04-24-07 Agenda-CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
TUESDAY, APRIL 24, 2007
SPECIAL CONCURRENT RICHFIELD CITY COUNCIL
AND
RICHFIELD SCHOOL .BOARD MEETING
COUNCIL CHAMBERS
6700 PORTLAND AVENUE
5:30 P.M.
AGENDA
Call to order
1. Update on City activities/initiatives
Notes:
2. Update on School District activities/initiatives
Notes:
3. Adjournment
REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING
COUNCIL CHAMBERS
6700 PORTLAND AVENUE
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 Worksession of April 10, 2007 and (2)
Regular City Council Meeting of April 10, 2007.
PRESENTATIONS
1. Presentation of Richfield Restaurant Recognition Awards by Richfield Advisory Board of
Health: (Council Memo No. 70)
Full Service Restaurant
Broadway Pizza -Winner
Bon Apetit (Best Buy location) -Nominee
Patrick's Bakery -Nominee
Thompson's Fireside Pizza -Nominee '
Limited Service Food Service
Staffbucks -Winner
Border's Cafe -Nominee
Fast Food/Pizza Cafeteria Service
Chipotle - Winner-
Quizno's -Nominee
Taco Bell -Nominee
2. Presentation of proclamation designating May as Arbor Month in Richfield
COUNCIL DISCUSSION
3. Council discussion
• Hats Off To Hometown Hits
Notes:
AGENDA APPROVAL
4. Council approval of agenda
CONSENT CALENDAR
5. Consent Calendar contains several separate- items, which are acted upon by the City
Council in one motion. Once the Consent Calendar has been approved, the individual
items and recommended actions have also been approved. No further Council action 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 continuing public hearing and second reading to May 8,
2007 of amendment to Richfield Zoning Code Section 546 to allow variances processed
in conjunction with another planning and zoning request that .requires City Council
approval S.R: No. 101
B. Consideration of approval of resolution authorizing Public Safety Department to accept
$1500 grant from Hennepin County for Joint Community Police Partnership program
S.R. No. 102.
C. Consideration of approval of resolution authorizing City to enter into three-year
agreement with The Standard Insurance Company for long-term disability insurance
benefits S.R. No. 103
D. Consideration of approval of purchase of Maenke Brothers Outdoor, Inc. services for
landscape maintenance of Lyndale/Hub/Nicollet and 77th Street districts and 35W and
66th Street bridge area in amount of $39,577 S.R. No. 104
E. Consideration of approval of bid minutes/tabulation and award of contract to North Star
Tree Care for 2007 diseased tree removal on private property in amount of $106,980
S.R. No. 105
Notes:
6. Consideration of items, if any, removed from Consent Calendar
Notes:
PUBLIC HEARINGS
7. Public hearing regarding issuance of new 2007 on-sale wine liquor and 3.2 percent malt
liquor licenses for Naviya's Thai Restaurant, 6345 Penn Avenue
Staff Report No. 106
Notes:
8. Public hearing regarding acceptance of Richfield's Wellhead Protection Plan Part 2
Staff Report No. 107
Notes:
9. Public hearing regarding preliminary resolution approving financing of multi-family housing
.development project undertaken by @ Home Apartments dba as Lynwood Partners, L.L.C.;
7437 Lyndale Avenue
Staff Report No. 108
Notes:
RESOLUTIONS
10. Consideration of resolution committing that City will not sell or encumber through
easement or license or otherwise, any land that it owns within the area covered in
preliminary agreement between Richfield HRA and United Bankers' Bank
Staff Report No. 109
Notes:
11. Consideration of resolution committing that City will not sell or encumber through
easement or license or otherwise, any land that it owns within the area covered in
preliminary agreement between Richfield HRA and TOLD Development Company
Staff Report No. 110
Notes:
OTHER BUSINESS
12. Consideration-of-right of entry agreement for use of portions of 6701-18th Avenue; 6709-18th
Avenue, 6721-18th Avenue-and 6700 Cedar Avenue by United Bankers' Bank.
Staff Report No. 111
Notes:
13. Consideration of right-of-entry agreement for use of portions of lots southerly of 66th Street
East between 66th and 69th Streets between 17th Avenue and Trunk Highway 77 by TOLD
Development Company
Staff Report No. 112
Notes:
14. Consideration purchase agreement between City and Cornerstone Advocacy Service,
owner of property at 6600 Oakland Avenue, as part of 66th Street and Portland Avenue
intersection project
Staff Report No. 113
Notes:.
15. Consideration of bid minutes/tabulation and award of contract to Northern Water Works
Supply Company for water meter replacement and installation of automated meter reading
system in amount of $2,496,252.28
Staff Report No. 114
Notes:
CITY MANAGER'S REPORT
16. City Manager's report
Notes:
17. 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:
18. 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.
AGENDA SECTION: CONSENT
AGENDA ITEM # 5A
REPORT # 101
STAFF REPORT
CITY COUNCIL MEETING
APRIL 24, 2007
REPORT PREPARED BY:
MELISSA POEHLMAN, PLANNING &
ZONING ADMINISTRATOR
NAME,- TrrLE
COUNCIL PRESENTER:
DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR
REVIEW:
REVIEWED BY CITY
MANAGER:
ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION:
Continue the public hearing and consideration of a second reading of an amendment to
Richfield Zoning Code Section 546 to allow variances processed in conjunction with another
aaplication to be heard and decided upon by the City Council to May $, 2007.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
By Motion: Continue the public hearing and second reading
regarding an amendment to Richfield Zoning Code Subsections
546.03 and 546.09 to allow the City Council to hear and decide
requests for variances when processed in conjunction with another
planning and zoning request that requires. Council approval to May 8,
2007.
II. BACKGROUND
On February 13, 2007 the Council approved a first reading of proposed ordinance
changes that would allow the Council to hear variance cases when they were
processed in conjunction with another planning and zoning request. Upon further
review by the City Attorney, there are some minor additional changes that should be
made to clarify the process that will be followed when the Council will hear said
cases. These changes are minor and are in keeping with the intent of the
042407 -Continue 2nd reading ord. amend re: variances
Ordinance approved at the first reading, therefore once these minor changes have
been made, the Ordinance will continue directly to a public hearing and second
reading on May 8, 2007.
III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION
A. POLICY
• Seek clarity in Ordinance revisions.
B. CRITICAL ISSUES
• It is better to delay the second reading and public hearing by two
weeks to ensure that the language of the Zoning Code is clear, rather
than amending the Ordinance again at a later date.
C. FINANCIAL
• N/A
D. LEGAL
• . The City Attorney recommends that additional minor changes are
made in order to clarify the Ordinance.
IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION~S~
• N/A
V. ATTACHMENTS
• N/A
VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING
• None.
AGENDA SECTION: AGENDA
AGENDA ITEM # 5B
REPORT # 102
D
STAFF REPORT
CITY COUNCIL MEETING
APRIL 24, 2007
REPORT PREPARED BY:
LIEUTENANT TODD SANDELL
NAME, TITLE
COUNCIL PRESENTER:
DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR
REVIEW:
REVIEWED BY CITY
MANAGER:
ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION:
Consider a request to accept grant money from Hennepin County for the Joint Community
Police Partnershi ro ram.
I. RECOMMENDED ACTION:
By Motion: Approve the attached resolution to accept one thousand
and five Hundred Dollars ($1500} from Hennepin County for the Joint
Community Police Partnershia aroaram.
II. BACKGROUND
The Richfield Police Department has accepted a grant from Hennepin County for
the Joint Community Police Partnership (JCPP). The $1500 is to establish a fund to
purchase food, beverages and related supplies (cups, napkins, silverware, plates)
for community meetings, events and training that are organized by staff working
with the JCPP. The focus of the meetings and events will center on increasing
community members' awareness or knowledge of law enforcement procedures
and/or the criminal justice system.
0424 Resolution to Accept Hennepin County JCPP Program Grant Monies
III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION
A. POLICY
• City Council approval is needed to accept grant funds.
B. CRITICAL ISSUES
• Public Safety does not accept financial support unless it is designated
for a specific program that will affect the department as a whole.
• Minnesota Statute 465.03 requires every. acceptance of a grant or
devise of real or personal property on terms prescribed by the donor
be made by resolution of more than two-thirds majority of the City
Council
The Administrative Services Department issued a memo on
November 9, 2004 requiring that all grants and restricted donation to
departments be received by resolution and by more than two-thirds
majority of the City Council in accordance with Minnesota Statute
465.03.
The funds are necessary to purchase needed food and supplies for
community meetings.
Approval at the April 24, 2007 Council meeting wil'I facilitate delivery of
the funds.
C. FINANCIAL
• Hennepin County provides, the funds.
• No City funds will be used for this purpose.
D. LEGAL
• N/A
IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATIONS}
• Council could deny the resolution and the -funds would be returned to
Hennepin County.
V. ATTACHMENTS
• Resolution No.
VL PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING
• None
-- I
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING RICHFIELD PUBLIC SAFETY/POLICE TO ACCEPT A
GRANT IN THE AMOUNT OF $1500 FROM THE HENNEPIN COUNTY JOINT
COMMUNITY POLIGE PARTNERSHIP PROGRAM
WHEREAS, the City of Richfield, Public Safety Department/Police has received
notification that the Hennepin County Joint Community Police Partnership is awarding a
grant of $1500; and,
WHEREAS, the department- has been further notified that the $1500 grant is to
establish a fund to purchase food, beverages and related supplies. (cups, napkins,
silverware, plates) for community meetings, events and training that are organized by staff
working with the JCPP; and
WHEREAS, Minnesota Statute requires every acceptance of a grant or devise of
real or personal property on terms prescribed by the donor be made by resolution of more
than two-thirds majority of the City Council; and
WHEREAS, the department agrees that the donated funds will be used only for the
purchase of items as indicated above and in the terms of the agreement.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Director of Public Safety will
accept the grant of $1500 in the name of the City of Richfield Police to be used for the
purchase of items specified in paragraph two of this resolution.
Adopted by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this 24th day of April
2007.
Debbie Goettei, Mayor
ATTEST:
Nancy Gibbs, City Clerk
AGENDA SECTION: C.nNSENT
AGENDA ITEM # 5(;
REPORT # 103
STAFF REPORT
CITY COUNCIL MEETING
APRIL 24, 2007
REPORT PREPARED BY:
STEVEN L DEVICH, CITY MANAGER
NAME, TITLE
REPORT PRESENTER:
REVIEWED BY CITY MANAGER:
ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION:
Consideration of a resolution authorizing the City Manager to execute an agreement with The
Standard Insurance Com an for Ion -term disabilit insurance benefits.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
By Motion: Adopt the attached resolution authorizing the City
Manger to enter into athree-year agreement with The Standard
Insurance Company for long-term disability insurance benefits.
II. BACKGROUND
The City currently provides long-term disability (LTD) insurance benefits to all full-
time employees. The City first began providing this benefit to certain employee
groups in 1982. For the past seven years, the City's LTD provider has been Fortis
Insurance. Pursuant to State law, cities must advertise for bids for LTD coverage at
least once every five years. The City last went out to bid and chose to renew with
Fortis in 2002.
In March 2007, the City of Richfield, through its agent, Mercer (a division of Marsh
USA, Inc.) advertised for bids and solicited proposals from eight carriers for LTD
coverage. Of the eight carriers, two declined to submit a quote. The primary
reasons for not submitting quotes centered on the small size of the group and the
relatively large proportion of police and fire employees within the group.
After reviewing the quotes submitted with the assistance of Mercer, it is apparent
that The Standard Insurance Company options offer the lowest bids and provide the
042407 LTD
level of benefits requested in the proposal. In addition, the Standard policy has
enhanced features the current Fortis policy does not have including:
• Maximum monthly benefit increased from $4,500 with Fortis to~ $6,000 with
Standard
• $25,000-for worksite modification
• Increased COLA benefit
Of particular interest, the Mercer representatives advised. staff that the City's strong
success with its Wellness Program had a significant impact on The Standard
Insurance Company's low bid.
III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION
The City provides LTD insurance benefits to of its fulltime employees.
Some of the LTD benefits are provided through obligations
established within collective bargaining agreements with City
employees groups.
B. CRITICAL ISSUES
• The City's current contract is with Fortis and will be canceled effective
April 30, 2007. City Council action on this matter is requested on April
24, 2007 to ensure a smooth transition into the May 1, 2007 contract
with The Standard Insurance Company.
C. FINANCIAL
• Standard has submitted a proposal for a premium rate of $0.34 per
$100 of covered payroll for athree-year period. With a "hardening" of
the insurance market and the past experience of the Richfield group, it
would seem to be prudent to secure athree-year contract at the very
competitive rates offered by Standard.
• The City's current rate is $0.45 per $100 of covered payroll.
• The annual savings to-the City will be approximately $12,287.
D. LEGAL
• The City must seek bids for LTD coverage at least once every five
years. The City is meeting this statutory obligation.
ALTERNATIVE KECOMMENDATION(S) ~
• Approve the LTD agreement with The Standard Insurance Company for a
three-year period at a cost of $0.34 per $100 of covered payroll for an annual
premium of $39,528.
V . ATTACHMENTS ~
• Resolution
• Bid comparison prepared by Mercer.
AL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING I
•
~s~ .
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE
AN AGREEMENT WITH THE STANDARD INSURANCE COMPANY FOR
LONG-TERM DISABILITY INSURANCE BENEFITS
WHEREAS,-the City has provides long-term disability insurance benefits to all
fulltime employees; and
WHEREAS, the City is required by Minnesota statutes to request proposals for
group- insurance coverage at least once every five years; and
WHEREAS, the City requested proposals for long-term disability insurance for
benefit years beginning in 2007; and
WHEREAS, the City made benefit and cost comparisons evaluating all of the
proposals., using written criteria; and
WHEREAS, The Standard Insurance Company provided the lowest premium cost
and met all of the City's criteria; and
WHEREAS, the proposed premium rate is $0.34 per $100 of covered payroll for
three years.
NOW, THEREFORE,.. BE IT RESOLVED the City Manager is authorized to execute
an agreement with The Standard Insurance Company for long-term disability insurance
benefits for athree-year period beginning May 1, 2007.
Adopted by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this 24th day of April.
2007.
Debbie Goettel, Mayor
ATTEST:
Nancy Gibbs, City Clerk
~C-~
~ 0
Q
.~ ~ N
T
•~
a
y.. ~ ~
O
~+ ~ ~
^.~ ~_
W
~~/
J
o ~:
z
cC 7 C, ~ ~o p p ~ N of cO ,Y '~ O y O O O G N N N . N ~ ~ ~ r
o o ~ ' ~ ~ ° fs. M ~ ~ .3 ~ ~ ~^ ~ Bpi" ;Z ~ ?~ ~ ~ ~+ ~ o .r; ~'
co &4 . O s4 E,H ~ N - N Q ~p N t~} - r.,y ~ 6R =f~ ~-
~ ~
N w ~
W
E
w Q
s x
f!
'~ 7 N ~ O ~ O CZ. ^' -~ C F' L J G Cr Z Z v ~ 'll y in "Y ^.
00 6F} ' ra O s~ ~' ~7 ~ ~ ~] ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ =i4
~ ~ n
W
y
o a> ti ~
Y o ~ p ~ N ~
y v °' C ~ a ° ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ o en
0 ~ N ~ o
O p 0
O -a o
~
O a
O
~ ~ N N
O O O
~ o a
O N N N N 7 'JO
0 ~ ~ ~ M C U ~ O z ~ ~.
~ GF? N O ~ ~ M M ~ ~ " ~ ~ 4R f- •v
LI N ~ ~ N ~ ~ ~ A M
o ~ o ~ Q
W
d ~
W
~ o ~
L ~
.C Q
W
r
-
~
M
.~r,
c7
00
cS
'
v
O
O
~I
~
.~
~
y
v -.
~
_
CCC O
O
-
J
,. rn
~ll
J 7
~ ~
~: ~ r.
.~:
0
oo
r=R
N
o
~
_
~
~
,,.
cr
m
N
sc
,
~
f-
f
_
U^ N `o ~
W W
b
o a~
~~
~ ti
L~
~
b
M
~
~ o
O
O
~
«s
N , 3 ~
.~
Q b
a> ~ t 3 ~
C b ~
O a~
Z. Q
x+
O ,y c
Q N
O ^fl
~
O
<n
a~ o
O
O
v
a> ,,~~,
^
<n
- a>
Fn
a>
y
N
-~
N vii
~
N
M -'
r -rr
r
p N ~ O CI+ .-+
M O ~ ~
~ ~"' ~" N ~"' O
~ ,"' ~" .y' ~"' ~ O
o
0
'"~ 6R cn O
^ E/} ~ ~' .a +~-`
~ ~ p +'' G
' ~ ~
tr9
cn
~ E
R-
LL N
.. p
O N ~ ~ ~ ~ cY1 ~
~ U ~
W W
o N N N
Q C ~
~ ~
^ ~
eh aY
O
s.,
~
~ O
p
~ N
.. ^
O a~ ~ G b ~
O ~ Z Z
V] i+
O
O y
a) ~
a) ~
N '
"'
0 m
N w
a) m
a) ~
~ V1
~ 7 ~
,.r ^
:C
~ O ~., °' ° ' w M ~ G ~ 5 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~+ ?+ ~+ in ~' ,
-r` er
o
` ~ ~ ~ L , r
w ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
w ~ w
o ,~ a
~
~ ~ ~ ~
~ a
~ o
a
~
o
~ 0
~
>
~ .
a. +., ~ ~ ~ ~ A ~ p•
'~ i;
.
b ~ ~
" ~ ~ ~ ~ Y ~
~' ~ ~,
t s
tr
O y F
~ O
F C
O ~
:C ++
d ~ y
1r' O
r:+
~
O
O .
>
^d u a~ ~ ~; ~' s°~. F .a ?a ~ a~i cue ~ E >, ~ j _
O _
S'i
M-1 L' ~ d ~
y
C
S]
~ O ;. i
~
a
O
it ~ w Cry +.+ O y vi ~ W ~. O J
~ °
' ~ °
a
~
~ ~ ~ ~
~ ~ ~
~ a
~ o
~ ~
O d a y
~ o
~ ~
d A
~ ~ ~ = r
q
.
~
~
~ ~ ~
~
>
;o •^
~ ~ ~ ~ v a
'~ d .c p ~ ~ ~ o o c ~ 'ca c ~ ; o ~ ~ ~'
~a p ~ ~ n a ~ v~ ra A o ~ ~ 3 v, v~ 3 C~ a x ~ x c: %
v
d
Lv a
w
U °'
Ly
w
AGENDA SECTION: CONSENT
AGENDA ITEM # SD
REPORT # 104
~- STAFF REPORT
CITY COUNCIL MEETING
APRIL 24, 2007
REPORT PREPARED BY:
MARK HALL, FLEET & PARK
SUPERVISOR
NAME, TITLE
COUNCIL PRESENTER:
DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR
REVIEW:
REVIEWED BY CITY
MANAGER:
ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION:
Consideration of authorizing staff to hire Maenke Brothers Outdoor, Inc. to provide landscape
maintenance for LHN and 77th Street maintenance districts, and also the 35W and. 66th Street
brid a area.
I. RECOMMENDED ACTION:
By Motion: Approve the purchase of Maenke Brothers Outdoor, Inc.
services for the landscape maintenance of LHN, and 77th Street
districts and the 35W and 66th Street bridge area for the total cost of
$39,577.
II. BACKGROUND
Richfield's two assessment districts, LHN and 77th Street, along with the 35W and
66th Street bridge, landscape maintenance contracts expired at the, end of 2006.
This contract includes mowing, fertilizing and weed control, pruning, and spring -
fall cleanup. This is a one-year contract with atwo-year renewal clause. Staff
• contacted several companies by phone and placed an ad in the Star Tribune.
Three quotes were received in return. .
042407LHN77TH
III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION
A. POLICY
• Contracts or purchases from $10,000 to $50,000 may be made
obtaining two or more quotations for the purchase or sale
• Maenke Brothers Outdoor, Inc. had the lowest quotation for all three of
the landscaping maintenance districts.
• All quotations must be kept on file for a period of one year after receipt
thereof.
B. CRITICAL ISSUES
• Approval at the April 24, 2007 Council Meeting will expedite the
landscaping maintenance of these districts.
Maenke Brothers Outdoor, Inc. has been an excellent contractor in the
past.
C. FINANCIAL
• Funding for the LHN and 77th Street districts will be from
assessments to adjacent businesses.
• Funding for the 35W and 66th Street bridge maintenance will be from
the street maintenance operating budget.
D. LEGAL
• When the cost of labor exceeds $25,000, authority to hire shall be
submitted to the City Council for consideration.
IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION~S~
• Council. may request additional quotes, but staff feels the price quotations
from Maenke Brother's are reasonable and they have a good working
relationship with the City.
V. ATTACHMENTS
• Bid quote sheet.
VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING
• None
C
C
~ -~l .
ti o a
_
C N O ti
~ O O ~
I'`
00 N
00 O
M
Efl Ef} d~}
,}:
s ~ o° °o
~
t0 CO N N
j O I'~ ~
~ ~ O d'
M Ef3 Ef3 E!}
~
M O
O O
O
Z 0 ~ N
=
J o
0
of ~ 00
~ N O
N
~ r--
~
~
d
i r-
O O
O O
O
t/~ M ~ ~
~ M O ~
r' ~ COO N
N
U C)
~
_
~~ N
L
v+ z ~ O
~ N ~ N ~ ~ M
(p ~~
~ j z N >~-
U Q N ~ O~
~~~
ti U
~Q~O
~ (6~~
~ >z~
C
N
~ ~ N~ C
O'er 0~0
~~~~
~ C O~ ~ ~~~ mN QjCO
°
r ~~j ~oNO ~ ~ ~
N~ O ~~>rn
O
~i N
~~ ~N
O~ O~ cn
N~ LN
- ~
~ (6
Q UN~cO O
i-MWC cL~m~
2
H
ti
ti
Z
ti
O
N
0
AGENDA-SECTION: , CONSENT
AGENDA ITEM # 5E
REPORT # 1Qrj
STAFF REPORT
CITY COUNCIL MEETING
APRIL 24, 2007
REPORT PREPARED BY: RAYMOND WROBLEWSKI, FORESTRY
TNSPECTOR/OPERATIONS ASSISTANT
NAME, TITLE
COUNCIL PRESENTER:
DEPARTMENT. DIRECTOR REVIEW
SIGNA
REVIEWED BY CITY MANAGER:
ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION:
Consideration of award of contract to North Star Tree,Care in the amount of $106,980 fora
removal of diseased treesfrom rivate ro ert in 2007.
I. RECOMMENDED ACTION:
By Motion: Accept the bid minutes/tabulation and award a contract to
North Star Tree Care for $106,980 for 2007 diseased tree removal on
rivate ro ert .
II. BACKGROUND
fn the early 1970's, the City of Richfield began a shade tree disease. program to
assist homeowners in the removal of diseased elm and oak trees on private
property: When he City's forestry Inspector marks a diseased tree on,privaf
property. for .removal, the homeowner has-three options:
• Homeowner removes the tree.
• Homeowner hires a contractor to perform the work.
• Homeowner authorizes the`City's contractorto perform the work.
If the City's contractor performs: the tree. removal,. the homeowner has the option to
pay the removal costs. immediately or have thecost assessed o the property taxes
over athree-year period:: =
042407Diseased Trees
A formal bid opening for this work was held on April 11, 2007. Bid documents were
mailed to five tree removal contractors. The contractors were asked to bid aper-
inch cost, based on the average number and sizes of trees removed in the past
three years. The contract includes a provision for two one-year extensions with an
up to three percent annual increase and the consent of both parties.. The following
three bids were received:
• North Star Tree Care $106,980.00
• Wilson Custom Tree Trimmers $117,003.75
• Asplundh Tree Expert Company $320,245.00
Contract amounts for this year and the last four years are as follows:
Year Amount Contractor
2003 $ 83,766 Top Notch Tree Care
2004 $107,746 Asplundh Tree Expert Company
2005 $116,928 Asplundh Tree Expert Company
2006 $120,436 Asplundh Tree Expert Company
2007 $106,980 North Star Tree -Care
III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION
A. POLICY
• North Star Tree Care submitted the lowest qualifying bid for this work.
• The City has a previous positive working relationship with North Star.
• Staff believes the per-tree prices are low enough to provide Richfield
homeowners with a reasonable removal cost should they decide to
have the City coordinate the removal of their diseased tree(s).
B. CRITICAL ISSUES
• Approval at the April 24, 2007 Council meeting will assure sufficient
time to process the necessary paperwork before the first trees are
marked for removal
C. FINANCIAL
• Funding to allow the assessment option is through the Permanent
Improvement Revolving fund.
D. LEGAL
• .All contracts or purchases over $50,000 require sealed bids to be
solicited by:public notice.
• State and City ordinance provides authority to conduct a diseased tree
program.
~ IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION(S) ~
Council may choose to reject this bid and -direct staff to readvertise in an
attempt to receive a lower bid. However, staff does not believe lower prices
could be obtained from a responsible contractor.
~ Y . ATTACHMENTS ~
• Bid minutes/tabulation
VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING
~P"'~1
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Bid Opening
April 11, 2007
10:00 a.m.
Removal and Disposal of Diseased Trees on Private Property
Bid No. 07-07
Pursuant to requirements of Resolution No. 1015, a meeting of the Administrative Staff
was called by Nancy Gibbs, City Clerk, who announced that the purpose of the meeting
was to receive, open and read aloud, bids for removal and disposal of diseased trees
on private property, bid no. 07-07, as advertised in the official newspaper on March 22,
2007.
Present: Nancy Gibbs, City Clerk
Doris Swanson, City Manager Representative
Randy Hughes, Public Works Representative
Ray Wroblewski, Public Works Representative
The following bid was submitted and read aloud:
Vendor Bid Security Bid Amount
Wilson Cresant Trees $5,850.19 check $117,003.75
Cresco, IA
Asplund Bid Bond Provided $320,245.00
Spring Lake Park, MN
Northstar $5,349.00 check $106,980.00
Pierz, MN
The City Clerk announced that the bids would be tabulated and considered at the April
24, 2007 City Council Meeting.
Nancy Gibbs City Clerk
AGENDA SECTION: PUBLIC HEARINGS
AGENDA ITEM #~ ]
REPORT # 106
~- STAFF REPORT
CITY COUNCIL MEETING
APRIL 24, 2007
REPORT PREPARED BY: BETSY OSBORN, ADMII~TISTRATIVE
SUPPORT SERVICES MANAGER
NAME, TITLE
COUNCIL PRESENTER:
DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR 0
REVIEW: jL;~~~
REVIEWED BY CITY
MANAGER:
ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION:
Public hearing to consider a request for new on-sale wine and 3.2 percent malt liquor licenses
for Navi a's Thai Restaurant, 6345 Penn Avenue South, Richfield, MN.
I. RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Conduct and close the public .hearing and by motion:
• Approve the issuance of a new 2007 on-sale wine liquor license;
and
• Approve the issuance of a new 3.2 percent malt liquor license for
Navi a's Thai Restaurant, 6345 Penn Avenue South, Richfield.
II. BACKGROUND
On January 22, 2007, the City received the application and other required
documents for new on-sale wine and 3.2 percent malt liquor licenses for Naviya's
Thai Restaurant.
The applicant has satisfied all objective criteria for eligibility under state and local
ordinances.
0424 PH Naviya's Thai Restaurant New Liquor Licenses
The following requirements for license issuance have all been satisfied. They are
as follows:
1. The applicant has paid the required licensing fees.
2. The required proof of liquor liability insurance coverage has been received
showing Otis-Magie Insurance Company of Duluth affording the coverage.
3. Proof of worker's compensation insurance has been supplied.
4. The property being leased by Naviya's is owned by Steve Ngo. The real estate
property taxes are paid and current. The. lease between the applicant and the
landlord is in effect with all payments current.
5. As this is a new business, there are no unpaid general sales and withholding
taxes.
6. As these are new licenses, there are no previous "calls for service" or contact
records.
The Public Safety background investigation has been completed and reveals the
following: .
The applicant and sole owner/manager of Naviya's Thai Restaurant's is Naviya
LaBarge..
A criminal history check was conducted on Naviya LaBarge. According to the
Bureau of Criminal Apprehension's database, there were no matches for Naviya
LaBarge. In checking the Infotrak Investigative Query and CriMNet, it was also
found that there were no criminal records for Naviya LaBarge.
Naviya and her spouse, Kim LaBarge, previously operated a restaurant in Grand
Marais, MN. This restaurant was also called Naviya's Thai Restaurant and is
currently closed. Contact with the City of Grand Marais and the Cook County
Sheriffs Office indicated no negative contacts with the restaurant or Naviya and Kim
LaBarge.
There were no issues found during this investigation that raised any concerns about
the applicant's suitability for licensing regarding the application for on-sale wine and
3.2 percent malt liquor.
On-sale wine and 3.2 percent malt liquor licenses require owners of these
establishments to comply with Resolution No. 9511, which outlines discipline they
can expect if any on-going problems occur. A copy of this resolution has been
given to the owner of the establishment.
There are no distance requirements to notify neighbors of the issuance of on-sale
wine and 3.2 percent malt liquor licenses.
III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION
A. POLICY
• The applicant has complied with all of the provisions of both City
Codes and State Statues pertaining to on-sale wine and 3.2 percent
malt liquor licenses.
B. CRITICAL ISSUES
• The requirements in Resolution 9511 must be met.
C. FINANCIAL
• N/A
D. LEGAL
• N/A
IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION(S~
• The Council could decide to deny the license request, which would mean that
the current applicants would not be able to obtain on-sale wine and 3.2 malt
liquor licenses.
V. ATTACHMENTS
• None
VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING
• Naviya LaBarge, Owner
• Kim LaBarge, Spouse
~' ~ - -
AGENDA SECTION: PDBLIC HEARINGS
AGENDA ITEM # $
REPORT # 107
STAFF REPORT
~ ;.
.CITY COUNCIL MEETING
APRIL 24, 2007
REPORT PREPARED. BY: $RIAN YOUNG, UTILITY
SUPERINTENDENT
NAME, TITLE
COUNCIL PRESENTER:
DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR
REVIEW:
REVIEWED BY CITY
MANAGER:
ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION:
Public Hearing regarding Richfield's Wellhead Protection Plan Part 2.
L RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Conduct and close the public Bearing by motion: Accept. Richfield's
Wellhead- Protection Plan Part 2.
II. BACKGROUND
Minnesota Department of Health {MDH) rules require municipal water systems such
as Richfield's to prepare Wellhead Protection Plans to identify any possible threats
to the groundwater source that Richfield uses for its water system. The goal of
Richfield's Part 2 Wellhead Protection Plan is to prevent human-caused
contaminants from entering the .public water supply wells and to protect a l who use.
the watersupply from adversehealth effectsassociated with-groundwater
contamination.: Part 2 of the Wellhead Protection Plan also includes a management
plan to mitigate any risks of contamination reaching the aquifer. The engineering
firm of Bonestroo Rosene Anderlik has prepared theplan.
Mark Janovec with Bonestroo, Rosene, Anderlik"& Associates will be giving a 10 -
15 minute presentation on Phase 2 of the Wellhead Protection Plan.
042407WHPP
~,
Notice of the .Public Hearing was .published in the Richfield Sun on March 23; 2007
III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION
A. POLICY
The Richfield 1Nater Utility operates. under the rules and regulations
established by the Minnesota Department of Health..
B. CRITICAL ISSUES
• The. Public .Hearing is being held April 24, 2007 to .meet the timeline
that is identified' by the' Minnesota Department of Health.
C. FINANCIAL
• None
D. LEGAL
• Richfield's Water: Utility is ubjecf to the rules and regulations of the
Minnesota Department of Health.
IV. ALTERNATNE RECOMMENDATIONS
• The City Council could delay action.
• V. ATTACHMENTS _ -
• City of .Richfield. Part 2 Wellhead Protection .Plan.
• Map of Drinking Water Supply :Management Area.
VI. .PRINCIPAL PARTIES .EXPECTED AT MEETING
• Mark Janovec with Bonestroo, Rosene, Anderlik & Associates
8~~
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PUBLIC WATER SUPPLY PROFILE .:......::.:: .................:.:...........:..........:.......:.......:..............1
.DOCUMENTATION LIST........: ...............................:..:...:. ...:..................:.:...............:......2
PART 2 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:....... ..: .........................:.......::.....................................3
1.0 INTRODUCTION ........................:.........:........................... ....................... ..........:.......5
2.0 WELLHEAD PROTECTION AREA AND DRINKING WATER SUPPLY
....MANAGEMENT AREA .............:................:..:............. ......................:.........................6
3.0 VULNERABILITY ASSESSMENT .............:................. ......................:..........................7
4.0 DATA ELEMENTS............:....:.:..: .....:............:....:........:.:......:.:::.::..'.......................8
4.1 Precipitation ..:::...........:...:..... .:::...:...::..:: ...:..:.......:.:,...:.:. .......:..:...:::..........:: .:...... ..8
4.2 Geology.:...:..:..: . .........:.......: ..:..............,..::.:... .::..:.....:.::. :......:.......::............. ....:.. ::8
4:3 Soil Conditions ...........::.......:...::.......:.:...:....::.......:...:....:..:. :....:.............:..:........ :....:: ..9
4.4 Water Resources....:...........:... ::....:.::.......:...:..:::...: ........... ..........:....::..:. :.:...:.......::. 10
4.5 Groundwater Quality..:.....,...:. .:.:.........: .......:......:..:.... ....;:...:.....:.......:... ...:...:::....:.. 10
4:6 Groundwater Quality .......:.....: ......:....::::.:..:.:::....:........ ..........::......::......::.::....:: .:.....: 11
4.7 Groundwater Quantity.....:.....:. .....:.::........:: _:..: .........:.....:_..:.............:::...:. ::..............: 11
5.0 CONTAMINANT. SOURCE INVENTORY...: ..............: ..................:.......:.................:.. 12
S.1 Land Use.:....:.: ...:.........:::..... ...::.......:::..::::.....:..:.:.::.....:.. :...............:::..:.......: _.....:. IZ'
5.2 Shallow Disposal Wells........ ...::..:........:..::..:..:... .::..::..:.::.:...:.......:.........::...........::..... 13
5:3 Wells.:...... ....:..:..:.....:.::.::.:.: ....:...........::.:.:...:....:..::.:::.....:......:....::.:..:....:.::,.:..,... 13
5.4 Point Sources..:..:.:....:....::...: :..:........:.:.....; .:...:...:.....::...::....:.::...::..:.:...::.....:....:...:..:. 14
5.5 Non-Point Potential Contaminant Sources......: .................:..._:...............::.... .,.........:..... 1 S
5.6 Public Utility Services..:.:...:... ...::.....:.:...:......:.... ..:..'.:.: .......:...::.............: ..:.....:...:.... 1 S
S.7Active Sites of Contarrcination.. :.::...,..:..:...::.....:.. : ..........:..:.:..........:.:...::.......:.:.:::....: 19
5.8 Summary.....::::.,.....:.., :......... .....:..:......:...:........ ....:..:......::.............,.:.::.. .:...:.......:... 16
6.0 PROJECTED.CHANGES TO THE ENVIRONMENT, LAND USE, AND SURFACE
AND GROUNDWATER..:......::..........:.......:........:.: .................:.................................... 18
7.0 PROBLEMS AND OPPORTUNITIES .......: .....................:....:..:.:...:.:.........:................ 19
• 7.LProblems ... .........::............. .:....:........:.........:: ....,..:......:.:. .......:..... ..::....:..:.....:.:. 19
7.2 OppoXtunitaes ..: .....................:........:...................... .....:..::..::..........:.....:.:....,....:.............. 19
7.3 Status of Existing Governmental Controls Concerning Water-and Related Land Use....:..... 19
~~
8.0 WELLHEAD PROTECTION GOALS, OBJECTIVES,AND IMPLEMENTATION PLAN
:....... ..... ... ...... ... .....:. .....:..... ........ ....... ..... ..... ......:..... 24
8:1 Goals:.:.: ... . ....:....::..........:......;.:...:.........:.:.:.:...:....:... ........:.:, .:.....................:....:..... 29
8.2 Objectives. ..:...........:..::.:.:.... : ..............:..................:...._::.,...:..:........... ..::.:...::..:... 29
8.3 Implementation Plan ..: :.:.......:......:.:...............:........... ....:....................::.....:......:...... 30 '
9.0 GUIDANCE FOR USE BY CITY OF RICHFIELD STAFF FOR WELLHEAD
PROTECTION PLANNING ............. ........................... .....::...........::.....:..............:... 39
10.O PROGRAM EVALUATION ............:.........:......_......:.:.............:......:....:. .:.:.......:..... 41
11.0 .EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS AND CONTINGENCY PLAN .......:..: . ................. 42
12.0 LOCAL GOVERNMENT REVIEW AND PUBLIC HEARING............: .. ..............:.. 43
FIGURES
Figure l: Wellhead Protection Area. and. DWSMA
:Figure 2: Soil Map
Figure 3: Water Resources and Storm-Water Drainage
Figure 4: Land Use (2000)
Figure 5: Zoning Map
Figure 6:. Potential Contaminant Sources and Wells Inventory.
Figure 7: Sanitary Sewer. Systems
Figure 8: Planned Land Use (2020)
TABLES
Table 1: City of Richfield Water Supply Wells
Table 2: Potential Contaminant Sources and Wells Inventory
Table 3: Population Predictions
APPENDICES
Appendix A: Consumer Confidence Report.
Appendix B: Water System Emergency Response and Conservation Plan. approval
Appendix C: Correspondence.
Appendix D: `Public Hearing Documentation
P~ BLIC «',1TER S~~PPLI' -
NAME:. City of Richfield PWSID: 1270045.
ADDRESS: 6700 Portland Avenue, Richfield, MN 55423-2599
W:FLI,HEAD PROTFCTiOV '~~lA~ACER
NAME: Brian Young
ADDRESS: 6700 Portland Avenue, Richfield,. MN 55423-2599
TELEPHONE NUMBER:.:.(612) 861.-9168
E-MAIL: byoung@cityofrichfield.org FAX No.: (612).86.1-9182
TELEPHONE NUMBER: 612-861-9700
-WELL UNIQUE NOS.: 206353 (1), 2063.54 (2), 206361 (3), 206276 (4)
206280 (5),206279 (6), 133362 (7)
$-5
DOCUMENTATION: LIST
STEP DATE PERFORMED
Part I Approval Notice Received from MDH February`s, 2006
Scoping 2 Meeting Held {4720.5349, subp. l) Apra i~. 2006
Scoping Decision Notice Received{4720.5340, subp. 2) June 27.2oob
Remaining .Portion of Plan Submitted to: Local Units of
Government (LGUs) (4720.5350, ubp. 1 & 2) February 21, 200
Review Received. From Local Units of Government
(4720.5350, .subp. 2)
Review: Considered (4720.5350, subp. 3)
Public Hearing Conducted (4720.5350, subp. 4) '
Remaining Portion WHP Plan Submitted
(4720.5360, subp. 1)
Approved Review'Notice Received
•
Wellhead Protection Plan 2
City of Richfield, MN
~'
.PART 2 EXECUTIVE. SUMMARY
This portion of the wellhead protection (WHP) plan for City of Richfield includes:
• .the results of the Potential Contaminant. Source Inventory,
• the Potential Contaminant Source Management Strategy, ;
• reference to the existing Emergency/Alternative Water Supply Contingency Plan, and
• the Wellhead Protection Program Evaluation Plan.
Part l of the wellhead protection. plan presented the 1) delineation of the wellhead protection area
(WHPA) and the drinking water supply management area (DWSMA) and 2) the vulnerability
assessments for the system's wells and the aquifer within the DWSMA. Part. l of the WHP plan was-
submitted. to the Minnesota Department of Health (MDH) and approved on February 8, 2006. The
boundaries of the WHPA/DWSMA are shown in Figure L
The vulnerability assessment for the aquifers within the DWSMA was performed using available
information and indicates that the vulnerability of the aquifers used by the. system.varies from high to
low.
• In the highly vulnerable groundwater protection. areas, potential contaminants would be expected
to reach the Prairie du Chien -Jordan aquifer system within a few years of release at the urface.
• ..The low and moderate vulnerability portions of the DWSMA are outside of the 10-year
groundwater capture zones, and vertical travel of contaminants to the aquifer is not a concern in
.these: areas:
• The portion of the DWSMA thatpotentially contributes surface runoffto the highly vulnerable
TO-year groundwater. capture zone for Well No: 10 contains. high, moderate, and low
vulnerability areas. The vulnerability rating anly has meaning as vulnerability of the. aquifer to
vertical movement of contaminants from the surface or near the surface into the aquifer.
The principle potential sources of contamination to the aquifer vary with the vulnerability rating:
• Low vulnerability areas outside the groundwater capture zone -all non-point sources.
• Moderate vulnerability areas outside the groundwater capture. zone - anks and all non-point
sources.
• High vulnerability areas, -All land uses and potential contaminant sources.
Also, automotive disposal systems, large sewer systems, and cesspools must be inventoriedthroughout
the DWSMA. All groundwater wells must be .inventoried throughout the groundwater portion of the
DWSMA. This information was presented to the WHP Team during the Second: Scoping meeting held
with the MDH, **, when the necessary. requirements .for the content of Part. 2 .were outlined and.
discussed in detail.
Sections 4-7 of this part: of the WHP Plan (hereafter referred to as -Plan) provide. data and analysis in
support. the. approaches taken to address potential contamination sources. Section 8 of this report
describes the approaches taken in terms ofgoals, objectives; and actions to be taken.
In Section 4,-the required data elements.. indicated by MDH in the- Scoping 2 Decision Notice are
`addressed: Pertinent data elements include information about hydrology,"geology, water quality, and
water quantity
A potential contaminant source inventory and- general land use information is given in Section 5. "The
potential contaminant source. and land use inventory reflect. the vulnerability of the. aquifer in each land
Wellhead Protection Plan 3
City of Richfield, MN
' _. S
V /
parcel and what is known about the data elements in Section 4.
Section 6 addresses the possible impacts that changes in he physical environment, land use, and water
resources may have on the public water supply. Continued ;land .development and increases in
groundwater, appropriations within the DWSMA are anticipated within the next ten-year period. The
City of Richfield will update its Wellhead ProtectionPlan as new public water supply wells are added as
required by the Minnesota Wellhead Protection Rules.
The problems and opportunities concerning land use issues relating to the aquifer, well water, and the
DWSMA and addressed in Section 7. The major concerns addressed in the plan-.are. 1) other wells
located within the DWSMA that could become pathways for contamination to enter the aquifer; 2) the
pumping effects ofhigh-capacity wells that may alter the boundaries of the delineated WHPA or cause
the movement of contamination toward public water supply well(s) and 3) the potential sources of
contamination identified in Section 5 of this plan.
The drinking water protection goals that the public water supplier (PWS) would liketo achieve with this
plan are listed in Section 8. In essence, the PWS would like to:
• maintain or improve. on the current. drinking water quality
• increase public awareness of groundwater protection issues
• protect the .aquifer
• continue to collect data on water quality
• practice water conservation
The objectives and action plans for managing potential sources of contaminationare also contained in
Section 8., Actions aimed toward educating the. general public about groundwater and-.land use issues,
gathering information about other wells and potential contaminant sources, using the collected data in
- water supply and land use planning, and collecting data relevant to wellhead protection planning. are the
general focus.
Section 9 contains guidance for use .for City ofRichfield staff.
Section. l 0 contains a guide to evaluate the implementation of the management strategies of Section 8.
The wellhead protectionprogram for City of Richfield will be evaluated a minimum of every two. and
one-half years.
Section 11 references the Conservation and Emergency Management Plan approved by the Minnesota
Department of Natural .Resources.
Finally, Section. l2 discusses the review process and addresses any comments brought by local units of
government and the public.
Wellhead Protection Plan 4
City of Richfield, MN
`~' `~
1.0 INTRODUCTION
Wellhead protection is a means of safeguarding public water supply wells by helping prevent
contaminants from entering the area that. contributes water to a well or well field over a period of time.
This program is now required in Minnesota'since the' Minnesota Department of Health (MDH)
implemented Minnesota Wellhead Protection Rules in November 1997. The MDH initiated its Wellhead
Protection Program in response to the 1986 Amendments to the Safe Drinking Water Act. and MDH's
statutory authority is granted in the Minnesota Groundwater Protection Act of 1989. This report is the
culmination of the City of Richfield's efforts to adopt wellhead protection planning for its-water supply
system.
The City of Richfield currently operates 7 wells for municipal water supply purposes (See page iv). Four
wells are completed in-the Prairie du Chien.- Jordan aquifer system; :two wells are.completed in the
Jordan aquifer; and one well is completed in both the Ironton-Galesville and Mount Simon aquifers. All
the wells are within the city limits.
Detailed descriptions of the geologic and hydrogeologic Getting of the water supply system, the
delineation of the Wellhead Protection Area and. Drinking Water Supply Area, and the well and aquifer
vulnerability assessments are presented in Past l Wellhead .Protection Plan,'(Bolton and Menk, Inc.,
November, 2005) which was. approved by MDH in February 2006. The rest of this report summarizes ;
the .information presented in the Part 1 report, presents additional data elements, and presents the
contents of the wellhead protection plan.
Wellhead Protection Plan 5
City of Richfield, MN
~~
2.0 WELLHEAD PROTECTION AREA AND DRINHING WATER SUPPLY
.MANAGEMENT AREA:..:
The wellhead protection area (WHPA) and drinking water supply: management .area (DWSMA)
delineation analyses were conducted in accordance with. Minnesota Rules as administered by the
Minnesota Department of Health. The Rules specify the following criteria be applied in the delineation
analysis:. l}the aquifer's transmissivity, 2) the groundwater flow field, 3) the maximum average daily
pumping rate from each ofthe-existing wells, 4) hydrogeologic boundaries, and 5) time of travel.
The final delineations for the Prairie du Chien -Jordan ,aquifer .system. wells (Well #s 1-6) were
performed according to the Draft Guidance for Delineating Wellhead Protection. Areas in Fractured
and Solution-Weathered Bedrock in Minnesota (MDH, August 29, 2005). The draft guidance does not
take into account the aquifer transmissivity, recharge and discharge boundaries such as other wells; or
time of travel for fractured aquifer: delineations. Nevertheless, MDH considers the guidance. to be
consistent with Minnesota Rules for wellhead protection.
The results ofthe WHPA and DWSMA delineations are presented in Figure 1. Additional details on the
delineation analysis are presented in Part 1 Wellhead Protection Plan, prepared by Bolton and Menk,
.Inc. (November 2005). The delineation was .approved by MDH in February 2006:
Wellhead Protection Plan 6
City of Richfield, MN
~'~°
_ 3.0 VULNERABILITY ASSESSMENT
Two separate assessments were undertaken to determine the vulnerability of the City's water supply.. The
first assessment consisted of an assessment of the vulnerability to contamination ofthe Prairie du Chien-
Jordan aquifer system within the identified DWSIVIA. The Prairie du Chien - Jordan. aquifer system is the
shallowest aquifer. used by the system, and the vulnerability of this. aquifer, therefore, defines the
vulnerability of the DWSMA. This assessment was completed according to MDH guidelines and
recommended methodology:
The second- assessment was a well vulnerability assessment for each of the 7 City of Richfield wells. The
well vulnerability assessment was also completed by the MDH. A description of the- two assessments is
presented in Part 1 Wellhead Protection Plan prepared by Bolton and Menk, Inc. (November 2005)..
The DWSMA vulnerability varies from high to low. The results drove the need for a detailed evaluation
of potential contaminant sources, which is presented later in this report.
•
Wellhead Protection Plan 7
City of Richfield, MN
8'
4.0 DATA .ELEMENTS
The State rules relating to wellhead protection require that wellhead protection plans include specific
data elements. The requiredphysical environment, water quantity and water quality data elements were
addressed inPart 1 ofthe Plan (Bolton and Menk, November 2005):. Part 2 of Chapterl ofthe Plan also
includes an assessment of the impact of these data elements on l) the use of the wells, 2) the wellhead
protection area delineation criteria and 3) the quality and quantity of water supplying the public water
supply wells. Each of these elements was discussed specifically in the second scoping meeting with MDH
and are presented. briefly here.
4.1 Precipitation
There is a potential connection between the aquifer and .the surface, particularly in high vulnerability
areas, and there exists a potential. that precipitation could impact aquifer water quality through direct
precipitation recharge and infiltration of storm-water runoff. Therefore, potential non-point source
contaminants and the influence of precipitation on water quantity should be considered in developing
management strategies.
4.2 Geology
A description of geologic conditions in the wellhead .protection area is provided in the. Part l report
(Bolton and Menk, Inc., November 2005). The Prairie du Chien Group (Shakopee Formation Dolostone
with sandstone and Oneota Dolomite) overlies the Jordan Sandstone throughout thebWSMA. Together -
these units .form. the Prairie du Chien-Jordan aquifer system. The Oneota Dolomite acts as a Leaky
aquitard between the Shakopee Formation and Jordan Sandstone.'Groundwater flow in the Prairie du
Chien Group is. dominated by secondary pogo sity; primarily solution enhanced, bedding parallel fractures.
Groundwater flow in the Jordan Sandstone is primarily through. inter-granular pores.
The contact between the Prairie du Chien Group and the overlying Saint Peter Sandstone is a major
erosional surface with several meters of relief. The St. Peter. Sandstone has been completely removed by
erosion in three north-south trending buried bedrock valleys withinthe DWSMA. The Gower portion of
the Sainte Peter Sandstone.: contains beds of mudstone, siltstone and shale that act as an aquitard,
restricting the movement of water .between the two aquifers. In several areas of the DWSMA, the St.
Peter sandstone is overlain by the Glenwood (shale) and Platteville (massive limestone and dolostone)
formations. The Glenwood shale, along with the Platteville Formation, acts as an effective aquitard,
greatly restricting vertical groundwatermovement.
The Jordan Sandstone is underlain by the St. Zawrence Formation (dolomitic shale and siltstone), which.
acts as an effective regional confining unit. The St. Lawrence formation is underlain by the Franconia ,
Formation (very fine. grained .sandstone with siltstone and shale)., The .upper part of the .Franconia
formation is a regional aquifer, but vertical permeability is low. Groundwater flow. in the .Franconia
Formation is dominated fracture flow, primarily through sub-horizontal fractures. The lower part of the
Franconia Formation is a regional confining unit (e. g. HydNOgeology of the Paleozoic BedYOCk zn
Southeastern Minnesota by Runkek et a1., MGS RI-61, .2003):-The Franconia Formation is underlain by
Wellhead Protection Plan 8
City of Richfield, MN
~j' ~ 2'
the Ironton and Galesville Sandstones aquifer.
The Ironton-Galesville aquifer is separated from the underlying:Mt. Simon Sandstone aquifersystem by
the Eau Claire Formation (siltstone, very. fine sandstone, and shale) confining unit. The Mt. Simon
aquifer system consists of fine to coarse. sandstone with many thin beds of siltstone and very fine
sandstone in the upper. part..
The surficial sediments consist ofsandy glacial outwash and river terrace deposits or recent alluvial, lake,
or wetland sediments throughout most. of the DWSMA. Loamy glacial till occurs at the surface in a
portion of the western part of the DWSMA. In many areas, the sandy surficial sediments are underlain by
loamy glacial till or other fine grained sediments, but. the extent and effectiveness of subsurface
unconsolidated confining units has not been demonstrated in most areas.
Although several geologic cross sections were constructed, the available geologic logs provided limited
information about .the extent of low permeability quaternary sediments at-depth. The vulnerability
assessment performed for the Part 1 report (Bolton and Menk, 2005) was based primarily on the bedrock
geologic map inthe Hennepin County Geologic Atlas (Balaban et al., 1989). In general, areas where the
Platteville and Glenwood Formations are mapped were assigned low vulnerability; areas where the St.
Peter Sandstone is the uppermost bedrock were assigned moderate vulnerability; and areas were the St.
Peter Sandstone is completely eroded were assigned high vulnerability. One area to the southwest of
Well #4 was assigned a moderate vulnerability rating based on the presence of a thick sequence of clayey
sediments recorded in nearbywell logs.
Thus, the bedrock geology was he most important factor considered in the aquifer. vulnerability.
assessment. The DWSMA vulnerability assessment, in turn, was used to define the types of potential
contaminant sources requiring management in each part ofthe DWSMA.
4.3 Soil Conditions
Because there is not a consistent protective layer of bedrock or glacial drift throughout the DWSMA,
local soil conditions and soil infiltration characteristics may impact ocal groundwater quality. It should`.
be noted, however, that the time-of-travel to the, aquifers used and. reducing conditions in the aquifers
support the presence of assimilative capacity boundaries for nitrate and pathogens.
Based on these factors, it was concluded in the approved Part 1 report: (Bolton and Menk, Inc.,
November 2005) that a conjunctive delineation considering surface waters was not necessary for the City
ofRichfield-system. Nevertheless, the Second Scoping Decision Notice (MDH, June 2006) requiredthe
inclusion of a -soil map for highly vulnerable areas of-the DWSMA.
Soils in the area are formed inthe Pleistocene glacial deposits and. recent deposits described. Soil map
units from the County soil survey are plotted for highly vulnerable portions of the DWSMA in,Figure 2.
It should be noted that wheresoils have been disturbed in urban areas, the soil properties given in the -
mosf recent soil survey may no longer apply.
Wellhead Protection Plan 9
.City of Richfield,. MN
~-13
4.4 Water Resources
The time-of-travel to the aquifers used and reducing conditions. in the aquifers support the presence of
assimilative capacity boundaries for nitrate and pathogens. Based on these factors, it was concluded in
the approved Part 1 report (Bolton and Meek, Inc.,. November 2005) that a conjunctive delineation
considering surface waters was not necessary .for the City of Richfield system. Also, based on the
available hydrogeologic data, there is no evidence that withdrawals from the City of Richfield have had a
negative impact on surface waters within the DWSMA:. Nevertheless, the Second Scoping Decision
Notice {MDH, June 2006) required the inclusion of this data .element:
Surface water resources. must be considered for highly vulnerable portions of the City of Richfield
bWSMA. In the highly vulnerable areas, surface waters may have an indirect hydraulic connection with
the Prairie du Chien-:Jordan aquifer system. Water resources, including DNR protected waters, and the
storm-water drainage networks are shown in Figure 3. Protected flows have not been established for any
streams within the DWSMA, and there are no current water appropriation permits for surface waters
within the DWSMA
A majority of the DWSMA drains to Minnehaha Creek and falls under the jurisdiction of the Minnehaha
Creek Watershed. District. Flow in Minnehaha Creek is highly regulated through control of outflows
from. the dam at the outlet of Lake Minnetonka. Minnehaha Creek receives the outlet flow from the
Minneapolis chain of lakes and Pamela Pond in Edina and direct inflow. from storm-water sewers.
Minnehaha Creek also drains a large area upstream from the DWSMA. "
Portions of DWSMA are within the Nine Mile Creek, Mississippi River, and Minnesota River _
watersheds. Surface waters within these. areas are under the jurisdiction of the Nine Mile Creek
Watershed District, the Middle Mississippi River Watershed Management Organization, The Richfield-
Bloomington Watershed Management Organization, and the Lower Minnesota River Watershed
Management District respectively.
4:5 Surface Water Quality.
The time-of-travel to the aquifers used and reducing conditions in the aquifers support the presence of
assimilative capacity boundaries for nitrate and pathogens. Basedon these factors, it was concluded in
the approved Part 1 report (Bolton and Menk, .Inc., .November 2005). that a conjunctive delineation
considering surfac, e waters was not. necessary for the City of Richfield system. Nevertheless, inthe highly
vulnerable areas of the DWSMA, surface waters may have an indirect hydraulic connection with the:
Prairie du Chien -Jordan aquifer system, and certain types. of surface-water contaminants could
potentially affect bedrock aquifer water quality.
There are several historical and a few active surface .water monitoring stations in or near highly
vulnerable portions of the DWSMA including. stations at several of the larger lakes and along Minnehaha
Creek:. In general, data collected at these stations is relevant to surface-water :quality but is not directly
relevant to potential impacts to groundwater quality.. Constituents of concern to surface-water quality
that -are .not. directly. related. to potential groundwater contaminants include temperature; secch disk
depth, transparency tube,. turbidity (indirect measures of suspended solids), or_suspended solids;
phosphorous; and:chlorophyll.. These parameters have an impact on or reflect biological conditions
Wellhead Protection Plan 10
City of Richfield, MN
8-II
within the surface. water body.
More constituents are. analyzed. in samples from a Metropolitan Council station near the. outlet of
Minnehaha Creek, but this station is outside. ofthe DWSMA (downstream from Lake Hiawatha).. It is
unknown if samples collected at this site reflect conditions within the DWSMA. -
Data from three NPDES permitted discharge sites (former TPI Petroleum facility, .Edina Water.
Treatment Plant #2, and Minneapolis/St. Paul International.Airport Mother Lake. Drainage Area) are
available from the Minnesota Pollution Control agency. These data have been. included in Appendix A.
4.6 Groundwater Quality
Results of routine monitoring of the City of Richfield's wells are on file with the Minnesota Department
of Health. The water supply meets-all State and Federal drinking water standards.and no human made
contaminants have been detected in the water. Tritium (12.7 .tritium units) was detected in Well #2,
indicating that a significant portion of the water supplying the well was. in contact with the atmosphere
within the previous 50 years.
The detected tritium confirms that, although human made contaminants have not been detected. in the
well water, the six wells completed in the Prairie du Chien -Jordan aquifer system are vulnerable to
surface contaminants.. Relatively high iron concentrations in the .raw well water indicate reducing
conditions in the aquifer, and reduction of nitrate or denitrification may occur. Thus despite the lack of
an extensive confining unit in some areas, there: appears to be a significant .assimilative capacity boundary
for nitrate.
4.7 Groundwater Quantity
There are a number of wells in Richfield and surrounding cities which are covered by state groundwater
appropriation permits: There are no known well interference problems in vicinity of the City of Richfield
water supply wells. Data on all water appropriations permits and volumes pumped are maintained by the
MinnesotaDNR Division of Watersin.the SWUDS (State Water Use Data System).database..
Based on recent pumping volumes and the Projected Water Demand for the Twin Cities Metropolitan
Area regional report (Metropolitan Council, 2001) water use. in the. City of Richfield is expected to grow
up to 9% by 2010. Metropolitan Council forecasts. anticipate population growth of 3,390 or-close to
10% between 2000 and 2010. The City has adopted a water conservation plan, and no new wells will be
required to supply the projected increase in demand.
Wellhead Protection Plan 1 l
City of Richfield, MN
~~ ~ S
5.0 CONTAMINANT.SOURCE INVENTOR
As part of the City of Richfield wellhead protection. planning process,. an inventory of potential
contaminant sources was conducted within the delineated drinking water. supply. management area
(DWSMA). The purpose behind this inventory was to develop a database listing potential sources of
contamination that may affect the public water supply. wells. The results of this effort provide the City.
with information about contaminant sources identified in the DWSMA. Wellhead protection planning
strategies can be directed in a manner that will deal with any potential sites before -.they become. a
problemor a threat to Richfield's drinking water supply.
5.1 Land Ilse
Understanding land,use is important in determiningkey areas for concern in managing a wellhead
protection area.. For example, :knowledge about the location of .future commercial or industrial
development. in relation to the DWSMA may reveal a need to closelymanage the activity within more
sensitive. areas. Additionally, any land uses that currently pose a potential threat to the City's -water
supply need to be highlighted to increase awareness of any concerns.
Following a scoping meeting held with Minnesota Department of Health (MDH) staffin ** 2006, City
and Bonestroo, Rosene, Anderlik, ,& Assoc. staffproceeded to locate information about land and water
use within the delineated DWSMA for the City ofRichfield wells. Any data that was relevant to the
public water supply wells, the quality of the water being. drawn in to the wells, or land and groundwater
uses around the wells was considered important in determining any potential threat to the water supply.
The following criteria were established inthe Second Scoping Decision Notice from MDH:
1. All areas must be evaluated for the presence of wells, .automotive disposal systems and.
cesspools. (types of Class. V or shallow disposal wells), and large sewer systems serving more
than 20 people or 2 or more facilities
2. Moderate vulnerability areas must also be evaluated for the presence. of tanks.
3. All land uses and potential sources of contamination must be evaluated in high vulnerability
areas:
~MDH provided a composite database from State :and Federal sources on potential point 'sources of
.contamination such as tanks, toxic release sites, dumps, NPDES permitted discharge sites, hazardous
.waste. generators, ;and other potential sources: The database includes.: general information -::and
approximate locations for each feature. Each type ofpotential contaminant source is described separately
inthe following. sections.
A -map of generalized land use is provided as Figure 4, and a zoning map is provided as Figure 5.
Existing land use data developed by the Metropolitan Council'for the year 2000 are displayed on the land
use map (Figure 4). This is the best available map of actual land uses for the entire DWSMA. Figure 6
shows the locations of wells and potential contaminant sources identified on specific parcels. Table 2 lists
Wellhead Protection-Plan 12
City of Richfield, MN
~~~~
the wells and potential contaminant sources mapped in Figure 6/
5.2 Shallow Disposal Wells
Disposal wells are potential sources of contamination that must be inventoried for the entire DWSMA. -
The US EPA regulates di posal wells (Class. V injection wells). Automotive .disposal wells have been
banned, in groundwater protection areas, and cesspools have been banned. throughout Minnesota.
Further, the Code of Federal Regulations (Title 40; Chapter I, Part 144. T2(a)) states that"no owner or
operator [of an injection well] shall construct, operate, :maintain, converC, plug, abandon, or conduct any
other injection activity in a manner that allows the movement,of fluid containing any contaminant into
underground sources of drinking water, if the presence of that contaminant may cause a violation of any.
primary drinking waterregulation under 40 CFR part 142 or may otherwise adversely affect the health of
persons."
No Class. V injection wells have been identified within the bWSMA.
5.3 Wells:
An important component of the potential contaminant source inventory was the location of any known
wells within the portion of the DWSMA surrounding the groundwater capture zones. Since wells may
penetrate confining/low permeability layers that normally protect an aquifer, they are potential pathways
for contaminants to rapidly enter the aquifer. A search for active and abandoned wells was undertaken
for the groundwater DWSMA.
The following sources were used to. identify. and locate wells in the DWSMA:
1. Minnesota Geological Survey's County Well Index (CWI)
2. Department of Natural Resources SWUDS database
3. City of Richfield staffknowledge about :current and historical land uses
4. Aerial photographs
5. GIS parcel database
Wells identified in the databases were located to the. highest accuracy feasible using the information
provided in the databases along with the parcel database and air photos. The identified wells are plotted
on the map. in Figure 6, and. listed in Table 2. The results of the well search indicated that there .are **
wells known to be in the DWSMA, including the City of Richfield public supply wells. Wells that have
been abandoned and sealed or are inactive are labeled_as such in the table. Some temporarywells, such as
temporary dewatering wells that were properly sealed after use, are not. included in the inventory. The
inventory. may not include wells which are unknown at this dime and/or were never properly abandoned.
The status of the wells listed in Table 2 have not all been verified. The. approximate. accuracies of the
locations of the wells in Table 2, as mapped in Figure 6, are listed in Table 2 . The wells are located on
.;the correct land parcel if sui~cient location data are available.
The majority of the identified wells.are/were used for domestic water supply. Commercial, industrial,
irrigation, monitoring, and public supply wells were also .identified. Within the City ofRichfield, there are. . .
Wellhead Protection Plan 13
City of Richfield, MN
g-i1
no known abandoned municipal well sites. Currently, all municipal wells constructed for the City of
Richfield. are still in active. use.
The impact of other high capacity wells on the groundwater flow field and the quantity of water used
was addressed in Part 1 Wellhead Protection Plan, City of Richfield Minnesota (November 2005)
prepared by Bolton and Menk, Inca
5.4 Point Sources
An important component of the potential contaminant source inventory was to look for any potential
point sources within the DWSMA that might be a threat to ,the quality of the public water supply. A
point source is any facility -that stores, handles,: or .disposes of materials that, if introduced into the
environment, might degrade the quality of the water: pumped from the aquifer. An example of a point
source would be an underground storage tank.. Potential point sources of contamination were identified
according to the criteria listed above in Section 5.1.
The first step in the point-source search was to investigate available resources listing potential sites of
concern. The MDH provided the City with a database listing underground storage tank sites, above
ground storage tank sites, leaking underground: storage tank sites (LUST sites), hazardous waste
generators, spill sites, agricultural chemical storage sites, and. other potential -point sources of
contamination. The data points were associated with the correct land parcels using the location
information provided in the database. Items located within the DWSMA were identified and inventoried
according the required criteria.
Field reconnaissance of the DWSMA performed by City of Richfield and Bonestroo, Rosene, Anderlik,
& Assoc. staff identified other commercial and industrial sites that may. be of concern that :are not
included in the available databases. A majority of the sites identified were listed in-the database provided
by MDH, however.
A listing of potential point source sites: is presented in Table 2. Information about the status of and the
materials stored in tanks and the status of and substance leaked at LUST sites are also provided in the.
table where they are available. GIS data files in ArcView shape format containing the point source data
are also .available electronically. The locations referred to in Table 2 are. mapped in Figure 6.
In addition to the types of point sources discussed above, individual sewage treatment systems (ISIS,
commonly referred 'to as septic systems) are also a concern. in high vulnerability .areas. Failed. or
substandard systems may be a threaf to aquifer water quality, particularly in high vulnerability areas of
the groundwater capture zones. Nitrate is a contaminant of particular concern. that may derive from
ISTS. The Minnesota Pollution ControlAgency (MPCA) has developed technical standards and criteria
for ISTS,. which are contained in MN Rules Chapter 7080. State Rules have been adopted by Hennepin
County as Ordinance No: 19.
Hennepin County provides a permitting and inspection program for .Edina, Minneapolis; and MSP
airport. All ISTS' are unlawful within the City of Richfield, and no septic systems are known to exist....-
withinthe City of Richfield. An inventory of ISTS systems within the DWSMA was performed (Figure 6
and Table 2).
Wellhead Protection Plan 14
City of Richfield, MN
g-gig
Proactive management of potential.. point sources of contamination within the 1-year groundwater
capture zones, or Emergency Response. Areas; and in high vulnerability. areas closest to the wells is of
most immediate concern. These items pose the greatest potentialrisk to-the quality ofwater drawnfrom
the public water supply wells. Nevertheless, all of the potential point. sources in the inventory have the
potential to impact groundwater quality and. should be managed. appropriately.
Potential point sources located in highly vulnerable portions of the ERAs include seven closed LUST
sites; a former dump; three agricultural chemical storage/preparation sites; gasoline, diesel, fuel oil, and
waste oil underground storage tanks, and wells. None of these facilities are believed to currentlythreaten
.the quality of water reaching the City of Richfield public. supply wells.
S. S Non-Point Potential Contaminant Sources
Non-point sources of contamination are associated with land use not specific to a particular point or
facility. For example, golf courses to which fertilizers and/or pesticides and herbicides have been applied
are potential .sources of infiltration or runoff containing nitrate and pestieides/herbicides or
pesticidefherbicide degradation products. Low density residential areas and recreational facilities where
turf chemicals are applied, and streets and parking lots may also be non-point sources. of potential
contaminants. _
The land use map (Figure 4) provides a guide to areas that may. be non-point sources. Contaminants
derived fromnon-point sources may infiltrate directly to groundwater, or they maybe transported as
surface runoffto areaswhere infiltration occurs. Non-point. sources are, therefore, a concernwithinhigh
vulnerability areas and areas that drain directly to areas of concentrated infiltration within high
vulnerability areas. A map of the storm-water drainage system is provided for reference in Figure. 3.
Although portions of the DWSMA are rated- as highly vulnerable, the depth: of the City of Richfield
wells, the apparent assimilative capacity withrespect to nitrate, and the fact that surficial contaminants
have -not been detected in the well. water make non-point sourced of contamination a low priority
concern.
5.6 Public Utility Services
Spills on or leaks from infrastructure systems are also potential sources of contamination that could have
an impact on aquifer water quality. Roadways, .railways, and oil pipelines are examples of possible
.:transportation .routes that may be the site of a leakage or spill that could threaten the aquifers. Other
infrastructure, such storm sewers may divert water to an area. with higher surface water infiltration,
creating an increased sensitivity to pollution. Sanitary sewer leaks could also degrade groundwater,
quality.
Interstate Highways 35W and 494 and State Highways 62 and 77 are the major trunk highways
intersecting the DWSMA. State Highway 100 forms part ofthe western border ofthe DWSMA (Figure
1). Other trunk and collectorroads are also shown in Figure 1. An inactive:branch rail line extendsinto
the DWSMA from Bloomington to -the industrial area near the intersection of I-35W and Hwy. 62 in:
Wellhead Protection Plan 15
.City of Richfield, MN
-~ q
Minneapolis (Figure 1).
Three Center Point Energy gas pipelines intersect the DWSAM, but leaks from gas pipelines are not
considered a significant risk to bedrock aquifer quality: Leaking gas would be expected to dissipate
primarily into the atmosphere: Figure 7 shows the sanitary sewer system map .for the City of Richfield.
Public water supply wells are also components of the-public utility. infrastructure. The locations of the
wells are shown on Figure l . Currently, the only wells classified as public supply (or municipal) within
the DWSMA are. the ten City of Richfield wells.
5.7 Active Sites of .Contamination
Currently, there are no known active sites of contamination withinthe delineated DWSMA for the City
of Richfield.. While several sites exist within the DWSMA that have the potential to contaminate .the
Prairie. du Chien -Jordan aquifer, none of these sites is known to currently be leaking or discharging
hazardous wastes into the soil or groundwater.
Should any contamination sites be identified within theDWSMA, they will be prioritized in order ofthe
threat whey pose to the municipal wells. Site specific soil conditions, geology, surface runoff, and
.estimated time of travel to the public supply wells will be investigated to assess the level of threat to the
City's water supply.
5.8 Summary
The scope. of the potential contaminant source inventory is summarized in the table below:
Type of Potential Contaminant Source Total Active /
Current Total Removed /
Closed /Inactive
Stora e Tank 157 391
LUST site 5 124
.Hazardous Waste Generator 140 2
VIC Site 12 0
Dum 4 1
Toxic release'site - 0 1
A riculturalChemical Stora a 26 1
A ricultural Site, Unknown 0 0
ISTS{Individual sewage.treatmentsystem)
3
0
Gravel Pit 0 0
Class V wells 0 A
National Dischar a Permit 5 A
Groundwater Wells 669 59
Unknown /Other Point Source . 0 0
Cem ete 4 0
Air ort 1 0
g, ~c
The acreage of non-point source land uses was not determined for this report, but the land use and
zoning maps provided as Figures 4 and 5 provide a tool for understanding the scope of land uses'in the
DWSMA. The inventory was made as complete as practicable at the time of the development of this
Plan. Further data collection issues and other problems and opportunities associated with land uses. in the
DWSMA are addressed in Chapter 7. Plan :goals, objectives, and actions are addressed in Chapter 8.
Wellhead Protection Plan 17
City of Richfield, MN
X s~ l
6A PROJECTED CHANGES TO THE ENVIRONMENT, LAND USE, AND
SURFACE AND GROUNDWATER
6.1 Changes .and Impact,of Changes to the Environment and Land Ise
Some further redevelopment/growth is expected for the City of Richfield over the next 1-0 years. Table 3
shows the population predictions for the City from 2000 to 2020. The population is expected to increase
by about 20°l0 over the period. The planned land use for .the DWSMA and surrounding areas, as
designated in the city comprehensive plans submitted to the Metropolitan Council is mapped in Figure 8.
Planned. land use changes. within the City of Richfield include 'converting from .residential to non-
residential. uses along Cedar Ave. and expanding commercial areas along I-494.: Few land use changes
are planned within the parts of Minneapolis,. Edina, and Bloomington intersected by the DWSMA.
6.2 Changes to Surface and Groundwater.
The planned land use changes will have a moderate net effect on surface and groundwater because the
changes generally involve redevelopment. of previously developed areas. Redevelopment will provide the
opportunity to improve existing storm-water infrastructure.
Since groundwater recharge hat feeds Richfield's wells in- not limited to the area within the City,
Richfield is looking towards cooperation with Hennepin County and other local units of government to
help implement groundwater protection on a wider basis throughout the southern portion ofthe County.
Wellhead Protection Plan 18
City of Richfield,.
7.0 PROBLEMS AND OPPORTUNITIES
7.1 Problems
1. Portions of the DWSMA for the City of Richfield's Wells are vulnerable to contamination.
2. Portions of the DWSMA include areas of significant commercial and industrial.activity, some of
which representpotentialpointsources of contaminants.
3. Residential' areas of the DWSMA .represent potential non-point sources to which the water
supply system may be susceptible if lawn care activities are conducted inappropriately or
excessively or household hazardous wastes are disposed. of improperly.
4. The number and location of improperly abandoned wells in the DWSMA is not known with a
high degree of certainty.
5. The number and location of automotive' disposal systems (a type of Class V well) in the
DWSMA is not known with a high degree of certainty..
7.2 Opportunities
1. Opportunities exist to work with the surrounding communities and the Metropolitan Airports
Commission in planning land uses to protect the aquifers within the DWSMA.
2. The opportunity exists to cooperate with the City of Edina and the City of Saint Louis Park
specifically on the implementation of wellhead protection plans in overlapping DWSMAs.
2. Watershed management districts and organizations exist to manage surface water drainage within
the DWSMA.
7.3 Status of Existing Governmental Controls Concerning Water and Related Land Use
City of Richfield
Zoning ordinances are the primary means by which the City of Richfield controls water and land use
within the city. The land inthe DWSMA is currently zoned as shown in Figure 5. Zoning regulations are
contained in Sections 506 - 551 of the. City of Richfield Codes. The following zoning districts are
designated:
Residential-
- R Single Family Residential-
- R-11 Low Density:Single Family Residential
- MR-i Two Family Residential
- MR-2 Multi-Family Residential
- MR-3 High Density Multi-Family Residential
.Wellhead Protection Plan 19
City of Richfield, MN
U~~~
Commercial
- C-1 Neighborhood Business
- C-2 General Commercial.
- C-3 High Density Commercial
Mixed Use Districts
- (MU-R) .Mixed Use Regional
- (MU-C) Mixed Use Community _
- (MU-N) .Mixed Use Neighborhood
Industrial
I Industrial
Planned Unit Development
PR Planned Residential
PMR-1: Planned Two Family Residential
PMR Planned Multi-Family Residential
- PG 1 Planned Neighborhood Commercial
- PC-2 Planned General Commercial
- PI Planned Industrial
- Other official .controls available. to Richfield for regulating land use within the DWSMA include
conditional use .permits and other ordinances: Specific ordinances that might be applied for. land use,
aquifer protection, and water: protection purposes are: Water Resources. Management Regulations
(Section 429); Garbage, refuse, yard waste,-.and recyclables preparation, collection, and disposal (Section
601); Wells =well drillers. (Section 620); Sewer system (Section 700); Water system (Section 710);.
Storm sewer system (Section 720); and Bodies of water (Section 835)
These controls, along with the proposed City of Richfield wellhead protection implementation plan, are
anticipated to be adequate in managing the land activities occurring within the City of Richfield portion
of the DWSMA. Any deficiencies noted will be addressed and corrected in revisions to the wellhead
protection plan.
Hennepin County
Hennepin County employs ordinances to regulate land use but most would not apply to Richfield's
wellhead protection efforts. Most County ordinances are only applicable in unincorporated parts of the
County, but the DWSMAs are entirely within incorporated cities. Hennepin County does provide an
Wellhead Protection Plan 20
City ofRichfzeld; MN
g-a~
ISTS (individual sewage treatment`_system) permitting and inspection program for cities that have
delegated that authority to the County.. Within the City of Richfield DWSMA, this includes Edina,
Minneapolis, and MSP International Airport. The County also enforces a Hazardous Waste Management
Ordinance.
Minnehaha Creek Watershed District
The MCWD is governed by aseven-member Board of Managers, :who are appointed by the Hennepin
and Carver county boards. As required by state law, the MCWD has developed a comprehensive water
resources management plan (Wenck Associates, Inc., 1997) hat describes the existing water resources
and water-related problems within the watershed, possible solutions to the problems and the objectives
of the MCWD. The plan sets forth the goals and direction of the MCWD: MCWD is currently updating
the 1997 plan, and the new plan will contain 11 subwatershed plans.
Minnehaha Creek Watershed District regulates water management issues within itsboundary through a
permitting process. The MCWD reviews permit applications for land development after the application
has received preliminary city approval.
Nine Mile Creek Watershed District
The Nine Mile Creek Watershed District has an approved Water Management Plan. The District has.
established a grading and land alteration permitting program that establishes minimum requirements
for the control and regulation of grading and earthmoving: Nine Mile Creek Watershed District
requires permits for such projects to ensure that landuse changes do not' negatively impact water-
quality and flood protection.
Lower Minnesota River Watershed District
The LMRWD provides technical review ofproject proposals but does not issue permits. The LMRWD
enters into joint .resolutions with .local units of government concerning review of projects for their
impacts on watershed resources. The LMRWD also reviews projects within the Minnesota River
floadplain for conformance with its floodplain regulations. The watershed district is currently operating
under a management plan adopted in 1999.. -
Richfield-Bloomington Watershed Management Organization
(to be'completed)
Middle Mississippi River Watershed .Management Organization
(to-be completed)
Wellhead Protection Plan 21
City of Richfield, MN
~-a
Adjacent Communities
Cities intersected by the DWSMA include .Bloomington, .Edina, Minneapolis, and St. Louis Parka The
DWSMA also intersects the Minneapolis-St. Paul International Airport, which is under the authority of
the Metropolitan Airports Commission .(MAC). Zoning. ordinances are also the primary. means of
regulating land use activities in surrounding cities The Commissioner of Health has delegated to the City
of Minneapolis the authority to issue well permits and. establish well construction standards equal to or
exceeding the requirements of the state Well Code..
The DWSMA for the City of Richfield. overlaps DWSMAs for the City of Edina (MN-00039; MN-
00040, MN-00041, MN-00052, and MN-00053) and the City of Saint Louis Park (MN-000274). City of
Edina Well #s 2, 3, 4, 5, 6; and 17 are within the City of Richfield DWSMA.. The St. Louis Park.
DWSMA covers the entire area of the Richfield DWSMA that falls within the City of St. Louis Park and
extends into portions of Minneapolis and Edina that are intersected by the City of Richfield DWSMA. ,
Edina and Bloomington have implemented Wellhead Protection Plans approved byMDH. St. Louis Park
has completed Part 1 of its Wellhead Protection Plan and is in the process of completing its Plan. Thus,
significant portions of the City of Richfield DWSMA fall within previously approved DWSMAs, and
management plans have been established or are being established for these areas already.
State and Federal Regulations
Many of he state and federal regulations for. potential sources of pollution are design -.and operation
standards. Examples are regulations. concerning on-site sewer systems; underground storage tanks, and
landfills. It should be noted that the state's design and operation. standards would be adequateformost
.contaminant sources within the City of Richfield DWSMA.
Land use authority that addresses the location of potential sources of contamination within the City of
Richfield DWSMA rests with local units of government according to Minnesota law. Since the City of
Richfield DWSMA falls within several local units of government, each local-unit of government has:
jurisdiction over the territory of the DWSMA that falls.within its borders.
State and federal governmental units regulate:
^ Well construction- MDH; (City of Richfield and City of Minneapolis)
^ ...Well sealing - MDH;
^ State groundwater appropriation permits - DNR;
^ Public water supply. quality - MDH;
^ Setbacks for specific contaminant sources from awell - MDH and local governments
through conditional use permitting;
^ Tank control program - MPCA, MDA
^ Shallow disposal wells - US EPA.
Any of the: permitted activities which have. the potential to-affect the wellhead.protection delineation .
and/or the quality or quantity of the City of Richfield water supply should bexeviewed by the respective
state or federal agency before a permit can be approved.
Wellhead Protection Plan 22
City of Richfield, MN
~~~~
The wellhead protection planning team recommends that no additional regulations be imposed at this
time and are confident that local issues maybe adequately addressed through existing processes.
Wellhead Protection Plan 23
City of Richfield, MN
8.0 WELLHEAD PROTECTION GOALS, OBJECTIVES AND
IMPLEMENTATION. PLAN
Goals and objectives have been developed based on the results of the vulnerability analysis, the results of
the potential contaminant source inventory, and the projected changes to the environment, land use, and
surface and ground water.. In general, goals and objectives are ranked in order of priority.
8.1 Goals
The following goals form the framework within which the informationgenerated during delineation and
source inventory activities is evaluated and upon which the planning activities are based:
L Maintain water quality and abundant. water. quantity for Richfield residents and businesses. _
2. Increase public education .and awareness of wellhead protection through use of newsletters,
Consumer Confidence.Reports, and the City's website.
8.2 Objectives
Higher priority will be placed on implementing. management strategies in areas of the DWSMA not
within previously approved DWSMAs. Primary wellhead protection management efforts for areas within
previously approved DWSMAs, which fall outside of the City of Richfield, will be deferred to those
• Wellhead Protection Plans. To meet. Richfield's goals, the Wellhead Protection Planning Team would
like to concentrate management efforts on the. following factors to create awareness of groundwater
protection and help prevent future contamination of the aquifer:
A. Inform the public about groundwater availability and water quality issues (Public Education)
B. Manage wells {Wells)
C. Manage the Inner Wellhead Management Zone (IWMZ) to prevent contaminants from entering
the area within a 200 ft. radius of the wells.
D. Manage above= and underground storage tanks (Storage Tank Management).
E. Inform the public about household waste (Household Hazardous Waste).
F. Cooperate with Hennepin. County on the management of commerciaUindustrial hazardous waste
.(Hazardous Waste Management)
G. Manage septic systems within the City of Richfield and cooperate with Hennepin County and the
City of Bloomington to manage septic systems (Septic Systems Management)
H. Educate the public about proper. use of lawn and garden chemicals .(Turf Management)
I. Manage urban tormwater (Urban Stormwater Management)
J. Address impact of groundwater withdrawals on the wellhead protection area (High Capacity
Wells).
K, Inform the public about shallow disposal wells (Shallow Disposal Wells)
;.,__
Wellhead Protection Plan 24
.City of Richfield,.11~
~,ag
8.3 Implementation Plan
A. Public Education
Objective A: Develop public support and understanding for the wellhead protection
plan through the use of newsletters, the Consumer Confidence Report,
and. w eb pages.
Action Al : Include information about wellhead protection andgroundwater
protection in the Your City newsletter.
Who: City of Richfield staff.
...Cooperators:. MDH
When:. Within 6 months of adoption of this Plan
Cost: Stafftime'
How: Identify. and obtain existing educational materials .available .from
MDH and. other sources: Write ,newsletter :articles .describing
wellhead protection and include contact information and web site
addresses for existing educational-resources.
Status:.. In progress
Action A2: ` .Include summary information about the Wellhead ProtectionPlan
in the .annual Consumer Confidence Report mailed to water
customers. Provide .contacts and web "site addresses for
educational resources.
Who: City of Richfield staff
When: Within 6 months of adoption of this Plan
Cost: Stafftime
How: Summarize information gathered in other actions. in the CCR.
Status: Not currently implemented.
Action A3: Include information about the Wellhead Protection Plan and links
0 other wellhead protection related resources on the City's web
pages.
Who: City of Richfield staff
When: Within 6 months of adoption of this Plan
.Cost: Stafftime
How: Provide a summary of wellhead protection. goals and
implementation in Richfield. Provide links to wellhead protection
related web sites at MDH, MDA, and EPA.
Status: Not currentlyimplemented.
Wellhead Protection Plan 25
City of Richfield, MN
~~~~
B. Wells
Objective B 1: Locate unidentified wells :and inactive/abandoned wells in the Wellhead
Protection Area.
Action B 1-1: Request that MDH or the City of Minneapolis inform the City of
Richfield when permits are granted for new wells or maintenance
of existing wells or abandoned wells are sealed within the WHPA.
:.Request that Hennepin County or the. City of Minneapolis inform
the City of Richfield when existing wells are disclosed as a result
of property transfer within the WHPA.
Who` City of Richfield staff
Cooperators: MDH, City of Minneapolis, Hennepin County
When: . Within 3 months following. adoption of this Plan
Cost:. Stafftime
How: Contact designated Points Of .Contact: at MDH, City of
.Minneapolis, and Hennepin County.
Status: Not currently implemented.
Objective B2: Take measures to prevent cross .connections between private well
systems. and the public water supply.
Action B2-1: Require that whenever any premises. are connected to the :City
• water system, there shall be maintained a .complete physical
separation between the City water supply system and the private
.water. supply system
Who: City of Richfield staff, City Council
When: Ordinance passedin 1971
Cost: Stafftime
How:. Enforce city code
Status: Existing: city ordinance
Objective B3: Educate the public. about proper well management.
Action B3-1: Provide links to MDH well management web sites on the City's
web pages:.
Who: City of Richfield staff
Cooperators: MDH
When: Ongoing
Cost: Stafftime
How: City staff will add hyperlinks to the. web site.
Status: Not currently. implemented.
Wellhead Protection Plan 26
City of Richfield, MN
S- ~~
C. Inner Wellhead Management Zone.
Objective C 1: Manage the 200 ft. radius Inner Wellhead Management Zones to prevent
contaminants from entering the area immediately surrounding the wells.
Action Cl: Continue to monitor setbacks for all new potential sources of
contamination located within the IWMZ.
Who: City staff
Cooperators: MDH
When: Annually
Cost: Stafftime
How: The wellhead protection. manager will `ensure that any new
:regulated activities will meet the required setbacks.
Status:.. Continuation of ongoing activities
D. Storage Tanks Management
Objective D: "Notify owners of tanks located in the DWSMA that the tank is in a
source water protection area, and .educate owners of properties
containing tanks of the importance of spill prevention:
Action D1: Contact property owners and make them aware of their
placement within the City's wellhead protection area..
Who: City staff
Cooperators: MPCA
When: Within 12 months of adoption.of this Plan.
Cost: Stafftime
How: Send mailing out to property owners notifying them about the
Drinking. Water Supply Management Area delineation and the
importance of spill prevention. Provide contact numbers for.
appropriate government agencies if requested.
Status: Not currently implemented.
E. Household Hazardous Waste
Objective E: Educate. the .public about household hazardous waste, -and provide the
public with services relating to household hazardous waste.
Action E 1: Use. existing newsletter or website to encourage. residents o use
the Hennepin County year and local collection events..
Who: City staff
Cooperators: Hennepin County Department of Environmental. Services
When: Ongoing
Cost: Stafftime
Wellhead Protection Plan 27
City of Richfield, MN '
~-
How: Include .information about wellhead protection and the
importance of proper disposal of household hazardous wastes in
the newsletter. or website. Provide facility addresses,. operational
hours, and Hennepin County contact and web site information.
Also include local collection event schedule.
Status: Not. currently implemented
F. Hazardous Waste Management
Objective F: Cooperate with Hennepin County. on the management. of
commerciaUindustrial hazardous waste. '
Action Fl: Use existing website to encourage .business. owners to take
advantage of services provided by the Hennepin County.
Environmental Protection division.
Wha City. staff
Cooperators: Hennepin County Department of Environmental Services
When: Ongoing
Cost: Stafftime
How:. Provide a hyperlink to the Hazardous 'Waste. page in the
Hennepin County web pages. The web page provides contact
information, Hazardous Waste information, forms, fact sheets,
and links to the Generator Newsletter.
Status: Not currently implemented.
Action F2: Provide Hennepin County with a DWSMA location map.
Who:. City. staff.
Cooperators: Hennepin County Department of Environmental Services
When: February 2006
Cost: Stafftime
How::. Notification of the approval of the WHPA and DWSMA
delineations and vulnerability assessments. The County may
choose to concentrate hazardous waste enforcement efforts
within source water protection areas.
Status: Currently implemented
Wellhead Protection Plan 28
-City of Richfield, MN
~J
G. Septic. Systems M anagement
Objective GL• Prevent the discharge of sewage to soil or water within the City of
Richfield.
Action G1: Make unlawful any private sewer: system or the unsanitary
discharge ofhuman or animal wastes within the City of Richfield.
Who: City Council, enforced by Building Inspector.
When: Ongoing
Cost: Stafftime
How: Enforce existing City ordinance (Section 700.03).
Status: Already implemented.
Objective G2: Cooperate with Hennepin County to educate property owners about the
need for having complying onsite sewage treatment systems.
Action G2: Assist County's efforts to education property owners about ISTS
systems.
Who:. City staff
Cooperators: Hennepin County Environmental Services
When: `Ongoing
..Cost: Stafftime
How: Provide assistance to Hennepin County, as requested.
Status: Not currentlyimplemented
A. Turf Managemen t
Objective D: Encourage residential property owners to use lawn and garden chemicals
responsibly:
Action Dl: Cooperate with existing local (NPDES permitting) and County
programs to educate property owners about the advantages and
disadvantages of the use of chemicals for lawn care and-about
..ways to minimise the potential adverse environmental effect of
the chemicals if they choose to use them.
Who: City staff
Cooperators:. Minnehaha Creek Watershed District, Nine Mile Creek
Watershed District, Richfield-Bloomington WMO, Middle.
Mississippi WMO, .City of Bloomington, City of Edina, City of
Minneapolis, Metropolitan Airports Commission, MPCA,
University of Minnesota Extension, Minnesota Department of -
Agriculture
When: Ongoing
Cost: Stafftime
Wellhead Protection Plan 29
.City of Richfield, MN
~ -33
How: Provide materials to cooperators as requested: and provide
educational links for homeowners on website
Status: Currently partially implemented.
I. Urban Stormwater Management
Objective I: Cooperate with other programs and agencies to manage Stormwater
quality.
Action L Continue to implement the City's Storm Water Pollution
PreventionPlan in fizlfillment ofNPDES permit requirements.
Who:. City staff City's environmental engineering consultant, City
Council...
Cooperators: MPCA, Minnehaha Creek WD, Nine Mile Creek WD, Richfield-
Bloomington WMO
When: Ongoing. Annual review of SWPPP:
Cost: No additional'costs.
How: The City of Richfield has adopted its Stormwater Pollution
Prevention. Plan: (SWPPP) to meet MPCA Stormwater permit
requirements (2003 - 2008). The SWPPP includes measures for
public education and outreach, public involvement and
participation, illicit discharge detection and. elimination,
construction site runoff control, post construction storm-water
management, and pollution prevention. and good housekeeping
for municipal operations. The SWPPP meets. the storm-water
management needs of the WHP Plan within the Richfield city
limits.
Status:.. Currently implemented
J.: High Capacity Webs
Objective J: Identify possible impacts on the wellhead protection area of new; high
capacity wells or changes in water appropriations.
Action J: Request that the MDH or the City of Minneapolis inform the City
of any proposed high capacity wells to be constructed in or near
the DWSMA and request the DNR to notify the City of any..
changes in appropriations to existing wells that may impact the..
wellhead protection areas.
Who: City staff-
Cooperators: MDH, DNR, City of Minneapolis
When: Within 3 months of adoption of this Plan.
Cost:. Stafftime -
How: Send a letterand a figure showing the Wellhead Protection Areas
Wellhead Protection Plan 30
...City of Richfield, MN
8~3'~
and the DWSMA to the MDH, DNR, and :City of Minneapolis
_ requesting that the City of Richfield. be informed of hi-cap well
permit applications or changes in appropriations that would affect
Richfield wells and/or the Richfield DWSMA.
.Status: Not currently implemented
K. Shallow Disposal Wells
Objective K: Attempt to .identify. shallow disposal wells in the DWSMA and notify
owners of federal reporting, responsibilities.
Action Kl: Identify known possible shallow disposal .sites .within the
DWSMA.
Who: City of Richfield Staff
Cooperators: .MDH, US EPA
When: Completed
.Cost: Stafftime
How: Conduct survey of parcels within DWSMA, identifying suspected
Class V well sites. Ask City staff to report observed Class V
wells as they are discovered...
Status:. Currently implemented.
.Action K2: Prioritize. inventoried area.
Who: City of Richfield, City's environmental consultant
.When: Already completed
Cost: Staff and consultant dime
How: Possible and known Class V well. sites identified will be
prioritizedbased on land use at the site, whether they are within
the groundwater capture zone portion of the wellhead protection
area, aquifer vulnerability, and distance to a public water supply
well.
Status: Not currently implemented, since no sites are currently known.
Action K3: Notify MDH of shallow disposal well sites within the DWSMA as
they are identified by City staff.:
Who: City staff.
Cooperators: MDH
When: At the time of discovery
.Cost:. Stafftime
How: - Mail a letter to the regional MDH Environmental Health Division-
planner identifying the shallow disposal well site.
Status: Not currently implemented since no sites are currently known.
Action K4: Notify owners of Class V wells about federal reporting
requirements.
Who: Wellhead Protection 1Vlanager and City staff.-
Wellhead Protection Plan 31
City of Richfield, MN
~-~s
Cooperators: MDH
When: At the time of discovery.
Cost: Citystafftime
How: A fact sheet on Class V wells and reporting requirements will be
provided to the landowner describing what a Class V well is and
the impacts they can have on groundwater quality.
Status:.. Not currently implemented, since no sites currently known.
Wellhead Protection Plan 32
City of Richfzeld, MN
$ 3b
9.0 GUIDANCE FOR USE BY CITY OF RICHFIELD STAFF
WELLHEAD PROTECTION PLANNING
To ensure that wellhead protection- planning is viable for City of .Richfield,. the City staff should
understand the nature of the City's program and how their day-to-day actions pertain to the wellhead
protection program
Wellhead Protection Manager: City of Richfield Water Superintendent (Brian Young)
9.1 Activities Affecting Wellhead Protection
The list .presented below reflects the type of information or activities that City staff may encounter or
manage as part of their normal functions that should be communicated to the wellhead protection
manager. Any observed occurrence of the. following that may impact surface water or groundwater
quality should be reported to the City of Richfield, Wellhead Protection Manager:
Public Safety (Police & Emer~ene~Servicesl
^ Emergency response .and spills
^ ..Observed dumping
Public Safety (Inspections)
^ Hazardous materials storage or disposal (household, commercial, or industrial)
^ Unsealed or abandoned wells
^ .Underground storage tank removal, particularly if contamination is observed
^ Observed dumping
Fire .Department
^ Emergency response and spills
^ Underground storage tank removal, particularly. if contamination is observed
^ Fire suppression (if techniques may affect water quality)
Community Development and Planning "Commission
^ Zoning changes
^ Unusual infiltration or storm-water issues
^ Environmental'Assessment Worksheets (EAWs)
^ Special projects
Public Works
^ Well sampling and analysisxesults
^ Contamination noted during construction
^ Change in pumping of municipal wells
^ Sanitary sewer line breaks/ruptures
^ Sanitary sewer lift station overflow/failure
Wellhead Protection Plan 33
City of Richfield, MN
~~~
- Recreation Services
^ Observed dumping
^ Turf management
In addition, several programmatic activities will need on-going review and consideration. These generally
involve fewer departments, and are listed below.
City Manager
^ Review new ordinance developmenf to ensure consistency with Wellhead Protection Plan
CommunityDevelopment and Planning Commission
^ Ordinance review and development of official controls, as necessary
^ .Interaction and liaison with other local units ofgovernment
^ Education activities
^ bevelopment of Best Management Practices for use in DWSMA
Wellhead Protection Manager
^ Internal coordination and plan management.
^ Interaction with external cooperators
Wellhead Protection Plan 34
City of Richfield, MN
~-' ~~
10.0 PROGRAM EVALUATION
The City of Richfield will evaluate the progress of the implementation plan every two years. The
Wellhead Protection Plan Manager will prepare a progress report to be completed every two. years- after
the Plan is adopted. The progress report will briefly discuss the actions implemented by the City or any
cooperators during the previous two years, and actions that will be completed in the next two years: The
progress-report will be distributed fo the City Council for. their review after which it will be submitted to
MDH.
According to Minnesota Wellhead Protection Rules, this wellhead protection plan will be updated every
10 years from date. of adoption or with the installation of any new municipal well to the. water supply
system.
Wellhead Protection Plan 35
City of Richfield, MN
8~~
11.0 EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS AND CONTINGENCY PLAN
The City of Richfield's has a completed Water Emergency and Conservation Plan on file. The. plan was
submitted to both the Department of NaturaLResources and the Metropolitan Council for their review
and approval. This plan fulfills the emergencypreparedness and contingencyplanning requirements ofthe
Wellhead Protection Rules. A .copy of the approval letter for the plan is provided in Appendix B. The
City is currently in the process of updating this plan, which is expected to be completed in the year 2007.
As required by the. US EPA, The City of Richfield has also completed its Vulnerability Assessment and .
Emergency Response Plan for its. water supply system. A copy of the certificate of completion for the
Vulnerability .Assessment is also provided in Appendix B. The Emergency Response Plan- will' be
incorporated into updates to the Water Emergency and.Conservation Plan.
Wellhead Protection Plan 36
City of Richfield, MN
12.0 LOCAL GOVERNMENT REVIEW AND .PUBLIC HEARING
~*NOTE: This section will be updated following completion of the public hearing**
The draft City ofRichfield wellhead protection plan was submitted to local units of government for their
review and comments on February 21, 2007.. The required 60-day review. period ended on April 23,
2007. Copies of comments received from local, government units :are provided- in Appendix C. All
comments were considered and, when deemed appropriate, responses were incorporated in this version
of the Wellhead Protection Plan.
A public hearing was held the on the evening of April 24, 2007 of City Hall aspart of the regular City of
Richfield Council meeting. At the meeting, comments were received from the general public. A
copy of the public hearing meeting minutes is provided in Appendix D.
Wellhead Protection Plan 37
City of Richfield, MN
U~~
T~h[a i f`ity of RirF~fiPl~t ("nmmnnifv C:snnly LVaiic
V11e{I Casing Date Vulnerability
Name Usti ue No. A ui€er De th ft Cam feted Status
1 206353 Jordan ~ 343 6/27/1961 Vulnerable
2 206354 Jordan ~ 345 9/7/9961 ~ Vulnerable
Prairie du
~
3 206361 Chien-Jordan 226 1962 Vulnerable
Prairie du
~
4 206276 Chien-Jordan 993 9/30/1962 Vulnerable
~ Prairie du
~
5 26628U Chien-Jordan 226 311!1963. Vulnerable
I Prairie du
6 206279. Chien-Jordan 225 1862 Vulnerable
Ironton-
Galesville -Eau
Claire.- Mt: Not
7 133362 Simon 631 612811977 Vulnerable
Tahie 2. Precinitafion at 1bISP WSFO Station 121435)
2401 2402 2403 2444 2045 Av .
Jan 1.21 4.46. 4,22 4.23 1.21 0.6T
Feb 9.33 4.41 0.54 9.09 0.96 0.87
Mar 1:09 1.38 9.44 2.11- 1.37 1.48
A r 7.40 3.15 2:44 2.06 ~ 2.34 3.38
Ma 4,53 2.83 8.14 6.39 2.78 4.b3
Jun 6.35 8.34 4.66 ~ 3.06 ~ 424 5.32
Jul 2.12 5.19 2:45 3.36 ~ 2.94 3.13
Au 2.31 8.34 1.12 ~ 9.19 ~ 5.22 3.63
Set 3.50 3.77 2.2D ~ 4.21 ~ 4:44 3.62
Oct 9.28 4.18 4.62 2.32 5.45 2.77
Nov - 2.77 0.49 0.71 0.93 1.53 'i.21
Dec 0.74 ~ 4:22 0.62 ~ 0.44 0.97 0.60
7atal 34.23 38.28 22.72 ~ 27.39 33.49 31.21
Table3. Metro oIitan Council o elation forecasts.
1.990 ~ 2000 ~ 2010 2020
Ricitfieid 35,790 34,31U 37,700 41,300
Edina 46,070 47;425 49,040 50,000
Minnea o{is 368,383 1.382,747 402.000 423,004
( ~ ~ 4
~ -
t ~~ ~ _,_~.~-
ii • ~
~,'s \ ~
i ^ l-
,..._ mil' '~ r
~ F , f ,~
' i ! ! / ~ ~ ~ f s/
1 ~ ~ -,
,.f
~-
1 J ~ .:
~ f t (~ ~ ' alp J ~ f ~ ••~ I •~• `,~ ~
~ yy
~~~~~
1 ~ ~ -_J ~ <~. 1 _
~~',
i
f r
. ~
I 1 I
'~ ti ~ ~i
a _ _ ~. ~
_~ .
4 1 _ ~
1
n+r., l; . v~ ~S4
tit }N
~ , ~ 'Y
+_ ,,yy~~ < .
1 ~L S • ~S
..
`,
~ _.._. L~. ~, '_a
_~ ~ '` ~ ~'
'
3 ~ ~~ ~.
. ~ -- ~ ~.
3
;; ,
I
` I f~~w- Yip :>. ( ~`
..5:{. .. 1 ~ .. _.
1 -
• ~;•
` ! l~_
L-- ~
_ J ,)
_ ~~ ' 1 i ,
f
"` ' i ,. '.
_ ' .,~ ~ ~
~ ~ 1
1 J 1
- _ { 1
~. n
f
i ~. ~-
~ 1 -~ ~ \ ~ ~
r
' ,
W/'C
-~~
3 - +
I ~ t
1 j
~ ~ ~ ~~ ' f
~~~~ ~
~ 'v
~ p _~ ~.
..'
~ i~
• ~
-------~ •~Y° f
•s _
I ~ : • ••••• • ~ i
f
~ ~ ••• ~ f ~
t • •
1 / ;• ;s•.
~ ~ ~ '• f i
%:~ ~ • ••
s• ~
~ ~ - . ~
`'v<<~ r.:?.3 3G:.:. ~ ~ ~° /~ • .,r+ ~$~ v.~.. ri:. . ~~ , s~y... f• ~v,,~~~1,
3 O /
~~j ••
N rfA~~l~~r~2~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 0
~= ~~~~
N ~ v~ Z G ~ Q. ~ ~ ~ ~ Q. Q. n n. eD O ~ ~ 3
o a X00 ~m~~~ j ~ ~~ W
~~G~ ~ Q-~ D~~~~ Q,
S Q n~ ~
H ,~ d
3 ~
M ~
O~
•
-~
x
V
W
V
~~
N
°o ~ tn~~ ~~ Oda o =a0 ~ ~~ ~ rn z O
o ~~~fl°,~~ ~° ~~`~~ m ~~ ~4 ~ 171 ~'
c ~ v, Z o ~ q~ ~ ~ uCi m ~ a ac. ~ ~ Z~~ Z 70
D ~m ~ 171 ~ a
~~c~ a ~3 y ~. Z
S ~. ~ ~ N ~ ~ ~ ~ O
~ A ~~
w N ~ O =
a
a
0
Q
m
N
O
O
CD
N
ti y
c
~•
~+
u u u ~
~o
.~
~~b ~
~~ ~~~
a `~ ~
~ a
b ~ ~
`°
~ ~~
~~
~
C o. OC3
R ~
~
~-
~
O ~
~ ~
~ ~
o~
~ b~
~ ~~
~ ~ ~
y ~ coo
~ coo
O
y°o~
~ v~
~~
e~~
'~
~3
~'
AGENDA SECTION: PDBLIC HEARINGS
AGENDA ITEM # 9
REPORT # 108
STAFF REPORT
CITY COUNCIL MEETING
APRIL 24, 2007
REPORT PREPARED BY:
CHRIS REGIS, FINANCE MANAGER
NAME, TITLE
COUNCIL PRESENTER:
REVIEWED BY CITY MANAGER:
ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION:
Public hearing and consideration of the preliminary resolution with regards to the financing of a
project to be undertaken by @ Home Apartments doing business as Lynnwood Partners,
L.L.C.
I. RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Conduct and close the public hearing and by motion:
• Approve a preliminary resolution approving. a multifamily housing
development to be acquired, owned and operated by Lynwood
Partners, L.L.C, a Minnesota limited liability company, and
• the issuance Of revenue bonds to finance And refinance the costs
thereof under Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 462C, as amended;
granting preliminary approval thereto, establishing compliance
with certain reimbursement regulations under the Internal Revenue
Code of 1986, as amended, and taking certain other actions with
respect thereto.
IL BACKGROUND
• @ Home Apartments (the "developer'.'), aresidential property
management company, is requesting from the City the issuance of tax
exempt private activity revenue bonds for the purpose of acquisition and
rehabilitation of Gateway Pointe, a 306-unit multifamily rental housing
development located at 7437 Lyndale Avenue South (the "Project").
0424AtHom ePrivateActivityBonds
• For the purpose of the Project, the developer will loan the proceeds
derived from the sale of the bonds to a single asset limited liability
_ company formed by the developer doing business as Lynnwood Partners,
L.L.C.
• The estimated aggregate principal amount of the proposed bonds is
approximately $16,000,000.
• The developer, plans to use a combination of bond proceeds and equity of
approximately $3.5 million towards a rehabilitation of the project.
• Staff has met with the developer to discuss the project and best
management practices.
• The City would only serve as a conduit for the project financing. The City
would not incur any financial liability as a result of the issuance of the
debt, nor would the City incur any out of pocket. expenses:
III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION
A. POLICY
• Under the Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 462C and Chapter 474A
the City of Richfield is authorized and empowered to issue
multifamily housing revenue bonds.
• The Borrower has submitted an Application For Tax Exempt Bond
Financing to the City with respect to the proposed Refunding
Bonds.
• As a condition of the issuance of the revenue bonds, the City must
adopt a Housing Program providing the information required by
Minnesota Statutes Chapter 462C.
• An application to the Minnesota Department of Finance for an
allocation of bonding authority to finance the. project must also be
.submitted.
B. CRITICAL ISSUES
• The issuance of these bonds will not count against the City's
annual allotment of Bank Qualified Debt.
C. FINANCIAL
• The estimated amount of the bonds to be issued would be
$16,000,000.
• A combination of approximately $3.5 million of proceeds and equity
is planned towards rehabilitation of the project.
• The bonds will be issued in the City's name, but will not be a
charge against the. City's general credit or taxing powers. The City
will act as a conduit for the financing of the project. It does not
create any financial liability to the City.
• The City is to be reimbursed and held harmless for and from any
out-of-pocket expenses related to the tax exempt financing,
including, but not limited to, legal fees, financial analyst fees, bond
counsel fees, staff costs, and any deposits or application fees
required under state law in order to secure allocation of bonding
authority.
0424AtH omePrivateActivityBonds
The applicant will be charged an annual administrative fee in the
amount of 1/8t" of 1 % (.125%) of the outstanding principal balance
of the bonds.
D. LEGAL
• Kennedy & Graven wilt serve as bond counsel for the issue.
• A public hearing is required as part of the issuance of private
activity revenue bond financing.
• Notice of public hearing was published April 5, 2007 in the Sun
Newspaper. Time and date of the public hearing are on or after
6:30 p.m. on April 24, 2007.
IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION~S~
• Forgo approving the attached reso{ution and not proceed with the
issuance of the private activity revenue bonds.
V. ATTACHMENTS
• Resolution
• Program for a multifamily housing development.
• Application for allocation of bonding authority.
VI. PRINCIl'AL PARTIES EXPECTED AT
MEETING
• John Utley, Kennedy & Graven, Chartered
• Mike Cashill, @ Home Apartments
0424AtH om ePrivateActivityBonds
q-1
RESOLUTION NO
RESOLUTION RELATING TO A MULTIFAMILY HOUSING DEVELOPMENT
TO BE ACQUIRED, OWNED, AND OPERATED BY LYNWOOD PARTNERS,
L.L.C., A MINNESOTA LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY, AND THE
ISSUANCE OF REVENUE BONDS TO FINANCE AND REFINANCE THE
COSTS THEREOF UNDER MINNESOTA STATUTES, CHAPTER 462C, AS
AMENDED; .GRANTING PRELIMINARY APPROVAL THERETO,
ESTABLISHING COMPLIANCE .WITH CERTAIN REIMBURSEMENT
REGULATIONS UNDER THE INTERNAL REVENUE CODE OF 1986, AS
AMENDED, AND TAHING CERTAIN OTHER ACTIONS WITH RESPECT
THERETO
BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota (the "City"), as
follows:
Section 1. Recitals.
1.01. The City of Richfield, Minnesota is a home rule city duly organized and existing under its
Charter and the Constitution and laws of the State of Minnesota.
1.02. Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 462C, as amended (the "Act"), the City is
authorized to carry out the public purposes described in the Act by providing for the issuance of revenue
bonds to provide funds to finance or refinance multifamily housing developments located within the City.
As a condition to the issuance of such revenue bonds, the City must adopt a housing program providing
the information required by Section 46X.03, subdivision 1 a, of the Act (the "Housing Program"). A
public hearing must be held in accordance with the requirements of Section 147(f) of the Internal
Revenue Code of 1986, as amended (the "Code"), and the requirements of the Act. The City Council of
the City must also grant preliminary approval to the issuance of revenue bonds to fmance the multifamily
housing development referred to in the Housing Program, and authorize the submission of an application
to the Minnesota Department of Finance for an allocation of bonding authority with respect to the Bonds
(as hereinafter defined) to fmance the Project (as hereinafter defined).
1.03. Lynwood Partners, L.L.C., a Minnesota limited liability company (the "Borrower"), has
proposed that the City, pursuant to the Act, issue its revenue bonds in the approximate aggregate principal
amount of $16,000,000, in one or more series at one time or from time to time (the "Bonds"), the
proceeds of which will be loaned by .the City to the Borrower to be applied by the Borrower to the
acquisition and renovation of a 306-unit multifamily rental housing development, comprised of nine
buildings located at 7437 Lyndale Avenue South in the City (the "Project"). The Borrower will apply the
proceeds of the loan to the: (i) the acquisition of the Project; (ii) the rehabilitation of the Project; (iii) the
funding of one or more reserve funds to secure the timely payment of the Bonds; and (iv) the payment of
the costs of issuing the Bonds.
1.04. Under Section 147(f) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended (the "Code"),
prior to the issuance of the Bonds a public hearing duly noticed must be held by the City Council. Under
Section 46X.04, subdivision 2, of the Act, a public hearing must be held on each housing program after
one publication of notice in a newspaper circulating generally in the City, at least fifteen days before the
hearing.
q~-~-
1.05. Under Section 146 of the Code, the Bonds must receive an allocation of the bonding
authority of the State of Minnesota. An application for such an allocation must be made pursuant to the
requirements of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 474A, as amended (the "Allocation Act").
Section 2. Preliminary Findings. Based on representations made by the Borrower to the City to
date, the City Council of the City hereby makes the following preliminary findings, determinations, and
declarations:
(a) The Project consists of a multifamily housing development designed and intended to be
used for rental occupancy.
(b) The proceeds of the Bonds will be loaned to the Borrower and the proceeds of the loan
will be applied to the: (i) the acquisition of the Project; (ii) the rehabilitation of the Project; (iii) the
funding of one or more reserve funds to secure the timely payment of the Bonds; and (iv) the payment of
the costs of issuing the Bonds. The City will enter into a loan agreement (or other revenue. agreement)
with the Borrower requiring loan repayments from the Borrower in amounts sufficient to repay the loan
when due and requiring the Borrower to pay all costs of maintaining and insuring the Project, including
taxes thereon.
(c) In preliminarily authorizing the issuance of the Bonds and the financing of the acquisition
and renovation of the Project and related costs, the City's purpose is to further the policies of the Act.
(d) The Bonds will be limited obligations of the City payable solely from the revenues
pledged to the payment thereof, and will not. be a general or moral obligation of the City and will not be
secured by or payable from revenues derived from any exercise of the taxing powers of the City.
Section 4. Public Hearin. On April 24, 2007, the City conducted a public hearing on the
Program, the Project, and the issuance of revenue obligations by the City, notice of which hearing (the
"Public Notice"), was published as required by Minnesota Statutes, Section 46X.04, subdivision 2, of the
Act, and Section 147(f) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended. The Public Notice provided a
general, functional description of the Project, as well as the maximum aggregate face amount of the
obligations to be issued for the purposes referenced above, the identity of the initial owner, operator, or
manager of the Project, and the location of the Project. The Public Notice was published in the Richfield
Sun Current, the official newspaper and a newspaper circulating generally in the City, on Apri15, 2007, a
date at least fifteen (15) days before a meeting of the City Council of the Issuer on Apri124, 2007. The
City Council of the City conducted a public hearing at which a reasonable opportunity was provided for
interested individuals to express their views, both orally and in writing, on the Project and the proposed
issuance of the Bonds.
Section 5. Housing Program. The City prepared a housing program (the "Housing Program" or
"Program") to authorize the issuance of the Bonds by the City in the principal amount of approximately
$16,000,000 to finance the acquisition and rehabilitation by the Company of the Project. The Housing
Program was prepared and submitted to the Metropolitan Council on April 4, 2007, for its review and
comment.
The Housing Program is hereby adopted, ratified, and approved in all respects without
amendment. The preparation of the Housing Program and the submission of the Housing Program to the
Metropolitan Council are hereby ratified, confirmed, and approved. The City Manager is hereby
authorized to do all other things and take all other actions as may be necessary or appropriate to carry out
the Housing Program in accordance with the Act and any other applicable laws and regulations.
2
c ~?~
i
Section 6. Preliminary Approval. This Council hereby gives preliminary approval to the
- issuance of the Bonds in the approximate aggregate principal amount of $16,000,000 to fmance all. or a
portion of the costs of the Project pursuant to the Housing Program of the City, subject to final approval
following the preparation of bond documents, and subject to final determination by this Council that the
fmancing of the Project and the issuance of the Bonds are in the best interest of the City.
Section 7. Submission of an Application for an Allocation of Bonding Authority. Under
Section 146 of the Code, the Bonds must receive an allocation of the bonding authority of the State of
Minnesota. An application for such an allocation must be made pursuant to the requirements of the
Allocation Act. The City Council hereby authorizes the submission of an application for allocation of
bonding authority pursuant to Section 146 of the Code and the Allocation Act in accordance with the
requirements of the Allocation Act. The Mayor of the City, the City Manager, and Kennedy & Graven,
Chartered, acting as bond counsel with respect to the Project and the Bonds, shall take all actions, in
cooperation with the Borrower, as are necessary to submit an application for an allocation. of bonding
authority to the Minnesota Department of Finance.
Section 8. Reimbursement of Costs under the Code.
8.1. The United States Department of the Treasury has promulgated final regulations
governing the use of the proceeds of tax-exempt bonds, all or a portion of which are to be used to
reimburse the City or the Borrower for project expenditures paid prior to the date of issuance of such
bonds. Those regulations (Treasury Regulations, Section 1.150-2) (the "Regulations") require that the
City adopt a statement of official intent to reimburse an original expenditure not later than sixty (60) days
after payment of the original expenditure. The Regulations also generally require that the bonds be issued
and the reimbursement allocation made from the proceeds of the bonds occur within eighteen (18) months
after the later of: (i) the date the expenditure is paid; or (ii) the date the project is placed in service or
abandoned, but in no event more than three (3) years after the date the expenditure is paid. The
Regulations generally permit reimbursement of capital expenditures and costs of issuance of the bonds.
8.2. To the extent any portion of the proceeds of the Bonds will be applied to expenditures
with respect to the Project, the City reasonably expects to reimburse the Borrower for the expenditures
made for. costs of the Project from the proceeds of the Bonds after the date of payment of all or a portion
of such expenditures. All reimbursed expenditures shall be capital expenditures, a cost of issuance of the
Bonds, or other expenditures eligible for reimbursement under Section 1.150-2(d)(3) of the Regulations
and also qualifying expenditures under the Act.
Based on representations by the Borrower, other than (i) expenditures to be paid or reimbursed
from sources other than the Bonds, (ii) expenditures permitted to be reimbursed under prior regulations
pursuant to the transitional provision contained in Section 1.150-2(j)(2)(i)(B) of the Regulations,
(iii) expenditures constituting .preliminary expenditures within the meaning of Section 1.150-2(f)(2) of the
Regulations, or (iv) expenditures in a "de minimus" amount (as defined in Section 1.150-2(f)(1) of the
Regulations), no expenditures with respect to the Project to be reimbursed with the proceeds of the Bonds
have been made by the Borrower more than sixty (60) days before the date of adoption of this resolution
of the City.
8.3. Based on representations by the Borrower, as of the date hereof, there are no funds of the
Borrower reserved, allocated on a long term-basis or otherwise set aside (or reasonably expected to be
'reserved, allocated on a long-term basis or otherwise set aside) to provide permanent fmancing for the
expenditures related to the Project to be fmanced from proceeds of the Bonds, other than pursuant to the
issuance of the Bonds. This resolution, therefore, is determined to be consistent with the budgetary and
fmancial circumstances of the Borrower as they exist or are reasonably foreseeable on the date hereof.
~~ ~~-
Section 9. Costs. The Borrower will pay any administrative fees of the City and pay, or, upon
demand, reimburse the City for payment of, any and all .costs incurred by the City in connection with the
Project and the issuance of the Bonds, whether or not the Bonds. are issued.
Section 10. Commitment Conditional. The adoption of this .resolution does not constitute a
guarantee or a firm commitment that the City will issue the Bonds as requested by the Borrower. If, as a
result of information made available to or obtained by the City during its review of the Project, it appears
that the Project or the issuance of Bonds to finance or refinance the costs thereof is not in the public
interest or is inconsistent with the purposes of the Act, the City reserves the right to decline to give fmal
approval to the issuance of the Bonds. The City also retains the right, in its sole discretion, to withdraw
from participation and accordingly not issue the Bonds should the City Council,. at any time prior to the
issuance thereof, determine that it is in the best interests of the City not to issue the Bonds or should the
parties to the transaction be unable to reach agreement as to the terms and conditions of any of the
documents for the transaction.
Section 11. Effective Date.. This Resolution shall be in full force and effect from and after its
passage.
Adopted by the City Council of the City ofRichfield, Minnesota, on Apri124, 2007.
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Debbie Goettel
Mayor
Steven L. Devich
City Manager
Attest:
Nancy Gibbs, City Clerk
RC145-580 (N)
308621 v.2
4
~ir~
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
PROGRAM FOR A
MULTIFAMILY HOUSING DEVELOPMENT
Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 462C (the "Act"), the City of Richfield, Minnesota (the
"City") is authorized to develop and administer programs to finance the acquisition of multifamily
housing developments under the circumstances and within the limitations set forth in the Act. Minnesota
Statutes, Section 46X.07 provides that such programs for multifamily housing developments may be
financed by revenue bonds issued by the City.
The City has received a proposal that it approve a program providing for the acquisition and
rehabilitation of a 306-unit multifamily rental housing development, comprised of nine buildings located
at 7437 Lyndale Avenue South in the City (the "Project"). The acquisition of the Project is to be funded
in part through the issuance of a series of revenue bonds in the principal amount of approximately
$16,000,000 to be issued by the City (the "Bonds"), the proceeds of which will be loaned to a limited
liability company or other entity to be formed (the "Company"), the majority principals of which will be
Michael E. Cashill and Alan J. Spaulding, to finance the acquisition and rehabilitation of the Project. A
portion of the acquisition and rehabilitation of the Project will be funded in part from an equity
contribution of the Company in the amount of approximately $1,725,000. The Company may request
financial assistance from the City in the amount of approximately $250,000 to $500,000. At Home
Apartments, L.L.C., a Minnesota limited liability company (solely owned by Michael E. Cashill and Alan
J. Spaulding), or another entity selected by the Company will manager the Project. It is expected that
dwelling units of the Project will be subject to occupancy limits imposed by federal income tax law and
regulations such that only persons and families within designated income limits will be permitted to
occupy such units.
The City, in establishing this multifamily housing program (the "Program"), has considered the
information contained in the City's comprehensive plan. The Project will be acquired in accordance with
the requirements of Subdivisions 1 and 2 of Section 46X.05 of the Act.
Section A. Definitions. The following terms used in this Program shall have the following
meanings, respectively:
"Act" shall mean Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 462C, as currently in effect and as the
same maybe from time to time amended.
"Bonds" shall mean the revenue bonds to be issued by the City.
"City" shall mean the City of Richfield, Minnesota.
Company" shall mean a Minnesota limited liability company, or another entity to be
formed, the majority principals of which will be Michael E. Cashill and Alan J. Spaulding.
"Housing Unit" shall mean any one of the dwelling units, each located in the Project,
occupied by one person or family, and containing complete living facilities.
"Land" shall mean the real property upon which the Project is situated.
`~
"Program" shall mean this housing program for the financing of the Project pursuant to
the Act.
"Project" shall mean the residential rental housing development consisting of
306 Housing Units, comprised of nine buildings located at 7437 Lyndale Avenue South in the City,
to be acquired and rehabilitated by the Company.
Section B. Program For Financing the Project. It is proposed that the City establish this Program
to provide financing for the acquisition and rehabilitation of the Project at a cost and upon such other
terms and conditions as are set forth herein and as may be agreed upon in writing between the City, the
initial purchaser of the Borids and the Company. The City expects to issue the Bonds as soon as the terms
of the Bonds have been agreed upon by the City, the Company, and the initial purchaser of the Bonds.
The proceeds of the Bonds will be loaned to the Company to finance the acquisition and rehabilitation of
the Project, to fund required reserves and to pay the costs of issuing the Bonds. It is expected that a
trustee will be appointed by the City to provide for the payment of principal and interest on the Bonds.
It is anticipated that the Bonds will have a maturity of approximately forty (40) years or less and
will bear interest at a variable rate or at fixed rates consistent with the market at the time of issuance.
The City will hire no additional staff for the administration of the Program. Insofar as the City
will be contracting with underwriters, legal counsel, bond counsel, the trustee, and others, all of whom
will be reimbursed from bond proceeds and revenues generated by the Program, no administrative costs
will be paid from the City's budget with respect to this Program. The Bonds will not be general
obligation bonds of the City, but are to be paid only from properties pledged to the payment thereof,
which may include additional security such as additional collateral, insurance or a letter of credit.
Section C. Standards and Requirements Relating to the Financing of the Project Pursuant to the
Program. The following standards and requirements shall apply with respect to the operation of the
Project by the Company pursuant to this Program:
(1) Substantially all of the proceeds of the sale of the Bonds will be applied to the
acquisition and rehabilitation of the Project, the payment of the costs of issuing the Bonds, and
the funding of appropriate reserves. The proceeds of the Bonds will be made available to the
Company pursuant to the terms of a loan agreement (or other revenue agreement) which will
include certain covenants to be made by the Company to the City regarding the use of proceeds
and the character and use of the Project.
(2) The Project qualifies as a "multifamily housing development," within the
meaning of the Act, since it is comprised of an apartment facility, the units of which are rented to
persons or families for use as residences. The Company will acquire the existing buildings and
site comprising the Project.
(3) The Company, and any subsequent owner of the Project, will not arbitrarily reject
an application from a proposed tenant because of race, color, creed, religion, national origin, sex,
marital status, or status with regard to public assistance or disability.
(4) It is expected that:. (i) twenty percent (20%) of the Housing Units will be held for
occupancy by families or individuals with gross income not in excess of fifty percent (50%) of
median family income, adjusted for family size; or (ii) forty percent (40%) of the Housing Units
will be held for occupancy by families or individuals with .gross income not in excess of sixty
percent (60%) of median family income, adjusted for family size. This set aside would satisfy the
2
~~
low-income occupancy requirements of Section 46X.05, subdivision 2, of the Act, if they were
applicable. The current rents at the Project are not expected to change significantly as a result of
this financing. -The current monthly rental payments for the 110 regular one-bedroom units of the
Project are between $575 and $595. The current monthly rental payments for the 1961arge one-
bedroom units of the Project are between $585 and $625.
Subsection D. Evidence of Compliance. The City may require from the Company at or before
the issuance of the Bonds, evidence satisfactory to the City of compliance with the standards and
requirements for the making of the financing established by 'the City, as set forth herein; and in
connection therewith, the City or its representatives may inspect the relevant books and records of the
Company in order to confirm such ability, intention and compliance. In addition, the City may
periodically require certification from either the Company or such other person deemed necessary
concerning compliance with various aspects of this Program.
Subsection E. Issuance of Bonds. To finance the Program authorized by this Section the City
will by resolution authorize, issue and sell its revenue bonds in an aggregate principal amount of
approximately $16,000,000. The Bonds will be issued pursuant to Section 46X.07, subdivision 1, of the
Act, and will be payable primarily from the revenues of the Program authorized by this Section. The
costs of the Project, including costs of issuance of the Bonds and required reserve funds, are presently
expected to be in excess of the principal amount of the Bonds. It is expected that the Company will
contribute to the Project the difference between the total costs of the Project and the principal amount of
the Bonds available to finance the Project. The costs of the Project may change between the date of
preparation of this Program and the date of issuance of the Bonds. The Bonds are expected to be issued
in the second calendar quarter of 2007.
Subsection F. Severability. The provisions of this Program are severable and if any of its
provisions, sentences, clauses or paragraphs shall be held unconstitutional, contrary to statute, exceeding
the authority of the City or otherwise illegal or inoperative by any court of competent jurisdiction, the
decision of such court shall not affect or impair any of the remaining provisions.
Subsection G. Amendment. The City shall not amend this Program, while Bonds authorized
hereby are outstanding, to the detriment of the holders of such Bonds.
Subsection H. State Ceiling.
(1) An application for an allocation of a portion of the annual volume cap for private
activity bonds will be made to the Minnesota Department of Finance, pursuant to Section 146 of
the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended, and Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 474A, as
amended (the "Allocation Act").
(2) Pursuant to the terms and requirements of the Allocation Act: (i) the Project will
meet the requirements of Section 142(d) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended (the
"Code"), regarding the incomes of the occupants of the Project; and (ii) the maximum rent for at
least twenty percent (20%) of the units in the Project will not exceed the area fair market rent or
exception fair market rents for existing housing, if applicable, as established by the United States
Department of Housing and Urban Development.
(3) Prior to the issuance of the Bonds, the Company will enter into afifteen-year
agreement with the City that specifies the maximum rental rates of the rent-restricted units in the
Project and the income levels of the residents of the Project occupying the income-restricted
units. Such rental rates and income levels must be within the limitations established in
~~ ~~
accordance with the preceding paragraph (2). The Company will be required to annually certify
to the City over the term of the agreement that the rental rates for the rent-restricted units are
within the limitations under the preceding paragraph (Z). The City may request individual
certification of the income of residents of the income-restricted units of the Project. The
Minnesota Department of Finance may request from the City a copy of the annual certification
prepared by the Company. The' Minnesota Department of Finance may require the City to request
individual certification of all residents of the income-restricted units of the Project.
(4) The City will monitor Project compliance with the rental rate and income level
requirements established under the preceding paragraph (2). The City may issue an order of
noncompliance if the Project is found by the City to be out of compliance with the rental-rate or
income-level requirements established under the preceding paragraph (2). The Company shall
pay a penalty to the City equal to one-half of one percent of the total amount of the Bonds issued
under the Act for the Project if the City issues an order of noncompliance. For each additional
year the Project is out of compliance, the annual penalty must be increased by one-half of one
percent of the principal amount of the Bonds issued under the Act for the Project. The City may
waive insubstantial violations.
RC145-580 (JIJ)
308624v.1
4
MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE Form H
TREASURY DIVISION ~~ „Q Application Form
Revised December 2003
APPLICATION FOR ALLOCATION Page 1 of 1
OF BONDING AUTHORITY
Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 474A, as amended
NAME OF ISSUER: City of Richfield Minnesota
NAME OF PROJECT: Gateway Pointe Apartments Project
AMOUNT OF ISSUANCE AUTHORITY REQUESTED: $16,000 000
TYPE OF QUALIFIED BONDS TO BE ISSUED:
^ Small Issue Bonds ® Residential Rental Project Bonds ^ Enterprise Zone Bonds
(for manufacturing prof ects and the
Minnesota Rural Finance Authority) ^ Mortgage Bonds ^ Governmental Bonds
^ Student Loan Bonds ^ Public Facilities Bonds ^ Redevelopment Bonds
DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT:
Acquisition, rehabilitation and equipping of a of a 306-unit multifamily rental housing development, comprised of nine buildings located at 7437 Lyndale
Avenue South in the City of Richfield, Minnesota
THIS COMPLETED APPLICATION FORM MUST BE ACCOMPANIED BY:
1. A nonrefundable application fee of $20 for each $100,000 amount of issuance authority requested, with the request'xounded to the nearest $100,000. The
minimum fee is $20;
2. A preliminary resolution adopted by the governing body;
3. A statement from bond counsel that the proposed issue of obligations requires an allocation under M.S..474A and the Internal Revenue Code;
4. The type of qualified bonds to be issued. (identify type on this Application Form H);
An application deposit in the amount of 1% of the requested allocation before the last Monday in July or 2% on or after the last Monday in July;
All issuers must pay the application fee and application deposit by separate checks. made payable to the Department of Finance. Checks must be issued by
the issuer. The Minnesota Housing Finance Agency, Minnesota Rural Finance Authority, and Higher Education Services Office may provide payment using
a MAPS transfer. The federal employer identification number (FEIN) for the State of Mirmesota is 41-6007162.
7. For manufacturing projects and enterprise zone facility projects, a public purpose scoring worksheet (Form ~
8. For residential rental proj ecfs, a statement from the applicant or bond counsel as to whether the proj ect preserves existing federally subsidized housing and
is restricted to persons who are 55 years or older.
The following official of the issuer is designated for contact by the Department of Finance:
NAME: Mr Chris Reds PHONE NO.S612) 861-9700
TITLE: Finance Manager E-MAIL: cregis(a~ci.richfield.mn.us
ISSUER: City of Richfield ~`,
ADDRESS: 6700 Portland Avenue
CITY/STATE/Z1P: Richfield, Minnesota 55423 2560
.i
THE UNDERSIGNED CERTIFY THE ACCURACY OF THE ABOVE INFORMATION SUBMITTED WITH THIS APPLICATION:
Mayor or Chief Administrator of Local Issuer
Attorney for Local Issuer or Bond Counsel
Date
Date
Send one original copy to:
Minnesota Department of Finance, Treasury Division
Attn: Mr. Peter Sausen
400 Centennial Building, 658 Cedar Street
St. Paul, Minnesota 55155-1489
AGENDA SECTION: RF.. OLIITTON~
AGENDA ITEM,# 10
REPORT # 109
J STAFF REPORT
CITY COUNCIL MEETING
APRIL 24, 2007
REPORT PREPARED BY:
PAT SMITH, COMMUNITY
DEVELOPMENT MANAGER
NAME, TITLE
COUNCIL PRESENTER:
DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR
REVIEW: ®~
REVIEWED BY CITY
MANAGER:
ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION:
A Commitment that the City will not sell, orencumber-through easement or license or
otherwise, any of the land that it owns within the area covered in the Preliminary Agreement
between the Richfield Housin and Redevelo ment Authorit and United Bankers' Bank.
I. RECOMMENDED ACTION:
By Motion: Adopt the attached resolution committing that the City
will not sell, or encumber through easement or license or otherwise,
any of the land that it owns within the area covered in the Preliminary
Agreement between the Richfield Housing and Redevelopment
Authority and United Bankers' Bank.
II. BACKGROUND.
On April 16, 2007 the Richfield Housing and Redevelopment Authority (HRA)
approved a Preliminary Agreement with United Bankers' Bank (UBB). The purpose
of the Preliminary Agreement is to explore the development feasibility fora 2.5-acre
site south of the Decision One building. UBB is considering constructing atwo-story
office building of 60,000-sq. ft. on the site. The project site currently includes an 11-
unit apartment building, asingle-family residence, four parcels owned by the City
and the northern tip of a larger tract of land occupied by two apartment buildings.
042407 - UBB commitment
Under the Preliminary Agreement, the HRA agreed to use its best efforts to obtain a
commitment from the City, that the City will not sell or encumber any of the four
parcels that it owns during the term of the Preliminary Agreement.
UBB was founded in 1975 and is owned and controlled by 200 community banks
located mostly in Minnesota and North Dakota. UBB provides banking services to
these community banks: helping community banks sell and buy banks, assist in
strategic planning, and provide lending, management, depository and credit card
service.
UBB has been leasing space at the South Point office building on I-494 near I-35W
since 1980.
III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION
A. POLICY
• The Cedar Avenue Corridor Redevelopment .Concept Master Plan has
been used as a guide for the redevelopment of the Cedar Avenue
Corridor.
• The area under consideration is included in the Cedar Avenue
Corridor Redevelopment Concept Master Plan and indicates possible
office uses, which is consistent with UBB's plans.
• Development agreements typically have a clause restricting the HRA
or the City from working with other developers or selling land that is
included in the Development Agreement.
• The HRA most recently utilized this restrictive approach for the Penn
Avenue area in about 2001-02 for an 18-month period.
B. CRITICAL ISSUES
• The term of the Agreement is nine months.
• The Agreement states that the HRA shall use its best effort to receive
a Commitment from the City Council that it will not sell or encumber
any of the 23 parcels that it owns in the redevelopment study area.
• The Agreement restricts the HRA from assisting any other developer
with redevelopment of the project site.
• The Agreement requires the HRA and UBB to seek input from the
neighborhood.
• If development is feasible during the term of the Agreement, the HRA
and UBB will negotiate a Private Development Contract.
• Representative of TOLD and UBB have already met to help ensure a
good working relationship.
C. FINANCIAL
• N/A
D. LEGAL
• Legal counsel drafted the Agreement in cooperation with staff.
IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION(S~
• Approve the Commitment with added provisions or modifications.
• Do not approve the Commitment.
• Continue the consideration of the Commitment to a later meeting date.
V. ATTACHMENTS
• Resolution Relating To The Development of City Owned Property
• Map showing site in context
VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING
• Gene Ekness, Senior Vice President, UBB
• Tom Hauschild, Tegra Group
~o-I
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION RELATING TO THE
DEVELOPMENT OF CITY-OWNED PROPERTY
WHEREAS, the City of Richfield and Housing and Redevelopment Authority (HRA) have
established the Richfield Redevelopment Project Area ("Project Area") under the authority of
Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 469; and have established within the Project Area a Redevelopment
Tax Increment District (the "TIF District") and adopted a Tax Increment Financing Plan (hereinafter
the "TIF Plan") for the TIF District to facilitate the fmancing of public improvements and
redevelopment costs in the Project Area; and
WHEREAS, the TIF District includes land generally referred to as the Cedar Corridor; and
WHEREAS, within the Cedar Corridor, the City currently owns certain parcels of land
including those shown on the attached Exhibit A; and
WHEREAS, the HRA has entered into a Preliminary Agreement with United Bankers'
Bank ("UBB") providing a process for determining whether UBB will be able to develop portions
of the Cedar Corridor; and
WHEREAS, because the areas under consideration by UBB include parcels of land
currently owned by the City, both the HRA and UBB have requested that the City commit that,
during the term of the Preliminary Agreement, it will not take certain actions with regard to the
City-owned parcels; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has received the report and recommendation of staff, and has
reviewed the request of the HRA and UBB, and is fully informed as to the same; and
WHEREAS, the City Council deems it to be in the public interest to facilitate and
encourage redevelopment within the Cedar Corridor by making the requested commitment.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Richfield,
Minnesota, that:
1. During the initial term of the Preliminary Agreement, the City will not sell or
encumber through easement, license or otherwise any of the land owned by it and located within the
area covered by the. Preliminary Agreement. This commitment shall not apply to any contractual
obligations created prior to the date of this resolution.
2. The City Clerk is authorized and directed to transmit certified copies of this
resolution to the HRA and UBB.
309434v1 JBD RC125-276
i~~~
Adopted by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota, the day of April,
2007.
Attest:
Debbie Goettel, Mayor
Nancy Gibbs, City Clerk
(SEAL)
309434v1 JBD RC125-276 2
Legend
City Owned Parcels
I:\GIS\Community Development\Staff\Christine\Cedar Corridor\South of 66th Street.mxd
N
~ ::Access ~iiaiE
^ 2.48 acres.
a W
^ a
a
^ W
°1'GI L''~ ~IIIII -¢~
0 87.5 175 350
Feet
AGENDA SECTION: RE$OLDTIONS
AGENDA ITEM # 11
REPORT # 110
~~' STAFF REPORT
CITY COUNCIL MEETING
APRIL 24, 2007
REPORT PREPARED BY:
PAT SMITH, COMMUNITY
DEVELOPMENT. MANAGER
NAME, TITLE
COUNCIL PRESENTER:
DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR
REVIEW:
REVIEWED BY CITY
MANAGER:
ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION:
A Commitment that the City will not sell, or encumber through easement or license or
otherwise, any of the land that it owns within the area covered in the Preliminary Agreement
between the Richfield Housing and Redevelopment Authority and TOLD Development
Company.
I. RECOMMENDED ACTION:
By Motion: Adopt the attached resolution committing that the City
will not sell, or encumber through easement or license or otherwise,
any of the land that it owns within the area covered in the Preliminary
Agreement between the Richfield Housing and Redevelopment
Authority and TOLD Development Company.
II. BACKGROUND
On April 16, 2007 the Richfield .Housing and Redevelopment Authority (HRA)
approved a Preliminary Agreement with TOLD Development Company (TOLD).
The purpose of the Preliminary Agreement is to explore the development feasibility
for the 30-acre area between 66th and 69th Streets and between 17th Avenue and
TH 77. (The United Bankers' Bank (UBB) site. is within the TOLD site. The
042407 -TOLD commitment
developers will be working together.) See the attached aerial photo, which depicts
the feasibility area.
The City owns 23 parcels in this study area (see attached map). Under the
Preliminary Agreement, the HRA agreed to use its best efforts to obtain a
commitment from the City, that the City will-not sell or encumber any of the 23
parcels that it owns during the term of the Preliminary Agreement.
TOLD developed Meridian Crossings, Richfield's first Class A office building at the
northeast corner of I-35W and I-494 in 1999. TOLD is also the developer of the
much-acclaimed "Excelsior at Grand", amixed-use project in St. Louis Park. They
have done many other developments in the metropolitan area over the years.
III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION
A. POLICY
• The Cedar Avenue Corridor Redevelopment Concept Master Plan has
been used as a guide for the redevelopment of the Cedar Avenue
Corridor.
The area under consideration is included in the Cedar Avenue
Corridor Redevelopment Concept Master Plan and indicates possible
office, residential and retail uses. TOLD is experienced in each of
these areas.
Development agreements typically have a clause restricting the HRA
or the City from working with other developers or selling land that is
included in the Development Agreement.
The HRA most recently implemented this restrictive approach for the
Penn Avenue area in about 2001-02 for an 18-month period.
B. CRITICAL ISSUES
• Conversations with other potential developers have included Opus
Northwest, Robert Muir Company, Cambridge Commercial Realty,
Ryan Company US, The Beard Group, The Wirth Companies, ESG
Architects, LaSalle Group Ltd., and LifeScience Alley. TOLD indicated
an interest in proceeding immediately with a comprehensive approach
to the subject area.
• This is a unique opportunity to realize the greatest potential for this
area for the future of the community.
• The term of the Agreement is nine months.
• The Agreement states that the HRA shall use its best effort to receive
a Commitment from the City Council that it will not sell or encumber
any of the 23 parcels that it owns in the redevelopment study area.
• The Agreement restricts the HRA from assisting any other developer
with. redevelopment of the project site, UBB excepted.
• The Agreement requires the HRA and TOLD to seek input from the
neighborhood.
If development is feasible during the term of the Agreement, .the HRA
and TOLD will negotiate a Private Development Contract.
• The Agreement exceptions resolution of parking matters with the
dental clinic at 1717 East 66th Street.
• Representatives of TOLD and UBB have already met to help ensure a
good working relationship.
C. FINANCIAL
• N/A
D. LEGAL
• Legal counsel drafted the Agreement in cooperation with staff.
IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION(S~
• Approve the Commitment with added provisions or modifications.
• Do not approve the Commitment.
• Continue the consideration of the Commitment to a later meeting date.
V. ATTACHMENTS
• Resolution Relating To The Development of City-Owned Property
• Aerial photo of feasibility study area
VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING
• Gary Dreher, TOLD Development Company
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION RELATING TO THE
DEVELOPMENT OF CITY-OWNED PROPERTY
WHEREAS, the City of Richfield and the Housing and Redevelopment Authority (HRA)
have established the Richfield Redevelopment Project Area ("Project Area") under the authority of
Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 469; and have established within the Project Area a Redevelopment
Tax Increment District (the "TIF District") and adopted a Tax Increment Financing Plan (hereinafter
the "TIF Plan") for the TIF District to facilitate the financing of public improvements and
redevelopment costs in the Project Area; and
WHEREAS, the TIF District includes land generally referred to as the Cedar Corridor; and
WHEREAS, within the Cedar Corridor, the City currently owns certain parcels of land
including those shown on the attached Exhibit A; and
WHEREAS, the HRA has. entered into a Preliminary Agreement with Meridian Properties
Real Estate Development LLC ("TOLD") providing a process for determining whether TOLD will
be able to develop portions of the Cedar Corridor; and
WHEREAS, because the areas under consideration by TOLD include parcels of land
currently owned by the City, both the HRA and TOLD have requested that the City commit that,
during the term of the Preliminary Agreement, it will not take certain actions with regard to the
City-owned parcels; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has received the report and recommendation of staff, and has
reviewed the request of the HRA and TOLD, and is fully informed as to the same; and
WHEREAS, the City Council deems it to be in the public interest to facilitate and
encourage redevelopment within the Cedar Corridor by making the requested commitment.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Richfield,
Minnesota, that:
1. During the initial term of the Preliminary Agreement, the City will not sell or
encumber through easement, license or otherwise any of the land owned by it and located within the
area covered by the Preliminary Agreement. This commitment shall not apply to any contractual
obligations created prior to the date of this resolution, nor to any actions intended to provide
assistance to the owners of 1717 East 66th Street to address parking concerns raised by said owners.
2. The City Clerk is authorized and directed to transmit certified copies of this
resolution to the HRA and TOLD.
309429v1 JBD RC125-277
1(-2.
Adopted by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota, the day of April,
2007.
Attest:
Debbie Goettel, Mayor
Nancy Gibbs, City Clerk
(SEAL)
309429v1 JBD RC125-277 2
EXHIBIT A
City-Owned Properties 11,
66th Street
67th Street
a~
c
m
Q
s
ti
m
m
a
00
m
m
a
L
e~
m
V
68th Street
~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ N
Legend
.City-owned properties
I:\GIS\Community Development\Staff\Christine\Cedar Corridor\South of 66th Street\TOLD Commitment.mxd
Legend
Area
N
I:\GIS\Community Development\Staff\Christine\Cedar Corridor\South of 66th Street\Prelim Agreement.mxd
AGENDA SECTION: OTHER BUSINESS
AGENDA ITEM # 12
REPORT # 111
STAFF REPORT
CITY COUNCIL MEETING
APRIL 24, 2007
REPORT PREPARED BY:
CHRISTINE COSTELLO, COMMUNITY
DEVELOPMENT SPECIALIST
NAME, TITLE
COUNCIL PRESENTER:
DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR
REVIEW:
REVIEWED BY CITY
MANAGER:
ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION:
Consideration of a Right-of-Entry Agreement for use of portions of 6701 18th Avenue South,
6709 18th Avenue South, 6721 18th Avenue South and 6700 Cedar Avenue South by United
Bankers Bank.
I. RECOMMENDED ACTION:
By Motion:: Approve aRight-of-Entry Agreement for use of portions
of 6701 18th Avenue South, 670918th Avenue South, 6721 18th Avenue
South and 6700 Cedar Avenue South by United Bankers Bank.
II. BACKGROUND
United Bankers' Bank (UBB) is considering the development feasibility of
constructing atwo-story office building of 60,000-sq. ft. on a 2.5-acre site south of
the Decision One building. The project site currently includes an 11-unit apartment
building, asingle-family residence, four parcels owned by the City and the northern
tip of a larger tract of land occupied by two apartment buildings.
The Right-of-Entry Agreement is necessary so that UBB may enter property
currently owned by the City. Through the Right-of--Entry Agreement, UBB will be
undertaking environmental work that would include conducting soil borings, and
drilling sample monitoring wells, and they may conduct other environmental studies
042407 Right of Entry UBB
to identify whether there may be hazardous substances, pollutants or contaminants
present.
III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION
A. POLICY
• On April 16, 2007 the Richfield Housing and Redevelopment Authority
(HRA) approved a Preliminary Agreement with UBB.
• On April 24, 2007 the City Council will consider a commitment not to sell,
or encumber through easement or license or otherwise, any of the land
that it owns within the area covered in the Preliminary Agreement
between the HRA and UBB.
B. CRITICAL ISSUES
• The attached Right-of-Entry Agreement memorializes understandings
and agreements with respect to UBB's access to the City property.
• This Agreement is critical to the feasibility study.
C. FINANCIAL
• N/A
D. LEGAL
• Legal counsel drafted the attached Right-of-Entry Agreement.
• The Right-of--Entry Agreement requires UBB to:
^ Use the property only for environmental work and its associated
activities.
Restore the property to its current condition.
Hold the City harmless for all claims.
IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION~S~
• Approve the Right-of--Entry Agreement with UBB with modifications.
• Do not approve the Right-of-Entry Agreement with UBB.
V. ATTACHMENTS
• Right-of-Entry Agreement
VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING
• Gene Ekness, Senior Vice President, UBB
• Tom Hauschild, Tegra Group
~ ~-i
RIGHT OF ENTRY AGREEMENT
THIS AGREEMENT, made on this day of , 2007, by and between CITY
OF RICHFIELD, a Minnesota municipal corporation ("Owner"), UNITED BANKERS' BANK, a
Minnesota state banking corporation, ("UBB").
I.
RECITALS
1.01. Owner is the fee simple owner of the real estate located at 6701 18th Avenue South,
6709 18th Avenue South, 6721 18th Avenue South and 6700 Cedar Avenue South Richfield, MN
55423, which are described on Exhibit A attached hereto and incorporated herein and as depicted on
Exhibit B attached hereto and incorporated herein ("Property").
1.02. UBB is investigating the possibility of purchasing the .Property for the purpose of
redevelopment.
1.03. UBB wishes to have its environmental consultant conduct soil borings, dig and
sample monitoring wells and conduct other environmental studies on the Property in order to
identify whether there may be hazardous substances, pollutants or contaminants present on the
Property. UBB has requested that Owner grant UBB, its employees, agents and contractors, the
right to enter the Property to conduct said environmental studies and investigate the location and
extent of any contamination.
1.04. UBB also desires to secure the consent of Owner to enter the Property for the
purpose of conducting appraisals, land surveys, and other tests or inspections of the Property. UBB
has requested that Owner grant its consent to .the entry of these additional consultants onto the
Property to conduct their studies.
~'~
1.05. It is understood that in executing this agreement, Owner will not be granting (a) any
permanent interest in the Property to UBB, or (b) exclusive use or possession of the Property to
UBB.
II.
AGREEMENT
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the premises and their mutual promises, the
parties hereto hereby agree as follows:
2.01. 1~i it of Entry. Effective upon the date hereof, Owner hereby grants to UBB, its
agents, employees, contractors and invitees, and such other consultants as UBB may elect
(collectively, "Consultants") the right to enter upon the Property, for the purpose of making surveys,
inspections, investigations, soil borings, drilling and sampling monitoring wells, and testing relative
to UBB's possible purchase of the Property.
2.02. Consideration. In consideration for such right of entry, UBB agrees to:
(a) Notify Owner of the date and time that work by UBB or its Consultants on the
Property will commence under this Agreement which notice shall be at least five (5)
business days prior to doing any work on the Property in order to permit Owner's
employees or consultants retained by Owner to be present during the time any work
is being done by UBB or its Consultants;
(b) Secure all appropriate government approvals and permits for any work that will
occur within public streets adjacent to the Property;
(c) Provide a copy of all test results and reports prepared by UBB's employees or
Consultants (except appraisal reports) evaluating the conditions present on the
i ~.-.~
Property to Owner as soon as reasonably possible following fmal completion
thereof.
(d) Dispose of all solid waste generated during the course of UBB's sampling activities
and other work on the Property in accordance with applicable federal, state and local
laws, rules and regulations.
(e) Do the work in the shortest period of time reasonably necessary to complete such
activities authorized under this Agreement as UBB, in its sole discretion, shall elect
to undertake;
(f) Use the Property only for the purposes described herein and not park or store any
equipment on the Property, except during the limited periods of time when the work
on the Property which is contemplated by this Agreement is actually in progress;
(g) Do no unnecessary damage to the Property and restore the Property to substantially
the same condition as the condition in which it was found by UBB at the time of
UBB's or its Consultants' entry upon the Property pursuant to this Agreement. As
soon after completion of its work on the Property as allowed by applicable
authorities, UBB shall properly abandon and remove any well installed by UBB or
its Consultants, in accordance with Minnesota Department of Health regulations;
(h) Hold Owner harmless from and indemnify Owner from any and all claims,
damages, judgments or obligations, including the cost of defense of suit, arising out
of damage to Property or arising out of injury to anyone incurred or alleged to have
been incurred in connection with or as a result of any work done pursuant to this
Right of Entry, or as a result of UBB's or its Consultants' intentional torts or
negligence. Notwithstanding the foregoing, UBB shall not be responsible for any
i ~-~-
submission or application for further investigation or feasibility analysis or the
proper methods or cost of removal, treatment or disposal of any pollutants,
contaminants or hazardous substances present on the Property, it being the sole
responsibility of Owner to perform these tasks if required;
(i) UBB shall ensure that its Consultants or their contractors or invitees which enter the
Property pursuant to this Agreement shall carry insurance during the time any work
is done on the Property in accordance with the following minimum requirements:
Workers' Compensation Insurance with limits as provided by statute, with all
necessary statutory elections to provide coverage for and/or claims made by
any person doing work on the Property pursuant to this Right of Entry;
Employer's liability insurance (often included as coverage (b) in the Workers'
Compensation policy) with limits of $100,000;
Comprehensive Auto (and truck) Liability Insurance with minimum combined
single limits of $1 million per occurrence;
Comprehensive General Liability Insurance (including coverage for contractual
liability, products and completed operations liability, liability arising out of
explosion, or underground related incidents) with minimum combined single
limits of $1 million per occurrence. In addition, the Comprehensive General
Liability policy shall include Owner and UBB as additional insureds with
respect to work done on the Property.
(j) If UBB or its Consultants remove a sample or portion of the Property for
investigation, monitoring or testing or obtains any data or issues any report, it must
give Owner an equal amount of the sample or portion and a copy of any data or
i ~--- ~
report, and must permit the Owner to perform an independent investigation,
monitoring, or testing of the sample or portion.
(k) Protect all monitoring wells with lockable caps and at least three protected posts.
2.03. Expiration. The .right of entry provided under this Agreement will automatically
expire upon the termination of the separate agreement between UBB and the Housing and
Redevelopment Authority in and for the City of Richfield.
2.04. Governing Law. This Agreement shall be interpreted in accordance with the laws of
the state of Minnesota.
2.05. Notices and Demands. All notices, demands or other communications under this
Agreement shall be effective only if made in writing and shall be sufficiently given and deemed
given when delivered personally, transmitted by facsimile, or mailed by certified mail, return receipt
requested, postage prepaid, properly addressed as follows:
If to Owner: City of Richfield
Attn:
6700 Portland Avenue South
Richfield, MN 55423
With a copy to: Corrine H. Thomson
Kennedy & Graven, Chartered
470 U. S. Bank Plaza
200 South Sixth Street
Minneapolis, MN 55402
If to UBB: United Bankers' Bank
1650 West 82"d Street
Southpoint Center, Suite 1500
Bloomington, MN 55431
Fax: 952.885.9499
ATTN: Gene Ekness
Copy to: Jon J. Hoganson
Winthrop & Weinstein, P.A.
225 South Sixth Street, Suite 3500
Minneapolis, MN 55402-4629
(~--(~
Or to such other persons as the parties may from time to time designate in writing and
forward to the other persons entitled to receive notice as provided in this section.
2.06. Amendment. This Agreement maybe amended by the parties hereto only by written
instrument executed with the same procedures and formality as were followed in the execution of
this Agreement.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have caused this Agreement to be duly executed in
their names and on their behalves on or as of the above date.
Owner:
CITY OF RICHFIELD
By:
Its Mayor
By:
Its City Manager
UNITED BANKERS' BANK
By:
Its:
1 ~.-~
EXHIBIT A TO RIGHT OF ENTRY AGREEMENT
Lots 1, 2, 13, 15 and 16, Block 4, WEXLER'S ADDITION, Hennepin County, Minnesota
1 a--~'
EXHIBIT B TO RIGHT OF ENTRY AGREEMENT
Right of Entry Agreement with UBB
--
67th Street
m d ~
c ~ ~
a' a' Q
r ~ d
U
68th Street
Legend
Location of Properties for
Right of Entry Agreement
AGENDA SECTION: OTF~.R BIISINESS
AGENDA ITEM # 13
REPORT # 112
~' STAFF REPORT
CITY COUNCIL MEETING
APRIL 24, 2007
REPORT PREPARED BY:
CHRISTINE COSTELLO, COMMUNITY
DEVELOPMENT SPECIALIST
NAME,. TITLE
COUNCIL PRESENTER:
DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR
REVIEW:
REVIEWED BY CITY
MANAGER:
ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION:
Consideration of a Right-of-Entry Agreement for use of portions of the lots southerly of 66th
Street East between 66th and 69th Streets and between 17th Avenue and Trunk Highway 77
b TOLD Develo ment Com an .
I. RECOMMENDED ACTION:
By Motion: Approve aRight-of-Entry Agreement for use of portions of
the lots southerly of 66th Street East between 66th and 69th Streets
and between 17th Avenue and Trunk Highway 77 by TOLD
Development Compa
II. BACKGROUND
TOLD Development Company (TOLD) is interested in studying development
feasibility for the 30-acres between 66th and 69th Streets and between 17th Avenue
and TH 77. Within the 30-acres area, the City owns 23 parcels.
The Right-of-Entry Agreement is necessary so that TOLD may enter property
currently owned by the City. Through the Right-of--Entry Agreement, TOLD will be
undertaking environmental work that would include conducting soil borings, and
drilling sample monitoring wells. They may conduct other environmental studies to
determine if there are hazardous substances, pollutants or contaminants present.
042407 Right of Entry TOLD
III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION
A. POLICY
• On April 16, 2007 the Richfield Housing and Redevelopment Authority
(HRA) approved a Preliminary Agreement with TOLD.
• On April. 24, 2007 the City Council will consider a commitment not to
sell, or encumber through easement or license or otherwise, any of
the land that it owns within the area covered in the Preliminary
Agreement between the HRA and TOLD Development Company
B. CRITICAL ISSUES
• The attached Right-of-Entry Agreement memorializes understandings
and agreements with respect to TOLD's access to the City property.
• This Agreement is critical to the feasibility study.
C. FINANCIAL
• N/A
D. LEGAL
• Legal counsel drafted the attached Right-of-Entry Agreement.
• The Right-of-Entry Agreement requires TOLD to:
o Use the property only for environmental work and its
associated activities.
o Restore the property to its current condition.
o Hold the City harmless for all claims.
IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION(S~
• Approve the Right-of-Entry Agreement with TOLD with modifications.
• Do not approve the. Right-of-Entry Agreement with TOLD.
V. ATTACHMENTS
• Right of Entry Agreement
VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING
• Representative from TOLD Development Company
C3-I
RIGHT OF ENTRY AGREEMENT
THIS AGREEMENT, made on this day of , 2007, by and between
CITY OF RICHFIELD, a Minnesota municipal corporation ("Owner") and MERIDIAN
PROPERTIES REAL ESTATE DEVELOPMENT LLC, D/B/A TOLD Development Company,
a Minnesota limited liability company ("TOLD").
I.
RECITALS
1.01. Owner is the fee simple owner of the real estate located at the addresses identified on
the attached Exhibit A, legally described on the attached Exhibit B, and as depicted on the attached
Exhibit C ("Property").
1.02. TOLD is investigating the possibility of purchasing the Property for the purpose of
redevelopment.
1.03. TOLD wishes to have its environmental consultant conduct soil borings, dig and
sample monitoring wells and conduct other environmental studies on the Property in order to
identify whether there may be hazardous substances, pollutants or contaminants present on the
Property. TOLD has requested that Owner grant TOLD, its employees, agents and contractors, the
right to enter the Property to conduct said environmental .studies and investigate the location and
extent of any contamination.
1.04. TOLD also desires to secure the consent of Owner to enter the Property for the
purpose of conducting appraisals, land surveys, and other tests or inspections of the Property.
TOLD has requested that Owner grant its consent to the entry of these additional consultants onto
the Property to conduct their studies.
1.05. It is understood that in executing this agreement, Owner will not be granting (a) any
permanent interest in the Property to TOLD, or (b) exclusive use or possession of the Property to
TOLD.
13-2
II.
AGREEMENT
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the premises and their mutual promises, the
parties hereto hereby agree as follows:
2.01. Right of Entry. Effective upon the date hereof, Owner hereby grants to TOLD, its
agents, employees, contractors and invitees, and such other consultants as TOLD may elect
(collectively, "Consultants") the right to enter upon the Property, for the purpose of making surveys,
inspections, investigations, soil borings, drilling and sampling monitoring wells, and testing relative
to TOLD's possible purchase of the Property:
2.02.. Consideration. In consideration for such right of entry, TOLD agrees to:
(a) Notify Owner of the date and time that work by TOLD or its Consultants on the
Property will commence under this Agreement which notice shall be at least five (5)
business days prior to doing any work on the Property in order to permit Owner's
employees or consultants retained by Owner to be present during the time any work
is being done by TOLD or its Consultants;
(b) Secure all appropriate government approvals and permits for any work that will
occur within public streets adjacent to the Property;
(c) Provide a copy of all test results and reports prepared by TOLD's employees or
Consultants (except appraisal reports) evaluating the conditions present on the
Property to Owner as soon as reasonably possible following fmal completion
thereof.
~~ ~3
(d) Dispose of all solid waste generated during the course of TOLD's sampling
activities and other work on the Property in accordance with applicable federal, state
and local laws, rules and regulations.
(e) Do the work in the shortest period of time reasonably necessary to complete such
activities authorized under this Agreement as TOLD, in its sole discretion, shall elect
to undertake;
(fj Use the Property only for the purposes described herein and not park or store any
equipment on the Property, except during the limited periods of time when the work
on the Property which is contemplated by this Agreement is actually in progress;
(g) Do no unnecessary damage to the Property and restore the Property to substantially
the same condition as the condition in which it was found by TOLD at the time of
TOLD's or its Consultants' entry upon the Property pursuant to this Agreement. As
soon after completion of its work on the Property as allowed by applicable
authorities, TOLD shall properly abandon and remove any well installed by TOLD
or its Consultants, in accordance with Minnesota Department of Health regulations;
(h) Hold Owner harmless from and indemnify Owner from any and all claims,
damages, judgments or obligations, including the cost of defense of suit, arising out
of damage to Property or arising out of injury to anyone incurred or alleged to have
been incurred in connection with or as a result of any work done pursuant to this
Right of Entry, or as a result of TOLD's or its Consultants' intentional torts or
negligence.. Notwithstanding the foregoing, TOLD shall not be responsible for any
submission. or application for further investigation or feasibility analysis or the
proper methods or cost of removal, treatment or disposal of any pollutants,
13-~
contaminants or hazardous substances present on the Property, it being the sole
responsibility of Owner to perform these tasks if required;
(i) TOLD shall ensure that its Consultants or their contractors or invitees which enter
the Property pursuant to this Agreement shall carry insurance during the time any
work is done on the Property in accordance with the following minimum
requirements:
Workers' Compensation Insurance with limits as provided by statute, with all
necessary statutory elections to provide coverage for and/or claims made by
any person doing work on the Property pursuant to this Right of Entry;
Employer's liability insurance (often included as coverage (b) in the Workers'
Compensation policy) with limits of $100,000;
Comprehensive Auto (and truck) Liability Insurance with minimum combined
single limits of $1 million per occurrence;
Comprehensive General Liability Insurance (including coverage for contractual
liability, products and completed operations liability, liability arising out of
explosion, or underground related incidents) with minimum combined single
limits of $1 million per occurrence. In addition, the Comprehensive General
Liability policy shall include Owner and TOLD as additional insureds with
respect to work done on the Property.
(j) If TOLD or its Consultants remove a sample or portion of the Property for
investigation, monitoring or testing or obtains any data or issues any report, it must
give .Owner an equal amount of the sample or portion and a copy of any data or
report, and must permit the Owner to perform an independent investigation,
13°5
monitoring, or testing of the sample or portion.
(k) Protect all monitoring wells with lockable caps and at least three protected posts.
2.03. Expiration. The right of entry provided under this Agreement will automatically
expire on , 2007.
2.04. Governing Law. This Agreement shall be interpreted in accordance with the laws of
the state of Minnesota.
2.05. Notices and Demands. All notices, demands or other communications under this
Agreement shall be effective only if made in writing and shall be sufficiently given and deemed
given when delivered personally, transmitted by facsimile, or mailed by certified mail, return receipt
requested, postage prepaid, properly addressed as follows:
If to Owner: City of Richfield
Attn:
6700 Portland Avenue South
Richfield, MN 55423
With a copy to: Corrine H. Thomson
Kennedy & Graven, Chartered
470 U. S. Bank Plaza
200 South Sixth Street
Minneapolis, MN 55402
If to TOLD: Thomas M. Burke
Principal and General Counsel
TOLD Development Company
Two Carlson Parkway, Suite 355
Plymouth, MN 55447
With Copy to:
Or to such other persons as the parties may from time to time designate in writing and
forward to the other persons entitled to receive notice as provided in this section.
i3~c~
2.06. Amendment. This Agreement may be amended by the parties hereto only by written
instrument executed with. the same procedures and formality as were followed in the execution of
this Agreement.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have caused this Agreement to be duly executed in
their names and on their behalves on or as of the. above date.
Owner:
CITY OF RICHFIELD
By:
Its Mayor
By:
Its City Manager
MERIDIAN PROPERTIES REAL ESTATE
DEVELOPMENT LLC, D/B/A TOLD
Development Company, a Minnesota limited
liability company
By:
Its:
3 -`~
EXHIBIT A
List of Property Addresses
List of Property Addresses
6639 17~' Avenue South
6614 18~' Avenue South
6620 18~' Avenue South
6626 18~` Avenue South
6632 18~' Avenue South
6638 18~' Avenue South
6644 18~' Avenue South
6700 18~' Avenue South
670818` Avenue South
6714 18~' Avenue South
6720 18~' Avenue South
6726 18~' Avenue South
6732 18~' Avenue South
6738 18~' Avenue South
6744 18~' Avenue South
6701 1$~' Avenue South
6709 18~' Avenue South
6721 18~' Avenue South
6727 18~' Avenue South
673318' Avenue South
6739 18~' Avenue South
6745 18~' Avenue South.
6700 Cedar Avenue South
B-A-1
l3~g
EXHIBIT B
Legal Descriptions of Property
Lot 10, block 2, Wexler's Addition
Lot 3, Block 2, Wexler's Addition
Lot 4, Block 2, Wexler's Addition
Lot 5, Block 2, Wexler's Addition
Lot 6, Block 2, Wexler's Addition
Lot 7, Block 2, Wexler's Addition
Lot 8, Block 2, Wexler's Addition
Lot 1, Block 3, Wexler's Addition
Lot 2, Block 3, Wexler's Addition
Lot 3, Block 3, Wexler's Addition
Lot 4, Block 3, Wexler's Addition
Lot 5, Block 3, Wexler's Addition
Lot 6, Block 3, Wexler's Addition
Lot 7, Block 3, Wexler's Addition
Lot 8, Block 3, Wexler's Addition
Lot 16, Block 4, Wexler's Addition
Lot 15, Block 4, Wexler's Addition
Lot 13, Block 4, Wexler's Addition
Lot 12, Block 4, Wexler's Addition
Lot 11, Block 4, Wexler's Addition
Lot 10, Block 4, Wexler's Addition
Lot 9, Block 4, Wexler's Addition
Lots 1 and 2, Block 4, Wexler's Addition
~3-~1
EXHIBIT C
Right of Entry agreement with Tt3LD
.6 6th Street ~'~
67th Street
~ ~ ~
c c
d ~
Q
R
~ ~
U
68th Street
Leg-nd
Location of Properties for
Right of Entry Agreement
AGENDA SECTION: OTHEl~ BUSINESS
.AGENDA ITEM # 1 ~+
REPORT # L Z3
ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION:
Consideration of a .Purchase Agreement between the City and Cornerstone Advocacy Service,
owner of the property located at 6600 Oakland Avenue, as part of the 66th Street & Portland
Avenue intersection. Pro'ect.
KRISTIN ASHER, ASSISTANT CITY
REPORT PREPARED BY: ENGINEER
.NAME, TITZE
COUNCIL PRESENTER:...
DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR
REVIEW:
REVIEWED BY CITY ~
MANAGER:
L RECOMMENDED ACTION:
By Motion: Authorize the Mayor and City Manager to execute the..
proposed Purchase Agreemen# between the City of Richfield and
Cornerstone Advocacy .Service, a Minnesota nonprofit corporation,
forthe ac uisition of the ro ert located at 6600 Oakland Avenue. .
II. BACKGROUND
The property located at 6600 Oakland Avenue has been identified as a required
total acquisition for the 66th Street and Portland Avenue Intersection Project.
Staff has negotiated with the .property owner to reach a proposed purchase:
agr-eernent, acceptable :and reasonable., for the taking of this property. The
proposed settlement offer for the property is $258;500.00.. Because the property is
currently vacant no relocation costs will be incurred. The closing is tentatively
scheduled for May 31, 2007.
0424Cornerstone
III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION
A. POLICY
• This property has been identified as necessary to be acquired for the
66th Street and Portland Avenue Intersection Improvement Project.
• Right of way acquisition procedures set forth by the Minnesota
Department of Transportation and the Federal .Highway Administration
- are being followed.
B. CRITICAL ISSUES.
• Staff is currently in negotiations with the T & T Automotive site and
these negotiations are contingent on this agreement.
C. FINANCIAL
• Hennepin County using Community Works Funds will provide funding
for the purchase of this parcel.
D. LEGAL
• The City attorneys have overseen the right of way acquisition process
and will be available to answer any questions.
IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION~S~
• Do not authorize the Mayor and City Manager to enter into proposed
Purchase Agreement and direct staff on how to proceed.
V. ATTACHMENTS
• Copy of resolution approved March 13, 2007
• Proposed Purchase Agreement
VI. PRINCIl'AL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING
• None.
~~
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING JUST COMPENSATION AND AUTHORIZING
PURCHASE OF REAL. PROPERTY LOCATED AT 6600 OAKLAND AVENUE (66TH
STREETAND PORTLAND AVENUE INTERSECTION IMPROVEMENT PROJECT)
WHEREAS, the City of Richfield, Minnesota desires o purchase certain real
property pursuant to and. in furtherance of he 66th Street and Portland Avenue
Intersection Improvement Project (Project) heretofore adoptedby the City of Richfield
(City) said real property -being described on Exhibit A, together with .all abutting streets and
alleys, vacated or to be vacated, and all easements, gaps, overlaps. and gores;
appurtenant thereto; and
WHEREAS, the City :has adopted a layout for Project improvements; -and
WHEREAS, the Project improvements necessitate the purchase of real property
appurtenant thereto; and
.WHEREAS, the City is authorized by Minnesota Statutes to acquire real property
within its corporate boundaries; and
WHEREAS,. the City has caused appraisal for the property to be made. by qualified
independent professional. appraisers to determine fair market value of real estate; and
WHEREAS, a qualified review appraiser has certified the real estate appraisal
report as being in conformity with. appraisal standards; and.
WHEREAS, the Richfield Public Works Department and City Attorney have
reviewed all appraisal reports and review appraisal reports prepared for the properties and
the City staff recommendations of just compensation for the real estate, and concur that
such. amounts hould be determined by the City Council as the just compensation for such.
properties, as indicated in Exhibit A; and
WHEREAS, the Richfield Public Works Department has also recommended #hat the
City .proceed to make offers to the owners of the properties in .the just compensation
amounts of $235,000 forthe 6600 Oakland Avenue real estate acquisition.
WHEREAS, the just compensation amount indicated is consistent with said
appraisal report and review appraisal .report.
NOW,. THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the city of Richfield; _
Minnesota as follows:-
1. That the total just compensation for the individual .parcel of real estate. is found to be
the amount indicated in this resolution.
2. That the City's staff and consultants are authorized and directed to submit to property
owner the City's offer to pay such. just compensation amount for all interests in such
property and commence negotiations for the purchase of said property interest.
I `{-3-
3. That the City's staff and` consultants are hereby directed to .notify, in writing, the owner
of the property that-the City intends to acquire the property indicated in Exhibit A and
establish eligibility forrelocation :benefits, if,any.
4. That the City Manager and Mayor are authorized to execute purchaseagreements in a
form acceptable to them and take all: other actions necessary to :complete the purchase-
of the property for the amount of just compensation set forth in this resolution.
Adopted. by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this 13th day of
March, 2007.
Debbie Goettel, Mayor
ATTEST:
Nancy;Gibbs, City Clerk
1 ~f 3
F-
m
v_
W
0
0
o
o
H M
N
~}
~ ~
~
~ ~
~
> ~ ~
O L. ~ O
~
,w ~
~ .?< lL
LL.
~ ~
N O
W ~i
~ ~
~
C ~
.~
.
~ ~
m ~
N c
-
~
N N
~ ~ ~
O
~V L
~ •
~
O V ~
oa
a~
~
a
•~
c.~ ~
v,
d ~ .~
0 ~ Q
a~
a~
~
~ ~
a~
~ .-,
~
~
a~
' ~
~
a ¢ ~
~a
Q ~ Q
~
as Y
~ o
Q O L
a~
a ~ o
m (~
.~
U ~
a
i 4-~I
PURCHASE AGREEMENT
1. PARTIES. This Purchase Agreement is made this April , 2007, by and
between Cornerstone Advocacy Service, a Minnesota nonprofit corporation,
hereinafter "Seller," and the City of Richfield, a Minnesota municipal corporation,.
hereinafter "Buyer'°.
2. SALE OF PROPERTY. Seller is the owner of that certain real estate (hereinafter
the "Property") located at 6600 Oakland Avenue` in the City of Richfield, Hennepin
County, Minnesota and legally described as follows.
Lot 18, Auditors Subdivision No. 340, Hennepin County, Minnesota.
3. OFFER/ACCEPTANCE. In consideration of the mutual agreements. herein
contained,. Buyer offers and agrees. to purchase and Seller` agrees to se{I and
hereby grants to Buyer the exclusive right to purchase the Property and all
improvements thereon, together with all appurtenances, including, but not limited to,
plant,. shrubs, trees, and grass..
4. PERSONAL PROPERTY INCLUDED IN SALE: There are no items of personal
property or fixtures owned by Seller-and `currently located on the Property which are
included in this sale.-
5. PURCHASE PRICE AND TERMS:
A. PURCHASE PRICE: The total Purchase Price forthe real estate included in
this sale. is Two. Hundred. Fifty-eight Thousand Five Hundred and
No/100ths Dollars ($258,500.00).
B. TERMS: _
(1) EARNEST MONEY. No earnest money shall be paid byBuyerto the
_________ _ _ ___ Sellec,_the agreement_to which is _here~_a_cknowledged.
(2) BALANCE DUE SELLER: Buyer agrees to pay by check,. or wire
transfer of funds on the Closing. Date any remaining Balance Due
according to the terms of this Purchase Agreement.
(3) ASSUMPTION OF EXISTING ..INDEBTEDNESS:. The Buyer, in its
discretion and. in partial. payment of the purchase price, may, to the
extenf assumable, assume or take title .subject to any existing
indebtedness encumbering the Property, in which case the cash to be
paid at the. time of closing shall be reduced by~ the hen remaining
indebtedness
_ l
I~-S
: (4) ".DEED/MARKETABLE TITLE: Subject to performance by Buyer,
Seller agrees to execute and- deliver a Limited .Warranty Deed
conveying marketable title to the Property to Buyer. The Limited
Warranty Deed is delivered in Lieu of Condemnation and this property
will be removed. from: the Condemnation Action with respect to the
partial acquisition and'subject only to the following exceptions:
a. Building and zoning laws,. ordinances,. estate and. federal
regulations.
b. Reservation of minerals ormineral-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.
(5) DOCUMENTS TO BE DELIVERED AT CLOSING BY .SELLER. In
addition to the Limited Warranty Deed required at paragraph 5.B(4)
above,:Sellershall deliver to the Buyer:
a. Standard form Affidavit of Seller.`
b. Certificate that Seller is not a foreign national
• c. Well disclosure certificate, if required, or, if there is no well on
the Property, the Limited Warranty Deed. given pursuant to
subparagraph (4) above must include the following statement:
"The Seller certifies that the sellerdoes_not know of any wells
on the described real property."
d. _ Such other documents as may. be reasonably required by
Buyer's title examiner or title insurance company.
-~ __ &._:. .CO~JhLGF~LCIES~ _Byer's_obligation~o~u_y_is_~ontingen#_.~pon._thef~Ilo~ring: ___
a. Buyer's determination of marketable title pursuant to paragraph 11 of this.
.:Agreement; and
b. Buyer's determination, in its sole discretion, thatthe results of.the environmental
investigation under paragraph 8 of this Agreement are satisfactory to Buyer.
c. Approval of #his Agreement by the City Council of the City of Richfield. .
Buyer shall have until the Date of Closing to remove the foregoing. contingencies.
The contingencies are solely-for the benefit of Buyer and may be waived by Buyer..
If the contingencies are duly,satisfied or waived, then the ,Buyer-.and Selier shad'
proceed to close the transaction as contemplated-herein. If however, one or more
2
1 t~~
contingencies is not satisfied, or is not -satisfied ontime, and is not waived, this
Purchase Agreement shall .thereupon. be void, at the option' of Buyer. {f this
Agreement is voided by :Buyer,. Buyer and. Seller shall execute and deliver to each
other the 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 sec .
7. CLOSING BATE. The closing of the sale of the Property shall take place on or
before May 3'L, 2007. The cbsing shalt take place at a; location as mutually agreed
upon by the parties.
8. ENVIRONMENTAL INSPECTION. Buyer ahd its agents shalt have the right to
enter upon -the Property after the date of this purchase agreement for the purpose
ofi inspecting the Property and conducting such environmental examination and
tests as Buyer deems necessary. Buyeragrees to indemnify the Selleragainst any
liens, claims, losses, ordamage occasioned by Buyer's exercise of its right to enter
and work -upon the Property. Buyer agrees to provide Seller with a .copy of any
report prepared as a resulf of such examination and tests.
9. REAL ESTATE TAXES.
A. Seller will pay at or prior to closing all real estate taxes due. and payable in
the year previous to date. of closing and prior years on the Property..
B. Buyer- and .Seller shall prorate to date of closing the real- estate taxes due
. and payable in the year of closing on the Property.
10. SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS.
A. ..Buyer shall purchase the Property subject to all special assessments levied
prior to closing, including assessments certified for payment with real estate
taxes payab e in' 2007.
B: Buyer shall purchase the Property subject toall-special assessments pending
as of (or after) the date of this Purchase Agreement..
C. Seller.. shall. pay any deferred .real estate taxes or special assessments
.payment of which is required as a result of the closing of this sale.
D. Notwithstanding. any otherprovision of this Purchase Agreement, Seller shalt
at all times be responsible to pay special assessments, if any, for. delinquent
sewer or water bills, removal of diseased trees: prior to- the date of this -
Purchase Agreement, snow removal, or other current services provided to the
Property by the assessing authority while the Seller is in .possession of the
Property.
3
~~~~
11. MARKETABILITY OF TITLE. Buyer shall, at its expense and within areasonable
time. after :Seller's acceptance of thin agreement, obtain commitment .for title.
insurance ("commitment") .for the .Property. Buyer shall be allowed ten (10)
business days after receipt ofthe commitmentto examinetitle and make objections,
which shall be made in writing or deemed waived. Seller shall have until the Closing
Date (or such later date as the parties may: agree upon) to make-title marketable, at
the Seller'scost. 1n the event that titleto the Property cannot be made marketable
or is not made marketable by the Seller by the Closing Date, then, at the option of
the Buyer, Buyer may proceed to acquire title of the Property by eminent domain
proceeding, Seller agrees to stipulate to entry: of an award of .court appointed
commissioners in the amount of the Purchase Price as the value of the Property.
12. CLOSING COSTS AND. RELATED-"ITEMS: Buyer will pay:. (a) the closing fees
charged by he 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 he .Buyer; (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 recording fees,
13. POSSESSION/REMOVAL`OF PROPERTY/UTILITIES/ESCROW.
(a) Possession. Seller shallaransfer possession of the Properly and. Fixtures to
the Buyer at closing.
(b) Removal of Property. Selleragrees to remove from the Property all debris
and items of Seller`s personal property not included in this sale no laterthan
4;00 p.m. on the. date of closing. Items not removed by that date and time
will be disposed of by the Buyer, and the cost of disposal will be deducted
from the escrow provided in this paragraph.
(c) Utilities. Seller agrees to pay aN charges for sewer, water, electric,`gas, and
cable elevision during he time.that Seller is in possession. The Buyer may
deduct unpaid utilities from the escrow provided in this paragraph....
(d)~ No encumbrances. Seller agrees not to place any liens or encumbrances
on the Property after the date of this Purchase Agreement.
(e) Escrow. Seller agrees that,. at closing, Buyer may retain Five Hundred
Dollars :($500.00) from the Purchase Price for the Property as an Escrow for
payment of .personal property, removal and disposal 'charges.. and utility
.charges. The retained amount, less deductions provided for in this
paragraph, will be delivered to Seller no later than 60 days following the date
of closing, if by that date the property has been vacated and emptied. Said
funds shall`be held by Kennedy & Graven;. Chartered, as Escrow Agent.
4 .
I~-8
The provisions of this paragraph .shall survive closing. The Buyer's
ability to deducf amounts due under this paragraph, from the retained
escrow is not exclusive but is in addition to the Buyer's rights at law
and equity to collect such amounts from Seller. Seller is responsible.
for the amounts due under this paragraph even tf the escrowed amount
is insufficient to pay all amounts due under this paragraph:.
14. REMOVAL OF HAZARDOUS MATER4AL. Seller, prior to vacation of the Property,
shall remove all substances which; under state or federal law, must be disposed of
at an_approved disposal_facility. This includes, but is not limited to, used oil, paints,
solvents, fertilizers, poisons, and the like.
15. DISCLOSURE;: INDIVIDUAL SEWAGE TREATMENT SYSTEM.. Seller discloses
that there is not an individual sewagetreatment system on or serving the Property.
If there is an individual sewage treatment system on or serving. the Property, Seller
discloses that the. system is not in use.
16. CONDITION- OF SUBSOIL AND GROUND WATER. Seller hereby warrants to
Buyer thaf during. the time the Seller has owned .the. Property there :have been no
acts or occurrences caused by Seller upon the Property that have caused or could
cause impurities in the subsoil or ground water of the Properly or other adjacent
properties. This warranty shall survive the closing of this transaction.. Seller and
• Buyer acknowledge,that the Property is located adjacent to a service station that
.has dispensed gasoline and other petroleum products. Seller makes,no warranty or
representation concerning any release ofiany hazardous substance that may have
occurred on property other than the Property and may have migrated to or under the
Property. Seller acknowledgesand agrees that it is purchasing theProperty in "as-
is"-condition without any. representation or warranty by Seller as to the physical
condition of the. land or any improvements constructed thereon.-
17. ` WELL DISCLOSURE. Seller discloses that there is not a well on or serving the
Property. If a well. is present, a well disclosure statement accompanies. this
agreement....
1 S. SELLER'S WARRANTIES. Sellerwarrants that there is a right of access to the real
Property from a public right-ofway. Seller warrants that there has been no labor or
material furnished #o the Property for which .payment has not been made... These
warranties shall survive the closing of this transaction..
19. NO MERGER OF REPRESENTATIONS, WARRANTIES.. Not withstanding-.any
.provision of law or court .decision to the contrary, representations and warranties
contained in-this. Purchase~Agreemenf shall not be merged into any instrumerrts or
conveyance delivered at Closing, but instead shall survive closing, and the parties ;
shall be bound accordingly.
5
. i~-~
20. RELOCATION BENEFITS. Seller expressly reserves Seller's right to receive
_ relocation .benefits and reimbursements to which Seller may be entitled by law, as a
result of the transaction contemplated bythis Purchase Agreement.. However, this
property is currently vacant. It will remain vacant until the closing. Therefore, there
are no :occupants.. to relocate.. The fee owner continues to remain eligible for
benefits pursuant to the Uniform Relocation Act.
21. NO BROKER INVOLVED. Seller and Buyer represent and warrant to each other
thaf there is no broker involved in this transaction with whom it has negotiated or to
whom_ it has agreed to_pay a broker commission or finder's fee in connection with
negotiations for the sale of the Property..
22. ENTIRE AGREEMENT; AMENDMENTS. This; Purchase Agreement constitutes the
entire .agreement between the parties, .and no other agreement prior to this
Purchase Agreement or contemporaneous herewith-shall be effective. except. as
expressly set forth or incorporated herein. Any purported-amendment shall not be
effective unless it shall be set forth in writing and executed by both parties or their
:respective successors or assigns.
23. BINDING EFFECT; ASSIGNMENT. This Purchase Agreement shall be binding
upon and inure to the benefit of the parties and their respective heirs, executors, _
administrators, successors and assigns.
• 24. NOTICE. Any notice, demand, request or other communication which may or shah
be given or served by the parties shall be deemed to have been given orserved on
the date the same is deposited in the United States Mail; registered or certified,
postage prepaid and addressed as follows:
SELLER: Cornerstone Advocacy .Service
Attention: Susan Neis, Executive Director
1000 East 80th Street
Bloomington, MN ..55420
__ __ ATTE}RivEY: T-homes-:P. Stolt~rao
Larkin Hoffman.Dalyand Lindgren,. Ltd..,
1500 Wells Fargo Plaza
_ 7900 Xerxes Ave. S.
..Bloomington, MN 55431
BUYER: Ms. Kristin Asher
City of Richfield
6700 Portland Avenue South
Richfield, MN 55423-2599
6
.~ ~~~~
AGENT: Kennedy & Graven,. Chartered. -
Attn: Catherine Rocklitz
- 470 US Bank Pfaza
200 South Sixth Street
Minneapolis, MN .55402
25. SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE. This Purchase Agreement may be specifically
enforced by the parties,. provided that any action for specific enforcement is brought
within six months after the date of the alleged breach. This. paragraph is not
intended to create an exclusive remedy #or breach of this agreement; the parties
reserve alL other remedies available at tiaw or 'in equity.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed'this agreement as of the
date written above.
SELLER
CORNERS NE AD~iOCACY ERViCE
By:
s: Executive Director
BUYER
CITY OF RICHFIELD
By:
Its Mayor
By:
Its City Manager
11306791
7
,~
s,
AGENDA SECTION: OTHER BUSINESS
AGENDA ITEM # LS
. REPORT # 11~F
STAFF REPORT.
CITY COUNCIL MEETING
APRIL 24, 2007.....
REPORT PREPARED BY: BRIAN YOUNG, UTILITY
SJPERINTENDENT
NAME, TITLE
COUNCIL PRESENTER:
DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR
REVIEW:.
REVIEWED BY CITY
MANAGER:
ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION:
Consideration of the award of contract for the Water Meter Replacement and Installation of
Automated Meter Readin S stem.
I. RECOMMENDED ACTION:
By Motion: Approve the bid minutes and tabulation and award of
contract. to Northern Water Works Supply Company inthe amount of
$2,496,252.28.
II. BACKGROUND
Richfield's current water meter reading system was installed in 1983-1985. This
-system is no longer supported by the manufacturer and can no longer be upgraded
or repaired. The current system requires a staff employee to walk to each individual
property within the city to obtain a meter reading and thisadds up to 768.man-hours
.per. year to read the entire city.
IIL BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION
A. POLICY
• A bid opening was held on Aprif 11, 2007.
042407meter
~,
• Northern Water Works Supply Company was the lowest responsible
bidder and is an established company that meet's all. of the City's
requirements.
B. CRITICAL ISSUES
• The current water meter reading equipment has become obsolete.
tt currently takes roughly 768 man-.hours per year to read the entire
City.
_ The current age of the water. meters is 22-24 years and the industry
standard of a water meter's life is 20_years.
C. FINANCIAL,
• In Apri12006 the City Council approved the sale of a water/sewer
revenue bond in the amount of $5,800,000.
• $2,500,000 of this bond was identified to replace the water meters. and
the meter readir-g system.
D. LEGAL,.
• All contracts orpurchases in excess of $25,000 .require Council
approval.
• All contracts or purchases'over $50,000. require sealed bids to be
solicited by public notice.
IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION(S~
• Council could reject all bids -and instruct staff to re-advertise. it is the opinion
of staff that the bid submitted by Northern Water Works Supply Company. is
.reasonable and responsible.
V. ATTACHMENTS
• Bid minutes and tabulation
VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT .MEETING
• None
•
f ~'
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
'~ Bid Opening
April 11, 2007
2:00 p.m.
Water Meter Replacement
Bid No. 07-06
Pursuant to requirements of Resolution No. 1015, a meeting of the Administrative Staff
was called by Nancy Gibbs, City Clerk, who announced that the purpose of the meeting
was to receive, open and read aloud, bids for water meter replacement, bid no. 07-06,
as advertised in the official newspaper on March 15, 2007 and March 22, 2007.
Present: Nancy Gibbs, City Clerk
Cheryl Krumholz, City Manager Representative
Robert Hintgen, Utility Supervisor
The following bid was submitted and read aloud:
Vendor Bid Bond Base Bid
Hersey Meters No Bid
Neptune Technology Grp, Inc. Provided $2,793,626.70
Northern Water Works Supply Provided $2,496,252.28
Minnesota Pipe & Equipment Provided $2,530,726.05
The City Clerk announced that the bids would be tabulated and considered at the April
24, 2007 City Council Meeting.
Nancy Gibbs City Clerk