Loading...
9-17-13 CSCCCOOMMMMUUNNIITTYY SSEERRVVIICCEESS CCOOMMMMIISSSSIIOONN AAGGEENNDDAA Tuesday, September 17, 2013 7:00 pm Richfield Community Center (Fireside Room), 7000 Nicollet Ave Commission Members Staff Liaisons Reed Bornholdt Tracy Hollenback Bob Shotwell Jim Topitzhofer (Staff Liaison) Tom Rublein (Planning Com) Gerry Charnitz (C) Greg Mangold (VC) Michele Thompson John Evans (Secretary) Edwina Garcia (City Council) Dan Edgerton Arlan Nelson LuAnn Werner Terry Heinze Andrew Seffrood 1. Approval of Minutes  Regular Meeting: July 16, 2013 2. Public Comment  Resident comment and items not printed on agenda 3. Staff Reports  Recreation Services (Topitzhofer)  Ice Arena Improvements  Open Streets at Penn Fest 4. Discussion Items  Band Shell Survey Results and Band Shell Committee Report (Topitzhofer)  Community Garden Relocation (Topitzhofer)  Clarification of May 21, 2013 Organized Waste-Hauling Vote (Topitzhofer) 5. Action Items  None 6. Committee Reports  Transportation Commission (Shotwell/Edgerton)  FOWL Board (Werner)  Green Team/Waste Hauling Study Group (Mangold, Werner, Edgerton)  Planning Commission (Edgerton)  Arts Commission (Thompson) 7. Next Meeting October 15, 2013, 7:00 pm Richfield Community Center 8. Adjournment July 16, 2 PRESEN ABSEN Call t Charnitz June me Staff R Recreati Topitzho Ice Aren revised p legislatur 4th of Ju at family Pool Att Urban W Open St Park per originally that staff what is r existing c promotio Discus Summer Topitzho about 10 imagine people c people ra Hollenba mass em a band s Augsbur Augsbur said that suggeste objective CSC to g ultimately the CSC time left felt abou an electr inaccura on the G Commu Topitzho Street an and main that, to d criteria. 2013 NT CSC: G Terry He STAFF: NT CSC: G PLAN C o Order/Appr called the me eeting. Approv Reports ion Services ofer reported o na Improveme plans. Plans h re will conside uly: First year w night, the par tendance: Nu Wildland Half treets at Penn rmits for pub y represented f has consider epresented by community ce ons or promote ssion Items r Concerts Si ofer thanked th 00 for Lyndale what the Lynd could picture th ate each site o ack asked abo mail list, and th shell is built at g site has wor g is a proven t they identified ed that we sur e that they’re n get a real feel y vote to make to make a rec to make a rec ut an electronic ronic survey w ate information Go concert at V nity Garden R ofer said that a nd 28th Avenue ntain. He said determine a sit Topitzhofer sa REG erry Charnitz einze, Dan Ed Jim Topitzho reg Mangold, COM: Tom Ru roval of Minu eeting to order ved, ayes all. on the following ents: Next ste ave changed er the legislatio without carniv rade, and the s mbers suffere Marathon & 5 nFest: Planne lic events: An to the City. C red not allowin y the permit ho elebration licen ed public even ite Survey Re he CSC volunt Gardens. He dale Gardens s he site’s poten objectively wit out promotions he Music On th Vets or Lynda rked well, is sh success as a d Augsburg, L rvey the conce not very inform for the differe e a recommen commendation commendation c survey. Cha with the same q n and harshly-n Vets Park in tw Relocation a Richfield loca e. He said tha d that some of te, staff has re aid that staff w GULAR COMM Richfi , Tracy Hollen dgerton, LuAn ofer, John Eva , Michele Tho ublein COUN tes r at 7:00 pm. B g: p is transitory regarding the on to allow liqu al. Big attend street dance. d in June; July 5K: Registratio d for Septemb n event, initiall City staff had to ng any events older; he said nse is the sam nts. esults teers and pres e said that the site may be lik ntial. Edgerton h set criteria. s. Topitzhofer he Go promoti ale Gardens. T hady and intim concert venue Lyndale Garde ert-goers at Au mative. Topitzh nt sites. Holle ndation to the n; Topitzhofer n. Topitzhofer arnitz suggeste questions. We negative comm wo weeks. ation would be at moving it to the relocation ecommended a will score all of MUNITY SERVI Tuesda eld Communi nback, Arlan nn Werner ans ompson NCIL: Edwina Bornholdt mov ordinance rev locker rooms uor sales at th ance at the pa y is looking be on is going we ber 15. y planned for o cancel the ev where the per that staff will a me thing. Topit sented the tab ratings were s ke. Nelson sa n suggested th Topitzhofer sa said that each ons mention t Topitzhofer sa mate, accessib e. Hollenback ens, and Vets a ugsburg on a T hofer said that enback asked Council, who said that, with said that the s ed asking Patc erner suggeste ments. Topitz e ideal for the c Richfield wou n costs include a set of criteria f the parks on DR CES COMMIS ay, July 16, 20 ty Center (700 Nelson, Bob Garcia ved, seconded vision first-hea and possibly a e arena. ark. Great com etter so far. ell; ahead of la Sunday, July vent because rmit-holder is i approach the C tzhofer said th ulated results. slightly more fa aid that the nex hat the survey aid that it may h concert is pr he survey. Sh aid that concer ble, central, an asked if the c as possible sit Thursday nigh t the real adva who would ma would ultimate hout a potentia same survey c ch to conduct ed not using P hofer said tha community ga uld make the s e soil amendm a for site selec the given crite RAFT MINU SSION REGUL 013 00 Nicollet Ave Shotwell, And d by Hollenbac aring at a Cou a parking lot e mments from a ast year. 14, at Taft Pa it was promot inviting the pu CSC to consid hat the events . He said that favorable in all xt survey shou y should not pit y be a good ide romoted on Fa hotwell asked rts would not b nd shouldn’t be committee had tes, with Vets ht. Werner sai antage of havi ake a final dec ely decide. Ho al private spon can be given n a poll. Edgert Patch because at a link to the ardens, which site more secu ment, water acc ction. Hollenb eria and will br UTES UNTI LAR MEETING e) drew Seffrood ck, to approve ncil meeting fo expansion. He all over. Seffro ark, grew beyo ted as a much blic and the at der such a pol in question ha t about 50 resp l categories fo uld maybe hav t the two sites ea to have a s acebook, Twitt if concerts wo be held at Aug e given up as a d already reco as their recom d that the resu ng the concer cision; Topitzh ollenback aske nsorship applic next month an ton suggested e of a lack of t survey will be are currently o ure and would cess, signage back suggeste ring the scorin TIL APPRO d, Reed Born e the minutes o or the capital i e said that, ne ood said atten ond the size th h bigger event. ttendance ma licy. Seffrood ave more to do ponses were r or Vets Park, b ve a site plan o s against one a site diagram o ter, the websit ould still be he gsburg. Shotw a concert site. mmended a s mmendation. S ults of the surv rts at different hofer said that ed what if ther cation to subm nd he asked th d that we cond he ability to m sent out befo on airport prop make it easie , fencing, and ed adding “amp ng to the CSC VED BY TH holdt, of the regular mprovement, ext year, the st ndance was gr at the organiz . Topitzhofer y grow beyond asked if the o with busines received for V but people had on the survey another, but ha n the back. te, and by our eld at Augsbur well said that t . He said that site. Topitzhof Shotwell vey so far are sites is for the t the CSC wou re’s a deadline mit, there’s som he group how t duct a paper a moderate ore the next Mu perty at 59th r for staff to pl lighting. He s ple sunlight” a to review. HE CSC. with ate reat zers said d ss ets; d to so ave g if he fer so e uld e for me they nd usic ow said as a July 16, 2013 Action Items Cancellation of regular August CSC Meeting Nelson moved, seconded by Bornholdt, to cancel the regular August CSC meeting. Approved, ayes all. Committee Reports FOWL Board: Werner provided the report; the golf fundraiser has been dropped. Green Team/Waste Hauling Study Group: Topitzhofer provided the report. Planning Commission: Edgerton provided the report. Arts Commission: Topitzhofer provided the report. Next Meeting/Adjournment Regular September Meeting Tuesday, September 17, 7:00 pm, Richfield Community Center (7000 Nicollet Ave). Werner moved, seconded by Shotwell, to adjourn. Meeting adjourned at 8:16 pm. RICHFIELD COMMUNITY SERVICES COMMISSION EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Meeting Date: September 17, 2013 Agenda Item: Band Shell Survey Results and Band Shell Committee Report Agenda Section: Discussion Items Attachments: Survey Results Summary Band Shell Committee Report, August 21, 2013 Contact: Jim Topitzhofer Recommended Action: Discuss next steps with site selection. Surveys were distributed by Commission Members at all four of the Wednesday night concerts to gather feedback from concert goers about potential band shell site at Lyndale Gardens and Veterans Park with 299 written surveys collected at the concerts and another 303 surveys completed online. The attached summary shows average scores of each question per concert and average scores over all concerts. Veterans Park had a slightly better average combined score than Lyndale Gardens, however the scores were very close. Thank you to all that helped survey the crowd during these concerts. Staff will share recommendations for next steps toward site selection. The Band Shell Committee met on August 21, 2013 and Chair David Butler prepared the attached report. The Committee passed a motion for the Band Shell Committee to be dissolved. The group concluded that they have completed their task of recommending a site and made an effort to solicit outside funds. They are open to reassignment should the Community Services Commission need their help in the future. 4 Not noticeable 15 36% 60 4 Not noticeable 11 17% 44 4 Not noticeable 13 5%52 3 Just a little noisy 23 55% 67 3 Just a little noisy 26 40% 78 3 Just a little noisy 91 32%273 2 Pretty noisy 25%42Pretty noisy 16 25% 32 2 Pretty noisy 111 39%222 1 Too noisy 25%21Too noisy 12 18% 12 1 Too noisy 69 24%69 42 133 65 166 284 616 3.2 2.6 2.2 4 Not noticeable 37 91%148 4 Not noticeable 31 51%124 4 Not noticeable 61 21%244 3 Just a little noisy 2 5%63Just a little noisy 15 25%45 3 Just a little noisy 135 47%405 2 Pretty noisy 1 2%22Pretty noisy 10 16%20 2 Pretty noisy 60 21%120 1 Too noisy 1 2%11Too noisy 5 8%51Too noisy 31 11%31 41 157 61 194 287 800 3.8 3.2 2.8 4 Great 20 49%80 4 Great 16 27%64 4 Great 118 38%472 3 Good 16.5 40%49.5 3 Good 31 52%93 3 Good 64 21%192 2 Okay 3.5 9%72Okay 11 18%22 2 Okay 78 25%156 1 Poor 1 2%11Poor 2 3%21Poor 48 16%48 41 137.5 60 181 308 868 3.4 3.0 2.8 4 Great 18 45%72 4 Great 16 27%64 4 Great 70 24%280 3 Good 15 38%45 3 Good 33 56%99 3 Good 134 47%402 2 Okay 5 12%10 2 Okay 6 10%12 2 Okay 59 21%118 1 Poor 2 5%21Poor 4 7%41Poor 23 8%23 40 129 59 179 286 823 3.2 3.0 2.9 4 Great 20.5 58%82 4 Great 17 30%68 4 Great 64 23%256 3 Good 14 40%42 3 Good 26 46%78 3 Good 120 43%360 2 Okay 0 0%02Okay 7 13%14 2 Okay 69 25%138 1 Poor 1 2%11Poor 6 11%61Poor 26 9%26 35.5 125 56 166 279 780 3.5 3.0 2.8 4 Not noticeable 21 20%84 4 Not noticeable 37 44%148 4 Not noticeable 48 18%192 3 Just a little noisy 51 48%153 3 Just a little noisy 33 39%99 3 Just a little noisy 146 54%438 2 Pretty noisy 33 31%66 2 Pretty noisy 10 12%20 2 Pretty noisy 57 21%114 1 Too noisy 2 2%21Too noisy 5 6%51Too noisy 21 8%21 107 305 85 272 272 765 2.9 3.2 2.8 4 Not noticeable 21 20%84 4 Not noticeable 33 39%132 4 Not noticeable 74 27%296 3 Just a little noisy 51 49%153 3 Just a little noisy 42 49%126 3 Just a little noisy 127 46%381 2 Pretty noisy 33 31%66 2 Pretty noisy 7 8%14 2 Pretty noisy 58 21%116 1 Too noisy 0 0%01Too noisy 3 4%31Too noisy 20 7%20 105 303 85 275 279 813 2.9 3.2 2.9 4 Great 48 46%192 4 Great 35 42%140 4 Great 89 32%356 3 Good 38 36%114 3 Good 38 46%114 3 Good 94 34%282 2 Okay 17 16%34 2 Okay 6 7%12 2 Okay 62 22%124 1 Poor 2 2%21Poor 4 5%41Poor 34 12%34 105 342 83 270 279 796 3.3 3.3 2.9 4 Great 30 30%120 4 Great 17 21%68 4 Great 31 11%124 3 Good 49 49%147 3 Good 40 50%120 3 Good 79 28%237 2 Okay 18 18%36 2 Okay 19 24%38 2 Okay 81 29%162 1 Poor 2 2%21Poor 4 5%41Poor 87 31%87 99 305 80 230 278 610 3.1 2.9 2.2 4 Great 29 32%116 4 Great 28 35%112 4 Great 82 30%328 3 Good 33 36%99 3 Good 33 42%99 3 Good 107 39%321 2 Okay 18 20%36 2 Okay 14 18%28 2 Okay 57 21%114 1 Poor 12 13%12 1 Poor 4 5%41Poor 26 10%26 92 263 79 243 272 789 2.9 3.1 2.9 WRITTEN SURVEYS VETS LG ONLINE SURVEYS VETS LG ALL SURVEYS VETS LG Airplane Noise 2.86 3.03 Airplane Noise 2.17 2.81 Airplane Noise 2.51 2.92 Street Noise 3.50 3.06 Street Noise 2.79 2.91 Street Noise 3.15 2.99 Accessibility 3.19 3.26 Accessibility 2.82 2.85 Accessibility 3.00 3.05 Parking 3.13 2.98 Parking 2.88 2.19 Parking 3.00 2.59 Site Aesthetics 3.24 2.97 Site Aesthetics 2.80 2.90 Site Aesthetics 3.02 2.93 TOTAL 15.92 15.29 TOTAL 13.45 13.67 TOTAL 14.69 14.48 Parking AVERAGE SCORE Site Aesthetics VETS PARK 7/24/13 Airplane Noise AVERAGE SCORE Site Aesthetics AVERAGE SCORE AVERAGE SCORE Street Noise AVERAGE SCORE Accessibility Street Noise Accessibility Parking AVERAGE SCORE Parking AVERAGE SCORE AVERAGE SCORE AVERAGE SCORE AVERAGE SCORE AVERAGE SCORE AVERAGE SCORE AVERAGE SCORE AVERAGE SCORE Accessibility Street Noise VETS PARK 6/26/13 LYNDALE GARDENS 7/10/13 AVERAGE SCORE Airplane Noise Airplane Noise Site Aesthetics Parking LYNDALE GARDENS 8/7/13 Airplane Noise AVERAGE SCORE Street Noise AVERAGE SCORE AVERAGE SCORE Accessibility Site Aesthetics AVERAGE SCORE Accessibility AVERAGE SCORE AVERAGE SCORE VETS PARK (ONLINE) Airplane Noise AVERAGE SCORE Street Noise AVERAGE SCORE Street Noise AVERAGE SCORE AVERAGE SCORE Parking AVERAGE SCORE Site Aesthetics AVERAGE SCORE LYNDALE GARDENS (ONLINE) Airplane Noise AVERAGE SCORE AVERAGE SCORE Site Aesthetics Accessibility AVERAGE SCORE Parking RICHFIELD COMMUNITY SERVICES COMMISSION EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Meeting Date: September 17, 2013 Agenda Item: Community Garden Relocation Agenda Section: Discussion Items Attachments: Preliminary Scoring Park Site Maps w/measurements Contact: Jim Topitzhofer Recommended Action: Discuss attached site scoring to relocate the Community Garden Site selection criteria were determined at the last meeting regarding the relocation of the Community Garden. Staff used the site selection criteria to score all Richfield parks. Eight locations were identified that would have space sufficient enough to accommodate the existing square footage of our garden on MAC property (54,000 sq. feet) or half of the area (27,000 sq. feet). These eight locations were scored further (see attached). Soil compatibility was not scored due to the cost of soil testing. The actual area of each location is marked on the attached maps. Because the new garden is intended to be fenced to deter theft and vandalism, it was difficult to visualize how well a fenced community garden would blend in with the nice setting of a park. As staff visited and scored the sites, it began to be apparent that only one site would seem suitable and have enough buffer to help conceal a large fenced in area. Conflicting use was also observed in many locations while visiting the site and in some sites it would be necessary to remove trees. The best location appeared to be Veterans Park, east of the Arts Center, labeled as Vets Park 1. Another option is to consider constructing a fence around the existing garden to resolve the theft issue instead of relocating the garden. A third option is to consider a number of smaller gardens at multiple sites that could blend into the parks better and avoid conflict of use. Staff will report further observations at the meeting. Community Garden Site Selection Scoring PARK Space to Accomdate an Area of 54,000 sq. feetSpace to Accomdate an Area of 27,000 sq. feetSufficient Buffer from Residential HomesAvailibility of WaterArea is Visible to Police Patrol CarsCentral LocationRest Room AvailibiltySoil CombatibilityNo Conflicting Park UsesAvailibility of Electricity for LightingNo Trees Need to be RemovedSufficient Parking to Accommodate 20 VehiclesTOTAL SCOREAdams Hill 0212200?0222 13 Apple Blossom 0 0 0 Augsburg 0 0 0 Christian 0 0 0 Donaldson 0 0 0 Fairwood 0 0 0 Fremont 0 0 0 Garfield 0200020?2000 6 Heredia 0 0 0 Jefferson 0 0 0 Lincoln Field 0 0 0 Little Bob’s 0 0 0 Madison 0 0 0 Monroe 0200010?2220 9 Nicollet 0202221?0221 14 Richfield Lake 0 0 0 Roosevelt 2212211?1202 16 Sheridan 0 0 0 Taft 2222000?1102 12 Veterans Park 1 2222012?1221 17 Veterans Park 2 0221212?2122 17 Washington 0 0 0 Does not meet requirements = 0 PTS Partially meets criteria = 1 POINT Meets criteria = 2 POINTS RICHFIELD COMMUNITY SERVICES COMMISSION EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Meeting Date: September 17, 2013 Agenda Item: Clarification of May 21, 2013 Organized Waste-Hauling Vote Agenda Section: Discussion Items Attachments: Voting Riddles Article from the League of MN Cities Publication dated April, 2007 Contact: Jim Topitzhofer Recommended Action: Discuss clarification of the May 21, 2013 Organized Waste Hauling Vote Greg Mangold has requested further discussion of the outcome of a vote by the Community Services Commission on May 21, 2013 regarding organized waste hauling. A motion was made to recommend approval of the preparation and submission of a request for proposal to the existing solid waste collectors for the purpose of meeting the City’s solid-waste collection goals. Four members voted yes, two members voted no and two members abstained. The City Attorney reviewed the situation and indicated that, in her opinion, the motion did not pass because with eight members present at the meeting a total of five 'yes' votes would be needed to pass the motion. Greg has brought to our attention an article dated April, 2007, written by Jeanette Behr, Research Attorney for the League of Minnesota Cities. This attorney indicates that, in her opinion, a member that abstains in a vote that is not connected to a personal conflict of interest is counted as a vote of the majority. If this is the case, the vote conducted on May 21, 2013, would have passed. The attached article has been sent to Richfield City Attorney Mary Tietjen for further consideration. Staff will present the City Attorney's position on this matter at the meeting. M i n n e s o t a C i t i e s 1 9ap r i l 2 0 0 7 By Jeanette Behr D I D Y O U K N O W ? magine a vote to fill the mayor’s position on a statutory city council. Due to the mayoral vacancy, the council now consists of four voting members. However, one member chooses to abstain from voting, so we are down to three voting councilmembers. Two members vote for Candidate A to fill the vacancy, and one member votes for Candidate B. Is either appointed to the mayor’s office? Before we can answer that question, two other facts come into play. First, the law requires no special number of votes to fill a vacancy on the council, just a majority vote. (Thus, in this scenario, the winning candidate usually must receive three out of four votes.) Second, the councilmember abstains but not due to a disqualifying interest in the vote. If these two conditions exist, the answer to this voting riddle is Candidate A wins—even with only two affirmative votes. In this situation, an abstention may be considered acquiescence with the majority and counts with the votes of the majority. The rationale for this rule, often cited by courts in vote-counting cases, is that if a quorum is present, members refusing to vote will not defeat the action. Council- members should be aware that choosing to abstain may ultimately function like a vote with the majority, and still tends to either defeat or pass the motion. The presence of abstaining members still counts for quorum purposes. Even though courts say that abstentions count with the majority of those vot- ing, it is not clear how far that rule goes. Consider three council mem- bers at a meeting: one member votes in favor of approving meeting minutes and two members abstain; are the minutes approved? If a council faces multiple voting abstentions, the best approach is to consult the city attorney. When do abstentions not count with the majority? Abstentions do not count Voting Riddles a street improvement. The vote required by law is four “yes” votes out of five voting councilmembers. However, in this example, two members abstain from voting because they live on the street being improved and will have to pay the special assessments. The remain- ing three members vote to adopt the resolution ordering the improvement and the assessments. Does it pass? Yes, according to a district court case from 1992. The abstentions, due to disquali- fying personal interests, reduce the number of votes needed from four to three in the same way that two vacan- cies on the council reduce the num- ber of votes needed. In addition, in this scenario, the abstentions do not count with the majority. What about voting requirements in charter cities? Charter cities are subject to the same general rule that an absten- tion may count with the majority if the charter does not require a set number of votes, and if the abstention is not due to disqualification due to a personal interest in the matter. Summary. Councilmembers some- times wish to abstain from voting on controversial issues. Even so, an absten- tion may ultimately tend to either defeat or pass the action. For more information about voting questions, consult your city attorney or contact the LMC Research Department at (651) 281-1200 or toll-free at (800) 925-1122. Jeanette Behr is research attorney with the League of Minnesota Cities. Phone: (651) 281-1228. E-mail: jbehr@lmnc.org. See also: “Counting the Votes Part I in Minne- sota Cities,” Minnesota Cities magazine, May, 2006; “Counting the Votes Part II in Minnesota Cities,” Minnesota Cities magazine, June/July 2006. with the majority in statutory cities in two situations. First, if state law requires a specific number of affirmative votes; and, second, if a councilmember abstains due to a disqualifying personal interest in the matter before the council. To illustrate the first concept, in statutory cities, it takes a majority vote of all members of the council to pass an ordinance. Thus, three members of a five-member council must vote “yes” to pass an ordinance. Consider this example: four out of five members attend a council meeting to vote on passage of an ordinance; two members vote in favor of the ordinance and two abstain. The vote fails and the ordinance is not adopted because the ordinance did not receive the three affirmative votes required by state law. (Put another way, the law requires a majority vote of all councilmembers, as opposed to a majority of those present.) In this situation, abstentions do not count with the majority. To illustrate the second concept, abstentions do not count with the majority if a councilmember abstains from voting due to a disqualifying personal interest. According to the Minnesota Attorney General, when a councilmember is disqualified from voting, due to a personal interest in the matter, the effect is the same as if there were a vacancy on the council. The rationale for this general rule is that if a person can neither vote nor participate in the discussions or other proceedings, then that person really cannot function as part of the council for that particu- lar issue. The net result is that abstaining due to a disqualifying interest reduces the number of votes needed. For example, state law requires a four-fifths vote to approve a local road improvement under Chapter 429 (the special assessments chapter.) Imagine a five-member statutory city council voting to adopt a resolution ordering I