Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2001 04-23 City Council Manager Workshop Packetx +, r r r� t � CITY COUNCIL/MANAGER WORKSHOP Monday, April 23, 2001 Council Chambers, City Hall 6:00 p.m. AGENDA A. CALL TO ORDER B. ROLL CALL C. APPROVAL OF AGENDA D. NEW BUSINESS 1. Joy Park 2. Advisory Board Appointment Process E. FUTURE TOPICS 1. 2. F. ADJOURNMENT AGENDA ITEM N....O TO: FROM: SUBJECT: DATE: Introduction Richard Fursmo, City J , n ., t ,a 911 s and Recreation Joy Park April 17, 2001, for April 23, 2001, City Council Meeting Action by Council Date Endorsed Modified Rejected J The North St. Paul City Council adopted a resolution on April 4 requesting the City of Maplewood annex Joy Park to their city. Joy Park is a 61 -acre park located at Joy Road and Century Avenue that was transferred to the city in 1996 by Ramsey County. The City of Maplewood has maintained the site since that time and has done minimal improvements, including buckthorn removal, new signage and standard building and shelter repairs. Background The Maplewood Parks and Recreation Commission has been studying the issue of Joy Park for the past three months on a fairly intense level, and informally been discussing it for over a year. Joy Park, arguably, has the potential to be the finest park within the Maplewood park system. The site is 61 acres in size and includes over a half mile of lake shore on Silver Lake. Joy Park has the only city -owned public boat launch and the potential for developing a public swimming beach. I have included a variety of memorandums, that I have prepared and forwarded to the park and recreation commission, for your edification. The parks and recreation commission met on Monday, April 16 and made two motions for city council consideration. The first motion was to strongly deny the request from North St. Paul for annexation of Joy Park. This motion passed unanimously and the commission feels strongly that annexation would not meet the best needs of the Maplewood residents as we would loose control of future development and any future operations. The second motion was to recommend the city council forward a letter to the City of North St. Paul requesting they submit a proposal, which would address the 18 issues in the April 13 staff memo prior to.the city considering leasing Joy Park to North St. Paul. MEMO It is the position of the parks and recreation commission and staff that it would be advantageous for both cities for North St. Paul to submit a specific proposal as to how Joy Park 2 April 17, 2001 they would develop the site and what their future intentions are in some detail. The park commission has identified 18 issues and there may well be others that the city council and /or yourself would like to have addressed by North St. Paul as well. The final disposition of Joy Park is a primary goal of the parks and recreation commission in the year 2000. It is their contention that this goal can best be met by allowing North St. Paul an opportunity to submit a proposal to Maplewood as to how they would develop and maintain and operate Joy Park to insure that it is in the best interest of the City of Maplewood. Recommendation Staff recommends that City Manager Fursman draft a letter to the City of North St. Paul indicating that annexation of Joy Park is not an option the City of Maplewood would consider at this time; and furthermore, that the City of Maplewood would request a proposal from North St. Paul that would address the 18 issues as identified, and that Maplewood would support a lease agreement. �►ty c) TH ST. PAUL April 4, 2001 Mr. Richard Fursman, City Manager City of Maplewood 1830 E. County Road B Maplewood, MN 55109 -2702 Dear Richard, 2 ea S C'ventb Avenue North S ai nt Paid Minne S 109 Recently, Joy Park has become a mutual topic of discussion in both our communities. The genesis of the discussion goes way back before our time in office, but, since our park and recreation commissions met jointly last summer, discussions of what to do with the park have intensified. In fact, the park was a primary topic at our joint council meeting last month. Despite everyone's best intentions to resolve park related issues, no conclusions were reached. Unfortunately, park issues remain again, on dead center. Our City Council strongly desires to move discussion of this issue forward. We also wish to do it in a fashion that is respectful to the City of Maplewood and sensitive to the needs of all park users. Therefore, on the recommendation of its Park and Recreation Commission, the North Saint Paul City Council adopted the enclosed resolution. It expresses the City's desire to acquire and annex Joy Park into the City of North Saint Paul. At the core of our reasons is popular public sentiment that the park is located in North Saint Paul. Secondly, the close proximity of our City's resources may better serve the park. The council has authorized me to send this letter in hopes of meeting to discuss the possibility of such a resolution. We know there are other possible solutions, but this is the one our City is most inclined to pursue. We are open and willing to accommodate your thoughts and concerns relative to taking the next steps. Thank you for your consideration. I look forward to your call. Sincerely, a 1 � / � r Walter T. Wysopal City Manager Enclosure cc: Mayor and Council Your bo inet()ltw . . . wltb a f 11M IT 1' ('rITLlt c1S ltS IMS1. Resolution No. 01- RESOLUTION DECLARING INTEREST IN THE ACQUISITION AND ANNEXATION OF JOY PARK WHEREAS, the City of North Saint Paul is a duly formed unit of local government in the State of Minnesota located in the County of Ramsey; and WHEREAS, Joy Park is a municipal park owned, operated and located in the City of Maplewood, Minnesota, County of Ramsey; and WHEREAS, Joy Park is tangential to the City of North Saint Paul but commonly perceived by the public as being located within the City of North Saint Paul; and WHEREAS, three - quarters of Silver Lake shoreline are located in the City of North Saint Paul; and WHEREAS, Joy Park could benefit by improved maintenance and policing through the close proximity of the North Saint Paul Public Works and Police Departments; and WHEREAS, the City of North Saint Paul Park and Recreation Commission has recommended to the North Saint Paul City Council to acquire and annex Joy Park to the City of North Saint Paul. NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of North Saint Paul that it directs the City Manager to enter into negotiations with the appropriate officials from the City of Maplewood to acquire and annex the property commonly known as Joy Park. Adopted this 2 nd day of April 2001, on a motion from Council member Kuehn and seconded by Council member Lillie. Voting; All yes, J 9 5 Mayor Attest: City Manager MEMORANDUM 1 TO: Maplewood Parks an ecr ation C minis io FROM: Bruce K. Anderson Director s and ecreation DATE: April 12, 2001 for the A , 20p; Pa, k and Recreation Commission Meeting SUBJECT: Joy Park I INTRODUCTION The Maplewood City Council held a joint meeting with the North St. Paul City Council in March and the subject of Joy Park was formally discussed. The North St. Paul City Council requested that the City of Maplewood consider leasing, annexing or permitting the City of North St. Paul to have greater involvement in the future development of Joy Park. The . Parks and Recreation Commission reviewed this issue at their regularly scheduled March meeting. Enclosed is a formal resolution dated April 4 from the North St. Paul City Council requesting that Joy Park be formally annexed to the City of North St. Paul. BACKGROUND Joy Park is a 61 -acre site that was deeded to the City of Maplewood five years ago from Ramsey County. Joy Park served as a regional facility for years, but did not meet the criteria of a large county system. For six years the city has maintained the site, but has only done minimal improvements including buckthorn removal, signage and painting, as well as the standard park repairs. The commission reviewed this issue at some length at their March meeting and identified 18 issues that need to be resolved and /or discussed. The issues are as follows: 1. Joy Park is in effect two parks in one. The south side of the park is more active with the developed shoreline of Silver Lake including two parking lots, boat launch, restroom facilities and three picnic shelters. The north side of Joy Park has been identified as a neighborhood park preserve and consists of 2/3 or 40 acres of the 61 -acre site. The discussion point is: Does the City of North St. Paul desire "control" of both sides of Joy Road or are they strictly interested in the southern, more active lake property? 2. Formal development plans need to be prepared so that both communities have an understanding of what the future may hold. Proposed issues and questions that need to be discussed within the plan include but are not limited to: picnic facilities (including a large, regional shelter), swimming beach, trail system, restrooms, clearing of under story, disc golf, playground equipment and fishing pier. A preliminary plan needs to be prepared; the question is who should prepare it, who should fund it and what the process for community involvement should be. 3. Is it feasible to relocate Joy Road to the north to create a larger park environment. The second option would be for Joy Road to be a cul -de -sac so that it would not be a through street. 4. We need to improve Joy Park site lines for police surveillance and general safety throughout the park. A vegetation plan needs to be developed to identify trees that need to be removed, thinned out and /or buckthorn removal 5. In conjunction with the development plans, development costs and an implementation process needs to be identified. Included in this item are specific funding plans, who would be responsible for what and a time period be for developing the site. 6. The question of policing and maintenance of the site was raised. Should the City of North St. Paul and /or cooperative joint policy agreements be arranged, who would be responsible for policing. The question was raised whether the City of North St, Paul has adequate staff levels to maintain and police the site should it serve a larger regional population. 7. If the city were to enter into some type of lease, annexation or deeding of Joy Park to the City of North St. Paul, the question of access to Maplewood residents was raised. This is a significant issue to Maplewood and is a potential "deal breaker." The City of Maplewood has taken a position that if equal accessibility to the site were not a part of the "deal ", Maplewood would not continue with further discussions. Specific issues regarding access would include fee structures, picnic rentals, reservations, parking, etc. 8. The City of Maplewood desires to approve future development project for the park. The question of how much review process is necessary for Maplewood was raised. The issues of reviewing development included was not limited to types of amenities, costs, years of funding and possibly construction oversight. 9. Joy Park is a key link for the Maplewood trail system. Joy Park is an intergral part of the Lake Links Trail project and an internal trail system around Silver Lake need to be incorporated as part of our discussion. The major part of this discussion needs to be who will fund the trail corridors and be responsible for the maintenance. 10. The issue of water quality was raised, particularly as it relates to lake elevation. The City of Maplewood currently is responsible for contacting the state to control the elevation of the water when it gets too high and could potentially cause flooding. The majority of homes affected by water levels are in North St. Paul. It is logical for this responsibility to be turned over to the City of North St. Paul, regardless of the ownership of Joy Park. 11. The issue of how the arrangement for developing Joy Park needs to be resolved. Would it be a lease agreement, annexation, outright sale, etc.? Preliminary discussions from Ramsey County indicate that as long as the site remains as a public park, there involvement would be minimal. 12. The issue of safety (or perception) is significant at Joy Park. Security lighting throughout the park, trail system, parking lot and picnic facilities needs to be addressed. 13. There currently is a state funded boat launch at Joy Park. Issues of whether it should be expanded and /or redeveloped and does additional parking question need to be addressed. 14. What community input needs to be garnered for this process? Will there be a joint meeting between North St. Paul and Maplewood residents? Would it be handled at the Council level? How much input would the abutting neighbors have as compared to residents in southern Maplewood? 15. The issue of liability and insurance was raised, particularly as it relates to a lease agreement. At some point in time, legal involvement would have to be incorporated to draft an agreement to resolve this issue. 16. Specific time tables need to be identified to determine when the project would take place, what the funding cycle would be and who would be responsible for adherence to the identified time schedule. 17. Signage for the site would be significant. Questions were raised as to Maplewood's name identification on the signage given the fact that the park site is located within Maplewood's boundaries. 18. If the lease agreement were to be the direction pursued by the City of Maplewood, specific language would need to be identified regarding a review system to ensure that the City of North St, Paul were adhering to the agreed upon issues. Staff recommends that the Parks and Recreation Commission begins to address these issues in a logical, timely manner. The Maplewood City Council has requested that the Commission provide a recommendation to the North St. Paul resolution requesting annexation. Staff recommends that the city should pursue a lease arrangement rather than annexation. _ believe that annexation would not be an appropriate avenue to follow, as it would limit the city's involvement, control and oversight. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Commission make a specific recommendation regarding annexation and begin to address the 18 issues as well as define additional issues prior to the final recommendation. It is my hope that this issue can be resolved and a final recommendation provided to the Maplewood City Council by July 1, 2001. kdl oypark2.mern Enclosure MEMORANDU TO: Parks and Recreation Co r sto FROM: Bruce K. Anderson, Director DATE: March 12, 2001 for the March$, Meeting � SUBJECT: Joy Park INTRODUCTION Recreation rks and Recreation Commission Ramsey County deeded Joy Park to the City of Maplewood in 1994. The 61 -acre park site is located on the north shore of Silver Lake at the intersection of Joy Road and Century Avenue. Joy Park was a county facility which did not meet their criteria for size and regional significance. The city has been maintaining the site since 1994. We have not done any physical improvements other than some minor trail restoration and minimal buckthorn removal. BACKGROUND Joy Park has a long and varied history with the Maplewood Parks and Recreation Department. From approximately 1965 through 1985, Joy Park served as the host site for Camp Silver Maple. Camp Silver Maple was a day camp program, which was one of the most popular programs offered by the Maplewood Parks and Recreation Department. Joy Park was a county facility until it was deeded to Maplewood in 1994 along with six other county park sites. The site is 61 -acres in size and has two open -air picnic shelters, two parking lots, two restroom facilities and a public boat launch. Park usage has declined greatly in the past ten years due to minimal development and inappropriate conduct. The North St. Paul City Council has formally requested the City of Maplewood to consider deeding, leasing or annexing Joy Park to the City of North St. Paul. The City of North St. Paul has indicated that this is a high priority for their community and it would be their intent to develop the site with picnic facilities, trail corridors and possibly a swimming beach. The Maplewood City Council has referred this issue to the Parks and Recreation Commission for your consideration and com ments. My recommendation is that the City of Maplewood enter into a long -term lease of Joy Park to the City of North St. Paul. The lease agreement would be for a 99 -year period and be for $1 each year. I believe that a lease agreement will provide the city with greater control and allow the city to stipulate specific agreements within the lease that would require the property to revert to the City of Maplewood should it be inappropriately developed, managed and /or if issues change in the future. Specific rational for my recommendation are as follows: 1. The preliminary development cost for Joy Park was projected at $1.6 million. The city currently does not have adequate funds to develop and /or restore existing Maplewood Joy Park Page 2 March 12, 2001 parks. Should money become available, I believe that this would be a low priority and would not be funded within the next five years. 2. The location of Joy Park in the northeast corner of Maplewood provides a stronger physical relationship to North St. Paul than to the City of Maplewood. The majority of residents served by Joy Park are from the east including Oakdale, White Bear Lake and North St. Paul. 3. The site currently provides the city with significant policing challenges. The Maplewood police department has done an outstanding job in managing this issue. There are staff concerns that North St. Paul may not have the resources to patrol the park at its current level. On the positive side, development of the site will bring increased usage, which in turn will provide an improved environment. - 4. The lease agreement would be drafted to provide Maplewood residents equal opportunity to use the park and require Maplewood to review development plans over $25,000. 5. Maintenance costs currently average $12,000- $15,000 a year for maintaining Joy Park. These costs would be transferred to the City of North St. Paul and provide an opportunity for additional staff and resources for other Maplewood park priorities. 6. The Joy Park regional trail corridor would become North St. Paul's responsibility, which would reduce future city costs for the Lake Links trail system. 7. The City of North St. Paul has expressed a strong interest and I believe they are in a better position with capital dollars to develop the park as a high priority as contrasted with Maplewood. 8. Ramsey County park staff does not foresee any concern with Maplewood leasing the park property. Staff recognizes that there is a great deal of history to Joy Park and that leasing the site may cause some concerns from Maplewood residents. I believe the benefits of North St. Paul controlling, maintaining and developing Joy Park with equal access for Maplewood residents is a logical and defensible position. I look forward to discussing this issue at the March Commission meeting. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the City Council direct the city attorney and staff to draft a lease agreement with the City of North St. Paul for a period of 99 years for the operation, development and control of Joy Park effective 01- 01 -02. kd \joypark. mem V - Parks, Open Space, and Trail System Plan Name: joy, Park Neighborhood: Maplewood Heights Park Statistics Classification: Community Park Location: 2615 joy Road Approximate Size: 41 Acres Basis for Park Need /Primary Program Focus The park services community park needs for the surrounding neighborhood and the larger community. The primary focus of the park is: ► Providing community recreation facilities focused on non - structured individual and family activities. ► Creating a community social center and gathering place. ► Open space for passive recreational activities. Interrelationship with Other Parks Although joy Park augments the neighborhood park offerings in this area, it also serves the broader community. The park's setting adjacent to the lake and extensive natural character will draw people from throughout the community. In conjunction with Neighborhood Preserve #3, joy Park has the potential to be one of the most important and appealing community park settings in the city. Park Features /Amenities As an older park, most of the current infrastructure is at or near the end of its effective lifecycle. As illustrated by the aerial photograph, current features of the park include: 1) Parking lot for 20 to 30 cars 2) Picnic area 3) Small group shelter 4) Parking lot for 10 to 20 cars 5) Boat launch with limited parking 6) Small group picnic shelter 7) Restroom building (pit toilets) 8) Restroom building (pit toilets) Visual Characteristics Visually, the park is very natural in character and exhibits plant communities ranging from wetlands to oak woods. Coupled with the varying topography, the site is one of the most interesting and pleasant within the park system. Although the current development is eclectic and tends to fragment the site, its overall potential for servicing community park needs is very high, especially if it is developed in concert with the neighborhood preserve site across joy Road. Trail Access Trail access from the neighborhood is very limited. Future connection to the park trail corridor to the north via the neighborhood preserve would make this site much more accessible at the pedestrian level. Developing an internal trail loop should also be high on the future development list. Ecological /Natural Resource Issues With the majority of the park in a natural state, ecological issues are of paramount importance. Due to the lack of active management, the quality of many of the resources is degrading. Buckthorn invasions are a particular concern in the woodlots. Management of the natural areas should be included in the city -wide program for restoration and management. Given the current conditions, this should be a priority restoration site. Development Program With most of the current facilities old and in need of replacement, upgrading of the park will be necessary in the next five or so years. This should be done in a comprehensive fashion whereby the important natural attributes of the park can be better utilized. The redesign of the park should focus on tying the individual use areas of the park all together into a cohesive whole. Potential future development considerations include: i ► Loop trail system that serves to tie the park use areas together and provide an important passive recreational activity that is now lacking in the park. ► Evaluation of parking needs relative to extent of use for programmed activities. ► Small and larger group picnic facilities. ► Active recreational facilities to support picnic facilities, such as volleyball courts, horseshoes, and half - basketball court. ► Children's play area ► Restrooms oil General amenities enhancements (i.e., benches, picnic tables, grills, bike rack, drinking fountain, etc.) ► Boat launch and parking Maplewood Parks, Open Space, and Trail System Plan 5.58 ar s, Open Space, and Trail S Plan 'VJI -16 16— L * VI Air ilk -NA joL- 4e' vs Aw � i� �' � �: err'' vt Maplewood Parks, Open Space, and Trail S Plan 5.59 LAND _ USE PLANNING AND DESIGN 10417 Excelsior Blvd. Suite Number One Hopkins, MN 55343 Tel (952) 238 -0831 Fax (952) 238 -0833 September 22, 2000 City of Maplewood Parks and Recreation Department 1830 East County Road B Maplewood, MN 55109 ATTN: Mr. Bruce Anderson, Director of Parks and Recreation RE: Professional Services Proposal - Joy Park Planning Services B &A #2000 - 012 This letter proposal outlines a scope of services, fee schedule, and other elements which, if approved, constitutes an Agreement between the City of Maplewood , herein referred to as the OWNER, and Brauer and Associates, Ltd., herein referred to as the CONSULTANT. The OWNER hereby retains the CONSULTANT to provide professional recreational planning services required to complete a master plan for park and recreation improvements, for Joy Park in the City of Maplewood, hereinafter referred to as the PROJECT. The CONSULTANT'S services shall include normal recreational planning services as follows: _ A. SCOPE OF SERVICES - Recreational Planning . 1. Project Focus Meeting This focus meeting will concentrate on the issues and needs surrounding the planning of Joy Park. This meeting will involve staff. Anticipated Work Tasks: 0 Meeting staff and others to finalize the scope of the project, discuss the planning process, and establish a final project schedule. • Determine the extent of the information available about the site. • Preliminary assessment of issues surrounding the project. Anticipated Task Product: A brief letter report confirming the scope of the project, the planning process, project schedule, and a preliminary outline of pertinent issues. 2. Preparation of Existing Conditions Base Plan Prepare an existing conditions base plan, from information supplied by the Owner, for use as a base for the design process. This base plan shall be prepared in AutoCAD format. Anticipated Work Tasks: • Collection of data and mapping available from the Owner and other agencies. • Field inspection of site to visually confirm the information supplied and mapping produced. • Preparation of base drawing to be used though the planning portion of the project. Anticipated Task Product: City of Maplewood, MN. Brauer and Associates, Ltd. Joy Park Proposal Page 1 of 4 Project # 2000 - 012 • A base plan illustrating conditions existing within the planning area shall be completed. (This base plan shall be available to the Owner in digital format). 3. Preparation of Alternate Concepts Using the adopted program and site information, the Brauer team will prepare alternative schematic concepts for redevelopment of the Joy Park. The schematics will essentially turn the development program into a variety _ of physical relationships. Anticipated Work Tasks: • Preparation by the Brauer team of three alternative concepts that explore various design solutions. • Preparation of rough costs estimates for each concept to illustrate a range of costs associated with their development. • Review meeting with staff to determine which alternative (or combination thereof) best represents their desires for the proposed site. Resultant from this meeting will be an adopted concept plan derived from one or a combination of several of the alternative concepts. Anticipated Task Product: Graphics that describe the alternative concepts and construction cost estimates. 4. Preparation of Master Plan Task Overview: Using the adopted concept plan, the Brauer team will prepare a master plan (preferred plan) for the development area. The master plan will represent the design solution that best responds to the needs and desires of the city while remaining within the their ability to fund the project. Anticipated Work Tasks: • Review and analysis of previous findings. • Preparation of a draft master plan. This refines the accepted concept plan by clearly illustrating the relationship of each use, activity area, and facilities /site amenities. • Review meeting(s) with the selected groups and city staff. • Preparation of a final master plan based upon accepted draft master plan. Anticipated Task Product: Master plan graphics and supportive text. Product The final product of this master planning study shall be one rendered and mounted display sized copy of the final master plan and related graphics suitable for display. 5. Formal Meetings anticipated for completion of this project. • 2 meetings with the City Park Board. • 1 meeting with citizens from the neighborhood. • 1 council meeting. B. SCOPE OF SERVICES - Additional Services 1. Services beyond the scope outlined above that are specifically requested and authorized in writing by the owner. C. FEES FOR PROFESSIONAL SERVICES The OWNER shall compensate the CONSULTANT for completion of professional services described above as follows: 1. For the services listed in Scope of Services paragraph A.l through A.5. above, a lump sum fee of $8,500.00, (Eight Thousand Five Hundred Dollars). Expenses shall be billed in addition to this fee at cost x 1.1. 2. For the services listed in Scope of Services paragraphs B 1. above, an hourly fee shall be charged based upon the rate schedule below. Expenses shall be billed in addition to this fee at cost x 1.1. City of Maplewood, MN. Brauer and Associates, Ltd. Joy, Park Proposal Page 2 of 4 Project # 2000 - 012 Brauer and Associates, Ltd. 2000 Hourly Rate Schedule L.A. Professional III (Principal) ................... $85.00 / Hour L.A. Professional II ............................. $52.00 / Hour Senior Technician .............................. $45.00 / Hour C.E. Professional ............................... $100.00 / Hour Ecologist (Principal) ........................... $137.50 /Hour Clerical ....... ............................... $30.00 / Hour 3. For the services listed in Scope of Services paragraphs B 4, above, a fee of 2.5 percent of the cost to construct the improvements. Expenses shall be billed in addition to this fee at cost x 1.1. D. PAYMENTS TO THE CONSULTANT 1. Invoices for Scope of Services will be submitted to the OWNER on a monthly basis in proportion to the work completed. The following schedule of payment shall be applied: 2. Payments on account of the CONSULTANT'S services are due and payable upon receipt of CONSULTANT'S invoice. E. OWNER'S RESPONSIBILITY 1. Full program coordination with one individual representing the OWNER'S interests 2. Legal Counsel, advice, and services available to the CONSULTANT during the term of this Agreement on any or all matters related to the PROJECT such as, but not limited to, title opinions, interpretations of agreements, covenants and laws affecting the PROJECT, advice and assistance in processing applications, review and preparation of PROJECT agreement documents, participation in presentations to public agency staff and boards and general counsel on the legal implications of all substantive or procedural aspects of the PROJECT itself. 3. Providing the CONSULTANT with an accurate base map illustrating all property lines, property corners, easements, rights of way and other legal issues, existing utilities, vegetation, pavement, curbing, and other surface materials. This survey should also include 1 foot contour elevations and spot grades, as well as a permanent bench mark. This base map shall be provided to the consultant in AutoCadd R14 or compatible format. 4. Providing all soils engineering/borings and engineering geotechnical testing required for the project. 5. All fees and expenses involved in federal, state agency or local permitting, plan review, etc. for the project. F. NONDISCRIMINATION The CONSULTANT will not discriminate against any employee or applicant for employment because of race, color, religion, sex, national origin, physical condition or age. The CONSULTANT will take affirmative action to insure that applicants are employed and that employees are treated during employment without regard to their race, color, religion, sex, national origin, physical condition or age. Such action shall include but not be limited to the following: Employment, upgrading, demotion or transfer, recruitment, advertising, layoff or termination, rates of pay or other forms .of compensation and selection for training including apprenticeship. G. CONSULTANT'S RECORDS, DOCUMENTS AND INSURANCE 1. The CONSULTANT shall maintain time records for hourly fees, design calculations and research notes in legible form and these will be made available to the OWNER, if requested. 2. The CONSULTANT shall carry insurance to protect him from claims under Workman's Compensation Acts; from claims for damages because of bodily injury including death to his employees and the public, and from claims for property damage. 3. The CONSULTANT reserves the right to secure and maintain statutory copyright in all published books, City of Maplewood, MN. Brauer and Associates, Ltd. Joy Park Proposal Page 3 of 4 Project # 2000 - 012 published or unpublished drawings of a scientific or technical character, and other works related to this PROJECT in which copyright may be claimed. The OWNER shall have full rights to reproduce works under this Agreement either in whole or in part as related to this PROJECT. One copy of each drawing shall be provided in reproducible form for use by the OWNER, but the original drawings will remain the property of the CONSULTANT. H. TERM, TERMINATION, SUCCESSORS AND ASSIGNS 1. The term of the Agreement shall be concurrent with the work authorized. 2. Termination may be accomplished by either party at any time by written notice, and shall be effective upon payment in full for all services performed to the date of receipt of such notice. 3. The OWNER and the CONSULTANT each binds itself, its partners, successors, assigns and legal representatives to the other party of this Agreement, and to the partners, successors, assigns and legal representatives of such other party with respect to all covenants of this Agreement. 4. Neither the OWNER nor the- CONSULTANT shall assign, sublet or transfer his interest -in this Agreement without the written consent of the other. I. EXTENT OF AGREEMENT AND APPLICABLE LAW This Agreement represents the entire and integrated Agreement between the OWNER and the CONSULTANT and supersedes all prior negotiations, representations, or Agreements, whether written or oral, with respect to the PROJECT. This Agreement may be amended only by written instrument signed by both OWNER and CONSULTANT. IN WITNESS HEREOF the OWNER and the CONSULTANT have made and executed this Agreement, this _day of , 2000. CITY OF MAPLEWOOD Parks and Recreation Department 1830 East County Road B Maplewood, MN 55109 BRAUER & ASSOCIATES LTD. 10417 Exce . . Suite One Hopki s. Minneso C120CS USJ; CS -M.V ,o.. 200012000 -012 joy.map1wooJwpcl City of Maplewood, MN. Brauer and Associates, Ltd. Joy Park Proposal Page 4 of 4 Project # 2000 - 012 AGENDA ITEM NO..D.- � = MEMO To: Richard Fursman From: Melinda Coleman M(, Subject: Policies for Commission Appointments/Reappointments Date: April 17, 2001 INFORMATION The process for commission appointments and reappointments was recently discussed by City Council. Part of the discussion included comments from the chairs /representatives from various advisory boards. Following is a summary of these comments and what I believe to be ideas that the city council liked and that should be included into some kind of policy document. * Advisory Boards will continue to conduct their own interviews with all of the candidates, will make recommendations and share their rankings. Minutes of the board meetings would be included for council review. The minutes should include some description/ highlights of each candidate interview. * Applicants for appointments should attend a meeting of the commission they are applying for. Interviews could be conducted by the commissioners at the end of the meeting. * Each advisory board or commission will provide a description of the board's purpose and responsibilities with each application. Other items suggested for consideration: * The commissions could submit questions to the council to ask the applicants. * A scoring system could be developed that would be used by both the advisory boards and city council. High score (combined or not) would get appointment. * Standard questions could be developed that would be asked each time with additional questions being forwarded by advisory board and/or staff that might be timely or specifically related to the board. * Geography or longevity in the community may be a factor. RECOMMENDATION After this is reviewed and modifications are made by City Council, this should be adopted into the Council Policy and Procedures manual.