050812completeagenda
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
TUESDAY, MAY 8, 2012
RICHFIELD MUNICIPAL CENTER
6700 PORTLAND AVENUE
*******************************************************************************************************
SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL WORKSESSION
BARTHOLOMEW ROOM
5:30 P.M.
AGENDA
Call to order
Roll call
1. Discussion regarding Voter ID (Council Memo No. 48)
Notes: __________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
2. Discussion regarding Taft – Legion Regional Storm Water Improvement Project (Council
Memo No. 49)
Notes: __________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
3. Discussion regarding Three Rivers Park District (TRPD) Intercity Regional Trail Master
Plan (Council Memo No. 49)
Notes: __________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
rdth
4. Discussion regarding Richfield Parkway – Phase II (63 Street to 65 Street) (Council
Memo No. 49)
Notes: __________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Adjournment
*******************************************************************************************************
REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING
COUNCIL CHAMBERS
7:00 P.M.
AGENDA
INTRODUCTORY PROCEEDINGS
Call to order
Roll call
Open forum (15 minutes maximum)
Each speaker is to keep their comment period to three minutes to allow sufficient time for
others. Comments are to be an opportunity to address the Council on items not on the agenda.
Individuals who wish to address the Council must have registered prior to the meeting.
Notes: __________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Pledge of Allegiance
Approval of minutes of (1) Special Joint Richfield – Bloomington City Council Worksession
of March 26, 2012; (2) Special City Council/HRA/Planning Commission Worksession of
April 10, 2012; (3) Special City Council/HRA Meeting of April 16, 2012; (4) Special City
Council/HRA/Planning Commission Worksession of April 16, 2012; (5) Special Concurrent
City Council/Richfield School Board Worksession of April 24, 2012; and (6) Regular City
Council Meeting of April 24, 2012
PRESENTATIONS
1. Swearing-in of Richfield Police Officers Miles Beckner, Amanda Johnson, and Orlando
Zabala
2. Presentation regarding National Public Works Week
COUNCIL DISCUSSION
3. Council discussion
May 21 City Council/HRA/Planning Commission Worksession at 6:00 p.m.
regarding Rental Housing Inventory and Needs Assessment
Hats Off to Hometown Hits
Notes: __________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
AGENDA APPROVAL
4. Council approval of agenda
CONSENT CALENDAR
5.
Consent Calendar contains several separate items, which are acted upon by the City
Council in one motion. Once the Consent Calendar has been approved, the individual
items and recommended actions have also been approved. No further Council action on
these items is necessary. However, any Council Member may request that an item be
removed from the Consent Calendar and placed on the regular agenda for Council
discussion and action. All items listed on the Consent Calendar are recommended for
approval.
A. Consideration of approval of resolution authorizing Department of Public Safety to
accept donated monies from Richfield Bloomington Credit Union and Richfield
Visions S.R. No. 79
B. Consideration of approval of setting a public hearing to be held on June 12, 2012,
for the consideration of new on-sale intoxicating and Sunday liquor licenses for
th
Pizza Luce VII Inc., 800 West 66 Street S.R. No. 80
C. Consideration of approval of setting a public hearing to be held on June 12, 2012,
for the consideration of a new Therapeutic Massage Enterprise license for Salon St.
George, 6625 Lyndale Avenue S.R. No. 81
D. Consideration of approval of resolution authorizing the City of Richfield's 2012-2015
Municipal Recycling Grant application and agreement with Hennepin County S.R.
No. 82
E. Consideration of approval of bid minutes/tabulation and award contract for 2012
Sealcoating work to Pearson Bros. Inc. in the sum of$564,958.00 S.R. No. 83
F. Consideration of approval of 12-month extension to the 2011 Concrete Sidewalk,
Curb and Gutter Repair contract with Ron Kassa Construction, Inc. in the sum of
$98,850.00 S.R. No. 84
G. Consideration of approval of resolution authorizing the Source Water Protection
Grant agreement between the City of Richfield and the Minnesota Department of
Health (MDH) S.R. No. 85
Notes:
6. Consideration of item(s), if any, removed from Consent Calendar
Notes:
RESOLUTIONS
7. Consideration of resolutions supporting the submittal of applications to the Minnesota
Department of Employment and Economic Development (DEED) and the Metropolitan
Council Livable Communities Tax Base Revitalization Account for Contamination Clean-
up Grant Funds at the former Lyndale Garden Center site, 6400 Lyndale Avenue
Staff Report No. 86
Notes:
OTHER BUSINESS
8. Consideration of award of contract for the 76th Street East public improvement project
and authorization for the City Manager to approve changes in the construction contract
up to $50,000
Staff Report No. 87
Notes:
CITY MANAGER'S REPORT
9. City Manager's Report
Notes:
10.Claims and payrolls
Open forum (additional 15 minutes if more time needed after first Open Forum and by
majority vote of the City Council)
Each speaker is to keep their comment period to three minutes to allow sufficient time for
others. Comments are to be an opportunity to address the Council on items not on the agenda.
Individuals who wish to address the Council must have registered prior to the meeting.
Notes:
11.Adjournment
Auxiliary aids for individuals with disabilities are available upon request. Requests must be
made at least 96 hours in advance to the City Clerk at 612-861-9738.
richfield: May 2012 Page 1 of 1
City of Richfield Calendar
Calendars Net
Navigate: 2011 Jan Feb Mar Air May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2013
May 2012
Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday
30 I Apr 1 I May 2 3 4
11:30a Tourism 7:OOp Transportation 7:OOp Arts Commission
Promotion Board @ Commission @ 6335 Portland Ave
6601 Lyndale Ave,Suite
106
6:30p Human Rights
Commission
7 8 9 10 1.1
5:30p Special City
Council Worksession
7:OOp City Council
Regular Meeting
14 15 16 17 18
7:OOp Community 4:30p-7:OOp Unity in the
Services Commission @ Community at Veterans
7000 Nicollet Ave Memorial Park
7:OOp Friendship City
Commission
CANCELED
21 22 23 24 25
6:00p Advisory Board of 5:45p Special City SATURDAY,MAY 26
Health Council Worksession 9:30 a.m.-10:30 a.m.
6:OOp Special 7:OOp City Council Mayor's Hour-Farmer's
Concurrent HRA/ Regular Meeting Market
City Council/Planning
Commission
Worksession
7:OOp Housing and
Redevelopment
Authority(HRA)
28 29 30 31 1 I Jun
CITY ADMINISTRATIVE 7:OOp Planning
OFFICES CLOSED- Commission
MEMORIAL DAY SATURDAY,JUNE 2
9 AM to 1 PM
RICHFIELD MUNICIPAL
CENTER BUILDING
DEDICATION
Display: Year Month Week Lai Block List Condensed Abs Slide Calendars: Search
Add Events: Daily, Duration Periodic Administer: This Calendar
All meetings held at City Hall (6700 Portland Avenue) unless indicated otherwise
Calendars Net
free online interactive web calendars
http://www.my.calendars.net/richfield 5/3/2012
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Office of City Manager
May 3, 2012
Council Memorandum No. 48
The Honorable Mayor
and
Members of the City Council
Subject: Voter ID
(Worksession Agenda Item No. 1)
•
Council Members:
This year the legislature made a decision to have a question regarding Voter ID placed
on the ballot as a constitutional amendment. The City Council has asked that balanced
information be provided to the City Council regarding this matter.
Staff will be showing two videos regarding Voter ID and offering two different
perspectives to this question. The League of Women Voters opposes Voter ID
requirements and a video will be provided to show their concerns and reasoning. The
Minnesota Majority, supports Voter ID and a video will be provided to show their
concerns and reasoning.
Tom Ferber, former Richfield City Clerk, Washington County Elections Director,
Bloomington City Clerk, and currently a Consultant for Hennepin County Elections and a
member of the Governor's Elections Task Force, will be available for questions as a
nonpartisan representative on this issue.
This ' formation will be discussed at the May 8, 2012 Special City Council Worksession.
Respzctfully ubmitted,
\
oteven'L. , _vi
City Manager
SLD:tjs
E-mail: Department Directors
Assistant City Manager
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Office of City Manager
May 3, 2012
Council Memorandum No. 49
The Honorable Mayor
and
Members of the City Council
Subject: May 8, 2012 City Council Worksession
(Worksession Agenda Items No's. 2, 3, &4)
Council Members:
The following items will be discussed at the May 8, 2012 City Council Worksession:
• Taft— Legion Regional Storm Water Improvement Protect—an update will be
provided on the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District Cooperative Agreement
process, project features, and proposed schedule.
• Three Rivers Park District (TRPD) Intercity Regional Trail Master Plan —TRPD
staff will be here to present an overview of the Intercity Regional Plan and is
asking the City Council to adopt a resolution supporting the Master Plan at the
May 22, 2012 Regular Meeting.
• Richfield Parkway— Phase II (63rd Street to 65th Street) —discussion will center
on the remaining 2 blocks of the parkway and possible funding options in order to
include the reconstruction in with the Richfield Parkway North Connection
included as part of the Taft— Legion Project.
Please contact Kristin Asher, City Engineer, at 612-861-9795 with questions.
Re +'T> alt- submitte•
r
- - , / et(
City M=nager
SLD:tjs
E-mail: Department Directors
Assistant City Manager
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
Bloomington, Minnesota
i� # Special Joint Richfield - Bloomington
City Council Worksession
March 26, 2012
See attached minutes prepared by the City of Bloomington.
Date Approved:
Debbie Goettel
Mayor
Cheryl Krumholz Steven L. Devich
Executive Coordinator City Manager
cr
CITY OF City Council Meeting
-y BLOOMINGTON
APPROVED MINUTES
MINNESOTA
Joint Bloomington-Richfield City Council Meeting#19
Monday,March 26,2012, 6:27 p.m.
Bloomington Civic Plaza
1800 West Old Shakopee Road
Bloomington,Minnesota 55431-3027
Call to Order Mayor Gene Winstead called the Bloomington City Council to order at 6:27 p.m.
Mayor Debbie Goettel called the Richfield City Council to order at 6:27 p.m.
Roll Call Bloomington Council Present: Mayor Winstead,Councilmembers J.Baloga,T.Busse,
T.Huffing,S.Peterson,and V.Wilcox.
Bloomington Council Absent: Councilmember K.Nordstrom.
Richfield Council Present: Mayor Debbie Goettel,Councilmembers P.Elliott,T.Fitzhenry,
and S.Sandahl
Richfield Council Absent: F.Wroge.
-35W/494 Interchange Karl Keel,City of Bloomington,Public Works Director: I 35W/494 Interchange Project is gaining
a little momentum. How should we be involved and how might we organize ourselves to advocate
with this project.
• Traffic Volumes: 2020 projection twice the volumes compared to initial construction.
• Heavy congestion.
• High crash rates
• Peak hour congestion map: One of the most congested in metro area
• Regional transit plan map: Key intersection
• Significant employment corridor: Area serves a great deal of jobs.
• Penn American District: Higher density area and transit area
• Most promising alternate and the most promising is the turbine design. Drive around the
outside of the interchange to reduce the necessary bridges. $237 million cost and could be
built in phases.
• Phase 1—Roadway: $26 million BRT Station in vicinity of American Boulevard: $52
million Phase 1—total: $78 million.
• Next steps: Where do we find the money. Not programmed in Mn/DOT yet. There is a
proposal could hire a consultant to do the environmental work.
• Project Development/Programming
• Funding: looking at gas tax to do the heavy lifting. We need to influence a number of people
• Advocates: Major players would be City of Richfield and City of Bloomington. City of Edina
and Eden Prairie it's important to them. Maj or choke point in the south metro.
Winstead: Should Dakota County be included as a partner also? Counties are a major player. Do
we need to add them?
Mike Eastling,Public Works Director,City of Richfield: Counties would be a major player and
should be added.
Eastling: Questions/discussion: How involved should we be?
Keel: 169/494 was a rather informal group of staff and elected officials;met regularly to pressure
Mn/DOT to find out what progress was being made.
Winstead: We stayed in their face. Mn/DOT staff came on board due to the relentless pressure.
Keel: It wasn't an extremely organized effort but it turned out to be very effective.
Page 1 of 4 March 26,2012
CITY OF BLOOMINGTON,MINNESOTA APPROVED MINUTES
Easting: In addition to staff and City Council help,we could get some professional help in the way
of a lobbyist,engineering advocacy. How should we organize ourselves? How strident do the City
Council's want to be on this issue.
Keel: We all feel this is an important project to spend staff time and resources. Does City Council
agree?
Winstead: Are we all on board with this? Bloomington, yes it's important.
Goettel:Agreed.
Sandahl: This is top-rated issue for I35W Solutions and 494 Corridor Commission.
Winstead: Let's dissect what worked and what didn't on 169/494. He remembers meeting with
Congressional Delegations in Washington,D.C. Finally things started to go. It helped when the
Mn/DOT came on board and there was a new commissioner who listened.
Bernhardson: Where are we at with I35/494 and Mn/DOT compared to 169/494 Project?
Keel: We're not as far with the project development as we were with 169/494. Development is not
as far along with this one.
Bernhardson: Where are we at with Mn/DOT on this one compared to 169/494?
Keel: They see the need just as much or more but reality is that they have to be told it's a priority
to fund.
Steve Elkins,Metropolitan Council Member,District 5: Mn/Dot does not see it in their 10 or 20
year plan. He doesn't think this will get financed within the next decade. Make sure we're
positioning ourselves to compete well in the Federal Grants(TIGER for interchange itself)or Small
Starts Program.
Keel: When 169/494 worked through staff levels,it couldn't find funding through political side
until it was demanded.
Elkins: Mn/DOT's been chipping away at 169/494 and the 62 Crosstown funding. This is very
important to the region.
Winstead: How up to speed are they that there is an alternative that is under$100 million
reasonable cost?
Keel: They're very much aware of this. They finished the contract on that redesign. From an
engineering standpoint,there is buy-in.
Bernhardson: How much assistance do you see in getting I35W and 494 to come together. Do we
need to establish another formal I35/494 group?
Keel: Both groups are able to muster some political support but they're not able to set up a Public
Relations campaign.
Easting: Should have separate commission for this purpose?
Sandahl: I35W and 494 commissions don't have the same membership,so there is need for a
separate group for this project.
Bernhardson: We establish a formal steering committee,Ci ty of Bloomington,City of Richfield
and others and coordinate with I35W and 494 Commissions and those who participate put forth
some staff resources,including Edina,Hennepin County,D akota County,Eden Prairie,MAC,and
City of Burnsville,let's say$10,000 per entity.
Winstead: Everyone wants to join for$100,b ut less will want to join for$10,000.
Bernhardson: Maybe less of a fee for those cities further away. Or should we continue with a
coordinated staff effort?
S.Peterso n: It will cost some money to put together,f or materials. The$10,000 is not a big
number.
Winstead: He sees some proportionality. Bloomington as the biggest player and then Richfield.
Goettel: At what point did we bring in the other help with the 169/494 and to what extent? We
Page 2 of 4 March 26,2012
CITY OF BLOOMINGTON,MINNESOTA APPROVED MINUTES
need to use our dollars wisely.
Keel: There was no professional help hired. It was all done by staff. Sometimes a little disjointed.
It was accomplished. There was not a coordinated professionally led group.
Winstead: We could advance quicker if,we had professional assistance
Busse: There isn't a large constituency that would oppose this. We would get a lot of people to
support this. A lot of this is orchestration in getting everyone on the same page and heading in the
same direction. It's a matter of moving forward.
Elkins: We've got two of the best lobbyists locked up on this working hard. We've been lacking in
resources to put together promotional materials.
Bernhardson: We could get some help in putting together the promotional materials. Focus
whatever money we get on those efforts.
Keel: These are people hired by consulting engineers. They do a good job of helping.
Eastling: Take the information Keel presented and put it in a one-page document that would catch
Mn/DOT's eye.
Winstead: How much is that kind of effort going to cost? What do we need to raise as a group?
Keel: We could have some significant help in the range of$50,000 one-time for a 2-year effort.
Eatling: Agrees
Wilcox: MAC should be a heavy player in this also.
Keel: Staff has not had any conversation with MAC.
Sandahl: Have your first organizational meeting to see what is the needed. We need to pull in all
these players to sell it to them and then to the Legislature.
Winstead: He remembers when this was important to Eagan years ago.
Goettel: Burnsville should be involved.
Bernhardson: Staff will get the groups together to see who wants to be on board.
Winstead:On another issue,roundabouts? What do people think?
Eastling: No serious accident until a motorcycle went through the middle. It was the first accident.
It's been a wild success. There are no backups yet. Capacity and safety it's doing very well.
Pedestrian traffic issue is real. Key is to get the traffic down to a slow enough speed to get the
pedestrians eyeball with the drivers. They had cameras that watched the roundabout. There is still
some work to do with pedestrians. It's manageable. From a technical basis,it's working great.
Goettel: The roundabout on Cedar is more manageable,it is single lane. Sometimes people go left
on the Portland roundabout.
Sandahl: She doesn't hear any more complaints. Residents have accepted it. It didn't take that
long to garner their support.
Fitzhenry: Both are in his district. At first people really hated them,especially the seniors. The
City did training with the seniors using golfcarts. They operate very efficiently.
Sandahl: Municipal Liquor Store on 66th&Cedar roundabout made it easy for access.
Winstead: If we ever go forward,look at Richfield.
Sandahl: She was on the committee that studied it. There was a citizen group that initiated it. It
was cheaper. Cost wise less land and not paying for lights.
Eastling: Had it been a staff initiative only,it wouldn't have happened.
Elkins: What is accident ratio 90th&Nicollet?
Shelly P: They've gone down significantly. The improvements at that intersection have improved
the accidents.
Winstead: Nicollet intersection will need to be looked at when 494 closes off that exit.
Page 3 of 4 March 26,2012
CITY OF BLOOMINGTON,MINNESOTA APPROVED MINUTES
Elkins: He's on the Hennepin County Complete Streets task force group. As County roads come
up for resurfacing,the County might convert some of their roads to a"road diet"appropriately. It
might make sense to revisit the Alternate Transportation Plan to include some county roads now.
Adjournment Mayor Winstead adjourned the joint meeting at 7:10 p.m.
Mayor Goettel adjourned the joint meeting at 7:10 p.m.
Barbara Clawson
Council Secretary
Minutes completed by:
Debbie Smith -
City Manager's Office
Page 4 of 4 March 26,2012
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
Richfield, Minnesota
•
ee Special City Council/HRA/Planning
Commission Worksession
April 10, 2012
The convening of the worksession was delayed because staff was asked to confirm the
required meeting notifications were made in accordance with State Open Meeting Law.
CALL TO ORDER
The meeting was called to order by Mayor Goettel at 5:51 p.m. in the Council Chambers.
ROLL CALL
Council Members Debbie Goettel, Mayor; Pat Elliott; Sue Sandahi; Fred Wroge; and Tom
Present: Fitzhenry
HRA Members Sue Sandahi, Chair; Doris Rubenstein; Steven J. Quam, David Gepner; and
Present: Debbie Goettel
Planning Members Rick Jabs, Chair; Josh Root; Robert Hall; Maureen Scaglia; Daniel
Kitzberger; Tom Rublein; and Gordon Vizecky
Planning Member Dennis Schuller
Absent:
Staff Present: Steven L. Devich, City Manager/HRA Executive Director, John Stark,
Community Development Director; Christine Costello, Community
Development Coordinator; Corrine Heine, City Attorney; Julie Eddington,
HRA Attorney; and Cheryl Krumholz, Executive Coordinator.
Item #1 PRESENTATION BY RON CLARK CONSTRUCTION REGARDING REVISED
PROPOSAL FOR PILLSBURY COMMONS(COUNCIL MEMO NO. 41)
Community Development Director Stark stated that the City had received a revised application
from Ron Clark Construction. The staff believed that a study session was appropriate in order to
inform the three bodies and the public about the recent changes.
Ron Clark stated that his team had changed its proposal based on comments previously
made by policymakers and the community. He introduced Mike Roebuck and Mike Waldo from Ron
Clark Construction, site planner Kendra Lindahl from Landform, Dan Pellinen from architectural firm
Special Worksession Minutes -2- April 10, 2012
Tushie Montgomery, Barb Halverson from Steven Scott Management, and land use attorney Jim
Susag from the Larkin Hoffman law firm.
Ms. Lindahl presented the Pillsbury Commons project history, beginning in 2009. She said the
developer submitted a reduced plan in 2011. She stated that the developer would not have
proceeded without support from the HRA and City and that it had invested significant time and money
in the development. Ms. Lindahl indicated that there had been significant community feedback before
making a formal application. The developer submitted an application in March 2012, then revised it in
April based on comments at the March HRA meeting. Ms. Lindahl stated that the land use
application was a simple application for a plat and a planned unit development.
Ms. Lindahl stated the revised proposal is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and City
Code. The new application does not require a change to the Comprehensive Plan. She also pointed
out that the existing industrial zoning is not consistent with the Comprehensive Plan but that the new
zoning would be. She said that the apartment concept had not changed since March 2012, but the
revised proposal would include one for-sale single family home and more than a half-acre of open
space. She said that discussions with staff about the open space had left open the concept of City
ownership or private ownership of the open space.
Ms. Lindahl described the parking for the property, the style of architecture and the amenities
for the apartment building. The revised plan would require purchase of additional land for the
planned unit development (PUD). She indicated that the developer was interested in having a
discussion about how the open space would be used.
Ms. Lindahl stated that the "pay-as-you-go"tax increment financing (TIF) request has not
increased since June 2011. She requested continued City support through the process.
In response to a question from Mayor/HRA Commissioner Goettel, Community Development
Director Stark stated that the revised proposal requires the purchase of the additional properties in
order to meet the medium-high density classification of the Comprehensive Plan. The rezoning of
this site was not included when the overall Comprehensive Plan review was conducted because
potential redevelopment plans were in place and staff believed it appropriate to wait.
Council Member Elliott stated he was somewhat offended by the presentation because it
sounded like an opening statement in a trial. He wanted to hear the details of the revised proposal,
but it sounded like the presentation was setting the stage for another purpose, and he did not think
that was appropriate.
Mayor/HRA Commissioner Goettel agreed with Council Member Elliott.
Council Member Wroge also agreed with Council Member Elliott. He discussed the housing
changes that have been made to the proposed development from the original plans to now. He said
the property had been tied up for three years. He said the developer was now proposing to buy land
that it didn't want just so its building would meet density and then give it back. But he said that would
destroy the ability to do make that land as nice as the other half, because there would be a road
through it. He said the City didn't need another park, and it was obvious to him the developer was
only buying the land to build the apartment building and didn't care what happened to the land.
Council Member Wroge said that there had been so many changes it was hard to keep up.
He felt the developer's presentation was to set things up for a court process and he didn't appreciate
it. He asked Ms. Lindahl if the developer was saying that the Council did not have the right to change
its mind but the developer could change its mind at any time in the process.
Ms. Lindahl responded no.
Special Worksession Minutes -3- April 10, 2012
Council Member/HRA Chair Sandahl asked about the developer's intent to purchase the
additional land and remove the mortuary and cleanup the mortuary site before returning it to the City.
Ms. Lindahl said yes it would be cleaned up. She also said that Ron Clark wanted to have a
discussion with the City about the land. If the City did not wish to take back the land, Ron Clark
would retain ownership to keep it as open space.
Council Member Fitzhenry agreed with Council Members Wroge and Elliott and believed the
City was backed in a corner. He expressed concerns regarding density because it tends to cause
problems. Single family homes were a "go"for him, but now it has changed from medium density to
high density apartments. If apartments had been presented originally, there may have been different
actions taken.
HRA Commissioner Rubenstein seconded comments of Council Members Wroge and
Fitzhenry. She said she recognized the need for affordable housing and the mix of incomes, but their
development does not appear to have a mix of incomes.
Ms. Lindahl responded that the project is 100% workforce housing.
HRA Commissioner Quam questioned whether the HRA was required to sell the HRA land.
Community Development Director Stark indicated that there was a preliminary agreement
between the HRA and Ron Clark Construction.
City Attorney Heine confirmed that there is not an option agreement or right to purchase
agreement.
HRA Commissioner Quam stated he is not inclined to sell the property because it would be so
underutilized but if it were going to be sold the base should be increased so that the developer would
pay taxes on it.
Ms. Lindahl said that the proposal had the developer owning the land but that the developer
wanted to have a discussion about other possible uses, including dedication to the City.
Planning Commission Member Root asked the developer to provide staff with the positive
feedback that it had received and that Ms. Lindahl had referenced in her presentation.
Planning Commission Member Hall stated there appears to be a discrepancy in the number of
units for density requirements.
Community Development Director Stark explained that land is guided medium to high density,
which would be 12 to 24 units per acre. He said it was zoned industrial and that the reason that it
had not yet been rezoned to conform to the Comprehensive Plan because when staff was processing
other zoning amendments, it made sense to wait for this development proposal so that there wouldn't
be a need to rezone twice.
Planning Commission Member Hall also said that he didn't see the rationale for destroying
land value to buy land and donate it to the City rather than spreading townhomes throughout the
property.
Mayor/HRA Commissioner Goettel asked whether the developer would look for other
Brownfield funds to clean up the site and to what standard.
Ms. Lindahl said that they would use the TIF funds and that the standard for residential and
park use are the same.
Special Worksession Minutes -4- April 10, 2012
Community Director Stark said that there was a Phase I for the property but that the extent of
contamination is not known.
Mayor/HRA Commissioner Goettel stated that she wished the developer had sought
•
community input before changing the proposal from the townhomes that residents had heard about to
the high density apartments.
Council Member Wroge read from a document and quoted comments made by Colleen
Carey, Cornerstone. Her letter said that projects that incorporate a reasonable amount of affordable
housing into the project rather than concentrate affordable housing into a 100% affordable project.
He said he had always thought that a mix of affordable and market rate was preferable. He said the
City Council had never voted to do anything but let him move through the process but that the Council
had never had an application to make a decision. He said he was very unhappy with the proposed
use of the HRA land.
Community Development Director Stark explained if the developer is unable to purchase the
additional property they are confined to the land on which the developer has an option, that would
exceed the units per acre permitted in the Comprehensive Plan. They would need to apply for
Comprehensive Plan and zoning changes to higher density.
Council Member Wroge questioned the right of the City to deny TIF and land use. He said he
did not like the use of TIF and was being consistent.
City Attorney Heine responded that it is the City Council's discretion to decide whether it wants
to use TIF and that decision would come to the Council in May. The City Council is not legally bound
to change the Comprehensive Plan, but that is not part of the revised proposal.
In response to a question by Planning Commission Member Rublein, City Attorney Heine
stated that without the HRA parcel and second City piece of property, the proposed development
does not conform to the Comprehensive Plan guide and the developer would need to apply for an
amendment. The revised plan would be one PUD for the site which would limit development of the
mortuary site.
HRA Commissioner Quam questioned the timing of exploring the selling of the HRA property
and the appraisal of the land.
Community Development Director Stark explained the HRA could have a special meeting to
consider the land sale. He also explained the two appraisals, including the highest and best use of
the property and the assigned value.
Planning Commission Member Scaglia questioned why the Planning Commission would
consider the project before they even knew if the HRA would sell the land.
Planning Commission Member Hall agreed with that comment.
Community Development Director Stark stated any Planning Commission and City Council
action would have to be contingent upon the HRA selling the land to the developer.
Council Member Wroge questioned the valuation and said that the land values were too low
and that the City was giving the land away, not selling it.
Council Member Elliott stated he was not likely to approve an application based on a
contingency about ownership of the land.
Special Worksession Minutes -5- April 10, 2012
Council Member/HRA Chair Sandahl stated other projects have been approved on
contingency. She said the developer has made several changes to respond to concerns raised by
residents.
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned by unanimous consent at 6:31 p.m.
Date Approved: May 8, 2012
Debbie Goettel
Mayor
Cheryl Krumholz Steven L. Devich
Executive Coordinator City Manager
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
Richfield, Minnesota
"eA eel
� � Special City Council/HRA Meeting
April 16, 2012
CALL TO ORDER
The meeting was called to order by Mayor Goettel and Chair Sandahl at 7:30 p.m. in the
Council Chambers.
ROLL CALL
Council Members Debbie Goettel, Mayor; Pat Elliott; Sue Sandahl; Fred Wroge; and Tom
Present: Fitzhenry
HRA Members Sue Sandahl, Chair; Doris Rubenstein; Steven J. Quam; David Gepner and
Present: Debbie Goettel
Staff Present: Steven L. Devich, City Manager/HRA Executive Director; John Stark,
Community Development Director; Christine Costello, Community
Development Coordinator; Julie Eddington, HRA Attorney; Corrine Heine,
City Attorney; and Cheryl Krumholz, Executive Coordinator.
City Attorney Heine stated that on Friday, April 13, Ron Clark notified her and staff that he
withdrew his applications for rezoning and replatting and his intention is to return to the drawing board
and resubmit an application. Withdrawal of the application means that the 60-day clock has been
stopped. If and when a new application is submitted, the clock will start over. Because there is no
pending land use application and there is no pending offer to purchase land, the land sale items on
tonight's agenda are no longer necessary. She concluded that Mr. Clark was informed the items
related to the Pillsbury Commons project are pulled from the April 23 Planning Commission meeting.
Council Member/Chair Sandahl announced for the record, the City Council, Housing and
Redevelopment Authority, and Planning Commission have all received a copy of an e-mail/letter from
the following person(s) regarding the proposed Pillsbury Commons, which will be included in the
record:
• Barry LeBlanc, 7521 Pillsbury Ave. Received April 12, 2012.
James Susag, land use counsel for Ron Clark Construction, confirmed the land use
application was withdrawn because it appeared at the last meeting the plan was not supported by the
City and there should be better use of the land. Concerns raised will be addressed and a revised
plan will be submitted to the City within a week.
City Attorney Heine stated that it is staffs intention if a definite offer for the purchase of
property is received in time to meet publication deadlines, the notice of public hearing and public
comment would be scheduled for the May HRA meeting to appropriately move forward with the plan.
Special Meeting Minutes -2- April 16, 2012
In response to a question by Commissioner Quam, HRA Attorney Eddington explained that
state statutes do not require the HRA to call for the public hearing and traditionally staff calls a public
hearing on the HRA's behalf. She also indicated that it would be premature for the HRA to decide to
call a public hearing because there is no purchase offer on the table.
City Manager/Executive Director Devich stated that if the HRA feels strongly on this process,
the HRA, not staff, could place that authority back on the policymakers.
City Attorney Heine further explained the process, including the preliminary agreement the
HRA has with the developer to exercise good faith to call a public hearing.
Mayor/Commissioner Goettel asked about the timeline status, specifically the 60-day clock
and the HRA's preliminary agreement.
City Attorney Heine responded that the 60-day clock has stopped because no application is
pending and the developer was informed the revised land use application starts the clock from the
beginning again.
HRA Attorney Eddington stated the preliminary agreement is for 15 months with an automatic
6 month extension, that the agreement was executed May 16, 2011, and it would expire February 16,
2013; unless released for other reasons.
Commissioner Quam asked if the preliminary agreement could be terminated by the HRA if it
is believed the developer has not pursued the project in good faith.
HRA Attorney Eddington responded the HRA can terminate the agreement if it is believed the
developer has not been diligent in the process.
Commissioner Quam stated he was not prepared to take that action tonight because Mr.
Susag explained additional information will be presented in the near future but that he may make a
motion to terminate if it does not happen.
Council Member Wroge asked whether there was any expectation that the review process
would be shortened or whether the application would follow the process required for other developers.
Community Development Director Stark reviewed the timeline for the land use application,
including staff review, Planning Commission consideration, and City Council consideration. He added
that land use applications are not considered by the HRA.
Council Member Wroge indicated that he did not want to make a decision the same night as
the public hearing but wanted time to think about the comments at the hearing before making a
decision.
Council Member Wroge expressed his concerns regarding density and that the proposal to
buy land and give it back solely to get down the density for the project is not acceptable. He stated
the housing market is changing positively and he supported density for single-family owner
townhomes. He said Ron Clark lost credibility with him by making all the housing changes from his
original proposal.
Mr. Susag stated that the next presentation will be very direct and include addressing
concerns and discussion market studies.
Special Meeting Minutes -3- April 16, 2012
Item #1 CITY COUNCIL CONSIDERATION OF FIRST READING OF ORDINANCE
AUTHORIZING SALE OF CITY PROPERTY TO RON CLARK CONSTRUCTION
AND DESIGN (CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT NO. 74)
No discussion or action taken.
Item#2 HRA CONSIDERATION OF MOTION DIRECTING STAFF TO SCHEDULE
PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER SALE OF 211 le STREET WEST
(FORMER GLEASON'S MORTUARY STIE)TO RON CLARK CONSTRUCTION
AND DESIGN (HRA STAFF REPORT NO. 16)
No discussion or action taken.
ADJOURNMENT
The City Council/HRA Meeting was adjourned by unanimous consent at 8:04 p.m.
Date Approved: May 8, 2012
Debbie Goettel
Mayor
Cheryl Krumholz Steven L. Devich
Executive Coordinator City Manager
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
Richfield, Minnesota
' •eed
�� Special City Council/HRA/Planning
Commission Worksession
April 16, 2012
CALL TO ORDER
The meeting was called to order by Mayor Goettel and Chair Sandahl at 8:11 p.m. in the
Council Chambers.
ROLL CALL
Council Members Debbie Goettel, Mayor; Pat Elliott; Sue Sandahl;.Fred Wroge; and Tom
Present: Filzhenry
HRA Members Sue Sandahl, Chair; Doris Rubenstein; Steven J. Quam; David Gepner and
Present: Debbie Goettel
Planning Members Rick Jabs, Chair; Robert Hall; Maureen Scaglia; Daniel Kitzberger; Tom
Present: Rublein; and Gordon Vizecky
Planning Members Josh Root and Dennis Schuller
Absent:
Staff Present: Steven L. Devich, City Manager/HRA Executive Director; John Stark,
Community Development Director; Karen Barton, Community Development
Manager; Christine Costello, Community Development Coordinator; Michelle
Lewis, Housing Specialist; Julie Urban, Housing Specialist; Corrine Heine,
City Attorney; and Cheryl Krumholz, Executive Coordinator.
Item#1 DISCUSSION REGARDING PRESENTATION OF FINDINGS OF RENTAL
HOUSING INVENTORY AND NEEDS ASSESSMENT BY STANTEC
CONSULTING SERVICES, INC. (COUNCIL MEMO NO. 42)
Community Development Director Stark stated the findings presented this evening should be
considered draft for discussion and review. The study will be brought to the HRA for formal
consideration at a future meeting.
Jay Demma, Stantec Consulting Services, Inc., presented a summary of the findings of the
study.
Special Worksession Minutes -2- April 16, 2012
There were questions from the City Council, HRA, and Planning Commission regarding the
data, including but not limited to affordability definition, subsidized housing clarification, community
vision of single-family homes, define how to make housing needs tolerable for the community, density
comparison, number of updated and/or converted units, and available land.
Additional questions should be submitted to Community Development Director Stark.
The consensus was a worksession should be held to discuss more related issues.
ADJOURNMENT
The HRA/City Council/Planning Commission worksession was adjourned by unanimous
consent at 9:41 p.m.
Date Approved: May 8, 2012
Debbie Goettel
Mayor
Cheryl Krumholz Steven L. Devich
Executive Coordinator City Manager
•
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
Richfield, Minnesota
gcer4#eed Special Concurrent City Council/
Richfield School Board Worksession
April 24, 2012
CALL TO ORDER
The meeting was called to order by Mayor Goettel at 5:49 p.m.
ROLL CALL
Members Present: Debbie Goettel, Mayor; Pat Elliott; Fred Wroge; and Tom Fitzhenry
Members Absent: Sue Sandahl
Staff Present: Steven Devich, City Manager; Mike Eastling, Public Works Director; John
Stark, Community Development Director; Bill Fillmore, Municipal Liquor
Operations Director; Todd Sandell, Acting Public Safety Director; Jim
Topitzhofer, Recreation Services Director; Wayne Kewitsch, Fire Services
Director; Pam Dmytrenko, Assistant City Manager; and Cheryl Krumholz,
Executive Coordinator.
School Board Sandy Belkengren, Chair; David Lamberger; Todd Nollenberger; Deb
Members Present: Etienne; and John Easterwood
School Board John Ashmead
Members Absent:
School District Robert Slotterback, Superintendent; Michael Schwartz, Business Manager
Staff Present:
Item # 1 DISCUSSION TOPICS
A. City of Richfield
do.town
Mayor Goettel provided an update on do.town programs and events.
Recreation Services Director Topitzhofer discussed the Workplace Coalition, a Blue Cross
Blue Shield initiative, helping organizations with employee wellness programs.
Development projects in progress update
Community Development Director Stark discussed the following projects:
• Lyndale Station
• Former Lyndale Garden Center site
• Lyndale Plaza
Special Worksession Minutes -2- April 24, 2012
• Pizza Luce
• CVSNaIue Village
• Menard's
• LaMettry's Auto Body
• O'Reilly Auto Parts
Safe Routes to School
Public Works Director Eastling discussed the background, goal and anticipated outcomes,
and project outline.
School District Business Manager Schwartz discussed the request for proposal for a
consultant.
Beyond the Yellow Ribbon Campaign
Council Member Fitzhenry requested the school designate a representative to assist with the
campaign. He explained the purpose of the program.
B. Richfield School Board
Referendum
Superintendent Stotterback discussed the proposed referendum for the November 2012
ballot. He requested feedback from the City Council on how this would be received in the
community.
School Board Member Nollenberger discussed the legal aspects and the formation of a
Citizen Advisory Group.
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned by unanimous consent at 6:52 p.m.
Date Approved: May 8, 2012
Debbie Goettel
Mayor
Cheryl Krumholz Steven L. Devich
Executive Coordinator City Manager
CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES
/ Richfield, Minnesota
Regular Meeting
April 24, 2012
CALL TO ORDER
The meeting was called to order by Mayor Goettel at 7:00 p.m.
ROLL CALL
Members Present: Debbie Goettel, Mayor; Tom Fitzhenry; Pat Elliott, and Fred Wroge.
Members Absent: Sue Sandahl.
Staff Present: Steven L. Devich, City Manager; Todd Sandell, Acting Public Safety
Director; Wayne Kewitsch, Fire Services Director; Pam Dmytrenko,
Assistant City Manager; Corrine Heine, City Attorney; and Cheryl
Krumholz, Executive Coordinator.
MNVroge, S/Fitzhenry to excuse Council Member Sandahl from the Special Concurrent City
Council/Richfield School Board Worksession and Regular City Council Meeting of April 24, 2012.
Motion carried 4-0.
OPEN FORUM
None.
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
Mayor Goettel led the audience in the Pledge of Allegiance.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
M/Goettel, S/Wroge to approve the minutes of(1) Regular City Council Meeting of April 10,
2012.
Motion carried 4-0.
Council Meeting Minutes -2- April 24,2012
Item#1 PRESENTATION OF CERTIFICATES OF APPRECIATION TO MISS
RICHFIELD AMBASSADORS AND JUNIOR AMBASSADORS (COUNCIL
MEMO NO. 45)
Mayor Goettel presented certificates of appreciation to the 2011-2012 Miss Richfield
Ambassadors and Junior Ambassadors and the 2012-2013 Miss Richfield Ambassador candidates
and Junior Ambassador candidates.
Item#2 COUNCIL DISCUSSION
• HATS OFF TO HOMETOWN HITS •
Recreation Services Director Topitzhofer reported on the upcoming Memorial Day events at
Veterans Park.
Mayor Goettel discussed the do.town program.
Mayor Goettel announced the opening of the Farmers Market.
City Manager Devich reported on innovative energy programs being initiated and reviewed
by the City.
Item#3 COUNCIL APPROVAL OF AGENDA
MNVroge, S/Fitzhenry to approve the agenda.
Motion carried 4-0.
Item#4 CONSENT CALENDAR
A. Consideration of approval of resolution executing membership in Joint and Cooperative
Public Safety Purchasing Consortium S.R. No. 75
RESOLUTION NO.10648
RESOLUTION ADOPTING THE THIRD AMENDED AND RESTATED JOINT&
COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT FOR PUBLIC SAFETY PURCHASING
This resolution appears as Resolution No. 10648.
B. Consideration of approval of resolution allowing Richfield Department of Public Safety to
accept grant monies from U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Justice
Assistance Grant program S.R. No. 76
Council Meeting Minutes -3- April 24,2012
RESOLUTION NO.10649
RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY/POLICE TO
ACCEPT THE EDWARD BYRNE MEMORIAL JUSTICE ASSISTANCE GRANT (JAG) FOR$9,900
FROM THE OFFICE OF JUSTICE PROGRAMS TO BE USED FOR SPECIALIZED TRAINING
AND EQUIPMENT FOR POLICE PERSONNEL, AND CRIME PREVENTION AND JCPP (JOINT
COMMUNITY POLICE PARTNERSHIPS) PROGRAMS
This resolution appears as Resolution No. 10649.
C. Consideration of approval of resolution affirming monetary limits on statutory municipality
tort liability S.R. No. 77
RESOLUTION NO.10650
RESOLUTION AFFIRMING MUNICIPAL TORT LIABILITY LIMITS ESTABLISHED BY
MINNESOTA STATUTES 466.04
This resolution appears as Resolution No. 10650.
M/Goettel, S/Elliott to approve the Consent Calendar.
Motion carried 4-0.
Item#5 CONSIDERATION OF ITEMS, IF ANY, REMOVED FROM CONSENT
CALENDAR
None.
Item#6 CONSIDERATION OF ADVERTISEMENT FOR BIDS FOR CONSTRUCTION OF
FIBER OPTIC NETWORK TO CONNECT WOOD LAKE NATURE CENTER,
LYNDALE LIQUOR STORE AND WINE &SPIRITS LIQUOR STORE TO CITY'S
EXISTING FIBER OPTIC NETWORK S.R. NO. 78
Mayor Goettel presented Staff Report No. 78.
City Manager Devich explained the need for the network at Wood Lake Nature Center.
M/Goettel, S/Wroge to approve advertisement for bids for construction of fiber optic network
to connect Wood Lake Nature Center, Lyndale Liquor Store and Wine & Spirits Liquor Store to
City's existing fiber optic network.
Motion carried 4-0.
Item #7 CITY MANAGER'S REPORT
City Manager Devich announced the June 2 Municipal Center building dedication event.
Item#8 CLAIMS AND PAYROLLS
Council Meeting Minutes -4- April 24,2012
MNVroge, S/Elliott that the following claims and payrolls be approved:
U.S. Bank 04/24/12
NP Checks: 212149-212522 $ 1,117,439.25
Payroll: 83023-83337 $ 549,758.00
TOTAL $ 1,667,197.25
Motion carried 4-0.
OPEN FORUM
None.
ADJOURNMENT
The City Council meeting was adjourned by unanimous consent at 7:31 p.m.
Date Approved: May 8, 2012
Debbie Goettel
Mayor
Cheryl Krumholz Steven L. Devich
Executive Coordinator City Manager
AGENDA SECTION: CONSENT
AGENDA ITEM# 5A
REPORT# 79
madll STAFF REPORT
RICHFIELD CITY COUNCIL MEETING
MAY 8, 2012
REPORT PREPARED BY: AMY DUSEK,POLICE COMMUNITY
LIAISON
NAME TITLE
DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR // ( 1 / if
REVIEW: !
REVIEWED BY CITY If
MANAGER:
ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION:
Council approval of attached resolution authorizing Richfield Public Safety Department's
acceptance of monetary donations from Richfield Bloomington Credit Union for$750.00 and
Richfield Visions for$200.00.
I. RECOMMENDED ACTION:
By Motion: Approve the attached resolution allowing the Department
of Public Safety to accept donated monies from Richfield
Bloomington Credit Union and Richfield Visions.
II. BACKGROUND
For the past 3 years Richfield has celebrated Cinco de Mayo. Due to community
feedback desiring an inclusive title, the planning committee has changed the event
to Unity in the Community. The purpose of the event is to foster good relations
between the Richfield Community, its immigrant population and Public Safety. This
event is open to all. The funds donated will be used to purchase food for
participants, supplies and entertainment needed for the event. Richfield Visions is
an organization made up of Richfield residents who organize a home remodeling
fair and Richfield event called Cattail Day. Richfield Bloomington Credit Union is a
financial/banking institution serving the community.
III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION
050812 Resolution approving Donations for Unity in the Community
A. POLICY
• Public Safety does not accept financial support unless it is designated
for a specific program that will affect the department as a whole.
• The donation money will be used by Public Safety towards Unity in the
Community event.
• The Administrative Services Department issued a memo on
November 9, 2004 requiring that all grants and restricted donations to
Departments be received by resolution and by more than two-thirds
majority of the City Council in accordance with Minnesota Statute
465.03
B. CRITICAL TIMING ISSUES
• N/A
C. FINANCIAL
• The total donation that Public Safety will receive is $950.00.
D. LEGAL
• Minnesota Statute 465.03 requires every acceptance of a grant or
devise of real or personal property on terms prescribed by the donor
be made by resolution of more than two-thirds majority of the City
Council.
E. ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS
• N/A
IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION(S)
• Council could disapprove of the acceptance of the money and the funds
would have to be returned.
V. ATTACHMENTS
• Resolution
VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING
• N/A
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE RICHFIELD DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC
SAFETY/POLICE TO ACCEPT THE DONATION OF $950.00 FROM RICHFIELD
BLOOMINGTON CREDIT UNION AND RICHFIELD VISIONS TO BE USED FOR UNITY
IN THE COMMUNITY EVENT
WHEREAS, Richfield Public Safety Department has received a donation of$750.00
from Richfield Bloomington Credit Union and $200.00 from Richfield Visions to be used
towards the 2012 Unity in the Community event; and
WHEREAS, Richfield Public Safety Department has designated $950.00 be used to
fund the Unity in the Community event.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City of Richfield, Public Safety
Department will accept funds designated for police programs in accordance to and as
listed above.
Adopted by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this 8th day of May,
2012.
Debbie Goettel, Mayor
ATTEST:
Nancy Gibbs, City Clerk
AGENDA SECTION: CONSENT
AGENDA ITEM# 5B
REPORT# 80
=ride STAFF REPORT
RICHFIELD CITY COUNCIL MEETING
MAY 8, 2012
REPORT PREPARED BY: BETSY OSBORN, SUPPORT SERVICES
DIVISION MANAGER
NAME,TITLE
DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR
i�
REVIEW:
.%J,l' ' 14 A A.
REVIEWED BY CITY ' VA7 — e.si'l
MANAGER: ,1 ..f/. i •
ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION:
Consideration of the issuance of new on-sale intoxicating and Sunday liquor licenses for Pizza
Luce VII, Inc., 800 W. 66th Street, Richfield, MN.
I. RECOMMENDED ACTION:
By Motion: Approve the setting of a public hearing to be held June 12,
2012, for the consideration of new on-sale intoxicating and Sunday
liquor licenses for Pizza Luce VII Inc., 800 W. 66th St., Richfield, MN.
II. BACKGROUND
Applications for new on-sale intoxicating and Sunday liquor licenses for Pizza Luce
VII Inc. were received by the City on April 5, 2012. The restaurant is located at the
old Bridgeman's site, which has been closed for several years. The applicant is a
pizza based establishment who would like to add on-sale intoxicating and Sunday
liquor sales to its business.
III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION
A. POLICY
• City ordinance provides that the City Council conduct a public hearing
to consider all intoxicating liquor license applications and that a date
be set for the public hearing prior to the hearing.
•
• The hearing must be scheduled and held before a new license may be
considered.
• The new process has been initiated.
B. CRITICAL TIMING ISSUES
• Holding the public hearing on June 12, 2012 will provide ample time to
complete the licensing process.
C. FINANCIAL
• N/A
D. LEGAL
• N/A
E. ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS
• N/A
IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION(S)
• Reject the applications for new on-sale intoxicating and Sunday liquor
licenses for Pizza Luce VII, Inc.
• Schedule the hearing for another date. However, this may delay the
licensing process.
V. ATTACHMENTS
• None
VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING
• N/A
AGENDA SECTION: CONSENT
AGENDA ITEM# 5C
REPORT# 81
radii STAFF REPORT
RICHFIELD CITY COUNCIL MEETING
MAY 8, 2012
REPORT PREPARED BY: BETSY OSBORN, SUPPORT SERVICES
MANAGER
DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR Er �' 1
REVIEW: 4fi )„,4faiti_
Al
SIGNATURE
REVIEWED BY CITY 1
MANAGER:
ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION:
Consideration of a request for a new Therapeutic Massage Enterprise license for Salon St.
George, 6625 Lyndale Ave. S., Richfield, MN.
I. RECOMMENDED ACTION:
By Motion: Approve the setting of a public hearing to be held on June
12, 2012, for the consideration of a new Therapeutic Massage
Enterprise license for Salon St. George, 6625 Lyndale Ave. S.,
Richfield, MN
II. BACKGROUND
Application materials for a new Therapeutic Massage Enterprise License for Salon
St. George, 6625 Lyndale Ave. S. were received on February 16, 2012. Salon St.
George is a hair salon located in the M&I Bank building. The establishment is
looking to expand their services to provide massage therapy for their clients.
III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION
A. POLICY
• City ordinance provides that the City Council conduct a public hearing
to consider all Therapeutic Massage Enterprise license applications
and that a date be set for the public hearing prior to the hearing.
• The hearing must be scheduled and held before a new license may be
considered.
• The new process has been initiated.
• Holding the public hearing on June 12, 2012 will provide ample time to
complete the licensing process.
B. CRITICAL TIMING ISSUES
• Holding the public hearing on June 12, 2012 will provide ample time to
complete the licensing process.
C. FINANCIAL
• N/A
D. LEGAL
• N/A
E. ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS
• N/A
IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION(S)
• Reject the application for a new Therapeutic Massage Enterprise license for
Salon St. George.
• Schedule the hearing for another date. However, this may delay the
licensing process.
V. ATTACHMENTS
• None
VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING
• N/A
AGENDA SECTION: CONSENT
AGENDA ITEM# 5D
REPORT# 82
sie:Ii STAFF REPORT
RICHFIELD
NID CITY COUNCIL MEETING
MAY 8, 2012
REPORT PREPARED BY: KAREN SHRAGG,NATURE CENTER
MANAGER
• NAME,TITLE
DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR
REVIEW: ( I -761511 ----
O 7 SIGNATURE
REVIEWED BY CITY
MANAGER: A7, iir /
._ ._ _ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION:
Consideration of resolution authorizing the City of Richfield's 2012-2015 Municipal Recycling
Grant application and agreement with Hennepin County.
I. RECOMMENDED ACTION:
By Motion: Approve the attached resolution authorizing the City of
Richfield's 2012-2015 Municipal Recycling Grant application and
agreement with Hennepin County.
II. BACKGROUND
The City of Richfield receives a municipal recycling grant from Hennepin County
each year to coordinate recycling initiatives. 90% of this grant is given to Richfield
residents as a quarterly utility bill refund and 10% is used to cover administrative
costs of the recycling program. The City of Richfield's annual waste-tonnage report
to Hennepin County serves as the application for the program.
The amount of the grant varies from one agreement to another. This year's grant
will be $84,828. Agreements are for three-year terms.
0508 recycling
III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION
A. POLICY
• Richfield supports a residential recycling program as part of local
environmental management.
B. CRITICAL TIMING ISSUES
• Approval of the resolution is required to receive the grant.
• Action is requested on May 8 to meet the grant application deadline.
C. FINANCIAL
• The City acts as a community partner and, with this grant, no
expenses are incurred to administer this program.
D. LEGAL
N/A
E. ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS
• Wood Lake Nature Center Manager Karen Shragg is the Recycling
Coordinator and promotes and educates people about practices that
are friendly to the environment.
IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION(S)
• Do not approve the resolution, preventing the implementation of the
recycling program.
• Deferring action is not an alternative as the grant deadline needs to be met.
V. ATTACHMENTS
• Resolution authorizing the grant application and agreement.
• 2012-2015 Recycling Grant Agreement with Hennepin County
VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING
None
5D- I
RESOLUTION NO
RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE CITY OF RICHFIELD'S APPLICATION AND
AGREEMENT FOR THE 2012-2015 MUNICIPAL RECYCLING GRANT FROM
HENNEPIN COUNTY.
WHEREAS, Hennepin County provides annual municipal grants related to
residential recycling programs; and
WHEREAS, the City of Richfield desires to participate in the residential recycling
grant program.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Richfield City Council of the City of
Richfield that:
1. The City of Richfield's waste tonnage report serves as its application to
participate in the 2012-2015 Hennepin County Residential Recycling Program.
2. The City Manager of the City of Richfield is hereby authorized and directed to
execute the Municipal Recycling Grant agreement with Hennepin County
Department of Environmental Management.
Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this 8th day of May,
2012.
Debbie Goettel, Mayor
ATTEST:
Nancy Gibbs, City Clerk
,9 Contract No: A120129
RESIDENTIAL RECYCLING GRANT AGREEMENT
This Agreement is between the COUNTY OF HENNEPIN, STATE OF MINNESOTA,
A-2300 Government Center, Minneapolis,Minnesota 55487 (the"COUNTY"), on behalf of the
Hennepin County Department of Environmental Services, 701 Fourth Avenue South,
Minneapolis,Minnesota 55415-1600 ("DEPARTMENT")and the CITY OF RICHFIELD,6700
Portland Avenue South, Richfield,Minnesota 55423-2599 ("CITY").
WITNESSETH:
WHEREAS, the County Board,by Resolution No. 11-0476S1, adopted on November 29,
2011, approved the Hennepin County Residential Recycling Funding Policy("Funding Policy")
for the period January 1, 2012,through December 31, 2015, and authorized grant funding for
municipal recycling programs consistent with the Funding Policy; and
WHEREAS,the CITY operates a municipal curbside residential recycling program and
other waste reduction and recycling activities (the"Recycling Program") as described in the
grant application (the"Grant Application")referred to in Section 2 below; and
WHEREAS,the Recycling Program is consistent with Minnesota Statutes, Chapter
115A;the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency's Metropolitan Solid Waste Management Policy
Plan; Hennepin County's Solid Waste Management Master Plan; and Hennepin County's
Residential Recycling Funding Policy.
NOW,THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual undertakings and agreements
hereinafter set forth,the COUNTY, on behalf of the DEPARTMENT, and the CITY agree as
follows:
1. TERM AND COST OF THE AGREEMENT
a. This Agreement shall commence upon execution and terminate on December 31,
2015.
b. The total grant payment for the year 2012 shall be equal to eighty four thousand
eight hundred twenty-eight dollars ($84,828). Grant payments for subsequent
years shall be calculated as set forth in Section 3.
2. SERVICES TO BE PROVIDED
a. The CITY shall operate the Recycling Program as more fully described in the
Funding Policy and the Grant Application. The CITY agrees to submit an updated
Grant Application by February 15 of each year of the term of this Agreement in
order to be eligible for grant funds. The application consists of the Re-TRAC
web-based report and a planning document submitted to the COUNTY describing
the programs or activities the CITY will implement to increase recycling and
make progress toward COUNTY goals. The terms of the Grant Application, as
updated each year, are incorporated herein by reference.
b. In addition to the services referred to above,the CITY agrees as follows:
5D-5
1) Requests for Proposals and Contracts.
a.) If contracting for curbside recycling services,the CITY shall require a
breakout of the following expenses when renewing or soliciting new
proposals or bids for recycling services:
• Containers—if provided by the hauler;
• Collection service;
• Processing cost per ton;
• Revenue sharing.
b.) The COUNTY recommends the CITY request the following
information in the Request for Proposal/Bid or contract:
• Destination of recyclable materials,including the facility name,
location, and end market;
• Monthly prices for recyclable materials by material type;
• Residue rates at the Materials Recovery Facility(MRF);
• Composition of residue.
2) Materials to be Collected. At a minimum,the CITY shall collect the
following materials curbside:
a.) Newspaper and inserts;
b.) Cardboard boxes;
c.) Glass food and beverage containers;
d.) Metal food and beverage cans;
e.) All plastic containers and lids,#1 —Polyethylene Terephthalate(PET,
PETE),#2 High Density Polyethylene(HDPE),#3—Vinyl Polyvinyl
Chloride(PVC),#4—Low Density Polyethylene(LDPE) and#5—
Polypropylene(PP)plastic bottles,except those that previously
contained hazardous materials or motor oil;
f.) Magazines and catalogs;
g.) Cereal, cracker,pasta, cake mix, shoe, gift, and electronics boxes;
h.) Boxes from toothpaste, medications and other toiletries;
i.) Aseptic and gable-topped containers; and
j.) Mail, office and school papers.
3) Collection Methods. The CITY shall use one of the following systems to
collect materials at the curb:
a.) Single sort system-all materials combined in one container; or
b.) Dual sort system- glass, metal and plastic together with paper
separate.
If one of these two systems is not currently in place,the CITY must submit a
plan with their 2012 Grant Application for converting to a single or dual sort
system by December 31, 2012. If the CITY is unable to meet this deadline, an
alternative implementation plan must be negotiated with and approved by the
2
COUNTY.The implementation plan will include the reasons why an
extension is needed, the projected timeline, and details about each step of the
process.The CITY will also provide the COUNTY with updates to the plan as
implementation progresses.
4) Education and Outreach. The CITY shall:
a.) Use COUNTY terminology when describing recycling guidelines (i.e.
description of materials accepted and not accepted,preparation
guidelines, etc.)
b.) Use images provided by the COUNTY or the Solid Waste
Management Coordinating Board (SWMCB) if using images of
recyclables.
c.) Use the COUNTY's terminology,preparation guidelines and images
on the CITY's website.
d.) Mail a recycling guide once a year to residents using a template
developed jointly through a communications committee and produced
and printed by the COUNTY at the COUNTY's expense.If the CITY
does not want to use the template produced by the COUNTY,the
CITY may develop its own guide at the municipality's expense,but it
must be approved by the COUNTY. If the CITY relies on the hauler to
provide the recycling guide,this guide would also require approval by
the COUNTY.
e.) Complete two additional education activities from a menu of options
developed by the communications committee to support the priority
message campaign.Templates will be provided by the COUNTY.
Any print material that communicates residential recycling guidelines that
were not provided by the COUNTY template will require COUNTY
approval. This does not apply to waste reduction and reuse,articles on
recycling that do not include guidelines, and social media posts.The
COUNTY will respond within five business days to any communication
piece submitted.
5) Use of Grant Funds.
a.) Grant funds can be used for all Recycling Program expenses including
capital and operating costs.Expenses associated with residential
collection of organics are considered eligible Recycling Program
expenses. However, yard waste expenses are not eligible Recycling
Program expenses. If organics and yard waste are commingled,the
organics expenses must be tracked separately.
b.) All grant funds accepted from the COUNTY must be used for
Recycling Program capital and operating expenses in the year granted.
c.) The CITY may not charge its residents through property tax,utility
fees or any other method for that portion of the costs of its Recycling
Program funded by COUNTY grant funds.
d.) The CITY shall establish a separate accounting mechanism, such as a
project number, activity number, or fund that will separate recycling
and waste reduction revenues and expenditures from other municipal
activities,including solid waste and yard waste activities.
3
e.) Recycling and waste reduction activities,revenues, and expenditures
are subject to audit by the COUNTY.
f.) The CITY shall not retain any grant funds in excess of actual
Recycling Program expenses.
g.) If the CITY does not contract for curbside recycling services, the
CITY will receive grant funds provided that at least ninety percent
(90%) of the grant funds are credited back to residents and the CITY
meets all minimum program requirements.The additional ten percent
(10%) may be used for CITY administrative and promotional
expenses.
6) Reporting Requirements.
a.) The CITY shall submit an annual recycling report to the COUNTY
utilizing the Re-TRAC web-based reporting system by February 15 of
each year. If the CITY is unable to access the Re-TRAC system,the
COUNTY must be contacted by February 1 to make arrangements for
alternative filing of the required report.
b.) The CITY will not report residue as a part of recycling tonnages.The
CITY will make arrangements with its hauler to report residue
separately.
c.) The CITY shall annually measure the participation rate in the curbside
Recycling Program during the month of October. The rate will be
calculated by dividing the number of households setting out recycling
by the total number of households (accounts)with recycling service.
The participation rate will be reported in Re-TRAC.
d.) The CITY shall submit an annual planning document to the COUNTY
describing the programs or activities the CITY will implement to
increase recycling and make progress toward COUNTY goals.
e.) To help monitor progress,the CITY shall provide an update on
recycling tonnages and program activities to the COUNTY upon
request. The CITY shall then provide the quarterly tonnage report
received from its haulers or make arrangements with the haulers to
send the information directly to the COUNTY.
7) Recycling Performance. On an annual basis,the CITY shall demonstrate that
a reasonable effort has been made to maintain and increase the average
amount of recyclables collected from their residential Recycling Program to at
least 725 pounds per household or achieve a minimum recovery rate of 80%
by December 31, 2015. Alternatively,if the CITY has a method in place to
accurately measure total waste generation(garbage and recycling), then the
CITY may choose a 35%recycling rate as the performance standard. To
ensure the accuracy of data for these metrics the CITY will be required, upon
request,to provide documentation on the methodology used to calculate
performance.To the extent practicable, the results should rely on actual data
rather than estimates.
Failure by the CITY to demonstrate measureable progress towards one of
these goals will result in the requirement that a Recycling Improvement Plan
be submitted by the CITY within 90 days of being notified by the COUNTY.
The Recycling Improvement Plan must be negotiated with and approved by
4
the COUNTY. The Recycling Improvement Plan will include actions the
CITY will take to improve the performance of its Recycling Program to
achieve the 2015 goals.The plan will focus on program changes and
additional activities in the following areas: materials collected, sort method,
type of container, frequency of collection, education and outreach,
performance measurement, contract management, and incentives.Funding
will be withheld until the CITY's Recycling Improvement Plan is approved by
the COUNTY.
In cooperation with the COUNTY,the CITY may be required to participate in
waste and recycling sorts to identify recovery levels of various recyclables in
their community. Based on the results of the study,the COUNTY and the
CITY will collaborate to increase the recovery of select recyclable materials
being discarded in significant quantities.
8) Public Entity Recycling. Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Section §115A.151,
the CITY shall ensure that facilities under its control,from which mixed
municipal solid waste is collected,have containers for at least three recyclable
materials, such as,but not limited to,paper, glass, plastic, and metal, and
transfer all recyclable materials collected to a recycler.
3. METHOD OF PAYMENT
a. The COUNTY will annually distribute to Hennepin County municipalities grant
funds only to the extent the COUNTY receives SCORE funds from the State of
Minnesota. SCORE funds are based on revenue received by the State of Minnesota from
a sales tax on garbage collection and disposal fees. SCORE funds are subject to change
based on actual revenue received by the State and funds allocated by the legislature. The
following formula will be utilized to determine the CITY's SCORE grant for each year:
#of Households Served
Curbside by CITY X Total SCORE Revenue = Grant Funds
Received by COUNTY Distributed to
Total#of Households Served from State of Minnesota CITY
Curbside in COUNTY
b. Under no circumstances will the COUNTY's distribution of grant funds exceed
the CITY's proportion of SCORE fund revenues received by the COUNTY.
c. The initial grant fund payment will be forwarded after the County Board receives
and approves this Agreement signed by an authorized official of the CITY.
Provided the CITY is otherwise in compliance with the terms of this Agreement,
future grant fund payments will be made after submittal by the CITY and
approval by the COUNTY of the updated Grant Application as described in
Section 2 and receipt by the COUNTY of SCORE funds from the State of
Minnesota.
d. Annual grant payments will be made to the CITY in two equal payments. One
payment will be made after the COUNTY receives the Grant Application,which
consists of the Re-TRAC report and a planning document.A second payment will
5
be made after the report has been approved,measurable progress toward the 2015
goal has been confirmed, and,if necessary, a Recycling Improvement Plan has
been approved by the COUNTY. If the CITY meets the COUNTY requirements,
both payments will be made during the same calendar year.
4. PROFESSIONAL CREDENTIALS
INTENTIONALLY OMI TIED
5. INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR
CITY shall select the means,method, and manner of performing the services. Nothing is
intended or should be construed as creating or establishing the relationship of a
partnership or a joint venture between the parties or as constituting CITY as the agent,
representative, or employee of the COUNTY for any purpose. CITY is and shall remain
an independent contractor for all services performed under this Agreement. CITY shall
secure at its own expense all personnel required in performing services under this
Agreement. Any personnel of CITY or other persons while engaged in the performance
of any work or services required by CITY will have no contractual relationship with the
COUNTY and will not be considered employees of the COUNTY. The COUNTY shall
not be responsible for any claims that arise out of employment or alleged employment
under the Minnesota Economic Security Law or the Workers' Compensation Act of the
State of Minnesota on behalf of any personnel,including, without limitation, claims of
discrimination against CITY,its officers, agents, contractors, or employees. CITY shall
defend,indemnify, and hold harmless the COUNTY,its officials, officers, agents,
volunteers, and employees from all such claims irrespective of any determination of any
pertinent tribunal, agency,board, commission, or court. Such personnel or other persons
shall neither require nor be entitled to any compensation,rights, or benefits of any kind
from the COUNTY,including, without limitation,tenure rights, medical and hospital
care, sick and vacation leave,Workers' Compensation, Re-employment Compensation,
disability, severance pay, and retirement benefits.
7. INDEMNIFICATION
CITY agrees to defend,indemnify, and hold harmless the COUNTY,its officials,
officers, agents, volunteers and employees from any liability, claims, causes of action,
judgments, damages, losses, costs, or expenses,including reasonable attorney's fees,
resulting directly or indirectly from any act or omission of CITY, a subcontractor, anyone
directly or indirectly employed by them, and/or anyone for whose acts and/or omissions
they may be liable in the performance of the services required by this Agreement, and
against all loss by reason of the failure of CITY to perform any obligation under this
Agreement.
8. INSURANCE
A. With respect to the services provided pursuant to this Agreement, CITY agrees at
all times during the term of this Agreement,and beyond such term when so
required,to have and keep in force the following insurance coverages, either
under a self-insurance program or purchased insurance:
6
®-�
Limits
1. Commercial General Liability on an occurrence
basis with contractual liability coverage:
General Aggregate $2,000,000
Products—Completed Operations Aggregate 2,000,000
Personal and Advertising Injury 1,500,000
Each Occurrence—Combined Bodily
Injury and Property Damage 1,500,000
2. Workers' Compensation and Employer's Liability:
Workers' Compensation Statutory
Employer's Liability. Bodily injury by:
Accident—Each Accident 500,000
Disease—Policy Limit 500,000
Disease—Each Employee 500,000
3. Professional Liability—Per Claim 1,500,000
Aggregate 2,000,000
The professional liability insurance must be
maintained continuously for a period of two years
after the termination of this Agreement.
B. An umbrella or excess policy over primary liability insurance coverages is an
acceptable method to provide the required insurance limits.
The above establishes minimum insurance requirements. It is the sole
responsibility of CITY to determine the need for and to procure additional
insurance which may be needed in connection with this Agreement. Upon written
request, CITY shall promptly submit copies of insurance policies to the
COUNTY.
CITY shall not commence work until it has obtained required insurance and filed
with the COUNTY, a properly executed Certificate of Insurance establishing
compliance. The certificate(s) must name Hennepin County as the certificate
holder and as an additional insured for the liability coverage(s)for all operations
covered under the Agreement. If the certificate form contains a certificate holder
notification provision,the certificate shall state that the insurer will endeavor to
mail the COUNTY 30 day prior written notice in the event of cancellation of any
described policies. If CITY receives notice of cancellation from an insurer, CITY
shall fax or email a copy of the cancellation notice to the COUNTY within two
business days.
CITY shall furnish to the COUNTY updated certificates during the term of this
Agreement as insurance policies expire. If CITY fails to furnish proof of
insurance coverages,the COUNTY may withhold payments and/or pursue any
other right or remedy allowed under the contract,law, equity, and/or statute. The
7
COUNTY does not waive any rights or assume any obligations by not strictly
enforcing the requirements set forth in this section.
C. Duty to Notify. CITY shall promptly notify the COUNTY of any claim,action,
cause of action or litigation brought against CITY,its employees, officers, agents
or subcontractors,which arises out of the services contained in this Agreement.
CITY shall also notify the COUNTY whenever CITY has a reasonable basis for
believing that CITY and/or its employees, officers,agents or subcontractors,
and/or the COUNTY,might become the subject of a claim, action, cause of
action, criminal arrest, criminal charge or litigation arising out of and/or related to
the services contained in this Agreement. Failure to provide the notices required
by this section is a material violation of the terms and conditions of this
Agreement.
9. DATA PRACTICES
CITY,its officers, agents, owners,partners, employees,volunteers and subcontractors
shall abide by the provisions of the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act,
Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13 (MGDPA),the Health Insurance Portability and
Accountability Act(HIPAA) and implementing regulations, if applicable, and all other
applicable state and federal laws,rules,regulations and orders relating to data privacy or
confidentiality. CITY agrees to defend,indemnify and hold harmless the COUNTY,its
officials, officers, agents, employees, and volunteers from any claims resulting from
CITY's officers', agents', owners',partners', employees', volunteers', assignees' or
subcontractors' unlawful disclosure and/or use of such protected data, or other
noncompliance with the requirements of this section. CITY agrees to promptly notify the
COUNTY if it becomes aware of any potential claims, or facts giving rise to such claims,
under the MGDPA. The terms of this section shall survive the cancellation or
termination of this Agreement.
10. RECORDS—AVAILABILITY/ACCESS
Subject to the requirements of Minnesota Statutes Section 16C.05, Subd. 5,CITY agrees
that the COUNTY,the State Auditor, or any of their authorized representatives, at any
time during normal business hours, and as often as they may reasonably deem necessary,
shall have access to and the right to examine,audit, excerpt, and transcribe any books,
documents, papers, records, etc., which are pertinent to the accounting practices and
procedures of CITY and involve transactions relating to this Agreement. CITY shall
maintain these materials and allow access during the period of this Agreement and for six
(6) years after its termination or cancellation.
11. SUCCESSORS, SUBCONTRACTING AND ASSIGNMENTS
A. CITY binds itself, its partners, successors, assigns and legal representatives to the
COUNTY for all covenants, agreements and obligations contained in the contract
documents.
B. CITY shall not assign, transfer or pledge this Agreement and/or the services to be
performed, whether in whole or in part,nor assign any monies due or to become
due to it without the prior written consent of the COUNTY. A consent to assign
shall be subject to such conditions and provisions as the COUNTY may deem
8
5 0-1°
necessary, accomplished by execution of a form prepared by the COUNTY and
signed by CITY, the assignee and the COUNTY. Permission to assign,however,
shall under no circumstances relieve CITY of its liabilities and obligations under
the Agreement.
C. CITY shall not subcontract this Agreement and/or the services to be performed,
whether in whole or in part,without the prior written consent of the COUNTY.
Permission to subcontract,however, shall under no circumstances relieve CITY of
its liabilities and obligations under the Agreement. Further,CITY shall be fully
responsible for the acts, omissions, and failure of its subcontractors in the
performance of the specified contractual services, and of person(s) directly or
indirectly employed by subcontractors. Contracts between CITY and each
subcontractor shall require that the subcontractor's services be performed in
accordance with the terms and conditions specified. CITY shall make contracts
between CITY and subcontractors available upon request.
12. MERGER AND MODIFICATION
A. It is understood and agreed that the entire Agreement between the parties is
contained herein and that this Agreement supersedes all oral agreements and
negotiations between the parties relating to the subject matter. All items that are
referenced or that are attached are incorporated and made a part of this
Agreement. If there is any conflict between the terms of this Agreement and
referenced or attached items,the terms of this Agreement shall prevail.
B. Any alterations,variations, modifications, or waivers of provisions of this
Agreement shall only be valid when they have been reduced to writing as an
amendment to this Agreement signed by the parties.
13. DEFAULT AND CANCELLATION
A. If CITY fails to perform any of the provisions of this Agreement or so fails to
administer the work as to endanger the performance of the Agreement,it shall be
in default. Unless CITY's default is excused by the COUNTY,the COUNTY
may upon written notice immediately cancel this Agreement in its entirety.
Additionally,failure to comply with the terms of this Agreement shall be just
cause for the COUNTY to delay payment until CITY's compliance. In the event
of a decision to withhold payment,the COUNTY shall furnish prior written notice
to CITY.
B. Notwithstanding any provision of this Agreement to the contrary, CITY shall
remain liable to the COUNTY for damages sustained by the COUNTY by virtue
of any breach of this Agreement by CITY.
C. The above remedies shall be in addition to any other right or remedy available to
the COUNTY under this Agreement,law, statute, rule, and/or equity.
D. The COUNTY's failure to insist upon strict performance of any provision or to
exercise any right under this Agreement shall not be deemed a relinquishment or
waiver of the same,unless consented to in writing. Such consent shall not
9
5 ®- II
constitute a general waiver or relinquishment throughout the entire term of the
Agreement.
E. This Agreement may be canceled with or without cause by either party upon
thirty(30) day written notice.
F. Upon early termination or cancellation of this Agreement,the CITY shall itemize
any and all grant funds expenditures up to the date of termination or cancellation
and return such grant funds not yet expended.
G. Upon written notice, COUNTY may immediately suspend or cancel this
Agreement in the event any of the following occur: (i) COUNTY does not obtain
anticipated funding from an outside source for this project; (ii)funding for this
project from an outside source is withdrawn,frozen, shut-down, is otherwise
made unavailable or COUNTY loses the outside funding for any other reason; or
(iii) COUNTY determines, in its sole discretion,that funding is, or has become,
insufficient. COUNTY is not obligated to pay for any services that are provided
after notice and effective date of termination. In the event COUNTY cancels this
Agreement pursuant to the terms in this paragraph 13(G), COUNTY shall pay any
amount due and payable prior to the notice of suspension or cancellation pursuant
to the terms herein except that COUNTY shall not be obligated to pay any amount
as or for penalties, early termination fees, charges, time and materials for services
not then performed, costs, expenses or profits on work done.
14. SURVIVAL OF PROVISIONS
Provisions that by their nature are intended to survive the term, cancellation or
termination of this Agreement include but are not limited to: INDEPENDENT
CONTRACTOR;INDEMNIFICATION;INSURANCE; DATA PRACTICES;
RECORDS-AVAILABILITY/ACCESS; DEFAULT AND CANCELLATION;
PROMOTIONAL LITERATURE; and MINNESOTA LAW GOVERNS.
15. CONTRACT ADMINISTRATION
In order to coordinate the services of the CITY with the activities of the Department of
Environmental Services so as to accomplish the purposes of this contract, Dave McNary,
Solid Waste Division Manager, or his or her successor, shall manage this contract on
behalf of the COUNTY and serve as liaison between the COUNTY and the CITY.
16. COMPLIANCE AND NON-DEBARMENT CERTIFICATION
A. CITY shall comply with all applicable federal, state and local statutes,
regulations,rules and ordinances currently in force or later enacted.
B. CITY shall comply with all applicable conditions of the specific referenced grant.
17. SUBCONTRACTOR PAYMENT
As required by Minnesota Statutes Section 471.425, Subd. 4a, CITY shall pay any
subcontractor within ten(10) days of CITY's receipt of payment from the COUNTY for
undisputed services provided by the subcontractor. CITY shall pay interest of 11/2 percent
10
°- Ia
per month or any part of a month to the subcontractor on any undisputed amount not paid
on time to the subcontractor. The minimum monthly interest penalty payment for an
unpaid balance of$100.00 or more is$10.00. For an unpaid balance of less than
$100.00, CITY shall pay the actual penalty due to the subcontractor. A subcontractor
who prevails in a civil action to collect interest penalties from a prime contractor must be
awarded its costs and disbursements,including any attorney's fees,incurred in bringing
the action.
18. PAPER RECYCLING
The COUNTY encourages CITY to develop and implement an office paper and
newsprint recycling program.
19. NOTICES
Any notice or demand which must be given or made by a party under this Agreement or
any statute or ordinance shall be in writing, and shall be sent registered or certified mail.
Notices to the COUNTY shall be sent to the County Administrator with a copy to the
originating Department at the address given in the opening paragraph of the Agreement.
Notice to CITY shall be sent to the address stated in the opening paragraph of the
Agreement.
20. CONFLICT OF INTEREST
CITY affirms that to the best of CITY's knowledge, CITY's involvement in this
Agreement does not result in a conflict of interest with any party or entity which may be
affected by the terms of this Agreement. CITY agrees that, should any conflict or
potential conflict of interest become known to CITY,CITY will immediately notify the
COUNTY of the conflict or potential conflict, specifying the part of this Agreement
giving rise to the conflict or potential conflict, and will advise the COUNTY whether
CITY will or will not resign from the other engagement or representation.
21. PROMOTIONAL LITERATURE
CITY agrees,to the extent applicable,to abide by the current Hennepin County
Communications Policy(available upon request). This obligation includes,but is not
limited to, CITY not using the term"Hennepin County"or any derivative in any
promotional literature, advertisements of any type or form or client lists without the
express prior written consent of a COUNTY Department Director or equivalent.
22. MINNESOTA LAWS GOVERN
The Laws of the State of Minnesota shall govern all questions and interpretations
concerning the validity and construction of this Agreement and the legal relations
between the parties and their performance. The appropriate venue and jurisdiction for
any litigation will be those courts located within the County of Hennepin, State of
Minnesota. Litigation, however,in the federal courts involving the parties will be in the
appropriate federal court within the State of Minnesota. If any provision of this
Agreement is held invalid,illegal or unenforceable,the remaining provisions will not be
affected.
11
COUNTY BOARD AUTHORIZATION
Reviewed by the County Attorney's COUNTY OF HENNEPIN
Office STATE OF MINNESOTA
By:
Assistant County Attorney Chair of Its County Board
Date:
ATTEST:
Deputy/Clerk of County Board
Date:
By:
Richard P. Johnson, County Administrator
Date:
By:
Assistant County Administrator,Public Works
Recommended for Approval Date:
By:
Director, Department of Environmental Services
Date:
MUNICIPALITY
CITY warrants that the person who executed
this Agreement is authorized to do so on behalf of
CITY as required by applicable articles,
bylaws,resolutions or ordinances.*
Signature:
Name(Printed):
Title:
Date:
*CITY shall submit applicable documentation(articles,bylaws,resolutions or ordinances)that confirms the signatory's
delegation of authority. This documentation shall be submitted at the time CITY returns the Agreement to the COUNTY.
Documentation is not required for a sole proprietorship.
12
AGENDA SECTION: CONSENT
AGENDA ITEM# 5E
REPORT# 83
STAFF REPORT
RlCiF 1L13: CITY COUNCIL MEETING
'` 1 s Y aUa
:. -?,%
MAY 08, 2012
REPORT PREPARED BY: DERICK ANDERSON, CIVIL ENGINEER
DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR
121
REVIEW: dr I /
REVIEWED BY CITY F"' i
MANAGER: d Lam ; f /
ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION:
Consideration of award of contract for the 2012 Pavement Management Project.
I. RECOMMENDED ACTION:
By Motion: Accept the bid minutes/tabulation and award contract for
2012 Sealcoating work to Pearson Bros. Inc. in the sum of
$564,958.00.
II. BACKGROUND
The pavement management program was implemented in 1988. That policy
direction was set to improve the quality of the roads within the City and maintain an
acceptable roadway system for residents. Committing to and continuing the
preventive maintenance program is essential to delay the high costs associated with
the deterioration of the streets to the point of major repair.
Sealcoating has been the leading cost-effective technique for slowing the
deterioration of our residential streets. The sealcoating process involves applying a
thin coat of emulsified oil, and then covering it with 1/8" minus, Dresser Trap Rock.
The City switched aggregate to trap rock in place of FA2 "buckshot" in 2011 for
better performance and longer lifespan of the sealcoat.
The franchise fee implemented in 2004 provides the funding for the City's Pavement
Management Program.
050812 Pavement Mgmt
III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION
A. POLICY
• In 1995, Council initiated an accelerated street maintenance program.
The program includes sealcoating all residential streets in a five-year
cycle, asphalt crack repair, and mill and overlay when needed.
• In 2011, the maintenance program was modified to sealcoat the entire
city in four projects over a 6 year cycle. Excess funds are banked
each year and are spent down by mill and overlay projects during the
two years that sealcoating does not take place.
B. CRITICAL TIMING ISSUES
• Regular preventive maintenance techniques, such as sealcoating and
mill and overlay, delay costly reconstruction projects.
C. FINANCIAL
• The cost of oil used for sealcoating is up about 9%, while the installed
price of rock is up 50% from 2011 prices.
• A recent history of bid prices for Sealcoating:
Year Bid Price Rock Bid Price Oil Contractor
2005 $20.00 /ton $0.86 /gal Pearson Brothers
2006 $21.52 $1.39 Pearson Brothers
2007 $25.35 $1.76 Pearson Brothers
2009 $27.00 $2.15 Pearson Brothers
2011 $0.34* $2.19 Pearson Brothers
2012 $0.51* $2.39 Pearson Brothers
*Starting in 2011, unit price for bidding switched from per ton to per square
yard and the aggregate switched to trap rock from "buckshot".
• Funding for sealcoating is provided by the City's Franchise Fees and
is in the 2012 Street Maintenance Budget, line item 6315 (Other
Contractual Services)
D. LEGAL
• When the amount of purchase is estimated to exceed $100,000,
sealed bids shall be solicited by public notice in the manner and
subject to the law governing contracts or purchases by the City of
Richfield.
• The advertisement for bid was published in the Richfield Sun-Current
on April 12, 2012 and in the Construction Bulletin on April 16, 2012.
• The City has followed the competitive bid process and should award
the contract to the lowest responsible bidder.
• Bid openings were held on April 26, 2012. A copy of the bid
tabulations for the sealcoating contract is attached.
E. ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS
• N/A
IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION(S)
• Council may choose to reject all bids and direct staff to obtain new bids;
however, the prices received for the contract are competitive, and staff does
not believe lower prices can be obtained from a reputable contractor.
• Council may choose not to continue with the Pavement Management
Program as planned. However, the program is essential to maintaining and
extending the usable life of the City's streets.
V. ATTACHMENTS
• A copy of the April 26, 2012 sealcoating bid tabulation.
• A map depicting the 2012 sealcoating project area.
VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING
• None
5E'
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Bid Opening
April 26, 2012
10:00 a.m.
2012 Sealcoat
Bid No. 12-01
Pursuant to requirements of Resolution No. 1015, a meeting of the Administrative Staff
was called by Nancy Gibbs, City Clerk, who announced that the purpose of the meeting
was to receive, open and read aloud, bids for 2012 sealcoat, as advertised in the official
newspaper on April 12, 2012 and the Construction Bulletin on April 16, 2012.
Present: Nancy Gibbs, City Clerk
Derick Anderson, Civil Engineer
Theresa Schyma, City Manager Representative
The following bids were submitted and read aloud:
Intent
Non-
Bidder's Name Bond Collusion To Total Base Bid
Comply
Pearson Brothers, Inc. Provided Provided Provided $564,958.00
Allied Blacktop, Inc. Provided Provided Provided $620,470.00
ASHTECH Corp. Provided Provided Provided $655,050.00
The City Clerk announced that the bids would be tabulated and considered at the May
8, 2012 City Council Meeting.
Nancy Gibbs City Clerk
I
,
Richfield N
W E
At S
I
w ¢ a ¢
1111111111e1 rcorr---L�i�Q i— w wlJ
> w EC> a w p z x > '1.3RI jj N > > _ 63RC,STE co
(:!? iii"N w U w N fl w w z v w a n ° ° a w ¢ ° a Ill 1 64TH STW Q o ` w z 64TH ST U 64TH ST
ct
OJ iiriirni CI \ 641/2 Z• �v_, , STW W\L73u TH STW - 65TH ST W 65TH ST 65TH ST E
w D ST ill p ` �,5.�� > > c, I
I L
z_ LIJ
> > 66THS W = 10 66THSTW W Z _•` 66THSTW J•• ■∎�
z .
w ¢ N w m w T.
cn¢ > ¢ > > ¢ ¢ ¢
¢II1 . x x
ce w 67T ST z
Q _ J w
Z W 67TH ST W N Q 67TH ST E - O `~°
j ¢ cn ❑ w U
a o w N 1FOREST D' - !LOB > a
SET STW O' ¢ I�� I 1 N w w w „ .. yV `r 68TH ST E UJ, a >
JIHHIIr o Chr stir n Park Gp-u gr G F i 69T J3ar in Lo 69TH
1ST S - w w ¢
•
70T STW iHH /1, n 70TH STE O
II 41
cn u,\1 w >
70 1/.STW II6 ¢ ¢ ¢
Commu 'ty =
71ST STW _ ail i 71ST Cent r Q w v 71S ST a 71S STW
F
711/2 STW r ST Parkin
Parking t -o a 1 0 H o n Lu
z o
72ND ST W •. ' (AK ,� 72ND STW Z v > 72NC STE w ¢ :AdIHY'
U syOR O U ❑ L
w = w
to w > U R ¢ U ¢LU
Q a
IHIILi ��, '.III III w :.
co
° O w ¢ w 31¢ w ¢
._ = = a z a > •rw a > J x
~ CO ,z W ''C, m LU Q F- U ~
co 74T STW a I z a 74TH STE v 74TH.cc
L; Donaldson Park
. w W W
Z F a Parking Lots o N > Q w z
Z Z ` w w = ' Z ~
D w STW Z o) m - 11111111 > 75TH ST E ,i ¢ 0 m 75TH.
U Q
¢ > • Z w m W co Z U mn
Q ¢ Q O W w N .� F F o 76T W { ¢ W 76TH STW ° m 76TF ST W
CIR \ ;
W I w 0 \\ •I I
MUM I I 77TH ST
7
)
7TH ST O
o
771/2 STW w
• I.
78TH STW e N a \ 78TH ST , .
78TH All 1.r ..... ___.... �,......
��,�. _......,p____ •
_Ail
Legend RICHFIELD
0 875 1 ,750 3,500 5,250 PUBLIC
Feet 2012 Sealcoat Parking Lot Sealcoat WORKS
AGENDA SECTION: CONSENT
AGENDA ITEM# 5F
REPORT# 84
STAFF REPORT
RICHFIELD CITY COUNCIL MEETING
MAY 08, 2012
REPORT PREPARED BY: DERICK ANDERSON, CIVIL ENGINEER
DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR
REVIEW:
REVIEWED BY CITY
API
MANAGER: � 1 I J
ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION:
Consideration of a contract extension to the 2011 Concrete Sidewalk, Curb and Gutter Repair
contract for 2012 construction.
I. RECOMMENDED ACTION:
By Motion: Approve a 12 month extension to the 2011 Concrete
Sidewalk, Curb and Gutter Repair contract with Ron Kassa
Construction, Inc. in the sum of $98,850.00.
II. BACKGROUND
Each year the City awards a contract to replace cracked and heaved sidewalk, curb
and gutter, and other concrete as necessary at various locations throughout the
City. Repairs are generally concentrated in the sealcoat area, other repairs are
made as identified by staff and resident complaints.
In 2011, the specifications were written to allow the City to extend the contract for
two additional twelve (12) month periods if both parties agree to the terms of an
extension. The contractor is allowed to request price adjustments at this time.
Terms and conditions for 2012 include a 0% overall increase to unit prices.
III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION
A. POLICY
• As part of the City's street maintenance program, each year the City
contracts to replace cracked and heaved curb and gutter and other
concrete work as necessary.
050812 SideCurbGutter
B. CRITICAL TIMING ISSUES
• The current contract for concrete sidewalk, curb and gutter repair
expires June 9, 2012 unless extended as allowed for in the contract.
• Concrete repair work is scheduled to begin June 15, 2012 in order to
be completed July 31, 2012 in advance of Sealcoating.
C. FINANCIAL
• A recent history of prices for curb repair (remove and replace) is:
Year Bid Price Curb R&R (ft) Contractor
2007 $18.00 Standard Sidewalk
2008 $14.96 Create Construction
2009 $18.00 Ron Kassa
2010 $19.00 Ron Kassa
2011 $21.00 Ron Kassa
2012 $21.00 Ron Kassa
• Funding for the purchase of concrete repairs is in the 2012 Street
Maintenance Budget, line item 6315 (Other Contractual Services)
D. LEGAL
• When the amount of a contract is estimated at between $25,000 and
$100,000, the City may let the contract by sealed bids or by
negotiation.
• This contract was competitively bid in 2011, Ron Kassa Construction,
Inc. was the lowest responsible bidder to submit a bid.
E. ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS
• N/A
IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION(S)
• Council may choose to reject the contract extension and direct staff to
renegotiate the contract price or to obtain quotations for the work; however,
the prices received for this work are fair, and staff does not believe lower
prices can be obtained from a reputable contractor.
V. ATTACHMENTS
• Extension Agreement
• 2011 Bid Tabulation
VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING
• None.
EXTENSION OF AGREEMENT
FOR CURB,ARPON AND SIDEWALK REPLACEMENT
BETWEEN THE CITY OF RICHFIELD
AND RON KASSA CONSTRUCTION,INC.
This extension of agreement is made this 8th day of May, 2012,between the City of Richfield
(the"City") and Ron Kassa Construction, Inc. ("Ron Kassa")
Recitals:
The City and Ron Kassa are currently parties to an agreement, dated June 14,2011 (the"Agreement"),
pursuant to which Ron Kassa is providing curb, apron and sidewalk replacement as needed within the
City of Richfield. The term of this agreement is from June 9, 2012 through June 9, 2013.
Under this agreement, the parties may extend the Agreement for up to two additional 12-month contract
periods beyond the June 9, 2012 expiration date with an increase in price for direct costs to provide the
contract services. The parties in this case desire to extend the Agreement for an additional 12-month
contract period through June 9, 2013 with no increased unit prices requested by the Contractor.
NOW,THERFORE,in consideration of the above terms and conditions expressed herein,the parties do
hereby agree as follows:
(1) Section J of the General Conditions shall be amended by extending the termination date
of the Agreement from June 9, 2012 to June 9, 2013.
(2) Bid prices on page 2 of the Bid Proposal shall remain unchanged for this Extension
Agreement.
(3) Paragraph 4 of the Special Provisions shall be amended by replacing the entire paragraph
with the following language:
The Contractor shall notify the Engineer in writing of their intentions to commence work at least
five days prior to their moving onto the site. A list of curb, driveway apron and sidewalk repair
locations from the Engineering Division and a separate list of catch basin repairs from the Utility
Division will be available and marked by June 15, 2012. Curb and sidewalk work may begin at
any time after June 15,2012 and the contract is signed and executed by City officials. All work on
the list of curb repairs must be completed by July 31, 2012. Additional repairs throughout the City
may be added at a later date if budget allows. All other work to be constructed under this project
shall be completed in place and accepted no later than October 1,2012. If the contract is extended,
a new schedule and completion dates will be assigned for each year of the extension.
(4) Paragraph 14 of the Special Provisions shall be amended by adding to the end of the
paragraph the following language:
5F- 2
All curb repairs shall be prepared and ready for patching no more than 10 days after the concrete
has been poured.
Except as hereinabove amended, all the terms and conditions of the Agreement shall remain in full force
and effect.
IN WITNESS to this Extension, the parties have caused this instrument to be executed as of the
day and year first above written, subject to all of the terms and conditions set forth herein.
Signatures for: Ro. " sa Cons c '•n, Inc.
By
Its •% //
Signatures for: CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA(City)
By
Its City Manager
By
Its Mayor
5P- 5
U Ws
U c
NU a)
'Q Y a)
b
>
0 C
C
cis
O `
Z a) 0 a)
>, 2 Z' 0
o U '
o
E.
.C3
a) o U To 1--.8 0 I- aD N
o N y--
co N c6 in NI
-0 a)
C
Q U) O -, .0
0 > a) �_
W co O C
Z N i- v C cis
Z •E c > N Z
EL ; E co e- co
C
0 a) • 0 ON N U
LV N LO }' N- 2 -0
_ o d O > >, CD o
r
V
2 ON a) � y co L a) O O CO •
0 N N Co C
0 3 Yew .E c a�i a�i °
C) o - D) . U ; '•� o
o ;> .0
N o ,C 3 U • ei 'C 2 2 .O
i a) O Z" N C -o m 0..
.� C5 O C U o 0 CO O
as ZE �a .CE2 2
a) o O O .n E O
0 e .0 2 C c
s, "- O UY <( ca
a)
0 0 _ .o c
= 0 o 0 i0 o
CD
ce •o _C o 'o a
c
w- 2-.-0 Z U O C
U CDs > .«: U) Z C 0
C 3 CI) O
� o
_ 2 2 co U) Cl) N U) C
Co '5 +- a) a -a 2 Co
a3i � a) 5 ` a a o CO -
Cl)) ° 2 Q. - m co a.)Z U
� � ca p 0 a) •,
O
c`� Z ca � CO U
Um 0- 30 I— W W U) -, H
AGENDA SECTION: CONSENT
AGENDA ITEM# 5G
REPORT# 85
mAIIII STAFF REPORT
rICI i[ cl_D CITY COUNCIL MEETING
MAY 8, 2012
REPORT PREPARED BY: ROBERT HINTGEN,UTILITY
SUPERINTENDENT
NAME,TITLE
DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR El/ Aigg
REVIEW: gar ` s
REVIEWED BY CITY /
MANAGER: A "...:„.....4411 1 ,4.
ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION:
Consideration of a resolution authorizing the Source Water Protection Grant agreement
between the City of Richfield and the Minnesota Department of Health.
I. RECOMMENDED ACTION:
By Motion: Approve the attached resolution authorizing the Source
Water Protection Grant agreement between the City of Richfield and
The Minnesota Department of Health (MDH).
II. BACKGROUND
The City of Richfield applied for the Source Water Protection Grant in March of
2012 and scored enough points to qualify for funding.
The total grant awarded is $10,000. This grant is a matching funds grant with funds
becoming available on June 1, 2012. The City is required to provide a match of
$10,000.
The grant money will be used to upgrade security at selected well-houses. The
upgrades include:
• Installation of new security cameras, lighting, locks, and door switches.
The improved security will discourage any tampering with the wells. All activity will
be recorded and on display at the water treatment plant security system.
05082012SourceWaterGrant
This grant would allow 4 of the 7 well houses to have video surveillance. This is a
reoccurring grant and Richfield will apply for more funding to finish the remaining
well houses when the next round of funding is open.
III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION
A. POLICY
• Minnesota Statute section 465.03 requires that the City approve a
resolution accepting the funds of the grant money.
B. CRITICAL TIMING ISSUES
• Terms of the grant agreement are June 1, 2012 through June 30,
2013. The allotted grant funds must be spent by June 30, 2013.
C. FINANCIAL
• This $10,000 grant is a matching funds grant.
• The City's portion will come from the 2012 Water Department Budget,
line item 51000-6103 (Professional Services).
D. LEGAL
• The City Attorney has reviewed the resolution and MDH agreement.
E. ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS
• N/A
IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION(S)
• Choose not to approve the resolution, which would void the acceptance of
the grant.
V. ATTACHMENTS
• Resolution
• MDH Grant Agreement
VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING
• None
5G-
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE CITY OF RICHFIELD TO ENTER INTO A
SOURCE WATER PROTECTION GRANT AGREEMENT WITH MINNESOTA
DEPARTMENT HEALTH FOR $10,000 TO BE USED FOR SECURITY
UPGRADES AT SELECTED WELL HOUSES.
WHEREAS, the Richfield Water Department, has applied for and received
a Source Water Protection Grant in the amount of$10,000; and
WHEREAS, The City intends to use these funds to upgrade security at
selected well houses; and
WHEREAS, Minnesota Statutes section 465.03 requires every
acceptance of a grant or devise of real or personal property on terms prescribed
by the donor be made by resolution adopted by a two-thirds majority of the City
Council.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of
Richfield, Minnesota, as follows:
1. That the City Council of the City of Richfield hereby authorizes
the City Manager to enter into the Source Water Protection
agreement with Minnesota Department of Health in the amount
of$10,000.
2. Appropriate City personnel are authorized to administer the
funds in accordance with the grant agreement and terms
described by the Minnesota Department of Health.
Adopted by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this 8th day
of May 2012.
Debbie Goettel, Mayor
ATTEST: .
Nancy Gibbs, City Clerk
IX111111.1313 5G-.9%
MDH
L1.11 Encumbrance Worksheet
(Attach to all contracts, grants, and amendments)
Vendor Name: Vendor Number:
City of Richfield
Address: Federal Employer I.D.or Social Security#:
6700 Portland Ave 41-6005490
City,State,Zip: Minnesota Tax I.D. No. (If applicable):
Richfield,MN 55423
Starting Fiscal Year: 2012 Total Amount of Agreement: $10,000
Start Date: 6/1/2012 End Date: 6/30/2013
Accounting Information
Fiscal Year 1
Fund Dept ID Appr ID Project ID Activity ID Amount
2302 H123 2100 H12552P H12-111-1011A 2137 $ 10,000
H123 $
H123 $
CFDA#(if Federal$)
Fiscal Year 2
Fund Dept ID Appr ID Project ID Activity ID Amount
H123 $
H123 $
H123 $
CFDA#(if Federal$)
Fiscal Year 3
Fund Dept ID Appr ID Project ID Activity ID Amount
H123 $
H123 $
H123 $
CFDA# (if Federal$)
Financial Management Only
Authorized Signature for Date
Encumbrance
Contract Number Origin Code
Purchase Order Number Source Type
Category Code Account ID.
NOTE: This page of the Agreement Contract contains confidential Information and should not be reproduced or distributed externally without written
permission from the Vendor. Internal circulation of this page should only be to individuals/offices signing this Agreement Contract and those that require
access to the tax identification number.
Financial Management(651)201-4622
7/26/11
Standard Grant Template Dated 1/24/2012 S-G1 -
Grant Agreement Number
Between the Minnesota Department of Health and City of Richfield
Minnesota Department of Health
Grant Agreement
This grant agreement is between the State of Minnesota,acting through its Commissioner of the
Department of Health("State") and City of Richfield ("Grantee"). Grantee's address is 6700 Portland Ave,
Richfield,MN 55423.
Recitals
1. Under Minnesota Statutes §114D.50 Clean Water Fund,the State is empowered to enter into this Grant
Agreement.
2. The State is in need of assisting public water suppliers to implement their source water protection plans
3. The Grantee represents that it is duly qualified and will perform all the duties described in this agreement to
the satisfaction of the State. Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes §16B.98, subd. 1,the Grantee agrees to minimize
administrative costs as a condition of this grant.
Grant Agreement
1. Term of Agreement
1.1 Effective date June 1,2012 , or the date the State obtains all required signatures under Minnesota
Statutes §16C.05, subd. 2,whichever is later.
The Grantee must not begin work until this contract is fully executed and the State's Authorized
Representative has notified the Grantee that work may commence.
1.2 Expiration date June 30,2013, or until all obligations have been fulfilled to the satisfaction of the State,
whichever occurs first.
1.3 Survival of Terms The following clauses survive the expiration or cancellation of this grant contract: 8.
Liability; 9. State Audits; 10.1 Government Data Practices; 10.2 Data Disclosure; 14.1 Publicity; 14.2
Endorsement; and 15. Governing Law,Jurisdiction, and Venue.
2. Grantee's Duties The Grantee,who is not a State employee, shall:
- Complete to the satisfaction of the State all of the following duties:
- Install security cameras at the well houses for Richfield municipal wells#4,#5 and#6.
Due to the configuration of the well#5 building,two cameras will be needed to provide
security.
- On or before the end date of this Agreement,the Grantee shall provide the State with one electronic
copy of all final products produced under this Grant Agreement, including reports,publications,
Page 2 of 9
Standard Grant Template Dated 1/24/2012 (�
Grant Agreement Number — I
Between the Minnesota Department of Health and City of Richfield
software and videos.Any Grantee activity that involves data collection must be submitted to the State
upon completion of the project and in the format agreed by the State.
- The Grantee shall pay in full any licensed contractor hired for the purpose of completing the work under
this Grant Agreement within 10 days of receiving payment from the State.
- The Grantee shall submit an itemized invoice for the total cost of the project
- The Grantee shall submit a Final Report upon submittal of the Final Invoice. The Final Report shall be
due no later than the expiration day of this Grant Agreement. The Final Report shall describe activities
undertaken and accomplishments of each task, and any problems encountered in the performance of the
work under this Agreement, including the costs associated with completion of the tasks.
- Data collected during the project shall be reported in a format acceptable to the State.
- In the event the Grantee is unable to begin grant activities or to satisfactorily perform the duties
specified in this grant agreement, including but not limited to paying the contractor in full for all work
performed by the contractor,the Grantee shall remit to the State within five days of demand all amounts
paid to the Grantee pursuant to this Grant Agreement minus any actual expenses incurred and
specifically authorized, in advance,by the State and which are documented by adequate invoices
acceptable to the State.
- Grantee shall provide an equal cost share(of eligible funds in cash) for each work item. In-kind
contributions are not accepted
3. Time The Grantee must comply with all duties within the time requirements described in this Grant
Agreement. The State is not obligated to extend this Agreement. In the performance of this Grant Agreement,
time is of the essence, and failure to meet a deadline may be a basis for a determination by the State's
Authorized Representative that the Grantee has not complied with the terms of the Grant Agreement and require
the Grantee to remit to the State all amounts previously paid to the Grantee.
4. Consideration and Payment
4.1 Consideration The State will pay for all services performed by the Grantee under this Grant
Agreement as follows:
(a) Compensation The Grantee will be paid according to the following breakdown of costs:
Activity Grant Amount Cost Share
Purchase security cameras,mounts and hardware $8,000 $8,000
Install cameras. Install lighting for cameras $2,000 $2,000
Total $10,000 $10,000
TOTAL COST OF THE PROJECT $20,000
Page 3 of 9
Standard Grant Template Dated 1/24/2012 /'�^
Grant Agreement Number "J�1
Between the Minnesota Department of Health and City of Richfield
(b) Travel Expenses The Grantee shall not be reimbursed for any travel or subsistence expenses
whatsoever
(c) Total Obligation The total obligation of the State for all compensation and reimbursements to the
Grantee under this Grant Agreement will not exceed$10,000 (ten thousand dollars).
(d) Grantee will submit an invoice for the total cost of the project
(e) By submitting an invoice for the total cost of the project Grantee certifies that the cost share
requirement of$10,000 (ten thousand dollars)has been met.
(f) If the total cost of the project ends up being less than$20,000 (twenty thousand dollars)the Grantee
agrees to contribute a minimum cost share of 50% of the total cost of the project.
4.2 Terms of Payment
(a) Invoices The State will promptly reimburse the Grantee after the work is completed and after the
Grantee presents an itemized invoice for the services actually performed and the State's Authorized
Representative accepts the invoiced services. Invoices must be submitted in a timely fashion,upon
completion of the services.
The State does not pay merely for the passage of time.
(b) Invoices must be submitted using the form attached as Exhibit A and submitted to:
Attn: Cristina Covalschi
Source Water Protection
Minnesota Department of Health
PO Box 64975
St. Paul,MN 55164-0975
(c) If the final invoice is not received by the State before the end date of this Grant Agreement,the
Grantee may forfeit the final payment.
(d) If necessitated by the nature of the project,the Grantee is allowed to reallocate up to 10%of the
amount originally awarded for a given expense category to another approved category without obtaining
permission from the State. Should the Grantee find it necessary to re-budget the Grant beyond the 10%
reallocation allowance, a written or e-mail request must be submitted to the State for approval
5. Conditions of Payment All services provided by Grantee pursuant to this Agreement must be performed to
the satisfaction of the State,as determined in the sole discretion of its Authorized Representative. Further,all
services provided by the Grantee must be in accord with all applicable federal, State, and local laws, ordinances,
rules and regulations. The Grantee will not be paid for work that the State deems unsatisfactory, or performed in
violation of federal, State or local law, ordinance, rule or regulation.
6. Authorized Representatives
Page 4 of 9
Standard Grant Template Dated 1/24/2012
Grant Agreement Number 5G1- C P
Between the Minnesota Department of Health and City of Richfield
6.1 State's Authorized Representative The State's Authorized Representative for purposes of
administering this agreement is Randy Ellingboe,Health Program Manager Senior, 625 Robert Street N,
PO Box 64975, Saint Paul,MN 55164-0975,Phone number: 651-201-4647, email address:
Randy.Ellingboe @State.mn.us, or his successor,and has the responsibility to monitor the Grantee's
performance and the final authority to accept the services provided under this agreement. If the
services are satisfactory,the State's Authorized Representative will certify acceptance on each invoice
submitted for payment.
6.2 Grantee's Authorized Representative The Grantee's Authorized Representative is Robert Hintgen,
Utilities Superintendent, address: 1901 East 66th Street,Richfield, MN 55423,phone: 612-861-9165.
The Grantee's Authorized Representative has full authority to represent the Grantee in fulfillment of the
terms,conditions, and requirements of this agreement. If the Grantee selects a new Authorized
Representative at any time during this agreement,the Grantee must immediately notify the State.
7. Assignment,Amendments, Waiver, and Merger
7.1 Assignment The Grantee shall neither assign nor transfer any rights or obligations under this
Agreement without the prior written consent of the same parties who executed and approved this
Agreement, or their successors in office.
7.2 Amendments If there are any amendments to this Agreement,they must be in writing.
Amendments will not be effective until they have been executed and approved by the same parties who
executed and approved the original Agreement, or their successors in office.
7.3 Waiver If the State fails to enforce any provision of this Agreement,that failure does not waive the
provision or the State's right to enforce it.
7.4 Merger This Agreement contains all the negotiations and agreements between the State and the
Grantee. No other understanding regarding this Agreement,whether written or oral,may be used to
bind either party.
8. Liability The Grantee must indemnify and hold harmless the State, its agents, and employees from all
claims or causes of action, including attorneys'fees incurred by the State, arising from the performance of this
agreement by the Grantee or the Grantee's agents or employees. This clause will not be construed to bar any
legal remedies the Grantee may have for the State's failure to fulfill its obligations under this agreement.
9. State Audits Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes § 16C.05, subd. 5,the Grantee's books,records, documents,
and accounting procedures and practices of the Grantee, or any other relevant party or transaction, are subject to
examination by the State,the State Auditor, and the Legislative Auditor, as appropriate, for a minimum of six
(6)years from the end of this Grant Agreement,receipt and approval of all final reports, or the required period
of time to satisfy all State and program retention requirements,whichever is later.
10. Government Data Practices and Data Disclosure
Page 5 of 9
Standard Grant Template Dated 1/24/2012 5G1- 1-1
Grant Agreement Number
Between the Minnesota Department of Health and City of Richfield
10.1 Government Data Practices Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Chapter 13,the Grantee and the
State must comply with the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act as it applies to all data provided
by the State under this agreement, and as it applies to all data created, collected, received,stored,used,
maintained, or disseminated by the Grantee under this Grant Agreement. The civil remedies of
Minnesota Statutes § 13.08 apply to the release of the data referred to in this clause by either the Grantee
or the State.
If the Grantee receives a request to release the data referred to in this clause,the Grantee must
immediately notify the State. The State will give the Grantee instructions concerning the release of the
data to the requesting party before any data is released. The Grantee's response to the request must
comply with the applicable law.
10.2 Data Disclosure Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes § 270C.65, subd. 3, and all other applicable
laws,the Grantee consents to disclosure of its social security number, federal employee tax
identification number, and Minnesota tax identification number,all of which have already been provided
to the State,to federal and State tax agencies and State personnel involved in the payment of State
obligations. These identification numbers may be used in the enforcement of federal and State tax laws
which could result in action requiring the Grantee to file State tax returns and pay delinquent State tax
liabilities, if any.
11. Ownership of Materials and Intellectual Property Rights
11.1 Ownership of Materials The State shall own all rights,title and interest in all of the materials
conceived or created by the Grantee,or its employees or subGrantees, either individually or jointly with
others and which arise out of the performance of this grant agreement, including any inventions,reports,
studies, designs, drawings, specifications,notes,documents, software and documentation, computer
based training modules, electronically,magnetically or digitally recorded material, and other work in
whatever form("materials").
The Grantee hereby assigns to the State all rights,title and interest to the materials. The Grantee shall,
upon request of the State, execute all papers and perform all other acts necessary to assist the State to
obtain and register copyrights,patents or other forms of protection provided by law for the materials.
The materials created under this grant agreement by the Grantee,its employees or subGrantees,
individually or jointly with others, shall be considered "works made for hire" as defined by the United
States Copyright Act. All of the materials,whether in paper, electronic, or other form, shall be remitted
to the State by the Grantee. Its employees and any subGrantees shall not copy,reproduce,allow or
cause to have the materials copied, reproduced or used for any purpose other than performance of the
Grantee's obligations under this grant agreement without the prior written consent of the State's
Authorized Representative.
11.2 Intellectual Property Rights Grantee represents and warrants that materials produced or used
under this grant agreement do not and will not infringe upon any intellectual property rights of another
including but not limited to patents, copyrights,trade secrets,trade names, and service marks and names.
Grantee shall indemnify and defend the State, at Grantee's expense, from any action or claim brought
against the State to the extent that it is based on a claim that all or parts of the materials infringe upon
the intellectual property rights of another. Grantee shall be responsible for payment of any and all such
claims, demands, obligations, liabilities, costs,and damages including,but not limited to,reasonable
attorney fees arising out of this grant agreement,amendments and supplements thereto,which are
attributable to such claims or actions. If such a claim or action arises or in Grantee's or the State's
Page 6 of 9
Standard Grant Template Dated 1/24/2012 _
Grant Agreement Number 5
Between the Minnesota Department of Health and City of Richfield
opinion is likely to arise, Grantee shall at the State's discretion either procure for the State the right or
license to continue using the materials at issue or replace or modify the allegedly infringing materials.
This remedy shall be in addition to and shall not be exclusive of other remedies provided by law.
12. Workers'Compensation The Grantee certifies that it is in compliance with Minnesota Statutes §176.181,
subd. 2,which pertains to workers'compensation insurance coverage. The Grantee's employees and agents, and
any contractor hired by the Grantee to perform the work required by this Grant Agreement and its employees,
will not be considered State employees. Any claims that may arise under the Minnesota Workers'
Compensation Act on behalf of these employees, and any claims made by any third party as a consequence of
any act or omission on the part of these employees, are in no way the State's obligation or responsibility.
13. Publicity and Endorsement
13.1 Publicity Any publicity given to the program,publications, or services provided resulting from
this grant agreement, including, but not limited to,notices, informational pamphlets,press releases,
research, reports, signs,and similar public notices prepared by or for the Grantee or its employees
individually or jointly with others, or any subGrantees shall identify the State as the sponsoring agency
and shall not be released without prior written approval by the State's Authorized Representative,unless
such release is a specific part of an approved work plan included in this grant agreement.
13.2 Endorsement The Grantee must not claim that the State endorses its products or services.
14. Termination
14.1 Termination by the State The State or Grantee may cancel this Grant Agreement at any time,
with or without cause,upon thirty(30)days written notice to the other party.
14.2 Termination for Cause If the Grantee fails to comply with any of the provisions of this Grant
Agreement,the State may terminate this Grant Agreement without prejudice to the right of the State
to recover any money previously paid. The termination shall be effective five business days after the
State mails,by certified mail,return receipt requested,written notice of termination to the Grantee at
its last known address.
14.3 Termination for Insufficient Funding The State may immediately terminate this Agreement if it
does not obtain funding from the Minnesota legislature or other funding source; or if funding cannot be
continued at a level sufficient to allow for the payment of the work scope covered in this Agreement.
Termination must be by written or facsimile notice to the Grantee. The State is not obligated to pay for
any work performed after notice and effective date of the termination. However,the Grantee will be
entitled to payment, determined on a pro rata basis, for services satisfactorily performed to the extent
that funds are available. The State will not be assessed any penalty if this Agreement is terminated
because of the decision of the Minnesota legislature, or other funding source,not to appropriate funds.
The State must provide the Grantee notice of the lack of funding within a reasonable time of the State
receiving notice of the same.
15. Governing Law,Jurisdiction, and Venue This Grant Agreement, and amendments and supplements to
it, shall be governed by the laws of the State of Minnesota.Venue for all legal proceedings arising out of this
Page 7 of 9
Standard Grant Template Dated 1/24/2012 J '- 9
Grant Agreement Number
Between the Minnesota Department of Health and City of Richfield
grant agreement,or for breach thereof, shall be in the State or federal court with competent jurisdiction in
Ramsey County,Minnesota.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF,the parties have caused this grant agreement to be duly executed intending to be bound
thereby.
APPROVED:
1. Grantee 2. STATE AGENCY
The Grantee certifies that the appropriate persons(s)have executed the Grant Agreement approval and certification that STATE funds have been
grant agreement on behalf of the Grantee as required by applicable encumbered as required by Minn.Stat 9§16A.15 and 16C.05.
articles,bylaws,resolutions,or ordinances.
By: By:
//��
(with delegated authority)
Title: (4-ry nlana9&( Title:
Date: 5 9- 1)- Date:
By:
Title:
Date:
Distribution:
Agency—Original(fully executed)Grant Agreement
Grantee
State Authorized Representative
Page 8 of 9
AGENDA SECTION: RESOLUTION
AGENDA ITEM# 7
REPORT# 86
STAFF REPORT
IZICF IFIELD CITY COUNCIL MEETING
MAY 8, 2012
KAREN BARTON, COMMUNITY
REPORT PREPARED BY: DEVELOPMENT ASSISTANT
DIRECTOR
NAME TITLE
DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR
REVIEW:
ri711111rMallivRE Ora
REVIEWED BY CITY z,
MANAGER: ■T/Writ„r /
ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION:
Consideration of resolutions supporting the submittal of applications to the Minnesota
Department of Employment and Economic Development (DEED) and the Metropolitan Council
Livable Communities Tax Base Revitalization Account for Contamination Clean-up Grant
Funds at the former Lyndale Garden Center site, 6400 Lyndale Avenue.
I. RECOMMENDED ACTION:
By Motion: Adopt the attached Resolutions supporting the submittal
of applications to the Minnesota Department of Employment and
Economic Development (DEED) and the Metropolitan Council Livable
Communities Tax Base Revitalization Account for Contamination
Clean-up Grant Funds at the former Lyndale Garden Center site, 6400
Lyndale Avenue.
II. BACKGROUND
The Lyndale Garden Center property consists of approximately nine acres of land
currently zoned for commercial use. The property is vacant and has been since the
Lyndale Garden Center ceased operations in 2005.
The property has been developed since prior to the 1950's for commercial and
residential use. Prior to the property being developed for commercial retail use, a
portion of the property was used for illegal dumping. Areas primarily along the
05102011 Lyndale Garden Ctr DEED Grant App Resolution)
western side of the property were low lying/wetland areas that have been filled in
with soil and debris, including concrete, building materials, railroad ties, etc.
The property is also currently occupied by one building that is roughly 42,500
square feet, including approximately 12,500 square feet of greenhouse space. The
building is in a significant state of deterioration of both the exterior and the interior.
In November 2011 The Cornerstone Group purchased the property. The
Cornerstone Group hired Landmark Environmental LLC to conduct the Phase I and
Phase II Environmental Site Assessments to evaluate the potential for and
existence of subsurface contaminants and hazardous building materials that
resulted from previous land use activities. The reports indicated the existence of
subsurface soil contaminants on the property and asbestos materials in the former
garden center building.
To assist with the financial aspect of the cleanup of the property DEED and the
Metropolitan Council offer grant programs for contamination remediation. Both
grant programs require a resolution indicating the City Councils' support of the
application. The DEED grant also requires a local match of 25% of the costs, which
The Cornerstone Group has pledged.
Staff is recommending the City Council approve both Resolutions supporting the
grant applications.
III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION
A. POLICY
• It is prudent to seek outside funding whenever practical.
B. CRITICAL TIMING ISSUES
• The grant applications were submitted May 1, 2012.
• City Resolutions supporting the applications must be submitted by
May 30, 2012.
• In order to keep the project moving ahead as scheduled,
contamination clean-up must begin no later than June 2012.
C. FINANCIAL
• A local match of 25% is required. The Developer has pledged this
match.
D. LEGAL
• The program guidelines for these grants require the City Council to
pass resolutions in support of the applications.
E. ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS
• Contaminates on the property will be remediated.
IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATIONS)
• Do not approve Resolutions.
V. ATTACHMENTS
• Resolution authorizing application to DEED for Contamination Clean-up
Grant Funds for 6400 Lyndale Avenue.
• Resolution authorizing application to Met Council for Contamination Clean-up
Grant Funds for 6400 Lyndale Avenue.
VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING
• N/A
•
ri I
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION AFFIRMING AND RATIFYING SUBMITTAL OF
AN APPLICATION AND COMMITTING LOCAL MATCH AND AUTHORIZING
CONTRACT SIGNATURE TO THE MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT OF EMPLOYMENT
AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT (DEED) FOR CONTAMINATION CLEAN-UP GRANT
FUNDS FOR 6400 LYNDALE AVENUE
WHEREAS, the City of Richfield (the "City") is a city located within Hennepin
County and is therefore eligible to access the Contamination Investigation and Response
Action Plan Development Grant Fund; and
WHEREAS, the City has the institutional, managerial and financial capability to
ensure adequate project administration; and
WHEREAS, the City certifies that it will comply with all applicable laws and
regulations as stated in the contract agreements; and
NOW, BE IT RESOLVED, that the City of Richfield act as the legal sponsor for the
project contained in the Contamination Cleanup Grant Program submitted on May 1, 2012
and that the City Manager is hereby authorized to apply to the Department of Employment
and Economic Development for funding of this project on behalf of the City of Richfield;
and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the City of Richfield has the legal authority to
apply for financial assistance, and the institutional, managerial, and financial capability to
ensure adequate project administration; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the sources and amounts of the local match
identified in the application are committed to the project identified; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the City of Richfield has not violated any
Federal, State or local laws pertaining to fraud, bribery, graft, kickbacks, collusion, conflict
of interest or other unlawful or corrupt practice, and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that upon approval of its application by the State,
the City of Richfield may enter into an agreement with the State of Minnesota for the
above-referenced project(s), and that the City of Richfield certifies that it will comply with
all applicable laws and regulation as stated in all contract agreements; and
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT FINALLY RESOLVED, that the City Manager is hereby
authorized to execute such agreements as are necessary to implement the project on
behalf of the applicant.
Adopted by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this 8th day of May,
2012.
Debbie Goettel, Mayor
ATTEST:
Nancy Gibbs, City Clerk
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING SUBMITTAL OF
AN APPLICATION TO THE METROPOLITAN COUNCIL LIVABLE COMMUNITIES TAX
BASE REVITALIZATION ACCOUNT FOR CONTAMINATION CLEAN-UP GRANT
FUNDS FOR 6400 LYNDALE AVENUE
WHEREAS, the City of Richfield is a participant in the Livable Communities Act's
Local Housing Incentives Account Program for 2012 as determined by the Metropolitan
Council, and is therefore eligible to make application apply for funds under the Tax
Base Revitalization Account; and
WHEREAS, the City has identified a contamination clean-up project within the
City that meets the Tax Base Revitalization Account's purposes and criteria; and
WHEREAS, the City has the institutional, managerial and financial capability to
ensure adequate project and grant administration; and
WHEREAS, the City certifies that it will comply with all applicable laws and
regulations as stated in the contract grant agreements; and
WHEREAS, the City finds that the required contamination cleanup will not occur
through private or other public investment within the reasonably foreseeable future
without Tax Base Revitalization Account grant funding; and
WHEREAS, the City represents that it has undertaken reasonable and good faith
efforts to procure funding for the activities for which Livable Communities Act Tax Base
Revitalization Account funding is sought but was not able to find or secure from other
sources funding that is necessary for cleanup completion and states that this
representation is based on the following reasons and supporting facts:
Due to the existence of soil contaminants, including heavy metals, arsenic, mercury and
lead, and the existence of asbestos materials within the existing structures, the clean-up
costs are significant.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that if the City is awarded a Tax Base
Revitalization Account grant for this project, the City Council of Richfield, Minnesota
acknowledges it will be the grantee and agrees to act as legal sponsor administer and
be responsible for grant funds expended for the project contained in the Tax Base
Revitalization grant application submitted on May 1, 2012.
Adopted by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this 8th day of May,
2012.
Debbie Goettel, Mayor
ATTEST:
Nancy Gibbs, City Clerk
AGENDA SECTION: OTHER BUS.
. AGENDA ITEM# 8
.REPORT# 87
rid" STAFF REPORT
RICHFIELD
CITY COUNCIL MEETING
MAY 8, 2012
REPORT PREPARED BY: ELIZABETH FINNEGAN,
CIVIL ENGINEER
NAME,TITLE
DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR
REVIEW: LI2
,SIA7 ,111ZIRE ffl
REVIEWED BY CITY
rri
MANAGER: 1//1
III la,
ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION:
Consideration of award of contract for the 76th Street East public improvement project and
authorization for the City Manager to approve changes in the construction contract up to
$50,000.
I. RECOMMENDED ACTION:
By Motion:
1. Accept the bid minutes/tabulation and award contract to
Redstone Construction Co, Inc. in the amount of $1,562,501.92
for the 76th Street East Public Improvement Project.
2. Authorize the City Manager to approve contract changes
totaling up to $50,000 without further City Council authorization.
II. BACKGROUND
76th Street West of 12th Avenue (Metro Sewer)
In 2007 and 2008 the City, in cooperation with the Metropolitan Council, completed
a streetscape design for the streets that will be reconstructed. Main elements of the
streetscape design include:
2 lane roadway (currently 4 lane)
8 foot blacktop multi-use trail on north side
5 foot on-street bicycle lanes
5 '/ foot concrete sidewalk on south side
0508201276thStEast
76th Street East of 12th Avenue
76th Street from 12th Avenue to Cedar Avenue has deteriorated to the point of
reconstruction. Staff has been communicating with impacted residents on the
construction details and general project information.
The new cross section will match the section west of 12th Avenue and will
incorporate the design elements that better reflect the values of the community and
provide recreational and alternative transportation.
The biggest changes for residents adjacent to the project are the addition of the
multi-use trail on the north side, the reduction of traffic lanes, and the addition of the
sidewalk on the south side. Parking is also prohibited on trails and sidewalks and a
two foot safety buffer must be maintained on the Three Rivers Park Trail. Residents
with driveways crossing these features will have to keep these areas clear to avoid
citations.
Public Coordination and Communications
Since the initial public meeting in 2011, staff has held multiple meetings with
residents living along 76th Street to obtain trespass waivers so that necessary
restoration work may be done on their property as part of the project. At these
meetings one-on-one discussions have occurred regarding the impact of the project
on their property.
Lowest Bidder
Bids for work to be performed under City direction were opened on April 30, 2012.
Redstone Construction Co, Inc. was the lowest responsible bidder (bid tabulation
attached).
III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION
A. POLICY
• The reconstruction of 76th Street from.12th Avenue to Cedar Avenue
has been identified as a priority in the City's Five-Year Reconstruction
Plan.
• Council approval is required for expenditures over$50,000.
B. CRITICAL TIMING ISSUES
• The condition of 76th Street east of 12th Avenue had deteriorated to
point of reconstruction.
• The acceptance of the bid tabulation and the award of contract will
allow the construction to stay on schedule for a June 2012 start.
C. FINANCIAL
• Five bids were received for construction; the low bid was
$1,562,501.92.
• The engineers estimate was $1,657,062, so the project is within the
expected budget estimates.
• The project will be funded using street reconstruction bonds and
municipal State Aid fund, if needed.
D. LEGAL
• All contracts over$100,000 require sealed bids to be solicited by
public notice.
E. ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS
• N/A
N. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION(S)
• Council could postpone the award of the contract.
V. ATTACHMENTS
• Bid minutes and tabulation.
• Contract.
VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING
• None anticipated.
S - �
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Bid Opening
April 30, 2012
3:00 p.m.
76th Street East Reconstruction
Bid No. 12-02
Pursuant to requirements of Resolution No. 1015, a meeting of the Administrative Staff
was called by Nancy Gibbs, City Clerk, who announced that the purpose of the meeting
was to receive, open and read aloud, bids for 76th Street East Reconstruction, as
advertised in the official newspaper on April 19, 2012.
Present: Nancy Gibbs, City Clerk
Robert Hintgen, Utilities Superintendent
Liz Finnegan, Civil Engineer
Tim Lamkin, Project Engineer HR Green
Theresa Schyma, City Manager Representative
The following bids were submitted and read aloud:
Acknowledge
Non- Receipt of Total Base Bid
Bidder's Name Bond Collusion Addendum
1 & 2
Max Steinenger Corp. Provided Provided Provided $1,933,032.62
Eagan, MN
CS McCrossan Construction Provided Provided Provided $1,871,237.07
Maple Grove, MN
Friedges Contracting LLC Provided Provided Provided $1,804,080.45
Lakeville, MN
Redstone Construction Provided Provided Provided $1,562,501.92
Company— Mora, MN
SM Hentges & Sons Inc. Provided Provided Provided $1,648,015.26
Jordan, MN
The City Clerk announced that the bids would be tabulated and considered at the May
8, 2012 City Council Meeting.
• Nancy Gibbs City Clerk
- a-
CITY OF RICHFIELD
HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA
CONTRACT FOR MUNICIPAL CONSTRUCTION
State Project No. 157-361-027
City Project No. 41006
Contract No. 2777
Class of Work: Grading, Surfacing, Concrete Curb and Gutter, Storm Sewer, Sanitary
Sewer, Water Main, and Signing.
THIS AGREEMENT, made on the eighth (8th) day of May, 2012, by and between the
City of Richfield, Minnesota, acting by and through its Mayor and City Manager, herein
called the "City," and Redstone Construction Co, Inc. herein called the "Contractor,"
witnesseth; that the Contractor, in consideration of the payment of the contract price
therefor, amounting substantially to ONE MILLION, FIVE HUNDRED SIXTY-TWO
THOUSAND, FIVE HUNDRED ONE DOLLARS AND NINTY-TWO CENTS ($
1,562,501.92), agrees to furnish all materials (except such as are specified to be
furnished by the City, if any), all necessary tools and equipment, and to do and perform
all the necessary work and labor for the full completion of city projects as follows:
76th Street East Reconstruction
12th Avenue to Cedar Avenue
City Project No. 41006
as shown in the approved plans, for the price and compensation set forth and specified
in the proposal signed by the Contractor, which is hereto attached and hereby made a
part of this Agreement, all in accordance with the plans, specifications and special
provisions therefor on file in the office of the Public Works Department, City of Richfield,
and hereby made a part of this Agreement. This Agreement shall be binding upon and
inure to the benefit of the parties hereto and their respective successors and assigns.
The Contractor agrees that the work shall be done and performed in the best and most
workmanlike manner; that all materials and labor shall be in strict conformity in every
respect with the plans, specifications and special provisions for the improvement, shall
be subject to inspection and approval of the City of a duly authorized engineer of the
City, and in case any material or labor supplied shall be rejected by the City or engineer
as defective or unsuitable, then such rejected material shall be removed and replaced
with approved material and the rejected labor shall be done anew to the satisfaction
and approval of the City or engineer and at the cost and expense of the Contractor.
The contractor further agrees that he will commence work hereunder after June 4, 2012
and will have all work done and the improvement fully completed to the satisfaction and
approval of the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota, on or before September
28, 2012.
Page 2
CITY OF RICHFIELD, HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA
CONTRACT FOR MUNICIPAL CONSTRUCTION
State Project No. 157-361-027
City Project No. 41006
Contract No. 2777
Class of Work: Grading, Surfacing, Concrete Curb and Gutter, Storm Sewer, Sanitary
Sewer, Water Main, and Signing.
Time is the essence of this Agreement for prompt completion and, if the Contractor
shall fail to complete the work within the time herein specified, the City shall have the
right to deduct from the unpaid part of the contract price fixed, agreed, and liquidated
damages (it being impossible to determine the actual damages occasioned by the
delay) for each calendar day of delay, until the work is completed.
It is agreed, however, that upon receipt of written notice from the Contractor of the
existence of causes over which the Contractor has no control and which will delay the
completion of specifications may extend the date hereinbefore specified for completion.
In such case the Contractor shall become liable for said liquidated damages only for
failure to perform within the time so extended.
It is agreed also that delays caused by the elements or by strikes or other combined
action of workmen employed in the construction or in the transportation of materials, but
in no part caused or resulting from default or collusion on the part of the Contractor,
shall be excused to the extent which the City may find and determine such conditions to
have delayed completion within the time limit. The judgment of the City in fixing such
amount shall be final and conclusive upon the parties hereto.
It is distinctly understood and agreed that no claims for extra work done or materials
furnished by the Contractor will be allowed by the City except as provided herein, nor
shall the Contractor do any work or furnish any materials not covered by the plans,
specifications, special provisions and this Agreement unless such work is first ordered
in writing as provided in the specifications.
Any such work or materials which may be done or furnished by the Contractor without
such written order first being given shall be at his own risk, cost and expense and he
hereby agrees that without such written order he will make no claim for compensation
for work or materials so done or furnished.
Page 3 I1
CITY OF RICHFIELD, HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA
CONTRACT FOR MUNICIPAL CONSTRUCTION
State Project No. 157-361-027
City Project No. 41006
Contract No. 2777
Class of Work: Grading, Surfacing, Concrete Curb and Gutter, Storm Sewer, Sanitary
Sewer, Water Main, and Signing.
It is further agreed, anything to the contrary notwithstanding, that the City of Richfield,
City Council and its agents or employees shall not be personally liable or responsible in
any manner to the Contractor, Subcontractors, material men, laborers or to any person
or persons whomsoever for any claim, demand, damages, actions or causes of action
of any kind or character arising out of or by reason of the execution of this Agreement
or the performance and completion of the work and improvement provided herein.
Dated at Richfield, Minnesota, this eighth (8th) day of May, 2012.
Signatures for REDSTONE CONSTRUCTION CO, INC. (Contractor)
By
Its
Signatures for the CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
By
Debbie Goettel, Mayor
By
Steven L. Devich, City Manager