The URL can be used to link to this page

14. Specs for Medical Ins/HMO coverage 1 C ITYOF /4 i , .,, ,, CHANHASSEN ,.,. , , 1 _. , ,,,„ L. „,,, t, . 690 COULTER DRIVE •- P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 I (612) 937 -1900 • FAX (612) 937 -5739 Action h Gn - 1:'ns reto, ieWrki I MEMORANDUM ReNtd..._ D 2 - 9 -9i TO: Don Ashworth, City Manager Date &ibri ted t. Cernmissia= 1 FROM: Todd Gerhardt, Assistant City Manager . Pa+- ., wunc;i DATE: October 4, 1991 1�?"'�`�`/1____ I SUBJ: Approval of Specifications for Group Medical /HMO Coverage 1 Attached for the City Council's consideration is the proposed specifications for the city's g Lup medical /HMO coverage. The proposed specifications are the A benefits the city employees I are presently receiving through �� However, Deloitte - Touche has added a bid alternative for a $1 I ' co- payment for network office visits and a $200.00 copayment r - patient hospital visits. By I providing these alternatives, ' ` e c =� has the option of deciding between the two different rat: and - nefit plan proposals. I The City Council had also r- Vested t' t.t staff receive quotes for implementation of a dental ogram. A ached please find a letter from Deloitte & Touche ou ning two a k ernative dental plans and their monthly rates (see - ' #2)` Adding a dental program I is an excellent idea, b. * the real prob- in is the amount the city and employees are hay " to pay for he- care coverage. When � � g P Y g comparing Chanhasse t o seven (7) other csies that I surveyed, we I are paying an av ge of $31.00 more pe month for health care coverage (se a •a, mum Gover,, e t os s . chment # 3) . By adding dental cover &. -, i _ . . ase to $50.00 a month I (excluding dray E • a Y { ),.', -e'' h +t* � - h 4 coverage. e numbers you can see `'w are bidding out our health nsura Recommendation I Based on the amount of the city - ready contributing towards the health care cost, staff would r- end not adding dental coverage 1 at this time. However, staf z ould suggest implementing Mr. Harten's suggestions of establishing a "profit sharing plan." This plan would consist of using one-half the dollars saved through the bidding process of our long term disability and implementing the 1 cafeteria plan. (The city saved $12,000 from the cafeteria plan /$4,200 LTD). Using the profit sharing concept, the city could justify making a contribution of approximately $200 to each 1 to PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER 1 Mr. Don Ashworth October 4, 1991 1 Page 2 employee's cafeteria plan account, which could be used to off -set employee's dental costs or other medical costs. Staff would also I/ recommend approval of the specifications as prepared by Deloitte and Touche. Attachments 1. Specifications for Group Medical /HMO Coverage ' 2. 3. Letter dated October 3, 1991, from Joseph E. Harten 1990 Benefits Summary 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Request for Proposal 1 Group Medical /HMO Coverage 1 City of Chanhassen 1 Chanhassen, Minnesota September 20, 1991 1 1 1 1 1 Proposal Return Date and Time Monday, October 28, 1991 1 4:30 p.m. City of Chanhassen 690 Coulter Drive Chanhassen, MN 55317 1 Deloitte & 1 Touche "nli4tked .4. / 01 1 . Request for Proposal Group Medical /HMO Coverage City of Chanhassen TABLE OF CONTENTS Page 1 I. Objective 1 II. Background and Award Process 2 III. Desired Plan Design and Funding Mechanism 5 IV. Proposal Cost Summary 7 V. Questionnaire 9 VI. Appendix 14 • Employee Census Data • Rate History 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Deloitte & Touche 1 1 1 I. OBJECTIVE 1 The City is seeking competitive proposals for its group 1 medical /HMO program in compliance with Minnesota Statute 471.6161. The City is looking to establish and maintain a long -term relationship with the successful proposer, as evidenced by the City's history with its current carrier. 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 S003 - 1 - Deloitte & 1 Touche 0 1 1 1 II. BACKGROUND AND AWARD PROCESS 1 1 Demographics The City of Chanhassen employs 52 full- and part -time people. None of these employees are covered by collective bargaining agreements. Group demographic 1 data is provided in the Appendix. Current Vendor Group medical coverage is currently provided by Medica (formerly PHP), under a fully insured combination ' contract. The plan has been in force for many years. ' Eligibility All employees are eligible on the first of the month following their date of hire. Dependent children are eligible until age 19, or until age 23 if a full -time student. ' Contributions The City contributes 100% of employee premium and 50% of dependent premium. ' Plan Year The City's plans operate on a calendar year basis. The first plan year will begin on January 1, 1992 and end on December 31, 1992. 1 Flexible Compensation The City currently sponsors before -tax accounts for Program employee premium contributions, dependent care expenses, and unreimbursed health care expenses. This 1 plan operates on a calendar year basis as well. Contractual Obligation The contents of the proposal and any subsequent clarifications submitted by the successful company will become part of the contractual obligation and incorporated by reference into the ensuing contract. Ground Rules The proposal that your company submits will constitute byour lo unqualified consent to the ground rules described ew: 1 - The proposals submitted in response to this request 1 will be considered the only submission; revised proposals will not be allowed after the proposal return date unless requested by the City. 1 1 S003 - 2 - Deloitte & Touche 1 • 1 1 • The City reserves the right to negotiate plan amendments and /or modifications to financial or administrative arrangements with the company selected to administer the plan. The City also reserves the right to waive minor irregularities, accept or reject any proposals wholly or in part, or call for new proposals. • All proposals must exclude commissions and /or finder's fees. • All proposals must be signed by an officer of the company authorized to enter into a contract. • Any deviations from the specifications must be clearly noted. Failure to note deviations may 1 exclude the proposal from further consideration. • All proposals must use the attached format for reporting rates. The exhibit may be retyped, but the format may not be changed. • All proposals must answer all applicable questions 1 on the attached questionnaire. • All proposals become the property of the City of Chanhassen and will not be returned to the offering company. • All questions should be directed in writing to the City's benefit consultant, Deloitte & Touche, at the address and telephone number below. Questions should= be directed to the City. 1 • If you have any questions regarding this Request for Proposal, contact: 1 Joe Harten Deloitte & Touche 4300 Norwest Center 90 South Seventh Street Minneapolis, MN 55402 FAX: (612) 339 -6202 1 1 5003 - 3 - Deloitte & 1 • Touche 41 1 1 1 Evaluation Criteria Proposals will be judged on the following criteria: 1 • Compliance with specifications. 1 • Compliance with applicable statutes /regulations. • Premium rates. 1 • Ability to service City employees and dependents. • Scope of provider network. 1 • Cost saving mechanisms. Note that the City will choose the proposal that best fits ' its needs and the needs of the covered individuals. The City is Rat obliged to select the proposal with the lowest cost. 1 Compliance All proposing companies agree to comply with all Federal, State, and Local laws, ordinances, rules, regulations, and executive orders pertaining to unlawful discrimination on account of race, color, creed, religion, national origin, sex, marital status, status with regard to public assistance, disability, or age. 1 Schedule of Events The schedule for submission and review of proposals is as follows: 1 • RFPs released Friday, September 20, 1991. • Addenda resulting from questions will be issued no 1 later than Monday, October 7, 1991. • Six (6) copies of your proposal are due at 4:30 p.m., 1 Monday, October 28, 1991, to the City of Chanhassen, 690 Coulter Drive, Chanhassen, MN 55317. No formal bid opening will occur. • All proposers must be prepared to make oral presentations if requested. ' • Proposals will be evaluated and contracts are expected to be awarded on or before Monday, December 2, 1991. 1 • The first plan year begins January 2, 1991, and ends December 31, 1992. 1 1 5003 - 4 - Deloitte & Touche 1 1 1 III. DESIRED PLAN DESIGN AND FUNDING MECHANISM 111 As a result of this RFP, it is the City's primary intention to maintain the basic benefit level and delivery model of its medical plan offering. The City's success in this area will depend on the responses to the RFP and the underwriting guidelines used by the successful vendor. Plan Design Proposals are requested for a dual option program utilizing network and non - network providers. The network can be a PPO or a HMO. 1 The City will select a dual option program as the only plan offering. Other arrangements are not desired and will not be considered. Alternate Benefits The City is considering the addition of a $10 copayment 1 for network office visits and a $200 copayment for inpatient hospital visits. Proposers should note the rate impact of these alternate benefit provisions. 1 Summaries of the current and requested plan designs follow. Proposers are reminded that ALL deviations from the specifications must be clearly noted and completely explained. 1 1 1 1 1 1 5003 - 5 - Deloitte & 1 Touche '1 1 I CITY OF CHANHASSEN CURRENT PLAN DESIGN I MEDICA DUAL OPTION PLAN I Deductible Network Non - Network None $300 /person I $900 %family Coinsurance None 80% of $13,500 100% thereafter 1 Lifetime Maximum Unlimited $1 million Preventive Care 100% No coverage I Eye Exams 100% * 1 Well -Baby Care 100% * Office Visits 100% * 1 Emergency Room Visits $40 copay * Urgent Care Center Visits $10 copay * 1 Prescription Drugs# $7.00 copay * (incl. oral I contraceptives) Hospital - Inpatient 100% * for 120 days I - Outpatient 100% * I Mental Health Inpatient 80% for 73 days * for 30 days I - Outpatient $10 copay per visit, 80% for 10 hours, maximum 40 hours 75% for 30 hours Chemical Dependency 1 - Inpatient 80% for 73 days * for 28 days - Outpatient $10 copay per visit, * for 130 hours maximum 20 visits * = Deductible and coinsurance. 1 # = Will be increased to $9.00 per prescription on 1/1/92. 1 S003 - 6 - Deloitte & Touche 1 0 1 CITY OF CHANHASSEN 1 REQUESTED PLAN DESIGN DUAL OPTION PLAN I Network Non - Network Deductible None $300 /person $900 /family Coinsurance None 80% of $13,500 1 100% thereafter Lifetime Maximum Unlimited $1 million 1 Preventive Care 100% No coverage I Eye Exams 100% Well -Baby Care 100% * 1 Office Visits# 100% * Emergency Room Visits $40 copay * 1 Urgent Care Center Visits $10 * Prescription Drugs $9.00 copay * 1 (incl. oral contraceptives) i Hospital - Inpatient# 100% * - Outpatient 100% * 1 Mental Health 1 - Inpatient 80% for 73 days * for 30 days - Outpatient $10 copay per visit, 80% for 40 hours I maximum 40 hours Chemical Dependency - Inpatient 80% for 73 days * for 28 days 1 - Outpatient $10 copay per visit, * for 130 hours maximum 20 hours * = Deductible and coinsurance. # = Also show cost impact for $10 office visit copayment and $200 inpatient hospital 1 copayment for member providers. 5003 - 7 - Deloitte & 1 Touche 0 1 1 1 Funding Mechanism The City will retain the current fully insured method of ' funding its medical plan. However, the City is interested in exploring alternative arrangements which give the City an opportunity to share in the plan's net cost results while 1 retaining insurance protection for catastrophic claims. Possible arrangements include: • experience refunding contracts 1 • • retrospective premium contracts high dollar deductible contracts ' Proposers should feel free to suggest programs which will meet the City's objective. However, proposals for fully self - insured arrangements will not be considered. Administration The City currently operates on a monthly billing basis for premium m. M pments by check each pay mon The edics City prefers remium pay this type of are paid 1 premium payment system. 1 Residence Restrictions The City will not permit plan eligibility to be determined by county of residence. All proposers must be able to enroll out -of -area individuals if eligible. 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 S003 - 8 - Deloitte & Touche 1 1 1 W. PROPOSAL COST SUMMARY 1 Proposing companies must complete the following 1 proposal form. The form can be retyped, but the format cannot be changed. Companies proposing alternative arrangements can use standard proposal formats to show proposed costs. Details should be provided. 1 Dual Option - 1 Fully Insured Monthly Rate Enrollment Monthly Cost Single $ x = $ Family $ x = $ 1 Total Monthly Cost 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 • 1 1 1 S003 - 9 - Deloitte & 1 • Touche 01 1' 1 V. QUESTIONNAIRE 1 Proposers must respond to the following questions. Proposals should include both the question and the response. Deloitte & Touche can provide questions on a floppy disk to facilitate responses. Failure to complete 1 the questionnaire could result in rejection of the proposal. General 1. Clearly identify any restrictions and /or limitations on coverage or eligibility such as: Actively -at -Work, Pre - existing Condition Limitations, etc., for present and future insureds. 1 2. Indicate your company's ability to duplicate the requested benefits and contractual provisions. If any deviations are necessary, outline in detail your 1 proposal's deviations from the enclosed specifications. 3. Identify the terms and conditions of your contract 1 at termination (for example, liability to the City, responsibility for incurred claims, etc.). 1 4. Are the premium rates quoted in your proposal to be considered firm? What conditions, if any, would affect the proposed rates? 1 5. Is your proposed program dividend eligible? If so, describe the dividend calculation process. 1 6. Describe your company's renewal underwriting process, including the use of claims experience vs. pooled rates. ' 7. Describe the timetable and the specific tasks involved to convert the City' s current arrangement 1 to your proposed plan. 8. What is the location of the claim processing site that would service the City's account? 9. What is the name and title of the person who would be responsible for the City's account? Where is 1 that person located? Provide a description of that person's qualifications and experience. 1 S003 -10 - Deloitte & Touche 1 1 1 10. List three accounts with enrollment of at least 50 employees, with the name, address, and phone number of an individual from each group who is familiar with the administration of the program and the level of service provided. Public sector references are preferred. 11. Confirm that your proposal excludes commissions. 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 S003 - 11 - Deloitte & 1 Touche I 1 Medical 1. Provide your U &C amounts for the following 1 55proce4xx). dures in the Twin Cities Metro Area (zip code 1 a. Total hysterectomy (58150) b. Normal delivery (59400) 1 c. Cataract removal (66984) d. Arthroscopy (27378) 1 e. Office visit (90050) 1 f. Hospital visit (90240) g. Chest X -ray (71010) 1 2. How is the U &C level established? What is the criteria upon which these levels are based? I 3. Does your company provide case management services, and are you able to provide evidence of associated savings on the following catastrophic I cases? a. Neonatal intensive care 1 b. Transplant and dialysis patients c. Spinal cord and head injuries 1 d. Major burn victims I e. Major strokes f. AIDS 1 g. Other large cases (exceeding $50,000) 1 1 1 1 S003 - 12 - Deloitte & Touche 1 0 1 1 4. How long has your organization been servicing clients in each of the following areas? 1 a. Precertification b. Concurrent review 1 c. Medical case management d. Securing provider discounts e. Determining medical necessity 1 5. Provide samples of standard claim reports and state frequency of availability. Identify any other reports that might be available to the City. Are there 1 additional charges for the reports requested? 6. Describe your organization's utilization 1 review /quality assurance procedures. What savings have been demonstrated by these programs? 7. Does your company agree to indemnify and hold 1 the City harmless from any and all damages, costs and expenses, and lawsuits for injury or death to any insured person resulting from or alleged to result from alleged malpractice, wrongful act, etc. in connection with the provision of health services by the medical plan or any of its participating I providers? 8. Describe the size and general characteristics of I your provider network. How are providers selected and monitored for network participation? Provide a directory of participating providers. 9. What is the size of your claims operation? 1 a. Number of employees 1 b. Weekly volume of claims c. Number of group health accounts over 50 I employees serviced 10. Do you provide a toll -free number for employees? I 1 S003 - 13 - Deloitte & 1 Touche '1 1 1 11. Where is the backup office for the claims operation which could be used if a backlog or system failure occurs? 12. What are the quality control procedures that are in place in your claims processing centers? Briefly outline the basic procedures which are part of your quality control program. 13. What are your normal coordination of benefits (COB) procedures? 14. Describe the process used to verify the eligibility of employees' dependents listed in the eligibility files. 15. Will you prepare master contract, booklets, ID cards, etc.? At what expense? 1 16. How much time after the receipt of all information will you require to issue: Administrative materials Booklets /Certificates Master Policy /Contract 1 ID Cards • 1 1 1 1 1 1 S003 - 14 - Deloitte & Touche 1 1 1 VI. APPENDIX 1 Census See Attached 1 Rate History See Attached 1 Plan Certificate Call Joe Harten at Deloitte & Touche (344 -0459) to 1 obtain a copy of the plan certificate. 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 5003 - 15 - Deioitte & 1 Touche 0 1 1 1 CITY OF CHANHASSEN RATE HISTORY 1 Monthly Medical Rates 1991 1990 1989 1988 1987 Single $156.95 $136.46 $118.66 $93.66 $81.44 Family 420.90 365.99 318.25 254.60 221.36 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 S003 - 16 - Deioitte & Touche 1 1 CITY OF CHANHASSEN 1 CENSUS DATA 1 DOB 5E.,•4 EMPLOYMENT S6t� NA 03 -07 -61 F 06 -26 -89 5 1 09 -28 -43 M 04 -01 -76 11 -07 -50 N\ 05 -02 -88 F 01 -27 -40 M 11 -17 -71 S 05 -24 -38 N\ 09 -26 -75 F 05 -01 -48 m 01 -15 -74 F 01 -14 -67 1- 01 -15 -90 5 02 -06 -59 M 05 -22-89 S 02 -27 -57 t =- 01 -24 -83 5 09 -19 -59 M 12 -02 -89 F 06 -08 -52 t=- 01 -06 -88 S I 10 -12 -49 F 05 -15 -89 5 03 -03 -58 M 06 -22 -87 5 01 -15 -54 F 10 -09 -72 5 I 12 -13 -49 M 04 -18 -90 F 12 -6 -62 M 05 -30 -90 5 08 -05 -62 M 06 -04 -86 F 11 -22 -53 M 05 -01 -85 }_ 03 -14 -48 M 11 -17 -71 06-30 -53 M 09 -24 -87 5 09 -20 -58 M 05 -08 -89 5 06 -19 -63 NA 03 -16 -87 5 01 -28 -37 E= 09 -21 -67 S 08 -06 -35 M 02 -05 -80 I 01 -07 -49 M 10 -12 -87 10 -07 -60 t'- 12 -14 -87 P 10-17-58 F 03-05-90 S 03 -11 -52 M 08-28-89 F 09-23-52 M 09-06-88 F 12 -22 -56 M 05 -22 -89 F 05 -27 -67 F 03 -19 -90 S 01 -14 -57 G 11 -01 -84 09 -09 -54 F 01 -01 -89 F- 09-22-45 M 04 -24 -89 S I 08 -04 -64 m 05 -10 -89 08 -08 -66 M 03 -26 -90 S 10 -26 -54 M 09 -28 -87 F 08 -25 -37 M 04 -16 -68 S I 07 -04 -63 , M 01 -17 -83 G .03 -25 -61 M 06 -25 -90 F 07-30-41 M 08 -27 -87 S 02 -11 -38 F 11-13-86 5 04 -20 -59 M 09 -08 -87 F 08 -27 -58 M 08 -21 -90 F- 08-05-54 M 01 -01 -85 F 08 -10 -50 M 01 -17 -83 F 10 -09 -62 M 05-15 -89 s Deloitte & 1 Touche 'I d r Deloitte & I Touche r /\ 4300 Norwest Center 90 South Seventh Street Telephone: (612) 344-0200 Facsimile* (612) 339 -6202 Minneapolis, Minnesota 55402 -4150 f ' October 3,1991 Q ¢_ Mr. Todd Gerhardt r Assistant City Manager City of Chanhassen P.O. Box 147 r Chanhassen, MN 55317 - ' Dear Todd: You asked Deloitte & Touche to determine potential premium rates for a group dental program for City employees and their eligible dependents. . r We performed a telephone survey of several major dental insurance carriers using the following assumptions: r • Plan effective date 1/1/92 • Significant (over 50 %) premium contribution by the City • Standard demographic pattern among City employees 1r • No restrictions on dental providers :r We requested approximate rates for two district plans, as shown below: 1 Plan 1 Plan 2 Annual Deductible $25 $25 1 Benefit Percentage — Exams, cleanings, etc. 100% (no deductible) 100% (no deductible) 111 — Fillings, etc. 80% 80% — Crowns, Bridges, etc. 50% 50% — Orthodontia No coverage 50% (no deductible) v r Annual Maximum $1,000 $1,000 Lifetime Ortho N/A $1,000 I F S 1 OCT 0 41991 Z Member . T International CITY Q vribv■lhAsSFr r 1 1 Mr. Todd Gerhardt October 3, 1991 I Page 2 Monthly rate ranges for y a e ges o the plans are: Plan 1 Plan 2 1 Single $19 - $21 $21- $23 Family $50 - $52 . $60 - $65 1 . These rates are somewhat higher than average because the City has not provided J dental coverage in the past. Carriers feel that some plan participants may overutilize the plan in the first year to make up for poor dental hygiene in previous years. 1 However, we believe that the cost of a dental plan will not decrease significantly in future years. The City can expect to pay at least $20,000 per year (less employee 1 contributions) for an adequate group dental program. ft Please contact me with any questions. I Sincerely, t -----6C-/- I Joseph i Harten, CEBS t Manager 1 JEH /sg • 5063 1 1 1 1 I . a • 1 t 1 Deloitte & 1 Touche --,, 9 . , _ 1 1 1990 SURVEY Single Coverage Dependent Coverage Maximum I City City Pays City Pays Employee Pays Total Cost Govt. Cost Chanhassen $136.46 $251.23 $114.76 $365.99 $251.23 1 Chaska $107.50 $239.00 $ 77.50 $316.50 $239.00 Eden Prairie $107.34 $197.60 $ 61.44 I $259.04 $197.60 1 Excelsior $ 98.00 I $206.00 $ 72.00 I $180.00 $206.00 Shorewood $129.50 $203.38 $ 96.12 $299.50 $203.83 1 Apple Valley $129.50 $225.00 $ 74.50 $299.50 $225.00 Lakeville $129.50 $227.02 $ 73.48 $300.50 $227.02 1 Eagan $106.00 $245.00 $ 31.50 $276.50 $245.00 1 COST OF GROUP DENTAL COVERAGE 1 Employee Coverage Dependent Coverage I Maximum City City Pays City Pays Employee Pays Total Cost Govt. Cost Chanhassen No coverage _ I Chaska No coverage I Eden Prairie $140.00 /year to be used by employees (Preventive dental included in PHP HMO Coverage) 1 Excelsior No coverage Shorewood $18.10 $38.92 $ -0- _ $38.92 $38.92 1 Apple Valley Just preventative, which is included in the City's HMO I Lakeville $ 9.68 $21.29 $ 15.00 $36.29 $24.68 Eagan No coverage I Source: 1990 Twin Cities Metro Area Employee Benefits Survey; DCA Stanton Group 1 1 ' CARVER COUNTY SHERIFF'S - DEPARTMENT DISTRICT I I SPECIAL PATROL / TRAFFIC ASSESSMENT REQUEST Officer: \ ■ L , 1 Today's date: 9 - S - q / TIME OF TODAY'S Time for requested patrol: p/t/( s PATROL:. /6 o8- /6 3E I Specific instructions /complaint: pe � ( 4 », '-r-,--, , ( * Requests for Speed Assessments * / • ' oN .so a e:•t. L Speed limit: Posted: yes no Squad mode: moving - stationary I Total number of vehicles through location: Average speed of all vehicles through location: 2 S. 6 . S 1 Highest recorded speed: 3 Tickets issued: I Warning citations issued: a Verbal warnings issued: b Radar unit serial number: R F 1 1 * Extra Patrol Requests * 1 Times during shift target area was patrolled: hrs/ hrs/ hrs/ hrs/ hrs/ hrs/ hrs/ hrs/ hrs/ hrs/ III Other Traffic Requests * 1 Is signage, striping, or visibility a problem contributing to reason for the complaint? 1 Do other traffic problems contribute (engineering, pedestrians, bicycles, etc.) ? 1 1 1 Requested by: I Copy to; • 1 CARVER COUNTY SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT - DISTRICT I SPECIAL PATROL / TRAFFIC ASSESSMENT REQUEST 1 Officer: Today's date: g - L( q / TIME OF TODAY'S Time for requested patrol: p ' PATROL:. /( Specific instructions /complaint: Spe i L Ex-0,4; ' r Q wA * Requests for Speed Assessments * Speed limit: � � Posted: yes no Squad mode: moving stationary Total number of vehicles through location: / Average speed of all vehicles through location: 0 241, - ):z - 72 - 2 Highest recorded speed: 0 29' Tickets issued: [� Warning citations issued: (0 1 Verbal warnings issued: Radar unit serial umber: * Extra Patrol Requests * Times during shift target area was patrolled: hrs/ hrs/ ' hrs/ 1 hrs/ hrs/ hrs/ hrs/ hrs/ hrs/ hrs/ * Other Traffic Requests * • Is signage, striping, or visibility a problem contributing to reason for the complaint? 1 Do other traffic problems contribute (engineering, pedestrians, bicycles, etc.) ? 1 Requested by: Copy to: CARVER COUNTY SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT - DISTRICT I ' SPECIAL PATROL / TRAFFIC ASSESSMENT REQUEST Officer: Se ( � - l � , ' Today's date: q - � , _ � / TIME OF TODAY'S Time for requested patrol: P/ /t PATROL:. le 3 (bra Specific instructions /complaint: ee * Requests for Speed Assessments * 1 Speed limit: 1 Posted: yes X no Squad mode: moving stationary x Total number of vehicles through location: .-/ Average speed of all vehicles through location: a CD. 2.5 iv L Highest recorded speed: c2OZ Tickets issued: C) ' Warning citations issued: n Verbal warnings issued: Radar unit serial number: B * Extra Patrol Requests * ' Times during shift target area was patrolled: hrs/ hrs/ hrs/ hrs/ hrs/ hrs/ hrs/ hrs/ • hrs/ hrs/ Other Traffic Requests II Is signage, striping, or visibility a problem contributing to reason for 9 the complaint? Do other traffic problems contribute (engineering, pedestrians, bicycles, etc.) ? Requested by: ' Copy to: 1 CARVER COUNTY SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT - DISTRICT I SPECIAL PATROL / TRAFFIC ASSESSMENT REQUEST 1 _ Officer: MES 0,6 ' Today's date: `1 -5 -q( TIME OF T Y' 1 Time for requested patrol: /VI_ _ /j ' Sa r a" , PATROL:. SQ Specific instructions /complaint: 40 AL Aggl - ere 1 1 * Requests for Speed Assessments * om' /16� •r i78 kg N' T �`'� Speed limit: Posted: yes X no ve✓ '9 Squad mode: moving stationary V 1 /?3 0) Total number of vehicles through location: c:4? 1 Average speed of all vehicles through location: d t 5 3 : Highest recorded speed: - T II ickets issued: 0 Warning citations issued: (J 1 Verbal warnings issued:. Radar unit serial number : C18 1 * Extra Patrol Requests * II Times during shift target area was patrolled:( hrs/ hrs/ hrs/ 1 hrs/ hrs/ hrs/ hrs/ hrs/ hrs/ hrs/ II * Other Traffic Requests * II Is signage, striping, or visibility a problem contributing to reason for the complaint? II Do other traffic problems contribute (engineering, pedestrians, bicycles, etc.) ? II II � II Requested by: kh l /)ter W /,J( Copy to: II I • CARVER COUNTY SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT - DISTRICT I 1 SPECIAL PATROL / TRAFFIC ASSESSMENT REQUEST Officer: _-::i1: -s EC' Y \\ Today's date: 3 -q - TIME OF TODAY'S Time for requested patrol: � � ` MC) LR /)aleg PATROL;. 092 /Q S ific instructions /complaint: f/ P- . - la Requests for Speed Assessments e 17`''). � , /� ? N Speed limit: -.20 Posted: yes )( no Squad mode: moving stationary V /(2) l Total number of vehicles through location: ��o Average speed of all vehicles through location: ,3. 1 Highest recorded speed: PLD Tickets issued: II Warning citations issued: n Verbal warnings issued: Q Radar unit serial r . amber: /n/18 ' * Extra Patrol Requests * II Times during shift target area was patrolled: c2 /C hrs/ hrs/ hrs/ hrs/ hrs/ hrs/ hrs/ hrs/ hrs/ hrs/ * Other Traffic Requests * 1 Is signage, striping, or visibility a problem contributing o reason for the he complaint. 1 Do other traffic problems contribute (engineering, pedestrians, bicycles, etc.) ? • Requested by :u, �m Copy to: CARVER COUNTY SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT - DISTRICT I SPECIAL PATROL / TRAFFIC ASSESSMENT REQUEST 1 Officer: ,j/a : (1, Gay) t a n Today's date: TIME OF TODAY'S Time for requested patrol: /an I f Jar ? PATROL:. aC Specif' c instructions / complaint : 1' (J► !I ICC I L 1(l 1 p 1.?:PS- * Requests for Speed Assessments * ,� a6 N. . 1 @al Speed limit: _.D Posted: yes X" no 61 c>1 ' 1 Squad mode: moving stationary L' t � Total number of vehicles through location: 9 a ' Average speed of all vehicles through location: Q1 : 7: '74 5 Highest recorded speed: 3S \, 1 Tickets issued: (^ 3 Warning citations issued: (rte �� Verbal warnings issued: a 4 7�) I Radar unit serial number: `i a 3s ,q 1 • Q ?s * Extra Patrol Requests * II Times during shift target area was patrolled: iO hrs/ hrs/ hrs/ hrs/ hrs/ hrs/ hrs/ hrs/ hrs/ hrs/ II * Other Traffic Requests * II Is signage, striping, or visibility a problem contributing to reason for the complaint? II II Do other traffic problems contribute (engineering, pedestrians, bicycles, etc.) ? II • II II Requested by: /4t h()JOIV I ( /1Y) igil . Copy to: . 1 1504 2ND STREET S E. P O BOX 110 WASECA, MN 56093 507/835 -5975 FAX NUMBER 507/835 -4567 1 TRIAX CABLEVISION 1 - e k — *. i September 19, 1991 0.n, ^ ol�ei PT�c 1TG-1 �a� .-.+ Mayor Don Chmiel Z �, /� a 1)4 41 ' City of Chanhassen / 690 Coulter Drive , 0 . w / j ,.. c N a.44- i'" 4 P.G. Box 147 1 Chanhassen, MN 55317 � , o v.. � EI9% v !s s e Dear Mayor Chmiel: 7 401. `J co.si 4. ,, !4 Please accept my personal thanks for the opportunity to meet with you, Don, and Todd this last 'Thursday at your city office. I felt that our meeting was mutually beneficial, but too short. I do hope that your most pressing questions were answered satisfactorily. As pranised, several current channel line -up /rate cards are enclosed for your use at the city. These should replace any old channel cards presently at hand. ' I'm also gathering updated details related to the reports which Don Ashworth requested, and hope to re -visit with you within the next three weeks. I'll be calling you soon. 1 Sincerely, 4 ' 4 Pau J. Nazarow Regional Manager 1 1 1 1 . 1 1 K T TY 0 c. `" CHANHASSEN 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 (612) 937 -1900 • FAX (612) 937 -5739 1 MEMORANDUM TO: Don Ashworth, City Manager FROM: . Scott Harr, Public Safety Directo DATE: September 20, 1991 1 SUBJ: Debra Carpenter -Rand vs. City of Chanhassen Attached please find information from the Minnesota Department of Human Rights advising us that her charge has been dismissed by the State. 1 cc: Todd Gerhardt, Assistant City Manager Jean Meuwissen, Treasurer Roger Knutson, City Attorney 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 n t PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER . ;i <, y � VLy, - L se,,..: , w' -.. Mi)rnesota Departmet o f�A'sfa� tits f Sep t,m1-, 19 ' 1 REF: E22097-MGS5 vS Deborah Carpenter -Rand vs. City of Chanhassen II Scott Harr, admire City of Chanhassen II 690 Coulter Drive Chanhassen, MN 55317 11 Dear Scott Harr: The Department of Human Rights has reviewed the issues related II to, and the information provided in connection with the above captioned charge. II Based upon that review, and under the authority granted by Minn - Stat. 363.06, Subd. 4( s_ determined r� the Co: "`' - oner has eterma: :ems o process this charge further. Under this authority the Commis- sioner may determine which charges are processed and the order '° I which charges are processed. The Commissioner may dismi_.1 .- charge if further use of the Department's resources is warranted. THIS CHARGE HAS BEEN DISMISSED PURSUANT TO THAT AUTHORITY. "lie vas_s for this decision s outlined i. the encJ.osec' nemQrar:dUm I he Departme t will take no further act t? ion ors gs matter ursuant to Minn. Stat. 363.14, Subd. 1 C b) (1 ) , the Charging Party may bring a civil action against the •Respondent in district can't within 45 days :f the dismissal of this case. II If you have any questions, you may contact the Department at (612)296 -9061. ' S` ce i i i p 1 ' /,4 David Beaulieu Acting Commissioner II II II II AN EOUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER 11 500 Bremer Tower, 7th Place and Minnesota Street, St. Paul, Minnesota 55101 (612)296 -5663 or (800)652-9747 1j. • = ' z%--_ M/?ii Ie$ota Departmet of /4ima /V �t Qk;`N-). • • REF: E22097 , FINDINGS 1 The Minnesota Department of Human Rights. having commenced an 1 investigation of the above entitled matter. finds the following: 1. Initial investigation results established that this charge did not warrant additional use of Department resources since further investigation would almost certainly lead to a determination of No Probable Cause. 2. The Charging Party is a female who has been employed by the Respondent since June 6, 1988, most recently as a Community Service Officer. Charging Party alleges that since being employed by the Respondent, Charging Party has been subjected to differential treatment including, but not limited to, the following: a. Having a different clothing allowance than a male co- ' worker; b. Being issued equipment which is inferior to her co- , worker's; c. Being subjected to a different vacation request procedure than her male co- worker; d. Being denied medical training which is essential to the performance of her job and which Charging Party's co- worker has been given e. Being subject to disciplinary action in violation of ' Respondent's personnel policy. Charging Party further alleges that since her co- worker is male, her sex was a factor in the Respondent's actions. Charging Party, therefore, alleges that Respondent has discriminated against her in the area of on the basis of sex in violation of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 363.03, subd. 1(2)(c). • 1 AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER„ 500 Bremer Tower, 7th Place and Minnesota Street, St. Paul, Minnesota 55101 (612)296 -5663 or (800)652 -9747 , �. ��:.��: 4 ; Mi)i itesota De , t ' a rtmeijt o /*ma,r g kt-s Yf ,fl s185 II FINDINGS PAGE TWO REF: E22097 1 3. In its answer to the Charging Party's charge, Respondent denies Charging Party's allegations of sex discrimination. . Respondent alleges that no city employee is given a fixed clothing allowance, that Charging Party was recently asked if she needed any additional clothing, and that Charging II Party said no. Further, Respondent alleges that, with respect to Charging Party's allegation about being issued inferior equipment, Respondent " has no idea what she is talking about," that Charging Party has never requested any 1 different equipment, and if Charging Party" wants something, she should ask for it." Respondent further alleges that with respect to Charging Party's allegation about being 1 subjected to a different vacation request procedure, Respondent applies the same vacation procedure to everyone, and that Charging Party has never been turned down. I Respondent also alleges that Charging Party has been given the same training opportunities as others in the department, that Charging Party has never been turned down when she requested training, and if Charging Party "wants additional 1 training, she should ask for it." Additionally, Respondent alleges that the city does not have a personnel policy on discipline, that Charging Party was appropriately 1 disciplined for gross insubordination, and that Charging Party refused to carry out the direct orders of her supervisor. I 4. In her rebuttal to the Respondent's position statement, Charging Party alleges that when she was first hired, Respondent informed Charging Party that Respondent would 1 provide uniforms, but that footwear must be provided by the employee, that Respondent provided footwear on a purchase order at a cost of $100 for a male co- worker of Charging II Party's, that when Charging Party inquired regarding the II discrepancy Respondent supervisor told Charging Party "it was an administrative decision," that it was none of Charging Party's business, that Charging Party was jealous, 1 and that the same purchase was a reward to the male co- worker for good work and good behavior. Charging Party stands by her position that the aforementioned factors are II pretextual. 1 1 AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER rr II 500 Brcmer Tower. 7th Place and Minnesota Street. St. Paul, Minnesota 55101 (612)296.5663 or (800)652 -9747 t�� 1 • _ = Mi)resota D ej'artmern' o f�2�aa# N*bt ca. ti ti . f 1,r FINDINGS REF: 22097 11 PAGE THREE 4. (cont.) Charging Party further alleges that the male co- worker has been provided superior equipment on a number of occasions including, but not limited to, a three channel automatic radio, compared to Charging Party's two channel manual radio which is often unworkable, that a lapel microphone for said radio was approved for the male co- worker alone, that for approximately three to five weeks during October of 1990, Charging Party's male co- worker had exclusive control of the department's new vehicle, that on various occasions Charging Party was asked to return the new truck for the male co- worker's use, that the new truck is often referred to in conversations or correspondence with the male co- worker as "your" truck, and that Respondent's response that Charging Party should simply ask for equipment she wants is absurd, in that every time Charging Party asked Charging Party was told she was jealous, petty and hostile. Further, Charging Party alleges that during the months of July and August 1990, Charging Party submitted a vacation request, that Charging Party's supervisor asked the male co- worker if Charging Party's request would interfere with the male co- worker's request, and that the same process has never been applied the other way and Charging Party was never asked if the male co- worker's requests interfered with Charging Party's plans. Charging Party also alleges that Charging Party was scheduled to go to Emergency Medical Technician (EMT) training in September 1988, but was unable to do so, that Charging Party's male co- worker attended in Charging Party's place, but failed to pass said training, that Charging Party's male co- worker has since gone back to EMT training and been certified as an EMT, that Charging Party has continually requested EMT training since September of 1988 as well as First Respondent training, and that Charging Party has yet to be sent to any medical training by Respondent. Additionally, Charging Party alleges that on at least two other occasions she was denied additional training, that in July of 1990 Charging Party was denied a quarterly crime prevention meeting and in January 1991 Charging Party was also denied the opportunity to attend a crime prevention meeting, and that Respondent supervisor has never responded to Charging Party's request regarding the January 1991 meeting. 1 11 AN EOUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER 500 Bremer Tower. 7th Place and Minnesota Street, St. Paul, Minnesota 55101 (612)296.5663 or (800)652.9747 1 � M/1 yieota Dt'artme1# of /*man' i tits FINDINGS PAGE FOUR REF: E22097 II , 4. (cont.) ' Finally, Charging Party alleges that Respondent has a • personnel policy, dated January 10, 1991, and approved by the City Council on January 14, 1991, and Charging Party refutes Respondent's response to that she was appropriately ' disciplined for gross insubordination in that the incident occurred at a time when Charging Party was not on duty, not on call, and at a time when Charging Party's male co- worker was on duty, on call, but chose to take an unscheduled vacation to Wisconsin for the holidays. 1 5. Relevant information in the instant charge includes the Charging Party's personnel file. a list of Respondent's current and former employees, and a copy of Respondent's personnel policy manual. A review of the Charging Party's personnel file indicates that Respondent discussed and documented such issues as the purchase of a pair of boots for Charging Party's partner, Charging Party's schedule, and the disciplinary action taken by Respondent against Charging Party (January 1991). Charging Party's personnel file also indicates that a hearing was conducted with regard to disciplinary action of January 1991. Further review of Charging Party's personnel file indicates that in 1988 and 1989, Charging Party went to crime prevention /law enforcement- oriented conferences and training seminars, ' including a conference in Detroit, Michigan (October 16 -21, 1988), hosted by the Detroit Police Department. Charging Party's personnel file also indicates that Charging Party attended a three -day Minnesota Crime Prevention Officers Association (MCPOA) Spring /Summer Interstate Meeting (July 12 -14, 1989, Grand Rapids, Minnesota). The same file also indicates that Respondent denied Charging Party's request to ' attend the same meeting (scheduled to take place in Duluth, Minnesota on July 19 -20, 1990); the denial of the request is dated July 13, 1990. A review of Respondent's current list ' of employees indicates that Respondent has a total of 49 employees (33 male, 16 female). 1 1 AN EOUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER 500 Bremer Tower. 7th Place and Minnesota Street, St. Paul, Minnesota 55101 (612)296.5663 or (800)652 -9747 ., • • Mi)t,resota Depa'nmern of / - togas i t FINDINGS REF: E22097 PAGE FIVE 6. The Department interviewed relevant witnesses. Witness • statements indicated that Charging Party's position as Community Service Officer required Charging Party "to be out in the field most of the time." The same witness statements also indicated that both Charging Party and Charging Party's male co- worker "have had access to both training and equipment." A witness indicated that Charging Party had keys to the new vehicle, that other vehicles were also "available" for Charging Party's use, and that Respondent's policy with respect to use of city vehicles is on a "first come, first serve" basis. The same witness also indicated that Charging Party "didn't like driving the new truck because it had too many gadgets." The witness also indicated that Respondent supervisor meets with the Public Safety staff on a regular basis, and that the same supervisor "would always remind them that if there's anything they need, they should just ask him." According to a witness, another female worked 15 hours per month in March and April 1991, performing Community Service Officer duties, and that Respondent supervisor provided the female employee with equipment and uniforms. The witness also indicated that Respondent provides new employees with training and equipment during their six months probationary period. The same witness also indicated that Charging Party "just wasn't here a lot," that Charging Party's "weakness" was "absenteeism," and that in 1990 -1991, Charging Party used approximately 100 hours of sick leave. Another witness interviewed by the Department indicated that Charging Party's supervisor is "professional but informal" in his approach to management, "although not a terribly hard- tasked master." According to the same witness, Charging Party's attitude towards her job was that "she was trying to do a good job, but discouraged due to a lack of response from the 11 public." The witness also indicated that Respondent's employees are "generally critical" of Respondent's "budget first, budget second, budget last, hard -nosed position." A witness indicated that Respondent's then Public Safety Director arranged for Charging Party to attend Emergency Medical Technician (EMT) training on two occasions, and that Charging Party had to cancel due to scheduling conflicts. The same witness also indicated that the EMT training involved 100 hours of training to be provided by Hennepin County. 1 AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER 500 Bremer Tower. 7th Place and Minnesota Street. St. Paul. Minnesota 55101 (612)296 -5663 or (800)652-9747 ' I I • E . M,»ijesota De'arfmeijt ; : o t4imair 4th • FINDINGS PAGE SIX REF: E22097 1 6. (cont.) 1 The same witness statements, however, did not substantiate Charging Party's allegations of differential treatment on the basis of sex. 7. Evidence in the instant charge is insufficient to show that Charging Party was treated differently solely on the basis of her being female. There is evidence to indicate that other female employees in Respondent Department, including one who performed Community Service Officer duties, were not subjected to differential treatment in the terms and conditions of their employment. While there is evidence to indicate that Respondent denied Charging Party's request to attend a quarterly MCPOA meeting in July 1990, there is also evidence to show that Respondent granted Charging Party's 1 request to attend an MCPOA meeting in 1989. Further evidence indicates that Respondent arranged for Charging Party to attend an EMT training course on two occasions, and that Charging Party "canceled" due to scheduling conflicts. Respondent acknowledges purchasing a pair of boots for $100 for Charging Party's co- worker, but there is insufficient evidence to show that Charging Party's co- worker's sex was a ' factor in the Respondent's decision to make a purchase. Although Charging Party has given reasons for why she believes Respondent treated her differently on the basis of sex with respect to access to training and equipment, evidence in the instant charge also indicates that another female who performed Community Service Officer duties (albeit on a temporary, part -time basis) was not denied access to either training or equipment. Further, there is insufficient evidence to show that other female employees in ' Respondent Department were treated differently on the basis of their sex. In conclusion, evidence in the instant charge is insufficient to establish that the Human Rights Act was violated. 1 1 • AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER 1 500 Bremer Tower. 7th Place and Minnesota Street, St. Paul. Minnesota 55101 (612)296.5663 or (800) 652.9747 CITYOF if • tii„. CHANHASSEN 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN MINNESOTA 55317 (612) 937 -1900 • FAX (612) 937 -5739 1 September 23, 1991 1 Mr. Matt Levina 2711 Piper Ridge Lane 1 Excelsior, MN 55331 Dear Mr. Levina:' i On behalf of the City of Chanhassen and Mayor Don Chmiel, I want to thank you for your interest in the Chanhassen Surface Water Utility Task Force. Unfortunately, we were unable to find room on the task force for all of those who applied. The Mayor selected seven individuals representing a cross section of interests and residents locations throughout the community to serve along with the members of the Planning Commission and City Council. I regret to inform . you that you are not among those selected. We sincerely appreciate your interest and encourage you to remain involved in the process which will have a number of public meetings as time goes on. I also hope you will feel free to contact me from time to time for updates on progress'of the program. Lastly, we periodically have openings on a variety of commissions and task forces to facilitate public involvement in local government issues. You may want to consider applying for one of these positions when they become available. 1 Thank you again for your interest. Sincerely, 1 Qti 4 . Paul Krauss, AICP Dire ctor of Planning PK:v / 1 pc: Don Chmiel, Mayor 1 City Council 1 1 to — t Cc_ Atit September 29, 1991 TAcicE City Clerk, City of Chanhassen 690 Coulter Dr. PO Box 147 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Property Owner: Eric and Norma Rivkin 1695 Steller Court Excelsior, MN 55331 Parcel No: 25- 4070180 - Subject: Lake A nn Interceptor Assessment We want this letter to go in the record. The enclosed check #1028, for $850 is to pay off the entire Lake Ann Interceptor A ssessment. However, we are paying this under protest, since appealing this assessment with District Court would cost more than the $850, even though we feel there is a chance of winning our case. Please note that the letter we received after the September 9 council meeting notifying us of the levy did not include information about our rights to appeal the levy. No other affected residents I talked to after the Sept. 9 meeting were notified by the city of their rights either. We believe that levying the assessment is unfair and unjust because there is no absolute certainty that hookup to the Lake A nn Interceptor would be necessary in our case. Given the fact that our new SB -2 septic system is way overengineered according to state standards, and the monitoring and maintenance program the city has planned, our system may never pose an environmental threat. To date, the city has not enforced their program, nor has educated septic system owners on how to keep their systems working long term and preventing environmental harm. I suggested to the building inspector, Steve, that a fair and reasonable program should include inspection reports every 6 to10 years, with pumping out the tanks on an as needed basis. Even if we wanted to, our land is impossible to develop any further because of the steep terrain and wetlands. A ddition of lateral sewer lines would not only be damaging to the environment, but so cost prohibitive it would violate the city's policy not to "unduly burden" us with "new local utility lines and related assessments" If the original drainfield site failed, we will also fight for the availability and right to use the alternate drainfield site imposed by the City as a condition of the building permit, instead of enforcing a mandatory sewer lateral hookup. It is likely, in our belief, that alternative methods that are more environmentally protective and financially viable will be ready in the future that will render a centralized municipal system obsolete. At such a point in time if it becomes apparent the Lake Ann Interceptor will not provide benefit for us, we expect the city to refund the $850 with 9% compounded interest. Sincere, f CITY OF CHANHASSEN Eric Rivkin 0CT031991 Norma Rivkin ENGINEERING DEPT. cc Chaska Middle School Cc f - N it .)(\ Len Takkunen, Principal Dennis Baldus, Asst. Principal 1600 Park Ridge Drive Chaska, Minnesota 55318 612/448 -8700 School District 112 9/30/91 Dear Officer Zydowsky, I I I Thank you for coming to speak with our students on the topic of "Youth Violence." Your discussion was very well prepared, # thought - provoking, and quite relevant to our future curriculum pursuits. The students were very impressed with your comments and intrigued with the information you provided dealing with gangs. As eighth graders, many of the students are face -to -face with violence either directly or indirectly. Your presence today will 'hopefully help students to review their involvement and aid in making wise decisions relating to violent /non - violent activities. Again, thank you for your willingness to participate in our instruction and for offering a fine presentation. Thank you also for allowing us to video tape your discussion so that other classes will benefit from your expertise! Since .e , ,44_,/ r. Harr Ms. Fahning Ms. Smith cc: Scott Harr Serving the communities of eastern Carver County through equal opportunity in employment and education. North Central Accredited 1 LAW OFFICES BRIGGS AND MORGAN PROFESSIONAL ASSOCIATION 2400 IDS CENTER MINNEAPOLIS, MINNESOTA 55402 TELEPHONE (612( 334 -8400 ' FACSIMILE (612( 334-8650 SAINT PAUL OFFICE 2200 FIRST NATIONAL BANE BUILDING WRITERS DIRECT DIAL NUMBER SAINT PAUL, MINNESOTA 86101 TELEPHONE (612) 223- FACSIMILE (612) 223-6480 1 334 -8565 1 October 2, 1991 1 Ms. Jo Ann Olson 1 Senior Planner City of Chanhassen P.O. Box 147 ' Chanhassen, MN 55317 Dear Ms. Olson: Diane Ray notified me that you had accepted our invitation y p n to speak at the Briggs and Morgan/Braun Intertec seminar on November 13th - "Changes in the Wetlands Law: 1990 and Beyond ". The event will be held from 1:30 p.m. to 4:45 p.m. with a reception to follow at the Radisson Hotel South, 7800 Normandale Boulevard in Bloomington. We anticipate 50 to 75 guests, and will be mailing invitations the week of October 15th from a combined ' Briggs and Braun list. We would be pleased to invite any guests you think might be interested in the program. 1 Attached is an agenda for the event. Note, you will be speaking at 3:45 p.m. for 25 minutes on the perspectives of a city planner in the regulation of wetlands. We can provide you with slides, if desired, and would like to offer attendees some materials on your talk in their handouts. The deadline for drafts of slide copy is October 21, and the deadline for materials for duplication (a biography and an outline of your remarks) is due October 28th. 1 1 1 1 1 BRIGGS AND MORGAN 1 Ms. Jo Ann Olson October 2, 1991 Page Two 1 We look forward to your participation in this exciting event. Please don't hesitate to give me a call at 334 -8565 should you have any questions or suggestions. 1 Sincerely, Wendy H. Lamphear Business Development Director WHL /saa 1 cc: Tom Larson Diane Ray 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Changes in the Wetlands Law: 1990 and Beyond 12:45 p.m. — 1:15 p.m. Registration 1:20 p.m. — 1:30 p.m. Welcome: Tom Larson and Doug Bergstrom 1:30 p.m. — 1:55 p.m. Wetlands 'Regulatory Overview: Tom Larson 1:55 p.m. — 2:20 p.m. The COE Wetlands Program: Ben Wopat 2:20 p.m. — 2:45 p.m. Federal Wetlands Delineation Manual: Julie Myhre 2:45 p.m. — 2:55 p.m. Break 2:55 p.m. — 3:20 p.m. State Overview: David Forsberg 3:20 p.m. — 3:45 p.m. The No Net Loss Program: Harnac 3:45 p.m. — 4:10 p.m. A City Planner's Perspective: Jo Ann Olson 4:10 p.m. — 4:35 p.m. Regulatory Takings: Tim Thornton 4:35 p.m. — 4:45 p.m. Closing Comments / Questions and Answers: Tom Larson and Doug Bergstrom