.: _ 1_?E2ei't" L.;=s L1.r'ti_11 tiii-;~i1'ik':i(r~'r"'.:::,, :._, :'.~::. , .. :, ir:: ~_i<:~~a!' !a _. lilr;il;.:it;'t' ~=. :. _ .... j_ ii;;•• ~; .ir .„_ _ _ :i C:I;af'I !- ]... 1. ~.., i .. C e cc,..[, f...~;, il`::r~;' E if: i:a ::v i...~ ,. ., ~.:,._ ... : 1. t k., k.. 1'- '_.i 1,:~ '::: . : 1 t... t....l. t ; ~ ... L:.~ i~ f~'\ 1 ! t :... ,. • i. _ ... ,~'~ I. ~ ` 4 - r::1...1 i..i.... +: ~ { .i (_. .j.. . i. t , 'i.:. P i . !_ i.._ y -. 'f ' .~i • .. 1... 1 ,' 111..-:: 1 ~..._ f 1 f i. f- . .i . k .. _ ;:;r t., :t;'.1,,;{ t,, r ~.: - ;.:;ilr_: <.:,` k:.!1 ? t^d'atlt..fr.::t l.t .: t l j:~r ;.:c:.;Y .::rn-, _li:•:'k :.. =:~.~ 1.. lIC'l.ia !1~_+ ..il,' t._ I i i. .L :..~ t r._ !...i I:-d :. j_. j i ,. {..! t_!. 1. ~. (_1 d. {...i l.i ~^. F.:' .k .#:...- F:;' :::. 1... f.-'r::.' .{.._ 111 ~ ,_,. !._. ti i. ... .I. `._ :? 1._t. Y t. .. 2. 1 i 1:.. ~:.' (..I - .1_ ._ 1...1 +_::.{ c:: :->; i 't :i riLtr':; i.l-1<n.'k:. c.l:- at..,'I. F-, ,. }-,{ ,.. t '! t'i t.. I_.,l tr".t .1 7. E 1 Si; :}4.I f.; i. t. '_>C.It R.tii 'k: 1 i ::; j:: 1 iE?~. ~.i`-: ~:.::> r:IIJ.] 1. {.i c::,;:.~1 < ;:t ('. l: k. Fc? _ +. t :11 l:? i t::1 i 1 .1, to t,.. 4 ; 4...1 k. { { <_a.'k . l 'k:. 1 c ~?..1. Y' :!. t::~ 1-I 'k:. ''t::. '_ <-.._+ `r I'.I ':: 'I_ C? ii Y 1_I t:; :.. t...::! i :_> . .. ci!_I c..i t...:i. i..l r.., c:-:• _ t::r t ~ .Er3 (:. I ,; ;.: Lt+_:j ..i .t. _I rr.': c. l..t .`::'a: '._:;dt'k. `.(..+ ~ C: c:ifii;:.! r; ]. i':1 i...j .. _, .. ..::, ., .r. ... .. .... r k",c? i::ic:i i. :. t_ •; f:.'. t:.? i:_; t:. t: :SC:r (:=l~.r..l I,..C=.t. r'i~ :>!-'L::Eri 'I::f.sc+. 'k: fl'ic':;c,~-.~i,_t~• ~,`.. .~i...l(:~, 'k: :: i'_;.3 k.: _~a.i'i :r. .i::i%. +.1 !. ri.-;i:F;1 1t;%_:; t.:: i .. ,.z C~::i.C::I_;•:.i.E'.~~f. ,.:'i' i.. .S. L;;l ;r v. t::j .•... 1:. tri .. ::j k:. ~~ Eir' l-1 k :~ k+1 ii.' '~" = " i. '%:. ("l :-_" ~.:. ~. 'k:. 7. 'c5 'k:'.:J L: fri' a. L=~ `; ` .Y' .. t... - ,..y :: t.l. i' i::1.s 3. ~. ri t'- E:::' I`i i:. _ .. _ ;:: 1 U.Y" l: !'"t c;'_=~ C:'~ t_ 1 f:; ;::.. i--' E:: C:.'!:.titc fi."';:i....t, t i. !t'~:;F::~ `at-'r)l1.!.lii::! iiY;a..tl.If_:5~•, at!lt::i t:.llt' k:ic'tl"i 4.d<_>Ll~i~ CIEi:'i:t`L't" 'k..1-i E;-: !. {_{. i .. ;_::) _I ~ ~i (? i -i C :[ r~ 5~ Y` f'_? ~'. 'k.: E:'e ~ _ 1 :? y 'k:. i...: i:? ;' •;'r l?'j::) ; ~ 'r' . ~ l??" (_: a 'C: 'V , i'C r~ (_. cK L_t - . it..... r.i t.C-+E:-i1f t.c> t_t.I;.; ,..,::: C`~~~ k:.ei ±:. 1. t.:~c:a" i':7ri'.''t:'.t= Lt _.Ei' 1::i j' ... r_'iit:.r`,' ?. t'; +_y f_; .t:'~::f~' ':`E:~!°i la 1. rii:3 iii_?.;;,1'I:t Ilki?<:~ .._ +G:ic=r't: q ~,r;~ i:=r1'IL:!~T[ I_t...i-<L::jti y _ ~ r, ~'. ~ :' t••J C? t_t ~. i.:r ~. J. C: E;~ t_ ._% _. _., ~ ~. C'S E' L., I, k. `1' L.. ~ .l r'Y i_ 1 ~. i_'. 1= . ... 'c: t..l j.! ~i '':: "." c~. {' 1 +_:! L>'j:_ (iu .? , c; '(:. C: _ ~=a .1. 1`.1 •_' 1-'t '=: ~f _ 1 (_1 ~ i. t- (-.t ~.. L. t=•I `~ ,.:: S ~ .. !`Y t:~ f'f't : i ~- ~ ..; 7. (ty .~. .: ...._. _ ~ ~ „r ... .. ~ ... .: .1.....! i:. ! 4 .._ L. 1 k:. ~`.' ..~ Y" ~"•.:t. 1... !' 1't`. ]. E:' ~. t.1 :~ ... ~4~,;!...i4...~1r~ r•~ir-Ir..i~_;;:.4t.n, f=,Y...~,`~.i::1~'nt. I-d:::1.1',' 'TI-i:•.~t'-_~s.xl, rimer--='rea=_>:i.i_it=;}-;k:. (_..i rii.ar~t F"u.f'ir";r;<sri ., ~;+_-c-t- E`:?t~~t r- ~,j I':4'-i ~:~ 4__c1r;i:;=c:ivt-f'--~~-:x?a?1 :tnri , Tt-ca~uY-c-:Y- ~~°%-/~ We the under signed agree with, and support the proposition; that all cigarette machines should be banned from all public places in -- :-° Richfield. ~ ~ ~~ ~~ ~ . f cam. , ~,.~~~~. i~:,~, .. ~~ ~~ ~~~ 7~ -~ n `` ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~~ ~s. u~ `~ /S !lo i7. , f ~. ~~~ ~-~C . ~. l , ~z ~3, ;~1',a~~ ~, ~~ ~~~ ~S. N •) <5 . N.) Rd `~~.. rs u.) r~~~ ~~ ~ ~~ w R~.~ ~~,., ~~~.~ ~~- `t...~ (. N. ~ i c~'~1 c~ ~u~enf ~~~,~,~ We the under signed agree with, and support the proposition - that all cigarette vending machines should be banned from all pub)_ic places in Richfield. 1. ;~~ ~~ ' - ~~~~ ~ ~~~ ~ ~ ~- J~i,,,,~~,ll~c~ - r-~sc~F~..~ Wtf~ C(~IJ,Y~e~ ~~ ~~~~. /~~/~ 4 ~ t ,` ~' `~~~> ~~ 1 ~ . ~~ ~a. ~' uue, ~o~orn,~9z~ ~d, ~losQ. ~e~uw~._. 13. y~yl r ~~ ;~ ~ ~` ~~ / 7 G I ~,~~~erd ~~, ~~ s~ude,~-t- ~ I . ~~.~. e > • ~~ L Ia~~~' C~ ~~ ol~j ~,~ , ~7 ~~: ~ 9'. 3~- ~~~ ~~~ J ~~~ "~-- ~~_____. ~~ ~~ .~a ~ ~ ~5 ~-. ~j, /~ • ~ _^--_ r c ~ ~ e 5 ~ ~e .n -~- ~are~~ o ~ 3 c~,~~d~ e-~ ~tiJ C~~ C~..~,il c~ Sc~oa Is ^ ~-~u-~,~.~ ~~.-~~ ~. !~ ri t~ ~( ~~~a ~- ~3 .~ y ~~ ,~ . ~~ / !~ ~~~.- 38. Gl~c~ C~o~ ~° vC~~, / 7 rn~~ C./ /) ,, ,, ~a,c,e.~G ;~ S lC-~sz-,.,1~ / i ~ T _ ~Y' i^b« /7r~ ~~~o • ,c~ C~~~~i~ r ~,~ C4ti ~~ ~'t GK, v~~ ~~~ r s ~ ~ ~.~.s.t,. / • ~~~ ~ 2 ~%~ - CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Council Letter No. Q Agenda February 12, 19~0~ Issue Statement: Consideration of a contract supplement for the I494 Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) agreement. Background• Richfield approved the original agreement before a consultant was hired for the 1494 EIS. The agreement assumed a total consultant contract of $900,000 and a study area extending from the Minnesota River to the Crosstown Highway. Subsequently, MnDOT expended the scope of the study north to 1394 and contracted with BRW, Inc. in the amount of $1,270,000 to act as the consultant for the EIS. The I494 Corridor Commission, a joint powers organization including the cities of Bloomington, Eden Prairie, Edina, Minnetonka and Richfield, negotiated the enclosed contract supplement with MnDOT. The 2494 Corridor Commission unanimously recommends approval, by March 5, of the contract supplement by the councils of the five member cities. The major features of the supplement are: - The percent cost share was modified to account for the larger scope (change from 3.0$ to 2.7$ for Richfield). The percent for each city is proportional to projected 2010 I494 Corridor trip generation for each city. - The maximum payment for Richfield increased from $27,000 to $34,290. - A fourth payment was added in April, 1992. In essence, this means that Richfield's maximum payment increase can be paid in 1992 and that payments for 1990 and 1991 will be about the same as contemplated in the original contract. - Language in Section 5.32 states that MnDOT is responsible for future cost increases, unless the cost increases result from unbudgeted studies or meetings requested by a City. Recommended Motion: Approve the contract supplement for the 1494 EIS and authorize the mayor and city manager to execute the contract supplement on behalf of the City of Richfield. Basis of Recommendation: 1. The City of Richfield believes improvements to the I494 Traffic Corridor are necessary. 2. It is necessary to conduct an EIS if the proposed improvements are to be made to I494. /lam- / 3. The City of Richfield executed the original agreement and has made the first payment as outlined in that agreement. 4. The contract supplement is reasonable. 5. There is sufficient time to adequately plan for and budget in 1992 the additional $7,290 payment requirement. Alternative Recommendation: 1. Do not approve the I494 EIS contract supplement. It is difficult, however, to anticipate what the result may be if any or all of the parties to the agreement do not approve the contract supplement. 2. Request change(s) in the contract supplement. Should the Council select this alternative, such request(s) would most likely need to go back to the I494 Corridor Commission for consideration. It is not known whether such proposed change(s) would be accepted by the Commission. Discussion/Decision Mode: This item is scheduled for the February 12 Council meeting. The Council could delay action to the~February 26 meeting and still meet the requested March 5 action date suggestion. When action has been taken by all parties to the agreement, signatures will be requested to confirm the actions taken. Respectf ly submitted, James .Prosser City Manager JDP/sdr Attachment T / // Ot_- t HENNEPIN COUNTY AGREEMENT N0. SUPPLEMENT NUMBER 1 MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION MN/DOT AGENCY AGREEMENT FOR AGREEMENT NO. HIGHWAY TRANSPORTATION STUDY 64723-1 Agreement between The State of Minnesota, Department of Transportation, the Metropolitan Council, the Regional Transit Board, the Metropolitan Airports Commission,.. Hennepin County, the City of Bloomington, the City of Eden Prairie, the City of `Richfield, the City of Edina and the City of Minnetonka Re: Preparation of the EIS for the I-494 Corridor THIS SUPPLEMENTAL. AGREEMENT made and entered into by and between the State of Minnesota, Department of Transportation, the Metropolitan Council, the Regional Transit Board, the Metropolitan Airports Commission, Hennepin County, the City of Bloomington, the City of Eden Prairie, the City of Richfield, the City of Edina and the Gity of Minnetonka, hereinafter referred to as the "Agencies". WITNESSETH: WHEREAS a consultant contract (MN/DOT Agreement Number 64723) has been signed for preparation of an environmental impact statement in the I-494 corridor from the Minnesota River crossing to I-394, and WHEREAS the not-to-exceed contract amount, exclusive of special mapping being ' c©nducted for the Department of Transportation is $1,270,000, and WHEREAS this contract amount exceeds the $900,000 total EIS cost estimate in the Agency Agreement executed by the parties hereto in 1988, and WHEREAS the scope of the EIS has expanded from the Minnesota River to CSAH 62 scope anticipated in determining the $900,000~cost estimate, and WHEREAS the Agencies have agreed to amend their 1988 agreement to take into account the changes in scope and contracted not-to-exceed preparation costs, and WHEREAS all of the said Agencies are authorized by Minnesota Statute 471.59 to enter into agreements providing for the exercise of powers shared in common. 64723-I NOW THEREFORE, IT IS MUTUALLY AGREED AS FOLLOWS: Section 5 of the 1988 Agency Agreement for Highway Transportation Study (MN/DOT Agreement Number 64723) shall be-amended as follows: SECTION 5.0 - COMPENSATION 5.10 The Minnesota Department of Transportation shall enter into a contract with a consultant firm selected by the Consultant Selection Committee. and approved by the Commissioner of the Department of Transportation for the EIS. and preliminary design. 5.20 Notice of final execution of the consultant agreements-shall be given to each agency: within seven. (7) days. 5.30 The .consultant costs for the EIS and preliminary design work shall be shared by the Agencies in the proportions and up to the maximum amounts .listed hereafter: 5.31 A¢ency Percent of Cost Maximum Payment Minnesota Department of Transportation 50.0 $ 635,000.00 Metropolitan Airports Commission 5.0~ 63,500.00 Hennepin County 10.0 127,OOD.00 City of Bloomington 19.8$ 251,460.00 City of Eden Prairie 4.3~ 54,610.00 City'of Edina 3.6~ 45,720.00 City of Richfield 2.7$ 34,290.00 City of Minnetonka 4.6$ 58,420.00 100.0$ $1,270,000.00 5.311 In addition, the Regional Transit Board will contribute $10,000.00 toward the Consultant costs for the EIS and preliminary design work on this project. 5.32_ If it appears that the consultant services required to complete the desired work will exceed $1,270,000.00, it shall be the responsi- bility of the Minnesota Department of Transportation to pay these costs. The exception to this provision is that any special studies or unbudgeted time for community presentations or meetings requested by an Agency shall be paid-for by that Agency as a charge in addition to the amounts and percentage shares identified in section 5.31. Payment for special studies or additional consultant time for community presentations or meetings will require a separate agreement between MNDOT and the requesting agency. ~/~ - ~ 64723-1 5.33 It is recognized that the cities in the project area intend to enter into a joint and cooperative agreement for the purposes of implementing the recommendations in the previously completed I-494 .Corridor Study.. The cities involved will be known as the I-494. Corridor Advisory Commission. The I-494 Corridor Advisory Commission Cities are Bloomington; Eden Prairie; Edina; Richfield; and Minnetonka. Recog- nition will be given the I-494 Corridor Advisory Commission in the EIS documents. 5.40 The Minnesota Department of Transportation will invoice the partici- pating agencies as provided by the following schedule:. 5.41 One-fourth of the Agencies proportion of the costs at the time of execution of the Consultant Agreement. .. 5.42 One-fourth of the'Agencies proportion of the costs on April 1, 1990. 5.43 One-fourth of the Agencies proportion of the costs on April 1, 1991. 5.44 .One-fourth of the Agencies proportion of. the costs on April I, 1992. 5.45 The agencies will make payment within 30 days of receipt of said invoices. 5.SO Before termination of this Agreement, tt-.e State shall provide an account- ing,of receipts and expenditures to each contributing agency and shall refund any remaining balance to each contributing agency in propor- tion to that .agency's total contribution. ~%~ -~ 64723-1 IN WITNESS WHEREOF the parties hereto have duly executed this agreement by their proper officers and. representatizzes. STATE OF MINNESOTA Metropolitan Council Department of Administration By: Date: By: Title: Date• As to Form: As to form and execution by _ the Attorney General: By: Date: Title: By: Metropolitan Airports Commission Date: - By: Department of Finance • Date: By: Title: Date: By: Department of Transportation Date: By: • Title: Date; Regional Transit Board Title By: Date: By: Date: ~j~_ COUNTY OF HENNEPIN Attest: By: Deputy County Auditor Chairman County Board Date: Date: Upon proper execution, this. Recommended for Approval: .agreement will be legally valid and binding and upon date of approval is in com- pliance with all- laws relat- ing to the subject matter hereto. Associate County Administrator and County Engineer Date: _ Assistant County Attorney Date: Approved as to Execution Assistant County Attorney Date: 64723-1 - ~'/~ -% 64723-1 CITY OF MINNETONKA By~ Date: Mayor By~ Date City Manager CITY OF BLOOMINGTON By~ Date: Mayor By~ Date: .City Manager CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE By~ Date. Mayor By~ Date City Manager CITY OF EDINA BY~ Date: Mayor B}' ~ Date .City Manager -CITY OF .RICHFIELD By: Date: Mayor By: Date: City Manager ~~~- ~~~ city of bloomington, minnesota 2215 West Old Shakopee Road • Bloomington, Minnesota 55431-3096 • (612) 881-5811 • FAX 887-9684 January 17, 1990 Mayor Steven Quam City of Richfield 6700 Portland Avenue South Richfield, MN 55423 Re: I-494 EIS Contract Supplement Dear Mayor Quam: Please place the attached contract supplement for-the I-494 EIS on the agenda for your City Council's consideration and approval. The agency agreement with MnDOT was initially approved in the fall of 1988, before a consultant was hired. The agreement assumed a total consultant contract of $900,000 and a study area extending from the Minnesota River to the Crosstown Highway. Subsequently, MnDOT expanded the study scope north to I-394 and contracted with BRW, Inc, for $1,270,000. The I-494 Corridor Commission, a joint powers organization including the cities of Bloomington, Eden Prairie, Edina, Minnetonka and Richfield, negotiated the enclosed contract supplement with MnDOT. The I-494 Corridor Commission considered the supplement at its January 12, 1990 meeting and unanimously recommends approval by the councils of the five member cities. The major features of the supplement are: - Modifies the percent cost share to account for larger corridor scope (change from 3.0~ to 2.7~ for Richfield). The percent for each city is proportional to projected 2010 I-494 Corridor trip generation for each city. - The maximum payment for Richfield increased from $27,000 to $34,290. AN AFFIRMATIVE ACTION/EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER Telecommunications Device for the Deaf: (612) 887-9677 ~~~-~ -Mayor Steven Quam page 2 1/17/90 - A fourth payment added in April, 1992. In essence, this means that Richfield's maximum payment increase can be paid in 1992 and that payments for 1990 and 1991 will be about the same as contemplated in the original contract. - Language in Section 5.32 which states that MnDOT is responsible for future cost increases, unless the cost increases result from unbudgeted studies or meetings requested by a City. The I-494 Commission suggests that parties to the agreement approve the supplement by March 5. Larry Lee, Bloomington's Director of Community Development, will circulate agreement originals for signature. incerely, 5 ~- `ne Paulus ity of Edina Council Member and hair, I-494 Commission /k enclosure: Contract supplement cc: James Prosser City Manager, Richfield ~/~ CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Council Letter No. 49 Agenda, February 12, 1990 Issue Statement• Council authorization of purchase over $5,000 for payment of consulting services for New Ford Town redevelopment. Background• Based upon•the results of the New Ford Town survey and public meetings concerning the area, it was determined that a plan for development alternatives for New Ford town were needed. The City staff selected Tom Martinson to prepare the redevelopment alternatives. Martinson has concluded an analysis and made a presentation to staff featuring redevelopment ideas which include a variety of levels of redevelopment. Recommended Motion: Authorize payment of $9,803.36 to Tom Martinson for consulting services rendered for a New Ford Town development plan. Basis of Recommendation: 1. Resident input from the New Ford Town area strongly favors a plan for the entire redevelopment of the area. 2. A plan for the redevelopment of New Ford Town, featuring various alternatives required the assistance of the consultant. 3. Tom Martinson was selected as the consultant for this project. He has successfully completed the project. Alternative Recommendation: The City Council could refuse to approve payment. However the work has been completed. Discussion/Decision Mode: The City Manager seeks City Council ratification of the expenditure so that payment may be made to Mr. Martinson as soon as possible. Respect lly submitted, Jame D. Prosser City Manager JDP:sae ~/ sf CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Council Letter No. 48 Agenda, February 12, 1990 Issue Statement• Consideration of a resolution in support of the A320 maintenance facilities location at MSP. Background• Northwest Airlines is seeking a location for their A320 maintenance facility. MSP is one of the sites that has submitted an application for locating this .facility. The site under consideration by MAC may impact Richfield. The concept of locating an A320 maintenance facility at MSP is consistent with Richfield's policy and support of the airport location at its current site. However, the City is concerned about how that facility impacts on our community. The resolution would support the location of the facility and request city involvement in analyzing the A320 maintenance location on Richfield. Recommended Motion: Approve the attached resolution which supports the A320 maintenance facility and request City involvement in planning for the location. Basis of Recommendation: 1. The City supports the airports current location. 2. The A320 maintenance facility could be designed in such a fashion to be consistent with City airport planning. 3. City support of the A320 maintenance facility and request to be involved in planning would increase the likelihood that the facility could be located in such a manner as to have a positive impact upon our community. Alternative Recommendation: Do not approve attached resolution. Discussion/Decision Mode: This matter will be presented Council meeting. at the February 12, 1990, City Resp,~c~ully submitted, Jam s D. Prosser Cit Manacter JDP:sae J ~/ ~~~ RESOLUTION N0. RESOLUTION REGARDING NORTHWEST AIRLINES' A32O MAINTENANCE FACILITIES AT MINNEAPOLIS/ST. PAUL INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT WHEREAS, the City of Richfield supports keeping Minneapolis/St. Paul International Airport (MSP Airport) at its present location, and WHEREAS, the City of Richfield is impacted in various ways by activity on and operations at MSP Airport, and WHEREAS, Northwest Airlines' need to locate a convenient A320 Maintenance Facility is acknowledged, and WHEREAS, the importance of the high level of service Northwest Airlines provides in and out of MSP Airport is recognized, and WHEREAS, MSP Airport and Northwest Airlines would mutually benefit from locating such a facility at MSP Airport. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the City of Richfield requests that the Metropolitan Airports Commission and Northwest Airlines continue to meet with representatives from the City of Richfield in support of the concept of locating an A320 Maintenance Facility at MSP Airport. PASSED by the City Council of the City of Richfield this 5th day of February, 1990. ATTEST: Steven J. Quam Mayor Thomas P. Ferber City Clerk ~/~ CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Council Letter No. 47 Agenda February 12, 1990 Issue Statement• Request for improvements at 76th Street and Penn Avenue South to be included in next five year Hennepin County roadway program. Background: The cities of Richfield and Bloomington, working cooperatively with Hennepin County, were to have had Federal Aid to Urban Systems (FADS) funding for improvements of Penn Avenue from approximately 76th Street to 82nd Street. This-would have included intersections and the construction of an eight lane bridge across I494. However, .due to the scheduling of the I494 and 135W traffic corridor studies, which include consideration on the eventual width requirements for I494, and the inability to extend the sunset date for the FAUS funding, these FADS funds were lost. The City of Richfield continues to include improvements in the vicinity of 76th Street and Penn Avenue in the city's Capital Improvement Program (CIP). The 1992-1996 CIP was reviewed by the Community Services Advisory Commission and the Planning Commission in the fall of 1989. These commissions have recommended the City Council adopt the proposed CIP which includes $1,200,000 for improvements at the 76th Street and Penn Avenue intersection in 1992. Richfield's plan indicates $800,000 of the funding is to be provided by Hennepin County and $400,000 is to be provided through Municipal State Aid funding. Richfield has learned that Hennepin County, as a result of the FADS funding loss, no longer includes improvements in the area of 76th Street and Penn Avenue as part of its long range program. It is necessary to request Hennepin County include a scaled down version of the original improvement, something to coincide with Richfield's proposed improvement, in its next five year program. Recommended Motion: Approve the attached Resolution which requests Hennepin County include roadway improvements at 76th Street and Penn Avenue in the next County five year program, preferably in 1992 to match Richfield's Capital Improvement Program. Basis of Recommendation: 1. Hennepin County is in favor of improvements in the area of 76th Street and Penn Avenue as evidenced by the cooperation in the Federal Aid to Urban Systems funding application and subsequent efforts to extend the sunset date. 2. The 76th Street and Penn Avenue intersection continues to be in need of improvement. 3. Work at the 76th Street and Penn Avenue intersection may /~-i _ proceed without jeopardizing later work at the Penn/I494 inter,~hange or other portions of the original project.. 4. It is important Richfield's continuing desire for improvements at 76th Street and Penn Avenue be brought to the attention of Hennepin County so the improvement may be included in the County's next five year program. Alternative Recommendation: 1. Do not make any improvements at 76th Street and Penn Avenue South until completion of the 1494 studies and improvements are made to I494. 2. Continue to plan improvements at 76th Street and Penn Avenue but do not include any funding provision by Hennepin County. Discussion/Decision Mode: This item is scheduled for the February 12, 1990 Council meeting. Action need not be taken at this time but the sooner action is taken by the Council to provide as much notice as possible to the County, the more likely Hennepin County will include 76th Street and Penn Avenue in its next five year program. Respectf y submitted, James D Prosser City nager JDP/sdr Attachment ~~~-~ RESOLUTION N0. RESOLUTION REQUESTING HENNEPIN COUNTY TO INCLUDE ROADWAY IMPROVEMENTS AT 76th STREET AND PENN AVENUE SOUTH AS PART OF THE NEXT FIVE YEAR HENNEPIN COUNTY ROADWAY PLAN WHEREAS, Hennepin County is in favor of improvements in the area of 76th Street and Penn Avenue as evidenced by the cooperation in the Federal Aid to Urban Systems funding application and subsequent efforts to extend the sunset date, and WHEREAS, the 76th Street and Penn Avenue intersection continues to be in need of improvement, and WHEREAS, the City of Richfield includes an estimated $1,200,000 for mprove~ents ~t tl~e 76th Street anc~ ~enH Aver~~~ intersection as a 1992 project in its 1992-1996 long range Capital Improvement Program, and WHEREAS, work at the 76th Street and Penn Avenue intersection may proceed without jeopardizing later work at the Penn/I494 interchange or other portions of the larger, original project, and WHEREAS, the City of Richfield is willing to work with Hennepin County toward assurances such proposed work at 76th Street and Penn Avenue will be accepted now and in the future by the State of Minnesota, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Hennepin County, Minnesota, that a request is hereby made to have Hennepin County include improvements at 76th Street and Penn Avenue South in 1992 as part of the next five year County roadway plan. Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield this 12th day of February, 1990. Steven J. Quam Mayor ATTEST: Thomas P. Ferber City Clerk jam. CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Council Letter No. 46 Agenda February 12, .1990 Issue Statement• The City of Richfield declares that April 22, 1990 is Earth Day 1990. This day will hold activities and events that will educate citizens on the importance of acting in an environmentally sensitive fashion by recycling, conserving energy and water, using efficient transportation, and adopting a more ecologically sound life-style. Background: On April 22, 1980 the first Earth Day was celebrated by over twenty million Americans who were concerned about the care of the environment. Their collective action passed many new laws to protect the air, water and land. In the last decade, the dangers have not been offset by the improvements. Earth Day 1990 is a way to celebrate and also remember that environmental improvement is up to all of us. In keeping with this idea, Wood Lake Nature Center is helping coordinate Earth Week with the Richfield Schools, is holding a series of workshops for the public called "The Conserving Household" and also plans Earth Day workshops on simple things we can all do to conserve our resources of soil, air and water. Recommended Motion: Approve the Earth Day resolution and promote the City's celebration of this day. Basis of Recommendation: 1. Approving the Earth Day 1990 resolution will keep the City of Richfield as a forward thinking community. 2. Richfield has taken steps to keep abreast of some environmental issues. An Earth Day 1990 proclamation would be a natural progression. 3. Several municipalities in the Twin Cities area have already passed this resolution. Alternative Recommendation: 1. Do not declare an Earth Day 1990. 2.. Declare a different day Earth Day 1990 for the City of Richfield. The problem with this is that the entire nation, especially communities and school children will be setting that day aside for activities promoting preservation of the global environment. Discussion/Decision Mode: The Earth Day 1990 resolution is scheduled for the February 12 Council meeting. Action should be taken at this time to approve Earth Day 1990 so Richfield may begin to plan Earth Day activities. Re p fully submitted, Jame Prosser City anager /~- ~ RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION DECLARING APRIL 22, 1990 AS EARTH DAY 1990 WHEREAS, almost twenty years ago, more than twenty million Americans joined together on Earth Day in a demonstration of concern for the environment, and their collective action resulted in the passage of sweeping new laws to protect our air, water, and land; WHEREAS, in the nineteen years since the first Earth Day, despite environmental improvements, the environmental health of the planet is increasingly endangered, threatened by Global Climate Change, Ozone Depletion, Growing World Population, Tropical Deforestation, Ocean Pollution, Toxic Wastes, Desertification, and Nuclear Waste requiring action by all sectors of society; WHEREAS, Earth Day 1990 is a national and international call to action for all citizens to join in a global effort to save the planet; WHEREAS, Earth Day 1990 activities and events will educate all citizens on the importance of acting in an environmentally sensitive fashion by recycling, conserving energy and water, using efficient transportation, and adopting a more ecologically sound life-styles; ~/~-~ WHEREAS, Earth Day 1990 activities and events will educate all citizens on the importance of buying and using only those products least harmful to the environment; WHEREAS, Earth Day 1990 activities and events will educate all citizens on the importance of doing business with those companies that are environmentally sensitive and responsible; WHEREAS, Earth Day 1990 activities and events will educate all citizens on the importance of voting for those candidates who demonstrate an abiding concern for the environment; WHEREAS, Earth Day 1990 activities and events will educate all citizens on the importance of supporting the passage of legislation that will help protect the environment; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Richfield City Council and the City of Richfield designate and proclaim April 22, 1990 as Earth Day 1990, and that that day shall be set aside for public activities promoting preservation of the global environment and launching the "Decade of the Environment". Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota, this 12th day of February, 1990. Steven J. Quam Mayor ATTEST: Thomas P. Ferber City Clerk ~// CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Council Letter No. 45 Agenda February 12, 1990 Issue Statement: Adoption of transitory ordinance providing funding for certain capital improvements from the Special Revenue Fund. First reading. Background• On December 6, 1989, the City Council approved the 1990 Capital Improvement Budget (CIB) and also adopted the 1990 budget for all funds as outlined in the budget document. The various approved appropriations for 1990 for the capital projects are defined as outlined below: Master Park Plan Study $ 30,000 Veterans Memorial Park 245,000 City Hall Sprinkler System 15,000 City Hall Utilization Study 10,000 $300,000 A transitory ordinance is now necessary to finalize these appropriations pursuant to City Charter. Charter Section 7.12, Subdivision 2 allows expenditures for capital improvements from the Special Revenue Fund only by ordinance. Recommended Motion: Give first reading consideration to the attached transitory ordinance providing for the expenditure of funds from the Special Revenue Fund for certain capital improvements. Basis of Recommendation: 1. On December 6, 1989, the City Council adopted the 1990 Capital Improvement Budget. 2. Under Section 3.09 of the City Charter, a transitory ordinance becomes effective 30 days after publication of the second hearing notice. The hearing process must be completed in 1990 so the Capital Projects can be completed as approved and the funds expended. Alternative Recommendation: 1. The City Council could allocate the funds to a totally new project or projects, but a public hearing for a budget revision would be necessary. 2. The City Council could decide not to authorize the expenditure of Special Revenue Funds. However, that would be contrary to the previously adopted Capital Improvement Budget. /-;~ Discussion/Decision Mode: Action on this item is requested at the February 12 meeting of the City Council. This would allow sufficient time to advertise for the second hearing for February 26, 1990, and the ordinance to become effective so that the capital improvements can be ordered as budgeted. Respectf y submitted, Jame Prosser City anager JDP:eja CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Council Letter No. 44 Agenda February 12, 1990 #lo Issue Statement• Approval of second reading and public hearing of an amendment changing the effective date of the rental licensing and point of sale ordinance from March 1, 1990 to October 1, 1990. Background• On October•9, 1989, the City Council approved the ordinance requiring the inspection of homes at the point of sale and the licensing of rental residential property effective March 1, 1990. On December 4, 1989, the City Council approved the recommendation that moved the implementation date of this ordinance from March 1, 1990 to October 1, 1990. Council needs to consider whether to approve an amendment to the ordinance that will reflect the October 1, 1990 implementation date. Recommended Motion: Staff recommends approval of a second reading and public hearing of an ordinance amendment which changes the implementation date of the rental licensing and point of sale ordinance from March 1, 1990 to October 1, 1990. Basis for Recommendation: 1. The October 1, 1990 date will give staff the time needed to make the necessary preparation for implementation which includes: - Notification and education of area realtors, mortgage lenders and title companies of the point of sale requirements. - Selection and implementation of a data processing program to manage the license application and inspection records process. - Hiring and orientation of new staff. Alternative Recommendation: 1. The Council could decide not to approve the amendment which changes the implementation date of the rental licensing and point of sale ordinance from March 1, 1990 to October 1, 1990. This would mean that the City would not be in compliance with the date requirements of the current ordinance. Discussion/Decision Mode: Consideration of a request for the approval of an amendment to the rental licensing and point of sale ordinance implementation date to October 1, 1990. Respectf ly submitted, Jame Prosser City nager JDP/ej a .~9 CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Council Letter No. 43 Agenda, February 12, 1990 Issue Statement• Second reading and public hearing of an ordinance. amending the composition of the Human Rights Commission from ten members to thirteen. Background• The Human Rights Commission has requested that the membership be increased so that they have more members to work on projects such as Celebration of Martin Luther King Day, and Human Rights Week. Currently, the. Commission has eight adult members and two student members. The Human Rights Commission is authorized by city ordinance, and any change in membership requires an ordinance amendment. At the January 22, 1990 city council meeting, the city council gave first reading to the ordinance and set the public hearing for February 12. Recommended Motion: Approve second reading of the ordinance increasing the membership of the Human Rights Commission from ten members to thirteen members. Basis for Recommendation: 1. The Commission has requested Council consideration of this membership increase, and the Council has approved the ordinance on first reading. Alternative Recommendation: 1. Leave the current membership as is, and recommend that the Commission solicit volunteer committee members for special projects. Discussion/Decision Mode: If the ordinance is approved on February 12, 1990, it will become effective 30 days after publication, which would be approximately the middle of March, 1990. Respectf lly submitted, James Prosser City Manager JDP/ej a ~~ CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESO`T'A Council Letter No. Agenda Date February 12, 1990 Issue Statement• Administrative hearing to consider the revocation of a residential kennel license for Janet Morrison who lives at 6337 21st Avenue South in Richfield. Backcrround On June 1, 1989, Mrs. Morrison was tagged for failure to obtain a kennel license. On July 3, 1989, Mrs. Morrison submitted a renewal application for a residential kennel license for the 5 dogs that she owned. All of the animals Mrs. Morrison owns are individually licensed, however, the kennel license had not yet been obtained. A residential kennel license is required whenever there are more than 2 dogs OR 2 cats residing on the property. On September 22, 1989, staff received a complaint of feces in the yard. The complaint was investigated and did appear to be a problem. A letter was sent to the Morrisons concerning the feces. A follow-up inspection was conducted on October 2, 1989 and found that the feces had been cleaned up. A second complaint was received by staff on October 18, 1989 - concerning a substantial amount of feces on the property and barking dogs during the late evening hours. A letter was sent to the resident concerning the feces, dog barking and failure to obtain a kennel license. It should be noted that Mrs. Morrison's kennel application had been misplaced and therefore City records indicated that she still had not made application for the kennel license. When Mrs. Morrison received the letter, she contacted staff to make them aware of the mix-up. After checking, it was determined that Mrs. Morrison had submitted the kennel application in July. She stated that on any given day, inspectors will find a larger than normal amount of feces on her property due to the fact that she has 4 dogs. She explained that the feces are picked up on a daily basis. She also explained that her dogs sleep inside the house and that the late night barking can't be from her animals. She suggests that possibly she is being blamed for barking that is coming from other resident's animals. Animal Control Officers cited the Morrisons on three occasions in 1989 for dogs running at large. Citations had also been written regarding the lack of a residential kennel license. At the November 13, 1989 Council meeting the residential kennel license was granted to Mrs. Morrison. _ Health Administrator Betsy Christensen contacted the two neighbors who have concerns about the renewal of the kennel license on November 16, 1989 and again on January 9, 1990. Betsy spoke with Doris Ross of 6341 21st Avenue who expressed her concern that the dogs rush the fence .when her grandneice is outside playing and which scares them. While the dogs did not act in a vicious manner, Mrs. Ross is concerned for the safety of her grandniece while she is outside. Mrs. Ross said that she has never seen the dogs jump the fence. Mrs. Ross is also concerned about the appearance and smell from the accumulation of the feces in the yard. She at times is unable to use her backyard in the summer because of the smell. She states that the feces are not picked up daily. Betsy spoke with Mr. Hefferan of 6345 21st on November 16, 1989 and again with Mrs. Hefferan on January 10, 1990. Mrs. Hefferan is also concerned with their granddaughters safety as she also has been rushed by the dogs at their fence. Mrs. Hefferan has never seen the dogs jump the fence. Mrs. Hefferan is also concerned with the appearance and smell of the feces. She explained that she works several nights a week until midnight or so and said that she has additional concerns about the barking that takes place late in the evening by the dogs. She said it is not unusual for the dogs to be barking after 10:00 p.m. 2-3 times a week. Mrs. Hefferan has not called Public Safety in the past when this has occurred however she has now been encouraged to call whenever the barking becomes a problem. A call was received on January 10, 1990 concerning barking and an officer responded at 10:50 P.M. Mrs. Ross contacted city staff on January 4, 1990 to register a complaint regarding feces on the Morrison's property. The complaint was investigated on January 9, 1990 by animal control personnel who estimated that there appeared to be about a months worth of feces in the yard that had not been picked up. A letter was left with the Morrison residence on January 9th directing the feces be cleaned up within 5 days. As of January 18th, inspectors found that there was still alot of feces present in both the front and back yard. Photographs of the yard and the feces condition were taken on January 18, 1990. A follow-up inspection was conducted on February 5, 1990 and found that while the dogs now seem to be confined to the kennel run in the rear of the property,. the feces that had been noted on the property on January 18th have still not been picked up and disposed of. Recommended Motion: Staff recommends revocation of the residential kennel license for Janet Morrison as a result of continuing complaints received by staff that relate to feces in the yard. A residential kennel license is a privilege. The privilege can be revoked if the use has an adverse effect on the animal owner's neighbors. There has been an adverse effect on Mrs. Morrison's neighbors as the continuing feces problems has kept them from using their yards at times, is unsightly and the accumulation of feces poses a health hazard. ~~ ~ Basis for Recommendation: 1. A residential kennel license is a privilege. Provide Mrs. Morrison thirty days to relocate dogs in excess of two. 2. It is up to the animal owner to prove that the keeping of more than two dogs OR two cats does not have an adverse effect on the neighborhood. Mrs. Morrison has been unable to do this. 3. Neighbors continue relating to large On each occasion, and verified that Morrison has been problem continues to contact staff with complaints accumulations of feces on the property. staff has inspected the property the complaints are valid. Mrs. contacted by staff and yet the to exist. Alternative Recommendation: 1. The Council could decide to approve Mrs. Morrison's residential kennel license with stipulations that would address the feces problems. Discussion/Decision Mode: Recommendation to revoke the residential kennel license for Janet Morrison, 6337 21st Avenue South is presented for Council consideration at this time. Resp lly submitted, James Prosser City nager JDP:bac '' 7/7/87 YJarning for no license and dogs at large 9/14/87 Impounded animal and issued tag for no license and at large 9/20/88 Impounded animal and issued tag for dog at large 12/21/88 Tagged for no individual dog lic ense and issued warning for no residential kenne l license 2/18/89 Impounded dog and issued warning for dog at large and no individual license 6/12/89 Tagged for dog at large 6/14/89 Complaint receive regarding feces on property - complaint was verified by inspectors - Letter sent to owner advising to clean up 9/22/89 Complaint received regarding feces on property - complaint was verified by inspectors - Letter sent to owner advising to clean up 10/18/89 Complaint received regarding feces on property - complaint was verified by inspectors - Letter sent to owner advising to clean up 1/5/90 Complaint received regarding feces on property - complaint was verified by inspectors - Letter sent to owner advising to clean up 1/19/90 Property inspected and found to have approximately one months accumulation of feces on the property - photographs taken ~~' ~- 7/7/87 Warning for no license and dogs at large 9/14/87 Impounded animal and issued tag for no license and at large 9/20/88 Impounded animal and issued tag for dog at large 12/21/88 Tagged for no individual dog lic ense and issued warning for no residential kenne l license 2/18/89 Impounded dog and issued warning for dog at large and no individual license. 6/12/89 Tagged for dog at large 6/14/89 Complaint receive regarding feces on property - complaint was verified by inspectors - Letter sent to owner advising to clean. up 9/22/89 Complaint .received regarding feces on property - complaint was verified by inspectors - Letter sent to owner advising to clean up 10/18/89 Complaint received regarding feces on property - complaint was verified by inspectors - Letter sent to owner advising to clean up 1/5/90 Complaint received regarding feces on property - complaint was verified by inspectors - Letter sent to owner advising to clean up 1/19/90 Property inspected and found to have approximately one months accumulation of feces on the property - photographs taken ~~, ~ '~ ~~ 7/7/87 Warning for no license and dogs at large 9/14/87 Impounded animal and issued tag for no license and at large 9/20/$8 Impounded animal and issued tag for dog at large 12/21/88 Tagged for no individual dog lic ense and issued warning for no residential kenne l license 2/18/89 Impounded dog and issued warning for dog at large and no individual license 6/12/89 Tagged for dog at large 6/14/89 Complaint receive regarding feces on property - complaint was verified by inspectors - Letter sent to owner advising to clean up 9/22/89 Complaint received regarding feces on property - complaint was verified by inspectors - Letter sent to owner advising to clean up 10/18/89 .Complaint received regarding feces on property - complaint was verified by inspectors - Letter sent to owner advising to clean up 1/5/90 Complaint received regarding feces on property - complaint was verified by inspectors - Letter sent to owner advising to clean up 1/19/90 Property inspected and found to have approximately ; one months accumulation of feces on the property - photographs taken '~ 7/7/87 Warning for no license and dogs at large 9/14/87 Impounded animal and issued tag for no license and at large 9/20/88 Impounded animal and issued tag for dog at large 12/21/88 Tagged for no individual dog license and issued warning for no residential kennel license 2/18/89 Impounded dog and issued warning for dog at large and no individual license 6/12/89 Tagged for dog at large 6/14/89 Complaint receive regarding feces on property - complaint was verified by inspectors - Letter sent to owner advising to clean up 9/22/89 Complaint received regarding feces on property - complaint was verified by inspectors - Letter sent to owner advising to clean up 10/18/89 Complaint received regarding feces on property - complaint was verified by inspectors - Letter sent to owner advising to clean up 1/5/90 Complaint received regarding feces on property - complaint was verified by inspectors - Letter sent to owner advising to clean up 1/19/90 Property inspected and found to have approximately one months accumulation of feces on the property - photographs taken '~~ ~ '' ------ ----- 7/7/87 Warning for no license and dogs at large 9/14/87 Impounded animal and issued tag for no license and at large 9/20/88 Impounded animal .and .issued tag for dog at large 12/21/88 Tagged for no individual dog lic ense and issued warning for no residential kenne l license 2/18/89 Impounded dog and issued warning for dog at large and no individual license 6/12/89 Tagged for dog at large 6/14/89 Complaint receive regarding feces on property - complaint was verified by inspectors - Letter sent to owner advising to clean up 9/22/89 Complaint received regarding feces on property - complaint was verified by inspectors - Letter sent to owner advising to clean up 10/18/89.. ..Complaint received regarding feces on property - complaint was verified by inspectors - Letter sent to owner advising to clean up 1/5/90 Complaint received regarding feces on property - complaint was verified by inspectors - Letter sent to owner advising to clean up 1/19/90 Property inspected and found to have approximately one months accumulation of feces on the property - photographs taken '~ ~d ' D 7/7/87 Warning for no license and dogs at large 9/14/87 Impounded animal and issued tag for no license and at large 9/20/88 Impounded animal and issued tag for dog at large 12/21/88 Tagged for no individual dog lic ense and issued warning for no residential kenne l license 2/18/89 Impounded dog and issued warning for dog at large and no individual license 6/12/89 Tagged for dog at large 6/14/89 Complaint receive regarding feces on property - complaint was verified by inspectors - Letter sent to owner advising to clean up 9/22/89 Complaint received regarding feces on property - complaint was verified by inspectors - Letter sent to owner advising to clean up 10/18/89 .Complaint received regarding feces on property - complaint was verified by inspectors - Letter sent to owner advising to clean up 1/5/90 Complaint received regarding feces on property - complaint was verified by inspectors - Letter sent to owner advising to clean up 1/19/90 Property inspected and found to have approximately one months accumulation of feces on the property - photographs taken ~/~ .CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Council Letter No. 41 Agenda February 12, 1990 Issue Statement: City Council approval of a contract for workers' compensation administration services. Background• In 1979, the City of Richfield opted to become self-insured for its workers' compensation exposures. In assuming the self- insurance status, it was necessary for Richfield to select a claims administrator to work with the City to handle the day-to- day aspects of receiving and filing claims, approving payments, examining doctor's statements, and making the necessary reporting to the departments of the State of Minnesota. Initially, the City of Richfield hired the insurance agency of Marsh & McLennan, Inc. to administer the workers' compensation program. In 1986 the City changed from Marsch & McClennan to Adjustco, Inc. Adjustco, in turn, has been handling the City's workers' compensation administration since that time. The contract with Adjustco expired as of the end of 1989 and the City is currently working on an extended basis with Adjustco. Late in 1989, the City solicited a number of proposals from various workers' compensation administrators in the metro area. In soliciting those proposals, the City was interested in the following services. ® Examination of routine claims submitted under the workers' compensation program. Often, careful monitoring of claims and doctor's reports can resolve a workers' compensation claim far before it becomes a large financial responsibility of the City. ® On-going safety program to the insured. In essence, be able to eliminate claims before they occur. s Training necessary to comply with Federal and State safety requirements. Employees must have an opportunity to work in a safe environment with the appropriate knowledge necessary to safely handle equipment and products. Of course, another aspect administration is cost of regarding the cost of adm the service as a complete provides a safety program claims must be factored. training separately if it of the workers' compensation the service. In making comparisons inistration, it is necessary to examine package. Administration service that along with pure administration of Otherwise the City must purchase safety is not provided by the administrator. Proposals were solicited from several of the most prominent workers' compensation administrators in the metro area which ~"%~ / included Employee Benefit Administration Company (EBA); Gallagher Bassett Services, Inc.; Meadowbrook Insurance Group; and Rider, Bennett, Egan and Arundel, ~ law firm with workers' compensation expertise. The City's current provider of Adjustco was not asked to provide a proposal. City staff was familiar with Adjustco's capabilities and felt that it would be in the best interest of the City to seek another administrator. The prices for the workers' compensation administration services are as follows: EBA $22,828 annually* guaranteed, unlimited claims for 3 years. Includes a virtually unlimited loss control program. One time take-over fee of $2,500. *Baked on 304 per $100 of payroll. Rider, Bennett Claims - $60/hour to stay within $20,000 per year. No loss programs. No assumption fee. Meadowbrook $18,500 plus $200 for each claim over 50 per year. One day per month loss control included. No take- over fee. Gallagher Bassett $7,887 minimum plus $67 per claim over 11 claims for: Work. Comp. only claims and 5442 per claim over 10 claims for indemnity claims. Loss programs offered at $743 per day. Assumption fee is time plus basis at $62 per hour. Estimating 42 claims, including 10 indemnity and 12 loss control programs, the cost would be $18,210 plus assumption costs. Recommended Motion: It is recommended that the City Council award the contract for workers' compensation administration services to Employee Benefit Administration (EBA) and authorize the City Manager to execute a contract for services. Basis For Recommendation: 1. Although EBA is slightly more costly, it should be noted that the relevant difference in price between the providers is not significant, and is extremely small compared to annual expenditures of the fund. The total amount of dollar payouts that the City processes in disability and medical payments in a given year is significant. For example, the payout for a year such as 1989-1990 would approach between $350,000. Thus, the annual administration cost is a very small portion of the total expenditure of the fund, and a strong loss control emphasis in claims administration should help the City reduce medical and indemnity payments. _ 2. EBA is the firm that is used by the League of Minnesota Cities Insurance Trust for their workers' compensation administration and by virtually every other city in Minnesota which is self-insured with respect to workers' compensation coverages. Two cities in the metro area that have excellent workers' compensation experience are Plymouth and Bloomington. In both cases, EBA is the workers' compensation administrator and is given credit for at least a portion of that success. 3. While some of the costs submitted by other workers' compensation administrators seem less expensive than EBA, it should be noted that EBA offers an outstanding loss control program which is virtually unlimited. EBA is the most experienced in municipal loss control and has an excellent record. 4. Within the past several years, the City has experienced some fairly large workers' compensation claims. City staff feels that with much tighter workers' compensation administration services, some of the claims could be avoided before they became so costly to close out. Alternative Recommendations: 1. The City could select another contractor to provide the workers' compensation administration service, such as Meadowbrook or the Gallagher Bassett firm. 2. The City could renew their contract with Adjustco, Inc. However, while Adjustco is relatively inexpensive (perhaps one-third to one-half as expensive as EBA), the services provided do not include any safety training or the in-depth claims follow-up that is afforded by EBA. Discussion/Decision Mode: It is recommended that the City move to enter into a contract with EBA for workers' compensation administration service at the February 12, 1990 meeting. This will allow City staff to immediately cancel the contract with Adjustco and begin sending new claims to EBA as well as have EBA begin processing current open claims which have been initiated through Adjustco. y submitted, Ci . Prosser JDP:ff ~~ CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Council Letter No. 40 Agenda February 12, 1990 Issue Statement Purchase in excess of $5,000 for a Municipal State Aid computer. Background: The City Council policy resolution on purchasing provides that when the purchase of merchandise, materials, equipment or construction exceeds the amount of 55,000., authority to purchase shall be submitted to the City Council for consideration. The Minnesota Department of Transportation (MnDOT) has set a goal to link all municipal engineering offices throughout the state with the Municipal State Aid (MSA) office. To accomplish this, all the municipalities involved must have access to compatible computer hardware, software and networking equipment. In the near future, all correspondence with MSA will be transmitted electronically. This correspondence includes such things as annual reports, project reports and technical information. This "electronic mail" function alone makes an MSA computer link-up necessary. In addition to the "instant mail", the computer package includes spreadsheets, data base and word processing software which are very important to the Engineering Division for project tracking, record keeping and project design. This computer package is also expandable to include operating a computer aided design (CAD) program, if we should decide to invest in one in the future. The City Engineers Computer Committee and the MnDOT Computer- Aided Engineering Services Office have designed a standard package of computer hardware and software which they have recommended to MSA member cities. In addition, since MnDOT is requiring member cities to purchase this package, they are also providing a 60$ reimbursement for the cost of the system. Two computer companies are providing the hardware and software for this system. One is AmeriData, which would provide the bulk of the system for a cost of $7,828. The other, Metafile Information Systems, Inc., provides a database software program to complete the package for a cost of $485. The approved 1990 Engineering budget will be revised to show this additional expense. It was not included in the budget because the decision to require this computer package was not made by MnDOT until late August of 1989. Recommended Motion: Approve a purchase order to AmeriData for the sum of $7,828.00; and approve a MnDOT Agreement for reimbursement of 60$ of the total cost of the package which will bring our total expenditure to only $3,130. Basis of Recommendation: 1. This computer system is required by MnDOT through the MSA office. 2. The City will be reimbursed 60$ of the total system cost. ~°7 ~ -/ 3. The 1990 Engineering budget will be revised to show this expenditure. 4. A signed agreement needs to be returned to MnDOT in order for us to qualify for reimbursement. Alternative Recommendation: Council could choose to deny approval of this purchase; however, communication with MSA and MnDOT can be streamlined with this computer system. The system will likely be made a requirement by MSA at some time in the future. Discussion/Decision Mode: This item is scheduled for the February 12, 1990 regular Council meeting. We have a February 15, 1990 deadline on the cost sharing offer from MSA. Therefore, staff is requesting approval at this time in order to qualify for reimbursement. Respectfully submitted, James Prosser City anager JDP/reb ~~~ CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Council Letter No. 39 Agenda, February 12, 1990 Issue Statement: Purchase of three heavy trucks to replace four fully depreciated vehicles. Background: Purchase of new trucks has been coordinated with Hennepin County's bid process. Several dealers were requested to submit bids following predetermined specifications. Two fully depreciated vehicles, Unit #270, a van with an aerial bucket used for street light maintenance, and Unit #273, the sign truck, are due to be replaced in 1990. These units will be replaced with a single vehicle which will do double duty as a sign and light maintenance vehicle. Staff feels a single unit will be more economical since the same crew performs both of these duties. The approved 1990 Central Garage budget contains $68,000 for this purchase. Two fully depreciated single-axle dump trucks are-also scheduled to be replaced in 1990. One will be replaced with a similar single-axle vehicle. The other will be replaced with a tandem truck. The purchase of dump boxes and hydraulics for these two units is also included in the Hennepin County bid. The 1990 Central Garage budget contains $120,000 for these replacement vehicles. Recommended Motion: Authorize purchase of equipment from Boyer Ford Trucks, Inc., North Star International Trucks, Inc. and Midland Equipment as follows: One .22000 GVW Cab Chassis from Boyer Ford Trucks, Inc. for $23,497. The remaining funds will be used to purchase a bucket, tool boxes and accessories. One Single Axle 33000 GVW Cab Chassis from Boyer Ford Trucks, Inc. for $35,682. One. Tandem Axle 54000 GVW Cab Chassis from North Star Int'1. Trucks, Inc. for $54,295.91. One Single Axle dump body and hydraulics from Midland Equipment for $6,888. One Tandem dump body and hydraulics from Midland Equipment for $8,371. The remaining funds after purchase of this equipment will be used to purchase plows, underbodies and sanders as needed for these two vehicles. Basis of Recommendation: 1. The bids received through the Hennepin County bid process are typically the lowest price for the equipment specified. 2. Adequate funding has been budgeted for these purchases in the approved 1990 Central Garage budget. Alternative Recommendation: Council may choose to reject the bids received through Hennepin County and instruct staff to obtain new prices for this equipment. However, staff does not believe we can obtain better prices by bidding this equipment ourselves. Discussion/Decision Mode: Orders for this equipment must be placed with Hennepin County by February 22, 1990. Staff is requesting approval at this time in order to facilitate timely delivery of these vehicles, and to meet Hennepin County's deadline. Respec 1 submitted, James Prosser City ager JDP/reb ~/~ CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Council Letter No. 38 Agenda Februarv 12. 1990 Issue Statement: Purchase of a 16' hydrostatic tractor rotary mower. Background• One fully depreciated 1982 Toro Groundsmaster hydrostatic mower with a 72" mower is scheduled for replacement in 1990. Initially, staff budgeted $12,000 to replace this .unit with a new machine the same size. Recent technological breakthroughs in rotary mowers with a much larger cutting capacity and greater versatility are now available. Technology plus the addition of many more acres to mow with the development of Veterans Memorial Park of .Richfield recently convinced staff that our purposes would be better served by replacing this unit with a larger machine. The larger machine also has the capability of mowing park path edges and freeway boulevards with 57" side board cutting wings. This would eliminate the need for a flail mower attachment, which was proposed in the 1990 motor pool budget. This $7,600 savings could also be used toward the purchase of a larger machine. The remainder of the purchase price would need to be revised into the motor pool budget. The fact that the machine will do the same amount of work in one day as three of our 72" mowers indicates to staff that the additional cost would quickly be offset by the increased productivity possible with a larger machine. Two bids for this equipment were received as follows: Company Base Bid Trade-In Total MTI Distributing Co. $48,080.00 ($2200.00) $45,880.00 Scharber & Sons $39,932.50 ($2000.00) $37,932.50 The bid from Scharber & Sons was an alternate, and did not meet specifications regarding horsepower, maneuverability and breakaway mower side decks. Recommended Motion: Approve the bid minutes/tabulation and authorize the purchase of one 16' Hydrostatic Tractor Rotary Mower from MTI Distributing Company for the sum of $45,880. Staff recommends that the funding for this equipment be as follows: Base Price: $48,880 Trade-In of Toro Groundsmaster: !2,200) Cost with Trade-In: $45,880 Amount budgeted for 75" mower replacement: $12,000 Amount budgeted for flail mower: 7,600 Total amount budgeted for mowers: $19,600 /- ~ i Cost with trade-in: $45,880 Less budgeted amount: ($19,600) Funds needed: $26,280 The additional cost of this mower would be charged back to the Park Maintenance Division in equipment usage charges until the motor pool is reimbursed. Basis of Recommendation: 1. MTI Distributing Company was the only vendor that met specifications. 2. MTI is a reliable company that has provided reliable service to the city in the past. 3. Usage charges to the Park Maintenance Division will pay back the additional cost to the motor pool. Alternative Recommendation: 1. Council may choose to reject all bids and instruct staff to obtain new proposals for this equipment. However, staff does not believe we can obtain a better price for this particular piece of equipment. 2. Council may choose to reject all bids for the larger machine and instruct staff to obtain proposals for the equipment budgeted. However, staff feels the larger machine will be of better service to the community. Discussion/Decision Mode: Staff is requesting approval of this purchase at the February 12, 1990 Council meeting. Respe lly submitted, James Prosser City nager JDP/reb Attachment ~~~~ CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Bid Opening January 19, 1990 11:00 A.M. Hydrostatic Tractor Rotary Mower Bid No. 90-4 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 one new 16 ft. hydrostatic tractor mower, bid no. 90-4, as advertised in the official newspaper on January 10, 1990. Present: Thomas Ferber, City Clerk Donald Fondrick, Community Services Director Eileen Anderson, City Manager Representative The following bids were submitted and read aloud: VENDOR BID SECURITY TOTAL Base 48,080.00 MTI Distributing Co. 5% Bond Trade 2,200.00 Plymouth, MN Toro Groundsmaster 580-D TOTAL 45,880.00 Base 39,932.50 Scharber & Sons 5% Bond Trade 2,000.00 Rogers, MN John Deere 2355 TOTAL 37,932.50 The City Clerk announced that the bids would be tabulated and considered at the February 12, 1990 City Council Meeting. Thomas P. Ferber City Clerk CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Council Letter No. 37 Agenda: February 12, 1990 Issue Statement• Purchase in excess of $5,000 for the installation of the Well #7 replacement pump. 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. Well #7, one of seven wells in the City, is located immediately in front of the Water Plant at Crosstown 62 and Portland Avenue. A piece of the pump column at Well #7 failed, causing the pump to fall to the bottom of the well. The well was then rendered inoperable. The pump has been retrieved and repaired, and is now ready for reinstallation. Two vendors were contacted and quotations were received from two well drilling companies for the reinstallation of the pump at Well #7: Vendor Amount E.H. Renner & Sons $7,129 Keys Well Drilling Company $9,500 Recommended Motion: Approve a purchase order to E.H. Renner & Sons for an estimated total sum of $7,129. Basis of Recommendation: 1. E.H. Renner & Sons has previously worked on Well #7 and is a reputable well driller company. 2. E.H. Renner & Sons submitted the lowest quotation. 3. The 1990 budget will be revised to reflect this emergency 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 can be obtained at this time. Discussion/Decision Mode: Staff requests approval at the February 12, 1990 Council Meeting. Respectfully submitted, James Prosser City M nager #~,~ JDP/cpk ~" % , CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Council Letter No. 36 Agenda February 12, 1990 Issue Statement• Purchase in excess of $5,000 for removal and reinstallation of deep well turbine #1. Backaround 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. Well #1, one of seven wells in the City, is located in Nicollet Park. The removal o£ the pump at Well ##1 is necessary to improve the pumping. capacity by one half million gallons per day. Two well drilling companies were contacted and quotations were received as follows: Vendor Keys Well Drilling E.H. Renner Amount $5,690.00 $5,927.40 Recommended Motion: Approve a purchase order to Keys Well Drilling Company for an estimated total purchase price of $5,690. Basis of Recommendation: 1. Keys Well Drilling Company has had previous experience in the removal, repair, testing and reinstallation of wells throughout Richfield. 2. Keys Well Drilling Company submitted the lowest bid. 3. There is $8,000 available in the approved 1990 Water Maintenance budget for the purchase. 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 at this time. Discussion/Decision Mode: Staff requests approval at the February 12, 1990 Council meeting. Respec ully submitted, James Prosser City Manager JDP/cpk ~~ CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Council Letter No. 34 Agenda February 12, 1990 Issue Statement: Approval of the Richfield Advisory Board of Health's 1989 Annual Report to the City Council. Background: In 1976, the State Legislature passed the Community Health Services Act. The purpose of the act is to develop and maintain a system of community health services under local administration. Community health services are those services provided to protect and improve people's health by preventing illness, disease and disease disability. The Community Health Services Act requires an Advisory Board of Health to advise, consult with, or make recommendations to the Board of Health (City Council) on matters relating to the development, maintenance, funding and. evaluation of community health services. Each year the Richfield Advisory Board of Health compiles a - summary report of their activities. This information is presented in report form to the Richfield City Council for their information and acceptance. A copy of the board's annual report is sent to the Minnesota Department of Health after it has been accepted by the Richfield City Council. The Richfield Advisory Board of Health's 1989 Annual Report received approval from the members of the board at their January 22, 1990 meeting. Board members requested that staff place the report on a Council agenda for formal presentation. Recommended Motion: It is recommended that the Richfield City Council accept and approve the Richfield Advisory Board of Health's 1989 Annual Report. Basis for Recommendation: 1. By accepting and approving this report, the City will be in compliance with the section of the State's Local Public Health Act which states that an Advisory Board of Health is to "advise, consult with, and make recommendations to the community health board on matters relating to the development, maintenance, funding, and evaluation of community health services." ~~ Alternative Recommendation: 1. The council could decide Richfield Advisory Board This would mean that the in compliance with the r~ Public Health Act. not to accept and approve the of Health's 1989 Annual Report. City of Richfield would not be ~quirements of the State's Local Discussion/Decision Mode• The 1989 Richfield Advisory Board being presented for City Council time. of Health's Annual Report is acceptance and approval at this Respect lly submitted, Jame Prosser City anager JDP:bac ~-~~~ CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Council Letter No.33 Agenda February 12, 1990 Issue Statement: Presentation to commission volunteers who served three terms. Background: Many members of the community volunteer to serve on the city's various boards and commission. Five former commission members served the city for three terms, or in most cases, for nine years. The city council requested that these outstanding volunteers be specially recognized for their service. The five commission members to be honored are Jack Duich, who served nine years on the Civil Service Commission; Tollie Flippin, who served three terms on the Human Rights Commission; Richard Holt, who served three terms on the Energy Awareness Commission; Jane Myre, who served three terms on the Advisory Board of Health; and Connie Murray who served nine years on the Planning Commission. Mr. Duich, Mr. Flippin, Ms. Murray also served their commissions as Chair, and Ms. Myre as Vice-Chair. Recommendation: Present the articles of appreciation to the members. Basis for Recommendation: 1. The council has requested that these members be so honored. Alternative Recommendation: 1. None Discussion/Decision Mode• This item has been scheduled under the Presentation Section of the February 12, 1990 city council agenda. Respectfully submitted, Jame D. Prosser City Manager JDP/eja City of Richfield • 6700 Portland Avenue • Minnesota 55423-2599 City Manager Mayor Council James D. Prosser Steve Quam Edwina Garcia Ivan Ludeman Martin Kirsch Michael Sandahl February 13, 1990 Richfield High School DECA 7001 Harriet Avenue South Richfield, MN 55423 Attention: Jodi Harmon, Chapter President - To Whom It May Concern: I, Steven L. Devich, verify that Jodi Harmon and Darivanh Manikhong made a distributive education presentation before the City Council on Monday, February 12, 1990. Furthermore, we thank you for your presentation. Sin r 1y, l~ L. vich Admi istrative Services Director SLD:ff Telephone 861-9700 (612) Fax 861-9749 An Equal Opportunity Employer CITY OF RICHFIELD MINNESOTA Council Letter No. 32 Agenda, February 12 1990 Issue Statement' Presentation of~New Ford Town Redevelopment Concept. Background• The City Council has previously approved a redesignation of land. use for New Ford Town and Cedar Avenues areas from residential to various commercial uses. The City Council has directed that staff develop concepts for alternative commercial uses for the New Ford Town area. The concepts would be used to gain interest in this property. These concepts would be marketed to developers and investors. If there was interest in redeveloping this area, developers would apply through the Planning Commission and possibly HRA for ultimate approval through the City Council. Tom Martinson was engaged by the City of Richfield to develop the alternative development plans. The plans will be presented for discussion. Staff Recommendation- Receive the report from Tom Martinson. Basis of Reconunendation- In previous Council direction there was could by developed in New Ford Town as It was also advised to consider how the neighborhood interacts with the airport Alternative Recommendation• Do not receive report. a need to consider what an alternative land use. New Ford Town and Minneapolis. Discussion/Decision Mode• This matter will be presented for information purposes. No action is required to officially adopt the report. The Planning Commission and HRA have also been invited to this meeting. Staff has prepared information to the public regarding this plan and will also provide press preview of the plan. Respectfully submitted JDP:sae Ja D. Prosser Ci Manager