The URL can be used to link to this page

061212completeagenda REVISED CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA TUESDAY, JUNE 12, 2012 RICHFIELD MUNICIPAL CENTER 6700 PORTLAND AVENUE ******************************************************************************************************* SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL WORKSESSION BARTHOLOMEW ROOM 6:15 P.M. AGENDA Call to order Roll call 1. Discussion regarding Arterial Road Prioritization Study (Council Memo No. 69) 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 City Council/HRA/Planning Commission Worksession of May 21, 2012; (2) Special City Council Worksession of May 22, 2012; and (3) Regular City Council Meeting of May 22, 2012 COUNCIL DISCUSSION 1. Council discussion  Reschedule Tuesday, August 14 Regular City Council Meeting (primary election) to Monday, August 13 at 7 p.m. in Council Chambers  Schedule Friday, August 17 Special City Council Meeting at 8:30 a.m. in Council Chambers to canvass primary election results  Cancel Tuesday, August 28 Regular City Council Meeting  Schedule Special City Council Meeting at 6 p.m. in Council Chambers regarding 2012 Revised/2013 Proposed Budget (Council Memo No. 70)  Hats Off to Hometown Hits Notes: __________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ AGENDA APPROVAL 2. Council approval of agenda CONSENT CALENDAR 3. 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 new Therapeutic Massage Enterprise License for Salon of St. George, 6625 Lyndale Avenue S.R. No. 93 B. Consideration of approval of resolution establishing absentee ballot counting board for State Primary and General Elections S.R. No. 94 C. Consideration of approval of resolution appointing election judges for August 14, 2012 Primary Election and November 6, 2012 General Election S.R. No. 95 D. Consideration of approval of resolution authorizing use of ES&S Central Counter Model 650 for tabulation of all absentee ballots for State Primary and General Elections S.R. No. 96 E. Consideration of approval of purchase of high pressure sewer flushing machine and chassis for use by Wastewater Maintenance Division consisting of high pressure sewer flushing machine from Flexible Pipe Tool Co. for $115,250.79 and chassis from Astleford International Trucks for $74,943.07 for total amount of $190,193.86 S.R. No. 97 F. Consideration of approval of award of contract to Bulach Custom Rock to install remaining concrete features and glass centerpieces for final phase of Honoring All Veterans Memorial in amount of $178,354 S.R. No. 98 G. Consideration of approval of award of contract to Choice Electric to install pathway and flagpole lighting for remaining phase of Honoring All Veterans Memorial in amount of $24,800 S.R. No. 99 H. Consideration of approval of award of contract to Clearwater Recreation, LLC to replace play equipment in Roosevelt Park in amount of $63,500 S.R. No. 100 Notes: __________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ 4. Consideration of item(s), if any, removed from Consent Calendar Notes: __________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ PUBLIC HEARING 5. Public hearing regarding issuance of new on-sale intoxicating and Sunday liquor licenses, with outside seating, for Pizza Luce VII, Inc. d/b/a Pizza Luce, 800 West 66th Street Staff Report No. 101 Notes: __________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ PROPOSED ORDINANCE 6. Consideration of:  Close meeting to consider purchase agreement from Richfield Properties I, Limited Partnership (dba Ron Clark Construction and Design and Connelly Development) for purchase of parcels referenced as C-1 and C-2; and  Accept/reject or extend counter proposal to purchase agreement; and  Consider first reading of ordinance providing for sale of certain real properties of City to Richfield Properties Limited I, Limited Partnership and schedule second reading for June 26, 2012; and  Consider first reading of ordinance providing for sale of certain real property of City to R.E.C., Inc. and schedule second reading for June 26, 2012 Staff Report No. 102 Notes: __________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ OTHER BUSINESS 7. Consideration of Richfield Bicycle Master Plan as recommended by Transportation Commission Staff Report No. 103 Notes: __________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ CITY MANAGER’S REPORT 8. City Manager’s Report Notes: __________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ 9. 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: __________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ 10. 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: June 2012 Page 1 of 1 City of Richfield Calendar Calendars Net Navigate: 2011 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Auq Sep Oct Nov Dec 2013 June 2012 Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday 28 I May 29 30 31 1 I Jun CITY ADMINISTRATIVE 7:OOp Planning OFFICES CLOSED- Commission MEMORIAL DAY SATURDAY,JUNE 2 9 AM to 1 PM Comm misssioon n: Planning RICHFIELD MUNICIPAL Commission (Rescheduled to May CENTER BUILDING 29) DEDICATION 4 5 6 7 8 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:OOp Community Services Commission @ 7000 Nicollet Ave 11 12 13 14 15 7:OOp Planning 6:15p Special City Commission Study Council Worksession Session 7:OOp City Council Regular Meeting 18 19 20 21 22 6:OOp Advisory Board of 7:00 Community 7:OOp Friendship City Health-CANCELED Services Commission Commission 7:OOp Housing and (Rescheduled to June 5) Redevelopment Authority(HRA) 25 26 27 28 29 7:OOp Planning 6:OOp Special Joint SATURDAY,JUNE 30 Commission Meeting between 9:30 a.m.-10:30 a.m. Bloomington, Richfield, Mayor's Hour-Farmer's and Edina Advisory Market Boards of Health- Bartholomew Room 6:15p Special City Council Worksession 7:OOp City Council Regular Meeting Display: Year Month Week Day 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 6/7/2012 CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Office of City Manager June 7, 2012 Council Memorandum No. 68 The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council Subject: Arterial Road Prioritization Study (Worksession Agenda Item No. 1) Council Members: Staff will present the results of the arterial road prioritization study recently completed by the Transportation Commission. The prioritization study examined the ranking of the arterial roads within the City on a variety of categories. Arterial roads examined in the process were: • 66th Street • Penn Avenue • Lyndale Avenue • Nicollet Avenue • Portland Avenue • West 76th Street The results of the study will be helpful in the planning process as Hennepin County and the City move forward with reconstruction of many of these streets. Pleas=- "ntact Mike Eastling, Public Works Director, at 612-861-9792 with questions. R R-:*( , ull, submitte•r I/ ., _ _ . •evic City Manager SLD:cak Email: Department Directors Assistant City Manager CITY COUNCIL MINUTES Richfield, Minnesota g4CA114.CedSpecial City Council/HRA/Planning Commission Worksession May 21, 2012 CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order by Chair Sandahl at 6:02 p.m. in the Council Chambers. ROLL CALL Council Members Debbie Goettel, Mayor; Pat Elliott; Sue Sandahl; and Tom Fitzhenry Present: Council Members Fred Wroge Absent: HRA Members Sue Sandahl, Chair; Doris Rubenstein; Steven J. Quam; and Debbie Goettel Present: HRA Members David Gepner Absent: Planning Members Gordon Vizecky; Josh Root; and Maureen Scaglia Present: Planning Members Rick Jabs, Chair; Robert Hall; Daniel Kitzberger; Tom Rublein; and Dennis Absent: Schuller 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; and Nancy Gibbs, City Clerk Item#1 DISCUSSION REGARDING RENTAL HOUSING INVENTORY AND NEEDS ASSESSMENT(HRA MEMO NO. 27, COUNCIL MEMO NO. 60) Jay Demma, Project Manager for Stantec Consulting Services, Inc., presented the Rental Housing Inventory and Needs Assessment report. Special Worksession Minutes -2- May 21, 2012 ADJOURNMENT The HRA/City Council/Planning Commission worksession was adjourned by unanimous consent at 6:41 p.m. Date Approved: June 12, 2012 Debbie Goettel Mayor Nancy Gibbs Steven L. Devich City Clerk City Manager CITY COUNCIL MINUTES Richfield, Minnesota geCqeeeC6Special City Council Worksession May 22, 2012 CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order by Mayor Goettel at 6:15 p.m. in the Bartholomew Conference Room. ROLL CALL Council Members Debbie Goettel, Mayor; Tom Fitzhenry; Pat Elliott; Sue Sandahl; and Fred Present: Wroge Staff Present: Steven L. Devich, City Manager; Mike Eastling, Public Works Director; Jeff Pearson, Transportation Engineer; and Cheryl Krumholz, Executive Coordinator Item #1 DISCUSSION REGARDING THE DRAFT RICHFIELD BICYCLE MASTER PLAN (COUNCIL MEMO NO. 57) Transportation Engineer Pearson presented an overview of the draft Richfield Bicycle Master Plan. This is a guiding document containing recommendations for bicycle related policy and infrastructure changes within Richfield. David Gepner, Richfield Bike Task Force Chair, acknowledged the efforts of staff and the task force. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned by unanimous consent at 6:51 p.m. Date Approved: June 12, 2012 Debbie Goettel Mayor Cheryl Krumholz Steven L. Devich Executive Coordinator City Manager CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES .end Richfield, Minnesota #gi/ 44 ° Regular Meeting May 22, 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, Sue Sandahl; and Fred Wroge. Staff Present: Steven L. Devich, City Manager; Mike Eastling, Public Works Director; Jim Topitzhofer, Recreation Services Director; Todd Sandell, Acting Public Safety Director; Chris Regis, Finance Manager; Christine Costello, Community Development Coordinator; Corrine Heine, City Attorney; and Cheryl Krumholz, Executive Coordinator. OPEN FORUM Mayor Goettel 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 Met Council Housing Analysis, which will be included in the record: • Barry LeBlanc, 7521 Pillsbury Avenue. Received May 13, 2012. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Mayor Goettel led the audience in the Pledge of Allegiance. APPROVAL OF MINUTES M/Wroge, S/Sandahl to approve the minutes of(1) Special City Council Worksession of May 8, 2012; and (2) Regular City Council Meeting of May 8, 2012. Motion carried 5-0. Item #1 SWEARING-IN OF RICHFIELD POLICE CANINE UNITS OF OFFICER NATE KINSEY AND HIS CANINE PARTNER ROCKY AND OFFICER BRIAN BATAGLIA AND HIS CANINE PARTNER BODIE Council Meeting Minutes -2- May 22,2012 Acting Public Safety Director Sandell administered the swearing-in of Richfield Police Canine Units of Officer Nate Kinsey and his canine partner Rocky and Officer Brian Bataglia and his canine partner Bodie. Item #2 PRESENTATION AND RECEIPT OF CITY OF RICHFIELD COMPREHENSIVE ANNUAL FINANCIAL REPORT FOR FISCAL YEAR ENDED DECEMBER 31, 2011 (COUNCIL MEMO NO. 58 &S.R. NO. 88) Bill Lauer, representative of the City's audit firm MMKR, made a presentation on the 2011 Audit and 2011 Comprehensive Annual Financial Report. M/Goettel, S/Fitzhenry to approve receipt of the City of Richfield Comprehensive Annual Financial Report for fiscal year ended December 31, 2011. Motion carried 5-0. Item#3 COUNCIL DISCUSSION • COUNCIL PARTICIPATION IN JULY 4 PARADE • HATS OFF TO HOMETOWN HITS The City Council consensus was to participate by walking in the July 4 parade with the Mayor arranging for the Girl Scouts to carry the banner. Mayor Goettel discussed the Time Capsule items she donated. Mayor Goettel reported on the upgrades at the Farmers Market and Mini-Golf. Mayor Goettel announced the City was awarded $1.5 million in Livable Communities Transit Oriented Development grant funds from the Met Council for the Lyndale Gardens Project. City Manager Devich explained the system in place to address the issue of barn swallow nests in the Veterans Park Pavilion, including working with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Council Member Fitzhenry announced the 76th Street Reconstruction open house on May 23 and the Richfield Parkway Phase II neighborhood informational meeting on May 24. Council Member Sandahl announced the Free Summer Concerts in the Park events. Council Member Sandahl announced the June 2 Richfield Municipal Center Building Dedication event. Council Member Elliott discussed the recent Penn Central open house. Council Member Elliot clarified his October 25, 2011 comment regarding the Grandview Project litigation, that he has never represented Ron Clark or his business representatives. Item #4 COUNCIL APPROVAL OF AGENDA Mayor Goettel removed Consent Calendar Item#5C for separate consideration as Item#6. M/Goettel, S/Elliott to approve the agenda as amended. Motion carried 5-0. • Council Meeting Minutes -3- May 22,2012 Item #5 CONSENT CALENDAR A. Consideration of approval of award of contract to Airtech Thermex Corporation to replace the lower floor air conditioning unit at the Community Center in the amount of$19,825 S.R. No. 89 B. Consideration of approval of Amendment of Commercial Lease with Minnesota Department of Transportation and Amendment of License Agreement with Transmission Shop, Inc. for the parking lot at Cedar Avenue and Diagonal Boulevard S.R. No. 90 C. Item moved to be considered separately as Item#6. Recreation Services Director Topitzhofer explained the deviation in quotes related to Item #5A and that the Department of Labor and Industry standards would be monitored. M/Goettel, S/Elliott to approve the Consent Calendar as amended. Motion carried 5-0. Item #6 CONSIDERATION OF ITEMS, IF ANY, REMOVED FROM CONSENT CALENDAR Former Item#5C -Consideration of approval of resolution authorizing City staff to incur costs for the potential reconstruction of Richfield Parkway Phase II (63 to 65 Streets)S.R. No. 91 Council Member Wroge questioned if reimbursement expenses were for roadway or property. Public Works Director Eastling explained all project costs are included and this resolution allows reimbursement from the beginning of the project. Council Member Wroge stated he would rather wait on taking action until after the neighborhood meeting to get their feedback. M/Sandahl, S/Fitzhenry that the following resolution be adopted and that they be made part of these minutes: RESOLUTION NO.10656 DECLARING THE OFFICIAL INTENT OF THE CITY OF RICHFIELD TO REIMBURSE CERTAIN EXPENDITURES FROM THE PROCEEDS OF BONDS TO BE ISSUED BY THE CITY WITH RESPECT TO RICHFIELD PARKWAY 2012 IMPROVEMENT AND STREET RECONSTRUCTION PROJECT Motion carried 4-1. (Wroge opposed)This resolution appears as Resolution No. 10656. Item #7 CONSIDERATION OF RESOLUTION SUPPORTING THE INTERCITY REGIONAL TRAIL MASTER PLAN AS RECOMMENDED BY THE TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION S.R. NO. 92 Mayor Goettel presented Staff Report No. 92. Kelly Grissam, Three Rivers Park District, reviewed the approved route including the Richfield segment. Council Member Wroge suggested Richfield Parkway as a better route than 66th Street/Cedar Avenue because it is more scenic. Council Meeting Minutes -4- May 22,2012 M/Goettel, S/Sandahl that the following resolution be adopted and that they be made part of these minutes: RESOLUTION NO.10657 RESOLUTION OF SUPPORT FOR THE INTERCITY REGIONAL TRAIL Motion carried 5-0. This resolution appears as Resolution No. 10657. Item#8 CITY MANAGER'S REPORT None. Item #9 CLAIMS AND PAYROLLS M/Wroge, S/Sandahl that the following claims and payrolls be approved: U.S. Bank 05/08/12 A/P Checks: 212849-213243 $ 1,056,291.12 Payroll: 83651-83967; 41876 $ 522,821.96 TOTAL $ 1,579,113.08 Motion carried 5-0. OPEN FORUM None. ADJOURNMENT The City Council meeting was adjourned by unanimous consent at 8:14 p.m. Date Approved: June 12, 2012 Debbie Goettel Mayor Cheryl Krumholz Steven L. Devich Executive Coordinator City Manager CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Office of City Manager June 7, 2012 Council Memorandum No. 70 The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council Subject: Scheduling of Upcoming Special City Council Meetings (Agenda Item No. 1) Council Members: During Council Discussion at the June 12, 2012 City Council Meeting, the City Council should consider formally approving the schedule of the following upcoming meetings. • Reschedule the Tuesday, August 14 Regular Council Meeting to Monday, August 13 at 7 p.m. in the Council Chambers due to the primary election • Schedule a Special City Council Meeting on Friday, August 17 at 8:30 a.m. in the Council Chambers to canvass primary election results • Cancel the Tuesday, August 28 Regular City Council Meeting • Schedule a Special City Council Meeting at 6 p.m. in the Council Chambers regarding the 2012 Revised/2013 Proposed Budget on: Wednesday, August 29; or Thursday, August 30; or Wednesday, September 4; or Thursday, September 5 Please contact me if you have any questions. -<' / Re 'u ysubmitte•,, ,., , , , / / 44,._---- • i •_4 . De ich City Manager SLD:cak Email: Department Directors Assistant City Manager AGENDA SECTION: CONSENT AGENDA ITEM# 3A REPORT# 93 woe! STAFF REPORT RICHFIELD CITY COUNCIL MEETING JUNE 12, 2012 REPORT PREPARED BY: BETSY OSBORN, SUPPORT SERVICES MANAGER NAME,TITLE DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR � i / REVIEW: ��Al / l J l_. \ /riff REVIEWED BY CITY MANAGER: 10 ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION: Consideration and approval of a request for a new Therapeutic Massage Enterprise license for Salon St. George, 6625 Lyndale Avenue. S. I. RECOMMENDED ACTION: By Motion: Approve the request for a new Therapeutic Massage Enterprise license for Salon St. George, 6625 Lyndale Avenue S. H. BACKGROUND On February 16, 2012, Salon St. George, 6625 Lyndale Avenue S., submitted an application for a new Therapeutic Massage Enterprise license. This is the umbrella license that must be obtained to allow for massage therapy to occur at the site. The following requirements for license issuance have all been satisfied. • The applicant has paid the required licensing fees. • The required proof of liability insurance has been submitted. • All real estate and personal property taxes that are due and payable for the premises have been paid. The Public Safety background investigation has been completed and reveals the following: 052212 Salon St.George New Therapeutic Massage License • Salon St. George is located at 6625 Lyndale Avenue S., 1st floor, Suite 105 of the M&I Bank building. • As business owners, neither Jody nor Christy are massage therapists but will utilize an individual who meets those ordinance requirements. The individual massage therapist license for the person giving massage therapy is not required to be approved by council but rather will be approved at a staff level. • The business is owned by two sisters, Jody and Christy Nelson. Neither of these individuals has any known criminal history. • Jody and Christy officially took over the salon business from their mother in 2009. Their father started the business in 1959. At the time the business was originally opened it was called Don Nelson's Barber Shop. The shop moved from its original location several times but remained within a block of where it started at 66th and Lyndale. Jody and Christy began cutting hair at the shop in 1983 and 1988, respectively. • Criminal background checks were conducted on both Jody and Christy Nelson. They were both clear of any arrests. Routine checks were also conducted on calls for service to Salon St. George for the past several years. No calls for service of any concern were found. • A copy of the Certificate of Organization from the State of Minnesota Secretary of State issued on January 6, 2009 was supplied by the applicants. This certificate was verified by the Secretary of State's office. In addition, both applicant's hold licenses issued by the State Board of Cosmetology and the Board of Barber Examiners. These licenses were also verified and reported in good standing with each Board. III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION A. POLICY • The applicant has complied with all the provisions of the application process, has paid all the licensing fees and has provided proof of liability insurance. • Based upon the information supplied by the applicant and the investigation conducted, there appears to be no reason to deny the license request. B. CRITICAL TIMING ISSUES • None C. FINANCIAL • All licensing fees have been paid. D. LEGAL • None E. ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS • None IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATIONS) • Deny the request for the Therapeutic Massage Enterprise license for Salon St. George; however, the Public Safety Department has not found any basis for a denial. V. ATTACHMENTS • None VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING • Jody Nelson, Owner • Christy Nelson, Owner AGENDA SECTION: CONSENT AGENDA ITEM# 3B REPORT# - 94 STAFF REPORT RICE irIcID CITY COUNCIL MEETING JUNE 12, 2012 REPORT PREPARED BY: NANCY GIBBS, CITY CLERK NAME,TITLE DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR ulif fr REVIEW: a 4, REVIEWED BY CITY dirr MANAGER: 7 �` ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION: Consideration of the attached resolution establishing an absentee ballot counting board for the state primary and general elections. I. RECOMMENDED ACTION: By Motion: Adopt the resolution establishing an absentee ballot counting board for the state primary and general elections. II. BACKGROUND • Minnesota Statutes, Section 203B.121 provides for any municipality to authorize, by ordinance or resolution, an absentee ballot counting board. The board shall consist of a sufficient number of election judges appointed as provided in Minnesota Statutes, Sections 204B.19 through 204B.23. The absentee ballot counting board may examine all returned absentee ballot envelopes and accept or reject absentee ballots in a manner provided in Minnesota Statutes, Section 203B.121. III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION • By establishing an absentee ballot counting board the voter has an opportunity to correct any errors or omissions that caused their absentee ballot envelope to be rejected. 061212ABboard A. POLICY • Absentee ballot counting boards need to be established by ordinance or resolution. B. CRITICAL TIMING ISSUES • The City needs an absentee ballot counting board to be established at least 46 days before the 2012 state primary election. C. FINANCIAL • The City will need two election judges daily which will increase some election costs. D. LEGAL • State law requires we must establish and appoint an absentee ballot counting board. E. ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS • None IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION(S) • None V. ATTACHMENTS • Resolution VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING • None 36 — I RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING ESTABLISHING AN ABSENTEE BALLOT COUNTING BOARD FOR THE STATE PRIMARY AND GENERAL ELECTIONS. WHEREAS, pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Section 203B.121 and 203B.14, as amended, an absentee ballot counting board is established. The board has those powers and duties, and shall be appointed in the manner provided by law; and WHEREAS, the absentee ballot counting board is authorized to examine absentee ballot envelopes and receive or reject absentee ballots in the manner provided by Minnesota Statutes, Section 203B.121 and 203B.19, as amended; and WHEREAS, the absentee ballot counting board shall be appointed for each general and special election in the City. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Richfield does hereby approve guidelines establishing an absentee ballot counting board and authorize the City Clerk to oversee the appointment and procedural processes. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this 12th day of June, 2012. Debbie Goettel, Mayor ATTEST: Nancy Gibbs, City Clerk AGENDA SECTION: CONSENT AGENDA ITEM# 3C REPORT# 95 irigil STAFF REPORT RIC r lrin ID CITY COUNCIL MEETING JUNE 12, 2012 REPORT PREPARED BY: NANCY GIBBS, CITY CLERK NAME,TITLE DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR / REVIEW: '-_ 4 „Jr SIGNATURE W REVIEWED BY CITY MANAGER: ' �. � ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION: Consideration of the attached resolution appointing election judges for the August 14, 2012 Primary Election and the November 6, 2012 General Election. I. RECOMMENDED ACTION: By Motion: Adopt the resolution appointing election judges for the August 14, 2012 Primary Election and the November 6, 2012 General Election. II. BACKGROUND Minnesota Statute 204B.21 Subd. 2 provides that election judges for precincts in a municipality shall be appointed by the governing body of the municipality and that the appointments be made at least 25 days before the election at which the election judges will serve. The City Clerk's office has completed updating and verifying the City's election judge availability list. All individuals who have previously served as an election judge, were on the list submitted to the County Auditor by the major political parties, or have expressed an interest in serving as an election judge were sent a questionnaire to: 1. Determine whether or not they wished to remain on the election judge availability list. 2. Verify existing file information regarding address, political party, etc. 3. Receive an indication of availability to work at the 2012 scheduled elections. 061212EIectionJudges The attached resolution contains the names of all of the individuals on the updated election judge availability list. Appointment by the City Council will allow them to serve as election judges at the Primary Election, the General Election or both elections, this will also allow the judges to serve on the absentee ballot board. Election judges will be assigned to the precincts based on availability, party balance, and the number required for each election. The General Election will require assignment of the greatest number of available judges. III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION A. POLICY • The City Council is required by State Statute to make election judge appointments at least 25 days prior to the election. • The proposed resolution contains names of those qualified individuals who have indicated a willingness and ability to serve as an election judge for the August 14, 2012 Primary Election and the November 6, 2012 General Election. B. CRITICAL TIMING ISSUES • If the City Council does not appoint election judges, the conduct of the election would not be valid. C. FINANCIAL • N/A D. LEGAL • Compliance with Minnesota Statute 204B.21, Subd. 2. The Primary Election will be conducted on Tuesday, August 14, 2012 and the General Election will be conducted on Tuesday, November 6, 2012. Therefore, the City Council must appoint election judges to serve at these elections. The names come from a list of people who have indicated their interest in serving as an election judge to the County Auditor pursuant to the provisions of M.S. 204B.21 Subd. 1 and those who have previously served or indicated interest in serving. E. ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS • N/A IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATIONS) • The City Council could chose to appoint others who are not named in the resolution. V. ATTACHMENTS • Resolution. VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING • None 'c- I RESOLUTION NO RESOLUTION APPOINTING ELECTION JUDGES FOR THE STATE PRIMARY ELECTION OF AUGUST 14, 2012 AND THE GENERAL ELECTION OF NOVEMBER 6, 2012 WHEREAS, a State Primary Election will be held on Tuesday, August 14, 2012 and a General Election will be held on Tuesday, November 6, 2012. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Richfield, that the following are hereby appointed as judges for said elections: James Alagna Robert Amundson Janis Anderson John Ashmead Mary Ann Ashmead Carol Athey James Atkins Pat Bailey Evelyn Baldwin Patricia Bates Charles Bauer Jr. Corliss Becker Ella Bert Marilyn Birkelo Thomas Birkelo Kimberly Blomberg Mary Boespflug Reed Bornholdt Laurel Bruno Marjorie Cain Jan Carroll Stanley Cromer Jerry Cromer-Poire Michele Cromer-Poire Ellen Cutter David Dahl Marie Dallager Eileen Davenport Emily Day Sandra Decker Gladys Denesen Delrose Desrosier Mary Devine Marguerite Dozois Cindy Dubansky Denise Eckerman Dee Ann Edlund Liz Ekholm Betty Elenbaas Margaret Erickson Susanne Erickson Denise Famodu Donna Fischer Sheila Fitzgerald Dean Gade Mary Gagne Nancy Garwick Kathy Gesler Dennis Gillespie Judith Goebel Mary Gover James Grant Rebecca Guarino Roger Guarino Betty Gustafson Earl Hagen Robert Hall Reed Harms Adrienne Hayes Jackie Heinen Gertrude Herll Ruth Hiland Merlin Hill Linda Hinz Oliver Hoffman Ilene Nolen Jeanette Holter JeNee Honnigford Bob Houlton Kathy Johnson Sita Johnson Janell Joyner Kalla Kalloway Betty Kamps Danette Kamrath Thomas Keegan Claire Killian Elisabeth Kingdon Rosemary Koelln Jane Koenig Lawrence Koenig Joseph Kovach Lois Kovach Barb Kreitzman David Lamberger Nancy Lindberg Cherill Lindquist Lester Loney Eleanor Maanum Aleta Macon Abelardo Malicsi M. Karen Marso Thomas Marso Lawrence Martin Paul Matuschek Andrew May Karin McComb John Rock Meland Sandy Menning-Glavan Richard Morey Philip Mortenson Isabelle Moulinier Eileen Muelken Don Mueller Christine Mullen Peggy Mullick Tom Murphy Geraldine Nachicas 3C-eR Helen Nachicas Ivar. Natins Linda Nemitz David Nyholm Jan Nyholm Martha Obenchain Brad Obert Joy O'Brien Marlene Odegard Chris Okey Joan Olinger Mary Olson Robert Olson Lois Omlie Julia O'Sullivan Mark Pafiolis Jeannine Pafko Ruth Pafko Betty Pedric Joe Pedric Bette Peltola Monica Petrov Francis Ploog Julie Remarcik Carolyn Ring Rick Robbins Donna Roe Jeff Rundgren Jeet Sausen Phil Schaffer Sandy Schmidt Margaret Schow Andrew Seffrood Eric Smith Margaret Smith Becky Spitzack Jim Spitzack Erin Stertz-Follett Catherine Sullivan Robert Sunderlin Roger Swanson Jean Swenson Karen Tannahill Ed Thom Myrtle Thom Doris Thorson Kathy Tighe Pat Toney John Twisk Judy Twisk Phyllis Unger Beatrice Van Liew Kenneth Vevea Cynthia Wagar Bob Wells Elaine Wetsch Jane Winberg Marian Woolery Janelle Zeinelabdin Judy Wood Julie Smith Angie Faison Sharon Flick Yvonne Atkins Marlys Solt John Holter PASSED by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this 12th day of June 2012. Debbie Goettel, Mayor ATTEST: Nancy Gibbs, City Clerk AGENDA SECTION: CONSENT AGENDA ITEM# 3D REPORT# 96 STAFF REPORT RICHFIELD CITY COUNCIL MEETING a. JUNE 12, 2012 REPORT PREPARED BY: NANCY GIBBS, CITY CLERK NAME,TITLE DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR .fr— REVIEW: AI I SIGNA REVIEWED BY CITY ~- N / MANAGER: /. .LL. k _ efe, Allis ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION: Consideration of the attached resolution authorizing the use of ES&S Central Counter Model 650 for the tabulation of all absentee ballots. I. RECOMMENDED ACTION: By Motion: Adopt the resolution approving the Absentee Ballot Counting Equipment for the State Primary and General Elections. II. BACKGROUND The State Primary Election is on Tuesday August 14, 2012 and the State General Election is on Tuesday November 6, 2012. Because Richfield has a slightly higher then average number of absentee voters in these elections, Hennepin County has recommended that Richfield use the ES&S Central Counter Model 650 absentee ballot counter to count our absentee ballots on election evening. The County has purchased the two machines at no cost to the City. Two election judges of different political parties will transport and deliver the absentee ballots to the counting site at approximately 4:00 p.m. on Election Day; this will ensure that results can be combined with Election Day voting totals that are being calculated at 8:00 p.m. from the in person voting at the precincts. The judges will remain at the central counting site during the processing of the absentee counting and return to Richfield Municipal Center with the absentee results prior to 8:00 p.m. At that time, the totals will be combined with the precinct totals that the judges will have telephoned into Richfield Municipal Center when the precinct polls have closed. 061212BallotCounter III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION • Election staff has determined that the M650 Central Counter will be more cost effective and will increase efficiency counting absentee ballots. A. POLICY • N/A B. CRITICAL TIMING ISSUES • State Statute 206.58 subd. 3; requires the use of the ES&S Central Counter Model 650 be approved by the City Council before August 14, 2012 State Primary Election. C. FINANCIAL • There is no cost to the City to purchase this equipment. D. LEGAL • Minnesota State Statute 206.58 subd.3 requires that the municipality give approval before a new ballot counting system can be used in the municipality. E. ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS • N/A IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION(S) • Do not approve the resolution and have election judges process absentee ballots at Richfield Municipal Center on election night. This could result in a delay of reporting election results. V. ATTACHIVIENTS • Resolution VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING • None RESOLUTION NO RESOLUTION APPROVING ABSENTEE COUNTING EQUIPMENT, ES&S CENTRAL COUNTER MODEL 650 TO BE USED AT THE STATE PRIMARY AND STATE GENERAL ELECTIONS WHEREAS, pursuant to MN Statute 206.58 subd.3; the City of Richfield authorizes the use of the ES&S Central Counter Model 650 for the tabulation of all absentee ballots. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Richfield, authorizing the use of the ES&S Central Counter Model 650 for the tabulation of all absentee ballots. PASSED by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this 12th day of June 2012. Debbie Goettel, Mayor ATTEST: Nancy Gibbs, City Clerk • AGENDA SECTION: CONSENT AGENDA ITEM# 3E REPORT# 97 STAFF REPORT RICHFIELD CITY COUNCIL MEETING JUNE 12, 2012 REPORT PREPARED BY: Robert Hintgen, Utility Superintendent NAME,TITLE DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR REVIEW: `i ,"pm, REVIEWED BY CITY MANAGER: / ; L/ �1I 1 ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION: Consideration of the purchase of a High Pressure Sewer Flushing Machine and chassis for use by the Wastewater Maintenance Division. I. RECOMMENDED ACTION: By motion: Approve the purchase of a High Pressure Sewer Flushing Machine and chassis in the amount of $190,193.86 consisting of the following items: • High Pressure Sewer Flushing Machine in the amount of $115,250.79 from Flexible Pipe Tool Company. • Chassis in the amount of $74,943.07 from Astleford International Trucks. II. BACKGROUND The City of Richfield Wastewater Maintenance Division maintains 180 miles of sanitary sewer and storm water collection systems. The City currently operates two High Pressure Sewer Flushing Machines (Units#375 and #440)which play a vital role in this maintenance. 06122012Jetter Replacement Schedule Unit#375 is 17 years old and was kept as a backup when Unit#440 was purchased in 2002. Both units are fully depreciated and have worked beyond their scheduled replacement dates. With this purchase, Unit#440 will be kept as the backup and Unit#375 will be traded in. The trade-in amount is $5,000 and has already been deducted form the original purchase price making the new purchase price $190,193.86. Purchasing Policy Purchasing supplies, materials, and equipment through a cooperative purchasing program, allows the City to purchase these items at a lower cost due to the purchasing power of a large group. Unit#375 will be replaced with a High Pressure Sewer Flushing Machine and Chassis that will be purchased through the State of Minnesota Cooperative Purchasing Program. III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION A. POLICY • The City of Richfield participates in the Minnesota State Cooperative Purchasing Program. B. CRITICAL TIMING ISSUES • Approval at the June 12, 2012 Council meeting will facilitate delivery of the High Pressure Sewer Flushing Machine and Chassis. • The State of Minnesota Cooperative Purchasing Program for chassis' expires on June 30, 2012. C. FINANCIAL • The approved 2012 Wastewater Budget contains $150,000 (line item 52000-7400) for the purchase of the High Pressure Sewer Flushing Machine and chassis. • The additional $40,193.86 will be included in the revised 2012 Wastewater Budget. • This purchase will not impact the general fund. D. LEGAL • When the purchase of materials, merchandise, equipment, or construction exceeds $50,000, authority to purchase shall be submitted to the City Council for consideration. E ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS • None IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION(S) • Council may delay approval to a later meeting. Delayed approval, however, will result in delayed delivery. • No action by Council on this purchase could result in breakdowns, dollars wasted on repairs and lost efficiency in maintaining the City's sanitary sewer and storm water collection systems. V. ATTACHMENTS • None VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING • None AGENDA SECTION: CONSENT AGENDA ITEM# 3F REPORT# 98 STAFF REPORT RIC HrIi_D CITY COUNCIL MEETING JUNE 12, 2012 REPORT PREPARED BY: JIM TOPITZHOFER,RECREATION SERVICES DIRECTOR NAME,TITLE DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR REVIEW: Q • 41■22 /11</11d r REVIEWED BY CITY MANAGER: (� ■ ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION: Consideration of award of contract to Bulach Custom Rock to install remaining concrete features and glass centerpieces for the final phase of the Honoring All Veterans Memorial in the amount of$178,354. I. RECOMMENDED ACTION: By Motion: Approve the award of contract to Bulach Custom Rock to install remaining concrete features and glass centerpieces for the final phase of the Honoring All Veterans Memorial in the amount of $178,354. II. BACKGROUND Members of the Honoring All Veterans Memorial (HAVM) Board presented design drawings and cost estimates for the remaining work of the Monument last year, requesting City Council to consider providing funds for the remaining work. The Council directed staff to complete plans and specifications and to solicit bids and quotes for the following components: 061212 Bulach Custom Rock Contract • Six concrete columns with granite bands • Granite finish on sculpture pedestal • North concrete trail with lighting • Irrigation • Landscaping and lighted flagpoles One bid was received from Bulach Custom Rock for the remaining concrete work of the project which includes the installation of integrally colored concrete pavement (4" depth), standard concrete columns, planter curb, colored and textured centerpiece base cap, glass fiber reinforced concrete, and glass centerpiece for concrete columns. This type of work is highly specialized and bid packages were sent to three known companies capable of performing the work. The bids were also advertised in the Quest Construction Bulletin and advertised and in the SunCurrent. Bulach Custom Rock is very familiar with the project as they were awarded a contract for previous concrete work on the Monument and have performed high quality work. III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION A. POLICY • Under the City's Purchasing and Spending Authority Policy, contracts over$100,000 must be approved by City Council and sealed bids shall be solicited by public notice. • The bids were solicited by public notice in the SunCurrent Newspaper as required. B. CRITICAL TIMING ISSUES • It is desired to complete the project this summer to help stimulate the sale of engravings which is the source of funds that pays the City back for final construction costs. C. FINANCIAL • The initial cost estimate for the remaining work of the project not including irrigation was $290,000 as reported to Council last fall. Irrigation will be funded through a grant with Minnehaha Watershed District as part of planned storm water improvements at Legion Lake. The monument's irrigation system will utilize storm water from the nearby pond. • The project was separated in four bid packages which were solicited last month. Quotes and bids for three of the four bid packages were received. The granite bids still have not been submitted. The lowest bids received including an estimate for the granite cost are as follows: Concrete $178,354 Electric $ 24,800 Landscaping, without irrigation $ 30,832 Granite (estimated) $ 49,530 Total Construction Cost $283,516 • Total Project Costs based on the above quotes and bids are: Construction Cost $283,516 Design and Construction Management $ 16,710 Contingency (10%) $ 28,350 Total Project Cost $328,576 • Funding for remaining work on the Monument will come from the City's Recreation Fund and then be fully reimbursed over time through the proceeds of engravings sales. D. LEGAL • The City Attorney has made a determination that the City can legally accept a bid in the event that only one bid is received. The City Attorney has reviewed the attached contract and will be available for discussion at the meeting. E. ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS • N/A IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION(S) • Council may choose to direct staff to seek additional bids by re-bidding the project or abandon the project V. ATTACHMENTS • Bid minutes/tabulation • Bulach Custom Rock Contract VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING • None 3F- 1 CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Bid Opening May 29, 2012 2:00 p.m. Honoring All Veterans Memorial — Concrete Improvements Bid No. 12-04 Pursuant to requirements of Resolution No. 1015, a meeting of the Administrative Staff was called by Judy Wood, Acting City Clerk, who announced that the purpose of the meeting was to receive, open and read aloud, bids for Honoring All Veterans Memorial — Concrete Improvements, as advertised in the official newspaper on May 17, 2012. Present: Judy Wood, Acting City Clerk Jim Topitzhofer, Recreation Services Director Joel Odens, HR Green Theresa Schyma, City Manager Representative The following bids were submitted and read aloud: Bidder's Name Bond Total Base Bid Bulach Custom Rock Provided $178,354.00 Inver Grove Heights, MN 55077 The Acting City Clerk announced that the bids would be tabulated and considered at the June 12, 2012 City Council Meeting. Judy Wood Acting City Clerk 3F- a. HONORING ALL VETERANS MEMORIAL, INC. HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA CONTRACT FOR CONSTRUCTION THIS AGREEMENT made on the 12th day of June, 2012, between the Honoring All Veterans Memorial, Inc., acting by and through its President, herein called the"Owner" and Bulach Custom Rock, Inc. herein called the "Contractor,"witnesseth; that the Contractor, in consideration of the payment of the contract price therefor, amounting substantially to One Hundred Seventy Eight Thousand Three Hundred Fifty Four Dollars And Zero Cents ($178,354.00), agrees to furnish all materials (except such as are specified to be furnished by the Owner, if any), all necessary tools and equipment, and to do and perform all the necessary work and labor for the full completion as follows: HONORING ALL VETERANS MEMORIAL CONSTRUCTION PROJECT FINAL PHASE CONCRETE IMPROVEMENTS ARCHITECTURAL CONCRETE: a cast-in-place concrete cap, columns, and slab, having been colored and having a finish other than a broomed or sweated finish. The work is performed on the job site by trained and experienced workmen. Final finish to be approved by the owner HARDSCAPE A. Furnish and install integrally colored concrete pavement (4" depth). B. Furnish and install standard concrete columns. C. Furnish and install planter curb. D. Furnish and install colored and textured centerpiece base cap. E. Furnish and install glass fiber reinforced concrete. F. Furnish and install glass centerpiece for concrete columns RELATED WORK A. Preparation work, including sub-grade preparation, finish grading, setting of forms and screeds, and furnishing reinforcement when required shall be done by the Concrete Contractor, depending on the specific situation. B. Provide and place all concrete. C. Provide and place all reinforcement as specified. D. Provide and place drain tile as specified. E. Provide and apply concrete sealer. F. Furnish and install concrete sidewalks (4" depth). as shown in the attached 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 Owner's representative Jim Topitzhofer, herein call the"Construction Manager", and hereby made a part of this Agreement. This Agreement shall be binding upon and insure 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 Construction Manager, and in case any material or labor supplied shall be rejected by the Construction Manager 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 1 3F- ?3 HONORING ALL VETERANS MEMORIAL, INC. HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA CONTRACT FOR CONSTRUCTION satisfaction and approval of the Construction Manager and at the cost and expense of the Contractor. The contractor SHALL NOTIFY THE Construction Manager in writing of his intentions to commence work at least five (5) days prior to his moving onto the site according to the specifications and will have all work done and the improvement fully completed to the satisfaction and approval of the Owner. It is distinctly understood and agreed that no claims for extra work done or materials furnished by the Contractor will be allowed by the Owner 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. Project is subject to the prevailing wages as established by the Minnesota Department of Labor and Industry. Specifically, all contractors and subcontractors must pay all laborers and mechanics the established prevailing wages for work performed under the contract. The concrete contractor shall submit all prevailing wage reports prior to any payments being approved. Contractor agrees to pay subcontractors within 10 days of receipt of payment from the Owner and to pay interest of 1.5% per month or any part of a month to the subcontractor on any undisputed amount not paid on time. . It is further agreed, anything to the contrary notwithstanding, that the Owner, Construction Manager, City of Richfield, City Council and its agents or employees shall not be personally liable or responsible in any manner to the Contractor, Subcontractors, materialmen, 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 on the 12th day of June, 2012. Signatures for: Bulach Custom Rock, Inc. (Contractor) By Its Signatures for: City of Richfield (Owner) Its , Mayor Debbie Goettel By Its Steven Devich, City Manager 2 AGENDA SECTION: CONSENT AGENDA ITEM# 3G REPORT# 99 STAFF REPORT RICHFIELD r_ _u CITY COUNCIL MEETING JUNE 12, 2012 REPORT PREPARED BY: JIM TOPITZHOFER,RECREATION SERVICES DIRECTOR NAME,flTLE DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR REVIEW: el As I s ,✓ Fr „ i• REVIEWED BY CITY MANAGER: r A ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION: Consideration of award of contract to Choice Electric to install pathway and flagpole lighting for the remaining phase of the Honoring All Veterans Memorial in the amount of$24,800. I. RECOMMENDED ACTION: By Motion: Approve the award of contract to Choice Electric to install pathway and flagpole lighting for the remaining phase of the Honoring All Veterans Memorial in the amount of $24,800. II. BACKGROUND Members of the Honoring All Veterans Memorial (HAVM) Board presented design drawings and cost estimates for the remaining work of the Monument last year, requesting City Council to consider providing funds for the remaining work. The Council directed staff to complete plans and specifications and to solicit bids and quotes for the following components: • Six concrete columns with granite bands • Granite finish on sculpture pedestal • North concrete trail with lighting • Irrigation • Landscaping and lighted flagpoles Two quotes were received for the remaining electrical work of the project which includes the installation of five pathway lights, three flagpole floodlights, circuiting to lightening protections and GFI receptacles. 061212 Choice Electric Contract Choice Electric $24,800 Ben Franklin Electric $35,893 Choice Electric was the lowest quote. Choice Electric is very familiar with the project as they were awarded contracts for previous electrical work on the Monument and have performed high quality work. III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION A. POLICY • Under the City's Purchasing and Spending Authority Policy, contracts or purchases from $1,000 to $25,000 must be approved by the division manager, department director, finance director and the City Manager. • If the amount of the contract is estimated at$25,000 or less, the contact or purchase may be made either upon quotation or in the open market in the discretion of the governing body. If the contract or purchase is made upon quotation, it shall be based on at least two quotations. Two quotes were received and Choice Electric offered the lowest price. • There are no publication or notification requirements that apply to this action. B. CRITICAL TIMING IssUES • It is desired to complete the project this summer to help stimulate the sale of engravings which is the source of funds that pays the City back for final construction costs. C. FINANCIAL • The initial cost estimate for the remaining work of the project not including irrigation was $290,000 as reported to Council last fall. Irrigation will be funded through a grant with Minnehaha Watershed District as part of planned storm water improvements at Legion Lake. The monument's irrigation system will utilize storm water from the nearby pond. • The project was separated in four bid packages which were solicited last month. Quotes and bids for three of the four bid packages were received. The granite bids still have not been submitted. The lowest bids received including an estimate for the granite cost are as follows: Concrete $178,354 Electric $ 24,800 Landscaping, without irrigation $ 30,832 Granite (estimated) $ 49,530 Total Construction Cost $283,516 • Total Project Costs based on the above quotes and bids are: Construction Cost $283,516 Design and Construction Management $ 16,710 Contingency (10%) $ 28,350 Total Project Cost $328,576 • Funding for remaining work on the Monument will come from the City's Recreation Fund and then be fully reimbursed over time through the proceeds of engravings sales. D. LEGAL • The City Attorney has reviewed the attached contract and will be available for discussion at the meeting. E. ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS • N/A IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATIONS) • Council may choose to direct staff to seek additional quotes on the electrical work of the Monument or abandon the project V. ATTACHMENTS • Choice Electric Contract VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING • None 3U - HONORING ALL VETERANS MEMORIAL, INC. HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA CONTRACT FOR CONSTRUCTION THIS AGREEMENT made on the 12th day of June, 2012, between the Honoring All Veterans Memorial, Inc., acting by and through its President, herein called the "Owner" and Choice Electric herein called the"Contractor,"witnesseth; that the Contractor, in consideration of the payment of the contract price therefor, amounting substantially to Twenty Four Thousand Eight Hundred Dollars And Zero Cents ($24,800.00), agrees to furnish all materials (except such as are specified to be furnished by the Owner, if any), all necessary tools and equipment, and to do and perform all the necessary work and labor for the full completion as follows: HONORING ALL VETERANS MEMORIAL CONSTRUCTION PROJECT FINAL PHASE ELECTRICAL IMPROVEMENTS RELATED WORK A. Furnish and install electric grade PVC conduit. B. Furnish and install 2" PVC stub-in for future irrigation system. C. Furnish and install pathway lighting (five total). D. Furnish and install ground mounted floodlights (three total). E. Wire new lights to junction boxes. F. Install two GFI receptacles in two light poles. G. Install lightning protection cables to flagpoles and columns. as shown in the attached 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 Owner's representative Jim Topitzhofer, herein call the "Construction Manager", and hereby made a part of this Agreement. This Agreement shall be binding upon and insure 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 Construction Manager, and in case any material or labor supplied shall be rejected by the Construction Manager 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 Construction Manager and at the cost and expense of the Contractor. The contractor SHALL NOTIFY THE Construction Manager in writing of his intentions to commence work at least five (5) days prior to his moving onto the site according to the specifications and will have all work done and the improvement fully completed to the satisfaction and approval of the Owner. It is distinctly understood and agreed that no claims for extra work done or materials furnished by the Contractor will be allowed by the Owner 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 1 3Ca- 0. HONORING ALL VETERANS MEMORIAL, INC. HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA CONTRACT FOR CONSTRUCTION such written order he will make no claim for compensation for work or materials so done or furnished. Project is subject to the prevailing wages as established by the Minnesota Department of Labor and Industry. Specifically, all contractors and subcontractors must pay all laborers and mechanics the established prevailing wages for work performed under the contract. The concrete contractor shall submit all prevailing wage reports prior to any payments being approved. Contractor agrees to pay subcontractors within 10 days of receipt of payment from the Owner and to pay interest of 1.5% per month or any part of a month to the subcontractor on any undisputed amount not paid on time. . It is further agreed, anything to the contrary notwithstanding, that the Owner, Construction Manager, City of Richfield, City Council and its agents or employees shall not be personally liable or responsible in any manner to the Contractor, Subcontractors, materialmen, 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 on the 12th day of June, 2012. Signatures for: Choice Electric (Contractor) By Its Signatures for: City of Richfield (Owner) Its , Mayor Debbie Goettel By Its Steven Devich, City Manager 2 AGENDA SECTION: CONSENT AGENDA ITEM# 3H REPORT# 100 4i STAFF REPORT RICHFIELD CITY COUNCIL MEETING rimmimmom JUNE 12, 2012 REPORT PREPARED BY: JIM TOPITZHOFER,RECREATION SERVICES DIRECTOR NAME,TITLE DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR REVIEW: 0 , 9 e,.■sii. ,ie-, ��—., .. A,- SI'.NA�%' ✓' i �' / / REVIEWED BY CITY MANAGER: //J , i . A..i.a fi ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION: Consideration of award of contract to Clearwater Recreation, LLC to replace the play equipment in Roosevelt Park in the amount of$63,500. I. RECOMMENDED ACTION: By Motion: Approve the award of contract to Clearwater Recreation, LLC to replace the play equipment in Roosevelt Park in the amount of $63,500. II. BACKGROUND The Community Services Commission conducted a public meeting on March 20, 2012 to gather preferences and input on the replacement of play equipment at Roosevelt Park. A Request for Proposal was completed and sent to a number of local play equipment vendors that were currently listed on the Minnesota State Contract or the Minnesota Service Coop. Five proposals were received. A selection committee initially scored the proposals on May 24, scoring the overall design and fitness value of each proposal. Scoring results are as follows: Clearwater Recreation 66.75 Midwest Playscapes 57.25 St. Croix Recreation 54.75 Flagship Recreation 53.75 Webber Recreational 45.50 Design 061212 Roosevelt Play Equipment Replacement Clearwater Recreation was the clear winner and references were checked. Clearwater Recreation provided written verification to deliver the equipment after July 1, 2012 and complete the installation by August 1, as specified in the Request for Proposal. Warranty provisions from Clearwater Recreation are comparable with the industry standard. The attached proposal includes materials, delivery, installation, wood fiber safety surfacing, fabric, drain tile, sales tax and four wear pads for the existing swing structure. The City received a grant to partially fund the project from Prevention Minnesota in the amount of$10,000. The remaining cost of the project is funded through the approved Capital Improvement Budget. III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION A. POLICY • Under the City's Purchasing and Spending Authority Policy, for contracts or purchases from $25,000 to $100,000, the contract or purchase may be made either upon sealed bids or direct negotiation, by obtaining two or more quotations for the purchase or sale when possible, and without advertising for bids or otherwise complying with the requirements of competitive bidding. The contract must be approved by City Council. • There are no publication or notification requirements that apply to this action. B. CRITICAL TIMING ISSUES • The existing play equipment at Roosevelt Park is partially made of wood components that have deteriorated and are in need of replacement. The City has received a number of requests from residents to replace the equipment. C. FINANCIAL • The project budget is: Play Equipment Replacement $63,500 Concrete Border $ 6,500 Total Cost $70,000 • Funding for the new play equipment is as follows: Approved Capital Improvement Budget $60,000 Prevention Minnesota Grant $10,000 Total Funding $70,000 D. LEGAL • The City Attorney has reviewed the attached contract and will be available for discussion at the meeting. E. ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS • N/A IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION(S) • Council may choose to direct staff to seek additional proposals on the new play equipment or abandon the project V. ATTACHMENTS • Proposal Contract with Clearwater Recreation, LLC • Selected Play Equipment Design VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING • None 3H -1 PROPOSAL TO: Park&Recreation Department FROM: Clearwater Recreation 6700 Portland Avenue 329 East Lake Street Richfield, MN. 55423 Wacoria,Mn.55387 ATTN: Jim Topiizhofer PHONE: 612-861-9394 PHONE: 952442-1820 FAX:. FAX: 952442-4439 DATE: 05/22/12 REFERENCE: PROJECT: Roosevelt Park TERMS: Net 30 days QUANTITY DESCRIPTION PRICE EACH TOTAL 1 Traverse SkyLine System For The 5-12 Year User $25,000 1 Playful Quest Early Horizons System For The 2-5 Year old User $9,885 1 Spinneround With Aluminum Floor By Elephant Play $15,465 155 Cu Yd Engineered Wood Fiber IPEMA Certified $3,163 3 Rolls Of Geotextile Fabric $576 230 LF 4"Drain Tile With Sock $1,012 4 Dynacushion Wear Mats $522 Use Tax&Performance Bond Included With Installation Discount ($13,278) NOTE: This quotation is valid for 60 days. SUBTOTAL $42,900 Please call for confirmation after that date. SALES TAX Included' Prices are NOT based on prevailing wages. FREIGHT $3,655 INSTALLATION $17,500 Do you need.a 24-hour call prior to delivery notice?_Yes_No TOTAL $63,500 DISCLAIMER FOR UNKNOWN CONDITIONS: The following disclaimer applies only when installation Is quoted. This quotation is based on the area being free of all debris such as,but not limited to the following: "Concrete footings or blocks of any type. `Bedrock or rocky conditions of any type. *Tree stumps,trees,cans,bottles,metal or any other debris. *Utilities requiring any holes to be dug by hand. if area Is not accessible to a bobcat and other equipment necessary for installation. *If water exists in site area or footings after they are dug. *Or any other unknown conditions not listed or Visible. FOB Factory Shipment approx. after receipt of order. Signed by: gston F:QUOTE 5/21/2012 3 —a Ir u, • LC. ■ - ice ' 1, I, 1 , S',, ', ..,..e ,,,,, \ 1 1. , ; ,\ , ,, , \ i ' i i �, t, + st I r S -i t. �� 'a �t ��,� ti� '- 1:1 .t _I 'h 1 ,..1 z; , f , �� c ,��,;�,� _.a. iF i c - 1 h ■ !� ;� /'L+-, 1�' , 7 , !I I I l • i A 1 , ,,,\ , , ' \' � ' i I II J. 3H-3 NI uopeexrea leteauee13 sil jhN A tl i f g®Q .b x 4P. 4•- Ill a easy e8g1oo43$Wed llealesooa 4 P ii 1 "' a— 0m m ii- zn cgc 0 co J x"N . Vy . tl>-f0 --..�,---_ • 10\' q E..---(....'..',.., \/7/----s o • < t / Yr. w F-... EK w !11u1 X to w o < g 4 N CO p N Ftt Clearwater Recreation 329 East Lake St Waconia,MN structures 55387 -:- r._.a. Waconia,MA',55387 Phone:866-654-1490 Fax:952-442-4439 Email:ciearwaterrec @r»sn.corrm Contact:Matt Finnegan Roose6rreit Park School-Age Area Richfield Recreation Attn: Jim Topitzopher 6700 Portland Avenue Quote Number: 669-65330 Richfield, MN 55423 Quote Date: 5/17/2012 Phone: 612-86.1-9394 {}pFax: 612-��88MQ6j1-9}344 }.,' ?�-f.' *{3» ,,,, �Wt6d b .e ' tag. O 68471 TRAVERSE 1 1521 $25,000.00 $25,000.00 Total Weight: 1521 SubTotal: $25,000.00 Freight: $1,436.95 Total Amount:$26,436.95 THIS QUOTATION IS SUBJECT TO POLICES IN THE CURRENT PLAY&PARK STRUCTURES CATALOG AND THE FOLLOWING TERMS AND CONDITIONS. OUR QUOTATION IS BASED ON SHIPMENT OF ALL ITEMS AT ONE TIME TO A SINGLE iDESTINATION, UNLESS NOTED,AND CHANGES ARE SUBJECT TO PRICE ADJUSTMENT. PURCHASES IN EXCESS OF$1,000.00 TO BE SUPPORTED BY YOUR WRITTEN PURCHASE ORDER MADE OUT TO PLAY&PARK STRUCTURES,C/O Clearwater Recreation. Pricing: f.o.b.factory,firm for 30 days from date of quotation. Shipment:order shall ship within 30-45 days after Play&Park Structures's receipt and acceptance of your purchase order,color selections, approved submittals, and receipt of deposit, if required. fight charges:.Prepaid&added installation:shall be by a Certified Play&Park Structures Installer. Customer shall be responsible for scheduling coordination and site preparation. Site should be level and permit installation equipment access.Purchaser shall be responsible for unknown conditions such as burled utilities,tree stumps,bedrock or any concealed materials or conditions that may result In additional labor or material costs. Submittals: our design proposal reflects the spirit and intent of the project plans and specifications. While some variations may exist between our quotation and the project design, the differences do not materially affect the intended use Play&Park Structures designs and specifications are unique and not intended to be identical In all respects to other manufacturers, we shall Submit for review and approval by the owner's representative detailed drawings depicting the equipment to be furnished accompanied by specifica tions describing materials. Once approved,these drawings and specifications shall constitute the final documents for the project and shall take precedence over other requirements. Exclusions: unless specifically Included,this quotation excludes all site work and landscaping; removal of existing equipment; acceptance of equipment and off-loading;storage of goods prior to Installation; equipment assembly and Installation; safety surfacing; borders and drainage provisions. Acceptance of quotation: Accepted By (printed): P.O,. No: Signature: Date: Title: Phone: Purchase Amount: $26,436.95 Facsimilie Order Information Bill to: Ship to: veiny: Company: Attn: Attn: Address: Address: u_ 3H-5 1 ` -\ l f II r1 I. -1 n•, I 1 1, 1 fl ': if,' I It 1 • , I Ili" I 1, !I • . , J1 , . , , 1 1, II I V I '1I I �1t { I 1 I I' ,� I' 1 `} �I ; \ ' 1 -�" .. � /} 1 L _ - i 1 1 - , , ICI ri tionametpapmmelo 41 31 V 12. IZI Ikt?s--11111 iiiiii 11111 gligli 411134i il, 0? Su* r-a`1.3 t g I Sti i-§I ,R-2- 03 ,, ip £ 95 MAPPlegOIN ,, 1 c`l .xt„?$1:1;.' -till ill Ifi 81 "AI ttt'2 ' Sri enueAv utt,wai i .5 is ..1 As b 2 ttejv4011/.10d.neAtagaaki r 0_ cv 0......... 0 z ci 2 F.3 to (/) 14- '4' D NN oa 0 cao 6 Q-- b et xa -Jo &k2C) q, ooxra, z ea gas, 03 - ao W.- - ---- -co z2 i _a, ".........1 . Zo w Si/ 1 g g ><g g 2 ) ...../.'"/! 0 tu to 1 Ca N.) ..,,... 3N-r7 • (Ili till 11114 ._ L ,,, . .0— a 8 g y a a AH, p . zm B o . : , , , . : , h. 1 -,,If Atli/ '''- '' -(08 hi b , . 1 1 II ' MC (i cra INZ . . 1 . . , A, R 4,-- . 000:400-1 a o ' o 0 . * - ) - i 1 ; • - ' . ` -''' d cJ, . E• to 0., 009 El \,P - � - - . \ ,/ I i • 1 gill I'. 4 tc) -- - � C ' ' s fvf 4E1 magi . PI t'l. ,._� � m y , N ....t ..., . t to 1 i A CLE1RWATER RECREATio , LLC i 329 East Lake Street Waconia, Minnesota 55387 Telephone 952-442-1820 Fax 952-442-4439 AGENDA SECTION: PUB.HEARING AGENDA ITEM# 5 REPORT# 101 STAFF REPORT RICHFIELD CITY COUNCIL MEETING JUNE 12, 2012 REPORT PREPARED BY: BETSY OSBORN, SUPPORT SERVICES MANAGER NAME,TITLE DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR 07 //IL/ REVIEW: _�r� L� mil / G SIGNATURE REVIEWED BY CITY z MANAGER. .L-4 ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION: Public Hearing regarding the issuance of new on-sale intoxicating and Sunday liquor licenses, with outside seating, for Pizza Luce VII, Inc., d/b/a Pizza Luce, 800 W. 66th Street, Richfield, MN. I. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Conduct and close the public hearing and by motion: • Approve the issuance of new on-sale intoxicating and Sunday liquor licenses, with outside seating, for Pizza Luce VII, Inc., d/b/a Pizza Luce, 800 W. 66th Street, Richfield, MN, contingent on the • applicant providing proof of required insurance. II. BACKGROUND On April 5, 2012, the City received new applications and other required documents for on-sale intoxicating and Sunday liquor licenses, with outside seating, for Pizza Luce. This license will be the seventh restaurant bearing the name, Pizza Luce. Other locations are in Minneapolis, St. Paul, Hopkins, and Duluth. Pizza Luce has not operated previously in Richfield. The location of this establishment is the old Bridgman's building. The newly renovated building will have a restaurant, bar, and outside patio seating/service area. There will also be a basement party room. 061212 Pizza Luce New Liquor License The applicant has satisfied the following requirements for issuance of a license: • The required license fees have been paid. • Real estate taxes are not delinquent. • Proof of commercial liability insurance has been received showing Mid- Century Insurance Company affording coverage. A certificate will be provided for liquor liability, to include the exterior patio, as well as workers' compensation insurance prior to any equipment installation or any stocking of food or beverages which will likely be in July. The approval of their license, tonight, is contingent on this being supplied. • As a result of this being a new request for an on-sale intoxicating liquor license, there is no need for an accountant's statement to be submitted regarding the food/alcohol ratio. The Public Safety background investigation has been completed. The results of the investigation are summarized in an attachment to this report. The Public Safety Director has reviewed the background investigation report, and none of the information in the report would cause the Public Safety Director to recommend denial of the license. On-sale intoxicating and Sunday liquor licenses require owners of these establishments to comply with Resolution No. 9511, which outlines the discipline they can expect if any ongoing problems occur. A copy of this resolution has been given to the owners of the establishment. There are no distance requirements to notify neighbors of the issuance or renewal of on-sale intoxicating and Sunday liquor sales. The Notice of Public Hearing was published in the Richfield Sun Current on May 24, 2012. III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION A. POLICY • Richfield City Code Section 1202 requires owners of On-sale intoxicating and Sunday liquor license establishments to comply with all of the provisions of both City Code and State Statutes. B. CRITICAL TIMING ISSUES • A certificate of liquor liability insurance, to include coverage for the outside patio area, as well as the workers' compensation insurance must be submitted prior to the installation of equipment or the stocking of any food or beverages. C. FINANCIAL • The required background investigation and licensing fees have been received. D. LEGAL • The requirements of Resolution 9511 must be met, which outlines the discipline they can expect if any ongoing problems occur. A copy of this Resolution has been given to the owners of the establishment. E. ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS • N/A IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION(S) • The Council could decide to deny the requested licenses, which would mean that the current applicants would not be able to obtain on-sale Intoxicating and Sunday liquor licenses. • Schedule the hearing for another date. However, this may delay the licensing process. V. ATTACHMENTS • Summary of Background Investigation VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING • Pizza Luce VII, Inc. Officers 5- I SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND INVESTIGATION REPORT FOR LUCE VIII, INC., d/b/a PIZZA LUCE Officers: Joseph Bernard Baier, President/Chief Manager Scott Herbert Nelson, Vice-President Laura Jayne Hansen, Vice President Julie Jon Haywood, Secretary/Treasurer Criminal Histories: • Laura Hansen lists a birthplace of Canada. She did provide a copy of her permanent Resident Card expiring 9-15-17. The Department of Homeland Security was contacted and they returned no restrictions on Laura's residence in the U.S. Ms. Hansen also shows a DWI conviction from 2002 under the last name of Siskind. This conviction was at a misdemeanor level. Based on the fact that this offense was 10 years ago and that Ms. Hansen is not actively managing the establishment, the Public Safety Director is not recommending adverse action on the application. • All of the other partners were clear of any criminal records/convictions. • Other interested parties of this license request (spouses of the corporate partners) have had traffic related misdemeanors; however, none have had any convictions that would make them ineligible to hold a liquor license in the City of Richfield. Corporate organization: The four partners formed the corporation Pizza Luce VII, Inc. in December 2011. All parties have significant experience in the field as they are all previously involved in the ownership and operation of the various other Pizza Luce restaurants. Premises: The property is owned by JBB Properties, LLC associated with Joseph Bernard Baier. This site was purchased outright and there is no mortgager. Verification of this purchase has been provided by Hennepin County tax records. Corporate applicants indicate they have provided an initial investment of$600,000 towards the business venture and that the source of these funds are from personal funds derived from other Pizza Luce restaurants. Record of Service Calls: There have been no calls for service to this building as it has been vacant for several years. However, a check of police calls for service was conducted at other Pizza Luce establishments due to the similar business and management. This check showed relatively few pertinent calls over a one year period. The calls were for a wide variety of incidents, but the majority of the activity does not seem to generate from the restaurants/bars and there does not appear to be an abnormal number of calls or reports for the businesses. Court recordsrudgments search: Civil Court records and judgment searches were conducted on the partners of the establishment as well as Pizza Luce VII, Inc. There were no civil cases involving any of the individuals named in this application. However, Pizza Luce II had a Dram Shop action against them in 2009. They were not charged criminally and the two parties ultimately settled. AGENDA SECTION: ORDINANCE AGENDA ITEM# 6 REPORT# 102 .ggidi Revised STAFF REPORT RICHFIELD CITY COUNCIL MEETING JUNE 12, 2012 REPORT PREPARED BY: CHRISTINE COSTELLO, COMMUNITY DEVELOP NT SPECIALIST I NAME,TITLE DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR , REVIEW: Ar.-1111 r REVIEWED BY CITY 121/1 MANAGER: ' :f/ �/ ... f, ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION: Consideration of the proposed sale of land to Richfield Properties I, Limited Partnership (dba Ron Clark Construction and Design and Connelly Development). I. RECOMMENDED ACTION: By Motion: • Close the meeting to consider a Purchase Agreement from Richfield Properties I, Limited Partnership for the purchase of parcels referenced as C-1 and C-2; and • Accept/reject or extend a counter proposal to the Purchase Agreement; and • Consider first reading of an ordinance providing for the sale of certain real properties of the City to Richfield Properties Limited I, Limited Partnership and schedule second reading for June 26, 2012. • Consider first reading of an ordinance providing for the sale of certain real property of the City to R.E.C., Inc. and schedule second reading for June 26, 2012. II. BACKGROUND On June 14, 2011 the City Council approved, and entered into, an Option Agreement for the sale of a portion of the former City Garage site to R.E.C. Inc. (DBA Ron Clark 061212-Consider 2 Purchase Agreements_1st Rdg Sale of Property.doc Design and Construction)(referenced as C-3 or "Option Property"). On May 8th Ron Clark submitted a Purchase Agreement for the remainder of the City Garage site (referenced as C-1) as well as a small City-owned property in the northwest corner of the block (C-2). Properties Not Subject to Option: C-1 and C-2 The value of these City-owned properties was determined as the result of an appraisal done by Bjorklund Appraisals in 2011 and independently confirmed by review appraiser Paul Johnson in March 2012. The appraised value of $531,000 identified in the appraisal encompassed all of the publicly-owned land on the site (inclusive of land owned by the Richfield HRA). This value was based on a number of assumptions, including the "highest and best use" as medium to high density residential and that the buildings on the site served as a financial liability resulting in the deduction of the estimated demolition costs from the value. On a pro-rated basis, staff has allocated the appraised value to the two properties in question as follows: Parcel C-1: $ 12,983.00 Parcel C-2: $ 104,097.00 Total: $ 117,080.00 The Purchase Agreement submitted by Ron Clark indicates a purchase price of $116,505 with $1,000 in earnest money. Staff believes that it is Ron Clark's intent to offer the appraised value for the property and that any deviation is due to methodology of calculation, which could be resolved if the Council accepts the Purchase Agreement. There are a number of potential reasons for the City Council to either accept the Purchase Agreement, reject the Purchase Agreement or make a counter-offer. Included among such rationale would be: Potential Reasons to Accept the Purchase Agreement • Offer is consistent to the appraised value. • Proposed use is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. • Proposed project is consistent with some of the guidelines of the Corridor Housing Initiative (including "affordable housing for low and middle income families" and 2-3 bedroom units). Potential Reasons to Reject the Purchase Agreement • Lacking a formal policy (or even informal consensus) on appropriate mix of affordable housing for the City of Richfield. • Desire to wait until the property value appreciates. • Desire to wait until other housing models (i.e. for sale, different income mix, more townhomes, etc.) are more feasible. • Proposed project is inconsistent with some of the guidelines of the Corridor Housing Initiative (including exceeding 2-3 stories and exceeding "low to medium density" housing). Property Subject to Option: C-3 In June 2011, the City entered into an option agreement with R.E.C., Inc. for the sale of parcel C-3 for the amount of$415,936.00. In December 2011, R.E.C., Inc. provided notice to the City that it was exercising its option. The option agreement contemplates that closing will occur by June 30, 2012, but allows the buyer to extend the closing until October 31, 2012 by written notice and by making an additional option deposit of$5,000.00. A separate ordinance is attached to approve the sale of the Option Property. III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION A. POLICY • Ron Clark Construction and Design has made an offer to purchase City- owned properties identified as C-1 and C-2 in the form of a Purchase Agreement. • The City Council must decide whether it is in the best interest of the public to sell the properties under the terms offered. B. CRITICAL TIMING ISSUES • On April 30, 2012 Ron Clark Design & Construction (dba Connely Development) submitted a land use application for a rezoning and Conditional Use Permit. Such an application requires the consent of the property owner. For purposes of processing the land use application, a City Council action which indicates a willingness to sell the properties will be interpreted as such consent. • With respect to the Option Property, the option agreement contemplates a closing by June 30, 2012 unless extended by the buyer. C. FINANCIAL • The City Council must determine the price and/or conditions upon which it is willing to convey the parcels identified as C-1 and C-2 to Ron Clark. • A market value appraisal completed on June 8, 2011 valued these two parcels at $117,080. • Ron Clark has submitted a Purchase Agreement for the two parcels with an offer of$116,505. • Ron Clark also submitted earnest money in the amount of$1,000 with the Purchase Agreement. D. LEGAL • The City Attorney has reviewed the Purchase Agreement and has recommended changes. • The City Attorney will be at the meeting to answer questions. • The Council may go into closed session to consider offers or counteroffers. The meeting must be tape recorded, and the recording becomes public once negotiations are concluded. The purchase agreement can only be approved during a public meeting. • The City is obligated by the option agreement to approve the sale of the C-3 parcel. E. ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS • Under the terms of the Purchase Agreement, all environmental costs and actions associated with the site would be Ron Clark's responsibility. IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION(S) • There is no alternative recommendation with respect to the ordinance approving the sale of the Option Property, parcel C-3. • The Council may approve the sale of referenced parcels C-1 and C-2 to Ron Clark and approve the First Reading of the attached Ordinance for those properties. • The City Council may choose not to accept the Purchase Agreement and decline to approve a First Reading of the attached Ordinance for those properties • The City Council may offer a counter-proposal and approve the First Reading of the attached Ordinance for parcels C-1 and C-2. V. ATTACHMENTS • Ordinance approving sale of parcels C-1 and C-2 • Ordinance approving sale of parcel C-3 • Map • Letter from City Attorney regarding revised Staff Report • Purchase Agreement for C-1 and C-2 VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING • Representative(s) of Ron Clark Construction and Design 1r BILL NO. AN ORDINANCE PROVIDING FOR THE SALE OF CERTAIN REAL PROPERTY OF THE CITY THE CITY OF RICHFIELD DOES ORDAIN: Section 1. The following property of the City is hereby authorized to be sold to Richfield Properties I, Limited Partnership. or such other entity as Richfield Properties I, Limited Partnership may designate in writing. Parcel C-1 The West 30 feet of Lot 1, Block 4, R.C. Soen's Addition, according to the duly recorded plat thereof on file and of record in the Office of the Register of Deeds in and for said County of Hennepin, State of Minnesota Parcel C-2 The South 32 feet of the North 107 feet of Lot 3, Block 4, R. C. Soens Addition, Hennepin County, Minnesota and The West 123.41 feet of that part of said Lot 3 lying south of the North 107 feet thereof, and; The North 31.63 feet of the West 123.41 feet of Lot 4, in said Block 4. Sec. 2 The Mayor and City Manager are authorized and directed to sign all documents necessary to affect the sale contemplated by this Ordinance, in accordance with the terms and conditions of the Purchase Agreement as approved by the City Council. Sec. 3. This Ordinance will be effective in accordance with Section 3.09 of the City Charter. Adopted this, day of June, 2012. By: . - Debbie Goettel, Mayor ATTEST: Nancy Gibbs, City Clerk LP— BILL NO AN ORDINANCE PROVIDING FOR THE SALE OF CERTAIN REAL PROPERTY OF THE CITY THE CITY OF RICHFIELD DOES ORDAIN: Section 1. The following property of the City is hereby authorized to be sold to R.E.C., Inc., dba Ron Clark Construction and Design such other entity as R.E.C., Inc. may designate in writing. Parcel C-3 Lot 3, except the north 75 feet thereof, Lot 4 and Lot 5, except the south 39.00 feet thereof, all in Block 4, R. C. Soens Addition, according to the recorded plat thereof on file or of record in the office of the Registrar of Titles, Hennepin County, Minnesota Except the following: The South 32 feet of the North 107 feet of Lot 3, Block 4, R. C. Soens Addition, Hennepin County, Minnesota and The West 123.41 feet of that part of said Lot 3 lying south of the North 107 feet thereof, and; The North 31.63 feet of the West 123.41 feet of Lot 4, in said Block 4. Sec. 2 The Mayor and City Manager are authorized and directed to sign all documents necessary to affect the sale contemplated by this Ordinance, in accordance with the terms and conditions of the Purchase Agreement as approved by the City Council. Sec. 3. This Ordinance will be effective in accordance with Section 3.09 of the City Charter. Adopted this day of June, 2012. By: Debbie Goettel, Mayor ATTEST: Nancy Gibbs, City Clerk (I MAP OF PARCEL LOCATIONS i. 1l,-,abT, . �Q ■ Y t ;;iL •,`i I 1.-- • Hft:iit‘ , .... . ; , Y ; 1 NI7 Y IP Vii .1 I C y l-. . � ' 'I I I • '.a° .�_ i �. I ... r a U lt.ti.13�nk t'l;ua 00/ n redly, tnl ticgdi+i�th�trctr ��py ,� �� . _ Klinti apotis \linacapolts NI\?iuII� &L �Y: [r+l ti 33-Avo1 telephone saint Paul tGi tt'g31d1-tsx i Ven a^ Sr. Cloud cc tw,k,:nnulc-graven.com C H A R -t E rt E 0 .\ltirnuuic•e Action.Lqu:,l )plu,rto tan'1•mpluyc•r CORRINE A.HEINE Attorney at Law Direct Dial:(612)337-9217 Email: cheinet^�u•ennedy:-graven.com IvISBA Board Certified!teal Property Specialist June 8,2012 Steven L.Devich City of Richfield 6700 Portland Avenue South Richfield,MN 55423 RE: Revised Staff Report for June 12,2012 Council Meeting Dear Steve: Enclosed with this letter is a revised staff report for the June 12 regular council meeting. The staff report relates to the potential sale of city property to Richfield. The reasons for the revised staff report are as follows: • The original staff report did not contain legal descriptions of the properties to be sold. When the staff report was being prepared, I informed staff that I would review title information to obtain the legals and supplement the staff report by providing ordinances that contained the legal descriptions of Parcels C-1 and C-2. • During my file review to obtain the legal descriptions for Parcels C-1 and C-2,it came to my attention that the City had not yet adopted an ordinance authorizing the sale of the C- 3 parcel, which is the parcel under option to R.E.C., Inc. Because the option gives R.E.C., Inc. the right to close by June 30, 2012,.I have recommended that the council agenda item be revised to include the sale of the C-3 parcel in addition to C-1 and C-2. I have revised the staff report accordingly. Please provide the enclosed revised staff report to members of the council and also have it posted with the agenda packet on the website. Sincerely, A/ Corrine A. Heine CAH:jms Enclosure 405532v1 CAI RCI2S-I to 5 5/7/12 PURCHASE AGREEMENT THIS AGREEMENT is made as of this _day of , 2012, by and between the City of Richfield ("Seller") and Richfield Properties I, Limited Partnership, a Minnesota limited partnership C`Buyer"). RECITALS A. Seller is the owner of property which is legally described on the attached Exhibit A as Tract A and Tract B (collectively the "Property"). The property is also depicted on the attached Exhibit C as parcel C-1 and C-2 B. Buyer wishes to purchase the Property in accordance with the provisions of this Agreement. C. Buyer is also purchasing a separate parcel of land(the"HRA Property") from the Richfield Housing and Redevelopment Authority (the "HRA"). The HRA Property is legally described in Exhibit B and also depicted on the attached Exhibit C as parcel H-1. AGREEMENT 1. Offer/Acceptance for Sale of Property. The Seller agrees to sell to the Buyer the Property and the Buyer agrees to purchase the same,according to the tenons of this Agreement. 2. Purchase Price for Property and Terms. A. PURCHASE PRICE: The total Purchase Price for the Property is $116,505.00 (the"Purchase Price"). B. TERMS: (1): EARNEST MONEY. The sum of $1,000.00 is paid herewith by the Buyer to the Seller as Earnest Money. If closing does not occur, the Earnest Money will be returned to Buyer after first deducting amounts equal to the Seller's costs incurred in connection with this transaction. The balance of the Purchase Price shall be due on the date of closing (the "Closing Date"). (2): BALANCE DUE SELLER: Buyer agrees to pay by electronic transfer of funds on the Closing Date any remaining balance due according to the terms of this Purchase Agreement. 1 (3): DEED/MARKETABLE TITLE: Subject to performance by Buyer, Seller agrees to execute and deliver a Quitclaim Deed conveying title to the Property to Buyer, subject only to the following exceptions: a. Building and zoning laws, ordinances, state and federal regulations. b. Reservation of minerals or mineral rights to the State of Minnesota,if any. c. Public utility and drainage easements of record which will not interfere with Buyer's intended use of the Property. (4): DOCUMENTS TO BE DELIVERED AT CLOSING BY SELLER. In addition to the deed required at paragraph 2B(3) above, Seller shall deliver to the Buyer: a. Standard form Affidavit of Seller. b. A"bring-down"certificate, certifying that all of the warranties made by Seller in this Purchase Agreement remain true as of the Closing Date. c. Certificate that Seller is not a foreign national. d. Well disclosure certification,if required,or,if there is no well on the Property, the deed given pursuant to paragraph 2B(3) above must include the following statement: "The Seller certifies that the Seller does not know of any wells on the described real property." e. Any other documents reasonably required by the Buyer's title insurance company or attorney to evidence that title to the Property is marketable and that Seller has complied with the terms of this Purchase Agreement. 3. Contingencies. Seller's obligation to sell, and Buyer's obligation to buy is contingent upon the following: a. Buyer's determination of marketable title pursuant to paragraph 4 of this Agreement; b. Buyer's determination, in its sole discretion, that the results of the environmental investigation under this Agreement are satisfactory to Buyer; c. approval of this Agreement by the City's City Council; 2 d. the ordinance approving sale of the Property, as required by City Charter, has been adopted and has become effective; e. Buyer purchasing from Seller the property which is the subject of the separate Option Agreement between the parties dated June 15, 2011 and purchasing the HRA Property; with the closing on such purchases occurring simultaneously with the Closing on the Property;and f. Buyer obtaining approvals from the City of Richfield of its applications for the development of the Property and the HRA Property, including its requested tax increment financing. Buyer shall have until the Closing Date to remove the foregoing contingencies. The contingencies at a. and b. are solely for the benefit of Buyer and may be waived by Buyer. The contingencies at c.,d.,e.,and f.may not be waived by either party. If one or more of Buyer's or Seller's contingencies is not satisfied,or is not satisfied on time, and is not waived,this Purchase Agreement shall thereupon be void at the written option of either party. In such event, Seller shall return the Earnest Money to Buyer, and Buyer and Seller shall execute and deliver to each other a termination of this Purchase Agreement. As a contingent Purchase Agreement, the termination of this Agreement is not required pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Section 559.21,et.seq. 4. Title Examination/Curing Title Defects. The Buyer shall, at its expense and within a reasonable time after Seller's acceptance of this Agreement,obtain a commitment for title insurance ("Commitment") for the Property. The Buyer shall have ten (10) business days after receipt of the Commitment to examine the same and to deliver written objections to title, if any, to Seller, or Buyer's right to do so shall be deemed waived. Seller shall have the option, but not the obligation, until the Closing Date (or such later date as the parties may agree upon) to cure such objections,at the Seller's cost.In the event that Seller elects not to undertake a cure,or in the event title to the Property cannot be made marketable or is not made marketable by the Seller by the Closing Date,then,unless Buyer elects to proceed to closing without a cure to the objections,this Agreement may be terminated by either party. 5. Inspections; Environmental Investigation. From the date of this Agreement to the Closing Date, Buyer, its employees and agents, shall be entitled to enter upon the Property to conduct such surveying, inspections, investigations, soil borings and testing, and drilling, monitoring, sampling and testing of groundwater monitoring wells and conducting such other environmental examination and tests as Buyer deems necessary; provided, that Seller is given at least 48 hours' notice to Seller. Buyer shall promptly pay, before any lien attaches, all charges for costs incurred in connection with the work permitted under this Paragraph. Buyer agrees to indemnify the Seller against any liens,claims,losses,or damage occasioned by Buyer's exercise of its right to enter and work on the Property. Buyer agrees to provide Seller with a copy of any report as a result of such examination and tests. 3 (04 6. Real Estate Taxes and Special Assessments. Real estate taxes, if any,payable in the year of closing will be pro-rated between the Buyer and Seller to the date of closing. Seller shall pay all real estate taxes payable in previous years, the entire unpaid balance of special assessments, and all installments of special assessments levied and pending, including special assessments payable after the year of closing. Seller also agrees to pay all assessments related to service charges furnished to the Property prior to the date of closing(e.g., delinquent water or sewer bills),including those charges levied,pending,or certified to taxes payable in the year of closing. 7. Closing Date. The Closing Date will be on or before November 30, 2012, concurrent with the closing of the Minnesota Housing Finance Agency ( MHFA ) tax credit financing for the project. Delivery of all papers and the closing shall be made at the offices of the Seller, 6700 Portland Avenue South, Richfield, Minnesota 55423, or at such other location as is mutually agreed upon by the parties. All deliveries and notices to Seller shall be made to the above address and marked to the attention of John Stark, Community Development Director. 8. Property. (a) Condition of Property, removals. Seller has made no representations or warranties concerning the condition of the Property or of any improvements located thereon. Seller shall have no obligation to remove any items from the Property prior to the Closing Date; and Seller abandons any right, title, or interest in any items remaining on the Property following Closing. (b) No encumbrances. Seller agrees not to place any liens or encumbrances on the Property after the date of this Purchase Agreement. 9. Well Disclosure. Seller has provided Buyer with a separate well disclosure statement and will provide a well disclosure certificate at closing. 10. Seller and Signatory Warranties. (a) Sewer and water. Seller does not warrant whether the Property is connected to City sewer and water systems. (b) Mechanics' Liens. Seller warrants that, prior to the Closing Date, except costs for work furnished Buyer in accordance with Paragraph 5, Seller shall pay in full all amounts due for labor,materials, machinery, fixtures or tools furnished within the 120 days immediately preceding the closing in connection with construction, alteration or repair of any structure upon or improvement to the Property. (c) Notices. Seller warrants that it has not received any notice from any governmental authority as to violation of any law, ordinance or regulation in connection with the Property. 4 (d) Authority. Seller warrants that it is the owner of the Property, it has full authority to enter into this Purchase Agreement for the sale of the Property, and that there are no other parties who hold any unrecorded interest in the Property. 11. Broker Commission. Each party represents to the other that it has not utilized the services of any real estate broker or agent in connection with this Purchase Agreement or the transaction contemplated by this Purchase Agreement. Each party agrees to indemnify, defend, and hold harmless the other party against and in respect of any such obligation and liability based in any way upon agreements,arrangements,or understandings made or claimed to have been made by the party with any third person. 12. Closing Costs/Recording Fees/Deed Tax. The Buyer will pay: (a)the closing fees charged by the title insurance or other closing agent, if any, utilized to close the transaction contemplated by this Agreement; (b) the premium for title insurance policy, if any, obtained by the Buyer;and(c)any transfer taxes and recording fees required to enable the Buyer to record its deed from Seller under this Agreement. Seller will pay all other fees normally paid by sellers, including fees and charges related to the filing of any instrument required to make title marketable. Each party shall pay its own attorney fees. 13. Risk of Loss. It there is any loss or damage to the Property between the date hereof and the date of closing, for any reason including fire, vandalism, flood, earthquake or act of God, the risk of loss shall be on the Seller. If the Property is destroyed or substantially damaged before the Closing Date, this Purchase Agreement shall become null and void, at the Buyer's option. At the request of the Seller, Buyer agrees to sign a cancellation of Purchase Agreement. 14. Notice.Any notice,demand,request or other communication which may or shall be given or served by the parties,shall be deemed to have been given or served on the date the same is personally served upon one of the following indicated recipients for notices or is deposited in the United States Mail, registered or certified, return receipt requested, postage prepaid and addressed as follows: (a) in the case of the Buyer, is addressed to or delivered personally to the Buyer at 7500 West 78th Street, Edina MN 55439, Attn: Ron Clark; with a copy to Larkin Hoffman Daly Lindgren Ltd., 7900 Xerxes Avenue South, 1500 Wells Fargo Plaza, Minneapolis, MN 55431, Attn:James M. Susag. (b) in the case of the Seller, is addressed to or delivered personally to the Seller at 6700 Portland Ave. So., Richfield, MN 55423, Attn: Community Development Director; with a copy to Kennedy & Graven, Chartered, 470 U.S. Bank Plaza, 200 South Sixth Street, Minneapolis,MN 55402,Attn: Corrine A Heine. 15. Map. Attached to this Agreement as Exhibit C is a map (the "Map") which locates the various parcels which are legally described in this Agreement. The Map is for convenience purposes only,and the legal descriptions contained in the other exhibits control. 5 (8 1° 16. Entire Agreement. This Purchase. Agreement, the attached exhibits, and other amendments signed by the parties,shall constitute the entire Agreement between Seller and Buyer and supersedes any other written or oral agreements between the parties relating to the Property: This Purchase Agreement can be modified only in a writing properly signed on behalf of Seller and Buyer. 17. Survival, Notwithstanding any other provisions of law or court decision to the contrary,the provisions of this Purchase Agreement shall survive closing. IN WITNESS WHEREOF,the undersigned have executed this Agreement on the date and year above. CITY OF RICHFIELD RICHFIELD PROPERTIES I,LIMITED PARTNERSHIP By: Its Mayor By: Richfield Properties,LLC Its: eneral Partner And by: �- Its City Manager By; Its:Chief Manager 6 (0 - Il EXHIBIT A Legal Description of Property [Legal to be inserted prior to execution] A-1 EDIT B Legal Description of HRA Property, [Legal to be inserted prior to execution] B-1 1 ; a)a AO 40 01,,r- a tO 04 cj ... 0; 4q _tt ta 01 a c‘i co I _ ,..., . ... . . . I 4— r .- 04 —cv ' 441 tti I i I 1 0 1 1 1 i /■ I I i M n_ cl.._.1 I i Cliliil I ....il, :. 1.4 0 42 St i/11 ilif^-' 0 g 1 4..n I 2) -a 2 ..... o I 0 _ T :0. ._, , ..- 419 a 1 I ct I I W.2 8. '6— .- , . / / ' I .' , . . // / / I .1' -) C / / a (..) .-- 4.' 77 —I I . ,/, , ,/ ....- ,. ,'. r .... 0 . / I . -• ..,- / . . . isa /r...i 4 2 < / -• . I , •—• 0 I ..,- I i D x . . / . ...4 >„ cit. b I . ..., . ' . , . I . ,•'. , . LI- , , . • . 01 •. ../ .• ..r ..-- - • , . • La_ ... .. , . . 01 . I . .' . ' ..... / /, . :..1 .... .• I / . . ...• / - to C.) .' ..././ ,,,,_-, 1: .. ..* , ,., . • . ?, (..) to 4') . . F." I .1. / -'..- .' 0 •i. to.- (0 co ,• - • .- .- 4/ (4 I 0 "' " ' •_Y- c, I .' / ... / .i... .6 .. . , ... ., „... ca 1........ ti . ., . i , , ,.. ,; .i. " 4 X I /•..- _./'' / - / . .....• ... .:. _....... .- UJ .. . - .... ..-, , ,.,.. I ..- . u....9.1, .1.— , . . / — .. r... , I ..., -,.,..: lit ..,Q_ ..„ ih-c, O cr. 08 4.- . .• ;5 CD — US I 1 g 0., 2o I :. 1-o-4-z. ai ta r 0 a — ... U. ... i a; • I . :.. VI, ... ..., r..9 . , .. 0- .- ..• '' ., i ill ... , *-4 f I I 07 .• ., ... ..••• .' . 1 .. 1 I 1 en 4..... . I "4 /•-• . .' / ...' 4• ..- t...) a 1 1-8 I / g 4a / / / rt .•' .'" I 14 I ......._0, : / / /e4r4/ 1 _ ___I _ J O. // / . . %, th It LI;lift 4 al-Hi!: i4.4.44.., I 03.t o I 0, r : 1 r ::„.........: ../.-„. : :,,,:,: 1 1 1:4g,ititit; % ti2-1 Li- N a `0) a1 i' 01 WI N J y m 1f1 td !2 = n fO .,..,, ei %-4 W v-i - N '� N N N? N 0 Gc C e''1'. e-I'.. .rl 'C It CO O1 D> 01 0 CO 03 VA CO 00 Ai). : `v). ip, C - C hii :01 teOO-i nl: W e'I i ill 7 C NO N � C o -, 4- cel 'Cr t/, ei E O V u 4f, I-, Cn N :M. e-i• N m CO 0 t CA r- to en et O, m m O1 a _ m .6* N " Ili en tD N m tD O 1 o 4° �'' r4 ;1 0 el* yr CO NN.. - in N. TOO g D. 't?'43).43). IA 4.A. of Ai). 44. � .Q 7 0 e ,r4 i m N IA N ✓ -n .r N. pp N t . a I's I i o, c C .a u u. N,a3 P. co .4. (51 m P. �p m, U C lib a m u. 04 M u11 *. , 5 �, . O N CD In C tPh' 1. C 0 -a ._ Q 0 + o c y m 8 0. (3▪ . zwa to U m a 1. 01 E w °. `�i ` Ian + o ,Y' � N `0 N co v-1 U N,m N: e-i Cri 0 en m 011 _. w N M e ' `p N a it est eI % a, .1 ;: O ! ° LC) o a d in 4 ' LO ' ' - d < 1 6tO .H fl. ; VD CV C ;0, y 0 a W Q M O ° s' R = II... a : �Aj� =+ GL *s 6 3 O o H i C]:.� ti_ F- F vi CONNELLY DEVELOPMENT LLC y 1933 15 - '08/12 5/8/12-1 EARNEST MONEY 1000.00 1000.00 5/08/12 1.933 1000.00 1000.00 1933 CONNELLY DEVELOPMENT LLC WELLS FARGO BANK,N.A. t 7500 WEST 78TH STREET EDINA,MK55409 17-i 91O 852-1347-3000 5 Pay: ***************************************One thous4m4 dollars and no amps r„.( May 8, 2012 1933 $******1r 000.00 TO THE ORDER U OF CITY OF RICHFIELD , / • Ka)C/ AUTHORIZED= . •.o 000 1933" I:09 10000 191:38 2 70? 2099n' 750C West 7fih Street Ydin& 3KN 55419 (952) 947.30^0 fax (952) 947- 5030 Tuesday, May 08, 2012 Mr. Steven Devich City Manager City of Richfield 6700 Portland Avenue Richfield, MN 55423 Re: Pillsbury Commons Subject: Land Purchase Agreement and Earnest Money for City Parcels C-1 & C-2 Dear Mr. Devich, Attached is the purchase agreement and the earnest money check for the City land. Please refer to Exhibit C of the purchase agreements which is a depiction of the different parcels that make up the city block on which Pillsbury Commons is proposed. Asa brief overview we are proposing to purchase City owned parcels C-1, C-2 and C-3. We currently have an option to purchase parcel C-3 and we have already exercised that option to purchase and therefore the attached purchase agreement for city land includes only parcels C-1 and G2. We are also proposing to purchase the HRA owned parcel H-1 and have issued a separate purchase agreement to the HRA. .- The square footage of each parcel was calculated by Hedlund Engineering Company, the project surveyor and engineer. The attached Land Value Calculation (Exhibit D) uses the total land value of $769,000 as appraised by the city's appraiser and it calculates the value of each parcel based on the square footage of the parcel. There is a slight difference between Hedlund's square footage calculations and the appraiser's square footage calculations, and therefore the value of each individual parcel may be slightly different than previously calculated, however, the total price of all parcels is at the appraised value, after deducting the value of the HRA single family lot H-2 which is not being purchased. We therefore request the sellers to adjust if desired the allocation of value for each parcel. Thank you. e ' Ronald E. Clark Chief Executive Officer Connelly Development, LLC Attachments: Purchase Agreement. Exhibit C & D 'vIN Builder Liceme # 1220 .,, A, R` a�nr.r LJ 100B Reafplr.nt - AGENDA SECTION: OTHER BUS. AGENDA ITEM# 7 REPORT# 103 STAFF REPORT RICHFIELD CITY COUNCIL MEETING JUNE 12, 2012 IIIIIIIIIIEIIIIIIIIIIIIII J REPORT PREPARED BY: JEFF PEARSON, TRANSPORTATION ENGINEER NAME,TITLE DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR REVIEW: E /it li ,4-.., -- -0-p7, • / , , REVIEWED BY CITY MANAGER: / i 1........_ _____ / /............. 411,7 ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION: Consideration of Richfield Bicycle Master Plan approval. I. RECOMMENDED ACTION: By motion: Approve the attached Richfield Bicycle Master Plan as recommended by the Transportation Commission. II. BACKGROUND In 2010, the Richfield Transportation Commission recommended the creation of a Bicycle Master Plan as a way to assure that future bicycle related policies and infrastructure within the City were guided by a comprehensive, community based planning effort. With the approval of the City Council, a Task Force of twenty Richfield residents was formed for the purpose of providing input and producing a Bicycle Master Plan. The City also received a grant from the Statewide Health Improvement Program (SHIP)that was used to hire a consultant to assist in the process. TASK FORCE MISSION Early in the planning process, the Task Force developed a Mission Statement that guided them in their efforts moving forward. The Mission Statement is as follows: 06122012BicycleMasterPlan To develop a comprehensive bicycle master plan that respects the rights and privileges of the community, connects key destinations within the City, and integrates with the Twin Cities' regional bike network, while promoting the friendly co-existence of bicycle riders and all other modes of transportation. PUBLIC INPUT Gathering input and feedback from the public was done in several manners: • Three open house style public meetings • Publication of a survey in English and Spanish formats that received approximately 550 responses • Hosting a booth at several public events such as the Farmer's Market, the Health Expo, and the Remodeling Fair. • Allowing for public attendance, comments, and interaction at the Task Force monthly meetings. RESULTS The task force completed and approved a Draft Master Plan in late 2011. The plan recommendations center around the following "4-E's": • Education • Encouragement • Enforcement • Engineering The plan identifies both preferred and alternative route recommendations but design and approval of those routes would be completed individually. Appendix A of the Master Plan includes larger versions of the maps. Potential positives identified in the plan for increased bicycle facilities are: • Economic benefit through increased tourism and recreational related revenues • Health benefit through increased access, mobility, and physical activity • Safety benefit through increased traffic awareness, enforcement, and safer infrastructure design APPROVAL PROCESS After staff and the consultant finished revisions based on Task Force comments, the Draft Bicycle Master Plan was posted for a one month public comment period and an open house was held to gather feedback. The Transportation Commission also reviewed the plan during this time. Comments from this process were gathered and incorporated into plan revisions as appropriate. The Transportation Commission approved the revised Draft Bicycle Master Plan at the May 2, 2012 meeting. The plan was presented the City Council at a May 22, 2012 worksession. A copy of that presentation is attached. III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION A. POLICY • The Bicycle Master Plan is consistent with the City's Comprehensive Plan Transportation Strategy#1: Improve non-motorized and pedestrian travel in the City (p. 6-2) B. CRITICAL TIMING ISSUES • The Bicycle Master Plan is one of several input measures that will be used in various upcoming street reconstruction and design projects. C. FINANCIAL • Approving the Bicycle Master Plan will not have any financial impact on the City. D. LEGAL • No legal issues are apparent. E. ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS • Environmental considerations were included in the master planning process. IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION(S) • The City Council may choose not to approve the Bicycle Master Plan at this time and instruct staff on how to proceed. V. ATTACHMENTS • Richfield Bicycle Master Plan • May 22, 2012 Worksession Presentation VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING • None r1- 1 City• O of Richfield Bicycle Master Pla n Final Version 6-1-12 _F • . `` r Z1 r 1 0 j' - r ;I 4 - . ilit_ 4 k, : ‘ ^ t ''.; 1 r \`I ( 10 1.1411 RICHFIELD (::31; S;7t) THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK Table of Contents: Section I—Overview 1.1 Executive Summary 1.2 Bicycle Master Plan Task Force 1.3 Plan Implementation Section II—Background 2.1 —Transportation History of Richfield 2.2—Richfield Comprehensive Plan&Policies 2.3 —Key Destinations and Routes Section III—Recommendations 3.1 —Category Definitions 3.2—Route Definitions 3.3 —Recommendations Chart 3.4—Additional Information Regarding the Operational Recommendations Section IV—Implementation & Integration 4.1 —Benchmarks 4.2—Mobility & Complete Streets Usage Graphic 4.3 —Tools for Bicycle Treatments 4.4—Potential Roadway Configurations 4.5 —Road Classification Map Bike Route Criteria 4.6—Route Identification 4.7—Bike Master Plan Routes Map Section V—General Maintenance Program Section VI—Funding Strategies Section VII—Richfield Mobility Survey Summary Appendix Appendix A: Bike Master Plan Route Maps (Full Page) Appendix B: Survey Monkey Results for Richfield Mobility Survey Appendix C: Summaries of Meeting Questionnaires Appendix D: Bike Task Force meeting agendas and meeting minutes SHARE THE ROAD Acknowledgements: The development of this document was the result of supportive assistance,participation and input from the following groups of individuals, groups and agencies: Richfield City Council Richfield Transportation Commission Debbie Goettel, Mayor Martin J. Kirsch, Chair Sue Sandahl Patrick Sorensen Pat Elliott Gail Lund Fred Wroge Tim Carter Tom Fitzhenry Gary Ness Peter Easterlund Beth Roberts Sara Nutter Richfield Bike Task Force Participants David Gepner, Chair Sara Nutter, Vice-Chair Gail Lund Dan Edgerton Bob Hall Chris Olson Robert Rimstad Charles Hile Pam Hile Dick Weber Joel Schnell Andrew Hartle Thomas Scherber Kevin Gregerson Beth Gieseke Edward Thom Carol Pease Erica Tobola Molly Illes Tom Birkelo City of Richfield Staff Jeff Pearson, Transportation Engineer Jim Topitzhofer, Recreation Services Director Kristin Asher, City Engineer Funding Grant Support Statewide Health Improvement Program (SHIP) Consultant MINN ES( )TA'S I4R� VA,I Rester Siam of Ilealtl; H RG reen 2550 University Avenue W. Statewide Health SHIP Suite 400N Improvement Pmjram L City of Bloomington,Public Health Division St. Paul, MN 55114 Robyn Wiesman, SHIP Community Liaison Section I- Overview 1.1 Executive Summary The overall purpose of this Bicycle Master Plan is to guide Richfield in the planning of current and future non-motorized vehicle transportation facilities, and to meet the demand of citizens. The benefit of completing this study and implementing the recommendations are many. It will provide economic, health and safety benefits (described below),just to name a few. As Richfield continues to grow and evolve,the overall purpose is to create a livable community that offers non-motorized vehicle transportation options that are convenient, reliable, safe, and efficient. If implemented successfully, people will be able to more comfortably and safely travel to the places where they live, work, shop, learn, dine and recreate, without requiring the use of a motor vehicle. Creating more mobility options can promote healthy lifestyles, lower vehicular congestion on the streets, reduce frustration for residents, lower road maintenance costs, and reduce pollution. By implementing the recommendations of this master plan, Richfield can take steps toward creating a more comprehensive and balanced transportation network. The planning process consisted of detailed data collection and analysis, followed by concept development. One of the primary goals of the Bicycle Master Plan project was to develop a sense of what the general public desires with respect to bicycling and walking. This was accomplished using several methods: • The creation of a task force made up of residents • The publication of a survey to allow for public input on key issues • The use of public meetings to gather thoughts and concerns relevant to the plan This input was valuable in helping to shape the vision, goals, and objectives for the project. During the planning process, goals and objectives were finalized, existing and proposed corridors were identified and analyzed, design standards were determined and high, medium and low priorities were identified. The residents of Richfield, City leaders and staff, the Bike Task Force and other involved parties collectively established a master plan to create a more livable community through a cohesive transportation system, thus increasing opportunities for active living and reducing our dependence on the automobile. The City of Richfield Public Works Department and the City of Bloomington Public Health Department sponsored the Richfield Bicycle Master Plan effort. The Richfield Bicycle Master Plan was funded through a combination of City funds and a Statewide Health Improvement Program (SHIP) Grant. SHIP works with communities, schools, worksites and healthcare to reduce the risk for chronic diseases such as diabetes, heart disease, stroke and cancer. SHIP aims to make the healthy choice the easy choice. The goal in implementing the plan is to make it safer and easier for residents of all ages to bike within Richfield and connect to neighboring communities. 1 -7—Lt9 1.2 Bicycle Master Plan Task Force The Bicycle Master Plan Task Force was created with support from the City Council and by direction of the Transportation Commission in order to capture a broader spectrum of residents in the planning process. Consisting of twenty resident participants, the task force held monthly meetings and hosted an open house in order to provide input, discuss key elements, and review the draft master plan before it was presented to the Transportation Commission and the public. The task force participants included residents who had expressed interest in the process via an application. Also included were representatives from the following City advisory commissions: • Transportation Commission • Planning Commission • Community Services Commission • Advisory Board of Health The major functions of the task force included the following: • Identify a Vision, Mission, and Key Objectives to use in the process. • Identify key destinations and connecting patterns within the City to aid in the selection of proposed future bike routes. • Identify proposed policy elements to include in the plan. • Review the draft Bicycle Master Plan and suggest revisions. Task Force Vision, Mission & Key Objectives Vision- To promote the friendly co-existence of bicycle riders and other transportation users in Richfield. Mission- To develop a comprehensive bicycle master plan that respects the rights and privileges of the community, connects key destinations within the City, and integrates with the Twin Cities' regional bike network, while promoting the friendly co-existence of bicycle riders and all other modes of transportation. Key Objectives- 1) Link Destinations- "to link major destination points within the City, including trails connecting to other communities,to encourage visitors and residents to get out and bike." 2) Improve Safety- "to develop safer bike options along City and County roads for both recreation and commuting." 3) Community Awareness- "to remain context sensitive while developing compatible bicycle routes and incorporating bicycle amenities within the community." 2 Identified Economic, Health and Safety Benefits Economic A well-planned and well-constructed trail system offers potential economic benefits, including the potential for less congestion, reduced maintenance costs, increased productivity, higher real estate property values, increased tourism and recreation-related revenues, and cost savings for public services. Trails and greenways are viewed as amenities by residents and developers, who realize higher property values when in close proximity of these features. Additionally, open space, trails and greenways can help manage community storm water issues, by utilizing the open space areas for storm water management. The Bicycle Master Plan promotes this idea in order to assist in minimizing flooding, improve water quality, protect wetlands, conserve habitat for wildlife, and buffer adjacent land uses. Health There are also health benefits to implementing a well-planned and integrated transportation system throughout Richfield. exercise (bicycling, walking, etc.) can significantly improve mental and physical health. Providing easy access to _ community assets and schools is a primary focus of the master plan. Safe and convenient trails and greenways encourage people to walk and utilize bicycles. Additionally, it provides , opportunities for people to be physically active while traveling - ;I to their school, workplace, retail shopping, or to simply enjoy the outdoors for recreational purposes. Safety Safety for residents of all ages in Richfield and the immediate area is another important reason to implement the ideas and principles set forth in this Bicycle Master Plan. The consequences of bicycle/pedestrian accidents with vehicles are often serious and sometimes fatal. Children are especially vulnerable, because their movements are often unpredictable, and they are inexperienced at riding in traffic. Young children often ride their bikes or walk across busy streets and highways to schools,parks, neighbors' houses, or other destinations in Richfield. Therefore, it is a primary goal of this plan to create an integrated system that accommodates the various user groups and establishes safe alternative modes of transportation opportunities throughout Richfield and the surrounding communities. 1. Plan Implementation Under full implementation it is imagined that Richfield has evolved its transportation system into an efficient, cohesive and connected network of roads, trails, pathways and public spaces serving a desirable diverse community. This integrated system accommodates users of all ability levels. The network is one that is safe and accessible for all users. The City's network provides a variety of recreational opportunities such as running, walking, and bicycling, and connects important recreational destinations, including parks, schools, commercial centers and other facilities. Safety features such as 3 -7' O landscaping and lighting provide a sense of security. Continued maintenance and high quality design of the transportation infrastructure in a safe, useable condition, as well as create a pleasing environment for its users, is a major focus. While implementation of the Vision will take many years,this future scenario is the ultimate objective of the Bicycle Master Plan. Key Implementation Partners include: • Local Law Enforcement • Local Schools • Local Business • Local Park& Recreation Programing After the Bicycle Master Plan is adopted by the City,the following steps would be required to take place for the implementation of any recommended policy or infrastructure change: 1. Funding source identified 2. Public involvement plan executed 3. Transportation Commission recommendation 4. City Council approval Following these steps, not all of the recommendations in this plan will be implemented or be developed beyond concept. But the recommendations laid out all contribute to the ultimate goal and vision of the Bicycle Master Plan. Section II- Background 2.1 Transportation History of Richfield '::t rya -' d:: .' t'*t_ ' r 1.4": ". '"tir• IN:la.r ii. ' . 7 At— 7 _ i. rroq ,. r- --,i ,, . . . III '' l t i? 1940 1979 2007 2040 4 Following World War II, Richfield become a popular living alternative to the congestion and associated qualities of its neighbor to the north, Minneapolis. This appealed to those looking for a more rural feel. The automobile was the transportation mode of choice and the strong grid pattern encouraged this demand. Sidewalks were less important as the community strived to differentiate itself from its large urban neighbor. As a result of this post war mindset, continued urban growth and rising transportation costs,re-establishing pedestrian travel alternatives has become a community wide goal. 2.2 Richfield Comprehensive Plan&Policies The following concepts are taken from the Richfield Comprehensive Plan: The Bicycle/Pedestrian Trail Plan within the existing Richfield Comprehensive Plan focuses on three key route types: 1. Primary Bike Trails 2. On-Street Bike Lanes 3. Recreational Routes The Primary Bike Trail Strategies are: 1. Identify the four primary bikeway corridors through Richfield(Nicollet Avneue/Pleasant Avenue north-south corridor, the Richfield Parkway/Cedar Avenue north-south corridor, the 66th Street east-west corridor and the 76th/75 th Street east-west corridor) 2. The short term Nicollet Avenue corridor should eventually be replaced by the long term strategy. This is the Canadian Pacific railroad right of way or parallel to it. The Primary On-Street Bike Lane Strategies are: 1. Encourage on-street bike lanes on collectors and arterials by narrowing traffic lanes and reducing the number of lanes if necessary, without disrupting traffic operations. 2. Where collectors and arterials are too narrow for on-street bike lanes, encourage bikes to use parallel residential streets rather than sidewalks on busy streets. 3. Construct a `pedestrian and bicycle green way" by closing some seldom-used streets to vehicular traffic. The Primary Recreational Route Strategies are: 1. Identify loop tours for recreational bike trips within the city that take advantage of freeway barriers and natural features to create enjoyable and safe bike routes. 2. Promote uniform bikeway signage within the metro area to assist bikers in wayfinding. 3. Provide bicycle safe education programs for bicyclists and motorists. 5 Another primary bicycle/pedestrian concern identified in the Comprehensive Plan is Freeway Crossings. Richfield's existing trail system is somewhat constrained. Freeway crossings without bike lanes or adequate width to accommodate sidewalks and narrow rights of way for pedestrian and bike facilities on arterial streets, are the biggest perceived barriers to bicycling and walking in Richfield. 2.3 Key Destinations &Routes The following map was created to identify the key Richfield destinations and routes for bicyclists. Key destinations include; public areas, schools and business areas. The identified routes include; existing/approved on-street routes, existing/approved trails and routes to consider. The goal of this map was to assist with identifying efficient bicycle access and connectivity to the key destinations within or adjacent to the Richfield community. CITY OF RICHFIELD A � um -BICYCLE MASTER PLANNING- oG�v� On-Street -Routes Worksheet- General s 7mvrscops $ R¢R z ° § Destination pw�.m Y 3 n f 4 9 i? sc i' M & >5 3 4 g i x a a c- R R E f '- Areas _ - . 1-10 ■ ply . E - _ • 11-25 itt�.. �. ■ ■ , ® ■ut(r$i-.._ •51-100 Pubic Naas Schools Busness Areas .ts•.i n. I. — O u t �—tic f 6 Il Section III- Recommendations 3.1 —Category Definitions 3.2—Route Definitions 3.3 —Recommendations Chart 3.4—Additional Information Regarding the Operational Recommendations In an effort to organize the various recommendations the following categories have been defined. Trail locations have been divided up between destinations and routes. Two recommendation types have been developed, operations and infrastructure. And three types of route users have been defined, local, recreational and commuter, to encompass as many types of users as possible. The following definitions have been provided to ensure comprehensive recommendations which will benefit the various users and policy makers. 3.1 Category Definitions: ROUTE The routes are defined as all areas outside of a designated destination, which serve as transportation corridors for all modes of travel (vehicular,pedestrian, bicycle and mass transit)to and from the designated destinations. DESTINATION The destinations are defined as any public or private defined location routes are defined as all areas outside of a designated destination, which serve as transportation corridors for all modes of travel (vehicular, pedestrian, bicycle and mass transit)to and from the designated destinations. OPERATIONS (Policy & Programming) The Operations are defined as any policy or programming activities implemented to increase bike safety, awareness and use. INFRASTRUCTURE (Physical) The Infrastructure is defined as any physical improvements within the City's right of way to safely enhance awareness and use of bikes as an alternative mode of travel. 7 3.2 Route Definitions: LOCAL ROUTES &DESTINATIONS Destinations and routes within Richfield's city limits. These routes and destinations make up the majority of the biking infrastructure. Simple designation or Right- of-Way improvements are used to identify these routes and destinations. RECREATIONAL/REGIONAL ROUTES &DESTINATIONS Destinations and routes traveling within, through or adjacent to Richfield's city limits. These routes and destinations are ideally independent of the vehicular travel lanes and contain signage and wayfinding consistent with the Three Rivers Park District. COMMUTER ROUTES OR DESTINATIONS Destinations and routes serving Richfield and the adjacent communities along high density employment areas or multi-modal routes. These commuter segments are commonly striped and located adjacent to vehicular traffic. 3.3 Recommendations Chart: The following graphic illustrates key action items that may be implemented to improve bike education, understanding and physical infrastructure for bicyclists. The graphic also details specific actions that can assist all three bicycle user groups (local, recreational and commuter). 8 Recommendations Chart �'� and 2 o z 2 C C� =f, °5 E �i ro.-Em 3 c 82 c i E'on a o co 'mm i E .E.g.. E a t a m o E m E,m3-7, N E'E { m o §,5f,, E 0 8 0 5-0 w 3 EmrmH E o 8-0 w m m $ rm w° M c .N ° g8 t% o.a n10Y ° ° o Fm °"" i Yrn N°.i°c m L ~ �t: 8c nw E C'LL°m� ~`yt m ..°r'. S :°.:2—§21:-..2 g' ! m n'w ,.c c '3 °o p ° 3 c.4 0 0 0 ,P °o'`s g ti o N m o c4 m o c w; s 8 u m 2 °v S mc� - - ju o '.-. 0.9.-A°. N'w� CaSo r�23ym o E 'mm °u3 Lg53 i@ pom C m=u 3targ4 1 c g'cE � �+ E 3 yy Y " AC § m.s O ° S u 2 C b - w d 7 m p._° °E. ° ?-78:'S-,5„T o ,n g U altEgt` CU oE ° £ 2 txoEo a p t 4 1wm !£ _ r a $. $mra.E oc8.> E • 3,V*8w aug' ?0,07E ' 5 B39a5 m EtcttWii n . t .W°b o ? c' mm a A ° w o o E E 2b 1 b c . 4 L . o w .4 - o ° b a m c _ O 8L^ c ?: 9 0 ci p v Ey O i £ 1 1 v E -5% w x w a .e (B 2) u 1. m .e w W E m m n° a g C °' o 33 `o m c wa E S 3w _-c m w — °w¢ c `- vm� .a °c°a_.F m otoa O (6 (ti , mi'o0 o-°mcg o 4�Qqpm o N! 0 C 51'10's12 QQ ,m `3 E .N L p%^. C•mom'g C s U Q tb£,S 4- 027- '�b .2 gm U °Y U N 3' §-52:5 E to 3 3 1 3 s 0, a F n “ig m Q' o ohm - i t: 8 °a° m �° m c Tto8 y5_ m- gm.4 s£w tp°°Smv m °cW m o E o° 9 v 22.15F-T3 0 0 0 E 2 o t m ;8° 'o c U mU D_80: OvU rn_ ?8,1-) E78 G. E Oa 0.2,0 a U 1 9 m m W Ol Y v ° 3 r o ° L 2 w O ,e 2' - .C`1 T w 4) �� N 8 ns () EN £ _ o Ss ;m m° E 2 z m 3 °c 5 _ 8 1° o w 2r, 3' o 5 o. ac a m s 12E.. w N L m J m ? ° og g u 5 ;I" 4 y E m 4 w_ 21F4 li kON• . o '3 in ..-° E m -02 -0 w m a E o :O'er pp m N 4- pp m 'O--• .04, N w ° d > .47, Eci °5L Cx C L mY a) ayL O C L 00 ox . CO m m2°% o m E. 2 p � E v ,i 711 iT3 ix N @ TS C m ° C O C C O C L C N C O C '- C wa U 0 L m L N•N aU N_ � O N 0 C E U W o an d f ' m m m N N y a)•? of anti 8.° Toa mo riE Nmc� go - mai 8 0 CO vO E ° °C'0 > � c a.:g , E ° mca Nacm�.5 >, N N O N Oa) O N G.0 'O a) 0 r CD ° Ti ° 2 ' � a° doom m@omm CL c a— @ ° o° � a _20 m ° m ' rn 0 � N O C d 0 N O C m 0 N N O C j 0 Q O c TD 0 E V O V m C -O. N im C N Q...=w 0v'v E E aU -2+ . E Q y 0)C m a C=O. O ° ° E ° E y o 3 N C Cp a 2 Q 0 U O�03 ' E °Y C z, �V 2C y E - 8,�� rE 7 c.0 6� '�-o E 3 O m 0!r O O a '. U O C N s a Y Y a O Oa) N'.• y Y d O. . N -- 'z.0 m 0 c = Y ° m �� UE o .O.0 ay CY 8 07 .2.6-6 E— `° m 'EzU E° d NO > m33a°m. m p N.3 m m o 0330.°• Nmay" E j N w m N O L a) a) N a -of- �Y >.U ,a C L "O:O V'O N C C i tsN m O U m .p N' 0CC a C Na '0 c O .` Q O diN a) b a m 3 O O O O d ca2— co m ° a g o.N O M E g� =w m u2 a aaa.�w2 °L E N o aaa i1° C • C s • • • • A N • • r r V)• • N r C s • • • • E U x ■ • • 0• • O N• m 6 C C £ E E m E C m o m u 8) 2 2 2 2 D. N a Z a otl E 8.1 O c 'o t- o. a uoi;eui;saa a;noa 9 1—lq 3.4 Additional Information Regarding the Operational Recommendations The following objectives and programs are recommendations for Richfield to implement, as part of a successful long-term program. Additionally, recommendations may be made to City Staff and the City Council in the future to adapt and amend ordinances for the purpose of promoting and enforcing a safe environment for bicycling and walking. In an effort to reach as many residents and visitors alike, a strong partnership between City Staff, law enforcement and the school district must be developed. It is recommended that this coordination be the responsibility of a designated Bicycle Ambassador to ensure a synchronized educational plan and implementation process. More information on the description and role of a Bicycle Ambassador can be found in the Education section. Safely Bike crashes typically involve improper actions on the part of bicyclists, motorists, or both. Therefore, crash reduction efforts need to include educational programs to increase awareness of improper motorist and cyclist actions that are known to contribute to crashes, and to promote correct actions for both. It is very critical to educate children and young adults about the importance of bicycle safety. It is recommended that Richfield further establish programs through the City police department to educate children and the general public. Some programs exist(i.e. Safety Camp)however increased awareness and additional programs are recommended, to increase bicycle and pedestrian safety in Richfield. The police department could sponsor a bicycle safety education program for elementary thru high school students throughout the community. Additionally, as part of the safety and encouragement programs discussed below, a bicycle safety brochure could be developed that would include safety tips and can be distributed through the schools and local businesses. The brochure could contain information regarding routes, bicycle maintenance, safety precautions,riding tips, and rules of the road. The following potential policies and programs further explain the recommendations identified in the Recommendations Chart. Following the "Three E's" of Education, Encouragement, and Enforcement these operational suggestions can help ensure a successful bicycle environment for both residents and visitors. Education Bicycling Ambassador The Richfield Bicycling Ambassador could be a volunteer or paid position with the potential to be funded by local, state or federal grants related to transportation and health care. The Ambassador's main goal is to educate and encourage the public to bike and walk more often and more safely in part by improving the skills, knowledge and the road- 10 15 sharing behaviors of cyclists, motorists and pedestrians. Examples of specific tasks of a Bicycle Ambassodor are: • Give face-to-face demonstrations to kids, teens and adults by participating in community events and running special programs. • Work with partners in the community to identify and address local transportation safety concerns. • Increase the offerings of bicycle education classes through the Parks and Recreation Department. • Offer bicycle safety and encouragement programming to Richfield schools, • Be available for block parties and other local festivals. • Organizing `International Walk to School Day USA' or other events for the community, and be a leader in organizing Safe Routes to School events. Bicycle Advisory Committee (BAC) The Bicycle Master Plan Task Force, created for the purpose of drafting the Richfield Bicycle Master Plan, was a task specific group of residents. If desired, a Bicycle Advisory Committee could be continued to ensure the implementation of the education and encouragement programs described below, and also address bicycling concerns and needs in the future. If the BAC was to be an official City designated assembly, the Mayor/Transportation Commission could appoint a committee to review plan progress and catalyze next steps and implementation. This group in coordination with City Staff should consider pursuing status as a"Bike Friendly Community" as designated by the League of American Bicyclists. There also exists the possibility for residents to organize a BAC independent of official City designation. The group would have no affiliation with the City Council or Commissions but would represent the interests of residents and the bicycling community. Citywide Educational Campaign Many bicyclists and motorists do not know or understand the rules of the road for bicyclists. Educating people in the Richfield community will create a safer environment for bicyclists and should cover: • Benefits of bicycling and walking • How to take care of bicycles • Rules of the road for bicyclists, and illegal motorist behaviors that endanger bicyclists • Bicycling behaviors that are dangerous and common causes of bicycle crashes • How to prevent bicycle theft Additionally, residents and visitors to Richfield will become more sensitive to bicycle safety and awareness as bicycle ridership increases, facilities become more prevalent, and education of rules for all users increases. High School Programs High School Education Programs gives teens an understanding of how to travel by walking or biking safely. Additionally, programs can educate new drivers on the importance of respecting people walking or biking. The Richfield Bicycle Advisory Committee (described below) could work with the Driver's Education Departments,to 11 integrate programs and curriculum into the existing class structure. Topics, as described above in the Education Campaign, could be addressed. Safe Routes to School The purpose of Safe Routes to School (SRTS) is to increase the number of children who walk or bicycle to school, by funding improvement projects that remove the barriers that currently prevent them from doing so. Those barriers include lack of trails and walkways, unsafe crossings, and lack of programs that promote walking and bicycling through education/encouragement programs, aimed at children, parents and the community. New sidewalks need to be constructed immediately surrounding schools that are safe, ADA accessible. The City should continue to work with the Richfield School District to determine which routes need improvements, and apply for grants, as appropriate. Regarding Safe Routes to School (SRTS), the Richfield School District should take the lead(with the City's support)to promote education and encouragement projects such as: • Walk and Bike to School Week celebration. • Pedestrian and bicycle safety skills in relevant physical education and extracurricular programs. • Sustainable transportation benefits of walking and bicycling in relevant health, environmental and academic classes. • Crossing Guard Day should be recognized by the School District and Police Department to honor the crossing guards that help keep the kids safe. Note: See the Implementation section of this report regarding grant and funding options, for a more information on SRTS. School Zones To create a truly walkable and bikeable community for children, well-designed and signed school zones should be a high priority and primary goal. This Master Plan study recommends additional discussion and action items be developed, in order to improve school zones and the environment for children traveling to school by bike or walking. The City should continue to focus on school zones and working with the school district on these issues. Additionally, safety programs and education programs are discussed later in this report,to further address the importance of safe crossings within school zones and education of young people. • Implement pedestrian safety programs such as Adopt-A-Crosswalk to allow interested citizens to assist children in the safe crossing of roads to and from school. • Install Pedestrian Countdown Timers and Overhead Crosswalk Warning Lights, where beneficial. ,` � is 12 Encouragement Competitions& Challanges A competition could be held between grades, organizations, or high schools,to encourage students to / bike to school. The Park &Recreation Department, various clubs and the Physical Education Departments could organize competitions and challenges to encourage students to bike to school. For example a punch card could be created and based on miles traveled by bike students could receive awards in order to motivate them to participate. A Richfield Bicycling Ambassador could also offer bicycle skill trainings and rules of the road classes for all students who plan to participate. Improve Bike Awareness Coordinate opportunities to team with local Schools, community organizations,private businesses and City Staff to become more visible within the Richfield community. This may include creating a bike map, releasing media reports/newsletters, a public relations campaign, creating a web page, broadening school outreach or other awareness opportunities. Expand the "Nice Ride Minnesota"Initiative into Richfield Coordinate with Minneapolis and the surrounding communities to expand the bike rental opportunities within the area. Encourage Business Participation A special emphasis should be put on outreach to local businesses to get their support and make their locations safe, attractive destinations for bicyclists. Possible programs implemented in other cities include a bike rack cost share program and reduced parking requirements for new developments when enhanced bicycle facilities are included. Enforcement Law Enforcement helps to improve the safety of all modes of transportation in Richfield and will be a critical factor in the success and safety of Richfield's bicycle network. As Richfield continues to evolve, the Richfield Police Department may need to adjust for a higher volume of bicycle traffic on trails and streets. For example the Department may need to have a bicycle enforcement officer who periodically travels the routes. Officers patrolling major events could do so on bicycles. This would show support for biking in Richfield, as well as make it easier for officers to patrol the event. Also,the Department may provide introductory and ongoing training in the community, regarding enforcement of the traffic laws that create both a safe bicycling and driving environment, as outlined above. Reduce Vehicle Speeds By implementing more mobility options within the existing corridors, vehicular lane widths will be more in line with the posted speed limit,resulting in vehicular traffic following the posted speeds more effectively. 13 Section IV- Implementation & Integration 4.1 Benchmarks The success of Richfield's bike master plan will be directly related and attributed to the safe implementation and community participation of both the operational and • _y infrastructure recommendations. In other words, the _— more users and overall awareness, the more successful the program will become. It is the hope that biking will r' become safer, more convenient and most importantly advantageous for the entire spectrum of users. The successful implementation of a bike master plan is ultimately determined by its use. A truly successful transportation system is a balanced system containing all four modes of transportation; vehicular, mass transit, bike and pedestrian components. A bike master plan is one component of a fluid and integrated system. The four steps below represent categories used to define the success or shortcomings of a bicycle master plan and its relationship to use. The ultimate goal is to create an advantageous system. 4.2 Mobility & Complete Streets Usage Graphic RICH WIELD ADDITIONAL MODES BIKE PARTICIPATION ] PEDESTRIAN HEALTH ■ MASS TRANSIT QUALITY OF LIFE FUNDING COST SAVINGS EDUCATION LEGAL SAFETY CONVENIENCE ADVANTAGEOUS = RESULT (ADA) MOBILITY&COMPLETE STREETS The Mobility& Complete Streets graphic above illustrates how providing advantageous and convenient alternative modes of transportation results in increased participation, better health, a better quality of life, increased funding opportunities, better educated citizens and potential cost savings. 14 Mobility Implementation Category Definitions • LEGAL The facilities and infrastructure intended to support alternative modes of transportation must be legal; most commonly, the legal structures adhere to the Americans with Disabilities Act, a federal civil rights law enacted in 1990 that prohibits discrimination based on disability. • SAFETY The identified bike routes and destinations must offer safe accommodations to both bicyclists and the general public. • CONVENIENT The network of routes and destinations must provide connections that are not only desirable, but ones that are simple and expedient for users. • ADVANTAGEOUS Providing a bike network that is a realistic option for any potential user, and in some cases, may be more opportune choice for movement. Provide an incentive to use the system. 15 1- 1) 4.3 Tools for Bicycle Treatments Bike Treatments The Richfield bikeway signage program should follow the MN MUTCD traffic control standards available on-line at Mn/DOT's website. During the implementation stage, the Richfield Transportation Commission and/or a Bicycle Advisory Committee should be consulted on the final configurations and treatments for the various user routes and destinations. The signage and monumentation program shall include destination, direction and distance information to be most effective. Below is an incomplete list of potential signage treatments for the various user types: Signage Treatments Alternatives Sharrows Local Routes/Destinations Route Dots Wide Shoulders Regional Trail Signage Traffic Control Signage Recreational/Regional Routes/Destinations Safety Signage Continuous Bike Lanes Contrasting Pavement Material Hawk Signals Shared Use Roadways Integral Bike Lane Gutter Pan/Curb Contrasting Pavement Material Commuter Continuous Bike Lanes Routes/Destinations Bike Route Signage Loop Detectors Underpass/Overpass Hawk Signals Note: For shared use trails, the MN MUTCD is the primary reference for basic traffic control and safety sign standards. Refer to MnDOT's website (www.dot.state.mn.us/trafficeng/otepubl/mutcd/index.html) for the complete manual. 16 1. Sharrows, Route Dots or Bike Boulevard(Signed Shared Roadways) /.` A more recent practice and option to the Shared Use Roadway designation is to have a Shared Use Symbol painted on the pavement Pil -with associated signage along the right-of-way. This facility type encourages /` I'•' the motorist and the bicyclist to share the road and, most importantly, shows the /' all cyclist where they are expected to ride. This type of facility is most appropriate r_ on roads with wider pavement widths. They are typically signed, and serve to provide continuity with other bicycle facilities through corridors where construction of a dedicated five (5') foot bike lanes or & • detached shared use path is not feasible. The signage of these routes indicates a determination has been made 4 ' £ t that these routes are suitable for bicycle use Low traffic , ,_,,, •.'"" ;,, -- neighborhood streets or collector streets without parking (or minimal parking) are the best candidates for this type of system. The markings on the pavements L may demonstrate the destination of the route as well so that cyclists know where they are going. 2. Wide Shoulder A wide shoulder(e.g. existing situation along Portland . Avenue) is also an acceptable means of promoting bicycle use on roadways. Occasionally they may only • be 2' to 3' wide, but allow some extra space, so 41 ; bicyclists can feel more comfortable and have an area _______1016 in which to ride. As compared with the Signed Shared r. Roadway, which may designate the bicyclist to ride —r within the vehicular travel lane, this use provides a J • wider shoulder, separating bicyclists slightly more This can help to minimize erratic maneuvers on the '' ` part of motorists, and enhance the comfort level for the .: _ -- bicyclist. -- 17 3. Regional Trails Regional Trails typically incorporate varying types and intensities of human uses, including trails for recreation and travel and passive or active park facilities, including open playing fields. Nature trails « f are a form of shared-use path, although they typically run through environmentally-sensitive areas. The - < IrWrtii surfacing and width specifications are more flexible = than for shared-use paths; for example, nature trails may have a soft, permeable surface, such as bark, wood chips, or crushed aggregate in lieu of asphalt. t Therefore, nature trails are not necessarily designed to OP 1 be ADA accessible, except at parking areas, restrooms `' • ! and picnic areas. The width of the nature trail may be very narrow to allow for passage through densely vegetated areas and hilly terrain. Greenway and Nature Trails typically increase the value of adjacent private properties, as an amenity to residential and commercial developments. 4. Striped or Marked Bike Lanes Spatial constraints within the right-of-way may hinder the construction of a side path or detached trail and, , therefore, sometimes a bike lane makes more sense for • PIERCE the experienced bicyclist's direct travel, as part of the • street cross-section. Also, bike lanes on roadways E C provide an excellent means of achieving efficient, non- BIKE.LA"E motorized transportation through Richfield and the surrounding region, without significant cost. Striped bike lanes are configured along the right edge of the a < roadway with a solid white painted line. They help to define the space to ride, decrease stress for bicyclists, encourage bicyclists to ride in the correct direction, • and alert motorists that cyclists have a right to the road. Overall these types of facilities help to better organize the flow of traffic, and reduce the chance that motorists will veer into a cyclist's path of travel. Bike Lanes are intended for the exclusive use of bicyclists, so vehicular traffic is often prohibited from crossing into a bike lane, except when making a turn. Vehicles can sometimes be allowed to park in the bike lane on low traffic volume roads, or where minimal parking use occurs. If parking is allowed,there is typically space and room to pass the cars without veering into the adjacent lane. "Share the Road" signs and pavement markings can also be utilized in this type of facility. Design guidelines published by the American Association of Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) do present recommendations for inclusion of Bike Lanes on routes that allow parallel parking. 18 a3 5. Shared Use Roadway The term Shared Use Roadways simply refers to roads and streets that may be legally used by cyclists. Under Minnesota law, cyclists may use any street or highway unless posted otherwise. Generally, bicyclists are prohibited only on Interstate Highways and other high speed limited access routes. Therefore, almost all streets in Richfield and Hennepin County technically qualify as Shared Use Roadways. COD While cyclists may legally use any public roadway, it does not guarantee that the routes are safe for cyclists, and they may not have any signage designating it as a bike route. Cyclists can utilize any part of the road lane and, therefore, cause SHARE. vehicular and bicycle conflicts. This type of facility is only used where there are THE significant spatial constraints, or reasons that preclude other options, as listed in ROAD this section. Given these constraints, the corridor becomes very important, in terms of reaching destinations and, therefore, needs to be included as part of the system. 66th Street may be a good candidate for this type of treatment, until future road improvement can occur or funding is provided for more significant improvements. Site Specific Pedestrian/Bicycle Safety Treatments Crosswalk Treatments Crosswalk treatments can occur at intersections and mid-block ;.; .\ crossings. Improved crossings should be established at intersections (as mentioned above), to better unify the destination areas and provide safe connections between existing and future locations such as: • Commercial Districts - '%` • Public Spaces • Parks • Schools When designing crosswalk treatments, appropriate signage and striping measures must be applied per the City Crosswalk Policy and MUTCD (Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices). The hierarchy and appropriate locations include the following applications: • Standard Markings -All crossings that meet the warrants of the City policy should be identified with parallel lines. A stop bar located at the recommended distance from the crossing should be considered in all marked crosswalk locations should be included with the crosswalk as required. • Pavement Pattern/Texture—A distinctly patterned or textured concrete may be applied to distinguish intersection crosswalks and mid-block crossings in the core or transition zone, consistent with the proposed theme. These treatments would need to be included with a maintenance district or agreement for the additional upkeep cost required. Slope/Grade Where possible,the cross slope of pedestrian street crossings, at either marked or unmarked crosswalks, should be not more than eight(8%)percent, measured perpendicular to the direction of pedestrian travel. Also, where possible, the running grade of pedestrian street crossings, at either marked or unmarked crosswalks should be not more than five (5%) percent in the direction of pedestrian travel in the crosswalk. 19 Crosswalks at signalized intersections should be marked on the roadway with pavement markings, and should be at least eight(8') feet wide and preferably ten(10') feet wide. Intersection Sight Triangles A corner triangle of thirty(30') feet by thirty (30') feet shall be kept clear of any unnecessary visual obstruction. In addition, minimal obstructions should be maintained in a sight triangle, as defined using AASHTO recommended methodologies and appropriate street cross-section and intersection designs and City policy. High Visibility Crosswalk Markings High visibility crosswalk marking is an added feature beyond the use of the standard or enhanced pavement markings, colored pavement, or v+— ' special pavers. High visibility crosswalk markings can be in the form of signage, special pavement markings, flashers, or in-ground lights. High visibility crosswalk markings should be provided at all mid-block crossings and at intersection crossings where no traffic control is 41.:- provided. Signage identifying the pedestrian crossing location shall be incorporated wherever a mid-block crossing is designed. In high pedestrian and bicycle activity areas, or for pedestrian and bicycle path crossings, enhanced features such as flashers or in-ground lights should be considered. Mid-Block Crossing and Pedestrian Refuge Islands Mid-block crossings and pedestrian refuge islands with curb extensions may be considered at locations where a substantial number of pedestrians or bicyclists attempt to cross streets, regardless of the presence of protection or identification of the crossing. These circumstances typically occur in locations with pedestrian attractions on both sides of a roadway, in areas with a combination of street-facing retail shops and on-street parking, and the presence of long " 1 blocks (i.e., blocks of 600-feet or greater). Mid-block crossing will only be applied to limited locations, and will be analyzed on a case-by-case basis. Multilane un- signalized, controlled mid-block crossing should be avoided. Refuge islands should, generally,be considered for crossings wherever there is a median. Refuge islands in medians should be at least six (6') feet wide. 20 -7- as Applicable MUTCD standards MUTCD standards should be followed for crosswalk improvements in Richfield. Below are some of the applicable standards for this Master Plan +1.n ,1 .,.r Uniform project. Pedestrian crossing intervals should be calculated at the walking T(orrtt Control Da*ices rrn.ta . speed of four(4) feet per second (less if other factors are present, such as steeper slopes, or if the crosswalk length is greater than 50 feet). Extended O± time for pedestrian crossing may be initiated by a long(e.g., greater than 3 ra=1 low seconds)button press. MUTCD recommends calculating the clearance interval, based on the pedestrian reaching the farthest edge of the traffic si I` ( (MAWS lane on the opposite side of the street. Total crossing distance, as defined by MUTCD, should include the entire length of the crossing -plus the length aPtr of one curb ramp. 0 21 4.4 Potential Roadway Configurations The various user types and roadway configurations provide opportunities for alternative bicycle route markings. The following images are potential options to identify and bring awareness to bicycle routes depending on right-of-way or existing roadway configurations. 17 17 ' BICYCLE BICYCLE i3JLLEVARC BOULEVARD - - - - j SEM 71f ! THE ROB ROAD , � r Bike Boulevard 4 Bike Boulevard Symbol 22 tape,4.OYI'Road Qikev afs I U l 93 co on • Curb&Gutter •4,2 m (14 ft) min.travel lane Design Requirements • •4.5 m(15 ft)of usable width is desirable on sections of roadway where bicycfrsts need more maneuvering room (e.g.,steep grades,limited sight distance) • If traffic speeds mph)4.5 8 m(5 exceed 16 ft ft) curb lanes are desirable Curb&Gutter tit --111 !W11-1 &W16-1 ui Optional: • Install Share the Road signs to warn drivers to watch for bicyclists traveling along urban streets with wide outside lanes of 4.2 m(14 ft) or greater,but no bicycle lane. • Space signs approximately every 0,8 km (0.5 mi)on urban routes frequently used Not to Scale" by bicyclists. Note: Cheds current MN MUTCD for any changes to signs and striping configurations. Flgure 4.20: Wide Outside Lane with No Parking March 2007 In DQT Bikeway r"aciTity Aee0 thyme 23 Chapter 4.Qn•RoedBikeweys ��ag EXISTING 7,2 m(24 ft) . W CD CO I 00 03 Curti d Gutter 4.2 nr 3.0 m (14 ft) (loft) -ra.el lane parking lane PROPOSED Design Requirements I r - - Parking Stripe 11 1.5 t) 2.4 rn Pavement nlarkn line (11 ft) 9 ) (5ft) (8 ft) Revel lane bike lane Parking woe 1(10 mm(4 in)Hide solid attile Bike Lane Stripe Pavement marking line 109 ram 14 in)aide sold white giT Bike Lane Symbol R Arrow I Pre-cut plastic or stenai pavement markings Y 18m(6ft) / 1 I 1.8m(8ft) ' y4�� 1.2m(4ft) it (I �i I Bm(6ft) I 1.2m(4ft) — #R3-17 MEM Install feR3-17 signs and pavement symbols at periodic Not to Scale intervals along the bicycle lane Note: Check current MW MUTCO for any changes to signs and striping configurations Figure 4-17: Constrained R.O.W.with Parking Case A (48-Foot Right-of-Way) March 24107 AfmVOT Bikeway Factllry Design/hoof 24 Crop ere;On'Raad Relays •See Table 4-1 for bicycle lane ood1h M Curb 8 Gutter 3.6 m 1.2m,, 0.3m (12 ft) (4 ft),. (1 ft} Tavel lane bike are :typical} Curb&Gutter Bike Lane Stripe t e Pavement!narking Ilne 100 mm {4 in)wide solid white Bike Lane Symbol&Arrow 41.0 I Pre-cut plastic or stencil pavement markings 1.Arn(6ft} 1,8in(6ft) JO I 1.2m(4ft) + 1 + 1 + 16m(Sft;� i it � 1.2 n(411) c ](F A4r #R3-1 — #R8-3a �1J "Not to Scale" Install#R3-17 signs and pavement symbols at periodic intervals along the bicycle lane Note; Application of MN MUTCD Series R7-9 or R7-9a'NO PARKING BIKE LANE"signage may be used.Check current MN MUTCD for any changes to signs and striping configurations. Figure 4.10: Bicycle Lane with No Parking and Standard Gutter Pan iterch 2007 Mn.DOT 8lkeway Pecifiry Deshpe Morita( 25 Ghapte,A Oifr'oad BMrewiys 87 EXISTING 7,2m(24R) 1 m m 03 0 Curb 8 Guiter 4.2m 3.0m (14 ft) (16 ft) :ra.el lane pailang lane PROPOSED Design Requirements co co • eo • Parking Stri 3.3 ill 1 5 in 2.4 rn Pavement rnarkn lu (11 R) (5 ft) (8 R) g Irr�al ktm• i. IanN poking lane 100 net(4 in)wide solid whte Bare Lana Stripe Pavement marking line _ 100 mm(4 in)wide sold white moo' Bike Lane Symbol&Arrow lyre cul plash::or slenal 1 pavement markings arn(6ft) 1 \ I 1.8 m(6 ft) I 1.2 (4ft) I II m i , t 18m(6R) i li + ft 12 ii 14 ftl • "111=1111 A. < - #R3-17 :ar:r aNr Install eiR3-17 signs and pavement symbols at periodic "Not to Scale" intervals along the bicycle lane Note: Check current IAti P,1UTCO for any changes to s;.;ns and striping configurations Figure 4.17: Constrained R.O.W.with Parking Case A (48-Foot Right-of-Way) March 2001 MI OT Bikeway Facility Oeatgn Norma( 26 4.5 Richfield Roadway Classification Map The following map represents the functional class of roadways within Richfield. This map was used as the basis for bicycle route evaluations. To help create the proposed bicycle route plan a combination of existing roadway classification, potential destinations and the proximity to existing or planned bicycle routes was considered. An effort was made to provide opportunities for all user types (local, recreational and commuter) and to limit the length of travel to access these various routes. Legend N Principal Arterial CITY OF RICHFIELD Minor Arterial Collector d .. M innea p o lis City Street , . rc w 1 1 X 2 ' “ I LO , as � i 1 H 2 Li Y - f e : i d A k k k E o a "' - - mb •Edina 0.. ii• I! ti 7417 75.41 1 H Q s a s x r 5 a ,s e l`f _ § k § § $ I& 4 S P . n $ t t t e $ § § # e s p e 1 3, $ s i $ a 1 i b tt p 3 1 8 i d ri i ” " S . ,'„;, p K W Y x g o . ., 2 2 s, K k r- 9 fi € f u 6 s 3 r Bloomington 27 4.6 Route Identification Categories for Criteria To help create the proposed bicycle route plan a combination of existing roadway classification(operational),potential destinations (connectivity) and the proximity to existing or planned bicycle routes (physical) were considered. An effort was made to provide opportunities for all user types (local, recreational and commuter) and to limit the length of travel to access these various routes to ensure a balanced master plan. The Bike Task Force evaluated over thirty potential routes throughout the community. The following criteria is how the routes were analyzed along with the overriding basic question; "Do you feel this option makes a good route? Yes or No" 1) Connectivity: Does the route connect civic spaces, schools, or commercial centers? 2) Operational: Does the route fit within Richfield's transportation policies and procedures? 3) Physical: Does the route fit within the existing right of way and Richfield's infrastructure plans? Scoring System In an effort to establish system priorities, a simple scoring system was used. This three level scoring system is defined below: (-) Minus: The ranking of a route with a minus (-) implies the route is lacking in two or more of the criteria categories (connectivity, operational,physical). For example; a route showing a connection between two parks is great but if it does not fit within the Community's transportation policies and the communities physical infrastructure plans then the route should be graded a minus (-). Routes that are considered the least crucial should be given this ranking. (0) Neutral: The ranking of a route with neutral (0) implies the route is lacking in only one of the criteria categories (connectivity, operational, physical). Routes given this designation shall be considered important but not crucial in the overall bike master plan. (+) Plus: The ranking of a route with a plus (+) implies the route is critical to the success of Richfield's bike master plan. This ranking implies the route best meets Richfield's three criteria categories (connectivity, operational,physical). For example; a route showing a connection between two parks is great but even better if the route follows Richfield's bike policies and procedures along with safely implementing the improvements within the existing right-of-way and the community's infrastructure plans. Based on the feedback and defined guidelines,the preferred bike routes were identified. Dependant on existing conditions, funding opportunities,neighborhood involvement and continued evaluation these routes may begin to be implemented into Richfield's infrastructure improvements. Additionally, many of the recommended routes could be implemented through coordination with the City Pavement Management program with little impact on existing operations. 28 , ) l / I J 4.7 Bike Master Plan Route Maps (Full size documents located in Appendix) J CITY OF RICHFIELD ® -BICYCLE MASTER PLANNING- - _ ; i = NORTH c n -Prefered Routes- I i a i m ,5 . 1.A x - _ _ i ii l l , i 1. o1„ I. 8 �' � o 0 s – F 07 1 $ i U Ii n Legend = w :1 � 1 � 1 � � a Existing Traffic Signal�Existing Off Street Trail -°°i BMP Prefered Future Trail Route 4 a —Exisiting On Street Route BMP Prefered Future On Street Route Future Off Street Trail n Recommended Pedestrian Improvement Area J CITY OF RICHFIELD - -BICYCLE MASTER PLANNING- ,0 NORTH i- - s 18 ` — -Identified Alternative Routes- I 1 w I I §a ; s k ; ; 8° -t-�€ ft 0 w JI ilSYJ� - m GI ° ® . ' I $ �' '� � e ' —,ill' r, I''F r,,,,. l iT I it L I r _ r `;U� U # U _ g g T „ 8 11 U i I I ,. 'S.'' ii° I. ; II Ir t I( l:I' 6, 9 I,; ii4. . , Y'' 'li iL- ILIJ -IL U ',.i' 0 �. 1� 1 IF �t, i l d ii Legend ra U traffic signals --Prefered Future Trail Route Identified Alternative On Street Route nRecommended Pedestrian Improvement Area Prefered Future On Street Route 29 -1-34 Section V- General Maintenance Program 5.1 Route Maintenance Several of the existing off-street trails in Richfield are relatively new, and have not yet experienced significant deterioration. However, others are in poor condition and are in need of improvements. Additionally, as on-street facilities are constructed,they will need to be maintained. The importance of maintaining bicyclist safety and enjoyment through a proactive route maintenance plan cannot be understated. Therefore, a route maintenance component should be included within Richfield's Capital Improvement Program Budget, in order to keep the biking system operating at maximum effectiveness. Typical route maintenance includes: • Shoulder maintenance (snow, leaf, garbage removal) • Re-painting striping and markings • Crack filling, slurry seal • Pavement patching • Resurfacing • Plowing Note: For on-street bike lanes and routes, maintenance will be part of the Street Pavement Management Program Richfield staff should keep track of user complaints and results from inspections, and then complete maintenance on an"as-needed"basis. It is important to identify and prioritize system maintenance needs often, and make sure a portion of the City's Capital Improvement Budget is allocated to trail maintenance. An estimated timeline of routine maintenance are outlined below: MAINTENANCE ITEM APPROXIMATE TIMEFRAME Shoulder maintenance - annually Re-painting pavement markings - 3-5 years Bituminous (asphalt) seal coating - 3-5 years Crack filling - 5 years Pavement patching(bituminous-asphalt) - As Needed Pavement patching(concrete) - As Needed Re-painting pavement markings (if thermoplastic) - 10 years Pavement resurfacing - 12-15 years New trail construction/reconstruction - 20-25 years 5.2 Trash/Litter Control Excess trash along routes is not anticipated to be an issue. However, if problem areas arise,two possible methods of control are: • Adopt-a-route program (similar to Adopt-a-Highway programs) • City controlled trash cans at local problem areas (bus stops,parking areas) 30 Section VI-Funding Strategies 6.1 Funding Strategies (Local, State,Federal, Other) Many routes are planned and implemented with funding assistance from the state or federal level. A variety of programs are available to assist local units of government with the development of trails and greenways. These programs differ in the amount of funding assistance, requirements of the local units of government and administration methodology. Funding for projects may come from a combination of Federal grant funds, State grant funds, City fee programs,TIF districts, special service areas or other community financing districts, gas tax, and transportation sales tax. The following funding strategies are recommended and described in detail below: Note: Funding programs through state and federal funding change periodically and the latest information should be obtained when pursuing. Federal funding • The Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991 (ISTEA)and its successor,the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century(TEA-21),provided eligibility for pedestrian and bicycle transportation facilities, including trails. After 2003,new legislation,titled the Safe,Accountable, Flexible and Efficient Transportation Equity Act of 2003 (SAFETEA), should continue to provide funding for such projects. • The Federal-Aid Highway Program provides fmancial assistance to the states to construct and improve the National Highway System, other major roads,bridges, bicycle and pedestrian facilities, and trails. Trail projects have to compete for funding with other eligible transportation projects. • The Surface Transportation Program(STP)provides funding for all types of transportation projects, including pedestrian and bicycle facilities. Projects are selected through the State Highway Improvement Program. Within STP funding, there are several unique funding programs: • Safety: 10% of STP funds are available only for safety programs, such as railway- highway crossing projects and hazard elimination. • Transportation Enhancements: 10% of STP funds are available for projects that include pedestrian and bicycle facilities, educational programs, landscaping, and historic preservation, among other factors. • The Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement Program(CMAQ) provides funding for greenways and trails projects, if they can demonstrate an air quality benefit. • The Recreational Trails Program(RTP)provides funds to the states to develop and maintain recreational trails for motorized and non-motorized trails and trail- related projects. • The Public Lands Highways Discretionary Program(PLH)provides assistance to improve access to, and within, federal lands. 31 • The National Scenic Byways Program provides funding for state scenic byways programs and improvements. • The Community Development Block Grant(CDBG)Program,through the Department of Housing and Urban Development, offers grants to communities for neighborhood revitalization, economic development, and improvements to community facilities and services,which can include trails. • The Land and Water Conservation Fund(LWCF) Grants are used by federal agencies to acquire additions to national parks,forests, and wildlife refuges. They are also available for communities. State funding Mn/DOT Participation in State Highway Projects The municipality is responsible for 100%cost of removal of existing sidewalk or trail where elective replacement work is performed. New or replacement highway bridge structures,when constructed by MnDOT,typically will be designed and constructed to accommodate existing or planned sidewalks or trails at no cost to the municipality." County funding Hennepin County Incorporate county initiatives such as; Complete Streets,Identified Bike Gaps, Community Works development initiatives, County Road reconstruction into the Master Plan to create possible interest in funding and or implementing the right-of-way improvements. Local Funding Sources • Sales taxes can be used to raise funds for trails acquisition and development. • Require developers to provide public trails as part of development. • General obligation bonds can be used to fund greenways and trails projects,but many but require referenda. Referendum is an opportunity to educate the public and build support for trail programs. • The local Capital Improvements Program can have a yearly trails appropriation. Private Sector Funding Sources • Local businesses can donate funds for specific trail segments or amenities, donate services to reduce the cost of developing trails,reduce the costs of materials for trail construction, and/or contribute employee volunteer time to work on trail projects. • A land trust is typically a private,nonprofit organization that is engaged in the protection and conservation of real estate,which can include trail corridors. Local organizations can play a key role in trail development and construction. • Local and national foundations can be solicited for trail funding; local foundations are more likely to fund local interests than national foundations. • Service clubs can hold fund-raisers for greenways and trails projects. • Individual sponsors can contribute to greenways and trails projects by sponsoring the purchase of facilities or parts of a trail. • Volunteer work can decrease construction costs of trail projects. 32 "7- 3-1 Section VII-Richfield Mobility Survey Summary An online survey was used to gather information regarding bike mobility from residents, local employees or other interested stakeholders. The survey was made available for approximately six months (from January 2011 through June 2011. There were a total of fifteen(15)questions comprised of multiple choice, yes/no,ranking and fill in the blank answers. The questions centered on biking within the local community and why,where and how the Richfield biking environment is viewed. As of June 8, 2011 there were a total of 547 surveys submitted for the study. Although this number is not a direct indicator of the overall community, it is a basis for which to begin to understand how people are using bikes within the community,where they are traveling and ways the system can be improved. The hope is this survey will be made available throughout the year and will serve as a communication and planning tool for the Richfield Bike Task Force and City Staff. (See Appendix for the complete Richfield Mobility Survey results) Mobility Survey Response Summary: • Over 24%of the 546 people who responded to the survey were over 55 years old • A strong majority(63%) of the 547 people who responded to the survey stated they and their family were recreational cyclists • The top three destinations selected by the survey participants include the following: around the neighborhood (73%), a local park(55%) and to a destination outside of Richfield(47%) • 29%of the people surveyed travel a total of 2-5 miles during a given trip • Of the 544 people who answered the question, 80% stated they or their family prefer to bike on designated paved bike trails. Riding on the roadway came in at 49%. • The top three influences that would or does influence the survey respondents to commute by bike are; safer routes (56%),physical fitness (54%) and improved bike routes/awareness (50%) • 10%of the total respondents commute using a combination of bike and mass transit • 62%of the respondents stated they or a family member bicycle between 1-3 times a week and 25%stated they or a family member bicycle between 4-6 times a week. • An overwhelming 83%of the respondents feel the development of more bike lanes and designated routes within Richfield would influence them to bike more. • Minneapolis and Portland were frequently identified as bike friendly communities by the survey participants 33 • 61%of the respondents feel if more people are out biking in the community for work or recreational purposes,would influence them to bike more 34 APPENDIX A 7- `io CITY OF RICHFIELD Routes imil Existing/Approved On-Street RICHFIELD -BICYCLE MASTER PLANNING_ A _ Existing/Approved Trail -Routes Worksheet- NORTH Routes To Consider _ Destinations General ` Z I- Q J o Z } J o `° Transit Stops W m Z W Z O Q Z (!1 O 0 O to Z X ~ U W W D Q = O W J Z Q Z m O y g x = z o o w . w z > i- 0 < g w z . a W w no. ci ? E ,,--1 it iT z a n o ',j o F 5 Y j Destination ¢', Dail Boardin s I% d 2 T S' '' W J O U Q > 1 W w a- O >- 0 2 Q Q K J J W Q U W v W Y et —1 Areas .. F , � 0 1 - 10 x -0 L. w 0 U m Q J (1 2 (7 a e L Qm H ' __ —. •XI > 7 H (!9 0 4. O z J Y -! - } - w a 0 c Q Q O 2 w •• .w ,., ,. \ t, �,,, • 11 - 25 _ - 5w 62 - �1� 62 x 62 ------lb -ik- 7 62nd r 62nd .'; 1 F 6 fn. -L, .;44 • I -- T ! , 51 - 100 611 . gi 63rd t. ifl ''i A ti 1 , „ ! r _ i::1 e 4 b t } a-: - , _ 63td • 1 01 + .. / 2 7 .y 7::i il ,-• 641b • , _-••■•1 \\ ill . .-, -1 1.-::. L �., 1 Public Areas . r . f~ �-. 7 --- _ E .-- <--;- 4.— 4---,•1„- tit .- . 1 - • I •- 'I-7.-7- = � - 'f. k ' 1.! ' ' , r 5 rf; 1 ::: .- ir, ..: 1 Schools vt"..,.A. p . % h Ent l''.:.`.; iri• -1 . 4 '3'-13 3-:: ; 1 i. I v4t.i. , „,-,.- --._,.,.. ,_...,,,..,.. , ,,,,..,..„, .,... li i i / 1 •.;*.• * --•,- .. �� I! It� r � 68th j` • i. 7 / 1 � l-{ (� , '. � l ' Business Areas• .t �:•. - _ \ - '. [ r.. F ' lei" ��CI l-•- ' I ® `.@I 66th . ----) . •a ,.. _ .. 74th 111 . 1 ti 11 111: < _ : . . . r .: :_. 1 r i. � � � .., � J � I nt,.., .. � 71st 71 i 1f2 itai:_ t1I1ir a ; ti R` - i:, :1 !'r r 1 1-. :. c c c 1 I. Ilk fl jt 7234) � t. 1 r IN ' �I Y{ ,. - &QIN -II ' t __1, . I_ 7....!i'..l : 111t14.. ii e- - s ulu.1 I'': �. '. 1i : ,[ i111.... -• !W*- 'LIM, , L4�II I• ■__ 1 i.. - t i _. : !• 4 = ' ..._ _all - 74th \ 7511 • r P .411 IN in 1 �. :ill Ilk.. ' . Ii - i i HI ; �.` !� ! _ }' 1;' ; . .' .I' / _.. 76th �< = � ; ; ; ; _ � ; s �,_ ; . , fit �,: ,Ai-it I J i 1=11411P" t 4. N...-::::-.;,:,: -.1:.1 ,-, l _ ,/is --4'� --.- Z 1- Z m Z J Z cc Z Z Z X to 0= I- . H z 1- H 2 W O H O H >- 2 J t--- (D o -C Z Z L L O O Y !o O F .. .. Z L L ... O i z 0 Z LT 0 N M _ _ Q ¢ n- m ¢ O O <-.N.r r r H U � D w m X D W 1- 0 uW W w > HO 0 Z M > Z 0 O • a O W E Q �Q D 4O J PI 'k' W 2 z U d W O d J W R O Y Q O LL W LL 6 L- O z LL LL Q LL Q m . O >W J S W Z U X H z ,j o W a U m = ill J m U O O O CQ LL a Z m z o 2 O m CITY OF RICHFIELD . , A cfb -BICYCLE MASTER PLANNING - NORTH 0 Z O Ed -- I j Z Z p O S.7, � .. = � -Existing/Approved Routes - Q W W g J ' ' _1 S� J O J r L O Q < O N M _ J D I S ° d d m ' cN- ij NM. U d" n 1 O a_ U U W r . D W iirm•ESOTA - / //��1■r[_1�---_ .'�'� .. �l ,/ 35W 1 '��'` U PTI / -r•...�' �_ 'a� -' I '� • ...---L� I \ 62nd f Y l .of I.. . t ! i . • : : • ' ' . t ''.,+,.. J ■ j J 1 a.• ■ 0 LL 6 1 ! r 5W I!.1 (tom _[ 1 1.-. 1 ! :• �'' ' t i t '! I•■ 1 ■ I. .Z s`.51 E! ilin 3 1� ' J: __s-- 3 i 63rd I • I i I• ;. S•:,' K..i e•• '� I■■. :3 -•a• :•tj .-.t :• 1:£i 1 r r' J' .1 GA •• i:' 1 ' ' ! r LAhi1hJ:!it 3rd=: i1 } . i • i • A rI rii � ■ �.I :-7 • i I : • '1 . i : ! eron Ltk• i :1 •.t ! ; ■ • ! .-11 r- : 1 . 4 r :1 S • I L RA\S it !! v i 3 �;-a i.I= r m : i T;•� .'' • ti :,. '••',!'t tr. ' � `64th - : _ _-_ 64th II `�▪ � • , " • • � : & tl ! IOXL`tL � i• ! j ! { 1 t i.:P t 11 J i!`� ! ;c e '1 } • t e t 11 '�! Richfre(d Lake . _.... • J 11 XR ' J T !! Ii tt -65th D a ., � 1 �+ ••! I -65th.mit •! i"J :.�/ J.pj' .i ' _t• "11'•, „ '� , , ;1 i t ! I !./ 'J :"',10! ! _- -coon I-1r�r�- o . _ P 3 ■ • -- --------- •• - :11. - 6th Ti' _.: r* '°.•: }"�.- :�• 1 rr • 1.'• .' { :• 11 • _ !�.•`'� s -,ii yr.7 •:9 t.•3 j':! :::: 1..- • e• , �. ■.tl ■ '� :"; <II, •,1 r.. P.:I w 1: 5 µ7µ'i a ' !• ! 4• _ ! t �" r V"s �� I �cure- ■ '� l r: --•f`. 'J•�ii ■,�{p_ X 1. y1 1,•./ �'- 1 t ! u•� ■'n ■l� ■ � �',•(!!-0li ' •1: -:: •!, i fu t• t;,i .'I' : i ! J' 1 i°••r [,,„..„ Y• • ,•. _ I ..„ jJ,.' jj Y•1'• .„. i !•r1 J'.[ 1 ' •lt. S !.' , . ! [ �,, , `'.! i !(/ ■i: °,a :: O '�J'= �a'i x i 3 1 •� ••'* ••i-. ! 1 r! �/a - i` F' i { 7 S'•j 7 ' r.': 1 1 1 w I r 1- ? ' 1 : t• 1.r t /1 th. - ! !: e_•_ _I - f x a .! r,. +. J. I ■ , r f ` n tail:.....: 0 L:-g_ .r -...1-...L 1. .1t1 lid aa•�..:[..-..i_u.+- r r.. t • !_.!is ,3 'I7 ;1� .•r �' �� a ■• e 1 ! >' V 1 • ▪ i... .. r. . . .} J 3. •1 r[:: ••{ 1rJ: � -1 n- •r ,■ ; 1 1 T ��'1 .r !.� ri e.! i r ! '! f3 �':; t %`i ?' %I f /N. 1 '.i . 7t h• 7 • El . i' tit S ,r. r' 7'.,, r. .., 1,,„. .,,, ' ■ : .•. /•! ! 1 ! '•r }; t 1 1 } t • ' .' } 1. l 1. .2 ..e '.: �% r :• .1 1..[ ..I .i 1 .-7 . 1 1 " •'• � i 1 ll (} (�f ;,'■ VI ,I.•. fir. ; �:.♦ 1 • B i t �• I:Q :-.r r-,• •, [ ,1 * 5 t.. Q i 1 . f L 1 .a •: U 1•: i :: 11 I . L i [ .P ,s r� =t.. I ¢'j • • q°°c / t 1 •t ■',t i 19 % . i i 3 G,,; r ' ' .• . 1 •r r , ��!i !: ♦ ^.+ �` i. r'.A I.fI�.:� I ... i.'i .r+.: 1, A11.1 E.1 i�d: L !%_i = : _f .1.-... k__!..:. :'i _j,� 1 -•- -.;- �L 68th 'ill •i[ '•i7 :.�I .:j n, !i' »i.7 ;a.i !� i,: T"= �' j .r i; ti ? '�' i 1 i'' �'{ i.: i` i:i r`. r..-: i..i-rre -aff T �� Sat; f�; E J•.t :i� ., IJ '1 }s� „� 1 * ;d I' . y I. '•I tl 4 1. t.••2 '..r 1 a > 1 4;11 :; : 6 •.� �.'[ ■ L� S E q : * a .r! '�''• .(::',1 •'j \ f r,r: J.• ! 1 • J' 1 ![ 3 e '• 'q.. Z.. { :� !� S! 1 r, , : J:e „• - ; 3 I t..• .J E ! 1 3 t -- t =.t '' i 1 0 : CITY OF RICHFIELD --/-1-a RICHFIELD� A-BICYCLE MASTER PLANNING - NORTH Z 0 Z.. O W W Z.` Z 0 m..0.. - -Prefered Routes- 1 L d W a °; E L � w w •-; w � " °--.' 0 d.. d r.. �] - � `�i N M U :::: In tl O d OU U W � .-.. .- � '4'1 � \.- J IL l IWESOi. 1 / 62 i.,1, �J �•I - _ :_- -:1„. -tom- _ ---___H- _ '3.! ! 2nd• '35w/^ 62 62nd { y 7 ••• 7.-1•It' �..o R s��i>=„^ XO�E ', •11 31 "4 ii ' �'•1 °_'{L i r 1' `F7 ® �) /1/ I�il ... 1�' �• /� �• i J r tl 1 • rs ii, r 1 " ., WI i` 35W I 7� __ . 7 xo., 63rd •:,�i • i. r.• 'i.•' i ITY F RI HFI -7 / I J) C O C ELD RICHFIELD _ 0 -BICYCLE MASTER PLANNING - NORTH W o Q = z Q z m , OA -Identified Alternative Routes- e, < W _J W N _ _ _ Q o = ° _ t = o �� = U' a a t, N 0 U v Lo D_ 0 a. U U w - ,- v m ao _wESO.a ..mor.,111"1__1111111111111 62 ;�,.�_ _ —A. _62 _ _ II _. .... 35W/ 62 '. _ I 62nd __ _ ,- 62nd 4 t E:I , ::4 :1„,• II „..17..-------- _ ��j �: ,• 1 an In 1 I ., xaJi , ,..Ir• . r.• i i:...1, 1 63rd . I I i = ii i I•y 3;'j � • 35W t.� t; .r.2 fli r r e r i rJ;L� - wwaarL.• r, r I r. : l c lra 5 ..;a ,1 .. 1 r 1 1 63rd 1 $s.� �1• ,_I a, -�.' ; { , ' / � F. i 'i "eginn LaF.-S a'i 1.:".1'l+r +j ' , „, ' , ! -I .. . � : .f 1 G' ER.Ah',S r '' `I3 64th ja -f ! 64th :•" , r'� 1 I. f .{ • ._`'; L•; , s;i ::'; '.a '. t I...i f*:. i i j,®! cif `/ORL9l ( ; f-i i. t:•!.! , S.. 'r rLP 1 `.) 1• C 1 ` y ' 1:a r s['HOO . .;•1 • •. [ i ` • 0 '1 a f . :•:•7 • F' ,::l I. '+:. • IC 11 •• Richfield/ake • , - .•. - - �� r r i S Y t ... '.ARE_ i :"f r't• ."!t• I.,. * �C � , - 65th 65th : It. I. '� I •'ry . �; II ' .� _ ! ti: I .___,-//,A . .1 1 ''' 'Z' 1 Lw•L - ,• .}.7 P ?'� � l ■fie a tif i a Ll :* •: , .��.t'. ::1: �• 4,,1 ••. , ; •j �r' .. i •1;''a• . J : y . a .I , l I r l 11E1 , • j �- j 1 + r , w • : . •7th r ; e� ' �'9 r'i 1 :? ye s.e i 1 1 'r ��9 ,'� t y ' r .'� ,7 } 1 x ! {�' + r,• l' `s .. a:S a r + a s i• L 'r ,.+ a'! a r. ar P j �1 1� a !- .r .. .cseD> s J a 1• °< •� ,I• •a r x + 'f 1 l;a �'.• CATHOLfC 1'•• r;: . , 'i i ee - L':: it, �.i * t:?' a / ,'{, .:c.:,.',....; ;.1 � • I ♦ • 4 • a .■ a : ! a L •1 s i 1 a'i`t 1' 1 ! e i 9• •. ■ r (' • '61 ` :t :t. �.:.►. w� • C• � :': + 1 i'4 •... .. r.S t s S r a _ ,`.s• L' i'yr :a. a' i...: ,; i - • 8th th "JI .. i•,1 .'! ?rL: :i: !'�' Ir;7 M1,. .� 4 d C •a,• 71 ,, "�, 'ti a r.•� i�1 e°i �•%i r•: i..7 •„ , i6__- :u :•!' .. .;�: il . • • : .d y• t, '�.�.. n. •" •r• ... ,..5 pui •.• ,.• - 1 ,1 '°'r f a .I 1• • ;. • '_ r .. •i.Ii1 1•«� 69th• •.__..._.. ,.i.E tr • t. , •• . I 'tr7 '': '•' ■ a ' i 1 L• I J t !/( t S •_I I r' s1 1: I` I ;_ I1 S - 1 . / r.-+ : 1 �Y"�li •-_ ,r, � ...... .•• •..• . .a .a _. _..._ ; _ i •� _ • ,• r...-„._ _ 70th )' °.'. • r ..� `� ;:;j ;r r,, -,r,? !' �... Smr'':'; 1 s 's f 5 ;_. ;,s� t :,',: ,. ? ::a .d ,•7•1:1P ... 70t /2 - ) ti •i••. s L t+ �'• i s r ry ; •�'+ L i '.�'•' +•.q.. .aa. , t• r M r' lr i / i c , .';s I • i.1 I S a'i 1 s. + '� �, �, ••♦ ••�• I. i '�.i '•�' : i"•L t' . '� .�' 1 ;;;.*1 •i I ti, -I .J 1 J i r l .,1 1 I ; •_ i...'.1 ••• . •. .a •^•T 1 ' t • I / t I I , ,L LVTERMEDIATE,.w• •. 4 r. tw •,,•' 'II $t • .' 1 ;:s.L J SCHOOL „ 't ` � '''ti '•I .r �l:r, HrcerrE. ,. :• °_ 71st• '11.'11.� r:,,1::':•: .• •••,..( �` i }±' • v•1 I i. j ! oOt 'l B:: {pr�i S .J : •' - ..L �'I,: t f 7 •d • —• •I.4 a '. • ■ { f.: r. a :i . i t s I.. ..: ! 1 7:�= Li • •{rb F. 1 ■ rr �,': ..a Iii; 71 /2 S Y ! s t x ..s 1;i h:: • II ..r iu= :rrd •r:' F,. e _ F 1 t?i ti� ue ,; :i Sr.a Vii'. a ... y 1 q ••r : 1.1:1.., 1 a 1• •, ' COON . , • . .• 1 1. a✓; • ■• 1:� :'yr I �,, .T r a, si.- ` uDZU• Z ' sf a '� i • 1 1 ! i '` •,', F" •' Ll a t'! •"� _ '. t .,' - ;r1 .L; ::y" d r 11.1 t. ■. •'• ••. j-• al t1 .. i _ ..4•r= 1— 72nd 0 J ti_,r r i,'i i .�� -� a •1': t" •. r r L, r • a •r°.L p,:./:::111;j:�• .l 1 r �! • t f :• : J ..., . 1 rs' ." I i : ! I i • 1 : . ::,• ; ■ fi,'r 1:•' .A Y •�•! � .. ` � .r r ,� i1'. .1•'� 1• '� ••'e 1 ¢ f d . f . s :: 'i�a a. • .1 1. r f , _._ _ Grr• :r: •s 1: p.L� — S I. ∎.•, ;L'! i • •• S : { •.,. •, , r T.. ,a ■ ' i P! ' = '� ' , :''. I 1� •� 1-: •. t'':".1 r. d �1 1, • •r n , •,a. I...i :.: t.•�; .• :'.:• n. .. T w d �'' :L: 'll' w1 r-■ a..i `.: :.'i ::. i.: • ,•.� :::: :• : :•_'-.1s=1 � • 1 -- s: ,. r a. s 1.,. , t 73th ............._ '•;� •, :�t 1 t "'" PI f •.:: : _ �'a' lir �'i`• .e' �l .1 y} ,',.; ; �w� :': :,i • /. i ,•!_:1 ti • t.= a _ . :1 �� ,f' 9�. ,7'r: ,,`: L't :! t .. I.'••1 �•:;; : .xxoD1. ••'t I I- .' •� ��' I •.' ;ar 1,.:� �.r L tr:: s•t s• t'-i ,' ` r : :•.1 • !. •. '7:1 :'i! :1 'w:,i !' • `® �'� I'. ''a !•r: is .:: 'i �.:a /,. :::a x.` • RICHFIELD • • - �•. �i 'th _ MIDDLE irm r - _ •ry;•; a ••• • . 1 ::•:".- ' •_a ; =:, ■.. 1 74th 7•a -SCHOOL° � : L C •a il ir. ! J ' 1111. 'll �t.w.�t, ! : .i 1..it t.:+ i 1'�3 ': i;i .' i 3 :� .;i �.:. a::: •:''• .'r, e _ •1 + '{ • i, r. ., -, 1 i T ti:•j '••`: r',ti i'.i ?r: : r r [;_, • :e•• f' �., ` :•f . f.. i ai J L., J: ..; � ti.i•' {;J .ii- 1� Jth �', aa� ' •. ' •. ,.•, . �~ 75th .� } :BLESSED rwNrrr 0 ' a;.� '`.'' : ti ' '1'j r; •: t • .•.a i•s` I L 1 '.: i I 11::::', : • • �J'• 1 o: •; wooLC 1 1 a. 1. ::r :••s 1•. L 1 i I e •1 L : : ;..• e,}a• j ep' 1 'a 1 r r' II .e t t 1 'L ! a 1 • I 1 4. :� I 1� ;':n '•, L � ~ 11 0. .�. � • _ t 1 r • I` . Z 7 r1 L 1 1-! l. r .•:1 : ^ ..._,.• , I76th . ,:1 _ 1'a a I $ i i' i f ' } ::7-. i 1 •, �II{��1�/ ! 1 � s 9 Loite,I., ,f ! L 1 1 t ,�I� ,.... t? ,�,• ,� - -:.� L11. •, r" P =, :.� 10.I.';:: �.. U •;: ;J�\ 1 l ..; j • '•'..�A 7 . r i....•'' �—'I L — •'_•'' !1 j- * i' 7th .1. r ,; L El"•• I ,Utl ON . 1 P30 78th\'':''y �"_-�s,.� �,.,L'.�- .f .I� �� _ �-j- 71 \ 1-49 ate------ �� .a:1111111111 3 y I r` \ 494 77 . N cli Legend It traffic signals -- Prefered Future Trail Route Identified Alternative On Street Route I Recommended Pedestrian Improvement Area Prefered Future On Street Route Summary of Bike Master Plan .,. s City Council Worksession May 22, 2012 MIINNP.SOTAS \TISIQNu /rnI , P!IF, ��'' Suuru�liL• mgnrui „,,,r;lladrh HRGreen Richfield Bicycle Master Plan Why? What is it? • Lack of comprehensive plan in the past - Coordination and routing issues • Guiding document - Recommendations to consider in future street construction, land redevelopment, policy decisions, etc. • Not a project level document - Provides an "Overall Picture" • Resident driven process - Bicycle Master Plan Task Force 1 ' r I A Richfield Bicycle Master Plan Task Force • Formed by the Transportation Commission with City Council approval to create a comprehensive bicycle master plan consistent with efforts by surrounding communities. • 20 Richfield residents with representation from the Transportation Commission, Planning Commission, Community Services Commission, and Advisory Board of Health. • Staff Liaisons from Recreations Services, Public Works, and Public Health. • Awarded a SHIP (State Health Improvement Program) Grant to help fund the plan development process. Richfield Bicycle Master Plan Task Force Mission To develop a comprehensive bicycle master plan that respects the rights and privileges of the community, connects key destinations within the City, and integrates with the Twin Cities'regional bike network, while promoting the friendly co-existence of bicycle riders and all other modes of transportation. 2 '7'I 1 Richfield Bicycle Master Plan Task Force Vision To promote the friendly co-existence of bicycle riders and other transportation users in Richfield. -4., ,,,, -,„,,..;ir /ea ° 7 i- 4a 3's 7'J. i byre. 1, .f; i ' ff" 1 llif Li it, o 0 10\L.IP 1 1 ..- Richfield Bicycle Master Plan . Task Force Key Objectives • Link Destinations - Link major destination points within the City, including trails connecting to other communities, to encourage visitors and residents to get out and bike. • Improve Safety - Develop safer biking options along City and County roads for both recreation and commuting. • Community Awareness - Remain context sensitive while developing compatible bicycle routes and incorporating bicycle amenities within the community. 3 R Other Input Methods • Publication of a survey to allow for public input and issue identification - Published in English and Spanish - Approximately 550 responses • Use of public input to gather thoughts and concerns relevant to the plan - Three dedicated open houses - Booth at multiple events - All monthly meetings were advertised and open to the public t Identified Potential Benefits of Improved Bicycle Facilities • Economic - Increased Tourism and Recreational-related Revenues - Increased Productivity - Increased Real Estate Values - Reduced Maintenance and Operating Costs • Streets,Vehicle, Health - Less Congestion 4 Identified Potential Benefits of Improved Bicycle Facilities • Health - Increased Access to Parks, Schools, Libraries, and Other Community Assets - Increased Physical Activity - Zero Emission Transportation Option Identified Potential Benefits of Improved Bicycle Facilities • Safety - Increase Awareness on High Traffic Routes • Dedicated Infrastructure • Signage/Striping - Focus on Safer Routes to Schools - Account for Different Definitions of"Safe" • Types of Bicyclists 5 r f Primary Bicycle Recommendations Local Users Ream/Cond. Commuter Users Regional Users •Improve er.Nam.ms(Me map,eohem.mesa.. • tr..aens.(aaa ..o.....- m•admal90daeeetle •maawe.v....r • ........ • `°tl �`s°waft= 'Wane aSUmmen(W trek laws(8�dm8bbde) (wmmemm.ap.trm.nmr •mm..mm.aw we. n.►nm .e..a Wm .Hmbwau.u..t.(pCO6rpmaflW •Fm.MFade LS.maMS •mmCP.i (...../.2.0 � ay ' •6181.01¢ dWO amdel •�H ®.N.rC. a...aa.v..r o bt1.5.9....015..Pbseestripeolding prea& shows&amme) ......,.......,...-...,0 1 •Rork%acme*de 6 .P.Mdes.findEVAMWOMAdhb, •Radio pdamyWO°atoms el Yeyma9tld..(.Pae. °e°m .!ffi.ma •en.o raw..st�.e • ®e••1n 1.o��•o 1.11.1.11.11..h. eolmb.1...Yeyembyete.s0-) 'Hob a. Cade .� eefim Ias.mm . .>•m. . •Egan!Nice Poe Unmade bathe ido Rkh l •.. aanovue.0l11b0aYm •a0..amcyy58.a6GLm. .aaJ..aw I• Nat.the CAye amodel.d employer o tioYang empol6es by Foaling molting. • •101.0.9 W.A. gle.Imp.$0001.madta. •w..r.a.....•eGEd ao.putiCrede8.. .em..) •Oao.sr.m.omeva aQ�..lel le..a. 1 (.a.. . . m • . aA...SRObb&hV . 'exam........dlbYfl dNc a '0) • b.rman .� ey�m IPOma Pmpmmo) N .WB•bmad.emro Rk8BU puovemea . mm.d...,... •Esle�a a BmVFmNpp@ary=mato far non a...a mos..sk wrta,,,,mfekyye. `_ ua...eaar=Wad mob&rymwatts the Ttansportalbn �' �mv.semtrlmna.a •P(p1le accessible deetlmd.. •rnw.00tm...,.w..uT •Pnyhda roptindiogleigrage for tlq 9nm .evrn. •Pm RQBWBydedmdBaBleemm=wigs • oe...edaamm.MV....ve •PrealdapicalyMole ohmage etr.ydeeBmdens Vaal 'O.ta•.01....0....rpap •aa{..w.aea®.... ma.agatr...1a womb.padadarempkdma et.A •awnam.ea.be..(...l.io.l.a ..uam •.. w.s..ma. Infine4pamle `Expend•oydeRide aota fSibenNo NOlsdd °ase/sa.....an» *e.g...my...a .aa ...w•+.y�s....• 'We 0,04of mdsekte omdetempbM(e...age •...octal)alE.m aw.a�e••teebbleseepote.Ort�a. ab .ti-p.bam,.e.b.. mw.xaeneama.ow •1...a..a.....t sha.ws` emwgmww .MRO.�agaaw.9. ... BhO.MeBstrien) O.da+s •Immlhr.BW.dfelam.imam B winnows pavements'� aaag..i 7g 'F C Four E' - s — Education Plan Recommendations ISA • Safety Programs - Expansion of Safety Camp - Helmet/Lights Giveaways • Creation of Bicycle Ambassador • Creation of Bicycle Advisory Committee • Education Campaign - Motorists and Bicyclists • Safe Routes to School • School Programs - Orientation Integration or Stand Alone Event 6 7- 5#0 Four E's — Encouragement Plan Recommendations • School Competitions or Challenges • Existing Challenges - Commuter Challenge - Bike to Work Week/Day • "Passport" Program for City Parks • Discount Programs - Public/Private Businesses - Farmers Market Example • Increased Requirements/Encouragements for Developers • Expand "Nice Ride" Program into Richfield Four Es — Enforcement Plan Recommendations 1 • Bicycle Enforcement Officer - Coordination with Three Rivers Park Police • Reduce Vehicle Speeds I • Enforcement of All Modes i • Improve Bicycle Awareness - Maps - Media - Website - Outreach 7 1-51 Route Identification CITY OF RICHFIELD roao.eea ®J -BICYCLE MASTER PLANNING- A � . Routes Worksheet- °"°�'$`°°�`° 'TIffiSep. _ 1titli�ll-1MMh ills i>EliVil�lj/e IIBt-' L's-�!.)= �1 ' 3, ! c !..wv l �•11-25 s j i I, � A fl iL ---i �}!'ri j 11 i, 1 �ir. . s °� �a�.�an I ' - d;Jii 1 11 y Zi 1 1 ; r � 1 1 ' a-T _ �,rm. /� , f I I1.1 {j. \ } ,l; 1\ �. ,f I. ({1 3 u— nmmuem I F jf'l - . I' 1L'). i Ii fT ;r A -\,-,--- L a. i �.'I p 11I� !r! �rli _ .,» `l ilt t�,��. I, ..'.,.,. } • I 11, I�j,�p. -,, _ 1 _� P1. 1 I Z r 1 a 110:72.,t;„, • .I � ,yam 'j- 7” . �I•• i r.. a, I r 1,1 hxw 1. f r ♦ { 1 1,1 1I t...i I 1 III ' 1 I f 1 . If tt`1 6>.j l'� 11111 IJ 1� - _ i E i _,I -I � _1 ! � ._� � to�.: t ( ��i�1 �'I Ij r� 'I b. �4_ r E i' _ e x ±�ry-/e� r � _ � ',.vim ` 111 fiPilitil :-":-11111V: VI 1 li �1A @®@S ., plillinlic Routes CITY OF'RICHFIELD - 1 -.BICYCLE MASTER PLANNING- j I ... 1 : i •ExtstingfApproved Routes- �4 t�1 `, ,9 y- I II II��I OPT r� rte'- II li � 1.KEIVQCI I 4#I III ' ��' iI� 1t i -_ �w4 'Mill i rZiMaNtI I l lii 1� Gail i€ ., ;ill; I'& : �� _,k,311r1 ii IP . I.v unpin 1ri ' !1 !, 110-+� ,.l� lair : 1a .4, 1 e` ,,' armosit i_11 1 I)1'�ItI IIryt :; -. ° 19l *0 s1 I eI Idbl• .:111361'lYl° a m� ' I , fill I i t V.i 1 f ' liifl ll�tt g Ili ' J' '�1- M lin r ' I`t4C l Pl lay I-;X71;l ff `i . m ` o4`1 fig: _ 1 ri,7-411mEniiiirtl ittironvomatarlsi woman 1 IiigiftitigitiaalM 15161E J.Y �, — `fir 1, x= `'L'.4 Z°i S r $ it. ip 1iir gg . if moist ,1 i'p __ - irea it Legend onsreetrsama 8 -7- 5a Routes J CITY OF RICHFIELD flr a ® .BICYCLE MASTER PLANNING- g ° _ II it J ! 1 I�� ProposedlPrefered Routes- ,.-� I -e , >t t 14 vow�I r ii it 111 r+ itNlXtlx:II rI r� i far ! !1T I;�II1 11 ,�,_ irkiis�1�� ki it iii .$ 11 [,i�l�� l l ' Ii 1I �l alto l tr,ii . 7-.it li t 1 11 ;' i f 1 ; #1 V I [IIe!'1 tVet!lfi'�I Ill , I11 TIl 1 111�,116111,Ti t ` , af[.�11 Elhlh 1 1 (i ti lii I�' [a� ': JIi Ik,t?J=MM r r3Jr'i,I ilil1illh1rI� CII 1 1l 11l1 11 its"I Iripill Kam(~ J'J lal • - : Fill, -i 4 ri:lel $I 11, I ? I;`.ffi rita i'ill 1i 4 . -I `IRO 11 N f t la , dal. tiiN'a. iiirtrfI1,�1 �y �. I'uaFZ " �I.�I_iiIJIII�ilta'�dl�l� ?1131-fl w u` , Y � „!r;ll�l �'�:I` I� ,1J` I �{?. ('�IIII:JI 'r �lall Il f '�° J 1: �IY�, ii�lt l l'i 111 � 11 J<11. I u I r , II 3 �. ;il�i4�1��$iJE�it�I�JIII�I� �l� il� i �� I � � �I� �� gi�li�J��l,� l��h�l�ll Illil�ilki�l� �•�� JI3lI��11 �T�11�� Illi ? I1 111C11�11111111111i1 �1h� �1 ,- -- I P "r17:14-1 : 1 1�R �`� ��atagtaml ,,,_7: r...' — 1 - Existing Off Street Tree =°=Propmatl Off Stsetlia➢®Preened Future WI Race Exivg6g On Street Route Fretted return On Street R•••,. ,, Routes dCITY OF'RICHFIELD _N Rf,` i k1;{19 L a 1 -BICYCLE MASTER PLANNING- ,- 1 r T .�� — -Identified Alternative Routes- I V I s' gl !E j i r'1 �f, �' z igii 11MI . l ,t) to milt.NioL 1 i r Illl�ll l ,i , ej r 117111110.411tli (I ,akI , _!INS,�la�11,isJ I .IJI Iil.1.- �M 'III ('I rnr••..._ 431. z tIg1i!+a tti xg v a1 tt�il=_:I I i'I II�o 4i"li ii II t '!I 11`.�i 1401 _ 11 11 11 Sgt yr l7'7'YI;ICIi l' v Il 10/0140 ISI I;�h,! 1'l„lal I Ir � �F.oa., ,,y� S 9 y ( $ly f ' 1 `i 14 S. (y I i al�bt it1 li. gte 1.,I !1r v II k skin "h if, JtliP 11tO,Ji� 9,�fal� aig ill R a1 �°•J 1 irrfl ,;* s l,l a'JJfll t'1) r�`�L� I--�I Jplf I to 1pII I I ti�: 1, f x I"c" T ' f 1 : fl i „ it. , to'i �k ill � o °l - 3 I . 3 RhC i`iit1 5iii ghti i IYI J1 a +I • , g. z -c 10 I Lnv c m 1 s � rrt I iI R �� et ,datitsTe tt 1 E11111, �191 . I IIIIii Iiri i i - i Al.d Tr�, 7 19rIt � 1 1h�[� I 1 lm: J �1 `�,_1.� - � j 0 1[TO 1:Legend I-1 I 1 T i r I i-4,,,,l®Prefered Future Trail Rage ®a.ldetgthdMamba On Street•• _• ®Pretefed Future On Street Route er■ 9 1 -53 Four E's — Engineering Plan Recommendations • Master Plan provides common examples of facilities • Does not specify or recommend specific treatments or street sections for the identified routes • In general, engineering would be completed on a route by route basis as needs and concerns are identified through a public process. ' Implementation - Identified Key Partners • Public Works • Law Enforcement • Park & Recreation - Programming • Schools • Businesses 10 "7-54 Implementation - Process Recommendations • Opportunity Based Implementation - Funding Source Identified - Public Involvement Plan Executed - Transportation Commission Recommendation - City Council Approval • Implementation Route Priority - Scheduled Street Projects - Community Benefit • Destinations • Commuter Routes • Recreational Connections I — — J Implementation - Maintenance Recommendations • General Maintenance Program - In-street facilities part of Street Pavement Management Program - Trail Maintenance Program (Non-TRPD) is in progress - Winter Maintenance Policy discussion is in process • Three Rivers Park District handles pavement maintenance of Regional Trails - Snow removal performed by the City per agreement 11 1 - 05 7- Draft Review Process • Public Review Draft Plan - Posted on City Website 3/20/12 - Available for review at Richfield Public Works Building • Public Open House - Wednesday, March 28, 2012 • One-Month Comment Period - Concluded April 20, 2012 • Comment Response and Plan Revisions Bicycle Master Plan Comments/Responses 12 Comments/Revisions 1 • "Add implementation coordination with other City street maintenance projects." Based on the feedback and defined guidelines,the preferred bake routes were identified Dependant on existing conditions,finding opportunities,neighborhood involvement and continued evaluation these routes may begin to be implemented into Richfield's infrastructure improvements.KT iaowlly,ninny of the recommended routes coidd be implemented through coordination with the City Pavement Managament_prwith little impact on existing operationaj Comments/Revisions CITY OF RICNFIELD 41111M d BICYCLE MASTER PLANNING- y ! ,Prefered Routes- $ t 3 , i,i e. A t ii i a e e e '`-'me -r p '4 �� t1,A?l I r , Rt0 IILI dial �'! ' 1r4k ; l� 1W li F��i I 11� Ff . lisp 81 ) itl�r I t 11 I, i I %1 fi F F "1 it `,f t � i i IFFIee�(� � �� I w!r,ti I N�I � I�ti19aP i Slt 1 Y 1�1r1�4 �1� 1 i a vin EIS -�, fib T I 1 I i „f f_ :.,'iI JL•tit� 9 m l m r. Legend in Edging Tree -Extsare OCeeeetThe • ••RN"Petered Fut=Reil Routs ••• ••Eclairs On etreenROSa t•�--.&1?Metered Fut=On Street Route Mt nMeaa®etTed IJ Recommended PedeseletrlmpraxventAtea 13 1-59 Comments/Revisions • Recommend Public Safety use bicycle patrols at events. . • Enforcement is key/critical. Enforcement (Law Enforcement helps to improve the safety of all modes of on in Richfield end will be a critical factor in the success and safety of Richfield's bicycle network As Richfield continues to evolve,the Richfield Police Department may need to adjust for a higher volume ofbicycle traffic ontratas and streets.For example the Department may need to have a bicycle enforcement officer who periodically travels the routes. V lcerr iiiitrolhng major events could do so on bicycles.This would show support for b ig Richfield;as well as make it easier for officers to patrol the evectAlso,the Department may provide introductory and ongoing training in the community,regarding enforcement of the traffic laws that create both a safe bicycling and driving environment,as outlined above. writtsilet.J Comments/Revisions • Involve the business community. • Make incentives like reduced parking for developments to put in more bicycle facilities. Encomasemeut Encomia Business Pte, A special emphasis should be put on outreach to local businesses to get their support anal hake their locations safe,attractive destinations for bicyclists.Possible program mplemented in other cities include a btlte rack cost share program aadreducedpem� vgeirements for new developments when enhanced bicycle facilities are included, 14 1-51 Comments/Revisions • Winter maintenance (snow removal)priority should be dependant on severity of the storm. ➢ This should be addressed in a stand alone Winter Street Maintenance Policy. • Consider some level of prioritization to be ready for grants or other outside funding. > All routes are given equal weight in the plan so as to not limit the order of implementation when an opportunity arises. Any route identified in an approved master plan will be at an advantage in grant competition. Draft Review and Approval Process • Transportation Commission Recommendation - May Meeting • City Council - May Worksession - June consideration 15 • 1 -5'1 ir 4v- Thank You!} Questions? "; Jeff Pearson JPearson@cityofrichfield.org. 5 612.861.9791 f 16