12-22-80 agenda?4z
CITY OF RIC IFIELD, P!1-,TNESOTA
Office of City Manager
Council Letter No. 456
Agenda December 22, 1980
The Honorable Mayor
and
Members of the City Council
City of Richfield
Council Members:
Subject: Approval of Contract for 1980 Financial
Records of the City Audit
is
At the December 8, 1980 city council meeting, the city
council tentatively approved the selection of the firm of
Cummings and Keeaan to provide audit services for the city's
1980 financial _records.
A proposed contract to provide these auditing services
will be available for council review at the December 22, 1930
city council meeting.
Respectfully submitted,
- ?.,•_k 1? a ?-`v,,? ?-?cS%-?
Karl Nollenberger
City Manager
KN/eja
cc: Administrative Services Director
Finance Coordinator
A
0 yG .L.- iEL" fUR t?UD T%-',4G SEa CIES
THIS AGREEMENT, dated this day of , 1980, by
and between the CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA, hereinafter referred to as the
"City" and the accounting firm of Cummings, Keegan & Company, Certified Public
Accounts, hereinafter referred to as the "Auditors", WITNESSETH:
In consideration of their mutual covenants and agreements as hereinafter
set forth, the parties hereto contract and agree as follows:
I.
The Auditors agree to make a limited general audit of the financial
statements of the City for the year ending December 31, 1980. The e= ination
will be made in accordance with generally accepted auditing standards, and
accordingly, will include such tests of the accounting records and such other
auditing procedures as are considered necessary in the circumstances. The
The examination will include tests of documentary evidence supporting the
transactions recorded in the accounts, tests of the physical existence of
inventories, and direct confirmation of receivables and certain other assets
and liabilities by correspondence with debtors, creditors, legal counsel,
and banks. At the conclusion of the examination, the City will be requested
to furnish written representations about the financial statements and matters
related thereto.
The engagement will be directed to the expression of an opinion
on financial statements and is subject to the inherent risk that material
00 errors, irregularities, or illegal acts, including fraud or defalcations,
if they exist, will not be detected. However, the Auditors will inform the
City of any such matters that come to their attention.
It is understood and agreed that the responsibility for the establishment
ui_ .. ._'n r OOP.tr, rest-
,._'n
the City. The Auditors will, however, call attention to any internal
c ontrol deficiencies discovered which they believe to be significant.
II.
The examination shall also encompass financial statements of the City
of Richfield Police Relief Association and the Housing and Redevelopment
Authority of Richfield for the same period.
III.
If circumstances disclosed by the audit call for a more detailed
• investigation than would be necessary under ordinary circumstances, such
circumstances will be called to the attention of the City authorities before
proceeding iurtC. riLn Gig 1Vcoi:i ?-
with the investigation in this area, compensation for the additional services
will be at regular rates designated later in this agreement.
IV.
To facilitate conduct of the audit, the City agrees to prepare for
the Auditor's use, certain exhibits, schedules, worksheets and to have the
financial statements and accounts and records ready for the Auditor's
examination prior to commencement of their final field work as follows:
40 Balance all general ledgers.
Prepare a reconciliation for each bank account.
Prepare a reconciliation for each fiscal agent account.
Fill in and sign bank confirmation forms, to be provided by
the Auditors.
Prepare accounts receivable aging for all types of accounts
receivable which tie into and agree with the general ledgers
controlling accounts.
Prepare accounts receivable confirmation requests, using
drafts to be provided by the Auditors.
?'re sre schedules of ?-ad debts written off the ...
Prepare schedule of taxes and special assessments receivable
by fund which ties into general ledgers of the various funds.
Price, extend., and foot original inventory sheets for all types
of inventories for all funds, have them checked prior to the
commencement of the auditors .._
the general ?`db>rs :ill r iec? `ne proper amounts.
Prepare an analysis of all investments, including marketable
securities, certificates of deposit, etc., by fund. The
analysis should list investments on hand at the end of the
previous year, investments purchased and sold during the current
year, and investments on hand at the end of the current year,
including all interest earned on investments during the year,
as well as interest earned but not collected as of the end of
the current year.
Update fixed asset ledgers/schedules for all funds for additions,
and/ or e1i<<,-nations :luring -t;z s:c < n: recora current year's
depreciation on all fixed asset ledger sheets. Fixed asset
ledgers/schedules should be tied into the general ledger accounts
as of the close of the current year, by fund.
Prepare a schedule of insurance in force, including any prepaid
insurance as of the end of the current year, if premiums have
been paid for more than annual periods.
is Prepare a schedule of interfund balances which ties into the
general ledgers of the various funds.
Prepare a schedule of accounts and contracts payable by fund
and journalize year end payables so that the general ledgers
will reflect the proper amounts.
A schedule of salaries payable by fund should be prepared
supporting all salaries and wages due but not paid as of the end
of the current year, and salaries payable should be journalized
so that the general ledgers will reflect the proper amounts.
The minute books should be up to date at the commencement of
the auditors examination.
Prepare an organizational schedule and chart.
Prepare working trial balances for all funds from general ledgers.
Prepare any other schedules or worksheets needed by the Auditors
to expedite their examination.
Prepare financial statements for all City Funds, the Richfield
Police Relief Association and the Housing and Redevelopment
Authority of Richfield in accordance with generally accepted
governmental accounting principles.
48 If any of the above mentioned exhibits, schedules or worksheets
have not been completed by the City, if any of the financial statements
have not been completed, or if the accounts and records are not ready
for the Auditor's examination at commencement of their final field work,
Auditors shall have the option of completing said exhibits, schedules,
-,sheets, or financial statements and making any requirement adjustments
to have the accounts and records ready for their examination, however, said
work will be considered clerical, bookkeeping and accounting services and
will be billed at regular rates designated later in this agreement.
V.
The Auditors shall provide the City with at least twenty (20) copies
of the reports on their examination and shall issue their management letters
containing specific comments and recommendations with regard to the following:
(a) Nonconformity with procedures prescribed by statute.
(b) Nonconformity to accepted principles of governmental
accounting.
(c) Defects in accounting plan and financial procedures that
make proper accounting and auditing difficult.
(d) Any failure of the accounting department to make financial
• reports required or needed for administrative purposes.
(e) Any significant internal accounting control weaknesses
that come to their attention.
(f) Any other problem areas or general conditions that come
to the Auditor's attention which require specific comments
or recommendations.
Three separate reports will be issued. One report addressed to the
Common Council of the City will be issued covering financial statements of
all funds to the City, one report addressed to the Board of Trustees of
the Richfield Police Relief Association will be issued covering financial
statements of the Richfield Police Relief Association, and one report
addressed to the Chairman and Commissioners of the Housing and Redevelopment
Authority of Richfield will be issued covering financial statements of the
Housing and Redevelopment Authority of Richfield.
VI.
The Auditors agree to consult with City personnel regarding the
bunting system and any problems that may arise during the fiscal year
ing December 31, 1980, and up to completion of the Audit Report for said
gal year. These additional consultation services will be billed at
filar rates designated later in this agreement.
VII.
•
Final field work for the audit will be started by the Auditors after
receipt of notice from the City that the financial statements are
for the year and ready for the Auditor's,examination. If mutually convenient,
the Auditors may start field work prior to the close of the calendar year
1980.
VIII.
The City herewith engages the Auditors for the work hereinbefore
specified and agrees to pay the Auditors for such work as follows:
City Audit (Including Police
Relief Association) $13,000.00
• Housing and Redevelopment
Authority Audit $ 2,000.00
The City also agrees to reimburse the Auditors-for report printing,
postage, and miscellaneous expenses.
The services herein'efore specified shall be billed at the following
hourly rates:
Audit Managers and
Partners $45.00 - $60.00 per hour
Staff Auditors and
Accountants $23.00 - $28.00 per hour
Clerical services hereinbefore specified shall be billed at the
following hourly rates:
Clerical $15.00 - $25.00 per hour
IX.
The Auditors shall provide the City with a detailed statement as
to the names of accounts, classifications and hours worked for any
additional services billed at the above specified hourly rates.
Payment of tie Aildit^r's fees shall be made as work progresses,
is and claims therefor are submitted by the Auditors. :Monthly progress payments
will be at the rate of seven-7 percent (70%) of the total fee and expense
billed for the time expended to the date of the billing with final payment
to be made within thirty (30) days after receipt of the Auditor's Report
and an itemized claim form showing the balance due the Auditors.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have hereunto set their hands
and seals as of the day and year first above written.
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
BY
MAYOR
0
BY
MANAGER
(Seal)
CUMNIINGS, KEEGAN & CO.
Certified Public Accountants
BY
0
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Office of City Manager
Council Letter No. 455
Agenda December 22, 1980
0
The Honorable Mayor
and
Members of the City
City of Richfield
Council Members:
Subject:
Council
Legislative Issues and Policy
Considerations
There is an item on the December 22, 1980 city council
agenda providing for council review and discussion of policies
and issues related to legislation which is likely to be before
the Minnesota Legislature in its coming session, which will be-
gin in January, 1981. The city council has a meeting scheduled
with our Richfield state delegates to the House of Representa-
tives and Minnesota Senate for 5:30 p.m. on January 12, 1931
to discuss legislative issues prior to the beginning of the legis-
lative session. The December 22, 1980 council agenda item is
to provide for council review of some of these issues prior to
the joint meeting with the legislators.
The remainder of this council letter will be devoted to a
brief summary of some of these legislative issues, their impact
on Richfield, and in most instances, a recommended policy stand
which the city council might wish to adopt for transmittal to
our state legislators.
1. INDUSTRIAL REVENUE BONDS
There has been much discussion both on the state and national
level in recent years regarding the use of tax exempt industrial
revenue development bonds by municipalities to solicit and support
certain types of development within their communities. The
Minnesota State Legislature in the last session, and likely again
in the 1981 session, has discussed legislation designed to pro-
hibit abuses in the industrial development revenue bond financing
area.
The use of tax exempt bonds for financing of private enter-
prise actions most likely has an effect on the ultimate cost of
borrowing for general obligation purposes of the city. We be-
lieve it is appropriate for the legislature and all other public
bodies to be concerned about the uncontrolled use of tax exempt
financing in terms of the ultimate impact of that financing on
the general cost of borrowing and the basic debt service obliga-
tions of the public sector.
Council Letter No. 455 -2- December 22, 1980
City Councils authorizing industrial redevelopment bonds
in Minnesota presently do not have to make any specific set of
findings relating to the need for tax exempt financing. Sim-
ilarly, it is not necessary that city councils have a specific
policy, or statement of goals and objectives, which a potential
IDR financed project must meet before authorizing that financing
plan.
It is the position of the City of Richfield that any legis-
lative effort to narrow the scope of application of IDR bonds
include the following features:
A. Require city councils, via legislative action, to
make a set of findings prior to authorization to issue
industrial development revenue bonds.
B. Require that those findings conform with some broad
previously established, standard of goals and ob-
jectives for the IDR financing process.
C Require that the findings include a need for public
sector stimulation of development.
D. The findings should also address the limitations of
other financing alternatives to support said develop-
ment.
40 E. Any such legislative restrictions should relate only
to the use of IDR bond financing for commercial devel-
opment, and should not apply to projects in areas
classified as industrial or located in designated re-
development areas, which should remain fully under
local control.
2. TAX INCREMENT FINANCING
Tax increment financing has permitted many cities in various
parts of the state, including Richfield, to initiate and develop
rehabilitation, redevelopment, housing and economic development
projects. Presently, tax increment financing represents the
most feasible and effective legal strategy available to cities
to preserve and improve the physical and economic environment
in their communities.
It is the position of the City of Richfield that no substant-
ive changes in Minnesota's existing tax increment financing law
are necessary, and the city recommends that no substantive changes
be made in that law until there is sufficient experience with this
financing tool to determine if changes are needed. The one de-
ficiency which the City of Richfield feels does need correcting,
and could most appropriately be corrected immediately, is that
which allowed the City of Eden Prairie to create a redevelopment
district inclusive of a significant amount of vacant land. The
creation of that district appears to be contrary to the intent
of the tax increment law, and represents a deficiency which should
Council Letter No. 455 -3- December 22, 1980
be studied and corrected in order to maintain the credibility
of the financing vehicle as a tool for Minnesota communities.
3. LOCAL GOVERNMENT AIDS
Because of a shortfall in anticipated state government reven-
ues, the City of Richfield in 1981 will experience a reduction
in previously anticipated local government aids of approximately
$186,000. This aid represents a substantial funding resource
for the City of Richfield, and the city is alarmed at the ease
with which the Governor has accomplished the across-the-board
reduction in local government aids for cities without legislative
consultation or reaction.
The City of Richfield urges the restitution of state aid to
local governments in 1981, and increases in the appropriation
for subsequent years local government aids by at least the pre-
vailing rate of inflation. The city also urges that the legislature
establish some process for reviewing the cutbacks which can, and
should be made and implementation of such cutbacks in the event
of future state revenue shortfalls.
4. DATA PRACTICES ACT
The Minnesota Government Data Practices Act represents one
of the nation's most comprehensive efforts to open governmental
• records to all sorts of public scrutiny. While agreeing with the
intent of the legislation, the City of Richfield is alarmed at
the process by which virtually all governmental records are open,
with little regard for individual privacy or for the deterents
which such open records may create in the effective performance
of the governmental responsibility. Of particular concern in
this regard is the openness and "public" nature of police and
other law enforcement records.
It is the position of the City of Richfield that the Minnes-
ota Governmental Data Practices Act should be revised to exclude
police and other law enforcement records from being public.
5. OPEN MEETING LAW
The City of Richfield strongly supports the basic premise
of the open meeting law, which is to assure the public's right
to be informed about the conduct of public business. Experience
with this law since 1974, however, indicates that there are areas
where the legislation must be more specific or, should be amended
to meet the overall public interest. These areas include the
following:
A. The law must specifically state that it applies only
to meetings where a quorum of the body is present,
and clarify the present restrictive interpretation of
the law's application.
B. The law should acknowledge that there are certain
specific interests where the overall public interest
Council Letter No. 455 -4- December 22, 1980
is better served by permitting a local governing body to meet
in executive or closed session. Such instances could include
discussion of labor negotiations strategy, certain discussions
relating to employees, and discussions of purchase of land for
public purposes. In order to safeguard the public's right to
know in these instances, the local governing body could make a
decision to hold a closed session via a two-third's vote, and
a taped record of the meeting could be made for later disclosure
upon order of a court or other third party.
6. MMICIPAL STATE STREET AID
The State of Minnesota presently redistributes the gasoline
tax revenues it receives through the Municipal State Aid Street
Fund, for use by municipalities in constructing and maintaining
streets. Most of the money is made available for street construction,
with a very small portion of it set aside and allocated to cities
on an entitlement basis for maintenance purposes.
It is the position of the City of Richfield that the Munici-
pal State Aid Street Fund should be available for use for main-
tenance purposes by cities who have completed construction of
their municipal state aid streets in accordance with N?SA standards.
7. PUBLIC EMPLOYEE RETIREMENT ASSOCIATION PENSION FUNDS
A number of cities with local fire and police pension funds,
including Richfield, have experienced a problem with employees
receiving disability payments from the local fund while receiving
full workers compensation payments simultaneously, making their
total take home pay more than what they would receive if they were
working fulltime. PERA police and fire employees are prohibited
by law from receiving greater pay while on disability than while
working, but Minnesota Statutes specificially prohibit cities
with local plans from correcting such "doubledipping".
The City of Richfield urges the legislature to correct Minn-
esota Statute 424.27, to eliminate the ability of an employee in
a local police or fire pension fund to receive double disability
payments which exceed the normal after tax working income. The
legislature should also clarify and establish standards similar
to PERA for determining disability.
The City of Richfield further opposes any benefit increases
as are currently being discussed and proposed by the PERA board
until all unfunded liability in the PERA fund is paid off.
8. MINNESOTA PUBLIC EMPLOYEE LABOR RELATIONS ACT
The 1979 Minnesota Legislature modified the binding arbitra-
tion procedure contained in the Minnesota Public Employee Labor
Relations Act which applies to essential employees by adopting
an item-by-item best offer provision, to be effective July 1,
1980, for a one-year trial period thru July 1, 1981.
Council Letter No. 455 -5- December 22, 1980
It is the position of the City of Richfield that a one-
year test of item-by-item-last-best offer arbitration is not
adequate to determine its effectiveness. The city is further
concerned that rapid changes in the process of arbitration for
resolution of impasses between an employer and an essential
employee bargaining group can only cause confusion. The city
urges the 1981 legislature to extend the item-by-item-last-best
offer binding arbitration procedure for municipal essential em-
ployees by at least three years, to achieve a four-year test of
effectiveness of this method of arbitration.
The city further feels that the MPELRA should exclude super-
visory or confidential employees from representation by an em-
ployee organization, and limit their status to a "meet and con-
fer" status.
9. SPECIAL LEVY
There has been tremendous interest in energy related issues
in the development of methods to save energy in recent years.
The City of Richfield has recognized this issue and the necessity
of fuel conservation and general raising of the public consciousness
with regard to energy consumption and conservation-by establish-
ment of a citizens energy awareness advisory commission. Cities
are required to make energy audits of their facilities, which has
been basically funded through energy grants. However, facility
changes and capital expenditures, some required anc others that
generally make sense, must be implemented using local revenues
which in many cases are insufficient to undertake such energy
conservation efforts, because of levy limitations.
The City of Richfield urges the legislature to enact a
special levy to pay for cost incurred for energy improvements,
including capital expenditures. Such a special levy should be
not only for required expenses, but should be broad enough to
encourage and provide funds for voluntary energy improvements and
innovations.
10. HOTEL/MOTEL AMUSEMENT TAX
Presently, five cities in the State of Minnesota, under leg-
islative authority existing prior to 1971, can levy a 3 percent
user tax on users of hotels, motels and certain entertainment
activities. In 1971, however, sucn authority was removed by the
legislature and the imposition of a new tax on sales and income
was prohibited.
The City of Richfield supports the institution of legislation
which would permit all municipalities to impose by ordinance a
hotel/motel amusement tax in an amount not to exceed 3 percent.
11. RESIDENCY REQUIREMENTS
The 1980 legislature considered a bill to prohibit cities
from adopting residency requirements for employees. Such leg-
islation appears to be a direct encroachment upon local units
Council Letter No. 455 -6-
Decemger 22, 1980
of government and upon local control.
OR It is the position of the City of Richfield that home rule
local control should be permitted in determining constitutionally
acceptable employee work conditions which could include residency
an-'/or time requirements. The City of Richfield opposes any leg-
islative limitation of its authority to establish such require-
ments when deemed necessary for the overall effective delivery
of city services.
12. 911 EMERGENCY TELEPHONE FINANCING
In 1977, the Minnesota Legislature amended implementation
of a 911 emergency telephone system for the metropolitan area
by 1982. The 1978 legislature adopted the financing plan whereby
the state will pay for all central office conversions in the
annual recurring trunk network costs. It is expected that local
conversion costs will be funded by federal grants, and the law
requires local recurring costs to be borne by the local units.
The City of Richfield has been a leader in metropolitan area
efforts to develop the 911 emergency telephone system. The city
urges the legislature to continue its commitment to fund conver-
sion and trunk network recurring costs through state appropriat-
ions. The city also is of the position that, if sufficient feder-
al funds are not available at any future time to finance the cap-
ital equipment costs at local public answering points, the state
should fund those costs. Finally, since 911 is mandated by the
state, all other local costs which exceed current public safety
emergency telephone service costs, should be a special levy ex-
empted from the general levy limitations, or reimbursed by the
state.
13. RAILROAD MAINTENANCE
Various sessions of state legislation address the mainten-
ance, signalization, taxation, etc. of railroad right-of-ways
and crossing areas. However, one major item that is not address-
ed in state legislation is the policy for requiring maintenance
of railroad right-of-ways and crossings.
It is the recommendation of the City of Richfield that the
state legislature take specific action to address the require-
ments for maintenance of railroad right-of-way and crossing areas.
Re pectfully submitted,
Karl Nollenberger
City Manager
KN/eja
THE CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Office of City Manager
Council Letter No. 454
Agenda December 22, 1980
W
•
The Honorable Mayor
and
Members of the City Council
City of Richfield
Council Iembers:
Subject: Resolution Setting
Consider Specially
Maintenance in the
Area
k!r°J
a Public Hearing to
Assessing Current
L/H/N Redevelopment
Earlier this fall the City Council decided to pursue the
subject of establishing a special assessment district for the
purpose of providing a higher level of maintenance in the L/H/N
redevelopment area and then assessing the cost to property owners
within the area. The attached resolution establishes a special
assessment district and provides for the city to remove snow
and ice from sidewalks, trim and take care of trees, to operate
a street lighting system and perform a number of other special
maintenance functions in the L/H/N area. The public hearing
is proposed to be held on January 12, 1981 and will cover the
period from January 1, 1981 to June 30, 1981.
The resolution provides for the assessments to be made on
the basis of area with each square foot of assessable commercial
property being assessed equally. The council can give addition-
al consideration later to the amount of assessment for the var-
ious non-commercial properties within the L/H/N area. It is
possible that the amount of benefit received by non-commercial
properties will not be as great as the benefit received by
commercial_properties and the city council may desire to assess
those non-commercial properties at a different rate.
Subsequent to city council --proval of this resolution
setting the public hearing, notices will be sent to all property
owners in the L/H/N area.
It is recommended that the city council adopt the attached
resolution authorizing the setting of the public hearing for
L/H/N maintenance on January 12, 1981.
Respectfully submitted,
: f nn
Karl Nollenbercer
City Manager
KN/eja
Y
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION ORDERING
UNDERTAKING OF CURRENT
SERVICE PROJECTS
WHEREAS, pursuant to ordinance the City Council of the
City of Richfield did on December 22, 1980, establish a special
assessment district and did propose that certain current services
be undertaken by the City and that the cost of such services be
specially assessed against benefited property, and
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Richfield did also
by such resolution set the date for public hearing on the under-
taking of such current service projects and the levying of special
assessments to bear the costs thereof; and
WHEREAS, follc.•.;ing due notice, such public hearing T?7as held
on January 12, 1981, at which time all interested parties desi.?::i:-:g
to be heard were given an opportunity to be heard.
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City
of Richfield, Minnesota, as follows:
1.
shall be
Nicollet
tute the
such ser-
property
That the following current services the City
undertaken by the City within the Lyndale-Hub-
Development Project Area which area shall consti-
special assessment district, with the cost of
vices to be specially assessed against benefited
within the District:
Snow, ice or rubbish removal from sidewalks;
Weed elimination from streets and private property;
Removal and elimination of public health and safety hazards
from private property, excluding any structure included
under the provisions of Minnesota Statutes, Sections 463.15
to 463.26;
Installation and repair of water service lines;
Street sprinkling and other dust treatment of streets;
Tree trimming and care of trees and the removal of unsound
trees from any st-yet;
The treatment and removal of insect infested or diseased
trees on private property;
The repair of sidewalks and alleys;
The operation of street lighting systems;
F I
The maintenance of landscaped areas and other public
amenities on or adjacent to street right-of-way;
Snow removal and other maintenance of streets in the
commercial redevelopment area
2. The work to be performed may be by day labor,
by city force, by contract, or by any combination thereof.
3. The designated period of the project shall be
from January 1, 1981 through June 30, 1981. Costs of the
project shall be collected in the.manner provided in
Richfield Ordinance Code Sections 12.29, 12.30., and 12.31.
0
0
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Office of City Manager
Council Letter No. 453
Agenda December 22,1980
Council Members:
Adjustments in
in the General
Plans.
Subject:
The Honorable Mayor
and
Members of the City
City of Richfield
Council
Compensation of Employees
Services and Management Pay
The purpose of this letter is to recommend 1981 adjustments
in the General Services and Management pay plans which cover city
employees who are not represented by organized bargaining groups.
In addition, a proposal is included for the 1981 city contribu-
tion toward health insurance premiums for management and general
services personnel.
The municipal code requires the city manager to submit a
formal recommendation for pay plan and benefit adjustments for
the nonunionized city employees to the city council. Section
2.33, subdivision 1 of the municipal code states these require-
ments:
"Establishment of Plan. There shall be at all times a
pay plan for all classes of positions included in the
classification plan. Such plan shall be established
and from time to time amended by city council resolution
upon receipt of recommendations from the city manager.
In making such recommendations, the city manager shall
give appropriate consideration to the following factors:
(1) Maintenance and equitable relationships between
classes, based on their relative duties and responsibili-
ties (2) the general level of rates in the appropriate
labor markets for comparable work under similar conditions
(3) current recruitment and retention experience."
The city council has received two memorandums which deal
in detail with the implementation of a new classification and
pay plan for all general services and management employees.
General Services Pay Plan
Because the job classification structure has been changed
considerably from the existing classification structure, the
1981 compensation plan will look quite different than the exist-
Council Letter No. 453 -2- December 22, 1980
ing classification plan as well. In developing this compensa-
tion plan, we sought to achieve several objectives:
1. Provide salaries for specific categories of jobs
which would be competitive within the overall labor
market, allowing the City of Richfield to attract
and retain competent employees;
2. Develop a compensation system which would provide for
regular review of an employee's job performance, some
recognition of increases in job capabilities which
might accompany increased tenure in the organization,
as well as an ability to reward or recognize performance
by tying salary adjustments at the upper part of each
pay range to an ind'v_dual's ob performance, an-
3. Create a systematic compensation package which is
readily understandable and can be adapted for adjust-
ments or modifications in a systematic way at a future
date.
The proposed 1981 compensation plan for general services em-
ployees was developed on the basis of extensive analysis of 1980
salaries paid both by the City of Richfield and other municipal
employers within the Twin City metropolitan area. Most of this
data was derived from the 1980 Stanton Survey, which is a compre-
hensive study of salaries and benefits provided to municipal em-
ployees in the metropolitan area. By selecting "benchmark" jobs
in our organization, finding comparable jobs in the Stanton sur-
vey, and identifying the average salary and salary ranges for
those similar jobs, we developed a basic pay structure. However,
since this data was developed for 1980, it has been necessary
to extrapolate the salary figures into a 1981 proposed salary
structure.
The attachment to this letter contains the proposed 1981
compensation plan for general services employees. In general,
the 1981 salary structure is 9.56 higher than the 1980 pay
structure. This figure was derived by assuming an overall ad-
justment in economic benefits (basically, wages and the city's
contribution for insurance purposes) of 106 for 1981. The proposal
which I will be submitting for the city's insurance contribution
is equivalent to about a .55 increase, making the rest of the
proposed adjustment available for wage purposes. For this
reason, the range has been adjusted by 9.50 over the range that
we had developed earlier this summer (reflecting 1980 salaries).
The general services pay plan covers approximately sixty
employees, including all full time, nonunionized employees ex-
cept those included in the management pay plan. The adjusted
general services pay plan is reflected in Exhibit A.
Management Pay Plan
The management pay structure reflects basically 1980 salar-
ies from comparable Twin City employers (Stanton Survey), in-
Council Letter No. 453 -3- December 22, 1980
creased by 8 percent. Since the range of job responsibilities
from community to community for management positions differs
greatly, it has been very difficult for us to establish specific
management pay ranges which are tied exactly to the marketplace.
However, since there is no step structure, or automatic gradations
within the management salary ranges, there is more discretion in
establishing individual salaries to reflect individual job per-
formance or considerations of the marketplace. For this reason,
I believe that the 8 percent adjustment over comparable 1980 Twin
City salaries in the management pay plan is sufficient to permit
us to adequately compensate our supervisory an(? management em-
ployees, while still.basically reflecting the market conditions.
Implementation Plan
One of the major issues that"has confronted the job evalu-
ation committee has been that of how to implement the new classif-
ication and pay plan structure. In general, the committee is
making the following recommendations to the city council regarding
implementation of this new pay plan:
1. In the general services plan individual employees shall
be placed within the pay grade to which their position
is assigned, at the step closest to, but not lower
than, their current rate of pay, adjusted by the same
percentage as the compensation plan itself has been
40 adjusted;
2. A general services employee whose rate of pay falls
within the merit range of the grade stall receive a_
pay adjustment equal to the overall adjustment in the
eompensation plan. (which is 9.5 percent)
3. In no instance shall an employee in either the general
services or management plan receive a decrease in their
current rate of pay as a result of implementation of
this compensation plan.
4. In the evert that an employee's position classification
has been placed within a pay grade that has a rate of
pay less than the employee's rate of pay would be when
adjusted by 9.5 percent, that employee shall receive
a pay adjustment equal to at least one-half of the
percentage by which the overall plan has been adjusted
or a rate which is enough to bring that employee to the
maximum in the new pay grade;
5. In the event that an employee's position classification
has been placed within a pay grade that has a range of
pay less than the employee's current rate of pay, that
employee shall receive a pay adjustment equal to one-
half of the percentage by which the overall plan has
is been adjusted.
Council Letter No. 453 -4- December 22, 1980
Management employees are not assigned to specific pay
steps. Salaries will be set within the pay range to which a
position is assigned, based on individual job performance.
Management employees whose salary exceeds the maximum of the
grade to which their position has been assigned will receive a
salary adjustment equal to at least one-half of the amount by
which the general pay grade has been adjusted.
t
The impact of implementing t e proposed 1981 general services
pay structure, in terms of specific salary adjustments, and the
recommendation to provide at least a 4.75 percent increase to
everyone, is to effect a 9.9 percent total wage increase for
general services employees in 1981. This increase is based, of
course, on the assumption that there is no turnover in personnel,
or no position vacancies occur during the year. The application
of this salary structure, however, will result in less than a
9.9 percent increase, as positions turr over during the colt se
of a year, with vacancies occurring, new employees hired at
lower rates than the previous employee, etc.
Needless to say, the impact of transition to a new classif-
ication and pay plan is a difficult one, both in terms of deal-
ing with 100 different situations and attempting to achieve
equity in the process within budgeting restraints.
Insurance Premium Contributions
At the present time, the city contributes to the cost of
premiums for two kinds of insurance available to city employees.
The first type of insurance is a $5,000 term insurance policy
for employees. The city pays the full premium cost for this in-
surance which is $1.10 per month in 1980 and remains the same in
1981.
The second type of insurance is group health coverage of
which there are five optional plans available through the Hennepin
County Joint Purchasing Organization. The 1980 and 1981 monthly
premium costs for these plans are as follows:
Blue Cross/Blue Shield 1980
Individual $ 54.95
Family 133.45
Physicians Health Plan
Individual 53.02
Family 139.98
1981 4v
$ 63.84
189.06 ?..5?
53.02
156.77
Group Health
Individual 34.98 38.33
Family 101.73 111.45
vied Center i-?ea1_t? Plan
Individual 41.84 45.85
Family 126.60 138.42
Council Letter No. 453 -5-
December 22, 1980
Nicollet Eitel 1930 1931
Individual $ 46.90 $ 49.05
• Family 122.30 131.50
The city has contributed a maximum of $33 per month for
health insurance in 1980 for eligible employees covered by the
general services and management pay plans. It is recommended
that this amount be increased by $9 per month in 1981 to a max-
imum of $92.
By increasing the city contribution for health insurance
'Co $92 per month, the city would be able to match the average
monthly premium increase charged by the participating carriers
and prevent sizeable increases from being passed on to the em-
ployees. In addition, it is recommended that a new coverage
of dental health insurance be implemented effective April 1,
1981 for general services and management employees. The cost
of such a program will be around $10 per month per employee and
we would hope to find a carrier that would allow for employees
to cover their dependents at their own expense.
A proposed resolution to accomplish this recommendation
has been ?prepared and is marked Exhibit E. This resolution also
incorporates the monthly term life insurance contribution and
establishes an overall contribution of $93.10 per month for
January 1, to March 31, 1981, and $103.10 from April 1, to
December 31, 1981.
0 Summary of Recommendations:
In summary, it is reccmmended that the city council take the
following actions:
1. Adopt the attached resolution establishing the 1981
general services pay plan;
2. Adopt the attached resolution establishing the 1981
management pay plan;
3. Adopt the attached resolution establishing the city's
1901 maxi:-au-ti insurance ccntribution for general services
and management employees
If the city council adopts these resolutions, a resolution s
transferring funds from the contingency account to the appropri-
ate budget activities will be presented at the Jariuary, 1981
city council meeting to implement these pay plan adjustments.
The specialized pay plan for part time employees will be presented
to the city council at that time also.
Respectfully submitted,
e earl Nollenberger
City Manager
KN/ea
EXHIBIT A
• RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION RELATING TO THE 1981 GENERAL SERVICES
SALARY COMPENSATION PLAN
WHEREAS, the municipal code of the City of Richfield provides
for the adoption of a pay plan for General Services employees from
time-to-time, and
WHEREAS, the. City administration has prepared a 1981 pay plan
for position classifications in the General Services.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council do and
hereby does establish for the year 1981 the following pay plan,
which is to be effective January 1, 1981, and subject to all ap-
plicable provisions of the city code:
GENERAL SERVICES COMPENSATION PLAN
Step A B C D MERIT RANGE
Range
GS1 YR $ 8,328.00 8 784.00 9 252.00 10 176.00
GS2
GS3
GS4
GS5
GS6
GS7
MO 694.00 732.00 771.00 848.00
BW 320.31 337.85 355.85 391.38
HR 4.00 4.22 4.45 4.89
YR 9,312.00 9,828.00 10,344.00 11,376.00
X10 776.00 819.00 862.00 948.00
BW 358.15 378.00 397.85 437.54
HR 4.48 4.73 4.97 5.47
YR 10,404.00 10,980.00 11,556.00 12,708.00
MO 867.00 915.00 963.00 1,059.00
BW 400.15 422.31 444.46 488.77
HR 5.00 5.28 5.56 6.11
YR 11,016.00 11,664.00 12,312.00 12,960.00 14,256.00
MO 918.00 972.00 1,026.00 11080.00 11188.00
BW 423.69 448.62 473.54 498.46 548.31
HR 5.30 5.61 5.92 6.23 6.85
YR 12,312.00 13,032.00 13,764.00 14,484.00 15,936.00
MO 1,026.00 1,086.00 1,147.00 1,207.00 1,328.00
BW 473.54 501.23 529.38 557.08 612.92
HR 5.92 6.27 6.62 6.96 7.66
YR 13,812.00 14,628.00 15,432.00 16,248.00 17,868.00
MO 1,151.00 1,219.00 1,286.00 1,354.00 1,489.00
BW 531.23 562.62 593.54 624.92 687.23
HR 6.64 7.03 7.42 7.81 8.59
YR 15,468.00 16,368.00 17,280.00 18,192.00 20,016.00
MO 1,289.00 1,364.00 1,440.00 1,516.00 1,668.00
BW 594.92 629.54 664.62 699.69 769.85
HR 7.44 7.87 8.31 8.75 9.62
-2-
GS8 YR 17,316.00 18,336.00 19,356.00 20,376.00 22,416.00
MO 1,443.00 1,528.00 1,613.00 1,698.00 1,868.00
BW 666.00 705.23 744.46 783.69 862.15
• HR 8.33 8.82 9.31 9.80 10.78
GS9 YR 19,392.00 20,532.00 21,672.00 22,812.00 25,092.00
MO 1,616.00 1,711.00 1,806.00 1,901.00 2,091.00
BW 745.85 789.69 833.54 877.38 965.08
HR 9.32 9.87 10.42 10.97 12.06
Normal Progression Through General Services Compensation Plan
Individual employees will receive increases to the next higher grade step
in line with their length of time in the pay grade and their individual
competence and performance rating according to the following criteria:
a. Step B (also Step C in Grades 1 through 3). Completion of at least
6 months on one or more jobs in the pay grade, and competence and
performance levels rated at least Adequate.
b. Step C (grades 4 through 9). At least 9 months since previous increase
for those rates Above Standard or Outstanding. At least 12 months
since previous increase for those rated Adequate or Standard.
C. Step D. At least 9 months since previous increase for those rated
Outstanding, 12 months for those rated Standard or Above Standard, and-
18 months for those rated Adequate. :?;.?,:-ti: zL ?'
d. Merit Range. At least 18 months since previous increase for those rated
Outstanding, and 30 months for those rated Above Standard. Standard
and Adequate performers may not advance to the Merit Range. Salary
increases in the Merit Range will be determined by the supervisor and
may range between 3%-8%.
e. Employees whose competency level and/or performance are rated Unsatis-
factory may not advance to the next step until their performance improves
Guidelines on Implementation of
General Services Compensation Plan
1. In most cases, individual employees shall be placed within the pay
grade to which their position is assigned, at the step closest to,
but not lower than, their current rate of pay, adjusted by at least
9.5%.
2. An employee whose rate of pay falls within the merit range of the
grade shall receive a pay adjustment equal to 9.5%.
3. In the event that an employee's position classification has been
placed within a pay grade that has a rate of pay less than the employee's
rate of pay would be when adjusted by 9.5%, that employee shall
receive a pay adjustment equal to at least one-half of the percentage,
or whatever percentage increase is possible without exceeding the
maximum of the range.
-3-
4. In the event that an employee's position classification has been
placed within a pay grade that has a range of pay less than the
employee's current rate of pay, that employee shall receive a pay
adjustment equal to one-half of the percentage, or 4.75%. Future
pay increases will also be restricted to one-half of the percentage
by which the overall plan has been adjusted until the pay reaches
the maximum in the new pay grade.
5. In no instance shall an employee receive a decrease in their current
rat: of pay as a result of implementation of this compensation plan.
Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota
this 22nd day of December, 1980.
Donald J. Priebe Mayor
ATTEST:
Sylvia K. Bergh Acting City Clerk
41
Grade
1
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
GENERAL SERVICES POSITION CLASSIFICATION STRUCTURE
Job Evaluation Points
Over - Thru Position Titles
- 130 None
131 - 150 Assessment Clerk
Clerk Typist
151 - 170 Accounting Clerk
Data Entrv Operator
Licensing Clerk
Liquor Account Clerk
Liquor Clerk/Cashier
Receptionist
Senior Clerk Typist
171 - 195 Accounts Payable Clerk
Computer Operator
Licensing Leadworker
Pavrol Accountant
Records Specialist
Secretar-,,%
Transportation Specialist
utility L?illina Clerk
196 - 220 Crime Analvst
Custodian
Liquor Stock Clerk
Personnel Assistant
Senior Assessment Clerk
221 - 250 Accountant
Administrative Aide
Appraiser
Central Services Technician
Commun i `y Development Aide
Engineering Aide
251 - 280 Administrative Assistant
Assistant Greenskeeper/Mechanic
Engineering Technician
Naturalist
Programmer Analyst
Recreation Supervisor
281 - 320 Administrative Assistant
Housing Specialist
Inspector
Lead Naturalist
Recreation Supervisor/Designer
321 - 370 Senior Engineering Technician
is
EXHIBIT B
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION? RELATING TO THE 1901 MANAGEMENT
SALARY COMPENSATION PLAN
WHEREAS, the municipal code of the City of Richfield provides
for the adoption of a pay plan for Management Employees from
time-to-time, and
WHEREAS, the city administration has prepared a 1981 pay
plan for position classifications for management employees.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council do
and hereby does establish for the year 1981 the following pay
plan, which is to be effective January 1, 1981, and subject to
all applicable provisions of the city code:
MANAGEMENT COMPENSATION PLAN
PAY GRADE MINIMUM MID-RANGE MAXIMUM
A YR $ 17,000.00 20,000.00 23,000.00
MO 1,416.67 1,666.67 1,916.67
BW 653.85 769.23 884.62
HR 8.17 9.62 11.06
B YR 18,200.00 21,400.00 24,600.00
MO 1,516.67 1,783.33 2,050.00
BW 700.00 823.08 946.15
HR 8.75 10.29 11.83
C YR 19,500.00 22,900.00 26,300.00
MO 1,625.00 1,908.33 2,191.67
BW 750.00 880.77 1,011.54
HR 9.38 11.01 12.64
D YR 20,800.00 24,400.00 28,100.00
X40 1,733.33 2,033.33 2,341.67
BW 800.00 938.46 1,080.77
HR 10.00 11.73 13.51
E YR 22,200.00 26,100.00 30,000.00
MO 1,350.00 2,175.00 2,500.00
BW 853.85 1,003.85 1,153.85
HR 10.67 12.55 14.42
F YR 23,700.00 27,900.00 32,100.00
MO 1,975.00 2,325.00 2,675.00
BW 911.54 1,073.08 1,234.62
HR 11.39 13.41 15.43
. G YR 25,300.00 29,800.00 34,300.00
MO 2,108.33 2,483.33 2,858.33
BW 973.08 1,146.15 1,319.23
HR 12.16 14.33 16.49
-2-
0
H YR 27,100.00 31,900.00 36,700.00
MO 2,258.33 2,658.33 3,058.33
BW 1,042.31 1,226.92 1,411.54
HR 13.03 15.34 17.64
I YR 29,000.00 34,100.00 39,200.00
MO 2,416.67 2,841.67 3,266.67
BW 1,115.38 1,311.54 1,507.69
HR 13.94 16.39 18.85
J YR 31,000.00 36,500.00 42,000.00
MO 2,583.33 3,041.67 3,500.00
BW 1,192.31 1,403.85 1,615.38
HR - 14.90 17.55 20.19
Normal Progression Through Management Compensation Plan
•
Salarv Increase Amounts. Individual salary increases will norm-
ally be made effective when the salary range structure changes
and will vary in size, depending on the individual's performance
rating and current position in the salary range in line with the
follcwing criteria.
PERFORMANCE: POSITION IN SALARY RANGE
RATING 95'aU - -
V?V iJE .Li -J v.. rP?
-L OV7-R 105° OF nTTM-DT
Outstanding Range Adj. + 6% Range Adj. + 4% Range Adj. +2%
Above Standard Range Adj. , 410 Rance Adj. + 2'= of Range Adj.
Standard Range Adj. + 2% % of Range Adj. Range Adj. - 210
Adequate % of Range Adj. Range Adj. - 2% Range Adj. - 4%
Unsatisfactory No increase until performance improves.
Passed by the City Council by the City of Richfield this 22nd day
December, 1980.
Donald J. Priebe Mayor
r?
L
ATTEST:
Sylvia K. Bergh Deputy City Clerk
Grad`
B
D
•
F
G
H
I
J
MANAGEMENT POSITION CLASSIFICATION STRUCTURE
Job Evaluation Points
Over - Thru Position Titles
320 - 344 Assistant Liquor Store Manager
Greenskeeper
Parr Foreman
Sewer Foreman
Street Foreman
Water Foreman
345 - 374 Chief Plant Operator
Garage Superintende_,.:
Vlai _ _enance Superintendent
Park Superintendent
Street Superintendent
3 , . - 09 t? ul Services _° anacTer
Chief Buildina Inspector
Citv Clerk
Community Center ?'Ian alter
En-vironmental Health L',Zanage_r
Recreation i,Ianaaer
410 - 454 City Planner
Golf Course anager
Ice Arena Manager
Public Safety Administrative Supervisor
;eater Superintendent
4-5- - 509 `done
510 - 579 Assessor
City Engineer
Facilities/Project Coordinator
r inance '...oordinator
Housing & Redevelopment Coordinator
Recreation Program 'Coordinator
580 - 669 Assistant Fire Chief
Technical Operations Coordinator
670 - 779 Liquor Store Director
730 - 919 ,1 ,: - s - ;--.Li ?e Serv. - c a s Director
Community Development Director
Con,:munity Services Director
920 - 1100 Public Safety Director
s
Exhibit E
RESCLUTIO?N NO.
is RESOLUTION DESIGNATING CITY'S CONTRIBUTION
TOWARD HEALTH AND TERM LIFE INSURANCE PREMIUM
WHEREAS, a hospital-medical/surgical group health insurance
plan is available from the Hennepin County Cooperative Purchasing
Organization for city employees and their families; and
WHEREAS, a term life and accidental death and dismemberment
insurance plan is available from the Hennepin County Cooperative
Purchasing Organization for city employees; and
WHEREAS, the city council is rectuired to determine by resolu-
tion the city's contribution toward the premium for health insurance.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the city shall contribute
a maximum of $92.00 per month toward an employee health insurance
premium for all General Services and Management employees; in any
went said contribution shall not exceed the cost of single cover-
age for employees selecting that option. The city shall also pay
$1.10 monthly premium for the term life and accidental death and
dismemberment insurance plan for General Services and Management
employees for a total possible maximum insurance premium contribu-
tion of $93.10 per month. Such contributions shall be for coverage
• effective January 1, 1981, through March 31, 1981.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the city shall make available to
the General Services and Management employees, effective April 1,
1981, a group dental insurance plan, and shall contribute a maxi-
mum of $10 per month toward an employee dentai insurance premium
for all General Services and Management employees; in any event
said contri'-1-ution shall not exceed the cost of single coverage for
employees selecting that option. The maximum city contribution for
insurance premiums for coverage during the period of April 1, 1981
through December 31, 1981 shall be $103.10.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the city council shall determine
the city's contribution toward insurance premiums for all organized
employee groups by the adoption of the appropriate resolutions con-
cerning labor contracts with the respective organized employee
groups.
Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota
this 22nd day of December, 1980.
Donald J. Priebe Mayor
0 ATTEST:
Sylvia K. Bergh Acting City Clerk
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Office of City Manager
i
December 15, 1980
Council Memorandum No. 278
The Honorable Mayor
and
Members of the City Council
City of Richfield '
Council Members:
Subject: 1981 General Services and Management Compen-
a 'o-, Proposal
Last week I sent council members a council memorandum (No. 276)
= describing the classification study which we have had underway
during 1980, and providing rather detailed.information rega-.-:1_r.
the process which has been used in undertaking that study of various
city jobs. At that time, I advised you that we would be finalizing
very soon a pay plan pac:Z_ye which would accompany the new job
classification structure. The purpose of this memorandum is to
provide you with some background information regarding the compen-
sation plan which the job evaluation committee has developed, prior
to your deliberation on adoption of the 1981 compensation plan at
the December 22, 1980 city council meeting.
Because the job classification structure has been changed
considerably from the existing classification structure, the 1981
compensation plan will look quite different t?_an the existing
compensation plan as well. In developing this compensation plan,
we sought to achieve several objectives:
1. Provide salaries for specific categories of jobs which
would be competitive-wl-thii tha,._overall labor market,
allowing the City of Richfield to attract and retain
competent employees;
2. Develop a compensation system which would provide for
regular review of _c-Ln_._eJMP_1QY_ae's iiob performance, some
recognition of increases in job capabilities m aht
accompany increased tenure in the organization, as well as
an ability to reward or recognize performance by tying
salary adjustments at the upper part of each pay range to
an individual's job performance;
3. Create a systemmatic compensation package which is
readily understandable and can be adapted for adjustments
or modifications in a systemmatic way at a future date.
C-3uncil Memorandum No. 278 -2- December 15, 1980
Attached to this council memorandum is the proposed 1981
compensation plan for both general services and management employees.
We have structured separate classification plans, and separate
compensation plans, for general services and supervisory-management
employees.
The proposed 1981 compensation plan for general services
employees was developed on the basis of extensive analysis of 1980
salaries paid both by the City of Richfield and other municipal
employers within the Twin City metropolitan area. Most of this
data was derived from the 1980 Stanton Survey, which is a compre-
hensive study of salaries and benefits provided to municipal employees
in the metropolitan area. By selecting "benchmark" jobs in our
orgar.i-ation, finding-r-mTarable jobs. in the Stanton survey, and
identifying the average salary and salary ranges for those similar
jobs, we developed a basic pay structure. However, since this
data was developed for 1980, it has been necessary to extrapolate
the salary figures into a 1981 proposed salary structure.
The attachment to this memorandum contains the proposed 1981
compensation plan for both general services and management employees.
In general, the 1981 salary structure__is__y_._5 _h_igher than the 1980
pay structure. This figure was derived by assuming an overall
ad u-sttnren-t--in economic benefits (basically, wages and the city's
contribution for insurance purposes) of 10% for 1981. The proposal
which I will be submitting for the city's insurance contribution
is equivalent_t.Q__about a .5% increase, making the rest of the
- -
proposed adjustment available for wage purposes. For this reason,
the range has been adjusted by 9.5% over the range that we had
developed earlier this summer (reflecting 1980 salaries).
The management pay structure reflects basically 1980 salaries
increased by 8%. Since the range of job responsibilities from
community to community for management positions differs greatly,
it has been very difficult for us to establish specific management
pay ranges which are ties exactly to the marketplace. However,
since there is no step structure, or automatic gradations within
the management salary ranges, there is more discretion in establishing
individual salaries to reflect individual job performance or con-
siderations of the marketplace. For this reason, I believe that
the 8% adjustment in the management pay plan is sufficient to
permit us to adequately compensate our supervisory and management
employees, while still basically reflecting the market conditions.
One of the major issues that has confronted the job evaluation
committee has been that of how to implement the new classification
and pay plan structure. In general, the committee will be making
the following recommendations to the council regarding implementa-
tion of this new pay plan:
1. Individual employees shall be placed within the pay
grade to which their position is assigned, at the step
closest to, but not lower than, their current rate of pay,
adjusted by the same i9eree
i t-s-e-1€---h-as---best --a d jtrst e? ;
i
i
0
Council Memorandum No. 278 -3- December 15, 1930 c,
2. An employee whose rate of pay falls within the merit
range cF grade shall receive a pav adjustment equal
to trrg -ara?-adjustment_._-irr -5?- - r?so'-plan; '? ?.
3. In no instance shall an employee receive a decrease in -.J
their current rate of pay as a result of implementation
of this compensation plan;
4. In the event that an employee's position classification r
has been placed within a pay grade that has a rate of
pay less than the employee's rate of pay would be when
adjusted by tie--see--per-eer?rt-a-ge- as _th-e-`.cmpen-sa-tzon plan
-, J- itself has been adjust-e-d-, that employee shall receive a f
?a, uc,us` ant equal tc at leas' one-lalf of the percentage
?
rat i-gl arr _h as-]3eeri- a-d??-s t-ed ??• ^ ?? . f., , - .,
5. In the event that an employee's position classification
has been placed within a pay grade that has a range of
pay less than the employee's current rate of pay, that
employee shall receive a pay adjustment equal to one-half
of the percentage hy--n?h-ic-h--the- overall plan has been
a-d]usto?. i`> '.
Management employees are not assigned to specific pay steps.
Individual salaries will be set within the pay range to which
a position is assigned, based on individual job performance.
Management employees whose salar`.7 exceeds the maximum of the grade
to which their position has been assigned will receive a salary
adjustment equal to at least one-half of the amount by which the
general pay grade has been adjusted.
The impact of implementing the proposed 1981 general services
pay structure, in terms of specific salary adjustments, and the
recommendation to provide at least a 4-3!4 percent increase to
everybody, is to effect a 9.9 percent total wage increase for
general services employees in 1981. This increase is based, of
course, on the assumption that there is no turnover in personnel,
or no position vacancies occur during the year. The application
of this salary structure, however, will result in less than a
9.9 percent increase, as positions turn over during the course of
a year, with vacancies occurring, new employees hired at lower
rates than the previous employee, etc.
lly? i.tted,
kaarl Nollenberger
City Manager
cc: P.ogr-.-- Directors
Personnel Officer
0
a:
SE?277T(
GRADE =0N POINTS
L .? .. .
OVER - Ti::u
1 - 130
2 131 - 150
3 151 - 170
4 171 - :195
5 196 - 220
6 221 - 250
7' 251 - 280
8 231 - 320
9 321 - 370
'ES PAY GRADE STRUCTURE
SALAR _
A B 7 S"^PS
C D
MERIT RANGE
694 732 771 848
776 819 862 948
867 915 963 11059
918 972 1,026 1,080 1,188
1,026 1,00-6 1,1:7 1,207 i,320
1,151 1,219 1,286 1,354 1,489
1,289 1,364 1,440 1,516 :1,668
1,443 1,528 1,613 1,698 1,868
1,616 1,711 1,806 1,901 2,091
Differential between grades is about 12%.
Differential between steps is about 5%.
Step A is the normal hiring rate for Grades 4 through 8.
Step B is the normal hiring rate for Grades 1 through 3.
Steps B and C are progress rates.
Step D is the midpoint or job rate.
An additional merit range follows Step D to the range maximum.
GENERAL SERVICES PROGRAM
1. Salary Ranae. A salary range consisting of 6 steps approxi-
5% apart will be established for each pay grade.
a. Step A will be the minimum of the range and the normal hiring
rate for jobs in grades 4 through 8.
b. Steps B and C are progress steps to recognize increasing
competence and performance on the job. Step B is also the
normal hiri ,.r _`__. ? t:.._
c. Step D is the job rate for experienced competent performance
on all jobs in the pay grade.
d. The Merit Range beyond Step D is available only to Above
Standard performers.
2. Salarv Ranae Adjustments. The City Manager is responsible
for reviewina the total _qalarv range structure in relation to
ap^Vcpri _te salary survey a_ l_,ast an_-uallv. Ad - 1-1
meats necessary to reflect chances in prPvailinq pay levels, not
cost of living indicators, will be developed by Citv manaqement
for ultimate decision by the Citv Council.
a. Overall chances in the salarv structure will normally be
made effective as of Januarv 1.
b. ,;hcnever such an overall adjustment is made, the nay rate of
each emplovee on ranae steps A through D who is performing
at least at an adequate level will be ad;lusted to the new
rate for his/her current range step. An employee within the
Merit Range who is performing at least at an Above Standard
level will receive a percentage salarv adjustment equal to
the percentage of the overall range adjustment. An employee
within the Merit Range who is performing at an adequate or
Standard level will not receive a salary adjustment, provided
however, that each such employee's salary would not remain at
an amount less than the new rate for Step D of such employee's
current salary grade.
c. The adjustment for any employee whose performance is below the
adequate level will be postponed until his/her performance
becomes adequate.
3. Hiring Rates. New employees with the normal beginning level of
qualifications for the job will be hired at the Step B rate for
jobs in grades 1 through 3, and at the Step A rate for jobs in
grades 4 through 8.
a. An employee may be hired at a higher step only upon approval
of the City Manager when the specific individual possesses
more than normal qualifications or experience, or when market
conditions are such that persons with the required qualifi-
cations are not available at lower rates. Such hiring rates
should not exceed Step D.
-2-
b. If a position to be filled has not yet been assigned to a
pay grade, a job description should be prepared and at least
a tentative job evaluation rating and pay grade assignment
made before the job is filled.
4. Individual Salary Adjustments. Individual employees will receive
increases to the next higrner range step in line with their length
of time in the pay grade and their individual competence and ner-
formance rating according to the following criteria:
a. Step B (also Step c in grades 1 through 3). Completion of at
least 6 months on one or more jobs in th.e nay grad-7-2, and
competence and performance levels rated at least Adequate.
b. Step C (grades 4 through 9). At least 9 mLonths since previous
increase for those rates Above Standard or Outstanding. At
least 12 months since previous increase for those rated Adequate
or Standard.
c. Step D. At least 9 months since previous increase for those
rated Outstanding, 12 months for those rated Standard or Above
Standard, and 18 months for those rated Adequate.
d. Merit Range. At least 18 months since previous increase for
those rated Outstanding, and 30 months for those rated Above
Standard. Standard and Adequate performers may not advance
to the Merit Range. Salary increases in the Merit Range will
be determined by the supervisor and may range between 3%-8%.
e. Employees whose competency level and/or performance are rated
Unsatisfactory may not advance to the next step until their
performance improves.
MANAGEMENT PAY G <<i?-
PAY JOB EVALUATION POINTS SALARY rr^?GE
- %ITDP( : AXI:°SUM
A 320 - 344 $17,000 20,000 23,000
B 345 - 374 $18,200 21,400 24,600
C 375 -. 409 519,500 22,900 26,300
D 410 - 454 $20,800 24,400 28,100
E 455 -. 509 $22,200 26,'_00 30,000
F 510 - 579 $23,700 27,900 32,100
G 50 - oti a_?,2v 29,3u0 34,300
H 670 - 779 $27,100 31,900 36,700
I 780 - 919 $29,000 34,100 39,200
J 920 - 1100 $31,000 36,500 42,000
Differential between grades is about 7%.
Range spread from mi nimum to maximum is about 35%.
Minimum is the normal hiring rate for the position.
Midpoint is the job rate for experienced competent performance.
Maximum is the highest possible rate for superior performance over
an extended period.
"- \'Z\r'„MF?NT PprnrR7\*,\:t
1. Salarv Ranges. A salary range consisting of a minimum, midpoint,
and maximu.<< rate will be established for ea,:: pay grade.
a. The midpoint rate approximates the prevailing pay level in
the labor market for comparable kinds of jobs.
b. The minimum rate is about 85% of the midpoint and is the
normal hiring rate for jobs in the pay grade.
C. The maximum rate is about 115% of the midpoint and is the
hi,:,-hest rate po?zsi'; lip for- suoericr performance over an extended
time.
2. Salary Range Adjustments. The City Manager is responsible for
reviewing the total salary range structure in relation to appropri-
ate salary survey information at least annually. Adjustments
necessary to reflect chances in orevailina pay levels, not cost
of living indicators, will be developed by city management for
ultimate decision by the City Council.
a. Overall changes in the salary structure will normally be made
effective as of January 1.
b. Individual salary adjustments based on the percentage change
in the salary range structure and individual differences in
job competence and performance will become effective when the
range structure charges for all ;whose performance is rated
adequate or better.
C. Employees whose performance is unsatisfactory will not receive
an increase until their performance improves.
3. Hiring Rates. New employees with the normal beginning level
qualifications for the job will be hired at or near the minimum
of the salary range.
a. New employees may be hired above the range minimum when they
possess more than normal qualifications or experience, or
when market conditions are such that persons with the required
qualifications are not available at lower rates.
b. Hiring rates in excess of 90% of the range midpoint must be
approved in advance by the City Manager. Such higher hiring
rates should not exceed the range midpoint.
C. If a position to be filled has not yet been assigned to a
pay grade-, a job description should be prepared and at least
a tentative job evaluation rating and pay grade assignment
made before the job is filled.
4. Salarv Increase Amounts. Individual salary increases will normally
be made effective when the salary range structure changes and will
vary in size, depending on the individual's performance rating and
current position in the salary range in line with the following
criteria.
Management Program
9
Page 2
PERFORMANCE POSITION IN SALARY RANGE
__ _ --:, -- -.7=T_ 1 Oar o 105% Or^ MIDPT.
rL'-1'L i :V L
Outstanding
Range
Ad =+-6-%
? +
Raangee ?;
4% Ran e
g Adj. + 2%
Above Standard Range Add + 4% Range Adj. + 2% % of Range Adj.
-, ,cedar
St_,
?anr7e
Z1 '+ J + 2% I
- ° of _.?. rte ??;
7 J i na
-- Adl - 2°s
Adequate
% of
Range
Adj.
1
Range Adj. -
2%
Range
Adj. c
- %
Unsatisfactory No increase until performance improves
t
r
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Office of City Manager
E
December 8, 1980
Council Memorandum No. 276
The honorable mayor
and
Members of the City
City of Richfield
Council Members:
Subject:
Council
Classification Study
J-'he city council may recall that we have had a number of
conversations and communications concerning the classification
study currently under way in the City of Richfield. We are near-
ing completion of that classification analysis and should.be trans-
mitting recommendations to the city council at the December 22,
council meeting. I thought it would be important to provide the
council with information on the classification plan at this time
so that you could become aware of the classification system, and
the basic logic behind it.
Enclosed with this memorandum is a chart entitled Job Evalua-
tion Plan. The sheets included constitute the classification plan
which the top management staff utilized in the development of the
specific position classifications in our city. The job evaluation
plan consists of eight factors that each position in the city was
evaluated against. The eight factors, and the relative rankings
which were given to them, are as follows:
Specialized Know-How 17.3%
Managerial Know How 17.3%
Complexity 15.1%
Human Relations 17.3%
Authority 11.4%
Impact 13.0%
Effort 4.3%
Working Environment 4.3%
The tables which are put together for each of the areas are
utilized in evaluating the positions. For example, under the table
entitled Know-How, both Specialized Know-How and Managerial Know-
How, are evaluated. For the position of Director of Public Safety
0
Council Memorandum No. 276 -2- December 8, 1980
in the City of Richfield, the Managerial Know-How would be classi-
fied in the four-level of "Broad", indicating that "general management
or conceptual integration of major organizational functions or pro-
gramming areas" is needed. At the same time, the specialized know-
how would be an "E" level, or "Seasoned Specialized", indicating that
"broad knowledge and.proven proficiency in specialized or technical
areas" is required. The table then is used to match up the special-
ized know-how and managerial know-how at the 4E level in the block
which ranges from 285 - 375 points. A decision then is made as to
whether the point count for the position is at the upper range of that
block or the lower range. In this case, the Judgment factor was made
that the position deserved the upper range of the block, or 375 points.
Each one of the sheets are used similarly for Problem Solving which
includes the factors of Complexity and Human Relations, Responsibility
which includes the factors of Initiative and Authority, aid 4vor'king
Conditions which includes the factors of Effort and Working Environ-
ment. General Services employees use the chart entitled Responsibility
(Initiative and Accuracy) while Supervisory employees were evaluated on
the chart entitled Accountability (Authority and Impact).
In this manner, every position in the General Services and
Management category of the city, was evaluated under four factors
with point counts assigned accordingly. For example, the Director
of Public Safety position referred to previously, was evaluated as
is follows:
Position Title: Director of Public Safety
Know How E4 375
Problem Solving D4 325
Responsibility D3P 215
Working Conditions C2 52
Total 967
Another example for a secretarial position in the city ?-.ould be as
follows:
Position Title: Secretary
Know How
Problem Solving
Accountability
Working Conditions
Total
B 1; 1 80
B2 80
A2 30
A'i 0
190
a
Council Memorandum No. 276 -3- December 8, 1980
After all of the fobs were evaluated, groupings were made of
the various jobs according to the number of points which they re-
ceived in the job evaluation process. An example of this would be
that all jobs between 131 and 150 points were grouped together, all
jobs between 151 and 170 points were grouped together, all jobs be-
tween 171 and 195 points were grouped together, etc., throughout the
entire scale. Separate classification plans were put together for
General Services and Supervisory Management employees. Ultimately,
the classification groupings wil1 be assinnea -p 1y ranges which need
to be considered and approved by the city council. Copies of the
letter which was sent to each employee in the city, with descrip-
tions on how they might appeal their particular classification,are
also included with this council memorandum. This memorandum was
intended to provide you with background as to how the process has
been utilized with the hopes that it will provide a more thorough
understanding prior to the December 22 city council meeting.
Respectfully submitted,
?cvJC. t V v L? .ti?^ ??
Karl Nollenberger
City Manager
KN/jf
cc: Program Directors
,P
JOB EVALUA`i iG 5 ?LAN
This Job Evaluation Plan has been. designed to provide
criteria for proper ranking of all jobs within the organi-
zation.
The Plan measuresjobs in terms of the following factors:
Factor
Specialized Know-How
Managerial Know How.
-p I _ ty
Human Relations
Authority
Impact
Effort
Working Environment
Maximum Points
160
160
140
160
105
120
40
40
% of Total
17.3%
0
15.1%
17.3%
11.4%
13.0%
4.3%
4.3%
• Jobs are rated by assigrnng the proper points under each factor
by the following process:
1) Select the level under each factor which best describes'
the specific position. Judgment is important in selecting
levels since the definitions have to be somewhat general
and will not always apply in the same way to all jobs.
2) Select the appropriate point total within the box. A
higher or lower point total should be chosen depending
on the degree to which the job is felt to lean toward
the heavy or light side of the level definition on each
factor.
3) Add the points selected on each factor to arrive at
the total point value for the job.
4) Compare the total point rating and the specific ratios
on each factor with the ratings on comparable or related
positions. If any of the relationships appear question-
able, the specific ratings should be reviewed and
adjusted if appropriate.
It must be remembered that any job evaluation plan is only
a tool for systematically structuring judgments about a job.
• No plan can be completely objective or accurate by itself
or eliminate the work involveu in the rating process. The
essential ingredient in the job evaluation process is good
judgment applied consistently and honestly to all jobs.
.
Of
0
3
O
1
3
Z
:L
rJ
" I ro C
N O C c L ?
W -'i y. lD oo •"-1
? Ln
ct' co
Ln L.
N r
o 0
r'i O
> w M I ri i-i .--! N
CS v N N r"7 r"1 Ln
0, i I
Ir 'j i? cc .n
' v o
IT
N
r'1
T
I
.i I S-i U' r3 S-i 1 i ?
G
? CJ Y 'J I'
G U p
O
.'
I
C I ': O O I C Lrl Ill L'1 L. !.'1 O
J II N T i V W H 'cF CC'i N I T f"]
tf') ? i .1 '"i I rl r-I N N N (`"1 I ? „
r3
`G nyC?? ' I Ln o I O O
I u) C N j T l`J Ln Ln
OJ r-1 Lr u1
T CO + L^. if1
I N r
G
r-1 r"1 H r-1
Q a
N
N
_4,
N i
rn
11
0 trH p
r3 rJ .? 4-) ro j I
U
4O ? I;
C I
^
C
-'? Q yj a w II In I C
'
.-1 U r0 O O -?' Lr)
Cf L
T L
:
N
C r3 C }..? H n r1
I N r^,.
r- U U 0 C G.?
O
'LJ t I O .? -Z o j
I
C I N Vl O O O ;11 L' rfl
O N ?'
V' CO
.-I T ?
N N
gib U II
C
w
41 > ?a "i -w O] rn C N
r? Q 1 - r rOi CO <1' CO j
Z I U U
x z: C) 3 ti, .-+
1
U A I'
I O Ln
u? p yrr33? C '
') -?jr?
O
L'1
< C --. > C, o .Q CO O T co
T
F-41 1;
no O) '' I-4 in ^ O 14
.: I I rl
>I?
>
?
?I I
H
ri N
I.a .;a o
o
C
H
H 3 b !
0
<
Z I U jI O O j (N L1 O o CD
Ln I
L. Ln
Q v II r oo i o? O N T lD co
1111 T
Z T I ^" rl , .-1 r-1 •? r1 --- N N
Q
U
;,,I
Uw I I „ r I C O C N
? i r m a)
e>
??3 J LC1 O
.. N O O L. r
T I -i
Q .
Uw
?
' o o
•? r
O
cr. O
C) r;
G ^ U
3 0 u -
H cl W c c _c E l oo o T co
c r3
C: H ri J 'O n
`..: > :.? Q..
I
? 'ri i N O O O N L1 O O I O L'l
C n D I r CO cl o N T O co
Q I N I I I
G
1-J U > T to lD r CO
rl I :u Q Si 11 r-1 ri I r-i
I I
I I
-? > "' "?
<
? U
"? S+
I
U lD
O
I t , mayy
H W r--! T O N
J
v
I 3 AS I I
i
S; C) I i
tr >
O I N O
C O
N L:
O C
C'. -+ T T L lr r co m o f N ? T
rD
U r1 C L+ 1,4
m. ?
04 Qa
? I
G o
U
C
N -•-1 C rj •.i
X
c N .
.
I .t. ? ?,
I C 'C.r -1 0 71 C
"
v r3 C) I .
`
-1
_
.
rl u..? CS• U
rz;
17? v c r3 :? U.? rt .-I ?, rJ `?
cn ?? ^i > r; 1-I I 0
••? O
•? b 0 tJ U f-I C)
f-l -1
U I4 G > X
_
f-4
C -
> 4j Q) r
I
w e .a (
r0 O C s: `3'
,
+
U
CJ U C ?? Ste. U :-1
-? r3 r3 -f+ p H?
r3 H U sa U C. O c >
CJ
0
?-+ > C)
G N U U w r3 U
0 Ci
s•+-? O U
cl c
p > .,a
C ?? w
.
0 ?4 Q4 4j I
a v ? I
CJ U r3 U O Ia S+ j y .-. ?: C
;
>, t+ • C O Cl 0 `GJ C I. N C
.
ia, y_ U c ?^ v v
? 7)
-,j cj
O C C U n
I I U C
C 0
N 4? 0 0I3 ?C n
p .-I c U
3 `
T' W u
U Q'
7
U
rV
X
C.1, j `? Q
'" >
5 r0 C) C) rl ?
?
0 N G
" r
H C (.?
Y+ .-1 C y U In r3;
C X 41 C)
`"
G
I 10 U G .-.
S H C -H f ? 2 ?rl r^ 1`
U U aj I.-1 u: .-
U >. ^y
i U U U C -+ •? .-1 _? ?i ,^;
Lam; . ?.: ?.? ': •.1 U U `' v Cam'. r3 C) F r3 -?
I r
11a S-1 0 > 1J
"? ?
I C rJ ? 7 ?
?+ U H ?
1a U v C .-I G
r•
. ,. ^'
H I C G C s,. U ?
H
, . _
J N
Y 0444 < ". C C Ww C .? ?,
H I C 'v C O X U
'?
> U O G U a?
w -.-4 C
. r-• !
n C '
; I •.. c +?
`; I J V
j
U _ Sa
" O
a l u ^ -c o
?! 0 --J 0w a U o
•
i
•
?I 2
H
a
I ?
I ?
L
L'
O
a`
a
I
f I N
N
p p
L. U'1 tP L^
O
L'l
o f U ?o
-4 ri 00
.--1 N N N
m O
M f"1 i v i
l i I
m ?
? I
0-M
-+ w
.sr O ;n
I I
N 7 O Ci SJ
c rJ 0
I{ v
Lf,
3 O a w 1-i ?4
N
M d
IJ?> -W
+^GGi
ri
n
v U M U I
U
i
i
F .
Z5 U -?
-
r+ w
n0 aFo?
C
) w
U J
W I
I
-
411
m to
V) O C O L Ln L(1 L'1 L'1 Ln C
0) 'r{
U .IJ I N V
1 ,_.{ r{ I r-1 d•
r{ r-1 N N -0
N M M v'
X
In C7
'1
r
'
.-1 C)4 1 QJ .{ ti-J
`LJ 1J A N Lr)
O O O O
d'
CN O Lr)
lD CO 1 Lr1 L
L
l
L
r-i c1' 00 N
r6 c -'I O "? ri r-1 .-i rl N N N M
C) 0
'D U co -W
ry
I
O N _
o pp
1 G 14 L9
I
I
4-J P. I +' O C) - (n
> ? ?ro
v
I
I u
>.
F (1) -I-J c >y ?4 U
? Lrl I LI)
v? I _
?
??ro?>7 O
O co
N
C
j > -H ti
0 G 4
M
Z 14 C, ?
-1
f Iw .
O
G
"W U (T44J
F -i U
/r -? ^-
O N
LC1 O
O O
Ul ui Ln L1
4- 00 G) ID co 00
U) 0
G
-4 ? 1 (n L7 I
5
o 13 1 p W CJ U O O O N I
CO m L O
O
00
O C
.-1
'D CO
1
? .? -ri rl w R. ?'1 U
ro 1-I V 'r1 [L '? r
1 r-I ri ri r-i rl N
C w G O A
A
C
4
Lop)' w rr5 O
C
G O l4 4! 1J
F
O L O L1
co
I
5 1-? N O f•; C
>>
r3
7 ?H:
j41 `
Q
_
_
o : a G U.
L', >, L W '-i c U U>-
S-i
U O
c U:
N N O
L'1 1-0 O O
r co N L'1
Gl C'? O C v L
N l? b
O
N
W C
O ID4
}.,
I •rci
I O t0
N C I
O O
O
N Lr O
a 1J c 'O J-J
' d' C Lr) lG i r 'o C1 O N Q'
c C)
u
4-) -H cn z
i
c (0 o
N
V, r-
E O
ro U N
J j
Q) 4J
> C N 4
41 ,-1 r{ I
3 G
O
Ln
O O
'r
-.a O o I '
41
rI C)
ro x G .? I
I
sa p ro ?'?? G
J; G l
CJ :-1 tf1 h O
.? c M a ut l:J r co Q\ O N
F O
C >
>
.
r c
^
^C.• A J
C Q .-1 N
C7 Qi +J tr
U C 1 C
1J C:
c o o t? 41 ro J-? c
-4 -H
i, yJ C N G w E O .-. -1 -1 G G -P
(1) r
g
) 3 r3
> 14 >
?G
Ew ro
a ? U
C) u N X
41
0
R5 4 C)
>4 m
c? E c I
lac ? x =
?.-
O ro .? 14 = > R, -? o rt7 "' c7 U o A, w C?
4j .yap cn + a O ?, ? rJ
14 r?
,
c 1J U w O L) c G) .?? G, ?.'ri '? Sa G
? .-1 -? C'
-!
tJ C (,? N Cr) +-j
U to
r) o rp CJ
> ?C
) 4110
? c > .? yJ
I ?...-+ 1J o .
.
.
?• -H +J sa aJ
u ?J U
F .;:i -?ij
H
+ j .rl S-+
S N K,.'
3 ; a 0 r3 U
m
S w 0
I
H ro Sa 1J ro W
•`r
'
i
c F ,. .1 71 S
QJ 'a
: X w ifl
G ?/ -I '1 ?? .-?-. la
z r.r C u Q+ X
71 +! b f
r
v
c .+
u s, :? .
I
1+ I J
U: I:. c o
H I:r, G G
G
U ?--1 i U,
I
G C L% 3 U E
c
N
F
H
H
u?l
O I
O I
<r
v
?? O
Q) O
r O
co
I
y? i r1r L
?-- I
_
E
E
0?
Q
-
?
? 1
w Ui ?
+
s. A
?' u G
I
.aJ Q ? I ? O N O
'
i CJ v S.. cr Ln r
G i
( 1
I L7• I
I
? I
4? V
iJ
O r
HIS ? U OU
U ?
E U S-I > U
N I Ln O V N I O O
ri M T V V1 lp r
A
O M
i
-
I
? O ifl O ? j N
5-+ .1
1 M M d' Q' L(l V'
O
C) x r3
>ro?
C) >1
i
u ro u e I
>1 c
J r1
i
F 1, ,' J Crl I O O N
U O
C
u
< }-I 4
-I S
f
S.+ G O -P
5,4
O un I 0 0
v L? v)
to O
M lfl c) i
Q lJ
C N
n
O
aJ N N
ro
N
S
C4 Sl
O
L'1
N
O
M
Vl
M
G
v
L I
C
4
'.-i Q a
J l? I r4 1
7
Q G
?"
1-1 r
1 U i
U w JJ I
D
S'' U
O O U L 4? cil
c7 C C O U C O O
O
.? > j'
I
c!?4j L
;
C) <z z 1,2
O I :n w
C I?
•? O 3
4
C .I Ln C I Vl O ul O
F 'r+ I? i .--I
? + N N M M C
I
4 M
71, C)
L4 + w
>
O U O f1 :r
•
U N
I G w
8 C
C E U
I
> 4
S..i
'? O
•.i O C1
.t4 li
z: 0 4j
w ul
>ro j
s
?
-1 ?4 4
v?H
1 4J
G
.
w
O 4
G
G
? ro
O
O? w I /
'3 m 4J ?J
CND ? ?)? i
?? N
r e c
14 + U C1
w H s
c? c`
s4 c
ro u U w - c w C)
C; In w I c?
'? , c o
U 1 C 'J1
-H 0) x u
.n.J CP
J I,^ U O S4 I 41 G ?
?4 7-1
w > S4 '3 v E
41 W C
i
?+ I C ?4 Ci rI
~ ( •? E C?_ ?r
Ci ?J 1r
u
--? ? F
3 j ?• b U
•
•
>!
E
ra
p
I
E
O
U
U
?I
C, CN
rl r-i
rl ?-1
r-? N
N
f"1 r`"1
?
J I ?I y
"
?•
?' ?
?
s2
O O
O N
LIl O
O
C
L`1 1
.H I
-w
U
n.
r6 ++ ,
W W
4-1 W c
O ?•' p N
co cl L'1 O
O N O O
c to
oo
H L'1
c co
r3 c
l
-i
-I '-I
rl
N
N N
G ul If, .
r
E A
am
J
, O
G C rt3
O •H
t W I ,.:J N O O O N L?1 O O O
+ I c Ln to r co cl c N c v
U O a ^
c i
U a U7 Q) r-; U
? O +? U
?
c
>1
I
3
y'?j C
'?-1 p f4
_
.-1
I f'!
I E-I ' O O
Iz r` O N
of Ol
L'1 O
O N
O
?•
O
?^
L?1 if1
.-a
oo
N
O U O
1J U,
U U
N >
a >
4-1
T G
? ?' _ ? CI C I
O? i
?
', if1 C
f
m p N
Ln O O
'o r- O
co N t^ O
N
V {
1 I
O c c^
3-I O u: i
I
U
i ?` '' OI Imo" tD N O
O
O N
L^. C
O ^
W r• O i- C U1 to r co a) N I C L7
p
> C I ?I I 0.1 I
r6 c 4-J tr,
•'
O -P I I C
C Ln O
?I N rn U1 O
M d' 'J N
T Lr) O
?o O
h O N
co m
U ?
Ql r
w ,
G rn I•
:?
J
n
•^
v
I ?
41
.7. t+
c l? rJ C
v O
y 1 u O
>?lw: u ;I a
OV O c
G u
, t
.. ? ~ U C ? S O lYJ ?. u - '
G
> O -.
c w S p
O O
?4 4J yy
Do
I
C
U '_.
._.
C O O
14 S4
E O
Q, ?'
OL
HIw
c?
' L'
CIO v
O
L
-? C C C ? I -. O ?? n? Q G9 O O U^?
U
p ?u? a ?c way a
11 ? ?
H O U i C9IA M '] c'? , H
'. r G O
?
v ? G C; 6 I CS r-? I?
S-i
a
J
Q H
J
r„ >, co
CJi
..... U U rl r
y
N
41
w
O
A
1
'
p
I ? C, r
?w 4J
_O
^ M
U
U
N
f r ?
p
- J Q H
C I U • w ? ?
m
C) r)
Cl r"
C)
0
.
?-
Cf)
C
I E
I H ? U4 li
?
:
Z I ? ya
C -. ? .
C
O C
^ I
H L
. N
F'-I
H O
I r' L: J
z U
•
I i Q iy
. u c
- ?
r yJ ? .ri r
C? I 3 '? I i", ? r
ZI Q a I O m 711
~
1 Q
U O J O
_
S I ^ lJJ
C
I
x O :z I? ?"c U O
? v } ? ZL Q w U
I r ?
3 U N
_ ? I H
t
I
c H
is >r ?
.? v Lr
}-r O
X ?
s? H
O CT r',
3 U 41
U
CJ Ci
O E
1J yJ
i?
Q .r' C
4j O
4J
U` O N O i
M t"•' Ln l:J ?
? I
N
M L'1
O I
L(1
l'>
N
M M ? V1
O (V
00
Q
x
O O
r- I cc
O Ln Ln O
N N
I M
N
N O
Ln ?
1
if1
O
O 1
Ln
lD
N
i
o
Ln
L;
o
N N M r
9
N
j
i l ir. c
H N o =.
M M
tP
C
C
4? E
w ^?J JO C r5
O
N
s U U O r
?4 4j
.
O
> r
r3
'J? C U
w SJ
O c
• Cl C ..H y
i O C .
4J U7 . .?
i
c ? E
M .-a ..-. r)
Q
U
U ? C C? U• >
?
w? w
j >. S.X b? G
0 3 71 S u
CC
c ,
H
U7 O U r"3 1) U N r
? CJ ?+-? „ w •? cn
HI"
w ?i? o ? ? sic
f V
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Inter-Office Memorandum
DATE:
TO:
The purpose of this letter is to describe the process that was used
to develop a new General Services Employee Classification Plan, and to
provide you with specific information regarding the ranking and place-
ment of your position within this classification plan.
Enclosed with this letter is a description of the factors that were
used in determining the classification of your-position. Your job
description, and that of every other City General Services employee,
was evaluated, based on these factors, by a Job Evaluation Committee
comprised of the City Manager and Department Directors. The Committee
was assisted by the Personnel Officer and a trainer who is skilled in
the field of position classification evaluation.
The factors that were used in rating the job descriptions were developed
by the Committee as a means of measuring specific skills, knowledges
and abilities that are valuable to the City of Richfield. The rating
of an individual position represents the Committee's determination of
the particular skills, knowledges or abilities that are necessary for
a person to successfully do that job. The evaluation ratings are based
on the job and on the job description, and not on the performance of
the person now doing that job. The final classification plan shows
• the relative relationship of each specific job to the overall city
organization, 'rased on the numer-c:-
this evaluation process to each position. Any salary adjustments
which are necessary because of the classification system changes
will be made after the City Council adopts the classification plan.
A more detailed description of the "compensable factors" and how
they were used to evaluate and rate job descriptions was already
provided to you at a general employee meeting. After the meeting,
if you have additional questions regarding the rating process, please
contact the Personnel Office. The specific evaluation factors will
not be changed, but every effort will be made to insure that you under-
stand these factors.
Also enclosed is a list of the classification grades and the points
and positions assigned to each grade. Following is a summary of the
rating given to your position:
Name/Current New Posi- Know- Problem Account- working
Position Title tion Title How Solving ability Cond. Total
-rf you feel that the Committee did not accurately evaluate your posi-
tion or your job description, you may appeal this ranking. Forms for
appeals, and a description of the process which must be followed in
making an appeal, are available from the Personnel Office. You may
appeal your position rating only on the basis of the points assigned
to your position.
CITY OF RICHFIELD
APPEAL FOR POSITION CLASSIFICATION REVIEW
(This appeal must be filed on or before December 19, 1980.)
Date Received
Position Title
Employee
TO: JOB EVALUATION COMMITTEE
1) I hereby appeal the position classification rating of the above-
referenced position and request a review of the position evaluation:.
2) I am aware that the job evaluation process was not based upon an
evaluation of individuals currently holding specific positions,
but rather upon an evaluation of the positions themselves, and
that those positions were measured against a number of predeter-
mined factors, including Specialized Know-How, Managerial Know-How,
Complexity, Human Relations, Authority, Impact, Effort and Working
Environment.
3) Based on these factors and my position description, I feel that
the above stated position merits review for the following reason(s):
•
4) I (do) (do not) wish to appear in person to present this appeal
to the Job Evaluation Committee. (It is not necessary to personally
appear before the Committee to present an appeal.)
0
Employee's Signature Date
q POSITION CLASSIFICATION AP _:L P%:„='^URE
Each employee will have the opportunity to appeal the position evalua-
tion rating of the position he/she currently holds. Appeals must be
filed in the manner described in the "Appeals Procedure" outlined
below, and must be based on the points assigned to your position,
either in total, or for any given factor. Appeals must relate to the
compensable factors and an individual position description.
If an employee has any questions regarding the appeal proc_s-s or
seeks assistance in properly submitting an appeal, the Personnel Office
will be available for assistance and information.
-APPEALS PROCEDURE:
1) All appeals must be filed on the forms provided for such appeals.
Forms are available in the Personnel Office at City Hall.
2) Appeals must be filed with the Personnel Office --n ref^r°
4:30 p.m., December 19, 1980. Appeals filed after this deadline
SHALL NOT be considered.*
3) Appeals which have been filed in a timely manner will be forwarded
to the Job Evaluation Committee to be considered in the order in
which they were received. Where appeals for the same position
are filed by more than one employee, the Committee may consider
such appeals concurrently.
4) Any employee who wishes may have the opportunity to personally •
appear before the Job Evaluation Committee to present their
respective appeal and the reasons therefor. Employees indicating
a desire to appear before the Job Evaluation Committee may indicate
so on the Appeal Form, and will be notified by the Personnel Office
of the time and place of such appearance. However, employees will
not be present during the Job Evaluation Committee's deliberation
on any Appeal request.
5) All Appeals shall be considered sole 1, upon t::e meY,' ^t such
Appeal.
6) Each employee who has filed an appeal will receive, in writing, a
reply to such appeal, including the results of the Job Evaluation
Committee determination and the reason(s) for such action. All
such responses will be made in a timely manner.
7) The decision of the Job Evaluation Committee on eaci
be final and shall not be subject to further review.
*This is not to be confused with a position reclassification, which
may be requested at any time after the duties, tasks and/or responsibili-
ties of a position change substantially.
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Office of City Manager
Council Letter No. 452
Agenda December 22, 1980
The Honorable Mayor
and s?
Members of the City Council
City of Richfield j
Council Members:
Subject: Ordinance Amendment Relating to License
and Permit Fees and Charges. First
Reading.
There is an item on the December 22, 1980 city council
agenda providing for council consideration of an ordinance
amendment which would change various license fees and charges.
The attached ordinance amendment reflects an increase
in many of the city's license fees. The existing fee is shown
in brackets, with the new fee underlined. Basically, the prop-
osed amendment to the fee schedule reflects an effort to more
accurately recoup the city's cost fsr lic.ens?nar_ egulating
certain activities, while seeking to establish ea fee structure
which is still fair to the licensee and is consistent with the
general cost of licenses and fees in adjacent communities.
Most of these fees have been unchanged for many years, and are
currently established at a level so low that it costs the city
as much to process the license applications, or more, than we
gain from the revenues derived from the fees. As council mem-
bers will recall, the 1981 budget reflects increased revenue
from these sources based on anticipated increases in fees and
charges.
It is recommended that the city council adopt the attached
amendment to Appendix D of the Ordinance Code, relating to mis-
cellaneous permit licenses and other fees for the City of Rich-
field.
Respectfully submitted,
Valil Nollenberggr
City Manager
KN/eja
04 cc. Program Directors
Finance Coordinator
Deputy City Clerk
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Office of City Manager
Council Letter No. 451
The Honorable Mayor
and
Members of the City Council
City of Richfield
Council Members:
Agenda December 22, 1980
Subject: Ordinance and Resolution Relating to
Billing Procedures
There are two items on the December 22,
agenda relating to procedures for the city's
As you are aware, effective January 1, 1981,
utility bills for the City of Richfield will
entire billing structure managed by the City
was the case for many years, although in the
three years, the city contracted with the L0,
provide utility billing services.
1980 city council
utility billing process.
the water and sewer
be produced and the
of Richfield. This
last approximately
:CIS organization to
In the process of making the conversion for the utility bill-
ing system from LOGIS, to our internal system, two irregularities
in the ordinance and existing procedures were noted. The first
one relates to the billing dates. Water and sewer customers are
billed every quarter for their usage during the previous quarter.
How•_-ver, the existing ordinance indicates that customers will be
billed during the third month of the three months included in the
quarter. It is impossible to bill on this basis, because meter
readings and the computation of actual water and sewer usage for
the quarter cannot be completed until the end of the month. It
has been common practice to bill during the month following the
three month period that the bill covers. However, it appears ap-
propriate to revise the ordinance to specify the actual billing
dates in accordance with the billing schedule. The attached ordin-
ance amendment would accomplish this change.
The second item attached to this council letter is a resolu-
tion which would clarify that it is the city's intent to include
miscellaneous charges related to special services and costs for
water-sewer utility customers through the regular utility billing
system. In the past, special services (i.e., repair or replace-
ment of water meter, hydrant maintenance, etc.) have been charged
through the city's miscellaneous billing system. The computer
program which has been developed by the city's data processing divi-
sion gives us the capability to include and describe miscellaneous
charges on the utility bill itself, which appears appropriate since
these are costs, and accordingly revenues, which should be credited
back to the water or sewer utility fund.
Council Letter No. 451 -2- December 22, 1980
It is recommended that the city council adopt the resolu-
tion, and give first reading approval to the ordinance amendment
which would clarify the billing date for the c_tr ' ?ility_11s ,
Respectfully submitted,
i
Karl Nollenberger
City Manager
KN/jf
cc: Administrative Services Director
Finance Coordinator
Central Services Manager
is
Q
6 RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION RELATING TO
WATER AND SEWER RATES
AND CHARGES
BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Richfield,
Minnesota, as follows:
WHEREAS, Section 8.12, Subdivision 1,
code of the City of Richfield provides for
of rates and charges for use and service o
sanitary sewer system, with such rates and
determined from time to time by resolution
council; and
of the ordinance
the establishment
f the municipal
charges to be
of the city
WHEREAS, the provisions of Section 8.23, Subdivision 8,
provide for the making of charges for special services
rendered to customers of the municipal water system, with
such charges to be determined from time to time by resolu-
tion of the city council; and
WHEREAS, such special charges for miscellaneous labor,
. material and equipment provided by the city have, heretofore,
been billed separately against the properties involved; and
WHEREAS, it is deemed to be necessary and advisable to
include such miscellaneous labor, equipment and material
charges in the appropriate sewer and water billings of the
city so that such charges may be collected in the same
manner as other sewer and water service charges are collected.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that
equipment charges, for services rendered
within the city, shall be made a part of
billing '_s to such property and shall be
same manner as standard charges for wate
are collected.
labor, material and
to any property
the regular utility
collected in the
r and sewer service
0
/C r-
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Office of City Manager
The Honorable Mayor
and
Members of the City
City of Richfield
Council Members:
Subject:
Council
Council Letter No. 450
Agenda December 22, 1980
Rescheduling of Hearing Dates for Re-
newal of On-Sale Liquor Licenses
At the November 24, 1980 city council meeting, the city
council set December 22, 1980 as the date for a public hear-
ing on the request for renewals of on-sale liquor and Sunday
liquor licenses issued to the Godfather, Inc.; the Left Guard,
Inc.; and the Ground Round Restaurant.
The Department of Public Safety has initiated the re-
quired license renewal investigations on all three of the
• licensed establishments. However, in all three cases, the
applicants have failed to submit all of the items required with,
their applications for the license renewal. It has not been
possible, therefore, for the Public Safety Department to com-
plete the investigations required by Section 11.06, Subd. 4,
of the on-sale liquor licensing ordinance.
Since these investigations will not be completed in time
for the public hearings scheduled for December 22, 1980, it
is the recommendation of the Public Safety Director, in which
I concur, that the city council reschedule the date for the
public hearing to the regular council meeting on January 12,
1981. The city attorney has determined that the council can
authorize the establishments to continue operating during this
period contingent upon the license renewal hearing scheduled
for January 12, 1981.
Respectfully submitted, Karl Nollenberger
City Manager
KN/eja
cc: City Clerk
Public Safety Director
•
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Office of City Manager
Council Letter No. 449
Agenda
E
The Honorable Mayor
and
Members of the City_ Council
City of Richf ield
Council Members:
/ /117 V
,' I C
R
December 22, 1980
Subject: Ordinance Granting a Franchise to
Operate and Maintain a Cable Communi-
cation System in the City. Second
Reading.
At the December 8, 1980 city council meeting, the city
council gave first reading approval to an ordinance granting
a franchise to operate and maintain a cable communication
system in the City of Richfield. A copy of this rather lengthy
document was transmitted to the city council at that time, and
due to the fact that reproduction costs are $9.00 each, a copy
of the ordinance is not included again with this council letter.
If council members wish to receive another copy, please let us
know and we will make the necessary copies.
Mr. Stanley Hubbard of Channel S, has expressed concern
that the installation of cable television would affect the
broadcast frequency of that particular channel, and also that
"ghosting" which might affect receiving a clear picture, would
occur. Attached to this council letter is a copy of a letter
from Anita L. Benda, of the Cable Information Center, which
addresses these concerns. Based upon the information they have
received from their engineering and technical advisors (copy
attached) there does not appear to be any reason why Minnes-
ota's system should not be able to provide high quality service
to all subscribers in the cities.
The ordinance granting a franchise to Minnesota Cablesystems-
Southwest to operate and maintain a cable communication system
in the city has been placed on the December 22, 1980 city
council agenda for second reading consideration.
Q
n
KN/eja
Respectfully submitted,
Karl Nollenberger
City Manager
STATEMENT OF CITY MANAGER
Mr. Mayor, members of the City Council, let me just
briefly review for you the background of the process that
has been followed to bring this Ordinance to you.
As you know, together with four other Cities in the
Southwest suburban area, our City has joined together in the
franchising process to bring about the development of a
joint cable communications system. The history of this
whole process is quite extensive. Our joint cable communi-
cations efforts started a number of years ago when our City,
together with the four other Southwest suburban communities
entered into a Joint Powers Agreement in 1972. The Joint
Powers Agreement established a Joint Commission known as the
Southwest Suburban Cable Commission. That Commission in-
cluded a member of this City Council, as well as your City
Manager. Numerous studies were done by that Commission as
the years went by, including evaluation of various kinds of
cable systems, review of the cable industry, review of the
standards that were developed by the State Cable Board and
the Federal Communications Commission and various on-site
visits of existing cable systems. In approximately June of
1979 the Commission embarked upon the franchising process by
the hiring of a Cable Consultant and an attorney for the
Commission. The Cable Consultant helped the Commission
develop various design criteria for the cable system in con-
junction with the needs as expressed by the Advisory Commis-
sions of the Cities and the individual City Councils.
In the spring of 1980 an Invitation for Applications
and a draft ordinance was reviewed and authorized by this
City. After that, the Commission, on behalf of the Cities,
proceeded to obtain applications from various Cable Televi-
sion companies who were interested in developing a Joint
Cable System in the southwest suburban area. The applica-
tions of three companies were submitted to the Commission on
June 16, 1980. At that time, the applicants had an oppor-
tunity to speak to the commission. In addition, the South-
west Commission held another meeting on June 18, 1980 for
the purpose of making sure that all of the applications that
were submitted were in accordance with the Invitation for
Applications. Each applicant had further opportunity to
• comment during the June 18 meeting about its own application
as well as the other applications that had been submitted.
As you know, it has always been the assumption in the
process that the individual Cities would be the franchising
authorities. In other words, each city will be adopting its
own ordinance awarding the franchise to the successful ap-
plicant. The Commission has only been facilitating and
coordinating this process.
The Rules of the State Cable Board require that the
individual City Councils conduct separate public hearings.
All of the Cities did conduct these required hearings. The
hearing of Edina was held on August 18, 1980; Hopkins' hear-
ing was held on August 19, 1980; Minnetonka's hearing was
held on August 25, 1980, as was the hearing of the City of
2
Richfield. The City of Eden Prairie held its hearing on
September 2, 1980. At each of these hearings, representa-
tives of all three applicants were present and gave oral
presentations. Additionally, members of the public gave
oral presentations. The Commission received minutes of each
of these separate hearings. The Commission held an addi-
tional public meeting for the purpose of allowing the appli-
cants to make their presentations before the Commission.
Members of the City Council and other interested persons had
an opportunity to be present at this meeting.
The Cable Television Information Center and Anita
Benda, the Commission's consultants, prepared a preliminary
report with regard to the evaluation of the applications
which they had done. This evaluation was submitted to the
•
Commission and to the various applicants. All of the appli-
cants submitted written responses to this preliminary report
of the cable consultants. A final report was then prepared
by the cable consultants. The final report, in addition to
the Minutes of the city council meetings and other materials
that had been received by the Southwest Commission, was
delivered to the Commission for its review and considera-
tion.
At a meeting of the Commission on October 22, 1980,
each applicant was given a further opportunity to address
the Commission. Members of the public and other interested
groups had a similar opportunity to make presentations to
the Commission. The Commission then closed the matter to
3
public testimony. Minnesota Cablesystems was selected by
0 the Commission to be the company recommended to each City.
The Commission instructed its attorney to prepare a set
of Findings in support of its recommendation of Minnesota
Cablesystems. In addition, the Commission requested the
preparation of a draft Ordinance to incorporate the salient
features of the application of Minnesota Cablesystems and to
bring both the findings and the draft ordinance before the
Southwest Commission at a meeting to be held on November 12.
On November 12, 1980, the Southwest Commission approved its
set of Findings and a draft of an ordinance to be submitted
to the Cities for their review. At the meeting of November
12, the Commission decided not to reopen public testimony.
The Commission determined that it had a more than adequate
40 record of the proceedings. Representatives of Northern
Cablevision and Teleprompter indicated that they would pre-
sent their viewpoints to the individual City Councils.
Since November 12, Tom Creighton of Clayton LeFevere's
office, together with the attorneys for Hopkins, Edina and
Eden Prairie and the commission, have been working very hard
to put the Ordinance into a final form to be considered by
you. The Ordinance incorporates the various features of the
proposal of Minnesota Cablesystems and is in a form that is
acceptable to our City attorney and the City attorneys of
each City.
I have outlined the background of this process in great
detail, because I firmly believe that", everything possible
4
has been done to make the procedure fair and open and to
give each company an opportunity to present its viewpoints.
The Findings were adopted unanimously by the Southwest
Commission on November 12, 1980. I believe that all the re-
quirements of the Minnesota Cable Board Rules have been fol-
lowed and that the Ordinance presented to you is in proper
form. The selection made by the Southwest Commission and
recommended to you is a good one, and I recommend that you
accept that recommendation and award a cable television
Franchise to Minnesota Cablesystems.
Thank you.
C
5
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Office of City Manager
Council Letter No. 448
Agenda December 22, 1980
The Honorable Mayor
and
Members of the City Council
City of Richfield
Council Members:
Subject: Tabulation of Bids, Award of Contracts,
Water Treatment Plant Chemicals
On December 12, 1980, bids for chemicals used at the water
treatment plant were opened. A copy of the bid minutes and tabula-
tions are attached for city council review.
Quick Lime
The only bid submitted for quick lime, a water softening chemi-
cal, was by Cutler-Magner, in the amount of $66.90 per ton. The
estimated total expenditure for the 1,400 tons of this chemical
anticipated to be used in the next year will be $93,660. The 1980
cost for quick lime was $63.08 per ton. The 1981 price is 6% higher
• than the 1980 price.
Liquid Aluminum Sulfate
Two bids were submitted for liquid aluminum sulfate, a water
softening chemical. The lowest bid by a responsible bidder was
$121 per ton, submitted by Hawkins Chemical. The estimated total
1981 expenditure will be $12,100, based on an estimated 100 tons
usage during this _year. The 1980 cost was $101 per ton, or 19.80
less than the 1981 cost.
Liquid Anhvdrous Ammonia
Three bids were submitted for liquid anhydrous ammonia, a
water softening chemical. The lowest bid by a responsible bidder
was $.29 per pound, submitted by Hawkins Chemical. The estimated
total 1981 expenditure will be $870, a 3.3% decrease from 1980 when
the price was $.30 per pound.
Sodium Silico Fluoride
Three bids were submitted for silico fluoride. The lowest bid
by a responsible bidder was $24.30 per 100 pound unit, submitted by
Van Waters and Rogers. Based on 1980 usage experience, the esti-
mated total 1981 expenditure for 21,000 pounds will be $5,103. The
city paid $24.50 per hundred pounds for this chemical in 1980, which
was slightly more than the 1981 bid.
Council Letter No. 448
•
-2-
December 22, 1980
Sodium Polyphosphate
Two bids were submitted for sodium polyphosphate, a conditioner
of water and of the sand filter used in the water processing. The
lowest bid by a responsible bidder was $88.10 per hundred pounds,
submitted by Van Waters and Rogers. The estimated expenditure in
1981 for 12,000 pounds will be $10,572, a 17.8% increase from the
1980 bid.
Funds for these purchases are included in the 1981 operating
budget of the water treatment plant. In summary, it is recommended
that the city council take the following actions:
1. Accept the bid minutes and tabulations on the water
treatment chemicals.
2. Accept the bid for quick lime in the amount of $66.90
per ton, and award the contract to Cutler-Magner.
3. Accept the bid for liquid aluminum sulfate in the amount
Of $121 per ton, and award the contract to Hawkins
Chemical.
4. Accept the bid for liquid anhydrous ammonia in the amount
of $.29 per pound, and award the contract to Hawkins
• Chemical.
5. Accept the bid for sodium silico fluoride in the amount
of $24.30 per hundred pounds and award the contract to
Van Waters and Rogers.
6. Accept the bid for sodium polyphosphate in the amount of
$88.10 per hundred pounds and award the contract to
Van Waters and Rogers.
Respectfully submitted,
Karl Nollenberger
City Manager
KN/jf
cc: Community Services Director
0
CITY OF RICHFIELD
Bid Opening
December 12, 1980
0 Chemicals for Water Treatment Plant
1981
Pursuant to requirements of Resolution No. 1015, a meeting of the Administrative Staff
was called by Sylvia Bergh, Acting City Clerk, who announced that the purpose of the
meetin was to receive, open and read aloud, sealed bids for Chemicals for ?dater
Treatment Plant for 1981 as advertised in the officiai newspaper on December 3, and 10,
1980.
Present: Ken Conwav, Water Works Superintendent
Marshall Raaen, Technical Operations Supt.
Don Fondrick, Community Services Director
Eileen Anderson, Administrative Aide
Sylvia K. Bergh, Acting C4t.7 Clerk
The following bids were submitted and read aloud:
Liquid Liquid Sodium
Quick Lime Alum. Anhydr. Silico Sodium
Vendor and Security Sulfate Ammonia Fluoride .Polyphosphate
Cutler Magner $66.90/Ton
B.B. 57, 593,660 T
is Hawkins Chemical $121/Ton 29c/Lb. $25.75/cwt
B.B. 5'":" $12,100 T 5870 T 55,407.50 T
Nalco Chemical
$500 check
$1.00/Lb.
$12,000 T
Jones Chemical 37q/Lb. $26.45/cwt
B.B. 5% $1,110 T 55,554.50 T
20-526.':0
Van Waters & Rogers 32c/cwt 40-325.40 $88.101c.•7t
B.B. 5% $960 T 100-$24.30 $10,572
$5.103 T
Allied Chemical $179.45/Ton
B. B. 57$17 " 5
The Acting City Clerk announced that the bids would be tabulated and considered at the
regular city council meeting of December 22, 1980.
Svlvia K. Bergh Acting City Clerk
0
7l /o' A
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Office of City Manager
0
Council Letter No. 447
Agenda December 22, 1980
The Honorable Mayor
and
Members of the City Council
City of Richfield
Council Members:
Subject: Award of Contract, Asphalt Hot Patcher
On December 12, 1980, bids were opened for an Asphalt Hot
Patcher. A copy of the bid minutes and tabulation is attached
for council review.
An asphalt hot patcher is a machine that heats asphalt
material to a consistency to be worked and used in patching of
holes such as those around water mains, gas mains, catch basins
and in alleys. For ease of maintenance and reduced energy con-
sumption, an electric heating element was specified rather than
the more typical propane.
0 One bid was received. The bid by Ruff ridge-Johnson Equip-
ment Company, Inc., in the amount of $7,195 is under the budgeted
amount of $8,000. The city had an opportunity to test this equip-
ment during this last summer and was pleased with the unit tested.
It is recommended that the city council approve the bid
minutes and tabulations and award the contract for one asphalt
hot patcher in the amount of $7,195 to Ruffridge-Johnson Equip-
ment Company, Inc.
Respectfully submitted,
"J
Karl Nollenberger
City Manager
KN/jf
cc: Community Services Director
0
CITY OF UCHFIELi
Bid Openinn
December 12, 1980
1b
Asphalt Hot Patcher
Pursuant to requirements of Resolution No. 1015, a meeting of the Administracive
Staff was called by Sylvia Bergh, Acting City Clerk, who announced that the
purpose of the meeting was to receive, open and read aloud, sealed bids for
an Asphalt Hot PaLcher as advertised in the official newspaper on December 3,
and 10, 1980.
Present: Ken Conway, Water Works Superintendent
Marshall Raaen, Technical Operations Supt.
Don Fondrick, Community Services Director
Eileen Anderson, Administrative aide
Sylvia K. Bergh, Acting City Cleric
The following bid was submitted and read aloud:
VENDOR BID SECURITY TOTAL COST
Rufferidge Johnson B.B. 5% $7,195.00
The Acting City Clerk announced that the bid would be tabulated and considered
at the regular city council meeting of December 22, 1980.
Sylvia K. Bergh Acting City Clerk
0
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Office of City Manager
Council Letter No. 446
Agenda December 22, 1980
The Honorable Mayor
and
Members of the City Council
City of Richfield
Council Members:
Subject: Ordinance Amendment Relating to the
Regulating and Prohibiting of Certain
Vehicular Parking. Second Reading.
At the December 8, 1980 city council meeting the city
council gave first reading consideration to an ordinance amend-
ment which would prohibit the parking of a motor vehicle in the
front yard of any lot within the city, except in the following
locations:
0 1. "Established driveway areas"
2. Parking areas permitted by the city code
3. Locations where the parking and storage of
recreational vehicles and equipment is permitted
by the city code.
A copy of the proposed ordinance is attached to this
council letter, and is placed on the December 22, 1980 city
council agenda for second reading consideration.
Respectfully submitted,
ter, ? \
Karl Nollenberger
City Manager
KN/eja
cc: City Clerk
Public Safety Director
0
Bill 1980-32
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING
CHAPTER IX, SECTION 9.03
OF THE ORDINANCE CODE OF
THE CITY OF RICHFIELD,
MINNESOTA
CITY OF RICHFIELD DOES ORDAIN:
Chapter IX, Section 9.03, Subdivision 2 of the Ordinance Code
of the City of Richfield, Minnesota, regulating and Prohibiting
certain vehicular parking is hereby amended by adding thereto the
following new paragraph:
"(5) No person shall park or place any motor vehicle in
the front yard area of any lot within the city, except
in the following locations:
1. "Established driveway areas" as defined in
Section 3.27, Subdivision 36 of this Code.
2. Parking areas permitted by this Code.
3. Locations where the parking and storage of
recreational vehicles and equipment is per-
mitted by Section 3.38A of this Code."
Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota,
this day of , 1980.
Donald Priebe, Mayor
ATTEST:
Sylvia Bergh, Acting City Clerk
jo
Id'o
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Office of City Manager
Council Letter No. 445
Agenda December 22, 1980
The Honorable Mayor
and
Members of the City Council
City of Richfield
Council Members:
Subject: Request for Special Use Permit, 2100 West
78th Street
A public hearing was originally scheduled on December 22,
1980 to consider a request by Walser Buick and Schmelz Brothers,
Inc. for a special use permit. Because of the heavy agenda load
on the December 22nd meeting, staff would recommend that the
council continue this item to the January 12, 1981 council meet-
ing. Staff has discussed this with the applicant and they are
in agreement with it. Staff will republish the public hearing
notice.
•
Respectfully submitted,
Karl Nollenberger
City Manager
KN/jf
cc: Community Development Director
U
/Dc
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Office of City Manager
Council Letter No. 444
Agenda December 22, 1980
The Honorable Mayor
and
Members of the City Council
City of Richfield
Council Members:
Subject: Request for the Vacation of the Alley on
Block 10, Ray's Lynnhurst Addition
An item was originally scheduled on the December 22, 1980
council agenda concerning a request to vacate the unimproved
alley right-of-way on Block 0, Ray's Lynnhurst Addition. Be-
cause of the heavy agenda load on the December 22nd meeting,
staff recommends that the council defer this item until the
January 12, 1981 meeting. The petitioner was made aware of this
action and is in agreement with it. Staff will republish notice
of this hearing.
E,
Respectfully submitted,
Karl Nollenberger
City Manager
KN/jf
cc: Community Development Director
0
/D
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Office of City Manager
Council Letter No. 443
Agenda December 22, 1980
The Honorable Mayor
and
Members of the City Council
City of Richfield
Council Members:
Subject: Four-way Stop at 69th Street and Vincent Avenue
Some residents of this area have recently expressed concern that
the stop signs, stopping traffic on 69th Street at Vincent Avenue,
have created problems in the past during the winter months, because
of the incline of 69th Street. They have requested that the stop
signs on 69th Street be eliminated.
These signs were installed at the time that the permanent street
program was completed in November, 1976. The staff felt that the
retaining wall, built at the northeast corner of this intersection,
obstructed the vision of southbound Vincent Avenue traffic, creating
a hazardous intersection. Traffic sto _ed on southbound Vincent
• Avenue would have to creep out onto 69th Street to check for west-
bound 69th Street traffic. The four-way stop eliminates this hazard.
The Traffic Control Committee recommends that the four-way stop
sign remain, since these conditions still exist. Tie city's main-
tenance forces recognize that this steep section of 69th Street is
difficult for traffic to negotiate in the winter, and this section
of 69th Street is one of the fist areas in the city to be sanded
after a snowfall. The committee believes that, although trying to
drive up an incline from a stop can be annoying in the winter, the
continual visibility problem at this intersection presents a per-
manent, dangerous condition that is best resolved by maintaining the
stop signs at the intersection.
Respectfully submitted,
Karl Nollenberger
City Manager
KN/jf
cc: City Engineer