HomeMy WebLinkAbout07.15.85 Council Packet AGENDA
COUNCIL MEETING
REGULAR
JULY 15, 1985
1. CALL TO ORDER
2. APPROVE AGENDA
3. APPROVE MINUTES
a. July 1, 1985
4. CITIZENS COMMENTS
5. PUBLIC HEARINGS
a. Set Hearing to Consider Rezoning Portion of Westview Acres
6. PETITIONS, REQUESTS AND COMMUNICATIONS
7. ORDINANCES AND RESOLUTIONS
8. UNFINISHED BUSINESS
a. Approve Plans and Specifications for Pathway and Bridge - Rambling River
b. Review Compensation Study
c. Approve Razing of 617 Spruce Street
d. Heat Reclaim - Arena
9. NEW BUSINESS
a. Parking Lot - Arena - Capital Outlay Request
b. Rambling River Park Erosion - Capital Outlay Request
c. Discuss Impact of F.L.S. Act on City Operations
10. MISCELLANEOUS
a. Discussion - Use of Excess Fill -Fire Station Site
11. CONSENT AGENDA
a. Approve Tuition Refund Request
b. Approve Payment of the Bills
12. ADJOURN
13. ADD ON
a. Request to Attend Seminar - Administration - July 31, 1985
b. Mid America Sewer Bill
THE AGENDA IS CLOSED OUT AT NOON ON THE TUESDAY PRECEDING THE MEETING.
AGENDA REQUEST FORM
ITEM N0.
NAME: Larry Thompson
DEPARTMENT: Administration
DATE: July 8, 1985
MEETING DATE: July 15, 1985
CATEGORY: Unfinished Business
SUBJECT: Approve Razing of 617 Spruce St.
EXPLANATION: City has received court order to raze 617 Spruce St.
Approve contractor to remove structure.
REFERENCE MATERIALS/RESPONSIBILITY: Court Order/Quotes/Explanation - Larry Thompson
REFERRED TO: (NAME). DEPARTMENT:
Larry Thompson Administration
John Manke Building_Inspector
Stan Whittingham Police
SIG AT
MEMO TO: MAYOR AND COUNCIL
SUBJECT: 617 SPRUCE STREET - DEMOLITION QUOTES
DATE: JULY 11, 1985
Attached, please find a court order regarding the razing of 617 Spruce
Street. The City has received the following quotes for razing, ex-
cavating and backfilling the site:
Reisinger Excavating, Inc. $1,375.00
Willys Peters $1,850.00
As you will note, all costs, including City staff time and attorney's
fees are to be reimbursed by the property owner, or assessed against the
property to be paid as a special assessment.
Therefore, I would recommend that the quote of Reisinger Excavating, Inc
be approved and the property razed immediately.
6117
Larry Thompson
City Administrator
LT/mh
cc: G.M. Gorgos
John Manke
file •
DISTRICT
STATE OF MINNESOTA TTEPNCOURT
COUNTY OF DAKOTA FIRST JUDICIAL DISTRICT
City of Farmington, a Minnesota Municipal Corporation,
Plaintiff,
FINDINGS OF FACT,
v. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW,
ORDER FOR JUDGMENT, AND
Terry Ray Sietsema JUDGMENT AND DECREE
and
Minnesota Federal Savings & Association, Court File No: 99501
Hastings, Minnesota
Defendents.
The above-entitled matter came on for hearing before the Honorable Eugene
Adkins of the above-named Court at the Dakota County Government Center in the
City of Hastings, County of Dakota, State of Minnesota, on June 27, 1985.
G.M. Gorgos, appeared as attorney for the Plaintiff and there was no
appearance on behalf of the Defendents, Terry Ray Sietsema and Minnesota
Federal Savings & Loan Association, Hastings, Minnesota.
The Court, having heard the evidence adduced on behalf of Plaintiff and
having been duly advised in the premises, and upon all the files, records and
proceedings herein, finds as facts the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
I.
That the Defendents, Terry Ray Sietsema, is the fee owner of certain premises
located at 617 Spruce Street, Farmington, Minnesota premises being described as
follows:
That part of the South Half of Lot 3, Block 2, of Humphrey's
Addition to the town of Farmington, according to the plat
thereof on file and of record in the office of the Dakota
County Recorder, described as follows; starting at the South
West Corner of said Lot 3, Block 2, thence East 60 feet, thence
North 170 feet, thence East 60 feet, thence North 10 feet,
thence West 120 feet, thence South 180 feet to the place of
beginning, subject to easements of record.
II.
That Defendent Minnesota Federal Savings & Loan Association, Hastings,
Minnesota has a lien in the nature of a first mortgage against the above
described premises, said mortgage being dated July 26, 1971 , recorded July
28, 1971 as Document No. 386653.
III.
That on May 6, 1985, the City Council of the Plaintiff, City of Farmington,
a Minnesota Municipal Corporation, determined that there existed a hazardous
building as defined by Minnesota Statute 463.15 on the above described premises
and further determined that the building located thereon, because of inadequate
maintenance, dilapidation, physical damage, unsanitary conditions and abandonment,
constitutes -a fire hazard and a hazard to public safety and health.
IV.
That: an Order to repair or remove the hazardous building was made by personal
service on each of the Defendents as appears in the Affidavits of Service which
are part of the Court files; that neither of the Defendents served an Answer
on the Plaintiff as is evidenced by an Affidavit of no Answer which is part of
the Court files; that each of the Defendents are in default.
V.
That neither of the Defendents at the time of service of Order to repair
or remove the hazardous building, nor now is, in the military service of the
United States.
VI.
That the building located on the above described premises constitutes a
hazardous building as defined in Minnesota Statute 463.15 and that the premises
in general , because of unsanitary conditions.and abandonment, constitutes a
fire hazard and a hazard to public safety and health.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1 . That the Plaintiff City of Farmington, a Minnesota Municipal
Corporation is hereby authorized to remove the building located
at 617 Spruce Street, Farmington, Minnesota, the legal description
of said premises being as follows:
That part of the South Half of Lot 3, Block 2, of Humphrey's
Addition to the town of Farmington, according to the plat
thereof on file and of record in the office of the Dakota
County Recorder, described as follows; starting at the South
West Corner of said Lot 3, Block 2, thence East 60 feet, thence
North 170 feet, thence East 60 feet, thence North 10 feet,
thence West 120 feet, thence South 180 feet to the place of
beginning, subject to easements of record.
by razing the structure thereon insofar as it constitutes a hazardous
building within the meaing of M.S.A. 463.15, Subdivision 3.
2. That the Plaintiff City of Farmington, a Minnesota Municipal
Corporation is authorized to remove from the premises all garbage,
trash, and debris and otherwise rectifying conditions which exist
on the premises.
3. That the cost of razing the structures, removing trash and debris
and rectifying unsanitary conditions be a lien against the premises
above described to be collected as a special assessment in the manner
provided by M.S.A. Section 429.061 to 429.081 , with such assessement
payable in a single installment.
4. That the Plaintiff City of Farmington, a Minnesota Municipal
Corporation is authorized to sell the salvage and valuable
materials, if any, at Public Auction upon three (3) day notice.
5. That the Plaintiff City of Farmington, a Minnesota Municipal
Corporation shall keep an accurate account of expenses incurred
in carrying out this Order and all other expenses previously
incurred in connection with its enforcement, including filing
fees, service fees, attorneys fees, witness fees and traveling
expenses incurred from May 6, 1985, and shall credit any amount
received from the sale of the salvage or buildings and shall
report its action under this Order,with a statement of moneys
received and expenses incurred to the Court for approval and
allowance. Thereupon the Court shall examine, correct, if
necessary, and allow the expense account, and, if the amount
received from the sale of the salvage, or of the buildings or
structure does not equal or exceed the amount of expenses as
allowed, the Court shall by its judgment certify the deficiency
in the amount so allowed to the municipal clerk for collection.
The owner or other party in interest shall pay the same, without
penalty added thereon, and in default of payment by October 1 ,
the clerk shall certify the amount of the expenses to the county
auditor for entry on the tax lists of the county as a special
charge against the real estate on which the building is or was
situated and the same shall be collected in the same manner as
other taxes and the amount so collected shall be paid into the
the municipal treasury. If the amount received for the sale of
the salvage or of the building or structure exceeds the expenses
incurred by the municipality as allowed by the Court, and if there
are no delinquent taxes, the Court shall direct the payment of the
surplus to the owner or the payment of the same into Court, as
provided in Section 463.15 to 463.26. If there are delinquent
taxes against the property, the Court shall direct the payment of
the surplus to the county treasurer to be applied on such taxes.
6. That the Plaintiff City of Farmington, a Minnesota Municipal
Corporation is authorized to proceed with the enforcement of this
Order upon entry of Judgment.
r
ORDER FOR JUDGMENT
LET JUDGMENT BE ENTERED ACCORDINGLY.
BY THE COURT:
Eugene Atkins .
Judge of District Court
Dated: July 3rd 1985 I hereby certify that the foregoing
Conclusions of Law constitute the
Judgment and Decree.
(. SEAL )
Dorothy Woxland
Chief Deputy
roos / Page No. ` of ' Pages
1- =11=11111=111====== p
REISINGER EXCAVATING, INC.
FARMINGTON, MINNESOTA 55024
Phone 463-8798
PROPOSAL SUBMITTED TO PHONE DATE
)etesto
aii-- CkArill\-A:CIAIY\
STREET Oak
JOB NAME
5"
CITY, STATE AND ;IP CODE JOB LOCATION
F �, f ()f . 5-S 0 2_4- G. 1 `7 tk,,,e_e , O AMLLi�
ARCHITECT JOB PHONE
We hereby submit specifications and estimates for:
(�� �. ,' • ! i •
i
r
•
Y Q . i �� ' - ,\ ni ,
21) - 45)/f1jY\xAtet: .- .--0 --01-0,42_Q/YY _-
--Q/Yy.t.:6-1 (/'' ,?-1./11 ki .e.t .--Q---G-113---C1—aCTY1 '-' , 415-1)1/1 /Y1 16-0-Qi-LaPe
''' ') bilk 6re ' ') '1,.,1./ --510N. _fr A-01J-C_ cu--c--00____
•
iiiP Propose hereby to furnish material and labor — complete in accordance with above specifications, for the sum of:
dollars($ )
i Payment to be made as follows:
Ai
All material is guaranteed to be as specified.All work to be completed in a workmanlike i J
manner according to standard practices.Any alteration or deviation from above specifica• Authorized
tions involving extra costs will be executed only upon written orders,and will become an Signature 117 1 ....". y"-1 J
extra charge over and above the estimate.All agreements contingent upon strikes,accidents
or delays beyond our control.Owner to carry fire,tornado and other necessary insurance. te:This proposal may be
Our workers are fully covered by Workmen's Compensation Insurance. withdraw us if not accepted within days.
1u uptasup at li*npuBa1-The above prices,specifications
and conditions are satisfactory and are hereby accepted. You are authorized Signature
to do the work as specified.Payment will be made as outlined above.
Date of Acceptance: Signature
PROPOSAL
Proposal No.
Sheet No.
Date
Proposal Submitted TowWork To Be Performed At
Name C t•Tif 0 F P 'iVi� 9� Street (p/7 3ur.E 5",Street / City State / i)
City Date of Plans
State Architect
Telephone Number
We hereby propose to furnish the materials and perform the labor necessary for the completion of
E-4,7 0 i.r..4 __ -i-_ . .Pen,' Dile 4 69 O s6 .sf-- cl RAg E
bui 0).4 cizhp A.. a me 71ERi A J #
LiI',I .hS 70 46 v' 4 0 Oke Cri k>' 14'5
CI 40 C PAR 4-,I I 1-21-0 A)
All material is guaranteed to be as specified, and the above work to be performed in accordance with the drawings
and specifications submitted for above work and completed in a substantial workmanlike manner for the sum of
Dollars ($ ).
with payments to be made as follows:
Any alteration or deviation from above specifications involving Respectfully submittedVifOt-
extra
e
on
costs, will executedhrgonly pab writtenhorders, and t f / /
will become an extra charge over and above the estimate. All /
! ! Cfi� 44
agreements contingent upon strikes,accidents or delays beyond PerAt .
our control. Owner to carry fire, tornado and other necessary
insurance upon above work. Workmen's Compensation and Note his is may be withdrawn
Public Liability Insurance on above work to be taken out by
by us if not accepted within days
ACCEPTANCE OF PROPOSAL
The above prices, specifications and conditions are satisfactory and are hereby accepted. You are authorized to do the work as
specified. Payment will be made as outlined above.
Signature
Date .. ! " Signature
IFs�
TOPS FORM NO. 3750 LITHO IN U.S.A.
I
r - q
AGENDA REQUEST FORM
E3316.,
ITEM NO.
NAME: James Bell
DEPARTMENT: Park and Recreation
DATE: July 8. 1985
MEETING DATE: July 15, 1985
CATEGORY: New Business
SUBJECT: Parking Lot - Arena
EXPLANATION: I would like to put in curb and sidewalk around the
arena parking lot, then budget for fill and paving
in 1986.
REFERENCE MATERIALS/RESPONSIBILITY: See attached plan.
REFERRED TO: (NAME). . DEPARTMENT:
Jim Bell Park and Recreation
Larry Thompson Administration
SIGNATURE
MEMO TO: LARRY THOMPSON
SUBJECT: PARKING LOT - ARENA
DATE: JULY 10, 1985
In the 1985 Budget, we set aside $6,000 for the Arena parking lot.
I would like to spend this money on curb and sidewalk (see plan) .
The gravel, electrical and paving could be done in 1986. We
• cpuld possibly only pave it this year, but in my opinion, to do it
right would mean to curb and light it also. The lot needs to be
expanded a little to make it better for traffic flow.
I have two quotes for the curbing, which I have attached. We could
spend another $1,500 to complete the sidewalk on the north side of
the lot and the east side of the arena, but we will budget for these
improvements later.
James Bell
Park and Recreation Director
JB/mh
/ 1
ABB CEMENT CONSTRUCTION, INC. 44tA , gy
on, (507) 645-5979
) (612)463-8473
��a •• • ROUTE 2, NORTHFIELD, MN 55057
it-61-1141.1.4. JAI) kiL*4..et &La,
To •L. h
3 00 . .fir
Li) 41/ b_iy
"77 _Zc — 51/8'0 °
7;J- 7/v20
r------- PROPOSAL
Proposal No. 1
L. W. T. Cement Const. , Inc.
16942 Pilot Knob Road
Farmington, Minn. 55024 j
Sheet No. 1
463-4383 I Date 4-1-85
Proposal Submitted To Work To Be Performed At
Farmington Ice Arena
Name City of FarmingtonStreet Farmington Swimming Pool
Street J City Farmington State Mlnn•
City _Farmington, Minn. Date of Plans
State Architect
Telephone Number
We hereby propose to furnish the materials and perform the labor necessary for the completion of
Labor and material as follows:
Knock out and haul away sections of -concrete between the pool and the
outside section of concrete $1. 32 per sq. ft. Diving board stands etc.
to be removed and replaced by some one else. If any wiring, grounding of
diving board etc. it has to be done by some one else. I will not be
responsible if concrete slabs to be knocked out are joined with slabs not
to be knocked- out, with re-rods that could cause crack of other slabs
while being knocked out. Not responsible for other slabs if they settle
or crack because they are held up by other slabs and don' t have enough
fill under them.
Furnish, pour and finish concreteand sand fill, furnish and install sand
fill and concrete for $1. 95 sq. ft.
We are not responsible for damage to sod when we back trucks up to the
gates of the pool to bring in and haul away material.
Labor and material as follows for Hockey Rink Curbing & Parking Lot:
560 ft. of 6" wide-and 12" deep straight curb edged. $2,660. 00
If re-rods wanted add 350 -per lineal ft. of rod. Sand fill extra if needec
All material is guaranteed to be as specified, and the above work to be performed in accordance with the drawings
and specifications submitted for above work and completed in a substantial workmanlike manner for the sum of
Dollars ($ 1.
with payments to be made as follows:
Any alteration or deviation from above specifications involving Respectfully submitted_''' W. T. Cement Const. , Inc.
extra costs, will he executed only upon written orders, and ` l
will become an extra charge over and above the estimate. All ' A
agreements contingent upon strikes,accidents or delays beyond Per — ,Q: —
our control. Owner to carry fire, tornado and other necessary /
insurance upon above work. Workmen's Compensation and Note—This proposal may be withdrawn
Public Liability Insurance on above work to be taken out by
L. W. T. Cement Const. , Inc. by us if not accepted within days
ACCEPTANCE OF PROPOSAL
The above. prices, specifications and conditions are satisfactory and are hereby accepted. You are authorized to do the work as
specified. Payment will be made as outlined above.
Signature -------
Date _.___ ---_-._ Signature _ --
{
TOPS FORM NO. 3750 LITHO IN U.S.A.
ieAGENDA REQUEST FORM
ITEM NO.
•
NAME: Stan V. Whittingham
DEPARTMENT: Police
DATE: July 9, 1985
MEETING DATE: July 15, 1985
CATEGORY: New Business
SUBJECT: Discuss Impact of F.L.S. Act on City Operations
EXPLANATION: 28 day work period for Police Department
REFERENCE MATERIALS/RESPONSIBILITY: Memo
REFERRED TO: (NAME) . DEPARTMENT:
Larry Thompson Administration
� E
SIGNATURE
1
MEMO TO: MAYOR AND COUNCIL
SUBJECT: F.L.S.A. - IMPACT ON CITY EMPLOYEES
DATE: JULY 11, 1985
Attached, please find various correspondence relating to the Supreme Court
ruling of Garcia vs. San Antonio Municipal Transit Authority and its impact
on cities. The ruling basically states that state and local agencies are
no longer exempt from the Fair Labor Standards Act.
The impact to the City is as follows:
1. Any work in excess of 40 hours per 7 day work week shall be treated
as overtime and the employee paid at 1} times the normal salary.
No comp time is allowed. Exceptions to this rule which affect
Farmington are Executive employees (Department Heads) which can be
paid comp time and police officers which are allowed to work 171
hours in a 28 day work period. Based on this, the decision has little
impact on Farmington. The City already pays overtime in excess of •
40 hours per week for employees not defined as "executive". The
Police Department presently operates on a 160 hour/28 day schedule.
The only action recommended would be that the Council officially
acknowledge that the Police Department operates on a 28 day work
period.
2. The act states that individuals engaged in fire protection on a volunteer
basis will be treated as employees for purposes of F.L.S.A. if they are
paid more than a normal amount (more than $2.50 per call) . Therefore
the time spent by City employees working as volunteer firemen outside
of normal working hours must be treated as overtime unless time is
taken off during the work period. This does not present a problem
with police personnel as outlined in Stan Whittingham's memo. The
longer work period allows greater flexibility, and the F.L.S.A. allows
an 11 hour "cushion" each work period. A problem does occur with the
General Services employees, who would have to take off equal time
during the 7 day work period if the City is to avoid paying overtime.
The options available to the City are as follows:
1. No change. Pay overtime as it accrues.
2. Prohibit City employees from responding to fires outside of normal
hours, unless it can be reasonably expected that time can be taken off.
3. Prohibit City employees from serving as firefighters.
4. Prohibit the hiring of City employees as firefighters.
Obviously each course of action has its drawbacks. Based on the City's
experience between April 15, 1985 and the present, the City could expect to
pay between $1,000 - $1,500 in extra salaries. The major problem exists
with the creation of a two tier salary schedule within the Fire Department.
One could argue that it was not the City which created the situation, and
that a "quasi" two tier schedule presently exists, whereby some firefighters
are paid their regular wages in addition to the firefighters salary when re-
sponding to fires during normal work hours, and others do not.
The prohibition of city employees responding to fires outside of working hours
presents a problem because two employees are captains and are in charge of
certain aspects of fire fighting. Also, the present by-laws require fire-
fighters to respond to at least 20% of the fires and 50% of the training
meetings. Conversely, taking time off during the week also presents problems
because of the limited amount of manpower in the General Services Department.
Prohibiting city employees from serving as firefighters would be ignoring
the fact that the employees have served several years as firefighters, and
are not too far away from being fully vested in the pension.
The prohibition of hiring city employees as firefighters would mean the loss
of a potential group of employees available during the day. Presently, this
is the hardest time to staff the Fire Department because of work schedules.
Based on my discussions with the Fire Chief and affected employees, I would
recommend that a modification of options 1 and 2 be adopted. I feel that
the General Services Superintendent should monitor the overtime very closely,
and try to to limit the amount of overtime as much as possible. I do not
feel that the City employees who presently serve as firefighters should be
removed because of the years of service and closeness to vesting. I would
recommend, however, that no additional City employees be appointed as firemen
unless the statutes are amended to accomodate this situation.
I have contacted Congressman Frenzel's office and was informed that a Bill
is being introduced which will address the problems created by the "Garcia"
decision.
"7/e
Larry Thompson
City Administrator
LT/mh
cc: File
Dave Pietsch
Jerry Bauer
Stan Whittingham
Wayne Henneke
MEMO TO: LARRY THOMPSON, CITY ADMINISTRATOR
SUBJECT: IMPACT OF FAIR LABOR STANDARDS ACT ON CITY OPERATIONS
DATE: JULY 11, 1985
Pursuant to the February 19, 1985 Supreme Court ruling of Garcia vs. San
Antonio Municipal Transit Authority, state and local agencies are not
exempt from the Fair Labor Standard act. The F.L.S.A. does exempt "bona
fide" executives, administrative, professional and seasonal employees.
This exemption exempts the Administrator, Department Heads and seasonal
pool and arena employees from the Act.
The City is in compliance with the Act except in the payment of City
employees who are also firefighters.
Presently, the pay received for firefighting has been paid separately from
the employee's regular pay. For example, an employee works 80 hours at
$10.00 per hour plus he responds to a two hour fire call at $4.38 per hour
during the pay period. The employee's gross pay for that pay period would
be $800. The $8.76 for firefighting would be accumulated throughout the
year and be paid at year end.
The F.L.S.A. requires the City to pay overtime to an employee for any hours
worked over 40 hours per week, even though the additional hours were spent
fighting fires. The overtime rate for firefighting is based on an average
of the employee's regular rate of pay and the pay he receives as a firefighter.
Going back to the example of an employee working 80 hours at $10.00 per hour
plus firefighting for 2 hours at $4.38 per hour, this employee must receive
gross pay of $800 for the pay period and $21.58 for firefighting. Compliance
is retroactive until April 15, 1985. The F.L.S.A. has added $533.59 to our
firefighting costs to date.
GJaruz it.
WaynefE. Henneke
Finance Director
WEH/mh
cc: file
Rosemary
MEMO TO : Mayor and Council
THRU : Larry Thompson , City Administrator
SUBJECT: 28 Day Work Period for Police Department
DATE: July 9 , 1985
On February 19 , 1985 , the US Supreme Court in a case called Garcia
vs . SanAntonio Municipal Transit Authority overruled a case
involving the National League of Cities vs . Usery, which in short
states , a local government is not exempt from the Fair Labor Standards
Act.
The effects of this decision does not adversely affect the Farmington
Police Department in complying with the Fair Labor Standards Act,
relating to fire and police personnel .
The two areas affecting the police department are 1 ) the work period
and 2) employees in dual municipal roles .
Since 1976 , the police department has operated on a 28 day work period
in which an officer works a rotation schedule of 160 hours in a 28 day
period . Overtime is calculated at anything over 160 hours and paid on
the second pay check of each 4 week pay period . The police department
is complying with the Fair Labor Standards Act regarding the 28 day
work period. I believe that it would be in the best interest of the
city, that the Council acknowledge that the police department publicly
is on a 28 day work period .
The second issue, which I believe should be addressed is that of full
time employees functioning as volunteer firemen also. It would appear
that one of my full-time officers , who is also a volunteer fireman,
when called to a fire off-duty would be paid as time and a half, his
rate as a full-time police officer, instead of a volunteer fireman' s
rate. I believe that there are three full-time city personnel that
fall into this category.
One alternative that might be of consideration for the police officer
who is also a volunteer fireman, is to allow the department head to
authorize comp time for that employee during the 28 day work period
to take the time off when that officer is responding as a fireman ,
off-duty to a fire. This would reduce the overtime liability as well
as allowing the officer to accrue his time towards his pension benefit.
Memo : Mayor and Council
July 9 , 1985 Page 2
The city should also look at a policy as to whether or not city
employees should be hired as volunteer fire personnel regardless
what department they work for.
Respectfully submitted
4AP!5;ed;e;
Slam V. Whittingham,
Chief of Police
SVW/mw