Loading...
02-09-87 agenda 4 CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Council letter No. 52 Agenda February 9, 1987 Issue Statement: Approval of plans and specifications and authorization to advertise for bids for the 1987 alley paving project (City Project 832). Background: The alley paving policy adopted in 1981 and used through 1986, provided that a petition signed by property owners representing more than 50~ of the abutting footage was necessary for an alley to be paved. Under this policy 67 of the 96 alleys in .the city were permanently paved. However, the continued annual decrease in the number of alley improvement petitions submitted by property owners prompted review of this policy. In April, 1986 the city council amended the policy to provide that all remaining eligible alleys would be paved during the 1987 construction season without submittal of petitions. The public hearing on the 1987 alley paving project was held on September 8, 1986. At that hearing, the alley between E. 65th Street and E. 66th Street from Bloomington Avenue to 16th Avenue, and the alley between Wentworth and Blaisdell Avenue from West 68th Street to 147' north were deleted from the project. Paving for 17 other alleys was approved. -On January 2, 1987 a petition requesting that the deadend alley between Irving and James Avenue from West 63rd Street to 118' south be excluded from the 1987 paving project. This petition was signed by all abutting property owners. The property owners informed the staff when the January 2 petition was submitted that they had not been organized enough to submit a petition at the September 8, 1986 public hearing. The property owners prefer to continue with the alley maintenance and snowplowing assessment only. A copy of the petition and a map of the referenced alley is attached for council review. The access for the garages at 6306 and 6310 Irving Avenue are on the alley; the other lots access the streets. When the paving project was approved on September 8, 1986, only one property owner from this alley attended the public hearing. In addition, Mrs. Boyd Tate of 6315 James Avenue notified the city engineer prior to that meeting that her driveway is not on the alley and she does not use the alley or want to pay for it. Recommendation: 1. Adopt the attached resolution approving the plans and specifications and ordering the placement of an advertisement for bids for the 1987 alley paving project. 2. Deny the request of the property owners of the land adjacent to the alley between Irving and James Avenue from West 63rd Street to 118' south to exclude their. alley from the 1987 .alley paving project. / • Basis for Recommendation: 1. Approval of the plans and specifications would allow the alley paving project to proceed as the council directed on September 8, 1986. 2. The city council voted unanimously to permanently pave all remaining eligible alleys during the 1987 construction season without submittal of petitions. 3. For a variety of reasons, it is unlikely that any of the remaining alleys (8 total) will be paved within the next five years. Deferral of any additional alleys at this time will add to this total. Alternative Recommendation: 1. The specifications for alley paving are quite standard and have been used on all previous alley paving projects. If there have been problems noted with the projects related to the specifications, the council may choose to direct staff to correct these before giving final approval. 2. Delete the petitioned alley-from the project. However, if the council chooses to not pave an alley on the basis of a submitted petition, a precedence may be set which may prompt property owners of land on other unimproved alleys to submit similar petitions. Discussion/Decision Mode: • If the city council approves the plans and specifications for this project, the advertisement for bids would appear in the Richfield Sun-Current on February 18, 1987, and award of contract i, for the project would be scheduled for the March 23, 1987 council i meeting. Construction is anticipated to begin in April. The decision could be delayed for a few weeks without adversely affecting the April starting date. However, the earlier the bid opening, the more likely it is that favorable bid prices will be received. Respect lly submitted, Jame Prosser City anager JDP/eja ~ ~i~-~ RESOLUTION. NO. RESOLUTION APPROVING PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS AND ORDERING ADUERTISEMENT FOR BIDS FOR C.P. 832 - 1987 ALLEY PAVING WHEREAS, pursuant to resolutions passed by the city council, the city engineer has prepared plans and specifications for the improvement of the .following alleys by .reconstruction and concrete paving: Alley Between From To E. 65th Street & E. 66th Street 15th Avenue Bloomington Avenue E. 66th Street & E. 67th Street 13th Avenue 14th Avenue Nicollet and First Avenue 68th Street 69th Street .Harriet and Grand Avenue 67th Street 68th Street Harriet and Grand Avenue 73rd Street 74th Street Lyndale and Garfield Avenue 73rd Street 298' South 63rd Street and Mildred Drive Colfax Ave. Bryant Ave.. 63rd Street and Mildred Drive Dupont Ave. Colf ax Ave. Humboldt and Girard Avenue 63rd Street 64th Street Irving and Humboldt Avenue 63rd Street 463' South James and Irving Avenue 63rd Street 118' South Logan and Knox Avenue 63rd Street 223' South Morgan and Logan Avenue 63rd Street 243' South Penn and Oliver Avenue 63rd Street 443' South Queen and Penn Avenue 66th Street 67th Street Russell and Queen Avenue 66th Street 67th Street Washburn and Vincent Avenue 67th Street 68th Street And has resented such Tans and s ecifications to the council P P p for approval. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota: 1, Such plans and specifications are hereby approved; 2. The city clerk shall prepare and cause to be inserted in the official newspaper and the Construction Bulletin an advertisement for bids upon the making of such improvement under such approved plans and specifications. The advertisement shall be published February 18, 1987, shall specify the work to be done, shall state that bids will be received by the clerk until 11:00 a.m. on March 12, 1987, at which time they will be publicly opened in the council chambers of the city hall by the city clerk and city engineer, will then be tabulated, and will be considered by the council at 7:00 p.m. on March 23, 1987 in the council chambers and that no bids will be considered unless sealed and filed with the clerk and accompanied by a cash deposit, cashier's check, bid bond or certified check payable to the clerk for five percent of the amount of such bid. _ -2 Adopted by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this 9th day of February, 1987. John Hamilton, Mayor ATTEST: Thomas P. Ferber, Gity Glerk I I~'~ - ' ~ r ~ r.._.----~ ST R E E-~ 63= ~ W. _ - ~ ~ ~ ~ r t . I ~ N ~ ~ 8300 r 630t ~ i W ` ~ r 630 Z o ll1 W ~ ~ 6309 ~ ' ~ Q ~ ~ 2 LLj ~ _ , 0 6310 Q ~N ; ~ i I b I a 6315 J ~ I ~ ~ cn ~ ~ •W w ~ - ~ U t ~t a ~ ~ 1 TY OWNERS WH0 SIGNED PET1T14N f ~ ~ ~ . PROPER I ~i OD: CO ..W: _ _ _ _ ~ 2007 A - - Y ~ =TW =E ~ ~ N-~ # zoo JAVi_S & ~V ~G 40.0' " 40.0 22.9 30' 30~ ~ W 1J.1 'W I W 2'x3' CONC. I F'~ CYGI~..NE SLAB (n FENCE 14 ~ I I' 2 CAf ~ ~ ~ - 6 ©NES GAFA GE PP.~ A _ ~7a _ SAN 0 ANC # ~ 2 Cpii ~ CRUSHEC C.B. GRASS 10" DIA. ROCK I ~ C FIVE TF_EES GARAGE BITUMI NODS , ~RUSHEG DhI~E WAY M (p HEDGE ROCK I 3 l~ 3 a~ ' 3 40.0 40.0 22.9 'I I . o ~ ~ a.e~ P S _ i 1..4~ L~C3.: ....::I . ..I.~ 0 ~ I i~o : . .I.~.~..........~ ' ~ T. . i . . . M: 0 I + 50.8 ~ RECEIVED PETITION ,IAH'?1957 ap$ a.,.,....... ' ti9e, the undersigned homeowners of Richfield, hereby sign, this petition in opposition of the paving of :the alley off .63rd Street between Irving Avenue and James Avenue. We prefer to continue with the alley maintenance and snow plowing assessment. SIGNED. 1 . ~ Sd"n F~2 ~ g~o ~ J /,l DATE. `~-`.~1~~~ G~.31S q-r~-~~ . /?Y~- SIGNED ~ , DATE / zL .S >/cPG G 3a ~ Qt~S'v SIGNED ~~s~ ~ . ~ : DATE ~ ~3~ SIGNED l"Y1ah,c-f .~C'_ HATE ~ ~ a-i8 7 SIGNED - DATE l~~tT7 .o C~Z~ O ' (1.00% of affected property owners) ~ February 2, 1987 Name Address City State Zip Dear Pers: On January 2, 1987, the city received a petition signed by 100 of the affected property owners of land adjacent to the alley between Irving and James Avenue from West 63rd Street to 118' south. The petition stated opposition to the permanent paving of this alley, and requested that the alley be excluded from the 1987 Alley Paving Project. The city council will consider this request at the regularly scheduled council meeting of Monday, February 9, 1987. The meeting begins at .7:00 p.m. in the council chambers of Richfield City Hall, 6700 Portland Avenue South. Anyone interested in this matter is welcome to attend. Sincerely, Michael J. Eastling, P.E. City Engineer MJE/rb • CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Council Letter No. 51 Agenda February 9, 1987 Issue Statement: Change in .policy to permit Men's Club golf league on Saturdays.- Background: When the Rich Acres Golf Course first opened in 1980, a policy was adopted to allow league play on the full course on Tuesdays, Wednesdays and Thursdays between 4:00 PM and 6:00 PM. Since then, leagues have. expanded to include the Monday and Friday afternoons, consuming half the course. It is also a policy, adopted when the course first opened, to permit the Men's Club five Sundays for special events. The Rich Acres Men's Club has now proposed a Saturday golf league with the same tee times each Saturday and with the following guarantees: 1. A minimum of 16 players and a maximum of 52. 2. That each league player will be a Patron (not necessarily resident) of the City of Richfield. 3. The league will be for 16 weeks, commencing in early May. 4. That once the size of the league is established, the sum of $50 will be paid for each tee time reserved (minimum of four - $200, maximum of 13 - $650), amount to be paid before the start of the season. 5. That once the size of the league is established, the Men's Club will sign a contract guaranteeing revenue of $36 per tee time, per week (based on calculation of $11 green fee minus $2 patron card discount times four players) and the Men's Club will designate an officer of the league to make one lump sum payment to Rich Acres weekly for league play. 6. That the aforementioned starting times be reserved between the hours of 7:00 - 8:30 AM. In addition, the Club asked to retain the right to review after eight weeks of the season to determine if the league is working from the Club and City's point of view. The basis of the recommendation by the Men's Club was as follows: 1. Because the weekend is prime time and, therefore, considered more valuable, the one time per season standard fee of $25 for each tee time has been doubled to $50: 2. The proposal brings more revenue (from $200 to $650) to the operation. 3. The proposal will improve the relationship with the Men's Club. 4. The course would be unavailable to the general public for one half hour to one and one half hours - 7:00 AM to no later than 8:30 AM. 5. Although not currently a problem, the proposal would ~/3-~ • maximize use of the course; i.e., speed up play as the members of the Men's Club are typically more accomplished golfers. 6. Because the members of the Men's Club are Patrons and have an advantage in making weekend reservations, the proposed time for the Saturday league is now almost exclusively tied up with people from the Men's Club. A Patron is a person who pays $40 at the beginning of the season so that they can make weekend reservations. 7. Approval of the Men's Club permanent time might help "overbooking" which is a current problem. The Men's Club proposal for a Saturday golf league was presented to the Community Services Advisory Commission at the regular meeting of January 13, 1987. :Extensive discussion was held. Unapproved minutes of that meeting have been made available to the members of the city council under separate cover. The Commission recommended city council approval of the proposal .with the stipulated guarantees on a 5-3 vote. Recommendation: Do not permit permanent reserved time for the Men's Club. Basis of Recommendation: 1. From the moment of conception, there was concern that the course remain "public" and not become a "private" course. 2. Originally leagues were limited to specific times and dates to afford the greatest possible golfing opportunity to the general public. 3. Weekends are considered prime time and everyone should. have an equal opportunity to make use of this time. 4. Economics are not the only consideration for the golf course and other activities in the city. The golf course is not in a financially distressed situation. 5. Adoption of this proposal would set a precedent in treatment of a special interest group making it difficult not to allow the same advantages to other special interest groups at the golf course or other city facilities, limiting use to the general public even further. 6. There may be another way or day to accommodate a Men's Club league that stays within the current policy. 7. There are other methods available to resolve the "over- booking" problem. Alternative Recommendation: 1. Approve the Men's Club proposal for a Saturday morning golf league as outlined above. 2. Make no change in the current policy. Therefore, the Men's Club proposal would be denied. 3. Approve a modified version of the Men's Club proposal; i.e., limit the number of golfers and/or the tee times for-the league. 4. Direct the staff to work with the Men's Club to find another day or time for the Club league. 5. If the situation is purely one of economics, direct staff to examine the fee structure and to create a .structure proposal whereby the fees charged will match or equal out to the demand for Saturday prime time. 6. If the situation is related to economics as well as prime time availability, direct staff to examine the patron card system and to create a proposal such as may require that all members of a foursome or fivesome must be patrons. The current system dictates that only the one member making a weekend tee time reservation must be a patron card holder. Under any circumstance, it may be in the best interest of all concerned to examine this possibility. 7. If there is a desire on the part of the Council to permit permanently reserved starting times it is strongly recommended that an open lottery .system be developed to avoid potential charges of discrimination by patrons. Discussion/Decision Mode: The Men's Club would appreciate action on their request as soon as possible. If approval is to be given to their request, action should be taken no later than the end of March or early April to allow sufficient time for the organization of the new league. - Respectfully submitted, Ja D. Prosser- C't Manager JDP/eja • CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Council Letter No. 50 Agenda February 9, 1987 Issue Statement: Issuance of a commercial kennel license to Luanne M. Wendland, to operate .the Animal Care Clinic at 6.521 .Cedar Avenue. Background: The City licenses commercial and residential kennels. Anyone who keeps more than two dogs or cats on the premises must have a kennel license. Ms. Wendland has applied for a commercial kennel license to keep dogs and cats at 6521 Cedar Avenue. Ln addition to keeping the animals on the premises, Ms. Wendland will provide veterinary services. In accordance with State law, the kennel license only covers the boarding or keeping of animals on the premises. The practice of veterinary medicine is sanctioned by the State of Minnesota Board of Veterinary Medicine, which licenses veterinarians. Recommendation: It is recommended that the City Council approve the commercial kenne-1 license for the Animal Care Clinic. Basis of Recommendation: The Animal Care Clinic meets all conditions for licensure as a commercial kennel. The business. has been inspected by both a building and health inspector, and was found to meet the building • and sanitary criteria for a kennel. The site is zoned C-2, and this use has been permitted in C-2 zones in the past. Alternate Recommendation: 1. Reject the application for a commercial kennel license. Since the business meets all the conditions for such a license, however, the staff finds that there is no reason to reject the license. 2. Adopt regulations for Animal Hospitals. Dr. Blaine, owner of Airport Animal Hospital., has contacted a number of Council Members with a concern that the existing Richfield kennel regulations do not adequately protect the welfare of animals treated by animal hospitals. A review of this matter by the City Attorney, indicated that there is existing State regulations of veterinarians. The state is in a better position to enforce these guidelines than the City of Richfield. Furthermore, the inspections of the proposed facility indicate that the building meets or exceeds the conditions in existing Richfield pet clinics/hospitals. 3. Defer action on this item until civil conflict between Drs. Wendland and Blaine are resolved. There is no legal reason to permit this delay. The applicant may have a basis to claim antitrust action for such a delay. Violations of antitrust law carry significant penalties. ~j,~~, Decision/Discussion Mode: Ms. Wendland's' license application has been approved by the City Inspection and Environmental Health Division, and is ready for approval by the Council at the February 9, 1987 meeting. Respectfully Submitted, Jam s D. Prosser Ci y Manager JDP/eja • -02.. Mayor ~}t~~~. MEMORANDUM Coancil C~ Gov. n,,....~-. atty. Com~~~. S•~~c. ._.r Lin. ~t~ Clerk f'c:~. `::.'q'ty ` FROM : MFS !'~'1- DATE: February 2, 1987 SUBJECT: Municipal Regulation of Veterinary Premises 1. The Richfield Cit Code does not currentl re ulate veteri- Y Y g narians or their premises specifically, however City licens- es are required for all "commercial kennels", defined at Section 5.27, Subd. 1(2) as: "A place where more than two dogs or two cats over six months of age are kept, and where the business of selling, boarding, breeding, showing, treating or grooming dogs or cats is conducted". This definition seems to include all veterinary facilities, grooming parlors and boarding kennels. In addition to the required license, code Section 5.28, Subd. 7 requires that "[k]ennels shall be maintained in a clean and healthful condition at all times, and shall be open to inspection by any health officer, sanitarian, animal • control officer or other person charged with the enforcement of this section, at all reasonable times". Section 5.28 allows the revocation of the license for non compliance with Section 5.28 or "any other provision[s] of the code or any order, law or regulation". Based on my reading of the above sections, the City current- ly regulates veterinary facilities by license and inspection and can revoke a license if the facilities are not "clean and healthful". 2. The City of Minneapolis in Chapter 68 of the Minneapolis Code regulates kennels by requiring a license and authorizes the Commissioner of Health to prescribe regulations. However, veterinarians are exempted from application of this chapter. Minneapolis does not regulate veterinary facilit- ies. 3. M.S., Chapter I56 and M.R. Part 9100 regulate veterinarians and veterinary facilities. Chapter 156 requires all prac- ticing veterinarians to be licensed. The State Board of Veterinary Medicine is the enforcement entity. The Board can revoke a license for (among other things): "[f]ailure, after written notification of the board, to keep one's premises and all equipment therein in a clean and sanitary • condition, according to reasonable standards adopted by the board". (M.S. ~ 156.081, Subd. 2(13)) 1 , N~//~ • ~ t7 ~.L In addition, at M.S. § 156.12, Subd. 5, it states that "[t]he board may, at any time upon written complaint, inspect the premises in which veterinary medicine is being practiced for cleanliness and sanitation and may direct action to insure adequate cleanliness and sanitation". Finally, Minnesota Rules Part 9100 was promulgated to regu- late veterinarian's licensure and practice. The Board has set out reasonable standards for cleanliness and sanitation for premises at Part 91.00.0200 and for housing facilities at .Part 3100.0300. 4. Other regulations. Veterinary facilities must also comply with applicable building, housing, zoning and other codes. 5. Summary. I believe the Richfield City Code, Sections cited at 1. above, give the City the ability to regulate veteri- nary facilities through City license revocation for unclean or unsanitary conditions. Also a written complaint to the State Board of Veterinary Medicine could result in state license revocation. Most importantly, there are Minnesota Rules setting standards of cleanliness and sanitation for veterinary facilities. Although these rules are somewhat generalized, they are complete with respect to the variety of areas which they address. These rules could be adopted by reference in the Richfield City Code. Although with a proper finding the City could regulate veterinary facilities in a much more detailed manner, similar to the manner found in existing City building, housing or health codes, I do not think it worth the effort or the person power it would take to adequately enforce a very detailed ordinance. LLROMO08.F54 • ~j/ • CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Council Letter No. 49 Agenda February 9, 1987 Issue Statement: Consideration of a resolution providing for changing the name of Legion Lake Park to Veterans Park. ~ Background: One of Richfield's parks, located in an area bounded by the Crosstown Highway, 66th Street., 11th Avenue and Portland Avenue, is called Legion Lake Park. The city has been requested by the ' American Legion and VFW to formally change the name of this park to Veteran's Park in memory of the Armed Services Veterans who have provided for .our security. Recommendation: Approve the attached resolution which provides for the changing of the name of this park from Legion Lake Park to Veteran's Park. Basis for Recommendation: 1. The name will honor veterans. Alternative Recommendation: 1. Do not pass the resolution and continue to call this park • Legion Lake. 2. Designate another name for the park. Discussion/Decision Mode: Although this matter has been placed on the February 9 city council agenda for council consideration, there are no time constraints as to when this item should be acted upon by the city council. Res e,~tfully submitted, J Ja s D. Prosser Ci Manager JDP/eja / • RESOLUTION N0. RESOLUTION PROVIDING FOR CHANGING THE NAME OF LEGION LAKE PARK TO VETERAN'S PARK WHEREAS, that section of open space land located between Portland Avenue on the west, Crosstown Highway on the north, 66th Street on the south, and 11th Avenue on the east is known as Legion Lake Park, and WHEREAS, the Richfield City Council is desirous of changing this name to Veteran's Park to honor those persons who have served our ~ nation in the armed services. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Cit Council of the Cit of III, Y Y Richfield that ,Legion Lake Park be renamed Veteran's Park. DONE this 9th day of February, 1987. John Hamilton Mayor ATTEST: I • Thomas Ferber City Clerk ICI i i i I • CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Council Letter No. 48 Agenda February 9, 1987 Issue Statement: First reading of an ordinance giving the city the authority to require erosion control measures and drainage plans. Background: During the process of formulating the watershed managementplan for the Richfield-Bloomington Watershed Management Organization,. staff recognized a need for more formal control of drainage and erosion plans in the development, improvement or alteration of i land. Basically, the ordinance 'amendment requires that the plans for drainage, erosion and sediment control must be submitted to the city engineer for approval. The purpose of these measures is to limit by control, sedimentation into storm water control i devices which impair their effectiveness, and to prevent inappropriate diversion of storm water. Recommendation: Approve first reading of an ordinance amendment which would allow the city to require drainage plans and erosion control measures in the development, improvement or alteration of land. • Basis for Recommendation: 1. The content of the ordinance amendment is consistent with existing watershed district's rules and regulations. 2. Puts these rules and regulations in city ordinance form so city staff has tighter control over drainage and erosion control measures in conjunction with building and grading permits. Alternative Recommendation: 1. Do nothing. However, staff has identified a need for more formal control of regulations involving erosion control measures and drainage plans. Discussion/Decision Mode: It is recommended that the city council give first reading approval to the proposed code change on February 9, 1987. The public hearing and second reading of the ordinance could be scheduled for February 23, 1987. Resp tfully submitted, Ja es D. Prosser Ci y Manager JDP/eja BILL NO. 1987 - • AMENDMENT TO CHAPTER VIII, PART VI OF THE ORDINANCE CODE OF THE CITY OF RICHFIELD CITY OF RICHFIELD DOES ORDAIN: Chapter VIII, Part VI of the Ordinance Code of the City of Richfield entitled "Storm Sewer System" is hereby amended in the following respect:. Section 8.40 is amended by adding the following new subdivision: Subdivision 11. Drainage rind Erosion Control (1) Drainage plan. In the development, improvement or alteration of land, the direction, quantity or quality of drainage shall not be changed unless plans for the development are submitted to the city engineer. Run-off shall be properly channeled into a storm drain, watercourse, ponding area or other public facility. (2) Erosion and sediment control plan. Prior to the issuance of a building or grading permit for any development, improvement or alteration of land, a plan for erosion and sedimentation control shall be • presented with the site plan. The erosion and sedimentation control plan shall specify the measures to be used before, during and after construction until the soil and slope are stabilized by permanent cover. These control measures shall be maintained in good working order until site stabilization occurs. (3) Plan annroval. In areas which are susceptible to erosion hazard or sedimentation damage, the city may . require the erosion and sedimentation control plan to be approved by the appropriate water management organization prior to the issuance of a permit. (4) City engineer approval. All plans and provisions .required for compliance with this subdivision must be submitted to the city engineer for his approval. Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota, this day of , 1987. John Hamilton, Mayor Attest: i Thomas P. Ferber, City Clerk ~y CITY OF RICHFIELD, MTNNESOTA Council Letter No. 47 F ebruar 9 1987 • y~' Issue .Statement: Adoption of Transitory Ordinance Providing Funding for Certain Capital Improvements from the Special Revenue Fund. First reading. Background On October 1, 1986 the City Council approved the 1987 Capital Improvement Budget (CIB) and also adopted the 1987 budget for all Funds as outlined in the budget document. The various approved appropriations for 1987 for the capital projects are defined as outlined below: Legion Lake Park $40,000 Ice Arena Improvements 12,000 Park Land Acquisition 195,000 Nature Center Improvements 29,000 Forestry 25,000 Public Safety Communications 30,000 Swimming Pool Improvements 10,000 $341,000 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. Recommendation: It is recommended that the City Council give first reading consideration to the attached transitory ordinance providing for the expenditure of funds from the Special Revenue Fund for certain capital improvements. Basic for Recommendation: 1. On October 1, the City Council adopted the 1987 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 1987 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. :~y, Discussion/Decision Mode: Action on this item is requested at the February 9 meeting of the City Council. This would allow sufficient time to advertise for the second hearing for February 23, and the ordinance to become effective so that the capital improvements can be ordered as budgeted. Respectfully submitted, J es D. Prosser 'ty Manager JDP/eja • i r ~ ~ Bill No. 1987 TRANSITORY ORDINANCE N0. AN ORDINANCE PROVIDING FOR THE EXPENDITURE OF MONEY FROM THE SPECIAL REVENUE FOR CERTAIN CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS City of Richfield Does Ordain: Section 1: It is found and determined to be necessary and expedient for the City to expend money from the Special Revenue Fund for the making of Capital Improvements listed in Section 2 hereof, for which the City would be authorized to issue general obligation bonds. Section 2: The capital improvements and amounts of expenditures for such improvements which are authorized to be paid from-the Special Revenue Fund under Section 7.12, Subdivision 2 of-the City Charter, are as follows: Legion Lake Park $ 40,000 Ice Arena Improvements 12,000 Park Land Acquisition 195,000 Nature Center Improvements 29,000 Forestry 25,000 Public Safety Communications 30,000 Swimming Pool Improvements 10,000 • Total $341,000 ' Section 3: The expenditures herein authorized shall be made pursuant to such contracts as are authorized from time to time by council action. Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield this 9th day of February, 1987. John Hamilton Mayor ATTEST: Thomas P. Ferber City Clerk • I CITY F 0 RICHFIELD MINNESOTA City Council Letter No. 46 Agenda February 9, 1987 Issue Statement: Consideration of a draft ordinance amendment concerning auto .detailing uses in C-1 zoning districts. Background: In November of 1986 the City Council denied an appeal of a staff interpretation that auto detailing uses were not permitted in C-1 Limited Business Districts. The appeal related to the property at 7301 Penn Avenue. The Council also directed the City Attorney's office to draft an ordinance amendment which would permit auto detailing uses in C-1 Limited Business districts by special use permit. The ordinances drafted by the city attorney's office are attached. The draft ordinance provides that auto detailing-would be a permitted use in C-1 districts if a license is first obtained from the city. The ordinance revision then sets up conditions I and requirements which must be met for obtaining a license to operate an auto detailing business. If this type of use is to be permitted in C-1 zoning districts,. staff believes a licensing requirement, rather than a special use permit, would give the city maximum control over this type of use. A license would have to be renewed each year, whereas a special use .permit would not. Through this annual renewal process the city could determine if the use continues to meet all the conditions set forth in the ordinance and licensing requirements. -The Planning Commission reviewed the ordinance and unanimously recommended against it. The commission felt that the use is not appropriate in C-1 districts. The commission also indicated that amending an ordinance to permit one particular use on one particular site may set a bad precedent. The commission recommended if the council wishes to pass the ordinance, that the definition of auto detailing establishment should be tightened; criteria strengthened to clearly define and limit auto detailing activities and the ordinance clarified about who the license is issued to and what happens if the business is sold. The commission also questioned the enforceability of the restrictions on outside storage and on-street parking. Subsequent to the Planning Commission meeting, the ordinance has been amended to add criteria to reduce the potential impact on adjacent uses. The ordinance now provides that the use must be conducted within the building and cannot cause noise, odor, or dust problems to the adjacent neighborhood. Recommendation: • 1. Not approve the attached ordinance amendment. / Basis of Recommendation: 1. Detailing use, even as defined in the attached ordinance amendment is inappropriate in a C-1 zoning district. The intent of C-1 districts is to primarily serve the adjacent neighborhood. 2. The city's ability to revoke a license is questionable, especially if one had been renewed each year for a long period of time. Alternative Recommendation: 1. Give first reading approval to the attached ordinances and schedule second reading and the public hearing on this matter for March 9, 1987. The ordinance does accomodatate the direction of council. 2. The ordinance will apply to all existing auto detailing operations, It is not known whether these operations conform with the proposed ordinance. 3. The only C-1 location that would currently qualify for this use under terms of this ordinance is 7301 Penn Avenue. Decision Mode: The attached ordinance amendments are scheduled for first reading consideration by the council on February 9, 1987. If the council gives first reading to the ordinance amendment, a public hearing notice will be published for the March 9, 1987 city council meeting. Respe tfully submitted, e D. Prosser City Manager • Z LeFevere .Lefler Kennedy O'Brien Dra«z Profc~~ional aswx iation 2000 First Bank Place West January 21 ~ 19 8 7 Minneapolis Minnesota 55402 - Telephone (612) 333-0543 Telecopier (612) 333-0540 Mr . R1Ck JOpke Clayton L. LeFevere Clty Planner Herbert P. Lefler Clty of Richfield J. Dennis O'Brien John E. Drawn 6700 Portland Ave. , S. David J. Kennedy Richfield, MN 55.423 John B. Dean Glenn E. Pyrdue BY MESSENGER Richard J. Schieffer Charles L. LeFevere Herbert P. Lefler III Re : Automobile Detailing Establishment's' James J. Thomson, Jr. Thomas R. Galt Dayle Nolan Dear Rick : Brian F.-Rice John G. Kressel Lorraine s. clugg Enclosed for your review please find the proposed ordi- James M. Strommen narce amendments which address the establishment of aId H. Batty automobile detailin establishments. You will note that ~am P. Jordan g 1~rc J. Erickson my approach is to make them permitted -uses (if licensed) William R. Skallerud in C-1 districts and then to create, by ordinance, a R n od ey D. Anderson licenSln rOC2SS . Corrine A: Hein g P e I~ David D. Beaudoin Paul E. Rasmussen We believe that this is preferable to a "pure zoning" steven M. Tauen approach because it will give the City an ongoing oppor- tunity to police the activity after the use is initially established. Because C-1 districts directly relate to . residential neighborhoods, licensing will give the City an opportunity to determine on a periodic basis whether the activity continues to operate as originally antici- pated. If it fails to do so, the controls of license suspension, revocation or non-renewal will likely be more effective than .attempting to terminate a special use permit. Moreover, the license fee can be set at a level to cover the City's anticipated costs in the ongoing review. You will note that I have not suggested a license fee. I -would ask that ou determine an amount. Once tha Y t is done, I will prepare the Appendix D resolution establishing that fee. As a final comment, I must remind you of our concern about whether this type of use is appropriate for a C-l . district. In theory, I doubt that it is the t ical sort YP of neighborhood use which is best suited for the C-1 I,~ district. In ractice however it `'does seem t P r r O ..partially address the problem of what to do with old. i - O 9 Mr. Rick Jopke Page 2 January 21, I98? service stations which exist in C-1 zones as non- conforming uses. Please Iet me know if you have any questions. Respectfully yours, • _ hn B. Dean - J D:rsr _ E closures • III AMENDMENT TO CHAPTER III, PART IV, SECTION 3.32 OF THE RICHFIELD ORDINANCE CODE CITY OF RICHFIELD DOES ORf:3AIN: Chapter III, Part. IV, Section 3.32, Subdivision 1 of the Ordinance Code is hereby amended in the following respects: 1. By-adding to said subdivision I of Section 3.32 the following new paragraph (4): "(4) Automobile Detailing .Establishments, meeting the definition contained in section 6.24 of this Code, which have a current and valid license issued under that section." 2. By renumbering t:~te paragraphs in subdivision 1 of section 3.32 accordingly. • Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this day of , 1987. John N. Hamilton, Mayor ATTEST: Thomas Ferber, City Clerk 0055AM06.E14 ~U" AMENDMENT TO CHAPTER VI, OF THE ORDINANCE CODE OF THE CITY OF RICHFIELD City of Richfield Does Ordain: Chapter VI of the Ordinance Code of the City of Richfield entitled "Business and Trade Regulation and Licensing is amended by adding thereto the following new .section: 6..24 Automobile Detailing Establishments. Subdivision 1. Definitions. The following terms shall the meanings ascribed to them in this section: A 1 utomobile Detailin Establishment means a business ( ) g activity where, for a fee, automobiles, including components and parts are cleaned and .refurbished. The term does not include-the repair or replacement of parts or components, oil changing or lubrication, painting other than minor touch-up, sale of fuel or automobile parts, accessories or products. (2) "Automobile" means a motor vehicle exclusively. designed and equipped to transport its driver and passengers. The term includes a van which is so equipped, but does not include trucks, buses or motor homes. Subd. 2. License Required. No person shall operate an automobile detailing establishment without having first obtained a current and valid license to do so. Except as hereinafter provided, operation without a license is a misdemeanor. Subd. 3. Application. Any person desiring to engage in the business of operating an automobile detailing establishment shall submit an application for license to the City Clerk. The application shall be on a form prepared by the City Clerk and shall contain the following: (1) The applicant's name, age, residence and whether applicant is a registered voter of the city. If the applicant is a partnership, the names of all partners verified by one such partner. If the applicant is a corporation, the names of all the officers verified by one such officer. • • (2) The business and residence addresses, of the applicant for a period of five years prior to the application date, whether the applicant is sole owner of the business and that no persons other than those named in the application have any interest in the management and ' control of the business. (3) ,The application shall. be accompanied by the favorable: recommendations of two citizens of the city, attesting to the integrity and business ability of the applicant, or, if applicant is a partnership, the same attestation as to each partner, or, if applicant is a corporation, the same attestation as to the corporate officers and managers. . (4) The applicant shall provide a plot plan or drawing showing: (a) T,he total area of the business premises; (b) The location of streets and alleys adjacent to such premises; (c) the location or proposed location of any building to be used in;:~connection with the business; (d) The proposed location, size and kind of advertis- ing signs; (e) The proposed location of vehicle entrances and exists; (5) A complete description of the auto detailing activities proposed to be conducted on the premises. (6) Such other and further information as the city clerk shall require. Subd. 4. License Fee and License Year. The license fee is as provided in Appendix D of this Code.. The fee shall be paid in full at the time of application. The license, once issued, shall be valid for 12 months from the date of issuance unless earlier suspended or revoked. Subd. 5. Conditions Governing Issuance. The following conditions are imposed upon the granting of all licenses under this section: (1) The site shall abut and have access to an arterial roadway. (2) No mechanical car washing equipment shall be used in connection with the licensed activity. (3) No overnight outside storage of vehicles shall be permitted. ~i 2 i • (4) The site shall be adequately screened from adjacent residential properties. (5) The licensed activity shall not result in .undue congestion on surrounding streets. (6) There shall be adequate parking spaces provided on the site for customers and employees; three offstreet parking spaces for each bay where auto detailing takes place and 1 offstreet parking space for every employee shall be provided; and the licensee shall instruct customers and employees not to parking on surrounding streets. (7) The use must be conducted totally within the confines of the building, (8) There shall be no exterior storage or sales of equipment, materials or products. (9) The use shall not generate, noise, dust, or odors which disturb or'annoy occupants of adjacent residential properties. (10) There shall be no more than one curb cut per street. Curb cuts must be located at least 50 feet from any intersection. (11) Exterior lighting shall be designed and directed so as not • to case light on adjacent residential property. (12) The establishment shall be open only between 7:00 AM and 7:00 PM. (13) The premises shall be maintained in a state of good repair at all times; and shall be kept free of litter, trash, debris and weeds. (14) Underground storage tanks shall be removed as required by the City. (15) Licenses shall be granted only to establishments located in the commercial districts of the city. (16) In addition to other conditions provided for in this subdivision, if the establishment is located in a C-1 district of the city, it must be proposed as a replacement to an existing gasoline service station, service station store or public garage. Subd. 6. Suspension or Revocation. If the City Manager determines that the licensee has violated any of the conditions for licensure contained in subdivision 5 of this section, the 3 • manager shall notify the council of the nature of the violation • and request that it consider taking action to suspend or revoke the license. A copy of the notice shall be mailed, or otherwise delivered, to the licensee at the licensed premises. The council shall consider the matter at its next regularly scheduled meeting, at 1-east ten days following the date of mailing or deliver of the notice. At the h r'n y ea i g, the licensee or its representative shall have an opportunity to rebut any of the information contained in the mans er s notice and to offer 9 i evidence in .mitigation thereof. Following the hearing, the council shall determine whether the evidence of violation is established and whether the license should be suspended or revoked. In considering suspension of the license, the council may place additional and further conditions upon the licensee, if the council concludes that such additional conditions will assist in the orderly operation of the business. Subd. 7. Relationship to Other Licenses or Permits. Businesses located in C-2 districts of the city which lawfully operate as gasoline service stations, service station stores, public garages or car sale lots may continue to engage in those aspects of an automobile detailing establishment which are permitted as part of their lawful operation without the need to first obtain the license required in this section. .Effective Date. This amendment will be effective from and • after the later of: (1) 30 days following the date of publication, or (2) the date on which the amendment to Section 3.32, subdivision 1 making automobile detailing establishments a permitted use in C-1 districts is effective. Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this day of , 1987. John N. Hamilton, Mayor ATTEST: Thomas Ferber, City Clerk 4 ~ w CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Council Letter No. 45 Agenda February 9, 1987 Issue Statement: Public hearing concerning an appeal of the Hearing Examiner's denial of a variance request to allow the construction of a fireplace with the masonry chimney extending two feet into the required sideyard setback area at 7138 James Avenue. Background Mr. Michael Thomas has requested that the city grant a variance on the sideyard setback on the north side of the property located at 7138 James Avenue. The variance would reduce the sideyard setback from the required 5 feet to 3.3 feet which would allow. Mr. Thomas to construct a fireplace with the chimney extending two feet in the setback area. The property is located in "R" single family residence zoning district.. The existing structure meets all the setback requirements. A site plan map indicating the existing structures and proposed addition is attached. Eight adjoining property owners have indicated their support for the variance. The attached petition contains seven names. A letter from the eighth person is included. The map indicates the location of the petition signers and the letter writer. The variance request was denied by a Richfield Hearing Examiner. A copy of the Hearing Examiner's written findings and decision is also attached. Mr. Thomas has subsequently appealed this denial to the City Council as allowed by city ordinances. Zoning Ordinance Requirements: 1. Section 3.30, subdivision 5, indicates that the minimum interior sideyard setback in the "R" district for single family dwelling shall be 5 feet. 2. Section 3.40 and 3.40A, outlines the process for granting variances. State Statute Requirements: Minnesota State Statutes 462.357, subdivision 6 outlines conditions which must be met .for variances to be granted. Recommendation: ~ Deny the variance request to allow the construction of a fireplace with the chimney extending two feet into the required sideyard setback area at 7138 James Avenue. Basis of Recommendation: Recommendation for denial of the variance is based on the staff riance re uest does not meet the review and conclusion that the va q cit and state standards for rantin the variance. The review 9 9 Y m nts is s of the proposal-against the city and state legal require e outlined in the following: / 1. The .granting of the variance is not necessary for the reservation and en 'o ment of substantial ro ert ri hts. P J Y P P Y 9 The existin structure has one throw h substantial 9 9 9 remodelling. An alternative design has been explored to accommodate the fireplace on the northeast corner of the dwelling, but is structurally not feasible as indicated by the applicant in the attached letter. It is staff's opinion that the existing single family use. could'be continued without the variance. 2. There are no unique circumstances present on this particular site. The site is similar in shape and size to other lots in 'the surrounding community. 3. The granting of the variance would not alter the character of the neighborhood. There is approximately an 18 foot separation between the applicant's dwelling and the abutting structure to the north of the site. There. is a 14 foot ~ blacktop driveway on the southside of the abutting property to the north of the site. The potential for any future additions on the abutting property to the north is minimal due to the existing driveway and location of the. structures. Therefore, it is staff's opinion that the granting of the variance would not be detrimental to the health, welfare and safety of the adjoining properties and the neighborhood. 4. It is important to note that according to state statutes to grant a variance, it is necessary that an applicant demonstrate that all three of the above conditions have been met. This applicant has not demonstrated the first two conditions. Accordingly, the variance should not be grantdd if the city is to comply with the state statues. Alternative Recommendation: If the city council chooses to permit the construction of the chimney in this required sideyard, the sideyard setback standards should be modified within the zoning ordinance. Decision Mode: A public hearing is scheduled before the City Council at 7 PM, Monday, February 9, 1987. Legal notice of the hearing before the City Council as published in the Richfield Sun Newspaper on January 28, 1987. Respec ully submitted, I Jame D. Prosser City anager _ i . ~ . - REQtTEST FOR VARI~ CE OF FOR PURPOSE OF -~~rl e_- t.a` f1a~ ?S_ C~ ~~-~~'-t _ . ~ Legal Description : f~ ' S G ~ We, .the undersigned, being owners of immediate adjoining land as above described, do hereby concur with the variance as requested. Signature of Owners* % Address ~ v ~ ~ p ~ :~L ~ S' lam, -~,.J , • `y- LC!'u-e'zti..._" 7`zi ~ T-~•~_~-a--~. J ln~ ~-CC~~ _ * Signatures may not be removed once the petition is signed .and .returned to the Planning Division. - - . _ f/ PUBLIC HEARING `NOTICE _ CITY OF RICHFIELD - HEARING EXAM'lNER ` ~ ' TO To property owners within 350 feet of 7138 James Avenue South. APPLIC NT Michael Thomas LOCATION Block 3, Lot 6, Forest Lawn Second Addition OF PROPF~TY (7138 •,7ames Avenue. South) PURPOSE To hear reasons for or against the granting of a variance to allow a 3.3 foot sideyard setback for construction of a masonary chimney fora fireplace on the north wall. TIME OF HEARING 7:00 PM, Tuesday, December 30, 1986 PLC OF HEARING City Council Chambers, Richfield City Hall 6700 Portland Avenue South :lC~i TO PAR a iCiPATE i. Attend the hearing and give testim for r against the proposal. . 2. Submit a letter to the Hearing Examiner expressing your views. ANY GUESTIGNS Towhid Kazi Assistant Planner City of Richfield 6700 Portland Avneue South vE-J. Richfield, MN 55423 ~ 160 ~ ~ 8.69-7521, Ext . 512 RI~AF F~~2 ~ ~ - - SS423 • ~ ~ MAlL1NG OATS nP~ember 11. 1986 ~ . j . ~ . - a ~:G z~w I • Z ~ S !i 3 N 011113 d m - - - I I i 'M ' 1S did`=L I _ ~ z rn x o m ~ Cn Z - D _ _ - - m , Z rn n ~ N - - ~ Z - - D G7 ' m - Z . ~~5 - 'M '.1.S aNZl I z ~ fi'I R7 D ~ D rn - rn 'M '1S 1S1 L I I d d W N O 11113 d - - - - - - rn _ _ _ H1tiON 1 r--~. ~~---i r i_-_' 7 ~ f.'_--~.. _'.-_'--_-1 ~ ~ i ~ I____. ~.r (OFFICIAL PUBLICATION) LEGAL NOT-ICE. NOTICE OF .PUBLIC HEARING CONCERNING AN APPEAL OF THE HEARING EXAMINER'S DENIAL OF A ZONING ORDINANCE :.VARIATION Notice is hereby given that apu~lic hearing will be held before the City Council of the City of Richfield at 7:00 PM on _ Monday,. February 9, 1987 in the Council Chambers of City .Hall at 6700 Portland Avenue South, to consider an appeal of the hearing examiner's denial of a--variance. LOCATION OF VARIANCE REQUEST: 7138 James Avenue: South VARIANCE: To allow the construction of a fireplace with the masonry ehimneyextending 1.7 feet into the required interior sideyard setback. All persons interested in this matter are hereby notified to be present and they will be heard. Thomas Ferber, City Clerk PUBLISH: 1-28-87 ~~3 December 1,.1986 TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN P This letter is in request for a variance of two feet on my lot line in order to build a masonry fireplace on the north side of our home at 7138 James Avenue South. r ~ The building of this fireplace in this location is more constructionally sound. than in any other location to keep the house structurally sound and show continuity. In addition, we will not suffer any great loss of living space and the cost involved would be within reason. • A brief description with regard to the current 'layout' of our house is such: Dining Room and Kitchen are on the South side of the house. . Bedrooms and Bath are. on the West side of the house. Bedrooms on the North Side of the house -one of which we want to combine with the Living; Room which is on the East side of the house. The placement of a fireplace on the East (front) side of the house has been advised against due to the construction of the roof. Due to the valleys in the roof, a fireplace stack would block and create ice back-up creating leakage and possible damage to the roof. Thank you for your considerati ding our request. ~ ~ Michael atrick Thomas w~, ~ Susan ~ Thomas r _ NORTH 7138 JA ES AVE ` i ~ r DRIVEWAY ~ ~ N. 38. W Q W Q - ~ 7 7 135 STRUCTURE ~ FIREPLACE _ Slt@ Pjan 9 Variance Request CASE N0. 85-V-10-CH-5 APPLICANT: Mr. Michael Thomas and Mrs. Susan Thomas ~ PROPERTY LOCATION: 71.38 James Avenue South HEARING EXAMINER: CONNIE HOVERSON M ~ HEARING DATE: December 30, 1986 Ln APPEARANCES: Mr. Michael Thomas and Mrs. Susan Ln Thomas, 7138 James Avenue South, ~ Richfield, MN 55423; Mr. Edward ~ Thornton and Mrs. Arlene Thornton 7128 James Avenue, Richfield, MN ¦It~ ~ 55423; Mr. Allan ~V. Stockey, 7134 - ~ James Avenue, Richfield, MN 55423 = Based upon the evidence presented at the hearing, = the undersigned makes the following findings of fact, conclusions and decisions. A. FINDINGS OF FACT: ¦ ¦ ~ ~ 1. Notice of public hearing was proper. Notice ~ was mailed to property owners within 350 feet of the site in question as required by city ~ ordinances. The ten day notice requirement was ~ also met. ~ ~ ~ 2. The street address and legal descriptions of the property in question are as follows: o ~ Lot 6, Block 3, Forest Lawn Second. Together ~ with an easement for driveway purposes, recorded ~I for the benefit of Lot 6, over the l4est 10 feet i of Lot 7. 3. The zoning of the site in question is "R" Single Q Family Residence. ¦ t~ 0 4. T h v e ariance requested is to allow the ~ construction of a fireplace with the masonry ~ chimney extending 1.7 feet into the required ~ interior sideyard setback. 5. The reason for the request is the construction of a fireplace in this location is more sound than in other locat-ions. In addition, there ' • would not be any loss of living space and the cost involved would be within reason. telephone: 869-7521 (8 i2) an equal opportunity employer i ~ • B. CONCLUSIONS Minnesota Statutes Section 462.357, suCdivision 6 provides for the granting of variance to the literal provisions of the zoning regulations in instances where their strict enforcement would cause undue hardship. to the owners of the property under consideration. In determining whether to grant or deny the requested variance, I specifically make the following conclusions: 1. Is th_e granting of the variance necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of substantial property rights? I conclude that .granting of the variance is not necessary for the preservation. and enjoyment of substantial property rights. The existing use ' can be continued without the variance. There are also reasonable alternative locations for the fireplace which would not require a variance. 2. Are there special circumstances or conditions affecting the particular land or building referred to in the application, not caused by the property owner, which are not common to I, other properties in this or similar districts? I conclude that there are no special circumstances or conditions affecting the particular land or building which are not common of other properties in the area. The size and shape of the lot are not unique and allows for ...reasonable use of the site. 3. Will the granting of the variance alter the essential character of the neighborhood or locality? I conclude that the granting of the variance would not alter the essential character of the neighborhood. 4. Are there any conditions which must be attached to the granting of the variance to ensure compliance and to protect adjacent properties? N/A ~ ~ii , . C. DECISION Based upon the foregoing, the undersigned determines that the request be DENIED. DATED: December 31, 1986. - Nearing Examiner City of Richfield ~Gr CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Council Letter No. 44 Agenda February 9, 1987 Issue Statement: Amendment to the City facilities use policy to include a "Hold .Harmless Clause". Background: In recent years, there has been a crisis in the ability of local government to obtain adequate insurance coverage in the area of liability. There has also been a dramatic increase in all insurance costs. Along with the above mentioned problems, local government has seen an increase in claims made by citizens, claiming that the jurisdiction was in some way negligent. The City of Richfield is no exception. The number and amount of claims has risen in the last two years. In 1985, the City received 28 claims; in 1986, 38 claims were filed, a rise of 3696. With the dramatic rise in the number of claims and the possibility of litigation and increases in insurance premiums, the City must become more pro-active in loss prevention. One important element of our Loss Prevention Program is an annual city wide inspection conducted by a loss prevention expert. provided to us through the League of Minnesota Cities Insurance Trust. This inspection was conducted on July 3, 1986. Results of this survey identified several areas of potentially high risk, including the BMX track and the water slides. Another area of concern raised by the loss prevention inspection was how the various agreements, leases and recreational participation forms, used by or agreed to by the City, assigned liability.., Each of the areas has been examined to see how the City is protected against liability claims. Every contractor performing work for the City files an insurance certificate furnished by its insurance carrier, along with its bids, which establishes that company as the primary insurance carrier. It also names the City as an additional insured, thus protecting the City from claims generated by work performed by the contractor. Most leases, however, transfer liability to the City, i.e. the City's Lease of Land from the Metropolitan Airports Commission for Rich Acres Golf Course. Recreation program participant forms also did not protect the City from liability exposure. However, that form was recently modified and recreational program participants must now sign a waiver for liability for accidents, which was written by the City Attorney's office (see attached). ~1~ ~ However, such a waiver is now not required in agreements for the rental or use of City facilities as prescribed by the City's Facilites Use Policy Resolution. Thus, this weakness in the City's loss prevention program should be corrected. A "Hold Harmless" provision, which states that the user of the facility ~I agrees to assume sole responsibility for .use of the facilities and agrees to hold the City harmless from all liability claim s would be a good approach to this problem. Recommendation: It is recommended that the City Council adopt the attached ~ resolution approving~~the changes to the City Facilities~~Use Policy to include a Hold Harmless provision entitled Waiver of Liability". Basis of Recommendation: 1. Recommendation from the League of Minnesota Cities Insurance Trust, the City's insurance carrier, through its Risk Management Program. 2. This action may improve the City's posture in the event of litigation involving claimed liability in conjunction with the use of City facilities by private groups. • 3. .This action could result in a reduction in claims, improving our Loss Ratio and reducing our insurance premium. 4. The City should take all available measures to prevent losses and maintain an aggressive risk management program. Alternative Recommendation: 1. Do not change the current Facilities Use Policy. Discussion/Decision Mode: The City should implement the changes to its Facilities Use Policy as soon as possible in order to provide a revised application and agreement form for facility use. Respectfully submitted, Ja s D. Prosser Ci y Manager JDP/sae ~ ~ • RESOLUTION N0. CITY FACILITIES. USE POLICY BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA,. as follows: That effective the following shall constitute the official City policy relating to use of the Richfield Community Center, Park facilities, Ice Arena, City Council Chambers, Golf Course Clubhouse and Nature Center Building: I. General Statement All organizations, except the City Council, official City commissions and the City staff, must complete an application and have it approved before using the Community Center, Park facilities, Ice Arena, Council Chambers, Golf Course Clubhouse or Nature Center Building. Applications must be submitted as far in advance as possible of the date for which the reservation is requested. II. Waiver of Liability All organizations agree that all activities undertaken as a part of this rental/use agreement is at the organization's sole risk and that the City of Richfield shall not be liable for any claim, demands, injuries, damages, actions or causes of action whatsoever to the organization or mine or its property, due to the passive or active negligence of the City of Richfield, its servants, agents, or employees, arising out of or connected with the organization's participation in activities related to this rental/use and that on behalf of the organization. The organization shall forever discharge the City of Richfield, its servants, agents or employees from all such claims, demands, injuries, damages, actions or cause of action whatsoever, and that I have read and will adhere to all rules and regulations governing the facility. III. Hours of Availability The Community Center and Council Chambers are available seven (7) days a week from 8:30 A.M. until 11:00 P.M. with the exception of national holidays. Hours of availability of the Golf Course Clubhouse and Nature Center Building are more limited and should be confirmed with City staff responsible for those facilities. Special permission may be granted by the City Manager or his duly authorized representative, however, for. requested variations from this designated schedule. Groups whose members are under 18 years of age may use the facilities until 9:45 P.M. and must leave the premises by 10:00 P.M. IV. Who Mav Use the City Facilities The described city facilities are available to all local community organizations which have a membership consisting of at least one-fourth (1/4) of Richfield residents. Groups who have their own facilities shall be allowed to use the City facilities provided two (2) conditions are met: 1. The organization's own facilities cannot be used. 2. The time requested does not conflict with a request made by a group which does not have its own facilities. Organizations not having at least one-fourth (1/4) of its membership living inside the City of Richfield, private profit- making agencies, and fund raising events may. use the facilities but are not allowed to reserve rooms on a monthly. basis. The City Council, official city commissions., the city staff or any governmental or quasi governmental organization whose meetings are sponsored by the City Council, an official city commission or the city staff shall have priority on the use of the Council Chambers. Although efforts will be made to avoid potential conflicts, it may be necessary on occasion to advise groups that have reserved the Council Chambers for a certain time and date that it will be necessary for them to relocate their meeting because of the need to use the Council Chambers for purposes connected with municipal government. • V. Rules and Regulations 1. The Community Center kitchen has been equipped with a stove, refrigerator, coffee maker, china, flatware and other items used in the preparation of food. Only these items may be used unless permission to use special equipment is obtained. No kitchen facilities are available at the Council Chambers, Golf Course Clubhouse or Nature Center. Groups using those facilities may provide their own coffee and light refreshments; however, no meals are allowed in the Council Chambers. 2. Beer or intoxicating beverages are forbidden in any City building, in the parking lot and surrounding park areas. 3. The custodian shall have complete supervisory control over the operation of the facilities. No equipment may be operated without his permission. 4. Users of the Community Center shall be responsible for cleaning the kitchen. Soap and cleaning materials will be provided by the City. Users of any City facility shall be responsible for basic cleanup and pickup. 5. No banners, streamers or signs may be attached to the walls of rooms or halls without permission of the City Manager or his duly authorized representative. Any such attachments which are permitted must be removed by the group using the facility. " ' . 6. Youth groups shall be chaperoned on a ratio of one adult for each fifteen (15) or fewer youth under the age of 18. The number of youth attending and the names of the chaperones shall be submitted with the applications. If the general public is invited, the City Manager or his duly authorized representative and the signer of the application shall determine the number of chaperones needed. 7. The City assumes no liability for loss, damage, injury or illness incurred by the users of the facilities. 8. The signer of the application shall be held personally responsible for any breakage, damage or loss of equipment. The signer of the application shall also indicate that he has read and understands the rules. 9. Smoking shall be restricted to designated areas. 10. All damage must be reported to the City Manager or his duly authorized representative within twenty-four (24) hours. 11. Hours of use designated on the application must be adhered to. The facility shall be opened for the applicant at the time first indicated on the application. The facility shall be closed and locked at the time last indicated on the application. 12. Failure to meet these policies and rules will be cause for forfeiture of future privileges. 13. Groups cancelling out twice in a season will be given low priority in reserving future dates unless the City is notified seven (7) days prior to cancellation. 14. None of the City facilities may be reserved on a continuing basis for any or all of the weekdays Monday through Friday with the exception of local senior citizen or handicapped groups. approved by the City Manager or his duly authorized representative. The general purpose room, conference room and kitchen located on the upper level of the Community Center may be reserved by other groups between the hours of 9:00 A.M. to 4:00 P.M. or any portion thereof with the approval of the City Manager or his duly authorized representative. These groups will be subject to-the fee schedule as stated in the regulations. Food service not readily accommodated by the kitchen on the upper level is not permitted; however, such food service may be provided on a reservation basis on the lower level. 15. Organizations or groups wishing to cancel a reservation and failing to do so shall be fined a fee which shall be charged based on the hourly rate equal to time actually worked by the City staff. • 16. All areas of the City Hall except the Council Chambers, entry corridor and restrooms are restricted from any use by the organization using the Council Chambers. VI. Procedure for Applying 1. Applications with a cover letter explaining the rules and regulations of the Community Center will be sent to all previous. season users on or about July 1 of each year. Previous year users will be given until August 1 to reserve meeting times, and then reservations will be made on a first come first served basis. Reservations for any other facility will be made on a first come first served basis. 2. Reservations will not be official until the application is signed by the City Manager or his duly authorized representative and the original form returned to the applicant. Room reservations will not be accepted over the telephone. Applications should be submitted as early as possible and at least one week prior to the meeting date. 3. Upon approval of an application for use of the Community Center, room designation shall be made for the meeting or activity. The approved application shall bear such designation and only the room(s) designated may be used by the organization or group. However, circumstances may require reassignment of room designation at the time of the meeting activity. 4. A licants not havin at least one-fourth (1/4) of their PP 9 hi li in inside of Richfield cit limits will not be ~ members p v g y llowed to reserve the facilit on a monthl basis. a y y 5. Group reservations for regularly scheduled meetings may be made after July l for a twelve (12) month period. VII. Fee Schedule The fee schedule shall encompass two areas: room rental and food service. 1. ROOM RENTAL The fee encompasses the following classifications of groups: Nonprofit Groups a) Groups will be charged an hourly rate of $4.00/hour. b Food service char es will be additional. 9 Youth Groups (Parents of youth groups, ex. coaches, auxiliaries, charged full price) r a) Youth groups will charged one-half (1/2) of the regular room i i rate. i ' b) Food service charges will be additional. Profit Making Organizations/.Private Parties (These uses are not permitted in the Council Chambers. These are the rates that apply to the Golf Course and Nature Center) a) Groups will be charged $20.00/hour. b) Food service charges will be additional. Fund Raisers/Churches and Church Groups a) Groups will be charged $6.50/hour. b) Food service charges will be additional. ALL CHARGES ARE BASED ON A PER ROOM BASIS. * GROUPS OVER 75 WILL BE CHARGED ONE ADDITIONAL HOUR FOR CLEANUP. 2. FOOD SERVICE • In addition to room rental rates, the following rates shall be charged to food service which would be provided by the club or organization. Snack and/or beverage $2.50 For Community Center only: Lunch, dinner, potluck, etc., prepared outside the Community center (may use Center coffee pot only). $5.00 Lunch, dinner, potluck, etc., prepared at or outside the Community Center (using full kitchen facilities). $10.00 Breakfast, dinner, suppers, etc., sponsored by a community organization to which the general public is invited. $25.00 Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota, this _th day of , 1987. John Hamilton Mayor ATTEST: Thomas P. Ferber City Clerk • i 6700 Portland Avenue Richfield City Hall Iii Richfield, MN 55423 Council Chambers REGULATIONS AND INSTRUCTIONS 1. Applications must be submitted as far in advance as possible of the meeting date. 2. Group reservations for regularly scheduled meetings may be made three months in advance. 3. The person making application and the organization assume individual and joint obliga- tion for replacements or payment in-case of loss or damage resulting from their use of the buildin facilities an ree to g , d ag abide by the rules established by the City Council. ' 4. The council chambers will be available from 8:30 A.M. to 11:00 P.M. 5. The City of Richfield assumes no liability for loss, damage, injury or illness incurred b the users of the facilit . Y Y 6. Please notify the public safety department when meeting adjourns. 7. Room rate - $4.00/hr. payable to the City of Richfield at time of application. 8. Food service - $2.00/hr. if applicable. Requesting Organization Date of Use Hours of Use Purpose of Use: Attendance Applicant's Name: Home Phone Work Phone Applicant's Address: ~ichfield residents compose at least one-fourth of organization Yes No Check facilities desired: Blackboard Podium Viewing Screen Floor Microphone Other Do you have your own meeting facilities? Yes No I agree that all activities undertaken by myself or organization as part of this rental/use agreement, is at my or the organization's sole risk and that the City of Richfield shall not be liable for any claim, demands, injuries, damages, actions or causes of action whatsoever to me, the organization or mine or its property due to the passive or active negligence of the City of Richfield, its servants, agents, or employees, arising out of or connected with m or the or anization's artici ation in activities related to Y 9 P P this rental/use and that on behalf of myself or the organization I represent, I forever discharge the City of Richfield, its servants, agents, or employees, from all such claims, demands, injuries, damages, actions or cause of action whatsoever, and that I have read and will adhere to all rules and regulations governing this facility. Applicant's Signature Date Accepted: Date Rejected ~ignature Designated City Employee CITY OF RICHFIELD,. MINNESOTA Council Letter No. 43 Agenda February 9, 1987 Issue Statement: Request that 77th Street be designated a Municipal State Aid Street, revoke. the State Aid designation from several street sections in .order to use Municipal State Aid gas tax money for contemplated changes to 77th Street in the ILN area. Background:. In the mid-1950's, the Richfield City Council designated 2D~ of the city streets as Municipal State Aid (MSA) streets. These more heavily traveled streets could then be improved to a high standard for the benefit of Richfield residents and the general traveling public. The State Aid Office has certain restrictions on these designations to assure that the major routes are on the MSA system and not the local residential streets. .Designation of an MSA route .allows the city to receive State funds for improvements and maintenance of these roadways.. Few changes have been made to this system since the 1950's. Now Richfield is considering some fairly dramatic changes to 77th Street in the ILN area. The proposed traffic volumes on the realigned 77th Street clearly indicate that MSA designation would be appropriate. In determining the termini of the new MSA route, possible future improvements to 77th Street should be examined. The ILN plan shows 77th Street being extended east of Lyndale Avenue through the municipal garage building. In addition, the latest improvement plan for 494/Highway 77 (Cedar Avenue) shows the elimination of the frontage road and a reorientation of the business access to 77th Street. It also appears that any .widening of I494 will cause the loss of portions of the frontage road in other areas along I494. This would result in some change in the form of access to businesses on 77th Street between 35W and Cedar Avenue. The resultant increased traffic will. require a need to buffer these impacts from adjacent residential properties. The council need not take a position now on each of the various causes for change along 77th Street. However, since some of this change appears inevitable, the city should position itself appropriately to receive funds through MSA to address these issues when the need does arise. MSA designation allows Richfield to list this street improvement as a need, which will increase the annual MSA allotment by an estimated $30,000 per year, This is true despite the fact that a corresponding length of MSA street must be removed from the system. The streets to be removed from the MSA are 66th Street from Lyndale Avenue to Cedar Avenue and Nicollet Avenue from 62nd to 67th Street. These streets are county roads on the County State Aid (gas tax) system. If Richfield wishes to make improvements i to these county roads, MSA funds can still be used. It should be 'r~ noted that the reason the city can use-MSA funds off of our own system is that it is a county or state route. MSA funds cannot be used for improvements to a local residential street. ~ Recommendation: Approve the attached resolutions designating 77th Street from 76th Street near 35W to Cedar Avenue at 76th Street as an MSA street and a~resolution revoking the designation of 6.6th Street ' from Lyndale Avenue to T.H. 77 and Nicollet Avenue from 62nd to 67th Streets as MSA streets. I Basis for Recommendation: 1. The MSA designation is needed for the new 77th Street in the ILN area so that MSA funds can be used for construction. 2. Improvements to I494 now being considered may eliminate the frontage road in several areas. The access to businesses along I494 will likely be reoriented to 77th Street from the j frontage road. This could involve increased traffic and the need for buffering the adjacent residential neighborhood. The MSA designation of 77th Street will make MSA funds available for street improvements. 3. The MSA rules and regulations make it financially. advantageous to place 77th Street on the system. Once 77th Street is on the system, Richfield will receive an estimated increase of $30,000 annually. 4. Designation of 77th Street as an MSA route in no way gives approval to any plans or proposals along 1494. Each must stand on its own. Alternative Recommendation: 1. The council may decide to delay the decision until the I494 study is completed and/or the CDR project has begun. However, a delay will cost over $30,000 per year in MSA allotments. ~II 2. The council may decide to designate only a portion of 77th Street at this time. Again, the city would lose the prorated share of $30,000 per year. Staff believes that the Mega Mall- plans and the I494 study are advanced to a point where some work on 77th Street is likely. The designation action does not endorse any proposals being considered. Discussion/Decision Mode: In order to take advantage of a $30,000 .increase in the 1988 MSA allotment, the District State Aid Engineer must receive this revision by March 1, 1987. A decision at the February 9, 1987 city council meeting allows sufficient time to process the ~ request. However, a delay of council action until February 23, 1987 could be accommodated. Respectfully submitted, J es D. Prosser 'ty Manager JDP/eja RESOLUTION N0. RESOLUTION REVOKING MUNICIPAL STATE AID STREET WHEREAS, it appears to the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota that the road hereinafter described should be revoked as a Municipal State Aid Street under the provisions of Minnesota Laws; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota that the road described as follows, to-wit: 66th Street from Lyhdale Avenue South to T.H. 77 and Nicollet Avenue from 62nd Street to 67th Street be, and hereby is, revoked as a Municipal State Aid Street of said City subject to the approval of the Commissioner of Highways of the State of Minnesota. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the City Clerk is hereby authorized and directed to forward two certified copies of this resolution to the Commissioner of Highways for his consideration. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this 9th day of February, 1987. John Hamilton, Mayor ATTEST: Thomas P. Ferber, City Clerk • RESOLUTION N0. i RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING MUNICIPAL STATE AID STREET ~ WHEREAS, it appears to the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota that the street hereinafter described should be designated a Municipal State Aid Street under the provisions of Minnesota Laws, Chapter 162; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the-City of Richfield, Minnesota that the road described as follows, to-wit: West 77th Street from West 76th Street near Fremont Avenue to Colfax Avenue then 77th Street from Lyndale Avenue to Cedar Avenue then Cedar. Avenue from East 77th Street to East 76th .Street (2.36 miles) be, and hereby is established, located, and designated a Municipal State Aid Street of said City, subject to the approval of the Commissioner of Highways of the State of Minnesota. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the City Clerk is hereby authorized III ~ .and directed to forward two certified copies of this resolution to the Commissioner of Highways for his consideration, and that upon his approval of the designation of said road or portion thereof., that same be constructed, improved and maintained as a Municipal State. Aid Street of the City of Richfield, Minnesota to be numbered and known as .Municipal State Aid Street No. 108. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this 9th day of February, 1987. John Hamilton, Mayor ATTEST: Thomas P. .Ferber, City Clerk _ U ~2~ ~ a , ~ ~ ~~o _ _ CI ? O ~ Q 1. ~ © ? p :.--I i k ~ n-i I_ _n-1 Q H a--t ~p -f- Q ~ ~ ~ F r Q--1 I ` + ~ ' ~ 1 ...444. . ~ • v:: 'w:: t r. M h4..vr.4 nh .4, 1 r4. rr.4 4v.4 .h.y~ I ~ 3 4 .M.. r. 4.... :.Y:.•::::::: ~ ~ Q • 1 ~ v. N.. i h, t f.~''(( v: Y.::l \~J.r..... . . r:.: •J:: 4y. i . . 4h .4h4 r. .:h.h44. 'J !%i•}ia..:y ..•::::::::.:}:•:•}..I n. . i i-- 1 f:. I • v:.: f .;ys • i :•5?: vi: • ...........y •.•.J.' I , i -.-~1 . f: :7: 1' ~ ~......:Y:~. 4.:..:::. 4.:..... ~'+y /'y i 4 j^~ - e . I • • • 1 • ~ • ~:j : A•rf::titi•X::v:ti:• ~ititi':: ..h . .......~........I ;1 ......F....~.. ~..4,....4. :.3~:• .......r:: . t•.~::.~. • U ~ .....E~.. . [i 'I - :i ::3•: :.3' i - x.:; ::3 - s:3: ; ~ ••:a 3•:.: •:~~:4':':•''i:': •~h ~i .3' •;Cis~ i v.}'; .t~. 1 ' '~'c~. :•1. /,y.y y} ~:f,~y.~ :;;~~r'r'?:ti;:;: :I ..145.: .45. :<4i•.?• i~•:?' I : tip:.. N f.'.V.1 . r, t '•:4 us x J.. :O~•~. :.Ri:ti}:4•iY:•: ::•3 :~t ,t :i ~ .`~.""•+.+r...~ a E ~ 'If a .max.>' • • 4!. ih~ t!S} l ~ , _ _ ~ ff ~~~~4 i * .7 I ~:r 'i:f}: :':4 . I - ! ~ :A•: .:n I ~1.~ ~ ..h' . ~ y, <:3~'r:. 33 - !444• ~~ryry : =a ;;;:C:3:':. r• i - 3 y.~~ ..4. 3 .4 }~~i I - 4,. i:;' '.h. a h•.~. '~:i 5i~ Vii;:':::;, ' .4 •i :a n., i i i i ' N:•ti ~ ~ 4 .lY. :+Y. :~•f ~ • .•..••:•JK•:•: 1 .y !4 i .4. y r •:.4:::. ~ y~.. ''1 ry~ :•:4V':~:J:C'.'•• ~ •:•J:..v.• i:Mi{: •ti1f _ \ .ti' . :E - ~ ~:•rr yo-: yy ~••;,4•, ..a, f:Yfh4•. - ;h.:7 h'• . x~: ~;N:ti•:•J:•~:.Y.V i~a;, :,.i a~'.., ..4.:. . •i - . P.:: v.~:;:;::•r.;.;:.; . ::h 'Y.' ~ij~ _ y - v.v.~:: ~ i` ~::.i i:~:::. .:~'i~.. :j ~t~7 i - %i 1 . _ ti'4 - fjp 4: :tiy;y:~wQ::ti :%~A'L~ I,4S'~ „ • y~ •h . W ••N:' ~ v~i8~ wd~ti tiYW4l4s1~jfA • l v.~::::::.: 4yN 4~•~ Gl - :A'. s rri~iY 1~i. r.MI'i1+1iA,Y ( ~ ~ y ~.u.vaa>•as •ar• xir~M.wa' ~•iiw~y YI?, ~~~q..~~~ .,.::7~ _ A . . i ~t._:_... ~ r ~ . ~ . 1- ~4 . 1 . 1 ~ I-494 ~ - Land Use Circulatlon< ` E:letins Propossdor j, ~ Lf Ag Y r t;ommerdel Upgrodsd , ' ~ t • ~ tll if Land Used _ Re~deve~~ptx~e~l~ ~ r~~~th ~I r 1 } Q Resldsntlel PrtndP~ Artedet ~~I CUIaf.IOl 1 ~ ~ Ml~ror A~tedef ~ a~rrs. stAp t~t.~ cofkctor st...~ j~ Plan h~.I S~ ~ .i ' o C~ 7FeftloSlgneF ~i=~i~~' _ City of Ric~iEieId. Nfi?hesota ' .i . _ _ o _ (o CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Council Letter No. 42 Agenda February 9, 1987 i Issue Statement: Authorization to purchase a sand rake for Rich Acres Golf Course. Background: The City Council policy resolution on purchasing provides that when the purchase of merchandise, materials, equipment or ' construction exceeds the amount of $5,000, authority to purchase shall be submitted to the City Council for consideration. The sand rake at the golf course was on a three-year depreciation schedule, but has been in service for six years. It now requires parts and extensive work before it could continue to be used and is therefore scheduled for replacement in 1987. The adopted central garage budget (602-4862 Capital Outlay) includes $5,500 for the new sand tra raker. P Two written quotations were received: R. L. Gould & Co. quoted $6,920 less a trade-in of $800 for a Smithco Super Rake 16 Model ~~13-202. MTI Distributing Co. quoted $5,665, less a $750 trade- in for a Toro Sand Pro with rake complete. Recommendation: Authorize the purchase from MTI Distributing Co. of a 1987 Toro Sand Pro 14 with rake complete for. $5,665 less the trade-in of $750 for a net purchase price of $4,915. Basis of Recommendation: 1. MTI Distributing Co. submitted the lowest quotation for the equipment requested. The quotation specifies that all equipment would be setup, serviced and delivered in operating condition and covered under factory warranty of one full year on all parts, service and labor. 2. The new equipment would be used to rake sand in bunkers on the golf course and would also be used for spiking greens with the spiker attachment now owned by the golf course. 3. The net purchase price is within the budget. Alternative Recommendation: 1. Not approve the purchase. However, as the existing equipment is fully depreciated and in need of extensive repairs, not approving the purchase could have an adverse effect on golf course maintenance. Discussion/Decision Mode: To insure delivery and availability prior to the start of the golf season, it is suggested action be taken as soon as possible. This item has been scheduled for the February 9 council agenda. Respect lly submitted, Jam D. Prosser Cit Manager JDP/eja ~i CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Council Letter No. 41 Agenda February 9, 1987 . Issue Statement: Approval of the 1987 Personal Health Services contract with the City of Bloomington. Background: Since 1977, the City of Richfield. has contracted with the City of Bloomington to provide certain personal health services to our residents. The services include community nursing, home health, disease prevention and control, health education, and parent/child health activities. The major share of the cost of these services is funded by a Community Health Services grant from the State of Minnesota. The 1987 grant award is comprised of two grants, $77,100 for the Community Health Services, and $22,907 for the Maternal and Child Health, for a total award amount of $100,007. The 1987 contract amount is $114,000, a $2000 increase over 1986 to reflect an increase in the maternal health program. The difference of $13,993 between the contract amount and state subsidy is allocated by Richfield to the personal health services program in the Public Safety Department budget. Recomendation: It is recommended that the City Council approve the 1987 Personal Health Services contract with the City of Bloomington. Basis of Recommendation: This method of providing personal health services to Richfield residents through the Bloomington Department of Health has given us the advantage of economy of scale. The combination of revenues has allowed Bloomington to provide our residents the expertise of health care professionals from several disciplines with a relatively low overhead cost for administration. Alternative Recommendation: The City Council could reject the contract and authorize the hiring of personnel to conduct our own personal health services program. The cost of providing a level of service similar to the contracted ser-vice would increase significantly due to the higher ratio of administrative costs to personnel for a smaller program. Decision/Discussion Mode: The 1987 contract for the Personal Health Services program has been submitted and reviewed by Public Safety Department staff, and is ready for Council approval at the February 9 council meeting. Res a fully submitted, Jam D. Prosser Cit Manager JDP/eja CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Council Letter No. 40 February 9, 1987 Issue Statement: I, City Council Approval of Payment in Excess of $5,000 for Payroll Programming Services. i Background: The computer acquisition/conversion to the Burroughs computer 'i system included a projection of approximately $30,000 for outside computer programming services to assist the conversion of existing programs to the new system and to write new program applications software. Initially it was anticipated that these services would primarily be utilized in the 1986 budget year. I, However, systems software (programs that were included as part of the new computer system which operate that system) and some hardware problems have delayed the conversion process and postponed the need for some outside programming services into 1987. This help will be especially critical during the first two II or three months of 1987. A portion of the Burroughs package purchased from MTI Office .Systems, Inc. included an agreement by MTI to fund up to $15,000. for the conversion and reprogramming of the City's payroll and payroll related software. Programming costs in excess of that amount are to be funded by the City. To date, costs of programming the payroll system have exceeded the $15,000 contract amount by $14,720 as included on invoices presented by MTI Office Systems to the City. This billing was carefully examined and contains a detailed hourly accounting of time expended for the project. Completing programming for the payroll system and accompanying documentation will require additional work which will not be ' finished until mid to late February. The complexities of the many deduction register combination possibilities, pension plans, and reporting requirements of the City's payroll system have made this project exceedingly difficult. The payroll project has been further complicated in that no other packaged program exists to exactly fit the Burroughs system for Richfield'spayroll application. One way the City may be able to recover some of the costs of creating this payroll software is the possibility of marketing the payroll software program in conjunction with MTI, after the project is complete. Some municipalities have already expressed an interest in purchasing the payroll software. Recommendation: It is recommended that the City Council approve the payment of i $14,720 to MTI for programming services. ~~-~~=.i Basis of Recommendation: 1. The City must complete the conversion of all payroll related software to continue the day to day operation of municipal administration. ilable staffin or time to 2. City staff does not have ava g .complete the payroll conversion. 3. The initial computer pur-chase package anticipated the need for .outside programming assistance. 4. The majority of the work to be performed on this project has already been completed and billed to the City. 5. The skill level and thoroughness of the contract programming is very good, leaving staff confident that the project will be done correctly. Alternative Recommendation: 1. The City could approve payment of work already performed and seek to complete the project through alternative programming sources. However, with the limited City staff capable of performing this programming and the many other programming needs to be completed within the next six weeks, outside help would be essential. Discussion/Decision Mode: Payment presented by MTI covers hours worked during November, December and a portion of January, and as such should be payed on or before February 15 to avoid interest charges. Respectfully submitted, Ja s D. Prosser Ci y Manager JDP/eja c, CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Council Letter No. 39 Agenda February 9, 1987 I Issue Statement: Consideration of a Resolution to Increase Notary Fee. Background: The City Clerk and the full time employees in the City Clerk Division are commissioned by the State of Minnesota to serve as Notaries Public in Hennepin County. As such, they provide notary services to the general public regarding motor vehicle transactions, license applications, acknowledgments, and other documentation. The fees charged for these services are governed by Minnesota State Statute 357.17. In 1983, the Statute raised the maximum allowable fee from 25~ to $1.00. The City of Richfield currently charges a fee of 25~ for a notary service transaction. Hennepin County offices and the other motor vehicle offices have set their notary fees at $1.00. Recommendation: Adopt the attached resolution to increase the notary fee charged by the Notary Public of the City of Richfield from 25~ to $1.00 per transaction. Basis for Recommendation: 1. The City incurs costs in providing notary public services, including providing bonding and notary stamps. The revenue from fees should cover these costs and it is appropriate to raise the fee to cover increased costs. 2. Minnesota State Statute 357.17 provides authority to set the fee at $1.00 per transaction. 3. Similar jurisdictions in Hennepin County charge $1.00 as the fee for notary service. Alternative Recommendation: 1. Reject the increase in notary fees and let it remain at 25~. 2. Adjust the fee to a different level than what is recommended. Discussion/Decision Mode: This matter has been scheduled for consideration on February 9, 1987. Res fully submitted, Jam D. Prosser Cit Manager RESOLUTION N0. RESOLUTION APPROVING AN INCREASE IN NOTARY FEE WHEREAS, Minnesota State Statute 357.17 states the maximum fees to be charged and collected by a notary public shall be $1.00 for a notary transactions, and, WHEREAS, the City of Richfield provides notary public services and incurs certain costs in doing so; and, WHEREAS, .these costs are funded by revenue from notary fees. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council hereby establishes the fee to be charged and collected by a notary public employed by the City as $1.00 per notary .transaction effective the date of passing this resolution. Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this 9th day of February, 1987. John Hamilton Mayor ATTEST: II Thomas P. Ferber City Clerk i (v ' ~/1 • CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Council Letter No. 38 Agenda February 9, 1987 Issue Statement: Setting a date for the 1987 Local Board of Review. Background: Minnesota Statute 274.01 provides that the County Assessor shall establish a date for Local Boards of Review each year, for the purpose of reviewing the assessment of property within each respective city in Hennepin County. The meetings are to be held between April 1 and June 30 and must be preceded by at least 10 days published notice before the date of the first meeting. The Board of Review must complete its work within 20 days of the first local Board meeting each year, unless a longer period of time is approved by the Commissioner of Revenue. However, the Commissioner will not issue an extension past June 30. The County Assessor has recommended Monday, June 1,1987, as the date of the 1987 Local Board of Review meeting for Richfield. The meeting will be scheduled to begin at 7:00 P.M. For the past several years, the City of Richfield has held its Board of Review meeting the first Monday in June. A roximatel a month rior to the Local Board of Review meetin PP Y P 9~ the Administrative Services Director and staff of the Hennepin County Assessor s office assigned to Richfield will arrange a study session with the City Council to brief Council members on the Board of Review process and of typical cases that may come before the Board. Recommendation: 1. It is recommended that the City Council confirm the County Assessor's selection of Monday, June 1, 1987, at 7:00 P.M., for the Board of Review meeting. Basis of Recommendation: 1. The County Assessor coordinates the scheduling of all Local Boards of Review in Hennepin County. He has recommended Monday, June 1, 1987. 2. The City has typically held the Local Board of Review on the first Monday in June. Alternative Recommendation: 1. The City Council could select another date for the Local Board of Review Hearing and submit the date to the County Assessor. Discussion/Decision Mode: • Hennepin County must make a schedule of local Board of Review hearings to facilitate the County Board hearings and to ensure that needed information has been compiled prior to the Local Board of Review Meetings. Notification to Hennepin County should . be made as soon as possible, especially if an alternate date is requested. Respectfully submitted, James Prosser Gity Hager JDP/sae • _ _ • City of Richfield, Minnesota City Council Letter No. 37 Agenda February 9, 1987 Issue Statement: Consideration of a Resolution to Increase the Pay of Election Judges. Background: Minnesota Election Law provides that compensation to election judges serving in any city is to be determined by the governing body of the city and that election judges shall receive at least the prevailing Minnesota minimum wage for each hour. spent carrying out their duties at the polling places and in attending training sessions. The City of Richfield currently compensates election judges at the following rates: Chairperson $4.50 per hour Co-Chairperson $4.00 per hour Judge $3.50 per hour A survey of eight other communities in Hennepin County reveals that election judges in Richfield are the- lowest paid. (see attached survey) The last time Richfield adjusted the pay for election judges was in 1984. • Recommendation: Adopt the attached resolution increasing the pay of election judges to the following: Chairperson $5.00 per hour Co-Chairperson $4.50 per hour Judge $4.25 per hour The total cost of increasing these rates would be approximately $325.00 per election for 1987, and up to $450.00 per election in 1988. Basis of Recommendation: 1. The pay scale for election judges in Richfield is substantially below that of other Hennepin County communities. This increase would make the pay scale comparable with what other communities in the area are paying election judges. 2. Maintaining a comparable wage will assist in retaining experienced judges and recruiting new judges. 3. Election judges fulfill an essential role in the conduct and integrity of the election process. 4. Election judge compensation was last adjusted in 1984. 5. The 1987 Election Division budget includes funding for the proposed adjustment. Alternative Recommendation: 1. Reject an increase for election judge pay. 2. Adjust election judge pay to different rates than what is recommended. Discussion/Decision Mode: This matter has. been scheduled for consideration on February 9, 1987 to enable the City Clerk to have adequate time to incorporate the new pay structure into the election judge recruitment and training process for 1987. Respectfully submitted, Jam D. Prosser Cit Manager JDP/sae Election Judge Pay Survey City Judge Chairperson Richfield $3.50 per hour $4.50 per hour Bloomington $4.40 per hour $5.00 per hour Brooklyn Park $4.00 per hour $5.00 per hour Edina $4,00 per hour $4,75 per hour Minneapolis $4.00 per hour $4.00 per hour plus $20.00 (lump sum) Golden Valley $4.50 per hour $4.50 per hour plus $10.00 (lump sum) St. Louis Park $4.50 per hour $4.75 per hour Robbinsdale $4.25 per hour $4.75 per hour Hopkins $4.50 per hour $5.00 per hour Survey Conducted 1/23/87 • ~-J~ Resolution No. • Resolution Approving Pay Rate Adjustment for Election Judges WHEREAS, Minnesota Election Law provides that compensation to election judges serving in any city is to-be determined by the governing body of the city and that election judges shall receive at least the prevailing Minnesota minimum wage for. each hour spent carrying out their duties at the polling places and in attending training sessions, and, WHEREAS, the Richfield City Council recognizes the importance of the role of election judges in the conduct of elections. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council hereby establishes the following pay rates for election judges effective the date of passing this resolution: Chairperson $5.00 per hour Co-Chairperson $4.50 per hour Judge $4..25 per hour Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield this 9th • day of February, 1987. John Hamilton Mayor ATTEST: Thomas P. Ferber City Clerk lp CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Council Letter No. 36 Agenda February 9, 1987 Issue Statement: Authorization to purchase shelving for the Cedar Liquor Store. Background: Construction on the new liquor store is to the point where store fixtures can be ordered. Steel shelving for the new store should be ordered as soon as possible to allow for five to six weeks delivery time. Three vendors were contacted to submit quotes for the purchase .and installation of shelving. Two quotes were I received, one in the amount of $11,945 and one for $9,569. Recommendation: ~ Approve the purchase and installation of steel shelving for the Cedar Liquor Store from National Store Fixtures in the amount of $9,569. i Basis for Recommendation: ~I 1. The amount is the lowest quote received. ~I 2. The proposal meets specifications and is within the budget for the work. • 3. The vendor has performed similar installations for other municipal liquor stores in the metropolitan area. Alternative Recommendation: 1. Not award the contract for installation of steel shelving at the Cedar Liquor Store. Discussion/Decision Mode: The work to be performed needs to be coordinated with other contractors on the construction site. To facilitate the work and ensure timely delivery of the shelving, the item has been scheduled for the February 9, 1987 city council agenda. Respec fully submitted, Jame D. Prosser City Manager JDP/eja ~ • ~I ~j~.~' CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA. Council Letter No. 35 Agenda February 9, 1987 • Issue Statement: Consideration of request for waiver of $18 permit fee, and authorization to place oversized billboard sign in Hub Shopping Center Lot from February 17-28. Background: The Crosstown Exchange Club has applied for a permit to erect a portable, oversized double-faced sign mounted on a trailer, at the Hub Shopping Center parking lot for the period of February 17-28, 1987. The sign will measure 25' x l2', or 300. square feet. Recommendation: 1. Deny the fee waiver request. 2. Deny the permit for an oversized, temporary trailer sign. Basis for Recommendation: 1. The Inspection Division and the Planning Division have denied the sign because it does not conform to city ordinances. City Ordinances limit temporary signs to be a maximum size of 3' x 4' (12 square feet). This sign is 300 square feet. 2. City ordinance does not permit the council to grant an exception to the sign ordinance 3. If signs of this size are approved for churches, civic or educational groups, they most also be approved for commercial • use to prevent the city from discriminating. 4. A smaller sign, meeting the ordinance code requirements, could be used for the same purpose. 5. A sign this sign in the Hub Shopping Center lot could be a vision obstruction or traffic hazard to shopping center motorists. Alternative Recommendation: 1. If the council chooses to allow this type of sign, the sign ordinance should be amended to permit council to accomodate these reguests legally. Discussion/Decision Mode: This item has been placed on the February 9, 1987 consent calendar portion of the agenda for consideration, with staff recommendation to deny the permit. Respectfully submitted, Ja D. Prosser Ci y Manager JDP/eja 1 't { . M ~,~oa seiey~F 1~ tt``J ~V ` D erica Thechange dubs of ~ ration Message from N ~ME ' b of ~ ~t q ~nme Prue an c~u he ~.xch ~ red by t Spons° i • CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Council Letter No. 34 February. 9, 1987 Issue Statement: Request for permit for illuminated signs at Realty World, 6945 Nicollet Avenue South and Subway (sandwiches) located at l0 East 66th Street. Background: Realty World-Requests a permit to replace the existing ground sign face. The size is to be 12' X 7'. Cragg Signs requests a permit to erect a wall sign for Subway. The sign is to be illuminated with a size of 10'6" X 18". Recommendation: It is recommended that the city council approve the permits for these illuminated signs. Basis for Recommendation: 1. The Inspection Division and the Planning Division have approved the signs. 2. The signs conform to all applicable city ordinances. Alternative Recommendation: 1. Not approve the permits. However, the city has no alternative design criteria to suggest for substitutes for these signs. Discussion/Decision Mode: This item has been placed on the consent calendar portion of the February 9, 1987 council agenda for consideration. The businesses are requesting action to complete their sign placement at these business establishments. Respectfully submitted, Jame Prosser City anager JDP/sae APPROVE I ~ DENY ~ : APPROVE ~.~I DEA'Y f ~ : ,,~~'trc~=-c~! • City Manager ; Ins e _ o ~n Date Date APPROVE '~DENY~ ~ : ''r~(L~ AFPRO~'E DE:~'YI ~ : o _ Planning partment City Council ~ aN SIC~t~I R'pd`l~ Date ~Z}~{'] Date P r(L-o'ni'Ei~ stb~s QN Rout~tb above for special approval per code General Sins APPLICaTIO:~ FOR ADVERTISIKG PER*fIT Cit~• of Richfield, Minnesota Date Zoning Sign Erected - Tes No Fee Address of .Sign ~,gsf 1~~~'' S% Proprietor Dame J~.n ~~Y+-qtr, DBA Sign. Erector L ~ cc.c; ~-r..,; ~ Address. 71Sn ~?,~r-1. s.,~ w- U~ i~1.,,, U.~•/ly,~, ~l.~! i .Tyne of Sign Desicn ~:~eather Cover Lichtinr • Wall Single Face Clear Lexon Constant Projecting ~ Double :ace Frosted Lexon ~ Flashing Ground Multi-Faced Plastic Covered ~ ~ Revolving Roof Aerial/Blimp ~ Shaded Traveling Pedestal Searchlight Neon Zip Lite Changeable I Banner/Pennants Other Other(Explain) Temporary I Portable Frame: Sign Colors ; u~ Trailer C J ~ ~ T ~ ~ Post ~ If Illuminated -Yes No Watts _ ~~`i' ~ctrical .Contractor /f/,~, r,<,,,..,-7` ~ ~ , ~ ~Addr OSS~, ,yam- Sri Fi:one ~SSy - ~ yy'G I~roperty Owner or his Agent Signature ~ ~ Phoneme-, 3- ~i~> Estimated Cost Sirr. ti~dth; Height /Lf Total Square Feet l6__~j Position of the advertisement structure in relationship to the adjacent buildings, sidewalks, curbs, roadt~a~•s, overhead utilit~• lines, vehicle movement lines, or public facilities on drawing with significant. dimensions and attached hereto of major signs. Minor signs as defined on page 2. Two blueprints of the sign, billboard, cr outdoor advertising structure construction plans: including specifications, list of materials, and explicit anchoring or fastening details and a copy of the stress sheets, calculations, color of sign structure. Does the sign copy relate solely to the business, institution, or activity conducted on the premises? if dif~ _ . - 0 Will the sicn, structure, or billboarc restrict am_• sight distance under, around, or over for -e access by persons destined for or passing the subject premises? 7'j,,.. , ~r • A icant s Signature and Title with Firm / / . ~ `1 ~ ~ll ~3 Date Phone tiuwber ' :rte 8183 ~'-...aj..c.:;~.,•.A~~.-: PI:EASE~ SEE RECERSE~~SID£~ FOR SIG?` LOCATION 'SKETCH •~~3~::.~ SiverL,Hendricksan/Building Official - 866-5061• ~ ~ ~ ~ la"v ` +s.-:'k.;~?•a.:.c?'.ir. Yx«c:.~fw,-^! :>it~iR. •~{a;:~c:.ceC`""eE:sis: a.:~dr: ...~'!?t=~.r.^. ~.~4`:i:~`F..' X S+2!4.. a`~C.a.+- _ ..p~irr•>;r:.n:cJ7;.?:i`t~•: =i'~L~X+ •b a :`.'S_.'~: ...,L..~:.~~ ~+wi 7x 5a~ KQ+i6 v.;:::e.. `s .h : . ~ ri.Y•: .....:J:. .'~•'L~ ~ts3St•.+-•"' .y.y t.S< i`•1 'p:. . r. <r: +~,iay.:?`:'. :.'4..... .:ri , '.jd5-G. .i~°'i :4"b:rJ. ;'!">*.JCTiP. `'~i JT•'.r.4:??•'~::.4i' • 1, Y'.~ a. x.~. ~GROU~D~ SIGS . • ~ •.PEDEST?.L SIGH' ~ PROJECT2ti`G SIGti SJIc?TH R'~ - •JID'Tt1 ~ LEG~..D LEG~:;D I Lr.GE:•;D I ~J T • . ~ -Indicate Distance . . crow Li'.^^e Suilairg • 1/ V r:\lil ~'~J WALL SICK: ROOc SIG.: Indicate legend on the K ••IDTH ~i ~ r~^c: ~ t!7e rcrerse side in %D' 6 L, ~ the space below • T LEGEND I` LEGi::D LEGE`:D cs ~3 V`S ,4 l' i V %r M GROUND ROOF ;FMS L GG T~ Place location of sign on this sketch with distance the sign is from property lines. a, Locace any traffic lights within 300 feet. DEFI:JITIO:~: Minor Signs Single or double faced sign less than 32 sq. ft. on a common board ~i ::ORTl: LILT/8/83 _ ~ • . _ ~ - _ k' - _ _ - - - . _ _ _ R , ~a i~ - s w lS L ~ ~ i L~k ~~e ~~~c- ~ v r~~ f-~~j~T s~~-FAeE _ ,/1 / j ~ ~ --"-Y G / / r ~ 1 ~ \ j i ~ ~ i \ r Y ~ .i 1 ~ ~ ~ ~ i ~ I \ ~ ~ ~ i i' r . y ;~25'~~L~.<ri~ =sic x w y ~-~C..~ y - ~ . ~t: - ~ i APPROVE, DENYI APPROVE DEWY t~~~~- Cit Mana er ~ .Inspect r Y g Date Date / APPROVE ~ DENY ~ ~ ~ APPROVE ~ I DENY ~i~' Tc Si6N I~"r Planning De artment City Council ~M~NgT'iiJ6 ~P+q•~af.`~ Date ?I'~IQ7 Date , ~T7~-r-5 Route to above for special approval per code General Signs APPLICATION FOR ADVERTISING PERMIT City of Richfield, .Minnesota Date / - ~ ~ ~'7 Zoning Sign Erected - Yes No Fee Address of Sign ~ Proprietor Name /'f,u,wQiC~.n Q - C Sign Erector S Q. Address ~ ~7S'" ~,~yl, ~ L Type of Sign Design Weather Cover Lighting Wall Single Face Clear Lexon Constant _ Projecting Double Face _ Frosted Lexon ~ Flashing ,~%~Ground _ Multi-Faced ~ ? plastic Covered _ Revolving _ Roof _ Aerial/Blimp Shaded _ Traveling Pedestal Searchlight _ Neon ~ Zip Lite _ Changeable Banner/Pennants _ Other Other(Expla,~.n) _ Temporary f Portable Frame: 'gn._C ors < _ ,i Trailer ~ T ~ A ~ Post ~ ~ ~ ~/J/` ~ ~ " ~f Illuminated No Watts Electrical Contractor~iLC/j(~G,~~Z;Q„~,~,~ Addres Phone Property Owner or his Agert Signature ~i~~%~%~~ti"t'll /-~~%~~"~!l Phone Estimated Cost~S ~ ~l~ Sign Width Height ~ Total Square Feet ~`y Position of the advertisement structure in relationship to the adjacentibuildings, sidewalks, curbs, roadways, overhead utility lines, vehicle movement lines, or pub~.ic facilities on drawing with significant dimensions and attached hereto of major signs. Minor signs as defined on .page 2 . Two blueprints of the sign, billboard, or outdoor advertising structure construction plans: including specifications, list of materials, and explicit anchoring or fastening details and a copy of the stress sheets, calculations, color of sign structure. Does the sign copy relate solely to the business, institution, or activity conducted on the premises? Will the sign, structure, or billboard restrict any sight distance under, around, or over fo ~ e acce by pe ons de ned for or passing the subject premises? App icant's Signature and .title with Firm ~ Date ~''O< < -'~7 Phone Number 5 Lkt 1985 PLEASE SEE REVERSE SIDE FOR SIGN LOCATION SKETCH. Sivert Hendrickson/Building Official - 866-5061 ~ ~ GROUND SIGN PEDESTAL SIGN PROJECTING SIGN ~C WIDTH ~ ~ WIDTH I"e WIDTH LEGEND ~ LEGEND ~t LEGEND 7 ~ ~ - ~ Indicate Distance r/ From The Building t ! _ ~ ~ GROUND WALL SIGN ROOF SIGN Indicate legend on the ~C ~7IDTH WIDTH ~ the raverse side in the space below LEGEND ~ LEGEND LEGEND • /l GROUND ROOF r P , , { ~ ` ~J • Place location of sign on this sketch with distance the sign is from property lines. Locate any traffic lights within 300 feet. DEFINITION: Minor Signs Single or double faced sign less than 32 sq. ft. on a common board INDICATE NORTH LRr/8/83 - i i # r j . - , 6 • r i 2: - „ . f y - _ ~ r ~ I .k,;F_' ,r;e-q»j ~s a h~ ~F `~3 ? . r - • ~ _ - .r t t ~„1 ~ ~:i et~ ~^W' 1C~~AT` ~ Y ~i~t~ .,CH ~ r,, - r.._4 k .w.. ~.~}]~~~5~ +t,ti.xt.. ~ ~-?'fix 'P • 4~-~^,•!.y,.{ r .'~i ~ t• tig5.~ ~"..i.. ~ E .,t ' ''~4 ,tT ~ - g. sg t ~ r ~ r;~. ' y.: f ,,~.~.,y~f •t., wt~~~~gyZ .f"' ~3' s-:.t,~. ~ y r~1'":_,i ~"~tf"?f -'b'L-.- "-~~t:-x h~~a '1~- ~-ri~X,~x,~''~~a 4.: 7 w - ~.::e ~S .'S ,Pi m .rte n~:~~y YT~J r:"~ .`\-f~ ''+V;.•. , Oka f`4~± ? ~S_.,- ~ ~.!_ik _ 1~ C. - .f v>~ ~ G'L ,N•~.,a~,....y :.rte:. A" r "`+~'C".', qj1" ~ ..}k.~; ~~ta'~ FT` ~ y 1` t _ ~~4 ,r i1 t -p,~ ' .al. v~ Y~.~^. ~13~ 4f f "P~ a 5:~ ~ `+/,hy_ 1 4 ! ~ 1 ti+.'x+4' ~1 '~f " :~.r^ ~~y.y {p T T - 2~~ ,T~ ',.iQ M1..µ;' f~ 7,~~ '~a./ Q , Y r .i t ~ ,re ,a- > .z'tu,~ s, r~ ib a.~.,.a. _ rr. ~~E~~~,r~~LG•~t,'~~i.;~. ~ k, `r ,.ab e e ^u:+ ~,,.fy ~~r .i '.-.~_T ~r s~ t c1 - ..r~ e• _.r .~~~a - F S p ~-i.r'- ~j~'.L... --i~5~~k .~'j., x~ ~ '•r ..e ~ •a,~~' ..y.y 4 ~ :.y: e q~'-troy, y,-i .:.~.a~!.5.. "5.~'~ti .7~ ~i,:~ ..~`Y`t v. d 7~P`4`; r. ~ T _ ~ .M"y { ~ _ ~ +~yyyy y p~ y,~ f?~ 3 tea. ~ ~ s s "<.t .:,:y" ..u-; vv} R'r_s:s s%t4.,t,r "tk'tit t {kor d~`~?~1P^'~'!^,jF,,... ~ - - - .M. ~s^ '1 d1,3-:~~1.. r.~,.~t:: -.~'~3~s. ~~'`,~"'~".'~F-i':.^:.. ..htr-PE ~~P °"F7:_~::,.. ; ~..1 ~ - r ~ '~4"yt ~W~s ~,r .~•~ri`-~./ c~ ~ Y - 7,~' gi ,e;,X., v ^~t:. jn"i l.: ~.ie"' ~ :V ~ .+e y ' ~7. S'~` ec?,~. .,4 ~ y, a 4 .a _ v r~ - _ . E;{~? +..3:-~~<'+ . ,.•.k~w"s'. . +t~'.4~W `F s~-, ;~r~"Jr P ~S~ yd: E.'s r - , r ' ~ ~ - ay 54 x+`T ~ , 1 qtr.:,.. F ,4...f ~ ~ ~ 4 ~r R Y,~ r: T F -h}). f 1 * r ~ - ~ ~ ~ i a+ r, - ~ Y'. s x~ 1 - _ -J= 3^ f 1h J- - s .yf r - . , ~ ~r~ ~ ~s_ 4 2. ~ ~y 4 `@~- Y: y'~'„v I r ~ r Z x f i ~~~~«i * ~ F e~' <:r ~ 45a u 1f ~+~i- ~~i,~9E }Tee k ~t` ~N~""< 4'~ y ,'gym v ~ ~tl ~ ri ~''~~i~`"f~'~ ~ ~ s~wra~~~'"_.'L"~',~~"i•*r. *aLrc'74 ~ t:~... r .P, ..2i~y~a~~~: i ~`3t9' _ c k T .a^n~ ~ y~ ~ ~n"`_.ic~"}~y.4 ~r+e.~~~~5~k ~~~t j~'"?T'-'iF ~ , $ ` ' i. g,,~`` .;s u~ ~1'~ .',y Y ~ ?~'s. t t s r~`~Y~`~ - a* .F x ~e .%f r ~ g~.r c - `~&:5.. ~w t ' _ ~ k ~ye y a~~5# 'r_. ~ ; 3~ "`rc ..~-s~~ ; 'Ys~i .y~~~~ ~'~'l~y~~~ _ 4; ~f e;r~." p.~ _ k_.: ~ z., : v a<`~s ~X`?i`~~'~`''rt'4~.,~F '',„,y"^.t~ y 4 x~ r , s sr ~ ~0 ~k'' ,.t~'~~`a ~ ~ ~ b ~ y a I- ~ } a ~,7•' ~ .5s s ii r~'+i~4 " fy i • r ~ g ~ ~ x~-.y,'~ Sys _ ~ s~ v E .w - y. ~ x 3? CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA ~ Council Letter No. 33 i Agenda February 9, 1987 Issue Statement: Presentation of Proclamation in Support of Free Enterprise Week to Distributive Education Clubs of America (DECA) Background• The Richfield High School DECA club has requested Mayor Hamilton to issue a proclamation designating the week of February 9, 1987 as Free Enterprise Week in the City of Richfield. Recommendation: Mayor Hamilton present such a proclamation to Steve Wilmes, a member of DECA, at the February 9, 1987 city council meeting. Basis for Recommendation: 1. The DECA organization has requested. the proclamation. 2. The Mayor and Council Members have been supportive of DECA programs in the past. Alternative Recommendation: • 1. Not issue the proclamation. Discussion/Decision Mode: The week of February 9 has been designated as Free Enterprise Week in the City of Richfield. Therefore, this item has been scheduled for presentation at the February 9, 1987 city council meeting. Respectfully submitted, Jam D. Prosser Cit Manager JDP/eja • • . f -3x kK ~ l . i ~ ~a~. f ~ ~ '..li ~.~v_ 1~ ~ 111 \ 11~~ ~ ~ 1 ~ ~ ` ~ y 3: E\1_ ~ ~ i r`~y ~ y~' 1 ~ " PROCLAMATION IN SUPPORT OF ~ ~ ~ ``':l', ry,, FREE ENTERPRISE MEEK ~ ~ , February 9 February 14, 1987 MHEREAS, Distributive Education Clubs of America (DECA) is an ;1 r educational program at the Richfield High School, and ~ ~~tf ;F,, ~ . MIHEREAS, the Richfield Chapter of DECA does, as part of their < .u ` learning experience, set up and enter into business enterprises, ~ and ~ ~~c.~®."r !{••_'~^,r. MHEREAS, the Richfield Chapter of DECA believes in the concept. of x~ ~ Free Enterprise and a competitive market system. ~l,~ ~ .kr F+ N\ \ / ~ NOM, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that I, John Hamilton,. Mayor of i~ " the City of Richfield, Minnesota, do hereby endorse the concept of 1 Free Enterprise and do wholeheartedly support the endeavors of the ~ ~ ' , t ~ : . ~ ~ Richfield Distributive Education Club of America Chapter in this ~.R regard. a<;~~:~`~ .4 `~~°t~' OONE this 9th day of February, 1987. X John Hamilton Mayor ~ ~ ~ x, :f ~ ~ E ~ h t i ~ - _ - - - `'sue' , t ~ ~ T~~ 1. T'~ ~ -~-•'f ~ ~ 1 \ i \ i' .i+~~ 1` .,.:y~sti ,,sr _ r f _ `~f~ ~~~J .rte ~ ' L ~~s~e a r w,:" c a,,.,., z•4,,..' arc. ~ R A ~ ~ A ~ ' ~ A ~j i L~ ~ .,ate : ~ ~ ~ ~~_./r ~ CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Council Letter No. 32 Agenda February 9 , 1987 Issue Statement: Acceptance of a report from the Richfield Advisory Board of Health, summarizing the recommendations of the County-wide Home Health Task Force. Background: In 1986 the Hennepin County Community Health Department formed a County-wide Home Health Task Force. Its goal was to review home health programs and make recommendations on the future of public home health .programs. Ms. Jacquelyn Lockman, a member of the Richfield Advisory Board of Health, represented our city on the task force. ~I The recommendations of the task force are being presented to each ~I local Board of Health for consideration. The Richfield City Council serves as the Richfield Board of Health. The specific recommendations affect the scope of public home health services, and are as follows: 1. Identify specific segments of the market and develop a • market plan for competing for those segments. 2. Support and participate in the development of minimum standards of quality assurance through the establishment of a state licensure process that is administered by the Minnesota Department of Health. 3. Identify specific health science .disciplines which will be educated by public health nurses each year. 4. Identify special populations which will be targeted for home health care; for example, AIDS patients, medically indigent (persons with inadequate health insurance), etc. ~ 5. Make available general home health assessments to any person who requests one. 6. The local Boards of Health should have a joint planning group that meets to discuss the implementation of the recommenda- tions of this task force, as well as other issues such as the proposed statewide goals for CHS. It is not known at this time if any of the recommendations would require additional expenditures beyond those reimbursed by state Community Health Service grants, or if implementation of the sco a of home health services ions would ex and the recommendat p P now being provided. The recommendations will need to be reviewed by the public health staff as part of the overall public health program in future budget cycles. Recommendation: It is recommended that the City Council accept the report of the Advisory Board of Health. I Basis of Recommendation: The County-wide Home Health Task Force was organized in order to allow a timely review by local advisory groups of the status of the home health program. Reviews such as this are consistent with the goals of the Minnesota Community Health Services program, which calls for periodic review of each part of the program by all participants. This review and its recommendations will now be taken into consideration by the public health staff as it prepares future budget proposals and grant requests for the Minnesota Community Health Services program. Alternative Recommendation: 1. The City Council could perform its own review of the status of the home health program and make separate recommendations to the Hennepin County Department of Health, using the Richfield Advisory Board of Health as a resource in performing the review. 2. The City Council could contract with a private vendor to perform an evaluation of the home health program. Decision//Discussion Mode: Members of the Richfield Advisory Board of Health will be present at the February 9, 1987 council meeting to present the report to the City Council. Respectfully Submitted, Ja s D. Prosser Ci y Manager • ` y ~ ~ I I \ ~ - ' CHS COUNT WI OM ~ I?E ~i E ~i~ALTH TASK FORCE S X i Background The CHS County-wide Home $ealth Task Force, which was formed by representatives from the Hennepin County Community Health Department and its Advisory Committee members from the Direct Share municialities, had the following goals: 1. To review the issues relating to home health. 2. To review the role of public agencies in providing home health se rvices. 3. To make recommendations to the local Boards of Health regarding home health issues and the role of public agencies in home health. The Task Force consisted of the following representatives: Na me Affiliation Lelsie Dodd Cox Task Force Staff Mary Hathway Hennepin County CHS Advisory Committee Delton Krueger Bloomington CHS Advisory Committee Jacquelyn Lockman Richfield CHS Advisory Committee Virginia McCollister Edina CHS Advisory Committee Todd Monson Hennepin County Community Health Dept. Gretchen Peik Minneapolis CHS Advisory Committee Karen Swanson Minneapolis Health Department Audrey Wagner Bloomington Division of Public Health Process The Task Force met six times from March to November, 1986 and it started by attempting to define the appropriate role of public agencies in home care. The group spent several meetings discuss- ing the evolution of home care to its current status. Then it explored the following key questions: 1. What would be the effect if public home health agencies did not exist? 2. If public home health agencies are essential, what is needed for them to survive in the current home care environment? 3. If ub p lic home health agencies are not essential, then what role do the local Boards of Health have in home health services? 4. Who should be responsible for monitoring home health care and for assurin alit ? g ~ Y _ _ _ - - I • Next the Task Force invited an outside expert, Barb O'Grady, Director of the Ramsey County Public Health Nursing Service, to present information to the group on the role of public health in home health care. Barb presented the following four roles of public agencies in home care: 1. Manage special funds for home care that is provided. to unique populations such as adult protection cases, child ~ protection cases, the homeless, etc. 2. Competing with private agencies in order to get. reimbursable cases to ease the burden of non-reimbursable cases. ' 3. Developing and measuring standards of care for home health care. 4. Educating and training students, in order to demonstrate what quality care is. The Task Force members discussed these issues at great length and reviewed the proposed Minnesota Department of Health Goals for Home Care. The Task Force agreed that: 1. Public home health agencies must be competitive, but services provided to the public and private sectors may be different. 2. There is a need for minimal standards for quality assurance for all home health services. 3. Education is an important role of public home health agen- cies, but adequate staff and funding are needed. 4. Public agencies are often the only agencies who will care for the special populations. A professional assessment should be available to those who request it. Recommendations ! r As an alternative to the Minnesota Department of Health Goals, the Home Health Task Force proposes the following goals that can be included in each local Board of Health's annual budgeting process and biannual CHS plan. 1. Identify specific segments of the market and develop a market plan for competing for those segments. 2. Support and participate in the development of minimum standards of Quality Assurance through the establishment of a state licensure process that is administered by the Minnesota Department of Health. • 3. Identify specific health science disciplines which will be educated by public health nurses each year. 4. Identify special populations which will be targeted for home health care, for example, AIDS patients, medically indigent people with. inadequate health insurance), etc. 5. Make available general home health assessments any person who requests one. 6. The local Boards of Health should have a joint planning, group that meets to discuss the implementation of the recom- mendations of this task force, as well as other issues such as the proposed statewide goals for CHS. I • • CITY OF .RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Council Letter No. 31 Agenda February 9, 1987 Issue Statement: Proclamation designating the month of February as Heart Month. Background: The American Heart Association Minnesota Affiliate, Inc., has requested Mayor Hamilton to proclaim the month of February as Heart Month and to promote heart healthy life-styles among Richfield residents. Recommendation: Mayor Hamilton sign the attached Heart Month. proclamation and forward it to the American Heart Association. Basis for Recommendation: 1. The American Heart Association has requested this proclamation. Alternative Recommendation: 1. Not sign the proclamation. Discussion/Decision Mode: The month of February has been designed as Heart Month by the • American Heart Association Minnesota Affiliate, Inc. Therefore, this item has been placed on the February 9 city council agenda for council consideration. Respectfully submitted, James- Prosser City anager JDP/eja • CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Council Letter No. 30 Agenda February 9, 1987 Issue Statement: Annual meeting of the Richfield-Bloomington Watershed Management Organization. Background: ~ The Richfield-Bloomington Watershed Management Organization was formed in 1984 in response to a mandate of the State of Minnesota. The Watershed Organization is responsible for development of a plan to provide for the proper disposition of water runoff from a portion of southeast Richfield and a portion of East Bloomington. Officials of both Bloomington and .Richfield meet once a year to elect officers and to review the watershed. management plan. Recommendation: Hold a joint meeting with Bloomington officials to approve the minutes of the January 27, 1986 meeting; elect officers for 1987; and review the watershed management plan. Basis for Recommendation: ~ 1. The bylaws of the Richfield-Bloomington Watershed Management Organization provide that the organization meet on an annual basis for this purpose. Alternative Recommendation: 1. Not hold the meeting and not elect officers. Discussion/Decision Mode: The bylaws provide that these matters be considered at a joint meeting between Bloomington and Richfield once each year. That annual meeting has been scheduled for 5:30 P.M. Monday, February 9, 1987 at the Richfield City Hall. Respect lly submitted, Jame Prosser City anager JDP/eja INTER-OFFICE CORRESPON®ENCE DATE: January 22, 1987 • To: Board of Commissioners of the Richfield-Bloomington Watershed Management Organization FROM: Cang9;,bth, Assistant Executive Director SUBJECT: Annual Meeting of the Richfield-Bloomington Watershed Management Organization -Meeting #4 The annual meeting of the Richfield-Bloomington Watershed Management Organization is scheduled for 5:30 P,M., Februarv 9, 1987, in the Richfield City Council Chambers, 67Q0 Portland Avenue South. Alight lunch will be served at that time. The meeting should be over by 6:30 P.P9. to allow commencement of the regularly scheduled-Council meetings. Topics of discussion: 1. Approval of minutes of January 27, 1986 2. Election of officers i 3. Appointment of .Executive Director and Assistant Executive Director 4. Watershed Management Plan RLL/mlw Attachments: Minutes of Meeting of January 27, 1986 Bylaws of the organization ~i II • RICHFIELD-BLOOMINGTON WATER MANAGEMENT ORGANIZATION Approved Minutes 530 p.m. Meeting 1/3 January 27, 1986 Annual Meeting Bloomington City Hall Call to Order The annual meeting of the Richfield-Bloomington Water Management Organization was called to order by Chairman Mark Mahon. Roll Call Present: Chairman Mahon, Treasurer Ivan Ludeman, Secretary Neil Peterson Commissioners Blessum Herbst Lindau and S ies P of Bloomington and Commissioners Garcia, Kirsch and Sandahl of Richfield. Also: Executive Director John Cartwright of Richfield and Assistant Director Russell Langseth of Bloomington. Approval of Minutes Motion was made by Ludeman, seconded by Peterson, and all present votin aye, to approve the minutes of the January 28,•1985, annual meeting as presented. Election of Officers The Chairman asked for nominations from the floor for. the election of officers, noting there is a vacancy for the office of Vice Chairman inasmuch as Don Priebe is no longer a member of the Richfield City Council. Executive Director Cartwright observed that the bylaws would permit the re-election of the present officers with the except.i.on of the V ice Chairman. Mahon noted i f the Chairman i s • from one community the Vice Chairman must be from the other community. Nomination was made by Sandahl of Martin Kirsch of_Richfield for the office of Vice Chairman. Motion was made by Lindau, seconded by Peterson, and all present voting aye, to close the nominations and to instruct the Secretary to show that a unanimous ballot was cast for Martin Kirsch as Vice Chairman. _ • Nomination was made by Lindau for the re-election of all of the other officers, namely Chairman Mark Mahon, Treasurer Ivan Ludeman and Secretary Neil Peterson. Motion was made by Spies, seconded by Sandahl, and all present voting aye, to close the nominations and to instruct the Secretary to cast a unanimous ballot for the election of the Chairman, Treasurer and Secretary for a third term. It was agreed by general consent that the Executive Director and Assistant Executive Director should continue in their positions for another term. Progress Report on Assistant Executive Director Russell Langseth indicated that Preparation of Richfield and Bloomington have not progressed as had been predicted Watershed Management or as hoped in completing the Watershed Management Plan and the Plan scheduled completion date has been extended a year to December 31, 1986 He said to date no plans have been received from any of the watershed districts, namely Nine Mile Creek, Riley-Purgatory Creek or Lower Minnesota Watershed Districts. He said the Water Resources Board • has been meeting to determine the content of the plan. He said the hydrologic portion of the plan has been completed but noted there are many other things that would go into the plan. He said it is hoped to have everything ready by the middle of the summer so it can be reviewed by the other agencies. Page 1 January 27, 1986 r t ~ ~ Mahon questioned whether there is any work that is scheduled to be done at this point and Mr. Langseth said to his knowledge there is not. He said there is a complete storm sewer system that serves the two communities but there are some weak spots that may need work in the future. Mr. Cartwright indicated a contract has been let by the City of Richfield to change a portion of the area draining to Wilson Pond in Richfield to take it northward to Legion Lake. He said that would reduce the count of water that would be flowing south into Smith Pond in Bloomington. Mr. Langseth said there presently is a lift station for Smith Pond but it is hoped a gravity system can be .built sometime in the future to keep the pond elevation down so there would not have to be pumping of water forever. Mahon suggested that all of those present introduce themselves which was then done. Included among those in attendance in addition to the two City Councils were members of both City staffs; legal counsel for Richfield; and Frances Berns, Bloomington Sun-Current newspaper reporter. The Chairman noted he had received a letter from an insurance company stating premiums that would be available for persons in the Water Management Organization. He questioned whether this type of insurance was necessary for the members of this organization because - of any liability that could be incurred resulting from a catastrophe- such as major flooding such as occurred a number of years ago in Bloomington. Clayton LeFevere, attorney for the City of Richfield, said .nothing had been done by the organization to date so there would be no incurred liability. However, he said if there was a liability claim it could go against both municipalities and each city should have insurance now in force that would protect them. Adjourn Meeting Motion was made by Sandahl, seconded by Peterson, and all present voting aye, to adjourn the meeting at 5:55 p•m• Neil Peterson Secretary • Page 2 January 27, 1986 1 BY ZAWS of .the RICHFIELD-BLOOMINGTON WATERSHED MANAGEMENT ORGANIZATION SECTION 1 - DEFINITIONS 1.1 "Organization" - The Richfield-Bloomington Watershed Management Organization 1.2 "Board" - The Board of Commissioners of the Organization 1.3 "Commissioners" - All .members of the City Councils of the Cities of Richfield and Bloomington, who serve as the Board of the Organization 1.4 "Cities" - The Cities of Richfield and Bloomington SECTION 2 - MEETINGS 2.1 Annual Meeting. The Board shall hold an annual meeting in January of each year, at which time . the Board shall elect its officers and conduct-any other necessary business. The Chairman shall deter- mine the time and place of the meeting and send written notification of the meeting to the Commis- sioners. 2.2 Other Meetings. All meetings other than the annual meeting shall be held either (a) pursuant to a meeting schedule adopted by the Board, if the Board chooses to adopt such a schedule, or, (b) upon the call of the Chairman of the Board, the Vice Chairman, or any two Commissioners. When a meet- ing is called pursuant to paragraph 2.2(b), above, ten (10) days written notice of the meeting shall be provided to the Commissioners by the party (s) calling the meeting. 2.3 Location of Meetings. Unless otherwise specified, all meetings shall be conducted in the Bloomington City Council chambers. 2.4 Open Meeting Law. All meetings shall be subject to the Minnesota Open Meeting Law. 2.5 Quorum. A majority of the entire Board shall cons- titute a quorum for the purposes of Board action, but less than a majority may .adjourn a meeting. ' 2.6 Rules of Pra~edure. Except as may be otherwise pro- vided by the Joint Powers Agreement establishing the Organization or by these by-laws, all meetings shall _ be conducted in accordance with Roberts Rules of ' Order. 2.7 Board Action. Each Commissioner shall have one vote with respect to Board actions. Unless other- wise specified in the Joint Powers, Agreement or these by-laws, substantive Board action shall be by a majority vote of the entire Board. SECTION 3 - OFFJCERS 3.1 Officers. The Board shall have and elect the fol- lowing officers: Chairman, Vice Chairman, Secre- tary, Treasurer. The officers may be from either City Council, but the Chairman and Vice Chairman shall be from different City Councils. 3.2 Election. Officers of the Board shall be elected by the Board at its annual meeting. 3.3 Term of Office. The term of aII officers shall . be for one year or until a successor is elected. ;Officers may be reelected without limitation. _ • 3.4 Vacancies. An office vacancy will occur by reason of the officer's resignation or his removal by vote of the Board, or at such time as the officer is no f the longer a member of the City Council of one o ill Cities . When an _of f ice _vacancy .occurs, --.the -Board - shalt, at the first opportunity, elect a suc- cessor who shall serve for the remainder of the term. 3.5 Duties. ,The officers shall have the following duties: (a) Chairman - The Chairman shall preside over all meetings of the Board and execute docu- ments on behalf of the organization. (b) Vice Chairman - The Vice Chairman shall assist the Chairman and shall perform the Chairman's duties in the latter's absence. (c) Secretary - The Secretary shalt be responsible for providing recorded minutes of organization meetings, for maintaining organization records, and for providing other clerical services re- fJ• quired by the organization. -2- 1 ~ ~ ~ /J,~~ . y 'i (d) Treasurer - The Treasurer shall be responsible for receiving, maintaining and investing any funds the Organization may acquire, for the payment•of expenditures authorized by the Organization, and for the maintenance of any necessary financial records. 3.6 Compensation. No compensation shall be provided by the Organization to Commissioners for serving as Officers. SECTION 4 - STAFF ASSISTANCE 4.1 Executive Director and Assistant Executive Director..- From the staffs of the Cities, and with the ap- proval of the respective City Managers, the Board shall select and appoint an Executive Director and Assistant Executive Director. The two appointees shall be from different City staffs and shall serve at the pleasure of the Board. 4.2 Duties of the Executive Director. The Executive Director shall have the following duties: • (a) He shall manage and direct the day-to-day - affairs of the Organization and implement _ the directives of the Board. . (b) He shall, with the approval of the respective City Managers, select and assign staff personnel of the Cities to tasks the Organization must perform. = . (c) He shall, with•the approval of the respective City Managers, select and assign staff personnel of the Cities to assist Board officers in the performance of their duties. 4.3 Duties of the Assistant Executive Director. The ~ Assistant Executive Director shall assist the Ex- ecutive Director and perform the latter's duties in his absence. 4.4 Compensation and Other Benefits. Personnel of the Cities which are utilized to assist the Or aniza- 9 tion and its Officers shall at all times remain em- ployees of their respective Cities for purposes of compensation, insurance coverage, and alI other _3_ ~r • benefits. ,The Organization itself shall not. provide any compensation or other benefits to city personnel who provide services to the Organization unless the Cities agree to that procedure.. APPROVED and adopted this day of 1984. Chairman Vice Chairman . - 4~ _4_ \ ~ .'0"SEO JOINT ,POWERS i i ,REEMENT 8ET~1/EEN N CHFIELO & BLOOMINGTON 1: Q CH IS71AN' PAi3C r . ui ii r ~ > I~ / < ii II r i. ~ ~t_.J ~ I~ ' I ~ ~I: O ~ U.: Zi4 ~ SON PARK I ' MINNEHAHAI' CREEK ~ WATERSHED: DISTRICT ~ ~ M. A.C. a r J I ~ I' PROPERTY ~T6TH ST. ~ ~ d ! ~ 'I I ~ ~ II I~ tt . _....~~s I B L 6 ~0 IVY I N G T O N r ~ ! ~ ~ ~ l 1 ~ SM17H PARK ~ i PONS I <e C i I ~ W RIGHT'S LAKE . ~ ~+.~J'~ i 86TH ST.! ~ ~ ui~ ~ i l ~ ~ r ~ r e ~ ~ S~ EXISTING - ~ ` J ~ STORM SEWE~\ ~ 90TH ST. 1= ~ V'~ ~ NINE MILE ~C R E E K I~ f' PROPOSED i , ~ MECOC. WATERSHED DISTRICT ~ - I~ BOUNDARY c~K~ ~ i I _ ~ ---1 ~ - i /1.~-- • Po. ~ ~n~ Q~~ ~ORAINAGE DlYtOE ~ ~ 5 o C..C~WER MINNESOTA R. WATERS}-IT'D DISTRICT