01-28-80 agenda
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Office of City Manager
Council Letter No. 49
Agenda January 28, 1980
The Honorable Mayor
and
Members of the City Council
City of Richf field
Council Members:
Subject: Community Action Agency
Council Member Ludeman has requested that an item be
listed on the January 28, 1980 city council agenda which
would provide for a resolution rescinding Resolution No.
6117, which supported the development of a CAA for Suburban
and Rural Hennepin County.
On August 27, 1979 Mr. Russ Stricker, Executive Director
of the South Hennepin South Services Council was present at
• the city council meeting regarding formation of a Community
Action Agency to serve suburban Hennepin County. Previous
to that time, on June 5, 1979, the Hennepin County Board had
adopted a resolution approving in concept the establishment
of a CAA and directing the suburban human service councils to
develop a model for the CAA which was to be presented to the
county board for their approval. It was felt that the forma-
tion of a Community Action Agency would provide for consoli-
dation of many programs now delivered by diverse agencies to
suburban Henenpin County residents. The CAA would also
qualify the suburban Hennepin County area for some additional
federal funding to deliver services to the poor and near poor
persons residing in the suburban area of the county. The CAA
would be primarily a contracting agency for the services.
At a meeting between the Hennepin County Commissioners
(Commissioner Kramer and Commissioner Johnson) and city
officials on January 16, 1980, some concern was expressed by
the county commissioners about the formation of a Community
Action Agency. Council Member Ludeman served on the South
Hennepin Human Services Council board, and seconded the con-
cerns expressed by the commissioners. Council Member Ludeman
is probably in the best position to address.his concerns to
the city council. A copy of the resolution rescinding the
council's previous resolution No. 6117, can be passed by the
city council at the conclusion of discussion if so desired.
0 Respectfully submitted,
Karl Nollenberger
City Manager
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION RESCINDING RESOLUTION NO. 6117
WHICH SUPPORTED THE DEVELOPMENT OF A CAA
FOR SUBURBAN AND RURAL HENNEPIN COUNTY
WHEREAS, Resolution No. 6117, Resolution Supporting the
Development of a CAA for Suburban and Rural Hennepin County,
was adopted by the Richfield City Council on August 27, 1979,
and
WHEREAS, the Richfield City Council is of the opinion
that a Community Action Agency would not be in the best
interests of the City of Richfield.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the
City of Richfield that Resolution No. 6117, dated August 27,
1979, be rescinded and that support for this program by the
City of Richfield be withdrawn.
Done at the City of Richfield this 28th day of January,
1980.
Donald J. Priebe Mayor`
•
ATTEST:
Sylvia K. Bergh Acting City Clerk
RESOLUTION NO. 6117
RESOLUTION SUPPORTING THE DEVELOPMENT OF A CAA
FOR SUBURBAN AND RURAL HENNEPIN COUNTY
WHEREAS, the question of whether there is a need for a CAA
to serve suburban and rural Hennepin County, and what organiza-
tional form is most appropriate if a CAA should be established,
has been under study for the past year, and
WHEREAS, this review has indicated that the County's lower
income citizens will benefit from the establishment of a CAA that
can build on and complement the activities of the existing Human
Services Councils, and
WHEREAS, a Task Force representing the three Human Service
Councils has developed an organizational model designated the
"Linkage Model", which will enable a CAA to be organized while re-
taining the Human Services Councils and making the fullest use of
their existing planning, management and service capabilities,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the
City of Richfield does hereby urge the Hennepin County Board of
Commissioners to accept the recommendations of the Task Force
and establish a CAA for suburban and rural Hennepin County based
on the "Linkage Model" and to designate the present Task Force as
the interim board to: write the by-laws, apply for funding,
organize the new board.
Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield this
27th day of August, 1979.
Loren L. Law Mayor
ATTEST:
Sylvia Bergh, Acting City Clerk
C7
/fc
The Honorable Mayor
and
Members of the City Council
City of Richfield
Council Letter No. 48
Agenda January 28, 1980
•
Council Members:
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Office of City Manager
Subject: Resolution Relating to Adjournment of
Council Meetings
Subsequent to the preparation of the council letter on
council meeting format, I became aware of a resolution relating
to the adjournment of council meetings. The resolution was
passed on October 28, 1974, and is included with this council
letter for your perusal. The resolution provides for the ad-
journment of city council meetings at 11 o'clock, with the
provision that any member of the council may, on or after
10:30, give notice that in one-half hour the hour of 11 o'clock
will be reached, or shall have passed as the case may be, and
that he is invoking the provision of this resolution as call-
ing for adjournment of the meeting at the expiration of such
half-hour period.
The provision has been on the books of the city and is
usable by any council member. The city council may desire to
consider this resolution in its discussion of council meeting
format.
Respectfully submitted,
r .
Karl Nollenberger
City Manager
0
KN/eja
i?toiJi '.'TI:;TV Nn: 3'68
RESOLUTION RELATING TO ADJOURNMENT OF COUNCIL MEETINGS
WHEREAS, on January 3. 1972, the City Council of the City of Richfield adopted
Resolution No. 4722 providing for the adjournment of council meetings
at 11:00 o'clock p.m. upon demand ci any member of the council present,
an.
WHEREAS, The council now desires t.^ modify the provision,-: of said Resolution
No. 4722.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Richfield.
as follows:
1. The procedure hereinafter set forth shall be applicable
to the adjournment of the regular meetings of the City
Council,
2. It is the policy of the City Council to adjourn such meetings
of the City Counc:i at 11:00 o'clock p.m, or as soon thereafter
as adjournment may be appropriate in the circumstances.
3. At any, such meeting of the City Council. any member of the council
may, on or after 10:30 p.m., give notice that in one half hour
the hour of 11:00 o'clock will be reached or shall have passed,
as the case may be, and that he is invoking the provisions of
• this resolution and is calling for adjournment of the meeting at
the expiration cl such half hour period. When such notice has
been given, the presiding officer shall forthwith adjourn the
meeting when the half hour period has expired unless, before that
time, all of the other councilmen present vote to continue with
the meeting.
4. A motion to continue in session or a motion to adjourn until a
fixed date and time shall take precedence over action to adjourn.
5. The provisions of this resolution shall not affect the validity
of any action taken t.y the cou:r:.il at any meeting extending past
the hour of 11:06 o'clock p.m.
6. Tk-e provisions of Resolution No. 4722 are rescinded.
Fussed by the City Council of the City of Richfield this 28th day of October, 1974,
Loren L. Law Mayor
ATTES T:
9 Thomas J. A;oran City Clerk
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Office of City Manager
L-1
Council Letter No. 47
Agenda January 28, 1980
The Honorable Mayor
and
Members of the City Council
City of Richfield
Council Members:
Subject: Bids on Civil Defense Sirens
The city will be receiving bids on Monday, January'28,
1980 for civil defense sirens. The city council rejected
proposals at the January 14, 1980 city council meeting due
to an irregularity in the bidding and the amount of cost in
excess of original budget. The project was scaled down to
bring it within budgeted funds, and rebid, with the bid open-
ing scheduled for January 28, 1980.
Bids for the siren system will be presented to the city
council on the evening of January 28, 1980. It is recommended
that the city council take action to award the lowest and best
bid.
Respectfully submitted,
Karl Nollenberger
City Manager
KN/eja
cc: Public Safety Director
Finance Coordinator
a
CITY OF RICHFIELD
Bid Opening
January 28, 1980
Air Warning Improvement Proposal
Pursuant to requirements of Resolution 1015, a meeting of the administrative
staff was called by Joyce Wilde, Acting City Manager, who announced that the
purpose of the meeting was to receive, open and read aloud, sealed bids for
an Air Warning Improvement Proposal as advertised in the official newspaper
January 16, 1980.
Present: Joyce L. Wilde, Acting City Manager
Don Fondrick, Community Services Director
Rick Jopke, Acting Planning Director
Tom Morgan, Public Safety Director
Sylvia Bergh, Acting City Clerk
The following bids were submitted and read aloud:
BIDDER AND
BID SECURITY
PART I
UNIT COST
PART II TOTAL
UNIT COST BID COST
Electric Service Co., Minneapolis
B. B. 5% Bond $8,450
$ 9,250 $17,700
Rome Electric, Minneapolis
B. B. 5% Bond $8,607 $10,577 $19,184
The Acting City Manager announced that the bids would be tabulated and
considered at the regular city council meeting of January 28, 1980.
Sylvia K. Bergh Acting City Clerk
0 VL
l
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Office of City Manager
Council Letter No. 46
Agenda January 28, 1980
The Honorable Mayor
and
Members of the City
City of Richf field
Council Members:
Subject:
Counc it
Petition Concerning International
Coin, Inc. - 1302 E. 66th Street
The petition accompanying this council letter was re-
ceived in the office of the city manager on January 24, 1980.
The petition expresses opposition to the present commercial
operation of International Coin Inc. which is located at 1302
East 66th Street. Numerous phone calls and visits by resi-
dents of the neighborhood have protested the traffic congestion
and related parking deficiencies created by the business.
As a result of the complaints, prior to receipt of the
petition, the city staff has looked into available means of
resolving this situation. International Coin, Inc. was loca-
ted in the Richfield State Agency on Lyndale Avenue until
recently. At that time they purchased the building at 1302
E. 66th Street and provided for their business at that loca-
tion. The building faces 66th Street and was approved for
construction in 1977. The location is zoned C-2, commercial
zone, and the International Coin operation is a permitted use
at that location. The building has an off-street parking
contract for 13 spaces and currently provides 12 spaces.
Recent crisis in the gold and silver markets has produced
an upsurge in trade at International Coin which is unprecedented.
It is anticipated that once the gold and silver markets return
to more normal patterns that the business should inflict no
ramifications on the adjoining neighborhood. This situation
could be compared to that of Lyndale Garden Center in the
spring when traffic gets into the adjoining residential area,
and to LaBelle's at Christmas time when similar situations
happen north of 77th Street.
The above comments, however, do not resolve the neigh-
borhood situation which is a highly undesirable situation.
Council Letter No. 46 -2- January 28, 1980
The attorney for International Coin has indicated to us that
they have been talking with a dentist's office located across
66th Street and a drug store close by in order to try to provide
additional parking for their business operation during this
period of time. The only immediate resolution of the parking
problem which seems viable to the city staff is the installation
of "No Parking" signs on 13th Avenue in the 6400, 6500 and 6600
blocks. The "No Parking" signs could be for "No Parking from
8:00 A.M. to 5:00 P.M." and be installed for a one or two month
basis only to see if the situation has resolved itself. Resi-
dents of the adjoining neighborhood will be present at the
meeting on Monday evening. In addition, city staff has made
the attorney for International Coin aware of the discussion.
Respectfully submitted,
Karl Nollenberger
City Manager
KN/eja
cc: City Attorney
Public Safety Director
i
PETITION TO THE CITY COUNCIL OF RICHFIELD
WE, THE UNDERSIGNED CITIZENS OF RICHFIELD, WISH TO EXPRESS OUR STRONG OPPOSITION
TO THE PRESENT COMMERCIAL OPERATION OF INTERNATIONAL COIN, INCORPORATED, LO-
CATED AT 1302 EAST 66TH STREET. WE FEEL THE TRAFFIC CONGESTION AND RELATED
PARKING DEFICIENCIES CREATED BY THIS BUSINESS ARE NOT IN THE BEST INTERESTS OF
THE NEIGHBORHOOD. FURTHERMORE, BECAUSE OF OUR GREAT CONCERN FOR THE SAFETY
OF OUR CHILDREN, THE SAFETY OF THE GENERAL PUBLIC AND THE PRESERVATION OF THE
QUALITY OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD, WE REQUEST THE CITY OF RICHFIELD TO EXERCISE ALL
PROCEDURES WITHIN ITS POWER TO TEMPORARILY SUSPEND THE OPERATION OF SAID
BUSINESS UNTIL AN ASSESSMENT OF THE ZONING QUALIFICATIONS AND THE ABOVE CON-
CERNS HAVE BEEN SATISFACTORILY ADDRESSED AND RESOLVED.
NAME
ADDRESS
c ?- -3 3 /3 ?? s sc
i
u
Al.
Al ?!
n
6,31 S-
0
& _?,, _?_ l - l 3 ?i• /?V,)?-
c,
??-lam ?`>
PETITION TO THE CITY COUNCIL OF RICHFIELD
WE, THE UNDERSIGNED CITIZENS OF RICHFIELD, WISH TO EXPRESS OUR STRONG OPPOSITION
TO THE PRESENT COMMERCIAL OPERATION OF INTERNATIONAL COIN, I"JCORPORATED, LO-
CATED AT 1302 EAST 66TH STREET. WE FEEL THE TRAFFIC CONGESTION AND RELATED
PARKING DEFICIENCIES CREATED BY THIS BUSINESS ARE NOT IN THE BEST INTERESTS OF
THE NEIGHBORHOOD. FURTHERMORE, BECAUSE OF OUR GREAT CONCERN FOR THE SAFETY
OF OUR CHILDREN, THE SAFETY OF THE GENERAL PUBLIC AND THE PRESERVATION OF THE
QUALITY OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD, WE REQUEST THE CITY OF RICHFIELD TO EXERCISE ALL
PROCEDURES WITHIN ITS POWER TO TEMPORARILY SUSPEND THE OPERATION OF SAID
BUSINESS UNTIL AN ASSESSMENT OF THE ZONING QUALIFICATIONS AND THE ABOVE CON-
CERNS HAVE BEEN SATISFACTORILY ADDRESSED AND RESOLVED.
NAME
C2-u9 /. v i2? s
(
N? ?? IGLL
•
ADDRFSS
zc-, - l,?t-" )-),"
?13 Z,
66
0
PETITION TO THE CITY COUNCIL OF RICHFIELD
9
0
WE, THE UNDERSIGNED CITIZENS OF RICHFIELD, WISH TO EXPRESS OUR STRONG OPPOSITION
TO THE PRESENT COMMERCIAL OPERATION OF INTERNATIONAL COIN, INCORPORATED, LO-
CATED AT 1302-EAST 66TH STREET. WE FEEL THE TRAFFIC CONGESTION AND RELATED
PARKING DEFICIENCIES CREATED BY THIS BUSINESS ARE NOT IN THE BEST INTERESTS OF
THE NEIGHBORHOOD. FURTHERMORE, BECAUSE OF OUR GREAT CONCERN FOR THE SAFETY
OF OUR CHILDREN, THE SAFETY OF THE GENERAL PUBLIC AND THE PRESERVATION OF THE
QUALITY OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD, WE REQUEST THE CITY OF RICHFIELD TO EXERCISE ALL
PROCEDURES WITHIN ITS POWER TO TEMPORARILY SUSPEND THE OPERATION OF SAID
BUSINESS UNTIL AN ASSESSMENT OF THE ZONING QUALIFICATIONS AND THE ABOVE CON-
CERNS HAVE BEEN SATISFACTORILY ADDRESSED AND RESOLVED.
NAME
ADDRESS
L21 e
/ 3iD ?asr d6 ? 57?,
• M E M O R A N D U M
Date: January 28, 1980
To: John Dean
City Attorney
From: Thomas A. Morgan, Jr.
Director of Public Safety
Subject: INTERNATIONAL COIN EXCHANGE
On January 16th, you referred to me a letter from a Mr. Richard K.
Brainerd, the attorney for Mr. Dennis Heller, who operates the
International Coin Exchange at 1302 East 66th Street. The flurry
of legal activity seems to stem from a January 10th letter of Mr.
Immanual Roesler to Mr. Heller. In this letter Mr. Roesler, among
other things, has directed Mr. Heller to "convert his building back
to an office building by February 15, 1980".
I have examined this matter and attached a memorandum from Mr.
• Roesler in which he attempts to explain the basis for his order.
It would appear that Mr. Roesler misinterpreted the action taken
by the city council on December 27, 1976, when they approved a variance
to a side yard setback for the property involved. This variance was
granted on the basis that the request was consistent with the conditions
set forth in Richfield Ordinance Code 3.40, Subd. 6. The specific con-
cern Mr. Roesler had was with requirement 3 of this code provision which
stipulates that the variance will not be materially detrimental to the
public welfare or injurious to property or improvements in the neighbor-
hood. Mr. Roesler feels that the occupancy change, and the present
traffic congestion created by the coin dealership, now makes the business
detrimental to the public welfare. However, when the council approved
this variance request, they did so with no conditions related to the
occupancy use. Therefore, this matter cannot be reconsidered at this
time on the basis of the variance which was approved. In my opinion,
the coin dealership business is consistent with the present general
commercial (C-2) zoning of the property. Therefore, with come degree of
embarrassment, I have concluded that there is no legal basis upon which
Mr. Roesler's order to "convert the property back to office useage", can
be substantiated.
During the course of this process several minor problems with Mr. Heller's
current use of the property have been noted. We have had complaints from
residents neighboring this business indicating that deliveries are being
made to the rear of the building. The rear property line does border on
a residential district and therefore the loading or unloading of trucks or
other vehicles is prohibited under Ordinance Code 3.30, Subd. 4 (4). This
section also prohibits the storage in rear yards bordering on residential
districts. At some time after Mr. Heller's occupancy of the property the
metal storage shed was constructed on the rear parking lot. This storage
shed would appear to be in violation of this code restriction. Addition-
ally, the storage shed was erected without a building permit whi0, is
0 Page Two
required by Ordinance Code 6.23, Subd. 5. The shed
five feet from the primary building which violates
Subd. 3 (1). The shed itself has been constructed
for off-street parking which violates provisions of
Subd. 4 (b).
is located less than
Ordinance Code 3.39,
on an area reserved
Ordinance Code 6.23,
The final concern which may be centered on the storage shed relates to
the existing off-street parking contract for this property. The contract
provides for thirteen off-street parking spaces. The metal storage shed
may block the effective utilization of one of these parking spaces, thus
reducing the off-street parking availability on the property to twelve
spaces rather than the required thirteen spaces. Mr. Brainerd's letter
disputes this allegation. I have conducted a site visit and it would
appear that a position could be taken on either side of this issue de-
pendant upon the size of the vehicle involved and the driving skills of
the operator. However, irregardless of these issues there clearly is
not the forty-four feet distance from the front of the parking stall in-
volved to the storage shed which is required in the building code.
Therefore, from a technical standpoint, the storage shed has reduced the
usable parking spaces to only twelve in number.
In your response to Mr. Brainerd I would hope that you could gracefully
• resolve the erroneous position taken by the City with regard to the
usage of the building. At the same time, perhaps we could deal with the
legitimate problems created by the storage shed and the delivery habits
of Mr. Brainerd's client. Additionally, you might encourage Mr. Brainerd
to have his client continue to seek alternative off-street parking for
his customers so that it will not be necessary for us to seek alternative
measures to reduce the traffic congestion experienced by the neighbors of
the area.
Thank you for your assistance in dealing with this rather awkward situation.
TAM/lie
cc: City Manager
Environmental
Health Manager
0
CITY Or RIC-iFiELD, MINNESOTA
Inter-Office Memorandum
DATE January 22, 1980
TO Public Safety Director
FROM Environmental Health Director
SUBJECT International Coin Exchange
1302 East 66th Street
On December 27, 1976, the city council granted a variance to a sideyard
setback at 1302 East 66th Street, the purpose of which was to allow con-
struction of a proposed office building at 1302 East 66th Street. The re-
quest for a variance was judged in accordance with the criteria set forth
.,in Section 3.40, sub. ,6 of the zoning ordinance. Three criteria were con-
sdered, one of which would not permit the granting of the application if
it materially and adversely affected the health or safety of persons re-
siding or working in the neighborhood or the property of the applicant,
and'would not be materially detrimental to the publit welfare or injurious
to property or improvements in the neighborhood.
During the early 170's consideration was given from time to time to different
types of businesses wishing to locate at 1302 East 66kh Street. Herb Kuehl
• and Clayton LeFevere can possibly best address to that. Residents in the
neighborhood were vitally concerned and so it became the intent of the
council to allow construction of the proposed building for office purposes.
The three employees anticipated were to nark at the rear of the building.
In effect the council approved a C-1 use in a C-2 zone. To protect the
neighborhood and comply with the criteriR?set forth in section 3.40,
subd. 6 of the zoning ordinance the C-1 use in the C-2 zone must remain un-
less otherwise changed by the city council.
I have requested Mr. Heller from the International Coin Exchange to convert
the reverse retail store at 1302 Fast 66th Street to comply with the city
council decision and intent by February 15, 1980, or otherwise call me to
further discuss the problem if he could not meet the deadline. Instead,
Mr. Helier has sought legal counsel. In effect Mr. Heller is now question-
ing the February 15, 1980 deadline or any deadlines that may affect his
business.
There are other ordinances which currently apply to the operation of the
coin exchange which must be enforced to mitigate abuse of neighborhoods
affected so that activity, noise, safety and damage of property can be con-
trolled. Zoning ordinance 3.83, subd. 6 controlling 11C-2" districts, page
68.2 of the ordinance code book, says in part for lot areas and yard require-
ments that the same requirement for a "C-2" district as are provided for a
"C-1" district in section 3.32 of the ordinance shall be observed. The last
sentence of ordinance 3.32, subd. 4 on lot area and yard requirements, page
67, says "No rear yard bordering upon an "R" district shall be used for
storage, loading, unloading, or similiar activities". Presently trucks load
s
Page 2
January 22, 1980
0
and unload at the rear of the building. There is a utility shed at the
rear of the building. (If a utility shed were allowed a permit would be
required and it would need to be 5 feet away from the main building).
If the council determines that a hearing is not warranted requiring the
present operation be removed and the building use converted back to office
activities, it must decide on alternative solutions to correct a deteriorat-
ing influence on the community. One solution is to post signs in the neigh-
borhoods affected, prohibiting vehicle parking on public streets during week-
days from 8;00 A.M. to 5:00 P.M. and 8:00 A.M. until 12:00 noon on Saturdays.
In addition, Mr. Heller from the International Coin Exchange as a good
neighbor must cooperate with the city council and the neighborhood affected
to preserve peace and quiet.
I. F. Roesler
0 TFR/ab
41
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Office of City Manager
Council Letter No. 45
Agenda January 28, 1980
The Honorable Mayor
and
Members of the City Council
City of Richf ield
Council Members:
Subject: Catholic Schools Week Proclamation
Sister Patricia Murphy, St. Richard's School, has request-
ed that the attached proclamation be signed and presented by
Mayor Priebe at the January 28, 1980 city council meeting.
Sister Murphy, as well as representatives of Holy Angels,
Assumption, and St. Peter's Schools will be present at the
January 28, 1980 city council to accept this proclamation.
Respectfully submitted,
Karl Nollenberger
City Manager
KN/eja
CATHOLIC SCHOOLS WEEK PROCLAMATION
z ? WHEREAS, The Catholic zehool system o{ Rich-
# a° lietd has been a consistent advocate of academic -
t achievement by ouA young people 6oA oven 40 yeaAn,
and
WHEREAS, The Catholic schools of Holy Angels
Academe St. PeteVz, St. RichaAd's and Assumption
have pAovided zttong zuppoAl o{ community and Jamily
thAough -teaching and example have set the highest
ztandaAdz 6oA emulation by all of us who Aeoide in
Rich ield and
WHEREAS, The Mengthening and eneouAaging
Aole that Catholic zehoal,s play in the lives o6 mcae
' than 1,439 young students and -theiA 6amllies is
woAthy oU all Ae4peet and admiAation.
THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that 1, Donald J.
d" PiAebe, MayoA of the City o6 Rich6ield, in Aeeog-
nl.tion of the eveA gAowing community inljl-uence and
X impact o l the Catholic school, do heAeby pAOCla,%rn
the week of HebAuaAy 3-10, 1980 as CATHOLIC SCHOOL
WEEK 1980.
Done at the City of Richlield this 28th day
Try, of JanuaAy, 1980.
NOT N 6( ? Donald J. Paiebe h1AyOR
kill W?
5 K t `
"Wn
c - ? fit
Gay j( y Y.' f$?Y
l l,'a aY, Lei :n < 1 f.. ^f P,i'.
MITI 9 H 1MU P ,? t' °'prRy, 4 ai^?? R ? y J "4 ? Inv 1 "pro 8rs
e q n w e r r y gq of znn? ? 4P
'e 4 z r ?§n T
0n°rn?nt?,n n,n n,n ?n
rv
v r? ?v k
??,:tv??v. vD trs v3 ?a v :?r3 ?d Ord fir{ v ?v ?va ?.,v? u ?,? ,r -V -V
a t -'s c e, y-s'e
??lw?F cm?e6-'?t>51??3ao1 v.?.v d'aa??ti_?a_Sr awe 5o?3w???i?a.a?v?_d?u.ec,??ti?s?.,vc il.v L._?6?sS?:??l;??sro Cby?a ?•e,>?bv fss ?'s.
czhz
0
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Office of City Manager
Council Letter No. 44
Agenda January 28, 1980
The Honorable Mayor
and
Members of the City
City of Richfield
Council Members:
Subject:
Council
Amyndment to the City Or((inance Code
Re ating to Employee Holidays
At the January 14, 1980 city council meeting, the city
council considered the addition of an eleventh holiday for the
general services and management employees. In addition, con-
sideration was given to the substitution of the day after Thank-
giving as a holiday in lieu of Columbus Day. The city council
requested the staff to give further consideration to this matter
and make recommendations at the January 28, 1980 city council
• meeting.
The ordinance enclosed with this council letter does two
things: it eliminates Columbus Day on the second Monday of
October as a holiday to be observed by city employees and sub-
stitutes the Friday after Thanksgiving in its place. Secondly,
it establishes an eleventh holiday, the date of which shall be
designated each year by the city manager. This provides the
opportunity for the city manager to meet with general services
and management employees on an annual basis to determine which
holiday in the course of that calendar year would be the most
beneficial. For instance in 1980, it may be determined that
rather than Christmas Eve that December 26 may be a more logical
day to be observed as a city holiday. December 26 falls on
Friday, with Christmas Day on the previous Thursday. The ordin-
ance provides flexibility as conditions change from year to year.
The city will continue to keep the city offices open for the
serving of papers and other legal documents. We can do that
by having one person at the switchboard to answer incoming calls
and service the public. The day which would be selected would
be by definition a low traffic day for telephone communications
and walk-in traffic. One person should be able to handle that
situation adequately.
The council also requested
41 cost of providing the additional
and management employees. The
been accorded to police officers
by Local 49 of the International
that the city staff indicate the
holiday to general services
additional holiday has already
and those employees represented
Union of Operat7 Engineers.
Council Letter No. 44
-2-
January 28, 1980
As indicated at the city council meeting, it is very difficult
to assess the exact cost of one additional holiday. The impact
on the 1980 budget is zero dollars, since holidays do not change
the amount of total salary paid out during the course of the cal-
endar year. The total impact on. lost time is $5,455, when you
take the eight hours per employee in the general services and
management group times the labor rate per hour. The true cost
is probably something between the two figures since the city
governemnt is oriented towards being a service institution. The
counter traffic and telephone traffic which we do not handle on
the days that we are closed, will be sandwiched in to the other
working days of the year. The supervision and management of the
city which is not conducted on that holiday is not needed as a
result of the employees having that day off. Some of the work
which has to be done during the course of a working day will be
done on the previous day or subsequent day as time pressures and
urgencies of other matters exist. It is virtually impossible to
measure the true cost as indicated previously.
It is recommended that the city council give first reading
consideration to the ordinance amendment attached to this council
letter, with second reading consideration to be scheduled for
February 25, 1980.
Respectfully submitted,
0
KN/eja
cc: Program Directors
i
Karl Nollenberger
City Manager
0
AMENDMENT TO SECTION 2.34,
SUBDIVISION 2, OF THE
RICHFIELD ORDINANCE CODE
RELATING TO EMPLOYEE HOLIDAYS
CITY OF RICHFIELD DOES ORDAIN:
Section 2.34, Subd. 2, of the Ordinance Code of the
City of Richfield relating to paid holidays for city employees
is hereby amended to provide as follows:
"Subd. 2. Holidays. The following paid holidays will
be observed by the city: New Year's Day on January 1st;
Washington's and Lincoln's Birthdays on the third Monday
in February; Memorial Day on the last Monday in May;
Independence Day on July 4th; Labor Day on the first
Monday in September; [Columbus Day on the second Monday
in October;] Veteran's Day on November 11; Thanksgiving
Day on the fourth Thursday of November; the Friday after
Thanksgiving; Christmas Day; a holiday the date of which
shall be designated each year by the city manager; and
one floating holiday."
Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield,
Minnesota this day of , 1980.
Mayor
ATTEST:
City Clerk
0
/v
i
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Office of City Manager
Council Letter No. 43
Agenda January 28, 1980
The Honorable Mayor
and
Members of the City Council
City of Richfield
Council Members:
Subject: Status Report - Police and Fire Pension Issues
At the January 14, 1980 city council meeting, we provided a
status report with regard to our discussions with the Police and
Fire Relief Associations about optional pension plans which might
be achieved through special legislation. Much of this report was
contained in Council Letter No. 22, with some additional comments
made at the meeting by the Public Safety Director. At that time,
the Mayor requested that an item be placed on the agenda for the
41 council meeting of January 28, 1980 to keep the council informed
with regard to our discussions with the Relief Associations.
We are still in the "data collection" stage of gathering in-
formation upon which a cost analysis of various options may be
conducted. Additionally, during the past two weeks both of our
Relief Associations have been gathering information on other pen-
sion programs that we can use for comparative purposes in our
evaluation. Finally, we have been in contact with the actuarial
consultants who are developing the specific information we have
requested on cost implications of various options as they might
apply to our situation in Richfield. We have been informed that
this actuarial work will be completed by February 5th and the re-
port shall be in our hands by February 7th. At this point, we
feel that we will have adequate information to evaluate all pen-
sions options which might seem logical to consider. If special
legislation does seem to be a practical approach, the timing will
be very tight, but there would still be a strong possibility that
we could prepare a bill for consideration in this legislative
session. A full report should be available for the city council
at the February 11, 1980 city council meeting.
Respectfully submitted,
Karl Nollenberger
City Manager
KN/eja
cc: Public Safety Director
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Office of City Manager
The Honorable Mayor
and
Members of the City Council
City of Richfield
Council Members:
Council Letter No. 42
Agenda January 28, 1980
Subject: Status Report, Nuisance Abatement and Ordinance
Revision Relating to Cedar Industries
Last fall, the city council was petitioned by the Airport Animal
Hospital to enforce a city ordinance regarding industrial use of
property on Cedar Avenue by Cedar Industries. The city council heard
from both parties involved and directed the city staff to work with
the parties to try to resolve the matter. Many hours of discussion
and effort have been given to this effort in an attempt to work out
a mutually agreeable situation.
At the December 27, 1979 meeting of the city council, another
petition was received from the Airport Pet Hospital, 6301 Cedar Ave-
nue South, to establish a deadline for the installation of shock iso-
lation equipment at Cedar Industries, 6311 Cedar Avenue South. The
shock isolation equipment was the first of three suggestions made by
an engineer hired by the two parties. At that time, the council did
take action to establish a date of January 15, 1980, for the instal-
lation of the shock isolators. The council also requested that a
status report on this matter be presented at the January 28, 1980,
council meeting.
Cedar Industries did conform with the date of January 15, 1980,
established by the city council, for the installation of snock iso-
lators. The particular system of shock isolation was based upon the
recommendation of the acoustical engineering consultant to attempt
to alleviate an apparent vibration problem created by metal stamping
machines located at Cedar. In making these recommendations the con-
sultant identified only two of the ten presses utilized by Cedar In-
dustries as being related to the vibration problem. The isolators
were installed, on ?7-n experimental basis, under one of these presses
on January 9, 1980. The shock isolators recommended by the consul-
tant consisted of a heavy inflatable rubber mechanism which was placed
at six points under the press. These isolators raised the press ap-
proximately 5 inches from the floor allowing the press to operate
with an "air cushion" separating the press from the concrete floor.
On January 9, 1980, the installation was examined by both our
Public Safety Director and the engineering consultant. While the
isolator clearly seemed to reduce the shock vibration, it also created
a condition which made the operation of the machine unsafe. As the
Council Letter No. 42 -2- January 28, 1980
• machine operated it tended to "bounce" on the air cushion created
by the shock isolator. Because of the size of the press, and the
fact that the press is top-heavy, it created a potential for the
machine to tip over. This hazardous condition would be compounded
by the fact that should one of the isolators be punctured the ma-
chine would have an even greater potential of tipping over. There-
fore, while the first option recommended by the consultant might al-
leviate the vibration problem, it created a safety hazard which ef-
fectively rendered the machine inoperable. As a result of this
experimental experience, the consulting engineer qualified his orig-
inal recommendation for the remaining two alternatives to reflect
the added stress which seemed to be caused by the design and weight
of the press.
At this point, Cedar Industries is concerned about the tremen-
dous costs involved in "experimenting" with shock isolation systems
which may or may not be effective. Secondly, Cedar Industries is
concerned about attempting to implement either the second or third
recommendation made by the consultant because they would require the
construction of a large base frame upon which the presses would be
mounted. There is a very real question if there is enough existing
floor space to adequately accommodate the necessary frames to ef-
fectively implement these recommendations. The final concern ex-
pressed by Cedar Industries is that they have been operating their
business at the present location, with essentially the same machinery,
since 1955 without having received any prior complaints from their
neighbors. Therefore, Cedar Industries is concerned about their
ability to now satisfactorily resolve the vibration problem perceived
by their neighbor.
For the information of the members of the council, perhaps it
would be well to review the background of this issue. In July of
1979, our environmental health staff received a complaint from
Dr. W.D. Blaine, owner of the Airport Animal Hospital, that there
was a noise nuisance problem being created by their immediate neigh-
bor to the south, Cedar Industries. Upon investigating this complaint
the Environmental Health Inspector determined that Cedar Industries,
which had recently obtained a major job from the General Motors Corp-
oration, had started a second shift which operated from 5:00 p.m. to
2:00 a.m. There was no new equipment being operated at Cedar Indus-
tries, nor was the operation any different than the metal stamping
and fabrication business conducted at this site since 1955. It was
further determined that the metal stamping machines did create a
vibration which appeared to be transmitted to the pet hospital build-
ing. Since Dr. Blaine lives above his animal hospital he was par-
ticularly aware of the extension of the hours of operation at Cedar
Industries. The entire area including the properties occupied by the
Airport Animal Hospital and Cedar Industries are zoned for industrial
use. On August 29, 1979, the city received a letter from Dr. Blaine
indicating that Cedar Industries was operating punch presses in
violation of Ordinance Code 3.34, Subd. 1 (12). This ordinance,
passed on April 8, 1968, prohibits the use of punch presses over 20
tons rated capacity in industrial districts within the city.
Council Letter No. 42 -3- January 28, 1980
•
On September 4, 1979, the city received a request for a variance
from this ordinance provision by Cedar Industries. Since a variance
could not readily be granted to this ordinance, this request was changed
to a request for an ordinance amendment to increase the rated capa-
city of allowable punch press machines. This ordinance amendment
request was first brought before the-city council on September 24, 1979.
While representatives from Cedar Industries were not in attendance at
this meeting, a petition was presented to the council,by Dr. Blaine,
and signed by several of his employees, requesting that the council
deny the proposed ordinance amendment. The council deferred action
on this matter to the October 9, 1979 meeting, to provide an oppor-
tunity for Cedar Industries to be heard on behalf of their request
for an amendment.
At the October 9, 1979 meeting of the city council, testimony
was received from Mike Scherling, of Cedar Industries, regarding his
request for an ordinance amendment. Following this testimony the
council deferred action on the request and directed the staff to at-
tempt to work with Mr. Scherling and Dr. Blaine to resolve the alleged
noise or vibration problem prior to any action with regard to the
requested ordinance amendment. Following that action by the city
council, the Public Safety Director, the City Attorney, and I have
facilitated a number of meetings between Mr. Scherling and Dr. Blaine.
These efforts have resulted in a reduction of the hours in which
Cedar Industries operated and the installation of shock absorbing
material under the punch press machines. However, neither of these
actions seemed to resolve the problem experienced by Dr. Blaine.
On November 29, 1979, the City Attorney and the Public Safety
Director facilitated a contractual agreement whereby Mr. Scherling
and Dr. Blaine jointly retained the services of a consulting acousti-
cal engineer. The consultant conducted a study of the vibration
problem,and on December 10, 1979, presented a report with three al-
ternative recommendations for methods of reducing the vibration trans-
mission. On December 15, 1979, Cedar Industries ordered the shock
isolators recommended by the consultant as the first alternative to
reduce the vibration transmissions. A delivery date of "early Jan-
uary" was given by the supplier upon receipt of the order from
Cedar Industries for these specialized shock absorbing devices.
On December 19, 1979, Dr. Blaine again petitioned the city coun-
cil to take action to establish the financial responsibility fer im-
plementing the recommendations of the consultant and establishing a
deadline within which the recommendations would be implemented by
Cedar Industries. This petition was considered by the city council
at their December 27, 1979, meeting and the council did establish a
date of January 15, 1980, for the installation of the shock isolators
which had been ordered by Cedar Industries upon the recommendations
contained in the consultants report. At this time, the council also
indicated that the issue of financial responsibility for the imple-
mentation of the consultants recommendations was not a matter in
which the city had authority. As previously noted, the shock iso-
lators were installed on January 9, 1980.
Council Letter No. 42 -4 Janury 28, 1980
To place this entire situation in its proper historical perspec-
tive, it might be noted that a metal fabrication and stamping business
has been operated on the present site of Cedar Industries since 1949.
According to city records, the building permit for the original frame
structure which housed the D & O Tool and Die Company was issued on
June 13, 1949. This business was purchased by the Scherling family
in 1955 when they moved their metal fabricating and stamping business
to Richfield from its original location in the City of Minneapolis.
In July of 1962, a building permit was issued for a major remodeling
and expansion of the structure housing Cedar Industries. Basically,
this involved constructing a cement block building around the original
frame structure which housed the business, and upon completion of the
new structure totally removing the original frame building. The busi-
ness continued to operate during most of the remodeling and construc-
tion process. This construction was completed in late 1962 and the
building has remained essentially unchanged since that time. While the
city does not maintain records of the punch press machines utilized
by this company, Cedar Industries has furnished the following acquisi-
tion schedule of the ten machines currently housed on the premises:
Presses existing prior to January 1, 1964:
1 - 125 Ton
1 - 50 Ton
1 - 37 Ton
•
1 - 32 Ton
1 - 22 Ton
2 - 5 Ton
Presses added between January 1, 1964, and April 3, 1968:
1 - 60 Ton x
Presses added after April 8, 1968:
150 Ton
100 Ton
Existing city records indicate the ordinance prohibition of
punch presses over 20 tons rated capacity was first introduced into
our zoning code on April 6, 1968.
The building permit for the Airport Animal Hospital was issued
by the city in November of 1961, with completion of construction in
mid-1962. The Airport Animal Hospital and the Cedar Industries build-
ing are located on separate adjoining lots. However, a portion of
the south wall of the Airport Animal Hospital abutts a portion of
the north wall of Cedar Industries where they meet at the property
line between the two parcels of land. Both structures have concrete
slab floors which abutt their exterior concrete block walls. It is
the opinion of the consulting engineer that this construction facili-
tates the transmission of any vibration which might be created by
the operation of the metal stamping equipment. The two businesses
have been neighbors, existing without any prior dispute of which the
city has been aware, since late 1962.
Council Letter No. 42 -5- January 28, 1980
10 The issue presently pending before the city council is a request
from Cedar industries for an amendment to City Ordinance Code 3.34,
Subj. 1 (12) to accommodate the size of their existing metal stamp-
ing machines. In relation to this request, there is a request from
the Airport Animal Hospital that the ordinance amendment sought by
Cedar Industries be denied and that the existing ordinance be enforced.
This entire matter is complicated by the fact that both businesses
have been operating in our community, adjacent to each other, for
nearly '18 years. Additionally, most of the metal stamping machines,
which appear to be in violation of the existing ordinance, predate
the enactment of the present ordinance restrictions relating to the
rated capacity of metal stamping machines.
While the city staff has been successful in negotiating a number
of actions by Cedar Industries to attempt to control the transmis-
sion of machine vibrations, the problem has not yet been corrected
to the satisfaction of the Airport Animal Hospital. During this pro-
cess both businesses have, in the opinion of the city staff, made a
sincere effort to amicably mutually resolve this issue. While the
status of the current ordinance restriction on metal stamping machines
with regard to the Cedar Industry operation remains somewhat unclear,
Cedar Industries is reluctant to make the capitol investment neces-
sary to take further corrective measures.
Therefore, it is the recommendation of the Public Safety Direc-
tor, in which I concur, that the city council authorize the City
Attorney's office to conduct the necessary legal research to clarify
the proper enforcement position for the city to take in this matter,
as well as attempting to clarify the impact of the 1968 ordinance on
machines which have existed on the property prior to the enactment
of this ordinance code provision. Finally, it is recommended that
the City Attorney determine what is a proper city responsibility in
this matter, and which areas of this dispute should more rightfully
be addressed by the two parties themselves.
Respectfully submitted,
Karl Nollenberger
City Manager
KN/jf
v
cc: Public Safety Director , N eav
City Attorney
? ? P
Jan 23, 1980
Vibr?.fion pr•ohl m ern _,n?tir,Fr 1'rom 011 Cedar Ave S Richfield,
Cedar Industries, Inc. under lnvesti€ration by 'the Ri chf iald Cit
Council.
Concerning, Cedar Industries, Inc.'s claim that they
"grandfathered" Ordinance 3.34, Sub. 1, Article # 1.2 that limits
the operation of presser over 20 Tons, we fOUnd:
1..- Cedar Industries, Inc. under the ownership of Holier. M. Scher-
ling at 6311 Cedar Ave. S., Richfield, Mn. 55423, started
business on July 20,--L261 This information is on record
at the Richfield Assesor Dept. In addition, the Register of
Deeds at Hennepin County indicates that Mr. Holger M. Scherling
repistered his property on. July 20, 1.962. Owners before July
20, 1962 were : Oliver W. Ness and Dale L. DeSchane.
2.- Ordinance 2.03, Section 12, Article # 12 which limits the
operation of presses over 20 Tons was passed on October 25. 1954.
This Ordinance has remained unchanged and is now pertinent
under Ordinance 3.34, Sub. 1, Article # 12.
Therefore, Cedar Industries, Inc.'s claim
that they "Franfather.ed" the Ordinance is unsubstantiated, and they
are in violation of the city ordinance code.
Concerning; the action taken by the Richfield City Council
at their meeting of D c. 27, 1979, to establish a date of Jan. 15, 1980,
for the implementation of the Braslau's recommendations, we feel that
Cedar Industries, Inc. has failed to pursue the three recommendations
of such a report. Esp,?cial.ly, they did not implement recommendation
#2 and #3 which call. for the use of steel beams and concrete base, in
addition to the use of shock isolators.
GR. W. D. BLAINI$
4304 CEDAR AvE SQ
MINNEAPOLIS, MWK 5b4"
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
46 Office of City Manager
Council Letter No. 41
c rd?
Agenda January 24, 1
The Honorable Mayor
and
Members of the City Councils ,r
City of Richfield ID
Council Members: S?
Subject: Purchase in Excess of $1,000
Chapter Six, Section 6.05 of the city charter stipulates that
the city council must approve purchases of merchandise, materials,
equipment or construction when the amount exceeds $1,000. There
are two such items on the January 28, 1980 city council agenda.
Brochure Paper
For just over a year the city and the school district have com-
bined efforts in the publication of a brochure distributed to all
Richfield residences. This brochure includes the city newsletter,
information related to community education and information related
• to community services as well as information of general interest
such as classes offered through various colleges, universities and
vo-tech schools,and information on the Augsburg Community Library.
The cost of this publication is shared by the school district and
the city. Quotations have been received for paper to be used in
the publication for Spring 1980.
It is recommended that the city council approve the purchase of
paper as furnished by Wilcox Paper Co. in the amount of $1,293.84.
Securitv Screens
Bartley Sales Company, Inc., of 3550 Dakota Avenue, Minneapolis,
MN, 55416, has submitted a firm quotation to furnish seven (7) Steel
Van-Guard Screens in the amount of $1,683.00 to be installed at the
Christian Park neighborhood park shelter building. The screens
would help prevent vandalism and break-ins while still allowing light
and air to enter the structure through the windows. The installation
of the screens will be done by the park division employees during the
early spring months of 1980.
It is recommended that the city council approve the purchase of
seven (7) steel van-guard screens from Bartley Sales Company, Inc.,
in the amount of $1,683.00.
Respectfully submitted,
Earl Nollenberger
City Manager
KN/jf
cc: Community Services Director
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Office of City Manager
Council Letter No. 40
Agenda January 23, 1980
The Honorable Mayor
and
Members of the City Council
City of Richfield
Council Members:
Subject: Request for Time Extension, Lift. Station Contract
At the September 10, 1979 council meeting, the city council
awarded a contract for the rebuilding of lift station #4 at Wilson
Pond to F.F. Jedlicki, Inc. of Mound, Minnesota. The original com-
pletion date was November 15, 1979, but completion has been delayed
due to bad ordering of equipment.
F.F. Jedlicki, Inc. has requested a time extension on the con-
tract to April 1, 1980. All material has now been delivered with
the exception of the electric control panel which will not be de-
livered until March 1, 1980.
• It is recommended the city council approve this request for
time extension as outlined above.
Respectfully submitted,
Karl Nollenberger
City Manager
KN/jf
cc: Community Services Director
0
/
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Office of City Manager
11
Council Letter No. 39
Agenda January 28, 1980
The Honorable Mayor
and
Members of the City Council
City of Richf ie ld
Council Members:
Subject: Approval of Labor Contract Agreement with
Richfield Police Supervisory Association
There is an item on the January 28, 1980 city council agenda
providing for council approval of a labor contract agreement which
has been negotiated by the city staff with representatives of the
Richfield Police Supervisory Association. The Richfield Police
Supervisory Association is the recognized bargaining group repre-
senting police sergeants, lieutenant and captain (eight personnel).
The 1980 contract agreement with the bargaining group con-
tains numerous changes, many of which are language changes necess-
itated by amendments to the Minnesota Public Employees Labor
Relations Act. These changes include modifications to the griev-
ance procedure, and the option of using one arbitrator rather
than an arbitration panel in arbitration. Other language changes
made in the 1980 contract establish a firm number of hours of
vacation leave that can be accrued, and converts the accrual of
all types of leaves (vacation, holiday, sick leave) from days per
year to hours per year for the sake of clarification.
The economic changes negotiated in the proposed 1980 contract
with the Police Supervisory Association include:
1. Increase in the employed maximum health insurance
contribution from $76 per month to $83 per month;
2. Increase in the annual clothing allowance from
$215 to $250;
3. Abolishment of the college incentive and longevity
payments, and folding of the existing level of the
payments into the base wage.
The concept of college incentive pay is somewhat
unique to the public safety service, and provides
that eligible employees receive a certain amount of
additional pay for each approved college credit
earned. The contracts which Richfield has historic-
ally had with the Police Supervisory Association
Council Letter No. 39 -2- January 28, 1980
provided that eligible employees receive 50? for
each approved college quarter credit earned. Em-
ployees who were appointed before January 1, 1973
had the option of receiving college incentive pay
or longevity. Longevity was established as a flat
percentage of the base wage. Although this con-
cept is a fairly standard one in public safety labor
agreements, the college incentive/longevity payments
to police supervisory employees is somewhat less
common, and it was determined in the course of nego-
tions that the Richfield Police Supervisory employ-
ees were one of the few supervisory units still
providing those supplemental payments to supervisory
employees.
4. An increase of approximately 8 percent on the 1979
maximum wage for each of the three employee classifi-
cations: police sergeant, police lieutenant, police
captain. The actual wage figures which appear in the
contract range from 14.5% to approximately 12.40 over
the wage shown in the 1979 contract. However, the
1980 wages include the existing level of payments
for college incentives and longevity, while the 1979
wage rates did not reflect those payments. As noted
above, the college incentive and longevity payments have
been abolished as a separate payment. It is for this
reason that the wage adjustment appears to be higher
than it would otherwise appear.
Attached to this council letter is a resolution approving the
negotiated 1980 labor contract agreement with the Richfield Police
Supervisory Association, and providing for a contingency transfer
from the contingency account to the public safety division budget
to implement the economic provisions of this contract. It is
recommended that the city council adopt these resolutions.
Respectfully submitted,
Karl Nollenberger
City Manager
KN/eja
cc: Administrative Services Director
Finance Coordinator
Public Safety Director
•
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION APPROVING AN AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE
CITY OF' RICHFIELD AND THE RICHFIELD POLICE
SUPERVISORY ASSOCIATION FOR THE YEAR 1980
WHEREAS, the City Manager and the Richfield Police Supervisory
Association have reached a complete understanding concerning rates of
pay and the maximum employer contribution for health insurance purposes;
and
WHEREAS, the Personnel Ordinance requires that contracts between
the City and the exclusive representative of employees in an appropriate
bargaining unit shall be implemented by council resolution.
a
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of
Richfield does hereby approve the Agreement between the City of Richfield
and the Richfield Police Supervisory Association for the year 1980 and
orders the provisions of this Agreement to be implemented effective
January 1, 1980.
Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield this 28th day
of January, 1980.
Donald J. Priebe Mayor
ATTEST:
Sylvia K. Bergh Acting City Clerk
•
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING TRANSFER OF
APPROPRIATIONS FROM THE 1980 CONTINGENCY
ACCOUNT TO THE PUBLIC SAFETY DEPARTMENT
WHEREAS, Resolution No. 6130 appropriated funds for each department of
the City for the year 1980; and
WHEREAS,.contingency appropriation was made in the General Fund for
various purposes, including the 1980 salary adjustments and the related fringe
benefit contributions; and
WHEREAS, Resolution No. approved the Agreement between the City of
Richfield and the Richfield Police Supervisory Association for the year
1980 which provides for a pay plan and establishes the maximum employer
contribution for health insurance purposes; and
WHEREAS, it is hereby determined necessary to adjust the 1980 budget
appropriation by $22,155 to reflect adjustments required by this Agreement.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of
0 Richfield that the sum of $22,155 be transferred from the contingency
appropriation of the General Fund to the Public Safety Department.
Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield this 28th day of
January, 1980.
Donald J. Priebe Mayor
ATTEST:
Sylvia K. Bergh Acting City Clerk
CHANGES MADE IN CONTRACT BETWEEN THE CITY OF RICHFIELD AND THE RICHFIELD
POLICE SUPERVISORY ASSOCIATION FOR THE PERIOD JANUARY 1 - DECEMBER 31, 1980:
1' ARTICLE II - DEFINITIONS
Amended compensatory time definition to establish a maximum on accrual
of compensatory time, but maximum is not stated in definitions.
ARTICLE IV - FEDERATION SECURITY
Section 3: New section allowing one member of bargaining team to be
paid for bargaining while on duty, with approval of Division Head.
ARTICLE VII - GRIEVANCE PROCEDURE
Modified grievance procedure in accordance with PELRA amendments:
a) Included disciplinary actions as grievable actions.
b) Provided for the selection of one arbitrator in grievance actions
if either party desires one.
ARTICLE VIII - WORK SCHEDULE
Section l: Added language permitting employee to repay any hours in
a work schedule of less than an averaged forty (40) hour work week
in whatever way the employee chooses, subject to approval of the
Public Safety Director.
40 ARTICLE XI - VACATION LEAVE
Established maximum number of hours of vacation time that can be carried
forward on the books at any one time as 240 hours.
Converted vacation accruals from days per year to hours per year for
the sake of clarification.
ARTICLE XII - HOLIDAY LEAVE
Established maximum number of holiday hours that could be accrued.
ARTICLE XIII - OVERTIME PAY
Added provision that the maximum 64 hour accrual on compensatory time
could be waived upon approval of the Public Safety Director.
ARTIVLE XV - LONGEVITY
Longevity payments have been eliminated
ARTICLE XVI - INSURANCE
Employer will contribute up to $83 per month (increased from $76/month)
per employee for health insurance coverage offered by the employer.
ARTICLE XVIII - COLLEGE INCENTIVE
College incentive payments have been eliminated
ARTICLE XIX - CLOTHING ALLOWANCE
(New Article XVII) Clothing allowance is increased from a maximum of
$215 annually to $250 annually.
ARTICLE XXII - SALARY
1. Increased maximum monthly wage rates as follows:
Sergeant: From $1,882 to $2,156
Lieutenant: From $2,035 to $2,308
Captain: From $2,200 to $2,479
2. Folds college incentive and longevity payments-into base
wage rate, and eliminates these items as separate payments
3. Excluding inclusion of the college incentive and longevity payments
into the base wage rates, the following percentage increases are
proposed:
Sergeant: 8.1% plus $114/month
Lieutenant: 8.1% plus $108/month
Captain: 8.1% plus $101/month
(Maximum college incentive/longevity payment was $90/month. We
are paying slightly more than that, on a "one-time only" basis
because longevity is based on a percent of salary, which over
the years would otherwise increase to accompany salary increases.
We are also trying to get salaries more equitable with those of ,
police supervisors in other comparable communities.)
A
MEMORANDUM OF CONTRACT
BETWEEN THE CITY OF RICHFIELD
AND
THE RICHFIELD POLICE SUPERVISORY ASSOCIATION
FOR THE PERIOD
JANUARY 1, 1980 TO DECEMBER 31, 1980
E
r
TABLE OF CONTENTS
0 Article Subject Page
I Preamble and Statement of Purpose 1
II Definitions 1
III Recognition 2
IV Association Security 2
V Employer Security 3
VI Employer Authority 3
VII Grievance Procedure 4
VIII Work Schedule 7
IX Sick Leave 7
X Injury-On-Duty Leave 8
XI Vacation Leave 9
XII Holiday Leave 10
XIII Overtime Pay 11
XIV Severance Pay 11
XV Insurance 12
XVI Tuition Reimbursement 12
XVII Clothing Allowance 12
XVIII Seniority Vacation Rights and Assignments 12
XIX Safety 12
XX Savings Clause 12
XXI Contract Arbitration 13
XXII Salary Schedule 14
XXIII Complete Agreement and Waiver of Bargaining 14
XXIV Terms of the Agreement 14
i
0
MEMORANDUM OF CONTRACT
BETWEEN THE CITY OF RICHFIELD
AND
THE RICHFIELD POLICE SUPERVISORY ASSOCIATION
ARTICLE I. - PREAMBLE AND STATEMENT OF PURPOSE
This Agreement is made and entered into this day of
1980 by and between the City of,Richfield (hereinafter referred to
as the Employer) and the Richfield Police Supervisory Association
(hereinafter referred to as Association). The intent and purpose
of this Agreement is to:
1. Provide an orderly procedure for the resolution of disputes
concerning this Agreement's interpretation and/or application;
2. To set forth herein the full and complete understanding of
the parties concerning rates of pay, hours and other condi-
tions of employment for the duration of the Agreement.
ARTICLE II. - DEFINITIONS
Compensatory Time is time off granted by the Employer to
sergeants for work performed at the express authorization of the
Employer in excess of a sergeant's regularly scheduled shift, subject
to a maximum accumulation.
Department Head means the Director of Public Safety or his
designated representative.
Division means the Police Division of the Department of Public
Safety.
Emergency means a situation or condition so defined by the
City of Richfield.
Employee means a supervisory employee who is a member of the
Richfield Police Supervisory Association.
Employer means the City of Richfield or its designated repre-
sentative.
Employer Seniority means length of continuous service with
the Employer in the Department of Public Safety as a sworn officer.
Job Classification Seniority means length of service in a job
classification.
10 Lunch Break means a thirty (30) minute period during the scheduled
shift during which the Employee remains on continual duty and is
responsible for assigned duties.
Overtime means work performed at the express authorization of
Employer in excess of the Employee's regularly scheduled shift.
Regular Base Pay means the Employee's monthly rate of pay
exclusive of any longevity or overtime pay or any other -supplemental
pay.
Rest Breaks means two fifteen (15) minute periods during the
scheduled shift during which the Employee remains on continuous duty
and is responsible for assigned duties.
Shift means a continuous eight (8) to ten (10) hour work period,
as designated on the official divisional schedule.
ARTICLE III. -RECOGNITION
Section 1: The Employer recognizes the Association as the
exclusive bargaining representative under Minnesota Statutes (1971)
• Section 179.71, subdivision 3, for the following position classifi-
cations: Police Sergeant, Police Lieutenant and Police Captain.
Section 2: Should there be any dispute as to a new position
established during the life of this Agreement, both parties agree
to refer such disputeto the State Bureau of Mediation Services.
ARTICLE IV. - ASSOCIATION SECURITY
Section 1: During the life of this Agreement, the Employer
agrees to deduct monthly Association dues for Employees who are
members of the Association and who request in writing to have their
regular monthly Association dues checked off. The Employer shall
remit such deduction to the Richfield Police Officers' Federation.
Section 2: The Association agrees to indemnify and hold the
Employer harmless against any and all claims, suits, orders or
judgment brought or issued against the Employer as a result of
any action taken or not taken by the Employer under the provisions
of this Article.
Section 3: Not more than one (1) member of the Association
Negotiating Committee may be absent from duty with full pay for
negotiation sessions for the purpose of negotiating terms of an
Agreement if such sessions are scheduled at a time when a team
member is scheduled to be on duty. Such absences from work must be
approved by the Division Head and only if the Division Head determines
the absence would not be detrimental to division work programs.
ARTICLE V. - EMPLOYER SECURITY
Neither the Association, their officers or agents, nor any of
• the Employees covered by this Agreement, will engage in, encourage,
sanction, support or suggest any strikes, slowdowns, resignations,
absenteeism, the willful absence from one's position, the stoppage
of work or the abstinence in whole or part of the full, faithful
and proper performance of the duties of employment. In the event
that any Employee violates this Article, the Association shall
immediately notify any such Employee in writing to cease- and desist
from such action and shall instruct him/her to immediately return
to his/her normal duties. Any or all Employees who violate any
of the provisions of this Article may be discharged or otherwise
disciplined.
ARTICLE VI. - EMPLOYER AUTHORITY
Section 1: The Association recognizes the prerogative of the
.
Employer to operate and manage the affairs of the Police Division
of the Department of Public Safety in all respects in accordance
with existing and future laws and regulations of appropriate
authorities, including personnel policies and division work rules.
The prerogatives and authority which the Employer has not officially
abridged, delegated or modified by this Agreement are retained by
the Employer such as, but not limited to: direct Employees, hire,
promote, transfer, assign, retain Employees in positions, and suspend,
demote or discharge or take disciplinary action against Employees,
relieve Employees from duties because of lack of work or other legiti-
mate reasons, maintain the efficiency of the government operations;
determine the methods, means, job classifications and personnel by
which such operations are to be conducted, take whatever actions
may be necessary to carry out the missions of the Employer in situa-
tions of emergency; determine reasonable schedules or work and
establish the methods and processes by which work is performed.
Section 2: The Employer's non-exercise of any function hereby
reserved to it, or its exercising any such function in a particular
way shall not be deemed a waiver of its right to exercise such
function or preclude the Employer the express provisions of this
Agreement.
-3-
Section 3: The enumeration of the rights and duties of the
Employer in this Agreement shall not be deemed to exclude other
• inherent management rights and management functions not expressly
delegated in this Agreement are reserved to the Employer.
ARTICLE VII. - GRIEVANCE PROCEDURE
Section 1: Definition of a Grievance. A grievance is defined
as a dispute or disagreement as to the interpretation or application
of the specific terms and conditions of this agreement.- The defini-
tion of grievance may also extend to disciplinary actions involving
just cause for suspension, demotion or discharge of permanent
employees.
The parties recognizing that an orderly grievance procedure
is necessary, agree that each step must be adhered to as set forth
herein or the grievance is forfeited. All grievances must be filed -
within twenty-one (21) calendar days after occurrence of the circum-
stances giving rise to the grievance, otherwise the right to file a
grievance is forfeited and no grievance shall be deemed to exist.
Section 2: The Employer shall recognize stewards selected
by the Association as grievance representatives of the bargaining
unit. The Association shall notify the Employer in writing of the
stewards and of their successors when so named. Stewards shall
process grievances at times other than during their normal work
schedules unless specifically permitted to do so by the Employer.
Section 3: Procedure. Grievances, as defined in Section 1,
shall be resolved in accordance with the following procedure:
Step 1: Within twenty-one (21) calendar days of the occurrence
giving rise to the grievance, the steward shall submit the
grievance in writing to the Director of Public Safety. A
meeting between the Director of Public Safety, or his repre-
sentative, and the steward(s) shall be held at a time mutually
agreeable to the parties within ten (10) working days following
receipt of the written report. The Director of Public Safety,
or his representative, shall give a written answer to the steward(s)
within five (5) working days following the meeting.
• Step 2: If the grievance is not resolved in the First Step,
the Association shall notify the Director of Public Safety in
writing of the desire to appeal within fifteen (15) calendar
-4-
days after receipt of the Director's written answer. If such
request is made, the grievance shall be reviewed at a meeting
• between the City Manager, or his representative, the steward(s)
and the Director of Public Safety, or his representative,
within fifteen (15) working days after receipt by the Director
of Public Safety of the notice of desire to appeal. A written
answer shall be given by the City Manager, or his representative,
within fifteen (15) working days after the date of the Second
Step meeting.
Section 4: Waiver. If a grievance is not presented within
the time limits set forth above, it shall be considered "waived."
If a grievance is not appealed to the next step within the specified
time limit or any agreed extension thereof, it shall be considered
as settled on the basis of the Employer's last answer. If the
Employer does not answer a grievance or an appeal thereof within
the specified time limits, the Association may elect to treat the
grievance as denied at that step and immediately appeal the grievance
to the next step. The time limit in each step may be extended by
mutual written agreement of the Employer and the Association rep-
resentatives involved in each step. The term "working days" as used
in this Article shall mean the days Monday through Friday, inclusive.
Section 5: Choice of Remedy. If, as a result of the Employer
response, the grievance remains unresolved, the grievance may be
appealed either to the procedure of Sections 6 and 7 of this Article
or a procedure such as: Civil Service, Veterans' Preference, or
Fair Employment. If appealed to any procedure other than the
procedure of Sections 6 and 7 of this Article, the grievance is not
subject to the arbitration procedure as provided in Sections 6 and
7 of this Article. The aggrieved employee shall indicate in writing
which procedure is to be utilized--Sections 6 and 7 of Article VII
or another appeal procedure--and shall sign a statement to the effect
that the choice of any other hearing precludes the aggrieved Employee
from making a subsequent appeal through Sections 6 and 7 of Article VII.
Section 6: If both parties, having exhausted the grievance
steps provided herein, cannot settle a grievance, either party may
submit the issue in dispute to arbitration as provided in the Public
. Employment Labor Relations Act of 1971, as amended.
The issues in dispute may be submitted to a three member board
of arbitration who are members of the American Arbitration Association
-5-
National Panel of Labor Arbitrators with each party appointing one
member of the arbitration board and the third member, who shall
serve as the neutral chairman, to be selected according to the pro-
visions of the Public Employment Labor Relations Act of 1971, as
amended.
Each party shall, within seven (7) calendar days of the notifi-
cation to proceed to arbitration, appoint one member of the arbitra-
tion board. The two members thus chosen shall endeavor to select
the third member within seven (7) calendar days who shall serve as
neutral chairman. If the two members cannot agree upon a third AAA
arbitrator within the said seven (7) days, then either party may
request the American Arbitration Association to submit a list of
five (5) names from which the parties shall select a neutral chair-
man. The parties shall, within seven (7) days after the receipt of
such a list, select the neutral chairman by striking alternately
one name each and the remaining name shall be chairman of the arbi-
tration board. If the parties cannot decide who shall strike the
first name, the party entitled to strike the first name shall be
determined by the toss of a coin. The decision by a majority vote
• of the arbitration board shall be final.
Section 7: If the procedure out] ined in Section 6 meets with
the objection of either the Employer or Association, a single
arbitrator shall be selected from a list of seven (7) AAA arbitra-
tors provided by the Public Employee Labor Relations Board. If
the parties cannot decide who shall strike the first name, the
party entitled to strike the first name shall be determined by the
toss of a coin. The names of the arbitrators shall alternately be
struck until only one name remains. The single arbitrator shall
decide the outcome of the grievance and it shall be binding on the
parties.
Section 8: Authority of Arbitrator or Arbitration Board.
The arbitrator or arbitration board, shall have no right to amend,
modify, nullify, ignore, add to, or subtract from the provisions
of this Agreement. The arbitrator or arbitration board shall con-
sider and decide only the specific issue(s) submitted to it in
writing by the Employer and/or the Association, and shall have no
authority to make a decision on any other issue not so submitted
to it. The arbitrator or arbitration board shall be without power
to make decisions contrary to or inconsistent with or modifying or
-6-
varying in any way the application of laws and rules and regula-
tions having the force and effect of law. The arbitrator or arbi-
tration board shall submit in writing its decision within thirty
(30), calendar days following the close of the hearing or the sub-
mission of briefs by the parties, whichever is later, unless the
parties agree to an extension thereof. The decision shall be based
solely upon the arbitrator's or arbitration board's interpretation
of the meaning or application of the express terms of the Agreement
to the facts of the grievance presented.
Section 9: All fees and expenses of the arbitrator or arbitra-
tion board shall be shared equally by the Employer paying one-half
of such fees and expenses and the Association paying the other half.
If one party chooses to proceed to arbitration as per Article VII,
Sections 6 and 7, over the objections of the other party, additional
expenses such as attorney fees, transcripts and other miscellaneous -
expenses not jointly requested will be paid by the requesting party.
ARTICLE VIII. - WORK SCHEDULE
Section 1: The sole authority in establishing work schedules
• is the Employer. The normal work day shall be eight (8) to ten (10)
consecutive hours as designated on the official divisional schedule,
and the normal work week shall be an averaged forty (40) hours.
Any official divisional work schedule that is comprised of less than
an averaged forty (40) hour work week will require repayment of
hours by members of the Association so affected. It will be the
option of each member as to the method employed in paying back these
hours, subject to approval of the Director of Public Safety or his
representative.
Section 2: Service to the public may require the establishment
of daily, weekly, seasonal or annual work schedules which depart
from the normal work day or the normal work week. The Employer shall,
except in the case of emergency, give the Association notice of such
a change in the work schedule as far in advance as is reasonably
practicable.
ARTICLE IX. - SICK LEAVE
Section 1: Sick leave shall be accrued by Employees at the
rate of eight (8) hours per calendar month up to a maximum of 960
-7-
hours. Thereafter the rate of accrual shall be two hours per calen-
dar month with no maximum accumulation.
Section 2: Sick leave shall not be considered as a right and
may,not be used at the Employee's discretion. Sick leave may be
used only in case of actual illness or injury, legal quarantine, to
receive dental or medical care, or for serious illness or death in
the Employee's.immediate family. Immediate family shall be defined
as wife, husband, children, mother, father, brother, sister, grand-
mother, grandfather, mother-in-law and father-in-law. Brother-in-
law and sister-in-law shall be considered as within the definition
of immediate family only in the case of death. For serious illness
or death in the immediate family, there shall be a maximum of three
days sick leave permitted for any single occurrence.
Section 3: To be eligible for payment of sick leave, the
Employee will notify the department two hours prior to the starting
time of his scheduled shift. This notice may be waived if the
Employee could not reasonably be expected to comply because of
unusual circumstances.
Section 4: The Employer has the right to verify the reported
• sickness of an Employee and may require a doctor's certificate for
absence due to sickness in those cases where there appears to be an
abuse of sick leave. In all instances, the burden of proof for the
use of sick leave rests with the Employee.
ARTICLE X. - INJURY-ON-DUTY LEAVE
Section 1: Employees who are injured while performing assigned
duties and who qualify for workers' compensation shall be eligible
for injured-on-duty leave on the same date that the Employee begins
drawing workers' compensation pay.
Section 2: If the Employee is found to be eligible for injury-
on-duty leave, he shall receive supplementary payments from the
Employer equal to the difference between the total amount of all other
Employer injury related benefits, i.e., workers' compensation,
pension disability benefits, and his normal rate of pay for a maximum
of ninety (90) consecutive calendar days. Such supplementary payments
shall not be charged against the Employee's accrued sick leave.
Section 3: Injured-on-duty leave shall extend for a maximum
of ninety (90) consecutive calendar days following the date of
-8-
workers' compensation eligibility. The Employer may require an
injured Employee to be examined by a physician selected by the
• Employer in order to determine whether the Employee is able to return
to work pursuant to the provisions of Section 4.
Section 4: Injury-on-duty leave shall be terminated by the
Employer at such time as a duly qualified physician determines that
the Employee is completely able to perform all of the duties of the
Employer within the job classification the Employee held prior to
injury.
ARTICLE XI. - VACATION LEAVE
Section 1: All Employees shall be eligible for vacation leave
except that no Employee shall be allowed to use vacation leave until
after the completion of one full year of employment.
Section 2: Employees shall accrue vacation leave according to
the following schedule:
A. From the beginning of continuous employment through the
fifth (5th) year of continuous employment, each Employee
shall earn vacation at the rate of 96 hours per year.
• B. After the fifth (5th) year and on through the tenth (loth)
year of continuous employment each Employee shall earn
vacation at the rate of 120 hours per year.
C. After the tenth (10th) year and on through the fifteenth
(15th) year of continuous employment, each Employee shall
earn vacation at the rate of 144 hours per year.
D. After the fifteenth (15th) year of continuous employment,
and on, each Employee shall earn vacation at the rate of
160 hours per year.
Section 3: Vacation leave may be accrued up to a maximum of
240 hours. This provision can only be waived if the Director of
Public Safety or his representative provides the Personnel Division
written authorization to waive this maximum prior to an employee's
reaching the maximum accrual. Employees shall use vacation leave
in the amounts of not less than one hour upon properly filing each
leave request with the Personnel Office.
Section 4: In the event an Employee voluntarily terminates
his employment with the Employer or is discharged, he shall be paid
for his accumulated vacation hours as of his termination date,
provided he has given two weeks notice of his termination. Employees
-9-
who voluntarily terminate prior to completing a year of continuous
and active city service shall not be eligible for terminal vacation
pay. Section 5: Department Head Approval. All vacation leave
schedules must be approved by the department head or his designated
representative and filed in the prescribed manner with the Personnel
Office. In approving such schedules, the department head or his
designated representative shall consider the needs of the municipal
service and the seniority and wishes of the Employee and shall
respond to the Employee's request within a reasonable length of time.
ARTICLE XII. - HOLIDAY LEAVE
Section 1: Employees shall receive eighty-eight (88) hours
of holiday leave per year. Eight (8) hours of holiday leave shall
be granted for each of the following eligible holidays: New Year's
Day; Lincoln's Birthday; Washington's Birthday; Good Friday; Memorial
Day (the last Monday in May); Independence Day (July 4); Labor Day
(the first Monday in September); Columbus Day (second Monday in
October); Veteran's Day (November 11); Thanksgiving Day (the fourth
• Thursday in November); and Christmas Day (December 25).
Section 2: Holiday leave may be accrued to a maximum of eighty-
eight (88) hours.
Section 3: Holiday leave may be taken at any time during the
year with the provision that all such leave requests must be approved
by the department head or his designated representative. In approving
such schedules, the department head or his designated representative
shall consider the needs of the municipal service and the seniority
and wishes of the Employee and shall respond to the Employee's request
within a reasonable length of time. Employees shall be charged for
the use of holiday leave in the amount of not less than one (1) hour
per occurrence.
Section 4: In the event an Employee voluntarily terminates his
employment with the Employer or is discharged, he shall be paid for
his accumulated holiday leave hours as of his termination date, pro-
vided he has given two weeks written notice of his termination.
Employees who voluntarily terminate prior to completing a year of
continuous and active city service shall not be eligible for terminal
holiday leave pay.
-10-
Section 5: In the event an Employee terminates his employment
with the Employer or is discharged and has used more holiday leave
than accrued at the date of termination, an adjustment will be made
in the Employee's compensation resulting in the Employee being paid
only for holiday leave accrued to the date of termination.
ARTICLE XIII. - OVERTIME PAY
Section 1: Employees may from time to time be required to
perform duties in excess of their normally scheduled work shifts.
Such assignments may be at the reasonable discretion of the Employer.
Employees shall be required to perform such work unless excused by
the Employer.
Section 2: Overtime compensation either in the form of pay or
time off is not provided for the positions of lieutenant or captain.
However, the department head may grant reasonable periods of time
off when he feels such time off is warranted.
Section 3: Sergeants shall be compensated for time worked in
excess of their regularly scheduled shift at the express authoriza-
tion of the Employer at time and one-half their regular base rate in
• either compensatory time or monetary payment at their option, sub-
ject to a sixty-four (64) hour maximum compensatory time accumula-
tion per sergeant. This maximum compensatory time accrual may be
waived by the Director of Public Safety on a case by case basis
upon properly filing of such request with the Personnel Office.
Change of shifts within a twenty-four (24) hour period and normal
job related administrative duties such as attendance at staff
meetings does not qualify for overtime.
Section 4: A sergeant called back to work at a time other than
his normal scheduled shift shall receive a minimum of two (2) hours
overtime pay. Reporting early for a shift or an extension of a shift
shall not qualify for this minimum.
ARTICLE XIV. - SEVERANCE PAY
Employees terminating their employment with the Employer after
ten (10) years of continuous service due to retirement, disability,
or voluntary resignation with two (2) weeks advance notice to the
Employer shall be paid severance in an amount equal to one-third
(1/3) of the Employee's accumulated sick leave subject to a maximum
of 400 hours.
ARTICLE XV. - INSURANCE
Section l: The Employer shall contribute up to a maximum of
eighty-three (83) dollars per month per Employee, including dependent
coverage towards an Employee health insurance premium offered by
the Employer. The Employer contribution cannot exceed the cost of
individual coverage for Employees selecting individual coverage.
Section 2: The Employer shall provide the Employee with term
life and accidental death and dismemberment insurance in the amount
of $5,000.
Section 3: The Employer shall continue to provide the Employees
with full false arrest insurance.
ARTICLE XVI. - TUITION REIMBURSEMENT
The Employer shall provide the benefits of the Richfield
Employee Educational Program.
ARTICLE XVII. - CLOTHING ALLOWANCE
The maximum clothing allowance will be $250 per year. This
allowance is for the maintenance, repair and replacement of uniforms
• and equipment initially provided by the Employer and for civilian
clothing for those Employees assigned to work in plainclothes.
ARTICLE XVIII. - SENIORITY VACATION RIGHTS AND ASSIGNMENTS
Section 1: Vacation selection rights shall be determined within
work groups by job classification seniority provided requests for
vacation leave are submitted by June 1.
Section 2: The Employer agrees to furnish the Association with
an up-to-date list every twelve (12) months showing the position
classification, appointment date and length of continuous service
for Employees represented by the Association.
ARTICLE XIX. - SAFETY
Both the Employer and the Employees agree to maintain sanitary
and safe working conditions and equipment.
ARTICLE XX. - SAVINGS CLAUSE
• Section 1: This Agreement is subject to the laws of the United
States, the State of Minnesota and the signed municipality. In the
event any provision of this Agreement shall be held to be contrary
-12-
to law by a court of competent jurisdiction from whose final judgment
or decree no appeal has been taken within the time provided, such
• provision shall be voided. All other provisions shall continue in
full force and effect. The voided provision may be renegotiated at
the request of either party.
ARTICLE XXI. - CONTRACT ARBITRATION
Section 1: If the Employer and Association are unable to reach
an agreement on a future written contract or memorandum-of contract,
either party may submit the issue(s) in dispute to arbitration as
provided in the Public Employment Labor Relations Act of 1971.
If either party so chooses the issue(s) in dispute may be sub-
mitted to a three member board of arbitration with each party
appointing one member of the arbitration board and the third member,
who shall serve as the neutral chairman, to be selected according
to the provisions of the Public Employment Labor Relations Act of 1971.
Section 2: If either party so chooses, the issue(s) in dispute
may be submitted to a panel of three (3) arbitrators whose neutral
chairman shall be a member of the American Arbitration Association
• National Panel of Labor Arbitrators. Each party shall, within seven
(7) calendar days of the notification to proceed to arbitration,
appoint one (1) member of the arbitration board. The two (2) members
thus chosen shall endeavor to select the third member within seven
(7) calendar days who shall serve as neutral chairman. If the two(2)
members cannot agree upon a third AAA arbitrator within the said
seven (7) days, then either party may request the American Arbitration
Association to submit a list of five (5) names from which the parties
shall select a neutral chairman. The parties shall, within seven (7)
days after the receipt of such a list, select the neutral chairman
by striking alternately one (1) name each and the remaining name
shall be chairman of the arbitration board. If the parties cannot
decide who shall strike the first name, the party entitled to strike
the first name shall be determined by the toss of a coin. The
decision by a majority vote of the arbitration board shall be final
and shall be rendered within thirty (30) days from the date of the
arbitration hearing.
• Section 3: All fees and expenses of the impartial chairman
shall be shared equally by the Employer paying one-half of such
fees and expenses and the Association paying the other half. If
-13-
one party chooses to proceed to arbitration as per Article XXI,
Section 2 over the objections of the other party, the party requesting
this procedure shall assume the additional expenses over and above
those which normally might be incurred as per Article XXI, Section 1.
ARTICLE XXII. - SALARY SCHEDULE
The following is the pay schedule to be implemented by the
Employer on January 1, 1980.
Monthly Pay Rates
1 2 3 4 5
Police Sergeant $1,739 $1,835 $1,872 $2,043 $2,156
Police Lieutenant $1,862 $1,564 $2,073 $2,187 $2,308
Police Captain $2,001 $2,111 $2,227 $2,348 $2,479
Normal Progression Through Steps
1 2 3 4 5
.Starting After 1 Year After 2 Years After 3 Years After 4 Years
•
ARTICLE XXIII. - COMPLETE AGREEMENT AND WAIVER OF BARGAINING
The parties acknowledge that during the negotiations that
resulted in this Agreement, each had the unlimited right and oppor-
tunity to make demands and proposals with respect to any subject
or matter not removed by law from the area of collective bargaining
and that the understandings and agreements arrived at by the parties
after the exercise of that right and the opportunity are set forth
in this Agreement. Therefore, the Employer and the Association for
the life of this Agreement each voluntarily waive the right and each
agrees that the other shall not be obligated to bargain collectively
with respect to any subject or matter not specifically referred to
or covered in this Agreement even though such subject or matter may
not have been within the knowledge or contemplation of either or
both of the parties at the time of negotiations or signing of this
Agreement.
ID ARTICLE XXIV. - TERMS OF THE AGREEMENT
Section 1: This Agreement shall be in force and effect from
January 1, 1980 through December 31, 1980 with regard to all terms
-14-
•
L?
and conditions except Article XV, Section 1 with respect to the
maximum Employer dollar contribution towards an Employee health
insurance premium offered by the Employer and Article XXII with
respect to changes in monthly pay rates. If either party desires
changes with regard to Article XV, Section 1 or the pay rates in
Article XXII beginning January 1, 1981, notification must be made
to the other p.arty by July 1, 1980.
Section Z: If either party desires changes in the terms and
conditions of this Agreement for the period beginning January 1,
1981, notification must be made to the other party by June 1, 1980.
Section 3: In witness thereof, the undersigned have caused
this Agreement to be executed on this day of
FOR THE CITY OF RICHFIELD
FOR THE RICHFIELD POLICE
SUPERVISORY ASSOCIATION
-15-
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Office of City Manager
Council Letter No. 38
Agenda January 28, 1980
The Honorable Mayor
and
Members of the City Council
City of Richfield
Council Members:
Subject: National Organization to Insure a
Sound Environment (NOISE) Presentation
Mark Mahon, Bloomington Council Member, has requested an
opportunity to appear at the city council meeting on January
28, 1980 along with Walter Rockenstein, Minneapolis Alderman,
and Lynn Levine, Council Member, St. Paul, to present a
certificate to Elaine Olson on behalf of Stanley Olson, from
the NOISE organization.
• They will be present about 8:00 p.m. on January 28, 1980
to make this presentation.
Respectfully submitted,
Karl Nollenberger
City Manager
KN/ e j a
9
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Office of City Manager
Council Letter No. 37
Agenda January 28, 1980
The Honorable Mayor
and
Members of the City Council
City of Richfield
Council Members:
Subject: Agreement for Public Safety Services
Municipal Golf Course Area
Sometime ago, the city initiated discussions with the Met-
ropolitan Airport Commission to establish a uniform jurisdiction
under which the Department of Public Safety can service the new
municipal golf course. In the past, there have been some juris-
dictional problems, particularly with regard to providing police
service to the East Babe Ruth Little League fields, since they
are outside the corporate limits of the City of Richfield. Those
problems could be compounded with the opening of the municipal
golf course, since portions of the land area leased for the course
are outside of the corporate limits of the City of Richfield.
Our city attorney's office and the legal counsel for the Met-
ropolitan Airports Commission have developed the necessary agree-
ment to provide jurisdictional authority for the City of Richfield
to provide all required public safety services to the new municipal
golf course area. A copy of the agreement is attached for council
consideration. The Metropolitan Airports Commission has already
executed this Agreement.
It is the recommendation of the Public Safety Director, in
which I concur, that the city council adopt this Agreement and
authorize its execution by the Mayor and the City Manager.
Respectfully submitted,
Karl Nollenberger
City Manager
KN/jf
cc: Public Safety Director
City Attorney
AGREEMENT REGARDING POLICE AND FIRE
PROTECTION ON PROPERTIES LEASED BY
METROPOLITAN AIRPORTS COMMISSION TO
CITY OF RICHFIELD
Parties to the Agreement
The parties to this agreement are:
METROPOLITAN AIRPORTS COMMISSION, sometimes referred to as
the Minneapolis-St. Paul Metropolitan Airports Commission, a public
corporation and agency of the State of Minnesota, hereinafter called
the "Commission," and the CITY OF RICHFIELD, a municipal corporation
and political subdivision of the State of Minnesota, hereinafter
called the "City."
Purpose
From time to time the Commission has leased properties belonging to
the Commission to the City. Such properties have been leased for a
golf course, for a park and for other recreational programs of the
City. The parties desire to give the City authority and responsi-
bility for providing routine police, fire and medical emergency
services on such leased property, including property now under lease
to the City from the Commission and any property which may hereafter
from time to time be under lease from the Commission to the City.
The Commission and the City are parties to mutual police assistance
and fire assistance contracts, along with other political sub-
divisions of the State of Minnesota. It is the intention of the
parties to modify such mutual police and fire agreements to the
extent, and only to the extent, of giving the City primary authority
and responsibility for providing such emergency services on Commission
properties leased to the City.
Agreement
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of their mutual undertakings as
hereinafter set forth, the City and the Commission contract and _
agree as follows:
1. The Commission hereby gives
accepts, responsibility and authority
fire and medical emergency services of
elsewhere in the City, for those areas
leased by the Commission to the City.
but not be limited to the authority to
the City, and the City hereby
Eor providing routine police,
the kind ordinarily provided
which are from time to time
Such authority shall include
enforce the laws of the
State of Minnesota and the ordinances of the Commission on such
leased areas. The City is.further authorized to prosecute viola-
tions of any such laws or ordinances, the violation of which is
classed as either a misdemeanor or a petty misdemeanor.
2. The City is authorized to provide direct communication
from the leased premises to the City's public safety dispatcher
to facilitate receipt of police, fire and other emergency calls
originating on the leased areas.
3. The City agrees to carry adequate liability insurance
covering its provision of routine police, fire and medical emer-
gency services pursuant to this agreement, and to hold and save
harmless the Commission from liability or claim of liability for
loss, damage or injury to persons or property arising from its
provision of routine police, fire and medical emergency services
pursuant to this agreement.
4. This agreement is expressly made subject to the terms
of all lease agreements now or hereafter existing between the
Commission and the City leasing property from the Commission to
the City, including, but not limited to, agreements for the lease
of a golf course, park and other recreational programs of the City.
5. This agreement shall continue in effect until terminated
by written notice by either of the parties. Such written notice
shall be effective thirty (30) days after it is given.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this agreemenz•
in duplicate as of the day of , 1979.
By M.?.
Secr tary
In Pr sen a of: D?Rfl I
By
`C n
AIRPORTS COMMISSION
(SEAL)
CITY OF RICHFIELD
In Presence of:
By
Mayor
By
City Manager
APPROVED FOR EXECUTION:
0
-2-
9 CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Office of City Manager
Council Letter No. 36
Agenda January 28, 1980
The Honorable Mayor
and
Members of the City Council
City of Richfield
Council Members:
Subject: Approval of Contract with Bloomington for
Personal Health Services
Since 1977, Richfield has contracted with the City of
Bloomington to provide personal health services to Richfield
residents. This program was made possible by the Community
Health Services Act, which has provided a subsidy to Richfield
during the last three years for the purpose of supporting and
expanding health program services. The 1980/81 Richfield
Community Health Services plan, approved by the city council
in August, 1979, provides for continuation of this personal
health program. A copy of the personal health services con-
tract with Bloomington is attached. This agreement is ident-
ical to previous contracts between the two cities, and pro-
vides that Richfield will pay Bloomington $87,526 in 1980
to provide the program and health services described in the
contract. This amount is the appropriation provided in the
1980 adopted budget for personal health services, and repre-
sents a 7 percent increase over the 1979 contract amount of
$81,800.
The city has an existing contract with the Richfield
School District to provide nursing services to the non-public
elementary and secondary schools in the city. State law re-
quires that these services be made available to the non-public
schools to the same extent that the services are available in
the public schools. A state subsidy is available to support
the provision of school nursing services and the Richfield
School District has applied for these subsidy monies to provide
these services to the non-public schools. This agreement with
the school district provides that the city will delivery commun-
ity health services to the non-public elementary and secondary
schools, and that the school district will coordinate the
services and reimburse the city from their state subsidy money.
The attached amendment to the Community Health Services con-
tract between the cities of Richfield and Bloomington also
Council Letter No. 36 -2-
January 28, 1980
provides for the provision of these nursing services to the
non-public schools. The school district's subsidy funds
passed through the city fully covers the cost of providing
these services.
It is recommended that the city council approve the
1980 contract with the City of Bloomington for provision of
personal.health services, and authorize the City Manager and
Mayor to execute this contract. It is further recommended that
the city council ratify extension of the existing health ser-
vices agreement with the Richfield School District and the
amendment to the contract between the cities of Richfield and
Bloomington to provide community health services to non-public
school children within the city.
Respectfully submitted,
Karl Nollenberger
City Manager
KN/eja
cc: Public Safety Director
Environmental Health Director
0
AMENDMENT TO CONTRACT BETWEEN
THE CITIES OF RICHFIELD AND BLOOMINGTON FOR
COMMUNITY HEALTH SERVICES
WHEREAS, Independent School District No. 280 has applied for
supplemental subsidies for nonpublic schools according -to the pro-
visions of Minnesota Statutes §§123.931 to 123.935 to provide ad-
ditional health services to nonpublic schools in the District and
is providing those subsidies to the City of Richfield; and
WHEREAS, the parties to the above agreement wish to amend said
agreement to reflect those additional services;
NOW, THEREFORE, it is hereby agreed by the parties that the
City of Richfield will increase the quarterly payments according
to the existing contract with the City of Bloomington to raise the
level of health services in the elementary and secondary nonpublic
schools to equal, but not to exceed, those provided in the public
schools.
Dated:
CITY OF RICHFIELD
By
Its
[SEAL]
By
Its
CITY OF BLO sIINGTON
By its favor
[ Si;AL ]
By
is City Manager
JOINT P01,4ERS AGREEMENT
(Corr:runi ty Health Services)
THIS AGREEMENT, made and entered into this 28th day of January 1980
by and between the CITY OF BLOOMINGTON, a Minnesota municipal corporation,
in the County of Hennepin, State of Minnesota ("Bloomington"), and the
City of Richfield a Minnesota municipal corporation, in
the County of Hennepin, State of Minnesota ("Richfield")
WITNESSETH:
WHEREAS, Bloomington warrants and represents that its Division of
Public Health is a duly certified public health agency operating in accor-
dance with all applicable federal and state requirements; and
WHEREAS, Bloomington's Division of Public Health provides community
health services, including, but not limited to home nursing, adult health,
child services, information and education, school age services, health
promotion counseling, community center services, prevention and control,
and program administration; and
WHEREAS, Richfield wishes to promote, support, and maintain the
health of its residents by providing community health services such as
health education, communicable disease programs, nursing services, health
assessment, counseling, teaching, and evaluation in the community, home,
and clinic setting at a nominal fee to those making use of such services,
and to contract with Bloomington for Bloomington, through its Division of
Public Health, to provide such services to residents of Richfield ;.and
0
Page 2
WHEREAS,.the governing bodies of Bloomington and Richfield are
authorized by Minnesota Statutes, Section 145.914, Subdivision 5, Section
'145.917, Subdivision 3, and by Minnesota Statutes, Section 471.59, to provide
community health services and to enter into agreements with each other for
the providing by Bloomington of community health services to residents of
Richfield
NOW THEREFORE, the parties hereto, for and in consideration of the
covenants hereinafter set forth, agree as follows:
I 1. Bloomington, through its Division of Public Health, agrees to
provide residents of Richfield with the following community health services
("Health Services"), as identified in the Bloomington Health Program budget:
A. Home Nursing: This activity provides professional nursing care
in the home under medical supervision for persons requiring personal care,
I ?• treatment, teaching or supervision of medical-surgical conditions.
B. Adult Services: This activity provides health supervision for
adults in the areas of maternal health and family planning. Physical
assessments, laboratory work, immuiogical update, teaching and referral are
provided in all clinic settings.
C. Child Services: This activity provides child health clinics
for infants and children in the areas of well child, early and periodic
screening, and nutrition services.
D. Information and Education: This activity provides for coordina-
16
tion and delivery of health information and education to the general public
and organized groups by the staff and other available resources. In addition,
it includes current health information and validation-of health certificates
for viorl d travel.
Page 3
E. School Age Services: This activity provides for coordination,
consultation, and delivery of in-school services within school settings.
F. Health Promotion Counseling: This activity provides pre-
ventive and restorative health teaching and counseling to individuals on a
one-to-one basis in all areas of physical and emotional health, including
alcohol-drug related counseling.
G. Community Center Services: This activity provides health
services at the community centers through individual teaching and counseling,
health supervision clinics, injection and treatments as prescribed by
private physicians, and detection, prevention and control programs.
H. Prevention and Control: This activity provides services for .
the prevention and control of communicable diseases and adult screening
clinics for early identification and referral or chroni-c diseases.
I. Program Administration: This activity reflects administrative
support costs to all activities of the Division.of Public Health unidentified
'as to specific discipline.
2. The Health Services shall be provided and rendered hereunder to
the residents of Richfield - in the same manner, to at least the same
extent, and with at least the same quality and kind of personnel, equipment,
:and facilities as the Health Services are provided and rendered to residents
`of Bloomington, it being the intent and purpose of this Agreement to provide
and render.the Health Services equally to residents of Bloomington and
Richfield ,' without discrimination in any way.
3. Bloomington shall provide the health services pursuant hereto on
a confidential basis, using capable, trained professionals.
Page 4
4.- All Health Services to be rendered hereunder by. Bloomington
shall be rendered pursuant to and subject to public health policies, rules,
and procedures now or hereafter, from time to time, adopted by the Bloom-
ington City Council, and in full compliance with all applicable state and
federal laws, provided however, that (i) no such policy, rule, or--procedure
hereafter adopted by the Bloomington City Council shall in any way affect,
modify, or change the obligations, duties, liabilities, or rights of the
parties hereto as set out in this Agreement, or reduce or detract from
the kind, quality, and quantity of Health Services to be provided hereunder
by Bloomington to residents of Richfield and (ii) all such policies,
rules, and procedures shall. be uniformly applied to all persons receiving
Health Services from Bloomington, whether residents of Richfield
Bloomington, or any other municipality. Richfield agrees to adopt the
• same policies, rules, and procedures as are from time to time adopted by
Bloomington, if determined by Richfield to be necessary or desirable to
facilitate or regulate the provision. of Health Services by Bloomington to
residents of Richfield pursuant hereto.
5. Richfield agrees to pay to Bloomington, for the provision of
Health Services pursuant hereto, amounts and on terms as follows:
A. The annual sum of $87,526 shall be paid in quarterly
payments of '$21,881.50 to Bloomington within fifteen (15) days of the
receipt by Richfield of each of the reports to be given pursuant to
paragraph 5.B. hereof, subject; however, to the provisions of paragraph
5.C: hereof.
Page 5
B. On April 15, July 15, and October 15, 1978, and on January 15,
1979, Bloomington shall send Richfield a statement, certifidd by the person
in charge of Bloomington's Division of Public Health as being true and
correct, and covering the period of the three (3) calendar months preceding
the month in which the report is given, and setting forth, in such detail
as Richfield from time to time shall reasonably require, the number of
_ persons served, the kinds of Health Services delivered, the locations where
such services were delivered, and such other information as Richfield shall
reasonably request.
• C. No payment or payments need be made by Richfield under
this Agreement while Bloomington is in default under any of the terms and
conditions hereof to be by Bloomington performed.
6. In the event Richfield desires to inspect the financial books
and records of Bloomington relating to the providing of Health Services
hereunder by Bloomington, Bloomington shall make its financial books and
records available at the Bloomington City Hall for inspection and copying
by Richfield , or,any agent, employee, or representative of Richfield ,
at reasonable business hours.
7. It shall be the sole responsibility of Bloomington to determine
the qualifications, functions, training, and performance standards for all
health service personnel who render Health Services under this Agreement;
provided, ho,,rever, that Bloomington agrees that all such personnel shall
be capable, trained professionals.
8. Bloomington's Division of Public Health will communicate with
Richfield relative to Health Services to be performed hereunder by
Bloomington, such communication to be in the form of reports, conferences,
•
10
(
Page 6
or consultations, as the respective Richfield departments from time to
(. • time shall request. All reports relating to.the providing of Health
Services that are given by Bloomington's Division of Public Health to
the Bloominton City Council or to the City Manager during the term of
this Agreement shall also, and at the same time, be given to Richfield
9. Bloomington also agrees to send to Richfield an annual report
describing the activities performed and Health Services rendered pursuant
-to this Agreement. Such report shall be in such detail and form as
Richfield may reasonably from time to time request. The annual report
t 'shall be sent with and in addition to the last quarterly report required _
by paragraph 5.B. hereof. Also, at Richfield's request, made not more than
a - -
two (2) times during the term of this Agreement, responsible administrative
officers of Bloomi.ngton's Division of Public Health shall attend meetings
of the Richfield City Council or appropriate board or-commission to
answer questions and give further information relative to the activities
performed and Health Services rendered under this Agreement.
10. Bloomington hereby agrees to maintain in force its present policy
of comprehensive liability insurance and medical malpractice insurance
in the minimum amount of five hundred thousand dollars ($500,000), for the
term of this contract. A copy of the policy or policies issued shall be
furnished to Richfield Said policy shall be with an insurance company
authorized'to do business in Minnesota.
t
Page 7
li. This Agreement shall be for a period from January 1, 1979, to •?
December 31, 1979, provided that either party may terminate the same.by
-thirty (30) days' written notice to the other. Upon such termination,
all obligations and liabilities of the parties hereunder shall cease and
termiante, except that the provisions of paragraph 11 hereof shall continue
and survive such termination. Also, in the event of termination pursuant
hereto, the quarterly payment next due shall be prorated and paid for only
the period ended on the date of termination, and Bloomington shall send to
..Richfield within thirty (30) days after such termiantion, a report in
the form required by paragraph 5.B., and shall also then send a final
report in the form of, and in lieu of, the annual report required by
paragraph 10 hereof, and Richfield shall pay such reduced quarterly
payment for the period ended on the date of termination, within fifteen (15)
days after receipt of both of such reports.
12. Bloomington and Richfield understand and agree that each
of them shall apply and qualify, independently and separately, for any and
all grants, matching funds, and payments of all kinds from state, federal,
and other governmental bodies relating to, or for the provision of, any
or all of the Health Services, and any and all such grants, matching
funds, and payments shall belong to. the recipient and be used and applied
as the recipient thereof shall determine, without regard to this Agreement.
13. All notices, reports, or demands required or permitted to
be given under this Agreement shall be in writing and shall be deemed to
be given when delivered personally to any officer of the party to which
notice is being given, or when deposited in the United States mail in a .
sealed envelope, with registered or certified mail, postage prepaid thereon,
addressed to the parties at the following addresses:
i
t
1 Page 8
I
•?'? To Bloomington: 2215 4lest Old Shakopee Road
Bloomington, Minnesota, 55431
Attention: John'G. Pidgeon, City Manager
L
To Richfield: 6700 Portland Avenue South
Richfield, Minnesota 55423
Attention: Karl.Nollenberger, City Manager
Such addresses may be changed by either party upon notice to the other
party given as herein provided.
• IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this Agreement
I
to be duly executed and their corporate seals to be affixed hereto the
day and year first above written.
CITY OF BLOOMINGTON
. by
Its Mayor
and
Its Manager
CITY OF RICHFIELD
by
Its Mayor
and
Its Manager
•
•
HEALTH SERVICES AGREEMENT_
F_ 1
LJ
THIS AGREEMENT, made and entered into this day of ,
, by and between the City of Richfield, a Minnesota municipal
corporation (.hereinafter the "City"), and Independent School District
No. 280 (hereinafter the "School District");
WITNESSETH:
WHEREAS, the School District, in order to promote equal educa-
tional opportunity for every school child in the School District and
to assure all pupils and their parents freedom of choice in education,
has applied for health service subsidies as provided for by Minnesota
Statutes §§123.931-123.937; and
WHEREAS, the City has an existing contract for the provision of
community health services which includes provision of coordination,
• consultation, and delivery of health services within the school set-
ting of nonpublic elementary and secondary schools in the City;
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual promises and mutual
benefits the parties agree to perform the following duties with the
intent of this contract:
1. School District Responsibilities
A. The School District shall apply for each school term
to the Minnesota State Department of Education. State
Aids Section, for those subsidies made available to fund
health services in nonpublic schools.
B. The School District shall provide those subsidies ap-
plicable to provide health services to nonpublic pupils
to the City.
9
i
0
•
? 9
C. The School District shall plan;and coordinate with
the health services provider.so that the provision of
such services meets the State provisions and is provided
in a ration not to exceed that provided in the public
schools.
2. City Responsibilities
A. The City shall amend its City Health Plan and contract
with its health services provider to include health
services according to the provisions of the State statutes.
B. The City shall provide to the health services provider
the subsidies from the School District necessary to en-
hance the level of health services in nonpublic schools
equal to, but not to exceed, those provided-in the
public schools.
IN TESTIMONY WHEREOF; the parties hereto have caused this
Agreement to be executed on the day and year first above mentioned.
CITY OF RICHFIELD
By
is
By
Its
INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 280
By
is
By
Its