06-13-88 agendaCITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Council Letter No. 151
Agenda June 13, 1988
Issue Statement:
Adoption of a resolution authorizing City participation in the
League of Minnesota Cities 4M Investment Fund.
Background:
The Minnesota Municipal Money Market Fund (the 4M Fund) is a
professionally managed money market fund. The 4M Fund was
established in January of 1987 in response to a demand from
Minn sota cities for a pooled investment of public funds. It was
f?lthat such a statewide pool would enable municipalities to
fake advantage of higher rates, portfolio diversification and
liquidity.
The 4M Fund was created under authority of Minnesota Statutes as
a Joint Powers Agreement in the form of a Declaration of Trust.
Any governmental unit may enter into the Declaration of Trust
upon the approval of its governing body. The Fund is managed by
Piper Capital Management, Inc. and Cadre Consulting Services,
Inc.
While the 4M Fund does not purport to be a replacement for the
services that the City would receive from other banks or
financial institutions, it does provide another unique
opportunity for investment of City funds.
The 4M Fund pays all its own operating expenses, including fees
of the Investment Advisor and Administrator. In essence, the
yields that the 4M Fund quotes are net returns that the
municipality earns. Additionally, a municipality may open as
many individual accounts as necessary and can receive a daily
statement reporting all transactions for the day, including
deposits and withdrawals.
Currently, it is the intention of the City staff to utilize the
4M Fund for investment of bond proceeds which would require
interest tracking for arbitrage rebate purposes. Bond proceeds
associated with the Academy of Holy Angels fire suppression
improvements would fall into that category.
Recommended Motion:
Adoption of a resolution authorizing entry into a Joint Powers
Agreement authorizing participation in the Minnesota Municipal
Money Market Fund (4M Fund).
Basis of Recommendation:
1. Minnesota Statutes Section 471.59, the Joint Powers Act,
provides for authorization for municipalities to enter into
Joint Powers Agreements.
2. The 4M Fund has been very successful in its first year of
operation and has over 100 governmental entities
a participating in the Fund.
3. The 4M Fund offers safety of principal, competitive money
market rates, and easy, immediate access to invested funds
with no required advance notice of deposits or withdrawals.
-711d
4. The City may still continue with all of its current
banking and financial institution relationships with respect
to investment of public funds, in addition to the 4M Fund.
Alternative Recommendation:
The City Council could elect not to approve authorization to
participate in the 4M Fund.
Discussion/Decision Mode:
Certain investments associated with the Academy of Holy Angels
bond proceeds will be coming due within the next few weeks.
Thus, it is suggested that the resolution authorizing
participation in the 4M Fund be adopted at the June 13 meeting to
facilitate timely investment of those funds, with ease of audit
trail for arbitrage purposes.
Respectfully submitted,
James D. Prosser
City Manager
JDP:eja
•
is
Fly/o --?
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING ENTRY INTO A
JOINT POWERS AGREEMENT IN THE FORM OF A
• DECLARATION OF TRUST ESTABLISHING AN ENTITY KNOWN AS
"MINNESOTA MUNICIPAL MONEY MARKET FUND" AND
AUTHORIZING PARTICIPATION IN CERTAIN INVESTMENT
PROGRAMS IN CONNECTION THEREWITH
WHEREAS, Minnesota Statutes Section 471.59 (the "Joint
Powers Act") provides, among other things, that governmental
units, by agreement entered into through action of their
governing bodies, may jointly or cooperatively exercise any power
common to the contracting parties, and
WHEREAS, the Minnesota Municipal Money Market Fund was
formed in January, 1987, pursuant to the Joint Powers Act by the
adoption of a joint powers agreement in the form of a Declaration
of Trust by a group of Minnesota municipalities acting as the
Initial Participants thereof, and
WHEREAS, the Declaration of Trust has been presented to this
Council, and
WHEREAS, the Declaration of Trust authorizes municipalities
of the State of Minnesota to adopt and enter into the Declaration
of Trust and become Participants of the Fund. Municipality shall
mean city, county, town, public authority, public corporation,
public commission, special district, and any "instrumentality"
• (as that term is defined in the Joint Powers Act) of a
municipality, and
WHEREAS, this Council deems it to be advisable for this
municipality to adopt and enter into the Declaration of Trust and
become a Participant of the Fund for the purpose of the joint
investment of this municipality's monies with those of other
municipalities so as to enhance the investment earnings accruing
to each, and
WHEREAS, this Council deems it to be advisable for this
municipality to make use from time to time, in the discretion of
the officials of the municipality identified in Section 2 of the
following Resolution, of the Fixed-Rate Investment Program
available to Participants of the Fund.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. This municipality shall join with other
municipalities (as such term is defined in the Declaration of
Trust) in accordance with the Joint Powers Act by becoming a
Participant of the Fund and adopting and entering into the
Declaration of Trust, which is adopted by reference herein with
the same effect as if it had been set out verbatim in this
Resolution, and a copy of the Declaration of Trust shall be filed
in the minutes of the meeting at which this Resolution was
• adopted. The Mayor and the City Clerk of this Council are hereby
authorized to take such actions and execute any and all such
documents as they may deem necessary and appropriate to
effectuate the entry of this municipality into the Declaration of
Trust and the adoption thereof by this municipality.
_*i11? 2
Section 2. This municipality is hereby authorized to invest
its available monies from time to time and to withdraw such
monies from time to time in accordance with the provisions of the
Declaration of Trust. The following officers and officials of
the municipality and their respective successors in office each
hereby are designated as "Authorized Officials" with full powers
and authority to effectuate the investment and withdrawal of
monies of this municipality from time to time in accordance with
the Declaration of Trust and pursuant to the Fixed-Rate
Investment Service available to Participants of the Fund:
Steven L. Devich Jean Mitchell
City Treasurer Finance Manager
The Clerk shall advise the Fund of any changes in Authorized
Officials in accordance with procedures established by the Fund.
Section 3. The Trustees of the Fund are hereby designated
as having official custody of this municipality's monies which
are invested in accordance with the Declaration of Trust.
Section 4. Authorization is hereby given for members of the
Board of Directors of the League of Minnesota Cities to serve as
Trustees of the Fund pursuant to the provisions of the
Declaration of Trust.
Section 5. State banks, national banks, and thrift
institutions located either within or without the State of
• Minnesota which qualify as depositories under Minnesota law and
are included on a list approved and maintained for such purpose
by the Investment Advisor of the Fund are hereby designated as
depositories of this municipality pursuant to Minnesota Statutes
Section 118.005 and monies of this municipality may be deposited
therein, from time to time in the discretion of the Authorized
Officials, pursuant to the Fixed-Rate Investment Service
available to Participants of the Fund.
It is hereby certified that the City of Richfield duly
adopted this Resolution at a duly convened meeting of the City
Council held on the 13th day of June, 1988, and that such
Resolution is in full force and effect on this date, and that
such Resolution has not been modified, amended, or rescinded
since its adoption.
Steven J. Quam Mayor
ATTEST:
Thomas P. Ferber City Clerk
?y
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Council Letter No. 150
Agenda June 13, 1988
Issue Statement:
Consideration of a Resolution in Support of the Test of a New
Runway Use Plan
Background:
Residents in the City of Richfield have experienced a tremendous
increase in airplane noise since airline deregulation in 1978.
The Operations Committee of the Metropolitan Aircraft Sound
Abatement Council (MASAC) has recommended a test of a new runway
use plan to determine how aircraft noise can be more equitably
distributed around the airport. The Metropolitan Airports
Commission, after public comments on the proposal and responding
to the Environmental Quality Board with an environmental
evaluation in support of the test, has endorsed the MASAC
recommendation and forwarded a request to the FAA for a test of
the runway use plan.
A neighborhood group in St. Paul has filed a lawsuit, challenging
the procedures followed by MAC in making its recommendation and
the possibility does exist that this legal action may delay or
preclude MAC from requesting the runway use test.
• The attached resolution provides that the City of Richfield
request the Federal Aviation Administration to test the runway
use plan as proposed by MASAC for a period of up to 12 months
commencing as soon as practical.
It also requests that MAC and the Minnesota Pollution Control
Agency monitor runway utilization and aircraft noise levels
through the test period. The monitoring program should be
continuous and should include a period before implementation of
the test to establish baseline conditions.
Recommended Motion:
Approve the resolution in support of the test of a new runway use
plan and forward copies of the resolution to the Federal Aviation
Administration and the Metropolitan Airports Commission.
Basis for Recommendation:
1. The new runway use plan would determine how aircraft noise
can be more equitably distributed around the airport.
2. The concept has been endorsed by the Metropolitan Airports
Commission, and the Metropolitan Aircraft Sound Abatement
Council.
3. The communities adjacent to the airport all benefit
economically from the airport, and should equitably share the
noise generated by its activities.
Alternative Recommendation:
?- 1. Not approve the resolution.
Discussion/Decision Mode:
This resolution has been placed on the June 13, 1988 City Council
agenda for Council consideration.
Resp ully submitted,
Jam Prosser
City Manager
JDP/eja
•
•
RESOLUTION IN SUPPORT OF THE
• TEST OF A NEW RUNWAY USE PLAN
WHEREAS, the Minneapolis-St. Paul Airport provides a
significant economic benefit to communities within the
Minneapolis-St. Paul area, and
WHEREAS, Minneapolis-St. Paul Airport is an integral part of
the economies of the Minneapolis-St. Paul area, and
WHEREAS, it is recognized that airport operations create
noise which is especially disruptive of residential areas
adjacent to the airport, and
WHEREAS, the residents of Richfield have experienced a
tremendous increase in airplane noise since airline deregulation
in 1978, and
WHEREAS, the Operations Committee of the Metropolitan
Aircraft Sound Abatement Council (MASAC) has recommended a test
of a new runway use plan to determine how aircraft noise can be
more equitably distributed around the airport, and
WHEREAS, the Metropolitan Airports Commission, after hearing
public comments on the proposal and responding to the
Environmental Quality Board with an environmental evaluation in
support of the test, has endorsed the MASAC recommendation and
• forwarded a request to the FAA for a test of the runway use plan,
and
WHEREAS, a lawsuit by a neighborhood group in St. Paul has
been filed, challenging the procedures followed by the MAC in
making its recommendation and the possibility does exist that
this legal action may delay or preclude MAC from requesting the
runway use test.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the
City of Richfield as follows:
Section 1. That the City of Richfield request the Federal
Aviation Administration to test the runway use plan as proposed
by MASAC for a period of up to 12 months commencing as soon as
practical.
Section 2. The City of Richfield requests that MAC and the
Minnesota Pollution Control Agency monitor runway utilization and
aircraft noise levels through the test period. The monitoring
program should be continuous and should include a period before
implementation of the test to establish baseline conditions.
Section 3. The results of the monitoring effort should be
reported monthly to the MAC Operations and Environment Committee,
. MASAC, and adjacent communities.
Section 4. That a copy of this resolution be forwarded to
the FAA, and the Metropolitan Airports Commission.
Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield this
13th day of June, 1988.
Steven J. Quam Mayor
ATTEST:
Thomas Ferber City Clerk
0
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
• Council Letter No. 149
Agenda June 13, 1988
Issue Statement:
First reading of an ordinance amendment to Section 1, subsection
100.07 to adopt by reference Minnesota Statutes, 1987 supplement
and Laws of Minnesota, 1988.
Background:
The Richfield ordinance code includes, by reference, the
Minnesota Statutes.
The purpose of this ordinance amendment is to adopt the Minnesota
Statutes 1987 supplement and Laws of Minnesota, 1988.
Recommended Motion:
1. Approve first reading of an ordinance amendment to Section 1,
subsection 100.07 to adopt by reference Minnesota Statutes,
1987 supplement and Laws of Minnesota 1988, and schedule
second reading and the public hearing for the June 27, 1988
City Council meeting.
Basis of Recommendation:
1. This action is necessary to incorporate the most current
State statutes and regulations into the Richfield City Code.
• Alternative Recommendation:
1. Not approve first reading.
Discussion/Decision Mode:
First reading has been scheduled for the June 13, 1988 City
Council Meeting.
Respectfully submitted,
JDP:sae
J s D. Prosser
C y Manager
•
•
AN ORDINANCE
RELATING TO THE CITY CODE: STATUTORY
REFERENCES: AMENDING RICHFIELD
CITY CODE, SUBSECTION 100.07
CITY OF RICHFIELD DOES ORDAIN:
Section 1. Richfield City Code, Subsection 100.07 is
amended to read:
100.07. Official statutes, codes, regulations, and
ordinances. References in this code to Minnesota Statutues are
to Minnesota Statutes 1986, Minnesota Statutes, 1987 supplement,
and Laws of Minnesota 1987 1988, unless otherwise provided in
this code. References in this code to rules and regulations of
state agencies, codes, and ordinances of other municipalities
are to those documents in effect on flume ', 1987 July 1, 1988,
unless otherwise provided in this code.
Mayor
•
Attest:
Clerk
00550RO1.F16
0
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Council Letter No-
• Agenda June 13, 1W
Issue Statement:
Public hearing and second reading of an Ordinance Amendment
Relating to Council Salaries
Background:
In June, 1987 Council Members adopted a policy to review Council
salaries. The policy statement provides that in years a
municipal election is to be held, the Council shall establish a
revised pay schedule for Council Members and the Mayor. The
policy also provides that any increase should be based upon the
amount of increase granted to employees in the year subsequent to
the salary adjustment.
At the April 26, 1988 City Council meeting, the City Council
requested that an ordinance amendment increasing Council salaries
by 4% be prepared for consideration at the May 9, 1988 City
Council meeting.
The 4% increase would adjust the Mayor's salary to $7282 per
year, and Council Member salaries to $5652.
The City Council approved first reading of the ordinance on May 9
and scheduled the public hearing for the June 13, 1988 City
Council meeting.
Recommended Motion:
Consider an amendment to Chapter XII Section 12.02 of the
ordinance code increasing the salaries of Council Members from
$5435 to $5652, and the salary of the Mayor from $7002 to $7282.
Basis for Recommendation:
1. The City Charter stipulates that Council Member salaries must
be reviewed each year.
2. The City Charter stipulates that Council Member salaries may
be adjusted only by ordinance.
Alternative Recommendation:
1. Continue the hearing.
2. Not approve the ordinance. Council salaries would then remain
the same for 1989.
3. Amend the ordinance to provide for an increase other than
4%.
• Discussion/Decision Mode:
If the ordinance is approved on second reading, salary increases
would be effective in 1989.
Respectfully submitted,
Jame Prosser
City anager
JDP/eja
•
0
AMENDMENT TO CHAPTER XII SECTION 12.02
• OF THE RICHFIELD ORDINANCE CODE RELATING TO
COMPENSATION OF MAYOR AND COUNCIL MEMBERS
CITY OF RICHFIELD DOES ORDAIN:
Section 12.02 of the Ordinance Code of the City of
Richfield relating to compensation of the Mayor and Council
Members is hereby amended to provide as follows:
Subdivision 1. Annual Salary. The annual salary of
the Mayor is $7002 [7282] and the annual salary for each member
of the Council is $5435 [$5652] to be effective after the next
succeeding municipal election. Salaries of such officers shall
be reviewed by December of each year.
Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield,
Minnesota, this day of , 1988.
Steven J. Quam Mayor
ATTEST:
•
Thomas Ferber City Clerk
0
0
•
a ,D O o 0 o O o o O O O o O U1 U) o
w OD O N O ? O O O - O O O O O N O
ON 00 kD O - 00 ?D %0 ? Ol O r- O't
U O M M M 3? A.; N M Lr LC1 N
z
U
L*. t` O ::1- O O O O O O O O O O O U-) O
O 00 O =:r O O O O O Ln O O O Ln O
CT W M O O N %.D OD M %0 t.0 m N m
r- w w
CG ? ? O =T N.D -T %0 ? Ln M M M Ul Ln N
d
d
co
00 O tD O O O O O O O0 O O O Lr) N O
, j OO o ,Y) O -:3- co c:> O O Lr) O O O t.- Ln O
d m ? O - N O 00 M to 00 m ? ? m
0 ?f ^ ?
z Ln Ln O ?D OO Ln M m U, LIl C
of z
of d
0
0
N O O O O O O o O O O O O O o 0
%.D O O o 00 O O O O O O o Lr) O N O
a O OD ? Y) O ? %10 00 N ?' N Ln I'D 00 ON 00 M
LC1 ' Ln ' V1 LC1 j M Lr ?D M
>-:-4' ZN
Off ? t?
Z 1 L?,
OI O 0 .? O O O O O O co O O O O O O
H 1 >i tom- O =:r O 00 o O O o' %-D O O Ln O N O
d I a OO ? ti o ::I- O O %D to o LP1 00 OD N OD M
e,a d ? w w
0 r7 Ln %D LCl t0 at %?o t- 'D t-- =:r -T Ln tl- M
a. C4 {?
O N
0.1
-1 O 00 0 0 0 0 0 0 00 0 0 O 0 I'D O
x d 00 O O O 00 N O O O t1D O O U(1 O M O
H O 00 M O O ? t-- O O %D O LC1 O co LC1 n M
H z Q\ ?` ?` w
3 z I ?0 t? L(1 ?D O? lD l_: ID Lf1 [? [? M
C4
N
W
H
E-? x
H C7 E-
U Ey z
x O N N N N M N N N N N M N M
C.7
W 0:
? W
a,
co
co J I
C7% H
? U
0
14
z ?O %D O O% N M ? ? O\ U*i N ZT O tl- M
5 t? tD 00 L!1 CTN U1 ? t1o O N - N - N O
O a; O Lfl --J- t` M rn Ln r- O N t-. rn M Ln O
H W U ^ ^
H a. C Ln z; c N Lfl 0 O Ln C^ ^ o
d N M co N Lfl =r =T N N M M --.r N N N
?.7 O
0 oG rn
4-)
O w S-l
a. "3;* tto
L •?
? a)
>, C L > W a)
H r-t O U a. Q) O L L >
H H J.) -4 0 ri cv O
..1 t0 do it C ri L1. m > L
d > sr >, >, •r4 m a) r-I L >, C7
a. a) r-1 > cz t1O tt) a. a) C:
H a) G E ? co m 1) C f0 r-I (1) L
U ri r1 Q O 0 C C 4-) 0 co C C 0 ' N
H C] ca O O O L O +> >, to (1) r-4 >
z o. r-i r4 L L. :3 O O L. m "a O L. O C
0 d Gr1 Cn CU W W U U U W W W EL O H
I
O
I
0
C
0
t
O
O
O
O
N
W
O
`z-.
O
H
H
a
a
0
a
H
H
3
N
W
H
H
H
U
a o o O o lD o O O o o O o
CA OD O O O N t-- O O O O 10 O O
E O*, N ON N O OD N co %0 N M
Z
U
[s. t` O O O O - O O O O O O O
O OD O O =r N O O O O O N O N
m 00 ON O O Q\ co N OD OD t` N •-
fZ M t!1 ? -T to ? ? M =:r M
C4
a
d
00 O O O O - O Lf1 O O O O O
a oo O O ? O O O M O O O O O
cC O\ OD ? O Lfl m _-zr - 00 N N \D
O ?
w
w
z w W Lf1 W :• U•1 Lf1 Lf1 M
z
C
O O O O U1 O O O O O O O
O~ %D O O O N N O O O O O O N
O co O OO O N M k.0 t` O ?• L r) N M
>-4 ON w w
c r- "o ? ?D Lfl I'D %.D lD %1O 111 -• t`
tL
O
O O O O M O O O O O O N
>+ t- O O O N m O O O O O O Lf1
O. co ?D OO N N M \.D t- O N OD N
w
a r- D = t. Lf1 ?D ?D 'D %C r. Z• t,
..A O O O O Lf1 O O O O O O O
d OD O O O O N O O O O tO O O I
O co %D Lf1 N tl- m V) O %D N N OO r
z ON w •-
z - lD Lf1 t` Lf1 ID r. tl- tD t: Lf1 t- z 1
Q
C7 H
E~ Z
? O
U
W o~
O: W
Cl.
co
co a
Q1 H
U
z
z a
O=O
H W U
E-+ a
a O
O ?
a H
o W
o. ?
N N =r N N M N N N N N
ON tl- Ln ? L11 ? OO OJ M M _-:r
? N N N 00 M N O I'D tl- M 01
-r O1% O M tl- OD OD ?-O M ? ? CN
M OO M M N M ID .? M M O N
M N -T N N _-:r M M ZT N N N
m
1 cu a
>-+ a? o a a
H > m .N i.
H O 'o .? .c a N m 3 co
a 1. O C h0 O ? .-I r+ D a)
-:4 0 O O ? a 4-) [U -4 C/) CO
H I a? a) a) m ]C o 4+ > 0 ?c 0
U H D $ N 1» 1-) N
H I C2 CL C 3 3 >. U rn • O D r1
z m m •r4 N a) r•-1 ri O .L O ?
OI E M: X: z z a c? C[ CO v) v] 3
• CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Council Letter No. 147
Agenda June 13, 1988
Issue Statement:
Consideration of: (1) Second reading of an amendment to the cable
franchise ordinance for the purpose of transferring the franchise
to a new Grantee (name change), (2) A resolution giving final
approval to a transfer of the City's cable television franchise,
(3) Acceptance of a franchise for a cable television system and
(4) Agreement of Joint and Several Liability.
Background:
Rogers Cablesystems recently purchased the interest of all of the
limited partners. As a result of this transaction, the Grantee
in the franchise will change.
Under the franchise ordinance, this transfer must be approved by
each city, and the franchise ordinance amended to show the new
entity as the Grantee.
The proposed Grantee has advised the City that there will not be
any change in controlling interest and the proposed change is for
the purpose of permitting the dissolution of the existing Grantee
which is no longer necessary inasmuch as all limited partners
therein no longer exist.
• The transfer is not connected with the recent advertised sale of
the cable company.
The documents that are enclosed include:
1. Ordinance Amendment. This ordinance amendment will amend
the existing franchise to change the definition of Grantee
to Rogers Cablesystems of the Southwest, Inc. which is, and
has been, the general partner of the existing Grantee.
2. Resolution. A resolution giving final approval to a
transfer of the City's cable television franchise. The
resolution outlines the background of the transfer and the
findings of the City Council. Further, it consents to the
transfer and authorizes the Acceptance Agreement and the
Joint and Several Liability Agreement.
3. Acceptance Aareement and Joint and Several Liabilit
Agreement. Both of these documents are in accord with
the agreements prepared in joint meetings with the City
Attorneys' for the five (5) Southwest cities several years
ago in dealing with other franchise amendments. The process
was agreed upon with respect to what was required in the
case of amendments to the franchise. The same documents had
been used in the past and are updated to reflect the
necessary changes because of the new designated Grantee under
the franchise.
• At the May 9, 1988 City Council meeting the City Council gave
first reading to this ordinance amendment and scheduled the
public hearing for June 13, 1988.
Recommended Motion:
1. Approve an amendment to Section 1, paragraph J of the
franchise ordinance amending the "Grantee" from Rogers
Cablesystems of Minnesota Limited Partnership to Rogers
Cablesystems of Minnesota, Inc.
2. Approve a resolution giving final approval to a transfer of
the City's cable television franchise.
3. Approve the acceptance of a franchise for a cable television
system and Agreement of Joint and Several Liability.
Basis for Recommendation:
1. Under the franchise ordinance, and state law, a transfer of
Grantee necessitates an amendment to the franchise ordinance.
2. An amendment to the franchise ordinance also necessitates
approval of the resolution, Joint & Several Liability
Agreement and acceptance of a Franchise.
• Alternative Recommendation:
1. Do not approve second reading. However, approval of these
documents by each of the five cities that comprise the
Southwest Suburban Cable Commission is necessary to
effectuate the name change.
Discussion/Decision Mode:
The ordinance amendment would become effective 30 days after
publication in the official City newspaper.
Respectfully submitted,
Jame D. Prosser
City Manager
JDP/e j a
is
ORDINANCE NO.
•
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING ORDINANCE NO.
TO CHANGE THE NAME OF GRANTEE.
THE CITY OF
ORDAIN:
, MINNESOTA DOES
SECTION 1. That Article I, Section 2, Paragraph J of said
Ordinance be amended to read as follows:
J. "Grantee" is For-cab? esy?ms-a 2fn?resata-bm
FarbneraYrp--arrs?ta-??mi*d-partner?bp--? Rogers
Cablesystems of Minnesota, Inc., a Minnesota corporation_ ,--a9
t?:: e -Gez?ra? -Parbr???-
SECTION 2. This Ordinance will be effective in accordance
with the provisions of Article XIV of said Ordinance, including
delivery to the City of the acceptance, opinion of legal counsel,
guarantees and other documents as required by said Article XIV,
and provided further, however, that it shall become effective
only if all of the cities of Eden Prairie, Edina, Hopkins,
Minnetonka and Richfield adopt an ordinance similar to this
ordinance within ninety (90) days after the adoption of this
ordinance.
•
1988.
. MINNESOTA
Its
SECTION 3. Subject to the provisions of Section 2 hereof,
this ordinance shall be in full force and effect upon 'adoption
and publication.
Passed and adopted this day of
CITY OF
By
Its
And
c:
RESOLUTION
RESOLUTION GIVING FINAL APPROVAL
TO A TRANSFER OF THE CITY'S CABLE
TELEVISION FRANCHISE
WHEREAS, the City of , Minnesota,
("City") has granted a cable television franchise (the
"Franchise") to Rogers Cablesystems of Minnesota Limited
Partnership ("RCMLP") pursuant to City's cable communications
ordinance (the "Franchise Ordinance"); and
-* - --3
WHEREAS, Rogers Cablesystems of the Southwest, Inc.
("RCTSI") is the sole general partner of RCMLP and is a'wholly-
owned subsidiary of Rogers U.S. Cablesystems, Inc. ("RUSCI"),
which is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Rogers Cablesystems of
America, Inc. ("RCA") (Collectively called herein the "Rogers
Companies"); and
WHEREAS, the Rogers Companies have acquired all the limited
partnership interests in RCMLP; and
n
U
WHEREAS, there is no need for RCMLP to operate the Franchise
now that the Rogers Companies has acquired all the limited
partnership interests in RCMLP; and
WHEREAS, the Rogers Companies seeks to dissolve the RCMLP`
limited partnership and transfer the Franchise to the general
partner, RCTSI; and
WHEREAS, the proposed transfer will not cause a change in
the controlling interest in, or a change in the operation of, the
Franchise, because RCTSI is the general partner of RCMLP; and
WHEREAS, the proposed transfer has been reviewed and
discussed by the Operating Committee of the Southwest Suburban
Cable Commission ("SWSCC") which has forwarded the proposed
transfer to the City with a recommendation for approval; and
WHEREAS, it appear that the proposed transfer will be in the
general public interest and will not adversely affect subscribers
to the City's cable system.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED:
A. The City hereby consents to and approves the transfer
of the Franchise from RCMLP to RCTSI and the dissolution of
RCMLP; such consent and approval is conditioned on the filing by
RCTSI of a written Acceptance Agreement ("Acceptance") in a form
and substance acceptable to the City and containing the
requirements set forth in Article XIV, Section 2 and Article XII,
0 1
Section 1 of the Franchise ordinance whereby RCTSI agrees to
assume, perform, and discharge those obligations and duties of
RCMLP in the Franchise Ordinance, such Acceptance to be filed
with the City within days of the passage of this
Resolution.
B. The City declares as of the time of this Resolution
that the Franchise and all agreements entered into by RCMLP are
deemed in full force and effect and will remain unchanged by the
transfer, except that RCTSI will replace and be responsible as
the successor in interest to all obligations and rights held
formerly by RCMLP.
C. The City notes that Section 6, subdivision 2, of the
1985 Relief Ordinance provides for automatic termination of the
relief therein, (among other reasons), when the Grantee collects
one hundred million dollars ($100,000,000) as measured from
September 1, 1984, in gross revenue, or the relief terminates
March 1, 1992, whichever is earlier. The City intends that the
Relief Ordinance will terminate pursuant to these provisions only
if gross revenues exceed one hundred million dollars
($100,000,000), respective of revenues received from all other
franchises held, owned, or operated by RCTSI.
Passed and adopted this
by the City of
• DATED:
_ day of
CITY OF:
By:
Its:
ATTEST:
City Clerk
1988,
2
4.111-13-
E
ACCEPTANCE OF A FRANCHISE FOR A
CABLE TELEVISION SYSTEM
WHEREAS, the City of
municipal corporation (the "City"), by action
body on , adopted a Cable
Franchise ordinance ( the "Franchise"), which
the ordinance books of the City as Ordinance N
originally, granted to Minnesota Cablesystems
Minnesota Limited Partnership, with Minnesota
a Minnesota corporation, as General Partner, a
franchise to contract, operate and maintain a
communications system (the "System") within th
, a Minnesota
of its governing
communications
is now recorded
o. , and
in
- Southwest, a
Cablesystems, Inc.,
non-exclusive
cable
e City; and
WHEREAS, the City has amended the Franchise by Ordinance
Nos. and , adopted on ,
and , respectively (together
called the "Amendments"); and
WHEREAS, by the Amendment dated May 22, 1985, the name of
the original grantee of the Franchise was changed to Rogers
Cablesystems of Minnesota Limited Partnership, a Minnesota
limited partnership, with Rogers Cablesystems of Minnesota, Inc.,
a Minnesota corporation, as the General Partner and is not
renamed Rogers Cablesystems of the Southwest, Inc.; and
WHEREAS, by Resolution dated , 1988 the
• City consented to and approved the transfer of the Franchise from
Rogers Cablesystems of Minnesota, a Minnesota limited
partnership, to the general partner of that partnership, Rogers
Cablesystems of the Southwest, Inc. (hereinafter referred to as
the Grantee," including those instances where it is acting as the
successor in interest to the rights and obligations of the
original grantee); and
WHEREAS, by the Amendment dated May 22, 1985, Section 2
provided in part that the term of the franchise would be extended
by four years to December 31, 1999, upon satisfactory refinancing
of Existing Indebtedness; and
WHEREAS, Grantee has refinanced its Existing Indebtedness,
and City, through the Southwest Suburban Cable Commission,
"SWSCC", has filed with the Minnesota Commerce Department in
compliance with Minnesota law and the City and Grantee have in
all respects completed the requirements for extension of the term
of the franchise; and
WHEREAS, the City by action of its governing body
on , adopted Ordinance No. (the "Relief
Ordinance"), and granted certain temporary relief to Grantee from
some of the financial and programming obligation imposed on
Grantee by the Franchise, as amended by the Amendments; and
• 1
r
WHEREAS, City has additionally entered into an Agreement
with the Grantee, dated , which incorporated
a contract for Local Programming Facilities as Exhibit A, and a
contract for Public, Educational, and Government Access Services
as,Exhibit B, (together referred to as the "Performance
Agreement"); and
WHEREAS, the City by action of its governing body on
, adopted a Resolution, a copy of which is attached
(hereinafter "Resolution"), which approved the transfer of the
Franchise from Rogers Cablesystems of Minnesota Limited
Partnership, a Minnesota limited partnership to Grantee; and
WHEREAS, Grantee has completed a reorganization of its
corporate structure which necessitates acceptance of the
franchise and other °obligations, including the extension of the
franchise term, by the appropriate parties; and
WHEREAS, the Resolution requires that the Franchise by
accepted in writing by Grantee in form and substance acceptable
to Cites and the Franchise requirement at Article XII, Section 1,
and further that Grantee in acceptance of Franchise, comply with
the requirements of Article XIV, Section 2.
NOW, THEREFORE, pursuant to the terms and requirements of
the Resolution and Franchise, and in consideration of the
approval of the transfer, Grantee does hereby accept the
Franchise and make the following representations and warranties
to the Cities:
1. Grantee agrees to be bound by the Franchise, as amended
by the Amendments, the Offering (as defined in the Franchise),
and the Relief Ordinance, and to timely and fully perform and
fulfill the terms, provisions and conditions of the Franchise, as
so amended, the offering, and the Relief Ordinance, to be
performed and fulfilled by it, and the Performance Agreement, and
to be bound by the Franchise for the System through December 31,
1999.
2. Grantee agrees to provide, and warrants and represents
that it is able to provide, all services and offerings set forth
in the Franchise, as so amended, in the offering, and in the
Relief Ordinance, and agrees to be bound by and to timely and
fully perform and fulfill all of the agreement, provisions,
promises, offers, representations and inducements contained in
the Franchise, as so amended, the Offering, Performance Agreement
and the Relief Ordinance. The Offering is hereby incorporated
into this Acceptance in full.
3. Grantee agrees that it is and shall be subject to the
regulatory authority of the City as set out in the Franchise, as
now amended, and as the Franchise may, from time to time,
2
G- ?
hereinafter by supplemented or amended.
4. Grantee understands and agrees that the Offering is
specifically set out in the Franchise only in part, and that the
whole of the Offering is incorporated in the Franchise by
reference. Therefore, Grantee agrees that city may, at any time
and from time to time, amend the Franchise by the sole act of the
City, and without acceptance or agreement by Grantee, to include
in the Franchise, effective as of the date of commencement of the
Franchise term, any one or more specific provisions of the
offering not then specifically in the Franchise.
5. No legislation or regulation passed by any legislative
body or administrative agency subsequent to the grant of the
Franchise, as so amended, or of the Relief Ordinance, shall
relieve Grantee of any obligations under the Franchise, as so
amended, or the offering, or the Relief Ordinance, or the duty of
complying, in all respects, with the terms and conditions of the
Franchise, as so amended, the offering, and of the Relief
Ordinance. Also, Grantee agrees that it will not seek to have
any legislative or administrative body, other than the City,
preempt or otherwise modify the terms of the Franchise, as so
amended, or of the Relief Ordinance. However, this provision
shall not be construed to deny Grantee the right to participate
in federal, or state , legislative or administrative rule making
procedures considering the adoption of legislation of rules of
general application.
• 6. Grantee agrees to cooperate fully with the City in
obtaining from any governmental agency all licenses, permit, and
other authority, necessary for the construction, operation and
maintenance of the System pursuant to the Franchise, as now or
hereafter amended.
7. Grantee represents, warrants and guarantees that
neither it, nor its representatives or agents, have committed any
illegal acts, or engaged in any wrongful conduct, contrary to or
in violation of, any federal, state or local law or regulation in
connection with operation of the System, or the obtaining of any
of the Amendments or of the Relief Ordinance.
8. Grantee further warrants and represents as follows:
A. That it is lawfully incorporated under the laws of
Minnesota, and has full right and authority to enter into and
fully perform the Franchise, as so amended, the offering, the
Relief Ordinance, and this Acceptance; that all corporate action
required to authorize the execution and delivery of this
Franchise, as amended, the Relief Ordinance, and this Acceptance,
and all other documents to be executed and/or delivered by
Grantee pursuant to the Franchise, as so amended, the Relief
Ordinance, and this Acceptance, and to authorize the performance
3
by Grantee of all of its obligation under the Franchise, as so
amended, the offering, the Relief Ordinance, and this
• Acceptance, and all such other document to be executed and/or
delivered by Grantee, have been validly and duly taken and are in
force and effect; and that the Franchise, as so amended, the
Relief Ordinance, this Acceptance, and all such other documents
executed and/or delivered by Grantee, have been duly executed and
delivered by Grantee and the terms of each thereof are fully
binding upon and enforceable against Grantee;
B. That Grantee has the
to commence, complete, operate
to the terms of the Franchise,
Ordinance;
fiscal and construction capability
and maintain the System pursuant
as so amended, and the Relief
C. That Grantee is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Rogers
U.S. Cablesystems, Inc. ("RUSCI") (Rogers American Cable
Corporation, a Delaware corporation "RACC" was merged with RUSCI
May 13, 1987), a Delaware corporation, which is a wholly-owned
subsidiary of Rogers Cablesystems of America, Inc.- ("RCA"), a
Delaware corporation, and that RCA is principally owned by Rogers
Cablesystems International B.V., a Netherlands corporation, which
is a subsidiary of Rogers Communications, Inc. ("RCI"), a
Canadian corporation, which was formerly known as Rogers
Cablesystems, Inc. and Canadian Cablesystems, Limited; and
D. City understands that it shall have the right to hold
RCA, RUSCI and RCI each jointly and severally liable for the full
performance of all of the obligations of Grantee under the
Franchise as extended to December 31, 1999, the Relief Ordinance,
the Performance Agreement and this Acceptance and with the
further understanding that RCA and RUSCI have committed its
resources and credit, as available, from time to time to ensure
the operating viability of Grantee. RCA, RUSCI and RCI will each
have the identical obligation of Grantee under the Franchise
extended through December 31, 1999, the Relief Ordinance, the
Performance Agreement and this Acceptance, neither more nor less.
E. That Grantee is authorized to do business in Minnesota,
and is in good standing in Minnesota.
9. Grantee has agreed, by this acceptance, to the fees,
rates, rate change procedures and standards for review of rates
and rate changes, in the Franchise, as so amended, and in the
Relief Ordinance, to the extent not inconsistent with the Cable
Communications Policy Act of 1984. Also, Grantee agrees that the
City can use and consider in evaluating any rate change, among
other things, the tax benefits received by Grantee, its
shareholders, and others, as a result of investments in the
System, and the cash flow derived from the System.
10. Grantee further agrees to hold the City and SWSCC and
their respective officers, agents, employees and representatives,
• harmless from and indemnified against andy and all loss, cost,
damage and expense, including, without limitation, attorneys'
fees, now or hereafter incurred by them, or either of them,or
their respective officers, agents, employees or representatives,
and arising out of or due to, or claimed to arise out of or be
due to, the grant of the Franchise, as so amended, or the Relief
Ordinance to Grantee or the process followed by City and SWSCC in
granting the Franchise, the Amendments, or the Relief Ordinance.
11. Grantee agrees that all agreements, representations and
warranties set forth herein, in the Franchise, as so amended, in
the Offering, or in the Relief Ordinance, shall be binding upon
it and its successors and assigns, and shall inure to the benefit
of the City and its successorsand assigns.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, Grantee has caused this Acceptance to be
duly executed and delivered this day of ,
1988.
DATED: ROGERS CABLESYSTEMS OF THE
SOUTHWEST, INC., a Minnesota
corporation
0
By:
Its:
And:
Its:
0 5
z -/o
AGREEMENT
•
The City of
OF
("City"), and Rogers
Cablesystems of America, Inc. ("RCA"), a Delaware corporation,
and Rogers Communications, Inc., a Delaware corporation ("RUSCI")
in consideration of the original grant of the Franchise (below
defined) by the City of Rogers Cablesystems of Minnesota Limited
Partnership, a Minnesota limited partnership ("RCMLP"), and the
duly approved transfer of the franchise from RCMLP to its general
partner, Rogers Cablesystems of the Southwest, Inc. (referred to
hereinafter as the "Grantee" including those instances where it
is acting as the successor in interest to the rights and
• obligations of the original grantee, RCMLP) and of the adoption
of the Relief Ordinance (below defined), and the approval of
Grantee refinancing plan and extension of the term of the
Franchise (below defined), agree as follows:
1. This Agreement supersedes that certain Agreement of
Joint and Several Liability entered into by and between the City,
RCA, Rogers Cablesystems, Inc. ("Canadian"), and Rogers American
Cable Corporation ("RACC") and dated July 11, 1985 and that
certain Agreement of Joint and Several Liability entered into by
and between the City, RCA, RCI, and RUSCI and dated January 19,
1988.
JOINT AND SEVERAL LIABILITY
is 1
2. It is understood and agreed that the city originally
• awarded a nonexclusive cable communications franchise to RCMLP
pursuant to the Cable Communications Franchise Ordinance,
Ordinance No. , as amended by Ordinance Nos.
and (the initial franchise, as so amended,
is herein called the "Franchise"), and has consented to and
approved of the transfer of the Franchise from RCMLP to RCTSI by
Resolution No. , dated , 1988. The City
has granted certain relief to Grantee from some of its
obligations under the Franchise by a duly adopted Ordinance No. _
(the "Relief Ordinance"), has adopted a Resolution, dated
approving the refinancing plan of Grantee
and a transfer in the controlling interest of Grantee, and the
City and Grantee have done all things required under Minnesota
• law to extend the duration of the Franchise to December 31, 1999,
and the City has received as Acceptance (Of Franchise For a Cable
Communications System (including the extension of the Franchise
term) and Amendments thereto, the Performance Agreement and of
the Relief Ordinance) signed and delivered by Grantee (the
"Acceptance"), with the understanding that the City will have the
right to hold RCA, RUSCI, and RCI each jointly and severally
liable for the full performance of all obligation of Grantee
under the Franchise as extended to December 31, 1999, the Relief
Ordinance, the Performance Agreement and the Acceptance, and with
the further understanding that RCA and RUSCI have committed their
resources and credit, as available, from time to time to ensure
0 2
/- /t-
the operating viability of Grantee. RCA, RUSCI and RCI will each
. have the identical obligation of Grantee under the Franchise'
through December 31, 1999, the Relief Ordinance, the Performance
Agreement and Acceptance, neither more nor less. (The Franchise,
Relief Ordinance, Performance Agreement and Acceptance are herein
together called the "Franchise Documents.")
3. It is understood and agreed that the City has the right
to enforce any obligation, agreement, warranty, representation,
penalty or performance under the Franchise Documents, or any one,
or more, of them, against either RCA, RUSCI or RCI, or all of
them, without the requirement that the City follow.or use any
different, or additional procedures, as to RCA, RUSCI or RCI than
the City would as to Grantee. Notice to Grantee shall
constitute notice to RCA, RUSCI and RCI. Commencement of any
. enforcement procedure against Grantee shall constitute
commencement of any enforcement procedure as to RCA, RUSCI and
RCI.
4. It is intended that this not constitute a guaranty
agreement, but rather an agrement of joint and several liability
of RCA, RUSCI and RCI to perform each, and all, of the
obligations, agreements, representations and warranties of
Grantee set forth in the Franchise Documents, or any of them, to
pay all claims, judgments and debts of Grantee arising in
connection with the Franchise Documents, or any one, or more, of
them, and to perform all offers, representations, promises and
inducements set forth in the Offering of Grantee (as defined in
? 0
'?/' -13
the Franchise).
• 5. This Agreement is absolute and complete, it shall be
continuing and shall not be revocable. No notice of any
indebtedness, obligation or undertaking heretofore or hereafter
contracted or acquired by Grantee relating to the FRanchise
Documents, or any one, or more, of them, need be given to RCA,
RUSCI or RCI.
6. RCA, RUSCI and RCI agree that (i) the City need not use
due diligence, or effort of any nature whatsoever, to compel
performance by Grantee of any of its obligations under the
Franchise Documents, or any one, or more, of them, or to collect
any amounts from any security held by, or for the benefit of, the
City or to realize any amounts on said security, but may require
performance or payment of such obligations directly by RCA, RUSCI.
and RCI, or any of them; (ii) that misfeasance or nonfeasance or
the part of the City in enforcing or not enforcing the
obligations of Grantee under the Franchise Documents, or any one,
or more, of them, or in seeking or not seeking to realize on any
security held by, or for the benefit of, the City, shall not
defer the respective obligations of RCA, RUSCI or RCI, under this
Agreement, or negate, or detract from, any of the obligations of
RCA, RUSCI and RCI under this Agreement; and (iii) RCA, RUSCI and
RCI's obligations under this Agreement shall not be affected by
the City obtaining additional security, or guarantees, or other
agreement similar to this Agreement, or releasing, with or
without consideration, any such additional security, guarantees
/v - /-,Oz
or agreements, relating to performance by Grantee of its
0 obligations under the Franchise Documents, or any one, or more,
of them.
7. RCA, RUSCI and RCI hereby consent to the Franchise
Documents, the Offering of Grantee (as defined in the
Franchise), and all other documents executed and/or delivered by
Grantee in connection with the Franchise Documents (including,
without limitation, the letter of credit and bond now or
hereafter given pursuant to the Franchise), being supplemented,
amended, renewed, or extended, with or without notice to RCA,
RUSCI or RCI. RCA, RUSCI and RCI also agree that they will
remain unconditionally bound to perform the obligations and
agreement of Grantee under the Franchise Documents, Offering of
Grantee, and all such other document, including said letter of
• credit and bond, as so supplemented, amended, renewed or
extended.
8. RCA, RUSCI and RCI will pay to the City all costs,
including, without limitation, attorneys' fees, suffered or
incurred by the City in enforcing the City's rights under this
Agreement, whether suit be brought or not.
9. This Agreement will be governed, interpreted and
enforced pursuant to the laws of the State and Federal Courts in
Minnesota in connection with all matters arising under the
Franchise Documents or any one, or more, of them.
10. Any right or remedy hereby granted the City in this
Agreement which shall be found to be unenforceable for any reason
shall be severable, and the other rights and remedies may
continue to be enforced. All rights and remedies of the City
shall be separate and cumulative, and the exercise of one shall
not limit or prejudice the exercise of any other remedy at the
same or a later time. Failure of the City to exercise any right
or remedy that it possesses shall not be deemed a waiver of that,
or any other, right or remedy.
11. This Agreement shall be binding on RCA, RUSCI and RCI,
and the respective successors and assigns of RCA, RUSCI or RCI,
and shall inure to the benefit of the City and the successors or
assigns of the City.
12. Possession of this Agreement by the City shall be
conclusive evidence of delivery thereof by RCA, RUSCI and RCI to
the City.
13. The Franchise and Relief Ordinance shall not be
effective unless this Agreement is made and delivered to the
city.
14. RCA, RUSCI and RCI warrant and represent that Rogers
Cablesystems of the Southwest, Inc., a Minnesota corporation, is
a wholly-owned subsidiary of RUSCI and RUSCI is a wholly-owned
subsidiary of RCA, and that RCA is a principally owned company of
Rogers Cablesystems International B.V. a Netherlands corporation,
a wholly-owned subsidiary of RCI, and, therefore, the grant of
0 6
f
•
the Franchise to Grantee is for the benefit of, and in the best
interests of RCA, RUSCI and RCI.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned have caused these
presents to be duly executed this day of It
1988.
CITY OF:
By:
I•
Its Mayor
? 0
ROGERS CABLESYSTEMS OF AMERICA, INC.
By
Its
ROGERS COMMUNICATIONS, INC.
By
Its
ROGERS U.S. CABLESYSTEMS, INC.
By
Its
•
r
8
STATE OF MINNESOTA)
ss
• COUNTY OF HENNEPIN
The foregoing instrument was subscribed and sworn to before me
this day of 19_, by ,
the Mayor of the CITY OF a Minnesota municipal
corporation, on behalf of said corporation.
Notary Public
STATE OF MINNESOTA)
ss
COUNTY OF HENNEPIN
The foregoing instrument was subscribed-and -sworn-to-before me
,
this day of 19 by
the City Manager of the CITY OF a Minnesota
municipal corporation, on behalf of said corporation.
Notary Public
STATE OF MINNESOTA)
ss
COUNTY OF HENNEPIN
The foregoing instrument was subscribed and sworn.to before me
this day of , 19 by ,
the of ROGERS CABLESYSTEMS OF AMERICA, INC., a
Delaware corporation, on behalf of said corporation.
Notary Public
0
STATE OF MINNESOTA)
ss
COUNTY OF HENNEPIN
• The foregoing instrument was subscribed and sworn to before me
this day of 19 , by
the of ROGERS COt01UN I CATIONS, INC., a Canadian
corporation, on behalf of said corporation.
Notary Public
STATE OF MINNESOTA)
ss
COUNTY OF HENNEPIN
The foregoing instrument was subscribed __and sworn.-.to-:.before me
this day of 19 by
the of Rogers U.S. _Cablesyst_ ems, Inc.,. -a Delaware
corporation, on behalf of said corporation. - -
Notary Public
• 4636j
.4
`d
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Council Letter No. 146
June 13, 1988 Agenda
Issue Statement:
Public hearing on a request for an amendment to the conditional
use permit at 6528-32 16th Avenue (Mount Calvary Lutheran Church)
Background:
Hines & Sons, Inc., property owner at 6528-32 16th Avenue, has
requested an amendment to the existing conditional use permit to
waive a stipulation that requires the installation of a fence on
the north side of the property.
On September 14, 1987, the City Council approved a conditional
use permit, with four special conditions, to allow the
construction of a three-story fourteen-unit apartment building
for the elderly, attached to the existing Mount Calvary Lutheran
Church building. A copy of the conditional use permit with the
stipulations is provided in Attachment 1.
Recommended Motion:
Approve the amendment provided that the property owner, and his
successors in interest, agree to install a fence on the north
side as originally stipulated if such abutting property owner
requests it at any time in the future.
Basis of Recommendation:
1. The abutting property owner to the north agrees with the
amendment.
2. No other alternative means of screening the single family use
to the north is available.
Alternative Recommendation:
Deny the amendment to the conditional use permit on the basis
that the three story structure should be screened by the fence
from the single family use within the block.
Decision Mode:
The public hearing before the City Council is scheduled in the
Council Chambers of Richfield City Hall at 7:00 PM on Monday,
June 13, 1988 Appropriate notices have been mailed to the
property owners. Legal notice of the council hearing was also
published.
Respe fully submitted,
Jame Prosser
City anager
JDP:eja
0
? o
e i ' ? • w ? F, w wo
i? ' y y ? • it : ? ? - - s s s s s ? s i
. ti M j 1_ y ... yNi y 1 H - M 1 i y H 1 ' M
H
IFASMlU:N Q=? .? -.? • - t-?r?T?+ •`1r'"'• ?T•'
x[RxEi avE.
VINCENT
ji 11.1 n'
UPTON 1 - I .. ?- i .. _ ...?
VINCENT
THOMAS IL_-?_? =:i UPTON
SMERIDaM =1 T040WAS
:uss[u 14 :I---jam r==J? _'' Clf• -- ,? SM[R IOaN
QUEEN
t T' ?• :^ RUSSELL
PENN AVE. -ti 4;
QUEEN
OLIVE: !I..
!,• (;-_- T -- 1i, .-?i.?•r-- ?.??,. PENN AVE.
NEIRTON f'^, ..---.fir--^--__`??`?_?L__ -:I•
v--•. t?? II i4r?li; OLIVER
MORGAN CWTOM
LOG
• , ,, ?. ,? :=- ,f'---1L1;P?' ice= j ?? T MORGAN
LOGAN
JAMES n _ -- ox
IRVING • ` `n /?.1! ?l ,?-'-? ?..L?_;: 11 --.=' ?I..?? JF..?:f RN
• -_--`` • :jam _??I .: -?j???_??? ! JAYCS
NuG•RARD ??•?'?--?`'>Z?\AR`[•1-?;?1 ?1 i --i ?..? I:VINQ
="--? •?' ` HUMBOLDT
Gistasto
EMERSON •?__-e
DUPONT
ll ?? 1? r C ?- ?` [ EMERSON
COLFAX
DUPONT
SAVANT It
COLFAX
ALDRICH
LTNDAL[ AVE.
'If ALDnICM
GARFIELD 1•jj? ::
S__ ?? I i!' t•\\\` Ir[ LTrDALE AVE r
NAARJET IF
A-1-71 GARFIELD O
GRA I - --
, c:aro
VILL. BLOOMINGTON
r - - -; -_C -? n [.s.MT D
I fit Pussuary
MCNTWORTN -
r' .11 BLAISDELL
O
rtCOLLCT AV
/r) ' =-
?• 1 1; ,• STEVENS
== s.x D
I` ? -•---r CLINTON '
ZZ)
11
16TH. AVE. S. sob
PORTLAND AVE
`? •? Lj J OAALAIIO
C? 1? !li IaR:
CHI
COLUMSM
ELL 1r--. :! CHICAGO
101•
L i ---J z .1
CLUOT
isft ! 1 10 ,.
12 to
Isl. V ' .-??? !-?.^i :`J"i 7?;?_.I•,?! Iz t.
siDDWNGTON F --- -?-? . ?• IL??J 11 t!1•
IG I• '??' ?I ??•' ?I I? I• ': ,r-•^ 11111DOMINGTON
171• ? -_._"?-!. ??
sob
CEDAR AVE 4;
LONGFELLPT _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ • ?J -.
CEDAR AVE.
LONGFELLOW
lot&
i z CL?L _ ?L. 20,a
Zoo.
?L?
! 2 m ` I?(-??J STANOISN
Site Plan
6528-6532 16TH AVENUE SOUTH
JWJ
K J
W < PROPOSED FENCE
12' - -*--
o
..? ?, 9,
t
LIGHTS
&1 91
L
0
S
F
O
W
> O
20'
4TH AVE S
-7-
0
D
If fffffff;
i##EEEffEfE ,
ffffifiIf
rn
I
Fttttttttt I ffl B O)
f € °'
f It
tf, f# ll
Ml"
t;if1
c€ ff?F ?? •
•?? cn
.. I
. z
.i f?fftf?
?
c i?
if €
€
,f?EE
f
E
r
f
i
; is }
E
(STATI
1'
I I I I I ? ? ?
ED Ej M
o z Z N
-v m m o
O m : z
0 r a Z
M r r
0
p D
-1 C K
m co K
m
D n
r D --a
r _
II
II
17TH AVE S --LIM
z ???
18TH AVF c
BLOOMINGTON AVF q
15TH AVE S
' CEDAR
IT, I 7illl
AVE 5
J U -? ll-J ? L!
14TH AVE S
0
rn
z
0
cn
15TH AVE S
BLOOMINGTON AVE S
rn
rn
z
i
'a A 0 D
70
c:
0
o
CD M
O
T
CD
M
m
c o m-
v
_
CD W D ?
r
n
m
r
D
v
CD
m
17TH AVE S
18TH AVE S
11111111111 11111111111 11111111111 11111111111 11111111111 111111111111
111111111111 (11i1 11111 11111111111 11111111/ 111111111111 1111111111111
1111.11111111 11111111111 11111111111 11111111111 11111111111 1111111111111
111111111111 11111111111 11111111111 11111111111 111111111 1 111111 1111,
A
rn
CEDAR AVE S (STATE
;V:Y~-x
..........
E: EIf E ?:::•.
,t
£ ff:f 'f:tE.ff
fc fE% f .%t.c.
€E?FE€ €t
?• .t,ttll{
i"'ij;
Ei€sE`{fEiE'ctI'€ v?
Liijtt,€c %
?t 't? t
?i Efft:?f{E €??
f tt
{
f ::tfs"E f f t,'
,
t ;ft:f I t ?
it
i€f
{• tttt ? if f E?? EE Eff
ft EEf :{f
€I €?€pit
t:f 'itt fIf!
,r
b
ffff f ' f
? € EffE€
€€€l € € f
fY?f,EEf? fE
EfffEEfEEfff
ffffff fff t
i;;t?f?fi?Ef
ffmiff
ftf ? "fffff
+ i
I !
i i
1 I
BL 001M. INGTON
I !
t?tt'titt?'
i cf>f:t: f ? I
?It,:,:tffl ? i
i
:t.Etc
,,`.ftElt
chi€EiE????
;EEf?Eif`?' I
1 ,
i
i
i
a
z
x v)
m --?
c ?
r c
a --I
z O
z
c D
? r
m
CEDAR
K
v
c
K
0
m
cn
m
x
0
cl)
m
0
_W
m
?!illll
17TH AVE S
AVE S
f
:?:
..ti.: :. .
O
m
m
z
_c/)
m
m
m
r-
0
Z
--q
f
Z
,
E
Uiltl?I'!?
167H. AVE. S
101H AVF c,-
ATTACHMENT 1
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
PERMIT FOR:
Offstreet Parking Permit Apartment Use Permit
X Conditional Use Permit Rezoning
Variance Adjustments and Appeals
PUD Plan Final Development Plan
Other:
TO: Hines and Sons, Inc.
1520 East 66th Street
Richfield, MN 55423
You are hereby notified that your application dated July 15, 1987=
to allow the construction of a three story fourteen unit
apartment building for the elderly attached to the existing Mount,
Calvary Lutheran Church building has been APPROVED.
SPECIAL CONDITIONS:
1. That the placement and design of the fence on the north side
of the property be approved by city staff.
2. That the width of the curb cut be the maximum width
available.
3. That a drainage plan be submitted for staff approval.
4. That the landscaping plan be approved by city staff.
/ (APPROVED) )DENIED) by the City Council on September 14, 1987
By City Plann r
Date: 011(Q V)
Original to Applicant
1 copy Inspector
1 copy City Engineer
•
•
Hines & Sons, Inc.
1520 E. 66TH ST. SUITE 3 RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA 55423
4/29/88 PHONE 866-3212
City Planner C/O
City of Richfield
Richfield,Mn 55423
RE: Apartment Building Located at 6532 16th Ave
We are proposing to delete the fence on the north side of our property
& only have the fence on the southwest corner of our property,
from the corner of the garage upto the alley.
In our conversations Mr Blair has requested that we do not put up a
fence between his & our properties, (southern edge of his property
& northern edge of ours).
We agree that the above statement is accurate:
Lawrence D Hines
Merry B air .
6524 16t Ave
Richfield,MN
* ?e-
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Council Letter No. 145
Agenda June 13, 1988
Issue Statement:
Public hearing on a request for a conditional use permit by the
Richfield Schools Employees Credit Union at 7011 15th Avenue.
Background:
Mr. Robert J. Lien and Mrs. Ardith Lien, property owners at 7011
15th Avenue, have requested a conditional use permit to allow the
use of their home for credit union office use.
The basement office in use, with three outside employees, has
been in existence since 1966.
The property is zoned single family residential 'R' district and
a home business for office use with outside employees is allowed
with a conditional use permit.
Recommended Motion:
Approve the conditional use permit for the Credit Union office
use at 7011 15th Avenue with the following stipulations:
1. The maximum number of employees not residing at the dwelling
would be three.
0 2. The dwelling meet all building and fire codes.
Basis of Recommendation:
1. The Planning Commission voted unanimously (7-0) to recommend
approval of the conditional use permit.
2. The present use has been there since 1966. The proposed use
would not change the existing character of the neighborhood.
The abutting single family dwellings to the north and south
are owned by Mr. and Mrs. Lien.
3. The existing driveway could be used for parking of three
cars. The site plan does not indicate any other offstreet
parking areas. However, it is staff's opinion that the
onstreet parking, along with parking on the driveway, is
adequate for the use as an accessory use to the residential
use.
4. Minimal customer contact with this office is anticipated.
Most Credit Union public activity if located at the
70th and Harriet Credit Union office.
5. The Comprehensive Development Plan indicates single family
residential use of the property. The structure is primarily
for residential use; therefore, it is consistent with the
Comprehensive Development Plan.
Alternative Recommendation:
The conditional use permit for a home business with outside
employees could be denied if there is sufficient reason to
believe that the use would have an adverse impact on the safety
and welfare of the surrounding uses.
Decision Mode:
A public hearing is scheduled at the Richfield City Council
Chambers at 7:00 p.m. on Monday, June 13, 1988. Appropriate
notice was mailed to the property owners within 350 feet of the
site. Legal notice of the hearing was also published in the
Richfield Sun Newspaper.
Respectfully submitted,
AP
Jame D. Prosser
City Manager
JDP:sae
•
is
m a
s i
tlN N
? 1 K
XERXES AVE ?•+?`p+`?=??s
WASHBURN
VINCENT
UPTON
THOMAS
SHERIDAN
RUSSELL I II
QUEEN
PENN AVE. II v?l
OLIVER
U`
NEWTON
MORGAN
LOGAN
KNOX -- u
JAMES 1 `
IRVING
HUMBOLDT
QIRARD
FREMONT
EMERSON ,
DUPONT V
COLFAX 47
BRYANT
ALDRICH ' H
4
LYNDALE AVE.
GARFIELD '
a
0
N
• N
O
b m V N V 1 V N=
s s s s s s : Z
? N H N N ti H ?
K
;. XERXES AVE.
WASHBURN
IL -L_: _. ? VINCENT
urroN
f-1 - "? THOMAS
•`="-??U?I`LL'.?/ ?`1tfNERIDAN
Rus ELL
QUEEN
I?^C?? ? «I PE«N AVE.
.:_^?J?r I'.O_JIC?OC I OLwER
NEWTON
ORGAN
Zro I J LOGAN
I KNOX
JAMES
IRVINE
C?C?C?C? i1
I NuwsoLOT
GIRARD
- 6
11111111/
HARRIET
GRAND
. PLEASANT t-:T
PILLSBURY I
. BLAISDELL
MICOLLCT AVE. AVE.
1st ' / ?^
? ?I^
STEVENS
3rd L
`
CLINTON
41" L
sit. EL
PORTLAND AVE. t ?Or
OAKLAND II L
PARK f?I; C?rL
COLUMBUS
??' Ot`-
CHICAGO
I CSC
EuloT ?;1) OL
t,
ID 1"
I
12 1"
1s t" CSCr
14 f" ?L
is t" III Or
BLOOMINGTON I' 'LLL}
16 e"
17 t" I'1 r
is 1"
CEDAR AVE. ' - _ _ _ - -
LONGFELLOW =---------
T? B f f
T. N 1NI
=A?
c_
t
C ? O
2? T
-r
v
V • `. Y N - O
f f ? s
O
` - f
N y H H
?1
'\ FEMON'T
??
I • EMERSON
\
I I DUPONT.
COLFAX
e II I BRYANT
i'• ALDRICH
LYNOALE AVE.
II
?? III GARFIELD
I
QO it HARRIET
- - I I GRAND
PLEAfAMT
I PILLSBURY
WENTWORTH .
O? III BLAISDELL
. • ::::::...: ::::: ^ OO NICOLLET Avg.
I? Itl
STEVENS
b rd
ryry•• ??? OO CLINTON
:g'' oQ ? U?11. I PORTLAND AVE.
OAKLAND
L_J I PARK
f- I COLUMBUS
?OO OR IS i? CHICAGO
?_
ELLIOT
10 It.
111"
13! to.
7 -mil ?JC?C?C?C? ?MINGTaN
1""
I17t"
?I IB 1"
CEDAR AVE.
---
---- ---- LOMOFEILOtr
1st"
lOfA
.t
?r
O? fTA"
DIfN
!3 r/
? i V ? V ? V N
r
0
n
0
Z
0
t.i
•
GINNI
C
rn
to
> i o 'L ? J s
y H N y ? ? r .N.I
K
15TH AVE S
9
60
I I
?
I ? ? I
D
I ? I
?
< I I
I =
I
N I
I -
'
:: 22
' I
20
.
I I
o:
o
14
( m I
-?
•
•
A I
C11
.; :
I
I
i ? (
I
I ?, I
? D
? N I
ro
I rn
I
16 I
I
I?
I
I
60
=0
W
N --
v
w,
Cl)
m
r
Z
?L
MA
Cif
C
rn
Cr
•
?a
a
13TH AVE S.
m
Ch
v
m
z
n
m
10
m
n
T
v
-o
S
N
-I
N
O
z
s
AVE S
,
V
O
1
1
16TH AVE S
G
m
co
17TH AVE S
Z?
14TH AVE S
BLOOMINGTON
13TH AVE S
El ? 0
D
lili II i
IIIIII II
0
C a
a :0
N X
1
T
c
CD
r
n
14TH AVE S
AVE S
16TH AVE S
17TH AVE S
13TH AVE S
z V
a
N
m
cn X
c a
z
o v
z O
m
z
Cl)
a
n
m
V
O
N
-I
Fi, 16TH AVE S
Z?
14TH AVE S
AVE S
17TH AVE S
PETER 1. ORLINS
RICHARD K. BRAINERD
LAWRENCE P. ZIELKE
ROLF G. HAGEN
DONALD A. WHEAT
Of Counsel
NANCY A. NORDMEYER
ORLINS AND BRAINERD
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
604 RICHFIELD BANK BUILDING
6625 L YNDALF, AVENUE SOUTH
RICHFIELD. MINNESOTA 55423-2390
TELEPHONE
(612) 861-3331
April 15, 1988
Mr. Byron Wallace
Director, Community Development
City of Richfield
6700 Portland Avenue
Richfield, MN 55423
Re: Conditional Use Permit
7011 15th Ave. So.
Richfield, MN 55423
Applicant: Robert J. Lien and Ardith Lien
Dear Mr. Wallace:
Enclosed herewith please find Application for Special use Permit made by Roberi
J. Lien and Ardith Lien requesting that they be granted permission to continue to use
their home, located at 7011 15th Avenue South, Richfield, MN as the administrative
offices of the Richfield Schools Credit Union.
1. History of Use: Mr. and Mrs. Lien purchased this home on July 1, 1963 and
have occupied the same as their residence since that time. On April 6, 1966, Mr. Lien
took the position as manager of the Richfield Schools Credit Union which organization
then commenced its total operations in the basement of the premises. The Credit Union
operated solely and exclusively on the premises until January, 1987 when, as a result of
the Credit Union's substantial growth, its main depository offices were moved to the
Central School building located on Harriet Avenue South in Richfield.
Presently, there are five people employed by the Richfield Schools Credit Union
working on the premises, including Mr. Lien, who is still the manager of the Credit
Union and Mrs. Lien, who is the Credit Union's assistant manager.
In addition to the Richfield Schools Credit Union operation, the premises have
been used as the offices of the Richfield Chamber of Commerce from 1965 to 1983.
During that period of time, Mr. Lien was the executive secretary of the Richfield
Chamber and the premises was used as the administrative office and for board and
committee meetings. On January 1, 1983, Mr. Lien resigned as executive secretary and
the Chamber offices were moved from the premises.
0
??i-
Page Two
April 15, 1988
2. Applicants: Mr. and Mrs. Lien are long-time residents of the City of
Richfield and, as noted above, have occupied the premises in question for practically
25 years as their only residence. Both Mr. and Mrs. Lien have been employed by the
Richfield Schools Credit Union in their present capacity since 1966. During their
residency in this City, the applicants have both been continuously involved in the
development and betterment of the City of Richfield.
As you are undoubtedly aware, Mr. Lien was involved in a serious automobile
accident a number of years ago and is permanently handicapped and confined to a
wheelchair. The home has been modified for his convenience containing an elevator
and medical apparatus which facilitates his continuous functioning as the manager of
the Credit Union. Without this ability to primarily operate the business of the Richfield
Schools Credit Union from the home, his capacity to continue as the manager of the
Credit Union would be much impaired which would result in a tremendously adverse
effect upon the operations of the Richfield Schools Credit Union and, in turn, the City
z of Richfield as well.
3. Richfield Schools Credit Union: From very humble beginnings, the Richfield
Schools Credit Union has grown into one of the ten largest Credit Unions in the State
of Minnesota. This growth is due in great part to the managerial expertise of Mr.
Lien with the assistance of Mrs. Lien. This success would have been far more difficult
to achieve, if not impossible, had it not been for the facility with which Mr. Lien is able
to function in his capacity as manager of the Credit Union in his own home.
The majority of the Credit Union's depositors are now making use of the Central
School building office and thus the traffic in and out of the premises is greatly reduced.
The applicants own the home immediately to the north of their premises (7005 15th
Avenue South) and the home immediately to the south of their premises (7015 15th
Avenue South). The premises are open to Credit Union members Tuesday through Friday
during the hours of 12:00 o'clock noon to 5:00 o'clock p.m. only. During those hours,
there is more than adequate parking on 15th Avenue South, and off street parking in
the driveways of the three homes owned by the applicants.
The applicants have never had a complaint from the neighborhood relating to the
operations of the Richfield Schools Credit Union, the Richfield Chamber of Commerce
or otherwise.
4. Improvements: The applicants have been working closely with the Richfield
Public Safety Department in regard to improvements which may be necessary to their
home to satisfy the safety codes of the City. Plans for the installation of an automatic
sprinkler system on the premises have been submitted to Patrick J. Coughlin, the Fire
Chief, and have been accepted and approved. Chief Coughlin has advised that the
Public Safety Department will be ready to issue a construction permit for this sprinkler
system as soon as the applicants have secured this requested Conditional Use Permit.
I enclose herewith a completed application for the Conditional Use Permit and
would request that this letter become a part of that application.
D ? s
?? a q /.r d
;Pt--
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Council Letter No. 144
Agenda June 13, 1988
Issue Statement:
Purchase of unleaded gasoline in excess of $5,000.
Background:
The City Council policy resolution on purchasing provides that
when the purchase of merchandise, materials, equipment or
construction exceeds the amount of $5,000, authority to purchase
shall be submitted to the City Council for consideration.
The City of Richfield participates in joint purchasing with
Hennepin County. Rollins Oil is the Hennepin County contractor
for gasoline. However, on May 25, 1988, Kelley Fuels, Inc.
quoted a lower per-gallon price for unleaded gasoline than the
contractor. The contractor was not willing to meet the lower
price. Staff ordered unleaded gasoline from Kelley Fuels, Inc.
at a savings of $180.
Recommended Motion:
Approve the May 25, 1988 purchase of 8,000 gallons of unleaded
gasoline from Kelley Fuels, Inc. in the amount of $7,167.13.
Basis of Recommendation:
• 1. The City uses unleaded gasoline for operation of vehicles.
2. Kelley Fuels, Inc. quoted the lowest price for the
gasoline.
3. The fuel has been delivered.
4. There is sufficient funding available for this purchase.
Alternative Recommendation:
None.
Discussion/Decision Mode:
This item is on the consent agenda of the June 13, 1988 City
Council meeting. As the fuel has already been delivered, it is
recommended action be taken at this time to facilitate payment.
Respectfully submitted,
James Prosser
City M nagger
0 JDP/eja
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
• Council Letter No. 143
Agenda, June 13, 1988
Issue Statement:
Consideration to Authorize Don Pribe to represent the City of
Richfield at the annual NOISE Conference.
Background:
NOISE is a national organization directed at providing a forum
for discussions of issues related to airport noise. NOISE
conducts an annual conference for the purpose of sharing
information relating to efforts to control airport noise.
The 1988 NOISE conference will be held at College Park, Georgia,
July 27 through 30. Council Member Michael Sandahl is also
planning to attend this conference.
Recommended Motion:
Authorize Don Priebe to attend the NOISE meeting for the City of
Richfield, and reimburse his expenses estimated to be $800.
Basis for Recommendation:
1. Don Priebe is a representative to MASAC for the City of
Richfield.
2. It is critical that the City of Richfield have informed
• representation at that meeting, especially considering
the proposed extension of Runway 4/22.
3. Don Priebe is extremely knowledgeable about issues
related to airport noise and is a valuable resource for
staff on this issue.
Alternative Recommendation:
1. From a staff position, attendance by Don Priebe would
be extremely beneficial. Don Priebe has worked closely
with staff on a number of noise related issues.
Discussion/Decision Mode:
This matter has been placed on the consent calendar of the June
13, 1988 City Council meeting agenda.
JDP:sae
Respect ly submitted,
James Prosser
City anager
0
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
• Council Letter No. 142
Agenda June 13, 1988
Issue Statement:
Approval of the 1988 and 1989 agreement with the City of
Minneapolis for participation in the Urban Corps Intern Program.
Background:
The Urban Corps provides college students with an innovative
service learning environment. Through a well-planned internship,
students get an in-depth exposure in a specific field and gain
valuable practical experience. At the same time, the City
receives the benefit of the students' enthusiasm and academic
skills at a nominal cost.
For a number of years, the City of Richfield has cooperated with
the Urban Corps?to place area college students in internship
positions with the City. This arrangement has been quite
beneficial because it has enabled the City to hire additional
part-time employees, at very little cost, to either undertake
short-term studies or projects, or to supplement our full-time
work force in performing some of the City's ongoing services.
Under the program, undergraduates are paid $5.75 per hour and
• graduate students are paid $6.75 per hour. However, the cost to
Richfield is $2.30 per hour and $2.70 per hour. During 1987, the
Nature Center used five interns in their programs.
The Urban Corps Program is administered by the City of
Minneapolis. In order for Richfield to continue participating in
this program, it is necessary to execute an agreement with the
City of Minneapolis, a copy of which is attached. This agreement
does not commit the City of Richfield to hire Urban Corps
Interns, but it does provide the City with the option to hire
interns through the Urban Corps Program as we choose.
Recommendation:
Authorize the execution of the attached agreement with the City
of Minneapolis for participation in the 1988/1989 Urban Corps
Intern Program.
Basis for Recommendation:
1. The Urban Corps Program provides a supplement to our full-
time work force.
2. The Program also provides a resource for short-term studies
or projects.
3. The cost of Urban Corps participants is relatively low.
Alternative Recommendation:
Do not approve the execution of the agreement, thus terminating
• the program.
• Discussion/Decision Mode:
This item has been placed on the June 13, 1988 agenda for
consideration in order for Departments to consider the internship
program for the coming year.
Respectfully submitted,
I/V
Jame D. Prosser
City Manager
JDP:sb
•
•
1988 - 1989
AGREEMENT FCR PARTICIPATION IN URBAN CORPS PROGRAM
BETWEEN CITY CF MINNEAPCLIS AND
THIS AGREEMENT is entered into this day of 19 ,
by and between the City of Minneapolis (herein called "Urban Corps")
and (herein called
"Agency").
WHEREAS, the above named Agency, a public organization or private
non-profit tax-exempt organization, desires to participate in the Twin City
Area Urban Corps and in consideration for the assignment of Urban Corps student
interns to the Agency, we do hereby agree to the . following terms and
conditions:
1. The Urban Corps shall have the right to approve or reject requests for
student interns submitted by this Agency upon forms provided for that
purpose by the Urban Corps.
2. The Agency will accept a student as an intern by completing and signing the
Assignment section of the student's Urban Corps application form.
3. The Agency shall utilize such students as may be assigned to it in
• accordance with the specifications set forth in its written request to the
Urban Corps, and shall immediately notify the Urban Corps of any change in
nature of assignment, duties, supervisor or work location.
4. The Agency shall provide such students as may be assigned to it with a safe
place to work and with responsible supervision.
5. The Urban Corps shall have the right to inspect the work being performed by
such students as may be assigned to,the Agency, and shall have the right to
interview such students and their supervisors.
6. The Urban Corps shall have the right to require such students as may be
assigned to the Agency to attend such general or special meetings, or to
appear at the Urban Corps office, individually or as a group, as shall be
necessary for the proper functions of the program.
7. In accordance with the requirements of Federal and State law, work
performed by such students as may be assigned to the Agency shall:
a. Be in the public interest;
b. Not result in the displacement of employed workers or impair existing
contracts for services;
c. Not involve the construction, operation or maintenance of so much of
any facility as is used, or is to be used, for sectarian instruction or
as a place of religious worship; and
d. Not involve any partisan or nonpartisan political activity associated
with a candidate, or contending faction or group, in an election for
public or party office.
-*j - 4, ?' ?
8. The Agency shall require such students as may be assigned to it to submit
time reports and follow such other procedures as may be established by the
Urban Corps.
9. The Urban Corps shall have the right to remove any student assigned to the
Agency from said assignment and from the Agency at any time for any reason
without prior notice, and the Urban Corps shall not be obligated to replace
said student.
10. The Agency shall have the right to remove any student assigned to said
Agency at any time with prior notice given to the student and the Urban
Corps.
11. The Agency warrants that it is in compliance with the provisions of the
Civil Rights Act of 1964 (P.L. 88-352, 78 Stat.. 252), and Minnesota
Statutes Section 181.59 and Minneapolis Code of Ordinance, Chapter 139 and
141, where applicable.
12. The Agency shall indemnify, protect and hold harmless the Urban Corps from
all claims, causes or actions which may result from the assignments of
students to the Agency.
13. The Agency shall obtain at its own expense Worker's Compensation insurance
(or shall be self-insured under State Law) for such students as may be
assigned to it under this Agreement.
• 14. The Agency shall pay to the Urban Corps-40%.or other percentage figure as
agreed upon by identifying the percentage figure on the student's Urban
Corps application form of the gross compensation earned by such students
assigned and accepted by the Agency under a Federal or State program. The
Urban Corps will bill the Agency, in accordance with bi-weekly payroll
periods, for its proper share of the compensation of such students as may
have been assigned to the Agency and performed work during said period.
Student hourly rates are set forth in Section 14(a) and 14(b) of this
Agreement.
a. Hourly compensation for students will be set at minimum rates of $5.75
per hour for entering freshmen through receipt of a Bachelor's degree,
and $6.75 per hour for graduate students; other agreed upon hourly
compensation rates not to be below the specified rates in 14(a); or
other rates for Urban Corps student interns as established by the City
of Minneapolis, through a salary ordinance replacing current minimum
rates.
b. A graduate student is defined for purposes of this Agreement as one who
has received a B.A., B.S., or equivalent degree or is enrolled in the
fifth year of a five year program.
15. At the election of the Agency, the Urban Corps shall place students to
intern under a Stipend program. This option will be specified in the
Assignment Form which the intern's Agency supervisor must sign before
commenoement of the internship. The Stipend rate which the Agency shall
pay the Urban Corps is $30.00 per week for each week the student worms.
C?J
•
C
16. At the election of the Agency, the Urban Corps shall place interns for whom
the Agency will pay the intern's total compensation plus an additional ten
percent (10%) for administrative costs. This option will be specified in
the Assignment Form which the intern's Agency supervisor must sign before
commencement of the internship. Agency rates for said option are set forth
in Section 16(a) and 16(b) of this Agreement.
a. Agency rates for students will be set at minimum rates of $6.33 per
hour for entering freshmen through receipt of a Bachelor's Degree, and
$7.43 per hour for graduate students; other agreed upon hourly
compensation rates not to be below specified rates in 16(a); or other
rates for Urban Corps student interns as established by the City of
Minneapolis through a salary ordinance replacing current minimum rates.
b. A graduate student is defined for purposes of this Agreement as one who
has received a B.A., B.S., or equivalent degree or is enrolled in the
fifth year of a five year program.
17. To comply with P.L. 99-272, the agency shall pay to the Urban Corps, for
students receiving an hourly salary according to the rates specified in
Section 14(a) and 14(b), Section 16(a) and 16(b), an additional 1.5% or
other percentage figure as agreed upon by identifying the percentage figure
on the student's Urban Corps application form of the gross compensation
earned by such students assigned to and accepted by the agency after April
1, 1986.
18. performance under this contract shall commence on July 1, 1988 and
terminate on June 30, 1989 unless amended in writing as mutually agreed
upon by both the Agency and the Institution; however, either party may
terminate upon sixty (60) days written notice.
Based upon the statements and affirmations made by the Agency through the
above document, the Urban Corps hereby agrees to the assignment of students to
said Agency, in accordance with said document and the applicable laws and
regulations.
CITY CF MINNEAPOLIS
Mayor
AGENCY
Agency Name
ATTEST:
City Clerk
Address
CCUNTERSIGNED
City Finance Officer
Approved as to Legality:
Assistant City of Minneapolis Attorney
City State Zip Code
By
Title
By
Title
Attest:
;0i<__i11_
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Council Letter No. 141
• Agenda June 13, 1988
Issue Statement:
Presentation of Miss Richfield 1988 Candidates.
Background:
This year's Miss Richfield candidates are all graduates of
Richfield High School. They are between 18-22 years of age and
live in Richfield.
The girls will be involved with many activities and community
events throughout the summer.
Their sponsors are businesses or organizations affiliated with
Richfield.
All ten candidates will certainly help make the Fourth of July
Celebration "Great in 188:"
The new Miss Richfield and her princesses will be crowned on the
evening of the Fourth of July and will be Richfield's goodwill
ambassador for 1988-89.
This year's candidates are:
Jennifer Anderson - Sponsor - Richfield-Bloomington Honda
• Ellaina Gordon - Sponsor - McDonald's of Richfield
Kara Jacobson - Sponsor - Market Plaza
Stephanie Meiers - Sponsor - Richfield Plumbing
Aimee Noska - Sponsor - Lyndale Hardware
Kim Pelo - Sponsor - Solmark Temporary Services
Nancy Smieja - Sponsor - Richfield Optimist Club
Kathy Sonday - Sponsor - Mr. Tire Service
Pamela Twernbold - Sponsor - Hub Merchants
Connie Worden - Sponsor - Richfield Rotary Club
Recommended Motion:
Introduce each candidate.
Alternative Recommendation:
None.
Decision/Discussion Mode:
The ten Miss Richfield candidates will be present at the June 13,
1988 City Council meeting.
Respectfully submitted
Jame D. Prosser
• City
JDP:sae anager
y
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Council Letter No. 140
Agenda May 23, 1988
Issue Statement:
Continuation of second reading and public hearing of an ordinance
regulating transient merchants, peddlers and solicitors
previously scheduled for June 13, 1988 to June 27, 1988.
Background:
At the May 9, 1988 council meeting, the City Council approved
first reading of an ordinance regulating transient merchants.
Second reading and the public hearing was scheduled for June 13,
1988.
At the May 9 Council meeting, staff was directed to make some
additions and corrections. In addition, staff and the City
Council thought it essential that a meeting with Chamber of
Commerce representatives be scheduled to gather their input.
This meeting has been scheduled for May 23, 1988.
Due to priorities and other events in recent weeks, staff is
requesting that the second reading--public hearing--be
rescheduled for June 27, 1988.
Recommended Motion:
Reschedule public hearing, tecond reading of an ordinance
regulating transient merchants, peddlers, solicitors, wagon
peddlers, hawkers and canvassers from June 13 to June 27, 1988.
Basis of Recommendation:
Staff is requesting additional time to complete necessary
research and make changes. After this is accomplished we can
proceed with the appropriate legal notification.
Alternate Recommendation:
1. Council could decide to proceed with the original hearing
date of June 13, 1988, without the changes.
2. Council could delay action indefin tly.
Decision Mode:
This item has been placed on the May 23, 1988 Council agenda for
council consideration.
Respectfully submitted,
Jame Prosser
City anager
JDP/sae