The URL can be used to link to this page

100912completeagenda CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA TUESDAY, OCTOBER 9, 2012 RICHFIELD MUNICIPAL CENTER 6700 PORTLAND AVENUE SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL WORKSESSION BARTHOLOMEW ROOM 5:45 P.M. AGENDA Call to order Roll call 1. FAA presentation on performance-based navigation procedures at Minneapolis-St. Paul International Airport (Council Memo No. 109) Notes: Adjournment SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING BABCOCK ROOM 6:45 P.M. AGENDA Call to order Roll call 1. Interview of person interested in serving as youth member on City's advisory commissions (Council Memo No. 110) Notes: Adjournment REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING COUNCIL CHAMBERS 7:00 P.M. AGENDA INTRODUCTORY PROCEEDINGS Call to order Roll call Open forum (15 minutes maximum) Each speaker is to keep their comment period to three minutes to allow sufficient time for others. Comments are to be an opportunity to address the Council on items not on the agenda. Individuals who wish to address the Council must have registered prior to the meeting. Notes: Pledge of Allegiance Approval of minutes of Regular City Council Meeting of September 25, 2012 PRESENTATIONS 1. Presentation of Certificate of Recognition to Floyd W. Roman 2. Annual meeting with Friendship City Commission 3. Presentation of Richfield Tourism Promotion Board, Inc. financial report for year-end December 31, 2011 4. Presentation by Richfield School District Superintendent Robert Slotterback COUNCIL DISCUSSION 5. Council discussion • Hats Off to Hometown Hits Notes: AGENDA APPROVAL 6. Council approval of agenda CONSENT CALENDAR 7. Consent Calendar contains several separate items, which are acted upon by the City Council in one motion. Once the Consent Calendar has been approved, the individual items and recommended actions have also been approved. No further Council action on these items is necessary. However, any Council Member may request that an item be removed from the Consent Calendar and placed on the regular agenda for Council discussion and action. All items listed on the Consent Calendar are recommended for approval. A. Consideration of approval of first reading of ordinance amendment to City Administrative Code Chapter III, Section 310 (Administrative; human resources) repealing certain provisions and scheduling second reading for October 23, 2012 S.R. No. 171 B. Consideration of approval of award of contract to Leo A Daly for design, engineering and architectural services for renovation of Fire Station 2 S.R. No. 172 Notes: 8. Consideration of item(s), if any, removed from Consent Calendar Notes: PUBLIC HEARINGS 9. Public hearing and second reading of ordinance authorizing capital improvements to upgrade Municipal Liquor Store at 6444 Lyndale Avenue Staff Report No. 173 Notes: 10. Public hearing regarding resolution adopting assessment roll for weed elimination from private property and removal or elimination of public health or safety hazards from private property Staff Report No. 174 Notes: 11.Public hearing regarding resolution adopting assessment for unpaid false alarm user fees against private property Staff Report No. 175 Notes: RESOLUTION 12.Consideration of resolution designating City's contribution toward health, term life and dental insurance premiums for General Services and Management employees Staff Report No. 176 Notes: OTHER BUSINESS 13.Consideration of cooperative agreement between City and Minnehaha Creek Watershed District for purposes of advancing Legion/Taft Lake Improvement Project Staff Report No. 177 Notes: CITY MANAGER'S REPORT 14.City Manager's Report Notes: 15.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: 16.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. CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Office of City Manager October 4, 2012 Council Memorandum No. 109 The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council Subject: FAA Presentation on Performance-Based Navigation Procedures at Minneapolis-St. Paul International Airport (MSP) (Worksession Agenda Item No. 1) Council Members: On March 27, 2012, a special City Council work session was held during which Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) official, Carl Rydeen, made a presentation on aircraft departures from MSP and the resulting noise impacts. At the March work session, it was discussed that the FAA has been working on developing performance based navigation (PBN) procedures that could provide for better noise abatement in communities surrounding the airport. Mr. Rydeen indicated he would return to Richfield to provide an update on those procedures once they were completed. At the September 19, 2012 MSP Noise Oversight Committee (NOC) meeting, the FAA presented all of the proposed Area Navigation (RNAV) procedures for arrivals and departures. The RNAV procedures allow aircraft to operate on the same desired track that is reproducible for all flights. The procedures allow for more accurate concentration of aircraft over desired areas, such as existing roadways systems, green space, and existing mitigated areas. In order for the PBN procedures to be implemented at MSP there are a number of steps that must take place. These steps include: • individual presentations to communities surrounding the airport; • two public open houses (one each in south Minneapolis and Eagan) to be hosted by the MAC and FAA; • NOC recommendation to the full MAC Commission by the end of November 2012; and • final processing and publication by the FAA to airports and airlines. What is important to note is that this initiative is underway at numerous airports nationwide. If the November 2012 deadline is missed, the FAA has made it very clear that the publication of PBN procedures for MSP would be extended out until 2014. This noise. Though the schedule is not ideal, the community representatives of the NOC felt that it was important to see these procedures in place sooner rather than to continue to have noise impacts in areas that are not mitigated. On October 9, 2012, FAA and MAC representatives will be at the Council work session to review the PBN procedures and their impact on Richfield. Attached is a tentative schedule for the PBN process to illustrate the fixed timeframe in which this project is proc= - ing. Re, "-ctfully submitte•�► Aidr - . Devic' City M nager SLD:cak Attachment Email: Department Directors Assistant City Manager Tentative PBN Procedure Schedule Presentation to Richfield Council, October 9, 2012 Commissions, and residents Open House to Public in Eagan and November 12 & 13, 2012 Minneapolis (notices to be posted in Star Tribune and Sun Current newspapers) NOC Meeting — provide recommendation November 14, 2012 to MAC Commission MAC Commission Meeting November 19, 2012 Deadline submittal to FAA November 30, 2012 FAA review and processing December 2012 — February 2013 Arrival PBN procedures published March 2013 Departure PBN procedures published May 2013 *Dates for NOC, MAC, and FAA are firm. If the November deadline is not met, arrival procedures would not be published till July 2014 and departure procedures September 2014. CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Office of City Manager October 4, 2012 Council Memorandum No. 110 The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council Subject: Advisory Commission Youth Applicant Information (Agenda Item No. 1) Council Members: Attached are the interview schedule and copies of the advisory commission youth applications received to date. Interviews are scheduled in the Babcock Room on: • Tuesday, October 9 at 6:45 p.m. • Tuesday, October 23 at 5:45 p.m. Apptments are on the October 23, 2012 Regular City Council Meeting agenda. qcffuli/submitte ,► ar-. ,en . l e City M-nager SLD:cak Attachments Email: Department Directors Assistant City Manager YOUTH COMMISSION APPLICANT INTERVIEW SCHEDULE Tuesday, October 9 5:45-6:45 p.m. Special Council Worksession in Bartholomew Room Interview in Babcock Room 6:45 p.m. Derek Mattson 7:00 p.m. Regular Council Meeting in Council Chambers Tuesday, October 23 Interviews in Babcock Room 5:45 p.m. Eric Melendez 5:50 Emily Blom 6:00-6:45 p.m. Special Council Worksession in Bartholomew Room 7:00 p.m. Regular Council Meeting in Council Chambers YOUTH COMMISSION APPLICANTS PREFERENCE(S) INDICATED Applicant's Name Advisory Board Friendship Human Rights of Health City (2 vac.) (1 vac.) (2 vac.) Blom, Emily (reappt) X 2 Mattson, Derek 1 2 Melendez, Eric 1 • Advisory Board of Health - meets the third Monday, January through June, September and October, at 6 p.m. • Friendship City Commission - meets the third Thursday of each month at 7 p.m. • Human Rights Commission - meets the first Tuesday of each month at 7 p.m. 09/24/12 09/24/12 CURRENT YOUTH ATTENDANCE RECORDS ADVISORY BOARD OF HEALTH Total # of Year Meetings Appointed since Appt. Attended Absent Emily Blom Appointed: 2011 2011-12 7 4 3 Term Expires: 8/12 HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION Total #of Year Meetings Appointed since Appt. Attended Absent Sana Juma Appointed: 2011 2011-12 7 4 3 Term Expires: 8/12 Ridwan Ahmed Appointed: 2011 2011-12 7 0 7 Term Expires: 8/12 FRIENDSHIP CITY COMMISSION Total #of Meetings Year since Appt. Attended Absent Vacant Vacant CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES d Richfield, Minnesota Regular Meeting September 25, 2012 CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order by Mayor Pro Tempore Fitzhenry at 7:00 p.m. ROLL CALL Members Present: Tom Fitzhenry, Mayor Pro Tempore; Pat Elliott; Fred Wroge; and Sue Sandahl. Members Absent: Debbie Goettel, Mayor. Staff Present: Steven L. Devich, City Manager; Mike Eastling, Public Works Director; Todd Sandell, Public Safety Director; Corrine Heine, City Attorney; and Cheryl Krumholz, Executive Coordinator. M/Wroge, S/Sandahl to excuse Mayor Goettel's absence from the September 25, 2012 Regular City Council Meeting. Motion carried 4-0. OPEN FORUM None. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Mayor Pro Ternpore Fitzhenry led the audience in the Pledge of Allegiance. APPROVAL OF MINUTES M/Sandahl, S/Wroge to approve the minutes of(1) Special City Council Meeting of September 5, 2012; (2) Special City Council Worksession of September 11, 2012; and (3) Regular City Council Meeting of September 11, 2012. Motion carried 4-0. Council Meeting Minutes -2- September 25,2012 Item #1 COUNCIL DISCUSSION • HATS OFF TO HOMETOWN HITS Council Members Elliott and Wroge clarified that the July 4 carnival issue is still under consideration and that the celebration would not be shut down but rather the funding of the celebration if the carnival was discontinued. Council Member Elliott discussed the success of the Open Streets at Penn Fest event and that it is expected this event will be held again next year because it was too beneficial to the community to have only one time. He added that funding would need to be secured but not necessarily provided by the City. Council Member Wroge discussed concerns regarding the enforcement of the skatepark rules; including bicycle use, lack of required protective gear by the users, and disrespectful language. City Manager Devich stated that most skateparks of this type allow bikes and that he has concerns regarding liability which he will discuss with staff. City Manager Devich provided an update on the social service funding audit finding. He also discussed the remaining HSSC residual assets being considered by member cities. City Manager Devich stated the funding for the Open Streets event was a one-time grant from Blue Cross/Blue Shield. Item #2 COUNCIL APPROVAL OF AGENDA M/Wroge, S/Sandahl to approve the agenda. Motion carried 4-0. Item #3 CONSENT CALENDAR A. Consideration of approval of resolution authorizing acceptance of Community Forest Bonding reimbursement grant of$25,000 for purchase and planting of new boulevard trees S.R. No. 165 RESOLUTION NO. 10700 RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE CITY OF RICHFIELD TO ACCEPT A COMMUNITY FOREST BONDING GRANT FOR $25,000 FOR THE PLANTING OF NEW TREES ON PUBLIC GROUNDS INCLUDING CITY BOULEVARDS This resolution appears as Resolution No. 10700. B. Consideration of approval of resolution authorizing City to enter into Trailway Cooperative Agreement with Three Rivers Park District for portion of Nine Mile Creek Regional Trail constructed as part of 76th Street East project S.R. No. 166 RESOLUTION NO. 10701 RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE CITY OF RICHFIELD TO ENTER INTO A TRAILWAY COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT WITH THE THREE RIVERS PARK DISTRICT FOR THE NINE MILE CREEK REGIONAL TRAIL This resolution appears as Resolution No. 10701. Council Meeting Minutes -3- September 25,2012 C. Consideration of approval of resolution certifying delinquent water, sanitary sewer and storm water utility accounts to County Auditor S.R. No. 167 RESOLUTION NO. 10702 RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING CERTIFICATION OF UNPAID WATER, SANITARY SEWER AND STORM WATER SERVICE CHARGES TO THE COUNTY AUDITOR TO BE COLLECTED WITH OTHER TAXES ON SAID PROPERTIES This resolution appears as Resolution No. 10702. D. Consideration of approval of resolutions appointing additional election judges and appointing high school student trainee election judges for General Election on November 6, 2012 S.R. No. 168 RESOLUTION NO. 10703 RESOLUTION APPOINTING ADDITIONAL ELECTION JUDGES FOR THE GENERAL ELECTION OF NOVEMBER 6, 2012 This resolution appears as Resolution No. 10703. RESOLUTION NO. 10704 RESOLUTION APPOINTING HIGH SCHOOL STUDENT TRAINEE ELECTION JUDGES FOR THE GENERAL ELECTION OF NOVEMBER 6, 2012 This resolution appears as Resolution No. 10704. E. Consideration of approval of bid minutes for East and West Connection Bicycle Routes Project S.R. No. 169 M/Sandahl, S/Elliott to approve the Consent Calendar. Motion carried 4-0. Item #4 CONSIDERATION OF ITEMS, IF ANY, REMOVED FROM CONSENT CALENDAR None. Item #5 RECONSIDERATION, AMENDMENT AND ADOPTION OF ORDINANCE AMENDING SUBSECTION 601.25 OF RICHFIELD CITY CODE RELATING TO PLACEMENT OF WASTE CONTAINERS S.R. NO. 170 Mayor Pro Tempore Fitzhenry presented Staff Report No. 170. M/Fitzhenry, S/Wroge to reconsider the adoption of an ordinance relating to storage of garbage, refuse, yard waste and recyclables containers, amending subsection 601.25 of the Richfield City Code. M/Sandahl, S/Wroge to amend the motion to include the diagram as part of the ordinance. Motion carried 4-0. Council Meeting Minutes -4- September 25,2012 M/Fitzhenry, SNVroge to reconsider the adoption of an ordinance relating to storage of garbage, refuse, yard waste and recyclables containers, amending subsection 601.25 of the Richfield City Code as amended. Motion carried 4-0. M/Fitzhenry, SNVroge to amend the proposed ordinance to provide for an effective date immediately after publication. Motion carried 4-0. M/Fitzhenry, SNVroge to adopt an ordinance, as amended, relating to storage of garbage, refuse, yard waste and recyclables containers, amending subsection 601.25 of the Richfield City Code. Motion carried 4-0. Item #6 CITY MANAGER'S REPORT None. Council Member Wroge stated Von Hanson's Meat Company is locating a franchisee in the Wellington Development on 66th Street and Lyndale Avenue. Item #7 CLAIMS AND PAYROLLS M/Sandahl, S/Wroge that the following claims and payrolls be approved: U.S. Bank 09/25/12 A/P Checks: 216154-216576 $ 1,524,720.90 Payroll: 86854-87191; 41890-41942 $ 595,271.10 TOTAL $ 2,119,992.00 Motion carried 4-0. OPEN FORUM None. ADJOURNMENT The City Council meeting was adjourned by unanimous consent at 7:29 p.m. Date Approved: October 9, 2012 Tom Fitzhenry Mayor Pro Ternpore Cheryl Krumholz Steven L. Devich Executive Coordinator City Manager AGENDA SECTION: CONSENT AGENDA ITEM# 7A REPORT# 171 MIAMI STAFF REPORT RICHFIELD CITY COUNCIL MEETING OCTOBER 9, 2012 REPORT PREPARED BY: PAM DMYTRENKO ASSISTANT CITY MANAGER NAME,TITLE DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR REVIEW: T / - SIGNATURE REVIEWED BY CITY MANAGER: ' ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION: First reading consideration of amendment to the City Administrative Code Chapter III, Section 310 (Administrative; human resources) I. RECOMMENDED ACTION: By Motion: Approve the first reading of the proposed ordinance amendment to the City Administrative Code Chapter III, Section 310, repealing certain provisions, and schedule the second reading for October 23, 2012. II. BACKGROUND City Administrative Code, Chapter III, Section 310 contains the administrative and human resources policies governing employment with the City of Richfield. For example, this section includes detailed provisions relating to hiring, compensation, benefits and leave, and discipline practices relating to City employees. The City's staff also maintains an Employee Handbook and other general policies that contain many of the same or similar provisions contained in Section 310 of the City's Administrative Code. Because of some duplication in the City's Code, employee handbook and general policies, as well as the need to frequently update administrative and human resources policies, staff believes it would be more efficient and effective to remove certain provisions from the Code and establish one set of policies governing City employment. For example this section of City Code currently contains outdated policy language on maternity leave. Maternity leave is now administered under the City's Family Medical Leave Policy, which is a federal guideline. 1009 repeal of administrative code provisions This approach will also assist the City Manager and his staff, who are responsible for administering human resources policies and making most employment-related decisions for the City. If the ordinance amendment is approved, an updated Employee Handbook will be issued to all regular full-time and part-time City employees. (A list of the new or updated personnel policies is attached to this report). The proposed ordinance would repeal several provisions in Section 310 of the administrative code that are either already covered by City policy or address issues where new policies can be created and easily administered by staff. The proposed ordinance would preserve those code provisions that staff believe are policy-related matters within the purview of the City Council and those that are required by law to be in ordinance form. (A list of personnel policies that staff is proposing be rescinded is attached to this report.) In preparation of these possible changes, staff researched other municipalities in the twin cities metro area who are charter cities and have administrative code. The municipalities included Bloomington, Brooklyn Park, Minnetonka, Robbinsdale, and Crystal. The review revealed that the City of Richfield's administrative code contained far more policy related items than the comparative cities. III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION A. POLICY • The proposed ordinance would repeal certain administrative and human resources code provisions that are already covered by City policy or can be administered more easily by City policy. Removing these provisions from the City code will allow more flexibility to staff to update policies governing city employment, which can often require frequent changes. • There is no significant substantive change in employee related provisions in transferring them from ordinance to policy. B. CRITICAL TIMING ISSUES • In order to meet the publishing requirements for the second reading of an ordinance amendment, it is recommended that the second reading be scheduled for October 23, 2012. C. FINANCIAL • Removal of personnel policies from City ordinances will eliminate newspaper publication costs when changes are made to policies. D. LEGAL • Cities typically establish personnel rules and practices by ordinance or by policy manual (i.e. employee handbook). A policy is usually preferable to an ordinance because it allows for better flexibility in stating the terms, conditions, privileges and responsibilities of City employment. • Employees who are a member of an appropriate bargaining unit as provided by Minnesota Statues, chapter 179A, follow the language in the employee's respective labor contract. • The changes in placement from City Code to policy were reviewed by the City Attorney for accuracy and legality. E. ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS • None. IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION(S) • Do not approve the ordinance amendment and take no further action. • Defer first reading consideration to another date. V. ATTACHMENTS • Proposed ordinance repealing city administrative code provisions. • List of new and updated personnel policies • List of personnel policies to rescind VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING • None. ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE REPEALING CERTAIN PROVISIONS IN SECTION 310 (ADMINISTRATIVE AND HUMAN RESOURCES) OF THE RICHFIELD CITY CODE THE CITY OF RICHFIELD DOES ORDAIN: Section 1. Section 310 of the Richfield Administrative City Code is amended by repealing the following: Subsection 310.01, subd. 2(b), subd. 3 and subd. 4; Subsection 310.03, subdivisions 2, 3, 7, 9, 12, 13, 17, 18, 19, 20, 25, 26, 27, 29, 30, 32, 33, 34, 36, 37, 38, 39, 41, and 42; Subsection 310.05; Subsection 310.07, subdivisions 1, 2, 3, and 4; Subsection 310.09, subdivisions 2, 3, 4, 6, and 7; Subsection 310.11; Subsection 310.13; Subsection 310.15; Subsection 310.17, subdivisions 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6; Subsection 310.19, subdivisions 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, and 16; Subsection 310.21; Subsection 310.25; Subsection 310.27; Subsection 310.29; Subsection 310.31; Subsection 310.33; Subsection 310.35; Subsection 310.37; Subsection 310.39; Subsection 310.41; Subsection 310.43; Subsection 310.45; Subsection 310.47; Subsection 310.49; Subsection 310.51; Subsection 310.53; and, Subsection 310.55. Section 2. This ordinance will be effective in accordance with Section 3.09 of the City Charter. Adopted this of , 2012. By: Debbie Goettel, Mayor ATTEST: Nancy Gibbs, City Clerk New Personnel Policies Created from Administrative Code Language 1. Classification Plan 2. Employment of Relatives 3. Attendance and Leaves 4. Compensation 5. Termination 6. Performance Evaluations Updated Personnel Policies which include Administrative Code Language 1. Recruitment Procedures 2. Probationary Performance Evaluation 3. Overtime 4. Holidays 5. Discipline Rescinded Personnel Policies 1. Applications 2. Compensation — City Designated Payday 3. Compensatory Time 4. Leave - Maternity 5. Overtime 6. Overtime/Compensation for Exempt GS Positions 716t- Staff is proposing the following provisions be repealed from Section 310 of the City's Administrative Code: 1. Subsection 310.03 - repeal those definitions that are no longer needed due to the amendments 2. Subsection 310.05 - Position classification plan, relating to the establishment and administration of the plan by the city manager 3. Subsection 310.07, subds. 1 - 4 - Selection policies, relating to recruitment and selection of employees to fill vacancies (retaining background investigation provisions which are required by ordinance) 4. Subsection 310.11 - Residency requirement for police and fire personnel 5. Subsection 310.13 -Appointment and placement of relatives in city employment 6. Subsection 310.15 - Probationary periods for new and transferred employees 7. Subsections 310.17, subds. 2 - 6 and 310.19 - Compensation Plan (retaining subdivision 1 in each subsection relating to the establishment and administration of the plan) 8. Subsection 310.21 - Overtime pay and compensatory time off 9. Subsection 310.25 - Employee training 10. Subsection 310.27 - Performance evaluations 11. Subsection 310.29 -Attendance and leaves 12. Subsection 310.31 - Holidays, relating to eligibility and administration of holiday leave 13. Subsection 310.33 -Vacation leave 14. Subsection 310.35 - Sick leave 15. Subsection 310.37 - Personal leave 16. Subsection 310.39 - Other leaves, relating to jury duty, military service, maternity leave, leave of absence without pay, and bereavement leave 17. Subsection 310.41 - Discipline 18. Subsection 310.43 -Termination from employment, relating to resignation, lay offs, and termination of project employees 19. Subsection 310.45 - Retirement age 20. Subsection 310.47 -Appeals and hearings, relating to process for employee grievances 21. Subsection 310.49 - Incompatible activities, relating to activities that are in conflict with an employee's duties as a city employee 22. Subsection 310.51 - Political activities of employees 23. Subsection 310.53 - Outside employment of employees 24. Subsection 310.55 - Police Officers and fire fighters; PERA membership t AGENDA SECTION: CONSENT AGENDA ITEM# 7B REPORT# 172 STAFF REPORT RICHFIELD CITY COUNCIL MEETING OCTOBER 9, 2012 REPORT PREPARED BY: WAYNE KEWITSCH, FIRE CHIEF N ,TITLE DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR �,� REVIEW: ��.._- *kiln REVIEWED BY CITY M MANAGER: `�`� ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION: Consideration of award of contract for design, engineering and architectural services for the Fire Station 2 renovation to the firm of Leo A Daly. I. RECOMMENDED ACTION: By Motion: Award a contract for design, engineering and architectural services for the renovation of Fire Station 2 to the firm of Leo A Daly. II. BACKGROUND At the present time Fire Station 2 is in need of a major renovation. This topic was initially discussed during a Council work session held on June 26, 2012. Pursuant to Richfield City Charter Section 8.04, a transitory ordinance authorizing the renovation was developed with its first reading on Monday, August 13, 2012 and its second reading and public hearing on Tuesday, September 11, 2012. Bill No. 2012-12, Transitory Ordinance No.18.84 was passed by the Council at the September 11, 2012 Council meeting. The renovation will address the following issues: • Alleviate gender equity issues. • Installation of energy efficient updates. • Update equipment that has exceeded operational life expectancy • Accommodate equipment storage needs • Facilitate department operational needs • Accommodate fitness equipment • Update station facade. III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION A. POLICY • Under the City's Purchasing and Spending Authority Policy, all contracts from $25,000 to $100,000 must be approved by the City Council. • Under the Uniform Municipal Contracting Law—471.345, contracts from $25,000 to $100,000 may be made by direct negotiation, by obtaining two or more quotations for the purchase when possible and without advertising for bids. B. CRITICAL TIMING ISSUES • Staff is requesting that the City Council award this contract in order to promptly proceed with the design phase of the renovation in order to begin construction in 2013. • Delay in acting will increase the cost of the project approximately 5% annually and may result in a project cost that would require the use of debt financing rather than cash. C. FINANCIAL • The amount of the contract for design and engineering services is $72,000. • Total project cost is estimated at $900,000. D. LEGAL • Legal Counsel has reviewed and approved the contract. E. ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS • N/A IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATIONS) • None. V. ATTACHMENTS • None. VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING • None AGENDA SECTION: PUB.HEARING AGENDA ITEM# 9 REPORT# 173 STAFF REPORT RICHFIELD CITY COUNCIL MEETING OCTOBER 9, 2012 REPORT PREPARED BY: WILLIAM F. FILLMORE,LIQUOR OPERATIONS DIRECTOR NAME,TITLE DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR gle REVIEW: � "%% , // SIGNATU t REVIEWED BY CITY 1 MANAGER: /4Akid /C� ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION: Public hearing and second reading of an ordinance to authorize a capital improvement to upgrade the municipal liquor store at 6444 Lyndale. I. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Conduct and close the public hearing and by motion: Approve second reading of an ordinance to authorize expenditures for the planning and renovation of the municipal liquor store at 6444 Lyndale pursuant to the Richfield Charter, Section 8.04. II. BACKGROUND At the February 8, 2012 city council/staff goal setting session, staff proposed an upgrade and was directed to plan and implement an upgrade to the municipal liquor store at 6444 Lyndale Avenue South. Besides two recent major improvements (roof and HVAC) no major improvements have been made at that store location for over 30 years. The store lighting fixtures, coolers and flooring are well beyond normal replacement; moreover, the general appearance of the store has deteriorated and does not present an attractive customer appeal. With the influx of hundreds of potentially new customers to the area of 65ti,_66th streets and Lyndale Avenue due to the recent redevelopment it is especially critical to refresh the store both in terms of functionality. 1011 Public Hearing and Second Reading The plan to upgrade includes the following: • Replacement of entryway doors which will be ADA compliant. • Replacement of south and east windows with energy efficient glass and the addition of a "Knee wall". • Energy efficient interior lighting. • Cooler, display doors, racks and mechanical refrigeration equipment. • Office relocation (to expand cooler). • Current ceiling removed and conversion to open ceiling. • Sales floor treatment. • Retail shelving and point of sale counter replacement. • Exterior soffit and fascia lighting replacement. • Loading dock repair or replacement. • Miscellaneous concrete replacement. • Exterior landscape improvements. The revised estimated cost of the project is $800,000 with possible add alternatives. The project would take place in early 2013 and would take six weeks to complete, with four weeks interruption of business. During, and leading up to actual construction, staff will be actively promoting and directing our Lyndale store customers to another Richfield location. III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION A. POLICY • City Charter, Section 8.04 requires that any capital improvement on City owned property which has an estimated cost exceeding $500,000 or expenditures for design or engineering exceeding $75,000 must be approved by ordinance after a public hearing. B. CRITICAL TIMING ISSUES • Staff is recommending construction in early 2013. C. FINANCIAL • Staff and Wold Architects estimate a project cost of$800,000 with add alternatives with design costs of$48,000. D. LEGAL • Legal Counsel has reviewed the attached transitory ordinance. E. ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS • None IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATIONS) • None V. ATTACHMENTS • Transitory ordinance. • Architect's renderings. • Floor plans VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING • None 1 009Lynda IeLiquorSto reUpdgradeSecondRead BILL NO. Transitory Ordinance No. AN ORDINANCE APPROVING A CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT FOR RENOVATION OF MUNICIPAL LIQUOR STORE AT 6444 LYNDALE AVENUE SOUTH, PURSUANT TO RICHFIELD CITY CHARTER SECTION 8.04 THE CITY OF RICHFIELD DOES ORDAIN: Section 1. Background; findings. 1.01. Section 8.04 of the Richfield City Charter requires that any capital improvement on City-owned property that has an estimated cost exceeding $500,000.00 or expenditures for design or engineering costs exceeding $75,000.00 must be approved by ordinance after a public hearing. 1.02. It is proposed that the City Council approve a capital improvement project for the renovation of the municipal liquor store located at 6444 Lyndale Avenue South in the City of Richfield. 1.03. The capital improvement project consists of the design, engineering and construction of improvements to the municipal liquor store, including, but not limited to: new windows and entryway door system; replacement of beer cooler, doors, shelving and mechanicals for cooling system; installation of ceiling treatment; retail shelving and point of sale counter area replacement; soffit and facia replacement; exterior tuck pointing; concrete replacement; exterior landscaping improvements ( the "Project"). 1.04. The estimated construction cost of the capital improvement, excluding design and engineering costs, is in excess of $500,000. The preliminary estimates for total construction cost is $800,000.00. The estimated cost of design and engineering costs is $48,000.00. 1.05. A public hearing was held on October 9, 2012 after due notice as required by Section 8.05 of the Richfield City Charter. 1.06. The Council finds and determines that it is in the best interests of the City and its inhabitants that Project be approved. Sec. 2. Approval; effective date. 2.01. The Project is approved, and planning, design and construction of the Project may proceed according to the procedures required by law. 2.02. The purpose of this Ordinance is to comply with the requirements of Section 8.04 of the Richfield City Charter. This Ordinance shall not be construed to require that the City 410435v1 CAH RC160-6 1 d -� proceed with the Project; nor does it vest any rights in the Project to any individual or entity. This Ordinance shall not be construed to pre-approve any contracts for the design or construction of the Project, and the City Council specifically reserves to itself the authority to approve any such contracts. The City Council reserves the right to abandon the Project or to modify elements of the Project, if the Council deems abandonment or modification to be in the public interest. 2.03. This ordinance is effective 30 days following its publication. Adopted by the City of Richfield this day of , 2012. Debbie Goettel, Mayor ATTEST: Nancy C. Gibbs, City Clerk 410435v1 CAHRC160-6 2 9- r:� '' sitx<i 1714 • piltr r, d r.. " .• YII•FrYM:vr' 'A.xSxc, ': � iY ' .. � �n::r. ,•fie.*„x=V�. ¢'_ . MV.xr ii+:vsy:ritif YNp: • • Y2ass "�;''.'l,.y`;' r4 •. • 'r �! F ; 3 �� th: i L r s ? £ ? y .; iv .;.. may _ { . . .... Shy: � t h�' . ,„., , ..,. - ,?:: ; „,„..- . !,-.--;,,,, 1.' ,c,-- — - .4,f,...:;,... : : • 4tr t ,.".«•.r....._...�... ,«'''''''',... 3tfl l ._, j... 4 WS N .. r'! ..wt r of , , 1 j j^��wiyt 17 . i3 ..x.L'Y:�,'w• s s .4 a� � tx xY� i`"•x4h .r",." ..:;Cep>:.a h>t' =ri —. V ...•l .fir. ,. � ;'' .::'.• Sa= 'i9 3 pu S t ii,- - ' "fit ", JJ _• �4R } S,k Y...i w w .Y `t:`'ga � •'T. 7b 1 ..}.n G = F' nx i ;F,:: x t ;y•�+�,`. Wit� < ..... - __.... • )� .g L p ' ; f ". If 1 .'af! i s x i fY r s.iyf,'i i 3 i .'. ,fin^-, fi - - 1 q_ ,s- . �. � _ >x 1. v t ,. • 4`ii 4 C�{ . ti�"EVti'. ', i ..,:t':'' ,..., -,..' [ET • \ . \.,-,:.' ' NI4114141464&\ 14N°111‘°1141%%111111111.2 '„ '1' - -• . . „ „,,,,,.,,, , ;_. , n ''''s'41'''''N.„ ' ,'''' .: ; .' _.. . , ,,' - '; -/ • • , .. . flip,. a_ ? ,f/f t", 4 fJjj 1 dfi) b • i,' rt.: ,:. • , . ,,,„;,,,,,,,,/,/,/,:-,,,,,,,,,,..,„,,,,,,,,,„„, .., .:,:, . ,.. ,,, :....., . _, .„ ,. . ,,,.:„:•,. ,:/)„,..,i,,,,,/,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,),,,,.. ....: ,,,,, , .: . ,:,,, ,,,:,.:::::,, ..,- -,, 4,,,,::::.,,,, ,,,,,,,,,§,,,,,:„.,,,,c,#,4„.... ....e„,, .., , ,Fkt.,��JJ�tr�YJ(�( t '3 f, t■ T I '" t - - (� t't/ Tf ,'1 j 3 ;t .5 ^ '..11:1.,.:.. j 4 ,. Clay Richfield Pi Richfield Liquor Store-20101 Renovation Renovation September 5,2012 52'11155 SPLIT FACE CONCRETE BLOCK BASE r GLAZING SYSTEMS _a r , iit J NEW STOREFRONT GLAZING I POLISHED WALK OFF GONG. MAT W/AUTO MATIC OPEN ING BAG CHECK I ENTRANCE SYSTEMS(4) LOUNGE 1 COOLER NEW RECESSED NAT EXPANSION II r T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T 1 J SYSTE CARTS r_.+_+_.E—+—+_4__+_ +_+ _+_+—Jr_4__+_1_1_ —I r-1 I L 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 J II POLISHED/STAINED CONCRETE FLOOR II T—T—T IT T T T T T T 1 I TASTING F _1-7--1"_+_""I i-_.+_"{__'�'_"}'_"""_".{'_'i BAR L. 1_1_L_J L 1 L J_ 1 J_ 1 J PRIMARY BUILT IN CHECKOUT PAINT EXPOSED STEEL J015T5!METAL DECK DISPLAY ICE MALHIN° NEW COOLER SYSTEM IT T T T T —I r—T— IT—T—T—T—T--� --+—+—+—+—H I'—+—+—+—+—+—+--'� . LOW WALL S2"HIGH SPLIT FACE L 1 1 1 1 J L J_ 1 1 J L. J. J \ CONCRETE BLOCK BASE J/ •GLAZING SYSTEMS r— r T T T T IT F—+—+--4 —+—d IT T T T T T T IT TT f'—+—+—+—+—'+—+— I r__,___-_ SECANDARY II L 1 1 1 1 J L 1 L 1 1 1 1 J IL__ CHECKOUT it up II r -1 OFFIGE ,I�11 - I r---DOOR "I.N DELAYED EGLRESS/ALARM OFFICE: 52"HIGH SPLIT FACE tl -ONE WAY VISION GLASS CONCRETE BLOCK BASE -RAISE FLOOR 21" A GLAZING SYSTEMS 9/5/201212:1402 PM CI Rev11 Roj toles\122096(mSlasa' \\M meemrsrPaunC5R h OLiquor I:N1a205S SFT122oesro.mal/.m FLOOR PLAN Comm No:122086 AGENDA SECTION: PUB.HEARING AGENDA ITEM# 10 REPORT# 174 maga STAFF REPORT RICHFIELD CITY COUNCIL MEETING OCTOBER 9, 2012 REPORT PREPARED BY: CHRIS REGIS, FINANCE MANAGER NAME,TITLE DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR REVIEW: 4 d REVIEWED BY CITY MANAGER: Ai / ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION: Public hearing regarding the special assessment roll for weed elimination from private property and removal or elimination of public health or safety hazards from private property. I. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Conduct and close the public hearing and by motion: Approve the attached resolution adopting the assessment for weed elimination from private property and removal or elimination of public health or safety hazards from private property. II. BACKGROUND • The special assessment for elimination of public health or safety hazards from private properties is for costs incurred by the City in connection with abatement of these hazards on certain properties in the City, which are not properly maintained. • The owners of the subject properties are notified by the City to correct the public health or safety hazards and have failed to do so within the proper timeframe. • The property owners were notified that if the public health or safety hazards were not abated within the proper time limit, the City would take the corrective action necessary and bill the property owner. • Finally, each year the City utilizes City Public Works staff to cut weeds on certain properties in the City not maintained by the owners. If the owner fails to cut the weeds in a timely manner after notification by the City, the City undertakes the weed destruction and bills the property owner for the service. • In all cases, property owners will be notified that any unpaid charges of fees may be assessed against the property. 10 09 2012 Nuisance Sp Asmt Public Hearing III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION A. POLICY • The nuisance properties were not maintained by the owners and the City incurred costs to abate the nuisance. • Minnesota State Statutes provide that the City may levy a special one- year assessment for these costs. • Notice of the certification was published in the Sun Current on September 20, 2012. B. CRITICAL TIMING ISSUES • N/A C. FINANCIAL • The proposed special assessment for the elimination of public health or safety hazards from private property is $3,990.00 with an additional 5% interest penalty. • The proposed special assessment for weed elimination from private property is $9,950.00 with an additional 5% interest penalty. • Costs incurred for city staff time in the clean up of the properties or to remove the weeds are included in the special assessment amount. • A $50.00 administrative fee is charged to all properties. • The affected property owner may prepay the original principal amount without interest within 30 days from the date the Council adopts the assessment. If the original principal amount is not paid, the assessment will be charged 5% interest. D. LEGAL • No legal issues are apparent at this time. The City Attorney will be in attendance at the Council meeting should a legal question arise. E. ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS • None. IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION(S) • Do not approve the attached resolutions and have the costs absorbed by the City. V. ATTACHMENTS • Resolution adopting the assessment for weed elimination from private property and removal or elimination of public health or safety hazards from private property. VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING • None. /6- I RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION ADOPTING ASSESSMENT FOR WEED ELIMINATION FROM PRIVATE PROPERTY AND REMOVAL OR ELIMINATION OF PUBLIC HEALTH OR SAFETY HAZARDS FROM PRIVATE PROPERTY. WHEREAS, pursuant to proper notice duly given as required by law, the City Council has met and passed upon all objections to the proposed assessment for current services related to weed elimination from private property and removal or elimination of public health or safety hazards from private property in the City of Richfield: Public Health or Weed Safety Property Address Property ID Number Elimination Hazards 6244 Oliver Ave S 28-028-24-22-0005 380.00 260.00 6300 14th Ave S 26-028-24-12-0136 230.00 365.00 6308 2nd Ave S 27-028-24-12-0067 170.00 - 6414 Grand Ave S 27-028-24-23-0045 170.00 - 6420 15th Ave S S. 26-028-24-13-0056 230.00 - 6430 Portland Ave S 27-028-24-14-0005 170.00 140.00 6445 Xerxes Ave S 29-028-24-13-0021 340.00 - 6504 Logan Ave S 28-028-24-23-0118 - 190.00 6514 Stevens Ave S 27-028-24-13-0081 170.00 - 6530 14th Ave S 26-028-24-13-0137 230.00 - 6542 Bloomington Ave S 26-028-24-13-0103 170.00 - 6732 3rd AVE S 27-028-24-42-0021 170.00 220.00 6732 Chicago Ave S 26-028-24-32-0098 340.00 200.00 6738 Emerson Ave S 28-028-24-42-0089 170.00 - 6744 Irving Ave S 28-028-24-31-0023 170.00 - 6821 Cedar Ave S 25-028-24-33-0059 230.00 490.00 6830 Columbus Ave S 26-028-24-33-0092 170.00 - 6859 Portland Ave 26-028-24-33-0113 170.00 - 6907 Knox Ave S 28-028-24-34-0081 230.00 - 6908 Nicollet Ave S 27-028-24-34-0066 740.00 145.00 6908 Oliver Ave S 28-028-24-33-0052 - 170.00 6932 Portland Ave S 27-028-24-44-0085 800.00 - 7011 Penn Ave S 33-028-24-22-0022 170.00 - 7027 2nd Ave s 34-028-24-12-0040 340.00 230.00 7141 Portland Ave S 35-028-24-22-0077 170.00 - 7144 4th Ave S 34-028-24-11-0044 570.00 140.00 7200 Nicollet Ave S 34-028-24-24-0001 170.00 140.00 7215 Harriet Ave 34-028-24-23-0060 290.00 100.00 7227 11th Ave S 35-028-24-24-0012 400.00 - 7233 Thomas Ave S 32-028-24-14-0064 - 770.00 7235 18TH AVE S 35-028-24-14-0062 170.00 - 7244 16th Ave S 35-028-24-14-0057 400.00 290.00 7314 1st Ave S 34-028-24-13-0011 170.00 - 7344 Portland Ave S 34-028-24-14-0026 340.00 - 7400 3rd Ave S 34-028-24-42-0001 340.00 - 7427 Pillsbury Ave S 34-028-24-31-0044 630.00 - 7632 Oakland Ave S 35-028-24-33-0042 170.00 - 7645 Nicollet Ave S 34-028-24-43-0070 170.00 - 915 Rae Drive 28-028-24-14-0008 - 140.00 Total $9,950.00 $3,990.00 /o - a NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota: 1. Such proposed assessment roll, in the amount of$13,940.00, is hereby accepted and shall constitute the special assessment against the lands named herein, and each tract of land therein included is hereby found to be benefited by the proposed current services in the amount of the assessment levied against it. 2. Such assessment shall be payable in no more than one annual installment and shall bear interest at the rate of five (5%) percent from the date of adoption of this assessment resolution. 3. The owner of any property so assessed may at any time prior to certification of the assessment to the County Auditor and within 30 days of the date the City Council adopts the assessment, pay the whole assessment on such property to the City's Assessing Division without interest. Payments received after the expiration of the 30 day prepayment period, but received prior to November 15, 2012 will be charged interest through the date of payment. Payments will not be accepted between November 15, 2012 and January 1, 2013. 4. The City Clerk shall forthwith transmit a certified duplicate of this assessment roll to the County Auditor to be extended on the property tax lists of the County and such assessments shall be collected and paid over in the same manner as other municipal taxes. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Richfield this 9th day of October, 2012. Debbie Goettel, Mayor ATTEST: Nancy Gibbs, City Clerk AGENDA SECTION: PUB.HEARING AGENDA ITEM# 11 REPORT# 175 STAFF REPORT RICHFIELD CITY COUNCIL MEETING OCTOBER 9, 2012 REPORT PREPARED BY: CHRIS REGIS, FINANCE MANAGER NAME, TITLE DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR REVIEW: .0 " REVIEWED BY CITY MANAGER: '•n t ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION: Public Hearing regarding the special assessment roll for unpaid false alarm user fees against private property. I. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Conduct and close the public hearing and by motion: Approve the attached resolution adopting the assessment for unpaid false alarm user fees against private property. II. BACKGROUND • Alarm users fees must be paid to the City within 30 days from the date of written notice by the City to the alarm user. Fees not paid within the time specified will be subject to a 10% penalty charge. • The special assessment for unpaid false alarm user fees from private properties is to recover costs incurred by the City in connection with the response by public safety to an alarm call on certain properties in the City that turns out to be false. Properties are allowed two false alarm calls before any billing will take place. III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION A. POLICY • Richfield City Code section 915.07 Subd. 3 and chapter 8.02 of the City Charter allows the City to specially assess delinquent false alarm user fees against the respective properties. • Minnesota State Statutes provide that the City may levy a special one- year assessment for these costs. 10 09 2012 False Alarm Fee Public Hearing • Notice of the certification was published in the Sun Current on September 20, 2012. B. CRITICAL ISSUES • N/A C. FINANCIAL • A 10% penalty charge is applied to all properties which have not paid within the time specified. • The proposed special assessment for unpaid false alarm user fees from private property is $990.00 with an additional 5% interest charge on the assessment. • The affected property owner may prepay the original principal amount without interest within 30 days from the date the Council adopts the assessment. If the original principal amount is not paid, the assessment will be charged 5% interest. D. LEGAL • No legal issues are apparent at this time. The City Attorney will be in attendance at the Council meeting should a legal question arise. E. ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS • None. IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATIONS) • Do not approve the attached resolutions and have the costs absorbed by the City. V. ATTACHMENTS • Resolution adopting the assessment for unpaid false alarm user fees from private property. VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING • None. I - I RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION ADOPTING ASSESSMENT FOR UNPAID FALSE ALARM FEES FROM PRIVATE PROPERTY. WHEREAS, pursuant to proper notice duly given as required by law, the City Council has met and passed upon all objections to the proposed assessment for unpaid false alarm fees from private property in the City of Richfield: Unpaid False Property Address Property ID Number Alarm Fee 1550 E 78th Street 35-028-24-44-0010 110.00 6301 Richfield Parkway 26-028-24-11-0077 110.00 7305 South 5th Avenue 34-028-24-14-0035 110.00 7610 S Lyndale Ave S 33-028-24-44-0110 110.00 7644 Lyndale Ave S 33-028-24-44-0115 330.00 7745 South 2nd Ave 34-028-24-43-0077 220.00 Total $990.00 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota: 1. Such proposed assessment roll, in the amount of$990.00, is hereby accepted and shall constitute the special assessment against the lands named herein, and each tract of land therein included is hereby found to be benefited by the proposed current services in the amount of the assessment levied against it. 2. Such assessment shall be payable in no more than one annual installment and shall bear interest at the rate of five (5%) percent from the date of adoption of this assessment resolution. 3. The owner of any property so assessed may at any time prior to certification of the assessment to the County Auditor and within 30 days of the date the City Council adopts the assessment, pay the whole assessment on such property to the City's Assessing Division without interest. Payments received after the expiration of the 30 day prepayment period, but received prior to November 15, 2012 will be charged interest through the date of payment. Payments will not be accepted between November 15, 2012 and January 1, 2013. 4. The City Clerk shall forthwith transmit a certified duplicate of this assessment roll to the County Auditor to be extended on the property tax lists of the County and such assessments shall be collected and paid over in the same manner as other municipal taxes. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Richfield this 9th day of October, 2012. Debbie Goettel, Mayor ATTEST: Nancy Gibbs, City Clerk AGENDA SECTION: RESOLUTIONS AGENDA ITEM# 12 _ REPORT# 176 STAFF REPORT RICHFIELD CITY COUNCIL MEETING OCTOBER 9, 2012 REPORT PREPARED BY: JESSE SWENSON,H.R. CO4 g ; OR • r DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR REVIEW: ��%. -- � _� REVIEWED BY CITY MANAGER: ALAILAIIII. ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION: Consideration of the resolution designating City's contribution toward health, term life and dental insurance premiums for General Services and Management employees. I. RECOMMENDED ACTION: By Motion: Adopt the resolution designating the City's contribution toward health, term life and dental insurance premiums for General Services and Management employees. II. BACKGROUND The City contributes to the cost of premiums for four kinds of insurance coverages available to City employees. Full-time Management and General Services employee contributions are discussed within this staff report as well as contributions toward health insurance for part-time regular General Services employees. Other employees are covered under terms of labor agreements. LIFE A $35,000 term life insurance policy is provided for all full-time Management and General Services employees. The City pays the full premium for this insurance. The rate for 2013 will remain unchanged at $3.33 per month per employee. DENTAL The second type of insurance provided to full-time Management and General Services employees is a self-funded group dental insurance. In 2012, the City contributed $40 per month per employee for the total cost of employee (not dependent) coverage. For 2013, the City's contribution will increase to $45 per month per employee. Employees who desire dependent coverage must pay the full cost of such additional premium, which will be $50 per month for 2013 —a five dollar increase from 2012. Inasmuch as dental insurance is self-funded, the City establishes the dental rates from year to year internally, based upon administrative 10-9-12 Ins Benefits and benefit payout cost data. Analysis of the dental fund performance for the past three years indicates that a rate increase is necessary. HEALTH INSURANCE FOR FULL-TIME EMPLOYEES The third type of insurance coverage available to full-time Management and General Services employees is group health coverage. The Local Government Information Systems Association (LOGIS) group will again offer Blue Cross Blue Shield (BCBS). In 2013 the City will offer employees a choice of two BCBS plans with the choice of networks in both plans. The plans include a co-pay for services and a high deductible plan with a Health Savings Account (HSA). Employees can choose between the Aware and Accord networks. The Accord network is slightly less costly because it does not include Mayo or Hazelden in its in-network. In an effort to remain flexible and keep rate increases as low as possible, LOGIS will continue to offer a four-tier system, giving employees the choice of employee only, employee plus spouse, employee plus child(ren) and family option. By providing this four-tier rating system some employees are able to benefit by choosing the employee plus spouse option or employee plus child(ren) option. The City will continue to pay the full individual employee premium and provide an additional contribution toward dependent coverage up to a specified maximum insurance premium. The Health insurance premium increase for 2013 is 8.5%. Staff is proposing that the City increase the 2013 monthly contribution by $35 for dependent coverage. The 2013 City monthly contribution would then increase to $950 for the employee plus spouse and employee plus child(ren) tiers and $1,000 for the family coverage tier. The 2013 contributions are still less than the contributions made to employees in 2011 because of the 17% premium decrease in 2012. Full-time employees have the option to waive health insurance coverage through the City if they prove they have coverage elsewhere. Employees electing to waive coverage will receive an additional $150 per month on their pay check. Staff compared its waiver amount to other LOGIS members and determined that to stay competitive with other cities and counties, the waiver amount should be increased by $100 in 2013. This $150 will be taxed as regular income. The City's contribution for Management and General Services employees as a percent of premium over the past several years is shown in Attachment 1. The 2012 and 2013 monthly premium costs of the two offered health plans, dependent on if it is within the Accord or Aware network are: 2012 BOBS 2013 BCBS 2012 2013 BCBS Deductible Deductible BOBS $2500 Ded. w/co-pay w/co-pay $2500 with HSA Ded. with HSA Employee Only $ 544.50 $ 591.00 $ 407.00 $ 441.50 Or Or $ 568.50 $ 425.00 Employee Plus $1,144.50 $1,242.00 $ 854.50 $ 927.00 Spouse Or Or $1,193.50 $ 891.50 Employee Plus $1,089.50 $1,182.00 $ 814.00 $ 883.00 Child(ren) Or Or $1,136.50 $ 849.00 Family $1,416.50 $1,537.00 $1,058.00 $1,148.00 Or Or $1,478.50 $1,104.00 HEALTH INSURANCE FOR PART-TIME REGULAR EMPLOYEES The City will continue to contribute 75% of the single health care premium for part- time regular employees. The City will also continue to pay one-half of what it pays for fulltime employees towards dependent coverage. In 2013, that amount will increase to $475.00 per month for the employee plus spouse and employee plus child(ren) tiers and $500.00 for the family coverage tier. Part-time employees may opt out of health insurance altogether. LONG-TERM DISABILITY (LTD) The fourth type of insurance provided to all full-time employees in all employee groups is long-term disability insurance (LTD). LTD is provided through a group policy secured by the City. The City went out for bid in 2012, and the company, Assurant, was chosen as the new provider. Assurant's 3-year rate guarantee came in at 30% under the City 2012 LTD rates. The LTD rate for 2013-2015 is 24 cents per $100 of covered payroll. III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION A. POLICY • The City continues to provide adequate insurance protection for the Management and General Services employee groups, which are comparable to other City employee groups, as well as employees performing similar jobs in comparable communities. • By providing the same coverages, greater benefit equality is achieved between female classes found in Management and General Services groups and male classes found in the contracted labor units. B. CRITICAL TIMING ISSUES • The City should implement the premium increases for coverages by December 1, 2012. Payroll deductions for January 2013 insurance payments, the beginning of the new insurance period, are calculated in December. • Premiums for all coverages should be determined at the October 9, 2012 City Council meeting in order for staff to be adequately prepared for open enrollment, scheduled to begin October 31, 2013. C. FINANCIAL • The funding necessary to provide for the premium contributions as recommended will be addressed in the 2013 Budget and within the current proposed 2013 tax levy. • Richfield's contribution will remain about average with those of comparable metro cities. D. LEGAL • In order to provide the requested insurance benefit changes, the City Council must approve the resolution designating the City's contribution toward health, term life and dental insurance premiums for General Services and Management employees. E. ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS • None. IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION(S) • The Council may decide to increase the City contribution to dependent health insurance by an amount other than $35. • The Council may take no action to maintain the insurance premiums at the current 2012 funding level. • Defer discussion to another date. V. ATTACHMENTS • Resolution • The City's Contribution Toward Dependent Health Insurance as a Percent of Total Premium Cost VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING • None. la - I RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION DESIGNATING CITY'S CONTRIBUTION TOWARD HEALTH, TERM LIFE AND DENTAL INSURANCE PREMIUM FOR MANAGEMENT AND GENERAL SERVICES EMPLOYEES WHEREAS, the hospital-medical/surgical group health insurance plan is available from the LOGIS Health Insurance program for City employees and their families; and WHEREAS, a term life and accidental death and dismemberment insurance plan is available from the Local Government Information Systems Association (LOGIS) for City employees; and WHEREAS, a self-funded group dental insurance plan is available to City Management and General Services employees and their families; and WHEREAS, a group short-term and long-term disability program is available to City Management and General Services employees; and WHEREAS, the City Council is required to determine by resolution the City's contribution toward the premium for employee group insurance coverages. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City shall contribute a maximum of $1,000 per month for family health insurance to full-time employees, and in any event, said contributions shall not exceed the cost of single coverage for employees selecting that option. The City shall give to full-time employees not participating in the City's health plan, a sum of $150 per month, which will be taxed as regular income. For all full-time Management and General Services employees, the City shall also pay the $45 monthly premium for the offered dental insurance plan, and the $3.33 monthly premium for the term life and accidental death and dismemberment insurance plan, for a total possible maximum 2013 insurance premium contribution of$1,048.33 per month. The City shall contribute 75% of the single health care premium for part-time regular employees and a maximum of$500.00 per month towards dependent coverage. Part-time employees shall also receive a portion of short-term disability insurance dependent upon hours worked. Such contributions shall be for coverage effective January 1, 2013. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City shall contribute the full cost of long-term disability insurance for full-time Management and General Services employees. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Council shall determine the City's contribution toward insurance premiums for all organized employee groups by the adoption of the appropriate resolutions concerning labor contracts with the respective organized employee groups. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this 9th day of October 2012. Debbie Goettel, Mayor ATTEST: Nancy Gibbs, City Clerk Attachment 1 I — a The City's Contribution Toward Dependent Health Insurance as a Percent of Total Premium Cost YEAR HEALTH DEPENDENT CITY CONTRIBUTION CITY CONTRIBUTION PLAN PREMIUM MGMT./GEN. SVCS AVERAGE % OF COST PREMIUM 2008 HealthPartners Open Access Choice * Employee + Spouse $1057.86 $730 69% * Employee + Children $1002.29 $730 73% * Family $1308.91 $780 60% Distinctions * Employee + Spouse $ 988.09 $730 74% * Employee + Children $ 933.50 $730 78% * Family $1219.10 $780 64% High Deductible HSA * Employee + Spouse $ 757.10 $730 96% * Employee + Children $ 715.27 $730 102% * Family $ 934.04 $780 84% 2009 HealthPartners Open Access Choice * Employee + Spouse $1226.94 $780 64% * Employee + Children $1162.48 $780 67% * Family $1518.16 $830 55% Distinctions * Employee + Spouse $1146.01 $780 68% * Employee + Children $1082.68 $780 72% * Family $1414.98 $830 59% High Deductible HSA $1150 * Employee + Spouse $ 868.94 $780 90% * Employee + Children $ 820.92 $780 95% * Family $1072.05 $830 77% High Deductible HSA $2500 * Employee + Spouse $ 807.87 $780 97% * Employee + Children $ 763.24 $780 102% * Family $ 996.69 $830 83% 2010 HealthPartners Open Access Choice * Employee + Spouse $1418.74 $855 60% * Employee + Children $1344.21 $855 64% * Family $1755.49 $905 52% Distinctions * Employee + Ia - 3 Spouse $1325.16 $855 65% * Employee + Children $1251.93 $855 68% * Family $1635.02 $905 55% High Deductible HSA $2500 * Employee + Spouse $ 934.16 $855 92% * Employee + Children $ 882.55 $855 97% * Family $1152.50 $905 78% 2011 Health Partners Open Access Choice * Employee + Spouse $1562.16 $915 59% * Employee + Children $1480.10 $915 62% * Family $1932.99 $965 50% Distinctions * Employee + Spouse $1459.12 $915 63% * Employee + Children $1378.49 $915 66% * Family $1800.32 $965 54% High Deductible HSA $2500 * Employee + Spouse $1032.52 $915 89% * Employee + Children $ 975.48 $915 94% * Family $1274.10 $965 76% 2012 Blue Cross Blue Shield Open Access Choice * Employee + Spouse $1295.00 $915 71% * Employee + Children $1233.00 $915 74% * Family $1603.00 $965 60% Distinctions * Employee + Spouse $1144.50 $915 80% * Employee + Children $1089.50 $915 84% * Family $1416.50 $965 68% High Deductible HSA $2500 * Employee + Spouse $854.50 $915 107% * Employee + Children $814.00 $915 112% * Family $1058.00 $965 91% 2013 Blue Cross Blue Shield Distinctions * Employee + Spouse $1242.00 $950 76% * Employee + Children $1182.00 $950 80% * Family $1537.00 $1000 65% High Deductible HSA $2500 * Employee + Spouse $927.00 $950 102% * Employee + Children $883.00 $950 108% * Family $1148.00 $1000 87% AGENDA SECTION: OTHER BUS. AGENDA ITEM# 13 REPORT# 177 =ad! STAFF REPORT RICHFIELD CITY COUNCIL MEETING OCTOBER 9, 2012 REPORT PREPARED BY: KRISTIN ASHER, CITY ENGINEER NAME,TITLE DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR L REVIEW: SIGNATU REVIEWED BY CITY J MANAGER: ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION: Consideration of a Cooperative Agreement between the City and the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District for the purposes of advancing the Legion / Taft Lake Improvement Project. I. RECOMMENDED CTION: By Motion: Approve the Cooperative Agreement between the City of Richfield and Minnehaha Creek Watershed District for the Legion / Taft Lakes Project. II. BACKGROUND The Legion / Taft Lakes Improvement Project is a cooperative effort with the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District (MCWD) and has been in the development stages for many years. The MCWD Board of Managers recently completed a lengthy process to amend their 2007 Comprehensive Water Resources Management Plan to include the project and both the City and District staffs have worked to finalize a cooperative agreement allowing the project to move forward. Cooperative Agreement Consistent with the information discussed at the September 11, 2012 City Council Worksession (see attached PowerPoint), the terms of the proposed agreement include: • Design and Construction —The City will oversee the design, plan preparation, contract award, and construction of the project elements. MCWD will work cooperatively with the City through all phases and will 10092012MCWDCoop approve the low bid prior to the City awarding the contract. Project elements include: • Water Reuse Irrigation and Infiltration Systems • Native Vegetative Buffers • Grit Chambers • Flocculation Treatment • Reduced Impervious Surface • City Obtains Rights-of-way—The City will obtain all rights-of-way, easements, and permits necessary to complete the project. This includes the use of Taft Park via Park & Recreation Facilities Lease Agreement with the Metropolitan Airports Commission. • City to Issue Bonds — City will finance the design and construction of the project by issuing General Obligation Storm Water Revenue Bonds. • MCWD Payments —The MCWD will make payments to the City to cover the bond issuance fees, interest, and annual debt service on the bonds. • Warranty of Land Rights — During the period in which the MCWD is obligated to make bond payments (est. 20 years), if the project ceases it's ability to perform due to loss of land rights from the Metropolitan Airports Commission or other regulatory approvals, then the City will take over any remaining bond payments for the life of the bond. • Operation and Maintenance—The City will responsibly operate and maintain the project elements • Public Communication and Education — both the City and MCWD will cooperate in an effective public communications and education program. • Regulatory Credit—The project provides an acceptable facility to handle phosphorus, volume and rate control for future redevelopment and reconstruction projects within the contributing drainage area. Metropolitan Airports Commission (MAC) Letter of Understanding Portions of the Legion / Taft Lakes Project will be constructed on the property of the MAC. These elements include the active treatment in and around Taft Lake and will be constructed under the existing Park and Recreation Facilities Lease Agreement dated June 14, 1971, as amended February 14, 2002. The attached Letter of Understanding (LOU) from the MAC was desired by the MAC to confirm conversations and commitments between staffs regarding the proposed project (see attached). Consistent with the original agreement, the LOU restates the MAC's right to cancel the Agreement in its entirety, without compensation to the City. If this happens, via the MCWD Cooperative Agreement, the City is agreeing to take over any remaining bond payments used to fund the capital investment, for the life of the bond. Letter from Impacted Resident - Staff received a letter from Lorraine Loken Koss (attached) regarding the Richfield Parkway North Connection portion of the project. Mrs. Koss requested that the letter be included in this packet and considered by the City Council prior to making a decision on the project. III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION A. POLICY • The City's Comprehensive Surface Water Management Plan supports the use of regional and active treatment and identifies projects at both Legion Lake and Taft Lake (Section VI — Page 4) B. CRITICAL TIMING ISSUES • Final design will commence upon the approval of this Cooperative Agreement. C. FINANCIAL • Project Capital Costs are estimated to be $2,700,000. The City will issue General Obligation Stormwater Bonds to cover the capital costs and the MCWD will make payments to the City annually per Section 2.02 of the proposed Cooperative Agreement. • The purchase of three (3) homes is required for the completion of the project. These costs will be covered using Municipal State Aid (MSA) funds. • Ongoing operations and maintenance of the project is to be provided by the City using the existing Storm Utility Funds. D. LEGAL • The City Attorney has been an active part of the development of the agreement and will be available to answer questions. E. ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS • The proposed project would achieve multiple environmental benefits including water reuse/conservation, infiltration, and phosphorus reduction. IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATIONS) • The City Council may choose not to approve the agreement at this time and direct staff on how to proceed. V. ATTACHMENTS • Cooperative Agreement with MCWD for Legion /Taft Lakes Project • Presentation from September 11, 2012 Council Worksession • Metropolitan Airports Commission Letter of Understanding • Loken Koss Letter Regarding the Project VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING • None Anticipated. 13- 1 COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT City of Richfield and Minnehaha Creek Watershed District LEGION/TAFT LAKES PROJECT This Agreement is made by and between the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District, a watershed district with purposes and powers as set forth at Minnesota Statutes Chapters 103B and 103D (MCWD), and the City of Richfield, a charter city and political subdivision of the State of Minnesota (City). Recitals A. The City has proposed to construct and operate a regional stormwater treatment facility to fully and immediately treat the entire Taft Lake watershed (1533 acres) using both traditional and innovative methods and providing for high-quality treatment with measurable results. B. The MCWD has adopted its Water Management Plan Update (April 2007) (WMP), a watershed management plan within the meaning of Minnesota Statutes §103B.231. The WMP includes a capital improvement program (CIP) that lists a number of water quality capital improvements. C. Pursuant to a WMP amendment adopted by the MCWD Board of Managers on July 26, 2012, the CIP includes a water quality improvement project for Legion and Taft Lakes within the City, identified as the Taft Lake/Legion Lake Watershed Water Quality Improvement Project ("Project"). The Project is more fully described in the Feasibility Report prepared by WSB & Associates for the City of Richfield (May 2010, updated July 2011) ("Feasibility Report"). D. The City has requested that the MCWD participate financially in the Project. The MCWD is willing to contribute funding for design and construction in the manner and aggregate amount herein set forth. THEREFORE the City and the MCWD agree as follows: ARTICLE I - CONSTRUCTION by the CITY 1.01. Preparation of Plans and Specifications. The City will design the Project and prepare construction plans and specifications. Plans and specifications are subject to approval by the MCWD's project manager (the "Approved Plans"). 1.02. Contract Award. The City will receive bids and award a construction contract in accordance with applicable bidding laws. 1.03. Documents to be Furnished to the MCWD. Within seven days of opening bids for the construction contract, the City will submit to the MCWD project manager a copy 1 of the low bid and an abstract of all bids together with the City's request for MCWD concurrence in the contract award. The City will not award the construction contract until the MCWD advises the City in writing of its concurrence therein. 1.04. Rejection of Bids. The City may reject any or all bids for the construction contract. If all bids are rejected, either party may request in writing that the bidding process be repeated. On the other party's written concurrence, the City will repeat the bidding process within a reasonable period of time, without cost or expense to the MCWD. 1.05. Contract Direction and Supervision. The contract construction will be under the direction of the City and under the supervision of a registered professional engineer. 1.06. Completion of Construction. The City will cause the contract construction to be started and completed in accordance with the time schedule in the contract documents. The City may extend the contract completion date for unavoidable delays encountered in performance, with written concurrence of the appropriate City official and the MCWD project manager. 1.07. Changes to the Approved Plans. The City will notify the MCWD of any change from the Approved Plans before it is approved by the City, except for field changes, of which the MCWD may be notified promptly after approval. Any change that may affect Project water quality or flow outcomes, or ecologic impacts, is subject to written concurrence of the MCWD project manager before it is implemented by the City by means of change order, work change directive or other means. Where concurrence is required, the MCWD will review and advise the City promptly. 1.08. Compliance with Laws, Ordinances and Regulations. In awarding and administering the construction contract and performing construction, the City will comply and cause its contractor to comply with all federal, state and local laws, and all applicable ordinances and regulations. 1.09. Right-of-Way, Easements and Permits. The City will obtain all rights-of-way, easements, construction permits and any other permits and sanctions that may be required in connection with the contract construction, including applicable MCWD permits. The City will comply with Minnesota Statutes §216D.04, subdivision la, to identify underground facilities before soliciting bids. ARTICLE II — PROJECT FINANCING 2.01 City to Issue Bonds. The parties intend that the City will finance the design and construction of the Project by issuing general obligation storm water revenue bonds. The parties understand and acknowledge that in order to issue general obligation storm water revenue bonds, the City reasonably expects to collect sufficient storm water utility charges under this agreement to pay the principal of 2 and interest on the bonds. The City will work cooperatively with the MCWD to structure the debt service on the bonds prior to offering the bonds for sale, so that the debt service structure will fit within the MCWD's budgetary constraints. The City's financial consultant and the MCWD's financial consultant will review the market interest rates for general obligation bonds prior to the sale of the bonds to ensure that both the City and the MCWD determine that moving forward with the bond sale is acceptable. The City will issue general obligation bonds in a principal amount that equals its engineer's estimate of the cost of the Project, plus estimated costs of bond issuance. The MCWD will not be an issuer, co-issuer or signatory to any notes or obligations pursuant to this section and will pledge no taxes for the payment of such notes and obligations. The parties acknowledge and understand that the bonds do not represent a general obligation of the MCWD nor shall the bonds constitute or give rise to any pecuniary liability of the MCWD or any charge on its general credit or taxing powers. The City further acknowledges that the MCWD has no obligations to the owners of the bonds issued by the City. Notwithstanding, nothing in this section excuses or diminishes the MCWD's payment obligations under section 2.02, below. 2.02. MCWD Payments. As a user of the City's storm water utility, the MCWD agrees to make payments to the City in the amounts set forth in Attachment A. Such payments shall be made three business days prior to each February 1 and August 1 during the term of the bonds issued by the City pursuant to Section 2.01. The storm water utility charges to be paid by MCWD are to provide the City with sufficient funds to pay the principal of and interest on the bonds issued by the City pursuant to Section 2.01 above. The total storm water utility charges payable by the MCWD are estimated as follows: Design: $675,000 Construction: $2,025,000 Bond Issuance Costs: $75,000 Interest: $107,000 "Bond issuance costs" includes underwriter compensation, reasonable legal and professional fees, the rating agency fee, the cost to print the official statement and limited and standard miscellaneous costs such as copy costs and underwriting regulatory fees. On the City's sale of the bonds and award of the construction contract, the parties will revise this Agreement so that the estimated amounts above and the schedule in Attachment A will reflect actual design, construction, bond issuance and interest costs. 2.03. Opinion of Counsel. On the sale of the bonds by the City pursuant to Section 2.01, the MCWD shall provide the City's bond counsel with an opinion from its legal counsel that the MCWD's promise to pay storm sewer utility charges in amounts sufficient to pay annual debt service on the bonds under this Agreement is a duly 3 1311 authorized and valid and binding commitment of the MCWD and is enforceable pursuant to the terms of this Cooperative Agreement. 2.04. If the lowest responsive bid price of a responsible bidder for the Project construction exceeds $2,700,000, the City will be responsible for the remainder of the construction contract price or may terminate the Project if it determines not to assume responsibility for that additional cost. The City in its discretion may include an extraordinary call in the bonds in the event the Project does not proceed. The City will be responsible for any increase in the construction contract price after the construction contract has been awarded. 2.05. City Warranty of Land Rights. During the period in which the MCWD is obligated to make storm water utility user payments under Attachment A, if the Project ceases to be able to provide performance in accordance with the Approved Plans due to the City's loss of regulatory approvals or lack of adequate real property interests to continue to maintain and operate the Project, including encumbrances that interfere with same, then the MCWD's obligation ceases as to any payments due on or after the date of such disability. 2.06. Excess Bond Proceeds. If proceeds of the bonds remain after Project completion, the City will notify the MCWD of the amount of such excess proceeds. The City will expend the excess bond proceeds to pay debt service on the bonds on the next payment dates for the bonds until the excess bond proceeds are expended. There shall be a corresponding decrease in the MCWD's required payments (set forth in Attachment A) on such payment dates. ARTICLE III — POST-CONSTRUCTION OBLIGATIONS 3.01. Project Operation and Maintenance. On completion of Project construction, and without cost or expense to the MCWD, the City will be responsible for all obligations and liabilities arising out of or by reason of the use, operation, maintenance, repair and reconstruction of the Project and all of the facilities constructed there under, including but not limited to the following: A. The City will provide for the proper operation and maintenance of the Project facilities, including pumps; irrigation systems; channels and pipes that convey storm water; proprietary and non-proprietary infiltration systems; other storm water management devices, and flocculation handling equipment. B. The City will monitor the operation and performance of the infiltration, irrigation, and flocculation treatment system in accordance with Attachment B hereto, to assess the flow rate and/or volume of water treated as well as the performance of the treatment system. 4 ) 5- 6 C. The City will manage and maintain the native vegetation established as part of the Project. D. If the monitoring shows the system is not performing as intended, after consulting with the MCWD the City will take reasonable actions to improve project performance. The City will maintain the Project in accordance with the specific terms set forth in Attachment C to this Agreement. 3.02. Public Communication and Education. The City and the MCWD will cooperate to develop and implement an effective public communication and education program regarding the Project. ARTICLE IV. CREDIT FOR POLLUTANT LOAD and VOLUME REMOVALS 4.01 Regulatory Credit for City and Third-Party Redevelopment. Attachment D delineates the contributing drainage area to the Project. The MCWD finds that use of the Project in place of on-site stormwater management for lands within the contributing drainage area will not result in adverse impacts to local groundwater or natural resources located upstream of the Project. Accordingly, in applying its stormwater management rule to any activity within the contributing drainage area, the MCWD will recognize the Project as an acceptable facility for phosphorus, volume and rate control provided that the City is meeting operation and maintenance responsibilities under this Agreement. 4.02 Site-Based Best Management Practices. Notwithstanding section 4.01, above, an application for a stormwater management permit for activity on land within the contributing drainage area must include beneficial, reasonable and feasible BMPs to limit creation of impervious surface, maintain or enhance on-site infiltration and peak flow control, and limit pollutant generation on and discharge from the site. The order of preference for BMPs is infiltration, biofiltration, structural practices. BMPs may include site design, structural practices and non-structural practices and must be designed and installed in accordance with generally accepted design practices and guidance contained in the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency's Minnesota Stormwater Manual and its subsequent revisions. All sites of five acres or larger will incorporate a sump manhole for solids removal. Nothing in this Agreement limits the City's discretion to charge benefiting property owners for the availability or use of the Project. 4.03 Sole City Permitting Authority. If the City is exercising sole authority for stormwater management permitting pursuant to MCWD approval of the City's local water plan under Minnesota Statutes §103B.235, then the City will exercise that authority in accordance with sections 4.01 and 4.02, above. MCWD concurrence is required for a City decision in a specific instance not to require on-site BMPs(beyond a sump manhole, if that device is required pursuant to section 4.02, above). In this event, 5 the City will provide the MCWD regulatory department with at least 10 business days for application review and if the City and the MCWD do not concur in the BMP determination, the City will authorize the MCWD to exercise its regulatory authority under Minnesota Statutes §103B.211, subdivision 1(a)(3). 4.04 Allocation of Credit Between City and MCWD. Reflecting approximate relative contributions to the Project cost, the City and the MCWD each will own one-half of the pollutant load and volume reductions resulting from the Project for the purposes of Minnesota Statutes chapter 103B local water planning, the Total Maximum Daily Load and non-degradation programs, NPDES MS4 permit requirements, and any other planning or regulatory mandates. The MCWD will determine the pollutant load and volume reductions from the Project after consulting with the City, and for that purpose may reasonably request design and performance monitoring data from the City. Project pollutant load and volume reduction capacity used under section 4.01, above, will count against the City's allocation. Any transaction in which the right to any allocation is transferred to another public body will occur only in a writing evidencing the concurrence of the City engineer and the MCWD project manager. ARTICLE V. GENERAL 5.01 Termination Without Cause. Until bonds have been issued or until the construction contract has been awarded, either party may terminate this Agreement without cause by giving written notice to the other party. If the MCWD terminates this Agreement under this provision, the MCWD will reimburse the City for its reasonable design contract costs incurred under section 1.01, above, within 30 days after the date of the City's invoice for such costs. Regardless of which party terminates this Agreement under this provision, the City shall be solely responsible for costs incurred under section 1.09, above. A failure to approve pursuant to reasonable exercise of an explicit approval right under this Agreement is not termination without cause. 5.02 Expiration. This Agreement expires when the City has fully paid and defeased the general obligation bonds to be issued in accordance with Section 2.01, above, or when the MCWD has made all of the payments required under section 2.02, above, whichever is later. Notwithstanding, rights and obligations under sections 2.05, 3.01, 4.01 thru 4.04, and 5.03 survive expiration. 5.03 Independent Parties; No Waiver of Protections. Each party is responsible for its own employees for any claims arising under the Workers Compensation Act. Each party is responsible for its own acts, omissions and the results thereof to the extent authorized by law and will not be responsible for the acts and omissions of others or the results thereof. Minnesota Statutes chapter 466 and other applicable law govern liability of the City and the MCWD. This Agreement creates no rights in and waives no immunity, defense or liability limit with respect to any third party or the other party to this Agreement. Only contractual remedies 6 are available for the failure of a party to fulfill the terms of this Agreement. The MCWD's role under this Agreement is solely to provide funds to support the City's demonstration and implementation of innovative stormwater management approaches and the dissemination of knowledge about those approaches. The MCWD has no authority to select, or role in selecting, the design, means, method or manner of performing any part of the Project or the person or firm who will perform the work. Any MCWD approval or concurrence in plans and specifications or other aspect of Project construction is solely for the MCWD's own accounting of its use of funds. Nothing in this Agreement constitutes the agreement of one party to be responsible for the acts or omissions of the other within the meaning of Minnesota Statutes §471.59, subdivision 1a. 5.04 Nondiscrimination. The provisions of Minnesota Statutes Section 181.59 and of any applicable law relating to civil rights and discrimination shall be considered part of this Agreement as if fully set forth herein. 5.05 Project Managers. Each notification required by this Agreement must be made to the project manager. The MCWD's project manager for the purpose of the administration of this Agreement is: Minnehaha Creek Watershed District 18202 Minnehaha Boulevard Deephaven, MN 55391 (952) 471-0590 The City's project manager for the purpose of the administration of this Agreement is: Kristin Asher, City Engineer City of Richfield 1901 East 66th Street Richfield, MN 55423 (612) 861-9795 Contact information will be kept current and either contact may be changed by a party by written notification to the other party. 5.06 Assignment. A party to this Agreement may not assign or transfer any right or obligation under this Agreement without the prior consent of the other party and a fully executed Assignment Agreement, executed and approved by the same parties who executed and approved this Agreement or their successors in office. 5.07 Amendment. An amendment to this Agreement must be in writing and will not be effective until it has been executed and approved by the same parties who executed and approved the original Agreement or their successors in office. 7 5.08 Waiver. A party's failure to enforce a provision of this Agreement does not waive the provision or that party's right to enforce it subsequently. 5.09 Recitals. The above Recitals are incorporated into this Agreement. IN TESTIMONY WHEREOF the parties have executed this Agreement by their authorized officers. CITY OF RICHFIELD By Date: Its Mayor, Debbie Goettel By Date: Its City Manager, Steven L. Devich MINNEHAHA CREEK WATERSHED DISTRICT By Date: Its President Approved for form and execution: MCWD Counsel 8 %y - Ait air ) City of Richfield, Minnesota $2,775,000 General Obligation Stormwater Bonds, Series 2013 Current BQ AA rates plus 100bps Sources & Uses Dated 04/01/2013 I Delivered 04/01/2013 Sources Of Funds Par Amount of Bonds $2,775,000.00 Total Sources $2,775,000.00 Uses Of Funds Total Underwriter's Discount (1.000%) 27,750.00 Costs of Issuance 43,000.00 Deposit to Project Construction Fund 2,700,000.00 Rounding Amount 4,250.00 Total Uses $2,775,000.00 Series 2013 GO Stormwater I SINGLE PURPOSE 9/18/2012 18:32AM EHLERS LEADERS IN PUBLIC FINANCE Page 1 j - 10 • City of Richfield, Minnesota $2,775,000 General Obligation Stormwater Bonds, Series 2013 Current BQ AA rates plus 100bps Debt Service Schedule Date Principal Coupon Interest Total P+I Fiscal Total 04/01/2013 - - - - - 02/01/2014 - - 66,943.75 66,943.75 66,943.75 08/01/2014 - - 40,166.25 40,166.25 - 02/01/2015 110,000.00 1.450% 40,16625 150,166.25 190,332.50 08/01/2015 - - 39,368.75 39,368.75 - 02/01/2016 110,000.00 1.550% 39,368.75 149,368.75 188,737.50 08/01/2016 - - 38,516.25 38,516.25 - 02/01/2017 115,000.00 1.800% 38,516.25 153,516.25 192,032.50 08/01/2017 - - 37,481.25 37,481.25 - 02/01/2018 115,000.00 2.000% 37,481.25 152,481.25 189,962.50 08/01/2018 - - 36,331.25 36,331.25 - 02/01/2019 115,000.00 2.300% 36,331.25 151,331.25 187,662.50 08/01/2019 - - 35,008.75 35,008.75 - 02/01/2020 120,000,00 2.500% 35,008.75 155,008.75 190,017.50 08/01/2020 - - 33,508.75 33,508.75 - 02/01/2021 120,000.00 2.700% 33,508.75 153,508.75 187,017.50 08/01/2021 - - 31,888.75 31,888.75 - 02/01/2022 125,000.00 2.800% 31,888.75 156,888.75 188,777.50 08/01/2022 - - 30,138.75 30,138.75 - 02/01/2023 130,000.00 2.850% 30,138.75 160,138.75 190,277.50 08/01/2023 - 28,286 25 28,286.25 - - 02/01/2024 135,000.00 2.900% 28,286.25 163,286.25 191,572.50 08/01/2024 - - 26,328.75 26,328.75 - 02/01/2025 135,000.00 2.950% 26,328.75 161,328.75 187,657.50 08/01/2025 - - 24,337.50 24,337.50 - 02/01/2026 140,000.00 3,050% 24,337.50 164,337.50 188,675.00 08/01/2026 - - 22,202.50 22,202.50 - 02/01/2027 145,000.00 3.100% 22,202.50 167,202.50 189,405.00 08/01/2027 - - 19,955.00 19,955.00 - 02/01/2028 150,000.00 3.150% 19,955.00 169,955.00 189,910.00 08/01/2028 - - 17,592.50 17,592.50 - 02/01/2029 155,000.00 3.250% 17,592.50 172,592.50 190,185.00 08/01/2029 - - 15,073.75 15,073.75 - 02/01/2030 160,000.00 3.350% 15,073.75 175,073.75 190,147.50 08/01/2030 - - 12,393.75 12,393.75 - 02/01/2031 165,000.00 3.450% 12,393.75 177,393.75 189,787.50 08/01/2031 - - 9,547.50 9,547.50 - 02/01/2032 170,000.00 3.500% 9,547.50 179,547.50 189,095.00 08/01/2032 - - 6,572.50 6,572.50 - 02/01/2033 175,000.00 3.600% 6,572.50 181,572.50 188,145.00 08/01/2033 - - 3,422.50 3,422.50 - 02/01/2034 185,000.00 3.700% 3,422.50 188,422.50 191,845.00 Total $2,775,000.00 - $1,083,186.25 $3,858,186.25 - Yield Statistics Bond Year Dollars $34,027.50 Average Life 12.262 Years Average Coupon 3.1832672% Net Interest Cost(NIC) 3.2648189% True Interest Cost(TIC) 3.2525650% Bond Yield for Arbitrage Purposes 3.1502989% All Inclusive Cost(AIC) 3.4139109% IRS Form 8038 Net Interest Cost 3.1832672% Weighted Average Maturity 12.262 Years Series 2013 GO Stormwater I SINGLE PURPOSE I 9/18/2012 I 8:32 AM `� x E H L E RS "N";" LEADERS IN PUBLIC FINANCE Page 2 j - I1 Taft-Legion Regional Volume and Load Reduction Project • • 4 Eir7 Isar} �'� -ar lfpL tTa' - l .. .'k 13 � : ;jtSr ll•.• It ► o RICHFIELD MINNEHAHA CREEK( )WATERSHED DISTRICT 1 I+ MAC +g YLr9 yH a` • OUALITT OF WATER �ti QUALITY OF LIFE O Agenda • Project Overview 's\ • MCWD Cooperative Agreement :1 • MAC Letter of Understanding • Project Schedule �' + h ; .I I it :121 I I d 1 13 -1A p yy 1, t ( 3 :,.�� 'Y r.F r i`� .'t f L 3GL',s "�izso> P`tF"' -�1 ttM ..v... ....,;7.....!,:.:.„!,:,64, a :lam 'F a� er�f �c ' 4.f ......e3 4,..1 {i •J'a=t. ? ' -?M f,hP ''k C;{*.e.,)tde'`C 2, ii-rs 1 04-11<-04,14,:es,'-2-.1--q3; •4 cT,::.k..-, §if..' <?;:,'. . r F111 <1.,}h*'i*. ys v r,.L y,..‘,410'11;.--, ..c• M ` J ' "4"gtOr tiic: 7.A!-'.0-‘4`..rit-M'LY1,..: '-.;.•- k' :- ,.\.,'\ ...1Z i--.:'.-!. Legend , 1 l .,!,: •i r ' t z -i,� -' SUbw3IO Sfl tl 0 31 !3. la 1 1A-35-$...1,1. 4_`-T3i - - t v mac"_ __. existing Storm Sown �i.J i > fi Figure 1 J Area lrreated by - •r�s'tir. Taft LakeILegi lon Lake'Watershed WSB Water Quality Improverment Project w... . — Project Purpose • Improve Taft Lake water quality • Enhance wildlife habitat at Veteran's Park \. ., . . • Overall phosphorus reduction t j • Reduce runoff volumes ..40 , I I, ,.y,. • Accommodate future projects 11 ,1 , Act'✓el address water ualet co'u erm,s !�;.I� 1�4 ' 111 � '(:•� I uswm g a large-scale, cost-effective sresten .. ' ' `. , 1 l 2 1 -- 1 Project Elements • Water reuse irrigation system , • Water reuse infiltration system • Native Vegetation and Buffers • Grit Chambers + �` • Flocculation Treatment "�` .= \1 \I' 1 - . • Reduce Impervious Surface Legion Lake r -- L r - y .4 F Modify Outlet to Taft Laka r* T�e ✓ '� �.h Sa— Ka /..Stormwater Reuse -Z y ><' M1 4,ak ( =p�J --T 4 1 .�.11 _. 1 Infiltration yet!r r '� fir'�� ` /,�� 3 Stormwater Reuse Infiltration•tk j 10' rl, 1,v 3h it i r�` '" lX i�- E ' v.-,.. ..tl s '>L'C- _;.,• r� 9 x .. i- e f .. .,,i,',i js /:� Legion Lake !+ } � . r N rn iF' ,mot` g i T ' e'S�±t�a�ii lA'rlF''...s :..it•. yr.- r Combined Intake Plpe and .'h j'' - '4:\: r� !' rah Pump Station for Reusne INiltrabon 1 e. .% t �' and Reuse Irrl atlon S stem y .3lonnrvater Reuse Irrigation Try, eti .�! e,� 9 Y , ' G� s la,' ! . Q/\).-] wr.. . . 4t.i t,, ,{t' tri j 40-16§ 'n t .;w•E i.. .' J +7•k' A.vt�t _1�it t ...*—as st 4 a I,' -,`,`1 Stormwater Reuse Infiltration - h-h;nl p 4. Pond:- - : , �i Intake Pipe and Pump Station n. y•` ...,,,,., '1 t � - for Rouse System d' # r r7 2 ,-b^ ��',,�.�' 4' `.;�}jr:: +� Stormwater Reuse �,�t}' / - . .�� .. r ,� t �``. _ k �},�� Mir :^�Z'+:.�Yi'. i - A ▪ k 3Y/1,,,, •..Construct Grit Chamber �.1`t4 , 4 :a r.r ., S1r _- .. 't,I$ Sturm ewer outko , r'- i } ./ 6iAr t t a sj ""+ ,:i to Legion Lake IA } ,f e., ,■ 3 13iq Taft Lake RF r 4 i Z y ;:,c.: J y o llut1pt to 1 i Nokomis . ,, ' ��'�1, .. 33'. 1-. '' `'- ��C° --• UV Stormwater Reuse still Ii n f 'i,,. 1 FloCatilation t,Rwi llne t Pac-'-i: Combined Intake Pipe and Pump r . ,, w 77P - Stadon for In-Lake Flocculation � t„:„.,/,,,,,� / , Treatment System and Infiltration ` t 7• Low Flow Bypass j t -4- S ; to Shallow Pond _ Mot i _r � ' r Taft Lake 3. t -`. '� , r Lai +7 Stormwator Reuse Infiltraytion�� \ - * strr r �i II':i .�; i y_s 1'' i ! '-`' i fi /2�7: 6 it L51, 1 If 11-Y5'...-#,..i, .f.4/.4 2,>,,,L „f d a u:a� SESI or krt� l , _-.r.��.. :'f'y k T'i' -7f., °! Remove 2270 Linear Feel of Existing . Bis..2, to 'Road to Reduce Impervious Sorb e r - s t-5+' 2v Area and Construct 770 Linear Feet 16-i'r f -, Sanitary Sewer r "h� - of Now Bypass Road to Allow for 1 ' i1 y4'hT't 'f_!N "4:',.4 Construction of Flocculation Treatment ' ” s x{}t ° 'Public Works Storage Area System Project Funding .r..rrrn rcwM 1 _ -�rwrwl� • $2,700,000 Capital Costs (MCWD) • Purchase 3 homes . ;' 1, • (Richfield MSA) ,. l' • $3,000,000 20 years of O & M ', (Richfield Storm) � � '�%l a cooperative project betweevL M the Me ehaha t'd1 '1...`1 `) ',creek watershed )Istri a' a the cite o f :...1Tr,k r, $ : ' . ,rich Richfield '" i ;. 4 5 Cooperative Agreement Terms ,sm City will: • Design and Construct Project • Finance the project with G.O. Storm Water Utility Bonds I' • Secure land for project— MAC LOU \ 1 - • Take over bond payments if MAC rescinds land . . • Operate, Maintain, & Monitor Project 1�► �1 s t • Cooperate with MCWD to develop and \k' I implement an education program �1 , '1111�1 1 1 ' 1 MAC Letter of Understanding • At no cost to the MAC, the City agrees to design and construct the \ N� project to address future stormwater needs of both the MAC and the City \ • MAC retains the right to cancel the Lease Agreement in its entirety without 1�� y1 compensation to the City and take ,∎ back the land I 5 13 _It° Cooperative Agreement MCWD will: • Make annual payments to the City to meet its debt service obligations for the G.O. Storm Water Utility Bond • Cooperate with the City to develop and i - ` f "-- : Imple ment an education program � � ,, tii \ I I"� { !1 Project Schedule • Community Services September 18, 2012 Public Input Process Approval • Council Considers Cooperative Agreement September 25, 2012 , i • Begin Purchase of Homes October 2012 j • Final Design Fall/Winter 2012 1 • Road Construction Summer 2013 iv it `,' • Veteran's Park and Fall 2013 '��? Storm Water Improvements • System Operational Summer 2014 IV .'0 i t 6 DRAFT March 15, 2012 Metropolitan Airports Commission Letter of Understanding DRAFT Mr. Steve Devich, City Manager City of Richfield 6700 Portland Avenue South Richfield, MN 55423 RE: Park and Recreation Facilities Lease Taft Lake Watershed Water Quality Improvement Project Dear Mr. Devich: This letter is to memorialize the discussions pertaining to, and to outline the mutually-agreed to terms for use of, the property owned and controlled by the Metropolitan Airports Commission (MAC) currently under a Park and Recreation Facility Lease by the City of Richfield (City) dated June 14, 1971, as amended February 14, 2002 (Agreement). The City desires to develop the Taft Lake Watershed Water Quality Improvement Project (Project) as described in the Taft Lake/Legions Lake Watershed Water Quality Improvement Project Feasibility Report prepared by WSB and dated July 2011, and as noted in the January 24, 2012 letter received from Mr. Michael Eastling, Director of Public Works. A project overview and MCWD/Richfield agreement are attached. It is understood by both parties that the following terms are conditions of the Project: 1. The City, the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District ("MCWD") and the MAC agree that the Project will be used as part of the regional approach to address future water quality development needs of the above respective entities within the watershed area. 2. The City is proposing to construct the Project on MAC property, and the MAC has determined that use of the property for the Project is consistent with the continued operation of the airport and that the use of said lands are a benefit to the City and the MAC as a regional stormwater management approach adopted by the MCWD to improve water quality. 134 DRAFT March 15, 2012 3. The City agrees: A. To construct the Project in a manner that addresses the future regional stormwater needs of both the MAC and the City; B. To process MSP stormwater drainage discharges for treatment at no cost to the MAC; C. To complete all construction and obtain all necessary permits related to the Project at no cost to the MAC; D. To be responsible for all ongoing maintenance activities and operational costs associated with the Project; E. To replace the Taft Lake frontage road with a suitable alternative roadway and route; F. To acknowledge the MAC as a collaborative agency; G. To provide the MAC with a complete set of design and maintenance documents for all improvements for the MAC's 30 day review and approval period prior to advertising for bids; H. That the MAC retains the right to cancel the Agreement in its entirety, without compensation to the City, or local or state agency for any improvements made on the property pursuant to the terms contained in paragraph (5) "Recovery by Commission" of the Agreement, or as amended ; and I. That, unless otherwise stated herein, all other terms and conditions of the Agreement shall remain in full force and affect. Please indicate your acknowledgment and acceptance of these terms and conditions by executing and returning one copy of this letter at your earliest convenience. Sincerely yours, Jeffrey W. Hamiel Executive Director Acknowledged and Accepted by City of Richfield Signature: Steve Devich, City Manager Attachment: Figure 2 as noted cc: Michael Eastling, Director of Public Works 13 -I9 Lorraine Loken Koss 139 Circle Drive Cocoa, Florida 32922 703.201.8811 Lorraine.koss @gmail.com September 30, 2012 Richfield City Council Richfield City Hall 6700 Portland Avenue Richfield, MN 55423 do Kristin Asher, City Engineer—to be included October, 2012, City Council meeting for decisions regarding the construction of a traffic round-about at 63��and Bloomington Ave. South. Dear Honorable Council, It is with a heavy heart and grave concern that I write to seek your empathy for my elderly parents, John and Beverly Loken. I must advocate on their behalf since I am seeing their health and welfare negatively impacted by the delay in the transportation development plans that were announced several years ago for the above mentioned intersection. Before the development plans were made known, my parentswere in search of their next house.In their 80's and after 50 years in our family home, it was time to seek a residence without stairs or burdensome yard and maintenance issues. They no longer have the physical capabilities to manage these responsibilities, nor do they have the financial resources to hire someone to do it for them. The City of Richfield's intersection plans brought my parents' plans to a sudden halt as they were no longer able to sell their home since its destruction was publicly anticipated. Accessing their property investment nest egg was essential to moving on. Nonetheless, they were hopeful that a fair settlement would be reached and they waited patiently-and helplessly. My parents have been good citizens of Richfield. They have raised three daughters, all graduating from Richfield schools. For more than 50 years they have paid their taxes, voted, and contributed to civic life. They deserve the Council's attention and consideration so that they can move on with the last precious years of their lives. Sincerely, Lorraine Loken Koss