HomeMy WebLinkAbout7.b. Special Event Policyf
CITY OF ROSEMOUNT
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY FOR ACTION
CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE: February 3, 2004
AGENDA ITEM: Special Event Policy AGENDA SECTION:
OLD BUSINESS
PREPARED BY: Dan Schultz, Parks and Recreation Director AGE
7
ATTACHMENTS: Draft Special Event Policy APPROVED BY:
For the past few months the City Council and staff have been discussing the operations of community special
events. Items discussed have included community involvement, in -kind services, organization and financing.
The City of Rosemount wants to ensure that in -kind services provided by the City for community special
events are being used in an efficient and effective manner and that organizations providing community events
services to the City under contract have sufficient experience and an effective and responsible organizational
structure.
In hopes of building a strong future for special events and to help assist the volunteer coordinators, staff is
recommending a Special Events Policy be adopted by the City Council that will provide guidelines governing the
review of requests from such organizations.
For your consideration this evening is the proposed Special Event Policy. Staff will review the policy and
answer any questions the Council may have.
RECOMMENDED ACTION: Motion to approve the Special Event Policy.
COUNCIL ACTION:
DRAFT
CITY OF ROSEMOUNT
POLICY TITLE
POLICY NUMBER
PROPOSED BY
DATE APPROVED
BY CITY COUNCIL
SPECIAL EVENT POLICY
PARKS AND RECREATION
November, 2003
PURPOSE
The City of Rosemount wants to assure that in -kind services provided by the City to community
special events are being used in an efficient and effective manner and that organizations
providing community events services to the City have sufficient experience and an effective and
responsible organizational structure. This policy will set a regular and formal process for
reviewing the operations of special events receiving in -kind services provided by the City.
POLICY
This policy will provide guidelines governing the review of requests from such organizations.
PROCEDURE
The Committee organizing the special event receiving in -kind services from the City for
community events shall provide the City with the following:
• A copy of their by -laws.
• A copy of an annual audit conducted by a CPA firm of the previous year's event.
• A copy of all meeting agendas and meeting minutes.
• A copy of an insurance binder naming the City as an additional insured party.
• A written request detailing what City in -kind services are being requested.
The Parks and Recreation Department will bring forth to the City Council a proposed contract
outlining all of the requirements to be met by the event organizers and compensation or in kind
services to be provided by the City.
The City of Rosemount will annually review the impact of the in -kind services to the City
operating by having each department produce an in -kind services report to be submitted to the
City Administrator.
CLL- 242675v 1
RS215 -7
RECD FEB 3 - 2004
February 3, 2004
In addition to my memo which outlines background and feelings with respect to this discussion
and was included in the packet to the PLANNING COMMISSION AND CITY
COUNCIL OF ROSEMOUNT, I would like to add these issues in response to
the Summary included in the new packet to the City Council for their February 3, 2004 meeting.
ISSUE 1:
(page 1, para 2)
The third line is still confusing to some readers. It would be more explicit if it
read "Had US Homes acquired the land that Evermoor acquired, the outlot could
have been absorbed by a new US Home development, but it DID NOT HAPPEN.
I would also point out that this paragraph admits the lot to be part of the US Home
Country Hills Fifth Addition. Please note that when you read the US Homes develop-
ment contract, it points out that US Homes was responsible for these charges.
ISSUE 2:
(page 1, para 3)
It reads "Part of the parcel is above pond elevation and will shed storm -water run off.
I would add "into the drainage pond which is approximately half on this lot. The city
is collecting charges for storm water run off and is storing one -half of it on my property
and should be paying me for use of this land.
ISSUE 3:
(page 2, para 1)
Line 5, I think is misleading. "the small lot still owned by US Homes" is incorrect. That sliver
of land was included in the purchase and is now owned by me.
ISSUE 4:
(page 2, para 2)
Line 6, "The trunk area charge is a one -time charge per platted acre, which is collected from
developers on all newly developed properties." This should apply to US Homes.
ISSUE 5:
(page 2, para 3)
Line 4, "Some cities exempt ... because these areas would be considered unbuildable ". Since this
lot has been thought to be unbuildable, that is good reason to exempt it. If the Council wishes to
declare this lot buildable, you should say that.
Further, in this case, since the city approved of the plans for both US Home and Evermoor, it
should not have been difficult to estimate that this was going to be unbuildable before Evermoor
was approved.
ISSUE 5:
(page 3, para 4)
Is it reasonable that this lot being about half under water and having no street frontage would be
considered sub dividable with respect to buildable lots and warrant charges when subdivided? (I
THINK NOT).
ISSUE 6:
(page 3, para 5)
Given this property as discussed, it seems INAPPROPRIATE to make these comparisons when
applying them to this property (note: "while not on such a small parcel ", and I would add this is half
storage pool.)
ISSUE 7:
(page 3, para 6)
Forwarding to the Utility Commission seems like a waste of time and taxpayers money. If the Council
has authority to abate these charges, you should just do so.
ISSUE 8•
(page 7)
Under resolve number 2, I request these charges be abated.
ISSUE 9:
In the section titled Public Hearing: Villella Outlot B, Country Hill Lot Split /Combinations,
line 5 "being treated similar to ", I would challenge that statement. As staff pointed out in
other cities and developments, lots that are unbuildable are often exempted.
ISSUE 10:
(page 2 of the planning commission meeting minutes)
Under Motion by Weisensel, ...subject to:
#2. Mr Weisensel said he made this motion because they take the staffs recommendations
on this issue. However, at the meeting the staff prevailed on the Planning Commission to
not go into the charges and so the neighbors present did not speak to them and in fact there
in my view there was essentially no discussion of the charges at the request of Rick Pearson.
s