The URL can be used to link to this page

021213completeagenda CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 12, 2013 RICHFIELD MUNICIPAL CENTER 6700 PORTLAND AVENUE REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING COUNCIL CHAMBERS 7:00 P.M. AGENDA INTRODUCTORY PROCEEDINGS Call to order Roll call Open forum (15 minutes maximum) Each speaker is to keep their comment period to three minutes to allow sufficient time for others. Comments are to be an opportunity to address the Council on items not on the agenda. Individuals who wish to address the Council must have registered prior to the meeting. Notes: Pledge of Allegiance Approval of minutes of (1) Regular City Council Meeting of January 22, 2013 COUNCIL DISCUSSION 1. Council discussion • Hats Off to Hometown Hits Notes: AGENDA APPROVAL 2. Council approval of agenda CONSENT CALENDAR 3. Consent Calendar contains several separate items,which are acted upon by the City Council in one motion. Once the Consent Calendar has been approved, the individual items and recommended actions have also been approved. No further Council action on these items is necessary. However, any Council Member may request that an item be removed from the Consent Calendar and placed on the regular agenda for Council discussion and action. All items listed on the Consent Calendar are recommended for approval. A. Consideration of approval of the first reading of a transitory ordinance providing funding for certain capital improvements from the Special Revenue Fund and schedule the public hearing and second reading for March 12, 2013 S.R. No. 26 B. Consideration of approval of a resolution authorizing an Internal Loan in the amount of$311,483 to fund final construction costs for the Honoring All Veterans Memorial S.R. No. 27 C. Consideration of approval of a resolution providing for the sale of$2,770,000 General Obligation Storm Water Revenue Bonds, Series 2013B and authorizing the City to enter into a credit enhancement program agreement with the Minnesota Public Facilities Authority S.R. No. 28 D. Consideration of approval of a resolution authorizing the City to execute membership in the Houston-Galveston Area Council cooperative purchasing consortium S.R. No. 29 E. Consideration of approval of a resolution showing City Council support for a community band shell and to authorize the Richfield Foundation to submit a formal funding request to potential sponsors to help fund a band shell project S.R. No. 30 F. Consideration of approval of a resolution authorizing acceptance of grants and donations received by the Richfield Recreation Services Department and to authorize the City to administer the funds in accordance with grant agreements and terms prescribed by donors S.R. No. 31 G. Consideration of approval of the modifications to the Transportation Commission's Bylaws to include a non-voting liaison from the resident Bicycle Advisory Group as recommended by the Transportation Commission S.R. No. 32 H. Consideration of approval of the purchase orders to Nelson Auto Center in the sum of$105,647.28, plus tax and licenses for four new Ford Interceptor SUV's S.R. No. 33 Notes: 4. Consideration of item(s), if any, removed from Consent Calendar Notes: PUBLIC HEARINGS 5. Public hearing regarding the Improvement Project No. CP-41007 (North Richfield Parkway) and consideration of a resolution receiving feasibility report, ordering Richfield Parkway Improvement Project and preparation of plans Staff Report No. 34 Notes: RESOLUTIONS 6. Consideration of a resolution approving agreements for the purchase of certain properties located on 17th Avenue for the Richfield Parkway Improvement Project Staff Report No. 35 Notes: OTHER BUSINESS 7. Consideration of an Agreement with Hennepin County for the awarding and use of County funding for costs associated with Richfield Parkway Staff Report No. 36 Notes: CITY MANAGER'S REPORT 8. City Manager's Report Notes: 9. Claims and payrolls Open forum (additional 15 minutes if more time needed after first Open Forum and by majority vote of the City Council) Each speaker is to keep their comment period to three minutes to allow sufficient time for others. Comments are to be an opportunity to address the Council on items not on the agenda. Individuals who wish to address the Council must have registered prior to the meeting. Notes: 10.Adjournment Auxiliary aids for individuals with disabilities are available upon request. Requests must be made at least 96 hours in advance to the City Clerk at 612-861-9738. CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES g464#eect Richfield, Minnesota Regular Meeting January 22, 2013 CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order by Mayor Goettel at 7:00 p.m. ROLL CALL Members Present: Debbie Goettel, Mayor; Pat Elliott; Edwina Garcia, Tom Fitzhenry; and Sue Sandahl. Staff Present: Steven L. Devich, City Manager; John Stark, Community Development Director; Kristin Asher, Acting Public Works Director; Todd Sandell, Public Safety Director/Police Chief; Bill Fillmore; Liquor Operations Director; Karen Barton, Community Development Manager; Jeff Pearson, Traffic Engineer; Chris Regis, Finance Manager; Corrine Heine, City Attorney; and Cheryl Krumholz, Executive Coordinator. OPEN FORUM John Bjostad, 7016 Harriet Avenue, announced the Richfield Home & Garden Expo at the Richfield High School on February 16, 2013 from 9:30 a.m. to 3:30 p.m. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Mayor Goettel led the audience in the Pledge of Allegiance. APPROVAL OF MINUTES M/Sandahl, S/Elliott to approve the minutes of (1) Special City Council Worksession of January 8, 2013; (2) Regular City Council Meeting of January 8, 2013; (3) Special City Council Meeting of January 12, 2013; and (4) Special City Council Worksession of January 14, 2013. Motion carried 5-0. Council Meeting Minutes -2- January 22,2013 Item #1 PRESENTATION REGARDING do.town Janelle Waldock, do.town representative, made the presentation. Item #2 COUNCIL DISCUSSION • HATS OFF TO HOMETOWN HITS Council Member Fitzhenry reported on the Metropolitan Airports Commission meeting, including RNAV (performance based navigation). Council Member Sandahl stated there was a Special Transportation Commission workshop on January 16 regarding visioning of streets for the future. There is follow-up discussion at the Regular Transportation Commission meeting on February 6 at 7 p.m. Mayor Goettel discussed the Governor's proposed budget impacts. Council Member Garcia discussed the role of the City's new Economic Development Coordinator. Item #3 COUNCIL APPROVAL OF AGENDA M/Garcia, S/Sandahl to approve the agenda. Motion carried 5-0. Item #4 CONSENT CALENDAR A. Consideration of approval of resolution granting extension of land use approvals at 1120 66th Street East; O'Reilly Auto Parts S.R. No. 15 RESOLUTION NO. 10753 RESOLUTION GRANTING EXTENSION OF LAND USE APPROVALS AT 1120 66TH STREET EAST This resolution appears as Resolution No. 10753. B. Consideration of approval of revised continuation of agreement with City of Bloomington for provision of public heath services for City of Richfield for 2013 S.R. No. 16 C. Consideration of approval of temporary on-sale intoxicating liquor license for Blessed Trinity Catholic School, 6720 Nicollet Avenue, for Snoball Dance on February 2, 2013 S.R. No. 17 D. Consideration of approval of resolution accepting $50 donation from Minneapolis-Richfield American Legion Auxiliary#435 for police safety vest fund S.R. No. 18 RESOLUTION NO. 10754 RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING RICHFIELD PUBLIC SAFETY/POLICE TO ACCEPT A DONATION OF $50 FROM THE MINNEAPOLIS-RICHFIELD AMERICAN LEGION AUXILIARY UNIT 435 Council Meeting Minutes -3- January 22,2013 This resolution appears as Resolution No. 10754. E. Consideration of approval of resolution authorizing City of Richfield to apply for grant from Center of Prevention at Blue Cross Blue Shield of Minnesota to conduct open streets event on Penn Avenue on September 15, 2013 S.R. No. 19 RESOLUTION NO. 10755 RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE CITY OF RICHFIELD TO APPLY FOR A GRANT FROM THE CENTER OF PREVENTION AT BLUE CROSS BLUE SHIELD OF MINNESOTA TO CONDUCT AN OPEN STREETS EVENT ON PENN AVENUE This resolution appears as Resolution No. 10755. F. Consideration of approval of purchase from MacQueen Equipment, Inc. of Elgin street sweeper for use by Street Maintenance Division in amount of$174,188.08 including tax and trade-in S.R. No. 20 Council Member Fitzhenry suggested the O'Reilly Auto Parts project (Item 4A) begin by August 2013. M/Goettel, S/Fitzhenry to approve the Consent Calendar. Motion carried 5-0. Item #5 CONSIDERATION OF ITEMS, IF ANY, REMOVED FROM CONSENT CALENDAR None. Item #6 CONSIDERATION RESOLUTION DECLARING ADEQUACY OF RICHFIELD PARKWAY IMPROVEMENT PETITION AND PREPARATION OF FEASIBILITY REPORT AND SCHEDULING PUBLIC HEARING FOR FEBRUARY 12, 2013 S.R. NO. 21 Council Member Fitzhenry presented Staff Report No. 21 Council Member Elliott questioned the purchase agreements not yet finalized. Acting Public Works Director Asher explained the agreements are in the process of being presented to the homeowners and the timeline is flexible. Transportation Engineer Pearson added that the consultant has initiated the process with the banks for certain properties and that may prolong the timeline. M/Fitzhenry, S/Goettel that the following resolution be adopted and that it be made part of these minutes: RESOLUTION NO. 10756 RESOLUTION DECLARING ADEQUACY OF PETITION AND ORDERING PREPARATION OF FEASIBILITY REPORT Council Meeting Minutes -4- January 22,2013 Motion carried 5-0. This resolution appears as Resolution No. 10756. Item #7 CONSIDERATION OF RESOLUTION PROVIDING FOR SALE OF $3,120,000 GENERAL OBLIGATION IMPROVEMENT BONDS, SERIES 2013A S.R. NO. 22 Mayor Goettel presented Staff Report No. 22. M/Goettel, S/Fitzhenry that the following resolution be adopted and that it be made part of these minutes: RESOLUTION NO. 10757 RESOLUTION PROVIDING FOR THE SALE OF $3,120,000 GENERAL OBLIGATION IMPROVEMENT BONDS, SERIES 2013A Finance Manager Regis explained the PIR (Permanent Improvement Revolving Fund). Motion carried 5-0. This resolution appears as Resolution No. 10757. Item #8 CONSIDERATION OF BID MINUTES/TABULATION AND AWARD OF CONTRACT TO EBERT CONSTRUCTION COMPANY FOR RENOVATION OF MUNICIPAL LIQUOR STORE #1, 6444 LYNDALE AVENUE, IN AMOUNT OF $682,000, ADD ALTERNATE #1 FOR$18,428 AND ADD ALTERNATE #2 FOR $23,450 S.R. NO. 23 Council Member Elliott presented Staff Report No. 23. M/Fitzhenry, S/Elliott to approve bid minutes/tabulation and award of contract to Ebert Construction Company for renovation of Municipal Liquor Store#1, 6444 Lyndale Avenue, in amount of$682,000, add alternate#1 for$18,428 and add alternate#2 for $23,450. Motion carried 5-0. Item #9 CONSIDERATION OF AGREEMENTS BETWEEN RECOMMENDED NON-PROFIT ORGANIZATIONS AND CITY OF RICHFIELD S.R. NO. 24 Council Member Garcia presented Staff Report No. 24. M/Garcia S/Sandahl to approve agreements between the recommended non-profit social service organizations and the City of Richfield and authorizing the City Manager to execute agreements for services with those agencies: Motion carried 5-0. Item #10 CONSIDERATION OF APPOINTMENTS TO CITY ADVISORY COMMISSIONS S.R. NO. 25 M/Sandahl, S/Goettel to make the following appointments: Council Meeting Minutes -5- January 22,2013 ADVISORY BOARD OF HEALTH Name Term Expires Jennifer Turrentine January 31, 2016 Callmie Dennis January 31, 2016 Kristine Klos January 31, 2016 Rose Jost January 31, 2015 Erin Rykken January 31, 2015 ARTS COMMISSION Name Term Expires Dan Mlynarek January 31, 2016 Peter Dysart January 31, 2016 Lisa Rudolph January 31, 2016 CIVIL SERVICE Name Term Expires Steven Hurvitz January 31, 2016 COMMUNITY SERVICES COMMISSION Name Term Expires Robert Shotwell January 31, 2016 Daniel Edgerton January 31, 2016 Tracy Hollenback January 31, 2016 Andrew Seffrood January 31, 2014 FRIENDSHIP CITY COMMISSION Name Term Expires Rod Coleman-Woods January 31, 2016 Roger Swanson January 31, 2016 HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION Name Term Expires Nancy Roberts January 31, 2016 Jeffrey Wright January 31, 2016 Deborah Eng January 31, 2016 Todd Chase January 31, 2016 Sean Hayford Oleary January 31, 2015 PLANNING COMMISSION Name Term Expires Daniel Kitzberger January 31, 2016 Susan Rosenberg January 31, 2016 Council Meeting Minutes -6- January 22,2013 TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION Name Term Expires Gary Ness January 31, 2016 Terry Ahlstrom January 31, 2016 Timothy Carter January 31, 2016 David Taylor January 31, 2014 Motion carried 5-0. Item #11 CITY MANAGER'S REPORT None. Mayor Goettel announced the Chamber of Commerce State of the City address on January 23, 2013. Item #12 CLAIMS AND PAYROLLS M/Fitzhenry, S/Sandahl that the following claims and payrolls be approved: U.S. Bank 01/22/13 A/P Checks: 219001-219457 $ 1,994,886.74 Payroll: 89460 - 89779 $ 613,688.42 TOTAL $ 2,608,575.16 Motion carried 5-0. OPEN FORUM None. ADJOURNMENT The City Council meeting was adjourned by unanimous consent at 8:13 p.m. Date Approved: February 12, 2013 Debbie Goettel Mayor Cheryl Krumholz Steven L. Devich Executive Coordinator City Manager AGENDA SECTION: CONSENT AGENDA ITEM# 3A REPORT# 26 STAFF REPORT RICHFIELD CITY COUNCIL MEETING FEBRUARY 12, 2013 REPORT PREPARED BY: CHRIS REGIS, FINANCE MANAGER NAME,TITLE DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR 1 REVIEW: :,..} -- _add SIG ATURE REVIEWED BY CITY 0/( A I MANAGER: 01 J ,� ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION: First reading of transitory ordinance providing funding for certain capital improvements from the Special Revenue Fund. I. RECOMMENDED ACTION: By Motion: Approve first reading of the transitory ordinance providing for the expenditure of funds from the Special Revenue Fund for certain capital improvements and schedule public hearing and second reading for March 12, 2013. II. BACKGROUND • At the December 11, 2012 City Council meeting, the City Council authorized $450,000 of Special Revenue Funds for improvements to several City capital improvements in 2013. • Included in the $450,000 are: • $103,800 for Outdoor Pool Renovation Loan Repayment • $50,000 for Major Park Maintenance Projects • $92,600 Lincoln Field Internal Loan Repayment • $30,000 Taft Athletic Facility Improvements • $65,000 Ice Arena Rink 1 Bleachers & Railings • $54,000 Ice Arena Skate Tile • $24,600 Outdoor Pool Painting • $20,000 Pool Floatable • $10,000 Community Garden Relocation • In addition, the Type 1 Skate Park project which was initially included in the 2010 Capital Improvement Budget with Special Revenue Funding of$70,000 was 02122013TransitoryOrd completed in 2012. The project received final approval to proceed from the City Council at the April 10, 2012 City Council meeting with an estimated cost of $110,933. Additional funding to cover the increased project cost was to be provided by using unexpended park maintenance special revenue funds. • Due to cost savings realized during construction the final project cost was only $83,938. Despite the savings realized on the construction costs, there remains a funding gap of approximately $13,824. • Within the Park Maintenance Capital Project Fund, which is funded on an annual basis with Special Revenue Funds, there is a residual balance of assets due to cost savings on projects within this fund. Therefore, staff is recommending that $13,824 of these residual assets be redirected by ordinance to fund the gap within the Type 1 Skate Park project. • The 2012 Capital Improvement Budget also provides for expenditures for all types of funds contained in the budget including municipal state aid, user fees, federal grants and state grants. • Authorization by ordinance is not required for expenditures other than Special Revenues. III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION A. POLICY • City Charter Section 7.12, Subd. 2 requires that Special Revenue Funds used for capital improvements must be authorized by ordinance. • This process provides for public input through a public hearing. B. CRITICAL TIMING ISSUES • Under Section 3.09 of the City Charter, a transitory ordinance becomes effective 30 days after publication of the second hearing notice. • The ordinance requirements must be completed early enough in 2013 so that the capital projects can be initiated on a timely basis, completed and the funds expended. • In order for the timely start of the projects under consideration in the Capital Improvement Budget, it is suggested that the first reading of the transitory ordinance take place on February 12, 2013 and a public hearing and second reading be completed at the March 12, 2013 City Council meeting. C. FINANCIAL • While the total 2013 Capital Improvements Budget (CIB) includes total budgeted expenditures of$6,510,750 the portion of CIB concerning proposed funding from the Special Revenue fund is $ 450,000. Outdoor Pool Renovation Loan Repayment $103,800 Major Park Maintenance Projects 50,000 Lincoln Field Internal Loan Repayment 92,600 Taft Lake Fishery 30,000 Ice Arena Rink 1 Bleachers & Railings 65,000 Ice Arena Skate Tile 54,000 Outdoor Pool Painting 24,600 Pool Floatable 20,000 Community Garden Relocation 10,000 • Unexpended Park Maintenance Project Special Revenue Funds to Type 1 Skate Park: Type1 Skate Park $13,824 • A transitory ordinance is necessary to finalize these appropriations pursuant to City Charter. • The source of Special Revenue funds is municipal liquor profits. D. LEGAL • The City Charter requires that a transitory ordinance be used to authorize the expenditure of Special Revenue funds. E. ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS • None IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION(S) • The City Council could postpone the first reading of the transitory ordinance to a future City Council meeting. • The City Council could decide to authorize none or only a portion of the expenditures identified from special revenue in the CIB. V. ATTACHMENTS • An ordinance providing for the expenditure of money from the Special Revenue Fund for certain capital improvements. VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING • None 34- I BILL NO. TRANSITORY ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE PROVIDING FOR THE EXPENDITURE OF MONEY FROM THE SPECIAL REVENUE FUND FOR CERTAIN CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS CITY OF RICHFIELD DOES ORDAIN: Section 1: It is found and determined to be necessary and expedient for the City to expend money from the Special Revenue Fund for the making of capital improvements listed in Section 2 hereof, for which the City would be authorized to issue general obligation bonds. Section 2: The capital improvements and amounts of expenditures for such improvements which are authorized to be paid from the Special Revenue Fund under Section 7.12, Subdivision 2 of the City Charter, are as follows: Outdoor Pool Renovation Loan Repayment $ 103,800 Major Park Maintenance Projects $ 50,000 Lincoln Field Internal Loan Repayment $ 92,600 Taft Lake Fishery $ 30,000 Ice Arena Rink 1 Bleachers & Railings $ 65,000 Ice Arena Skate Tile $ 54,000 Outdoor Pool Painting $ 24,600 Pool Floatable $ 20,000 Community Garden Relocation $ 10,000 Section 3: Unexpended Park Maintenance Special Revenue Funds shall be transferred to the Type 1 Skate project as follows: Type 1 Skate Park $ 13,824 Section 4: The expenditures herein authorized shall be made pursuant to such contracts as are authorized from time to time by Council action. Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield this 12th day of February, 2013. Debbie Goettel, Mayor ATTEST: Nancy Gibbs, City Clerk AGENDA SECTION: CONSENT AGENDA ITEM# 3B REPORT# 27 STAFF REPORT RICHFIELD CITY COUNCIL MEETING FEBRUARY 12, 2013 REPORT PREPARED BY: CHRIS REGIS, FINANCE MANAGER NAME,TITLE DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR �{ REVIEW: �I L SIGNA REVIEWED BY CITY MANAGER: © % �Z y► Ge.4 • ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION: Consideration of the attached resolution authorizing an Internal Loan in the amount of $311,483.00 to fund final construction costs for the Honoring All Veterans Memorial (HAVM). I. RECOMMENDED ACTION: By Motion: Approve the attached resolution authorizing a $311,483.00 Internal Loan for final construction costs for the Honoring All Veterans Memorial. II. BACKGROUND • At the September 27, 2011 City Council meeting staff presented to the City Council three design drawings and cost estimates for the remaining work for the Honoring All Veterans Memorial. • The remaining work on the monument included the following components: o Six concrete columns, each representing a branch of our Military Services. o Granite finish on sculpture pedestal o North concrete trail with lighting o Irrigation and drinking fountain o Landscaping • The options were as follows: • Option 1 — minimal landscaping • Option 2 — additional trail and landscaping on east side • Option 3 —full landscape plan 02122013HAVMInternalLoan • At the meeting the City Council authorized staff to solicit bids based on Option 2 which has an estimated cost of$290,000.00. • The memorial was completed during the fall of 2012 at a total City cost of $454,283.00. • The amount required to complete the City funding of the now completed project is $311,483.00. • The remaining funding needed is recommended to come from an internal loan from the City's Recreation Enterprise Fund. The loan would be repaid through proceeds received from sales of engravings. III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION A. POLICY • Pursuant to Section 7.12, Subd. 7, the City Council may make interfund loans by resolution. B. CRITICAL TIMING ISSUES • N/A C. FINANCIAL • The total City cost of the completed project is $454,283.00 • City funding sources for the project are as follows: o State Grant $ 100,000 o Special Revenue Funds 15,000 o Memorial engraving revenue 27,800 o Internal Loan 311,483 Total Funding 454,283 • The amount required to complete the City funding portion of the project is $311,483.00. • The necessary funding is recommended to come from an internal loan from the City's Recreation Enterprise Fund. • The loan would be repaid through proceeds received from the sale of engravings. D. LEGAL • Procedures related to City Charter Section 7.12 have been followed and completed. E. ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS • N/A IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION(S) • None. V. ATTACHMENTS • Resolution authorizing an Internal Loan. VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING • N/A. RESOLUTION NO. AUTHORIZING $311,483.00 INTERNAL LOAN FOR FINAL CONSTRUCTION IMPROVMENTS AT THE HONORING ALL VETERANS MEMORIAL WHEREAS, the City Charter allows for the City Council to make interfund loans by resolution, and WHEREAS, the City Council has approved the project to be undertaken at Veterans Memorial Park, and WHEREAS, the funding of the project will be from an internal loan from the City's Recreation Enterprise Fund, and WHEREAS, the repayment of the internal loan will be provided through the future sales of memorial engravings, and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota as follows: 1. The City Manager is authorized to execute an internal loan from the City's Recreation Enterprise Fund to the City's Honoring All Veterans Memorial Capital Project Fund to fund the project. 2. The term of the loan will be five (5) years in the amount of$311,483 at 0% interest. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this 12th day of February, 2013. Debbie Goettel, Mayor ATTEST: Nancy Gibbs, City Clerk AGENDA SECTION: CONSENT AGENDA ITEM# 3C REPORT# 28 STAFF REPORT RICHFIELD CITY COUNCIL MEETING FEBRUARY 12, 2013 REPORT PREPARED BY: CHRIS REGIS, FINANCE MANAGER NAME, TITLE DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR REVIEW: 1 4414 REVIEWED BY CITY MANAGER: 1 Ail&" ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIJ DERATION: Consideration of a resolution providing for the sale of$2,770,000 General Obligation Storm Water Revenue Bonds, Series 2013B and authorizing the City to enter into a credit enhancement program agreement with the Minnesota Public Facilities Authority. I. RECOMMENDED ACTION: By Motion: Approve the attached resolutions providing for the sale of $2,770,000 General Obligation Storm Water Revenue Bonds, Series 2013B and authorizing the City to enter into a Credit Enhancement Program Agreement with the Minnesota Public Facilities Authority. II. BACKGROUND In conjunction with the Richfield Parkway North Connection Project, the City has entered into a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District (MCWD) regarding the construction of a regional storm water treatment facility, including treatment for Legion Lake and Taft Lake, the Legion/Taft Lake Improvement Project. The project is expected to begin design work and right- of way acquisition in late winter or early spring 2013. Pursuant to the MOU, the City and MCWD have agreed to work cooperatively to define the exact scope of the project and to complete the project. Accordingly, the City and the MCWD have created a Cooperative Agreement regarding each of their roles and responsibilities regarding the various details of the project, including the final design, financing, construction, operation and maintenance of the project. The City Council approved the Cooperative Agreement at the October 9, 2012 City Council meeting. 02122013G.O.StormwaterBonds As part of the Cooperative Agreement, the City will issue general obligation storm water revenue bonds pursuant to Minn. Stat. Chapter 444 to finance the project. The bonds will be issued for a par amount of$2,770,000, of which $2,700,000 will be for the design and construction of the project. As part of the issue of the storm water bonds, the City will require the MCWD to agree to pay storm water utility charges sufficient to pay principal and interest on the bonds and all costs incurred with the issuance of the bonds. Portions of the project will be constructed on the property of the Metropolitan Airports Commission (MAC). The City and the MAC have an existing Park and Recreation Facilities Lease Agreement covering the property that portions of the project will be constructed on. If the MAC should cancel this agreement, and the project ceases its ability to perform due to the loss of the land rights from the MAC, obligation of the MCWD to make storm water utility payments to the City, will cease and the City will take over any remaining bond payments for the remaining life of the bond. III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION A. POLICY • The City of Richfield and the MCWD have entered into a Cooperative Agreement relating to the financing and construction of a regional storm water treatment facility. B. CRITICAL TIMING ISSUES • The project is scheduled to begin construction in April of 2013. C. FINANCIAL • The total cost of the Legion Lake/Taft Lake Improvement project is estimated to be $4,150,000. • Funding for the project is as follows: City Water Utility $ 150,000 Municipal State Aid $1,300,000 G.O. Storm Water Bonds $2,700,000 Total Funding $4,150,000 • If the lowest responsible bid for the project construction exceeds $2,700,000, the City will be responsible for the project cost above $2,700,000. • The City will be responsible for any increases in the construction contract price after the construction contract has been awarded. • The par amount of the bonds to be issued is $2,770,000. • The MCWD will pay to the City storm water utility charges that will be sufficient to fund the principal and interest on the bonds. • The City has also applied for participation with the Minnesota Public Facilities Authority Credit Enhancement Program. The purpose of the program is to reduce borrowing costs on the issuance of general obligation bonds by providing a limited state guarantee on the bond payments, which then allows for the possibility of issuers to receive higher bond ratings. D. LEGAL • Legal counsel has reviewed the Pre-Sale report and the attached resolution. E. ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS • None. IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION(S) • In the case where the lowest responsible bid for the project construction exceeds $2,700,000, and the City is responsible for the remainder of the contract price, the City may terminate the project if it determines not to assume the responsibility for the additional cost. V. ATTACHMENTS • A Resolution Providing for the Sale of$2,770,000 G.O. Storm Water Revenue Bonds, Series 2013B • Resolution Authorizing the City to Enter into a Credit Enhancement Program Agreement with the Minnesota Public Facilities Authority • Bond Pre-Sale Report. VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING • Rebecca Kurtz, Ehlers &Associates, Inc. 5C- � Resolution Providing for the Sale of $2,770,000 General Obligation Storm Water Revenue Bonds, Series 2013B WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota, has heretofore determined that it is necessary and expedient to issue the City's $2,770,000 General Obligation Storm Water Revenue Bonds, Series 2013B (the "Bonds") to finance the acquisition of properties and construction of a regional storm water treatment facility. WHEREAS, the City has retained Ehlers &Associates, Inc. in Roseville, Minnesota (Ehlers), as its independent financial advisor for the Bonds and is therefore authorized to solicit proposals in accordance with Minnesota Statutes, Section 475.60, Subdivision 2(9); NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota, as follows: 1. Authorization; Findings. The City Council hereby authorizes Ehlers to solicit proposals for the sale of the Bonds. 2. Meeting; Proposal Opening. The City Council shall meet at 7:00 p.m. on Tuesday, February 26, 2013 for the purpose of considering sealed proposals for and awarding the sale of the Bonds. 3. Official Statement. In connection with said sale, the officers or employees of the City are hereby authorized to cooperate with Ehlers and participate in the preparation of an official statement for the Bonds and to execute and deliver it on behalf of the City upon its completion. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this 12th day of February, 2013. Debbie Goettel, Mayor • ATTEST: Nancy Gibbs, City Clerk 3C - � Resolution Authorizing the City to Enter into a Credit Enhancement Program Agreement with the Minnesota Public Facilities Authority A. WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota (the "City") proposes to issue its General Obligation Improvement Bonds (the "Bonds"), the proceeds of which will be used to finance the costs of construction, improvement or rehabilitation of water, sanitary sewer, and storm sewer facilities; and B. WHEREAS, the City Council hereby determines it is in the best interests of the City to apply to the Minnesota Public Facilities Authority (the "Authority") for credit enhancement of the Bonds; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota, as follows: 1. Approval of the Authority's Credit Enhancement Program Agreement. The Authority's Credit Enhancement Program Agreement (the "Agreement") is hereby approved, the same being before the City Council and made a part of this resolution by reference. 2. Authorization to Sign Agreement and Related Forms. The City Manager and the Mayor are authorized to sign the Agreement on the City's behalf and to execute any other related forms prescribed by the Authority with respect to the Agreement. 3. Agreement to Comply with Minnesota Statutes, Section 446A.086. The City is entering into the Agreement with the Authority pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Section 446A.086 (the "Act") and the City hereby agrees to comply with and be bound by the provisions of the Act. 4. Submission of the Agreement. The City Manager and the Mayor are hereby authorized to submit, on the City's behalf, the Agreement to the Authority, together with the nonrefundable application fee in the amount of$500. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this 12th day of February, 2013. Debbie Goettel, Mayor ATTEST: Nancy Gibbs, City Clerk 3C/--- 3 1- _1 Debt Issuance Services _ ...,___ _ _ ri February 12, 2013 Pre-Sale Report for $2,770,000 General Obligation Stormwater Revenue Bonds, Series 2013B City of Richfield, Minnesota liwilla Prepared and Presented by: Rebecca Kurtz RICHFIELD Financial Advisor And Brian Reilly Financial Advisor iinalliall.11111 vwvw.ehlers-inc.corn 0 EHLERS [-MOM IN PUINLC FINANCE _ Minnesota Offices also in Wisconsin Arid Illinois phone 661-697-8600 fax 651-687-8655 3060 Centre Pointe Drive Roseville,MN 55113-1122 toll free 800-652-1171 Executive Summary of Proposed Debt Proposed Issue: $2,770,000 General Obligation Stormwater Revenue Bonds, Series 2013B Authority: The Stormwater Bonds are being issued pursuant to Chapter 444 and 475, which allows cities to issue debt without limitation as long as debt service is expected to be paid from water and sewer revenues. The Bonds will be general obligations of the City, for which its full faith, credit and taxing powers are pledged. Purposes/Funding Sources: The proposed Stormwater Bond includes financing for the following purposes: • Acquisition of properties and construction of Taft Lake storm water improvements, including Richfield Parkway features, including a trail and bus stops. Debt service will be paid from payments to the City from the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District,per the Cooperative Agreement. Term/Call Feature The Stormwater Bonds are being issued for a 20 year term. Principal on the Bonds will be due on February 1 in the years 2014 through 2033. Interest is payable every six months beginning February 1, 2014. The Bonds maturing February 1, 2022, and thereafter will be subject to prepayment at the discretion of the City on February 1, 2021, or any date thereafter. Bank Qualification Because the City is issuing less than $10,000,000 in the calendar year, the City will be able to designate the Bonds as "bank qualified" obligations. Bank qualified status broadens the market for the Bonds, which can result in lower interest rates. Credit Enhancement: City bond issues for water, sanitary sewer and storm water facilities are now authorized to receive credit enhancement from the State. Under current bond ratings, the state credit enhancement would bring a Standard & Poor's "AA+" rating or a Moody's "Aa2" because the State guarantees the debt service payments on the Bonds. Currently, state credit enhancement provides a significant interest cost savings, to lower or non-rated cities. To qualify for the credit enhancement, a city must submit an application and $500 fee to the State. There will also be a credit rating fee that is lower than the standard fee to either rating agency. Ehlers will take care of the application to the State on your behalf. 3c- 5 Rating: The City's most recent bond issues were rated AA+ by Standard & Poor's. The City will request a new rating for the Bonds. If the winning bidder on the Bonds elects to purchase bond insurance, the rating for the issue may be higher than the City's bond rating in the event that the bond rating of the insurer is higher than that of the City. Method of Sale/Placement: In order to obtain the lowest interest cost to the City, we will solicit competitive bids for purchase of the Bonds from local banks in your area and regional underwriters. We have included an allowance for discount bidding equal to 1.20% of the principal amount of each issue. The discount is treated as an interest item and provides the underwriter with all or a portion of its compensation in the transaction. If the Bonds are purchased at a price greater than the minimum bid amount (maximum discount), the unused allowance may be used to lower your borrowing amount. Review of Existing Debt: We have reviewed all outstanding indebtedness for the City and find that there are no refunding opportunities at this time. We are working with the City to monitor the potential advance refunding of several Bonds including the 2006 and 2007 issues. We will continue to monitor the market and the call dates for the City's outstanding debt and will alert you to any future refunding opportunities. Continuing Disclosure: Because the City has more than $10,000,000 in outstanding debt (including this issue) and this issue is over $1,000,000, the City will be agreeing to provide certain updated Annual Financial Information and its Audited Financial Statement annually as well as providing notices of the occurrence of certain "material events" to the Municipal Securities Rulemaking Board (the "MSRB"), as required by rules of the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC). The City is already obligated to provide such reports for its existing bonds, and has contracted with Ehlers to prepare and file the reports. Arbitrage Monitoring: Because the Bonds are tax-exempt securities/tax credit securities, the Issuer must ensure compliance with certain Internal Revenue Service (IRS) rules throughout the life of the issue. These rules apply to all gross proceeds of the issue, including initial bond proceeds and investment earnings in construction, escrow, debt service, and any reserve funds. How issuers spend bond proceeds and how they track interest earnings on funds (arbitrage/yield restriction compliance) are common subjects of IRS inquiries. Your specific responsibilities will be detailed in the Tax Certificate prepared by your Bond Attorney and provided at closing. We recommend that you regularly monitor compliance with these rules and/or retain the services of a qualified firm to assist you. CP Risk Factors: Utility Revenue: The Issuer expects to pay the Stormwater Bond debt service with payments from the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District (MCWD) per the Cooperative Agreement between the City and the MCWD. If utility revenue is inadequate, the Issuer may have to levy taxes to pay debt service on the Bonds. Proposed Debt Issuance Schedule Pre-Sale Review by Council: February 12, 2013 Distribute Official Statement: Week of February 4,2013 Conference with Rating Agency: Week of February 11, 2013 City Council Meeting to Award Sale of the Bonds: February 26,2013 Estimated Closing Date: Late March 2013 Attachments Sources and Uses of Funds Proposed Debt Service Schedules Resolution Authorizing Ehlers to Proceed With Bond Sale Resolution Authorizing Application to the Credit Enhancement Program Ehlers Contacts: Financial Advisors: Rebecca Kurtz (651)697-8516 Brian Reilly (651)697-8541 Bond Analyst: Wendy Lundberg (651)697-8540 Bond Sale Coordinator: Alicia Baldwin (651) 697-8523 Financial Analyst: Alicia Gage (651) 697-8551 The Official Statement for this financing will be mailed to the City Council at their home address or e- mailed for review prior to the sale date. City of Richfield, Minnesota $2,770,000 General Obligation Stormwater Revenue Bonds, Series 2013 "AA" Rated, B.Q. Market Rates plus 25bps Table of Contents Report Sources&Uses 1 Debt Service Schedule 2 Ser 2013 GO StormSwr Rev I SINGLE PURPOSE 1 1/16/2013 I 1:11 PM EHLERS GUAtUJ S IN PUBLIC IINANCE 3c- g City of Richfield, Minnesota $2,770,000 General Obligation Stormwater Revenue Bonds, Series 2013 "AA" Rated, B.Q. Market Rates plus 25bps Sources & Uses Dated 03/20/2013 I Delivered 03/20/2013 Sources Of Funds Par Amount of Bonds $2,770,000.00 Total Sources $2,770,000.00 Uses Of Funds Total Underwriter's Discount (1.200°,) 33,240.00 Costs of Issuance 36,000.00 beposit to Project Construction Fund 2,700,000.00 Rounding Amount 760.00 Total Uses $2,770,000.00 Ser 2013 GO StormSwr Rev I SINGLE PURPOSE I 1/16/2013 1 1:11 PM EHLER i.LAOLRS IN MUNCIE LitoticE Page 1 3c_ 61 City of Richfield, Minnesota $2,770,000 General Obligation Stormwater Revenue Bonds, Series 2013 "AA" Rated, B.Q. Market Rates plus 25bps Debt Service Schedule Date Principal Caunan Interest Total P*I Fiscal Total 03/20/2013 - - - - - 02/01/2014 125,000.00 0.550% 45,328.25 170,328.25 170,328.25 08/01/2014 - - 25,891.25 25,891.25 - 02/01/2015 120,000.00 0.750% 25,891.25 145,891.25 171,782.50 08/01/2015 - - 25,441.25 25,441.25 - 02/01/2016 120,000.00 0.850% 25,441.25 145,441.25 170,882.50 08/01/2016 - - 24,931.25 24,931.25 - 02/01/2017 125,000.00 1.000% 24,931.25 149,931.25 174,862.50 08/01/2017 - - 24,306.25 24,306.25 - 02/01/2018 125,000.00 1.150% 24,306.25 149,306.25 173,612.50 08/01/2018 - - 23,587.50 23,587.50 - 02/01/2019 125,000.00 1.250% 23,587.50 148,587.50 172,175.00 08/01/2019 - - 22,806.25 22,806.25 - 02/01/2020 125,000.00 1.400% 22,806.25 147,806.25 170,612.50 08/01/2020 - - 21,931.25 21,931.25 - 02/01/2021 130,000.00 1.550% 21,931.25 151,931.25 173,862.50 08/01/2021 - - 20,923.75 20,923.75 - 02/01/2022 130,000.00 1.750% 20,923.75 150,923.75 171,847.50 08/01/2022 - - 19,786.25 19,786.25 - 02/01/2023 135,000.00 1.950% 19,786.25 154,786.25 174,572.50 08/01/2023 - 18,470.00 18,470.00 - 02/01/2024 135,000.00 2.050% 18,470.00 153,470.00 171,940.00 08/01/2024 - - 17,086.25 17,086.25 - 02/01/2025 140,000.00 2.150% 17,086.25 157,086.25 174,172.50 08/01/2025 - - 15,581.25 15,581.25 - 02/01/2026 140,000.00 2.250% 15,581.25 155,581.25 171,162.50 08/01/2026 - 14,006.25 14,006.25 02/01/2027 145,000.00 2.300% 14,006.25 159,006.25 173,012.50 08/01/2027 - - 12,338.75 12,338.75 - 02/01/2028 150,000.00 2.400% 12,338.75 162,338.75 174,677.50 08/01/2028 - - 10,538.75 10,538.75 - 02/01/2029 150,000.00 2.500% 10,538.75 160,538.75 171,077.50 08/01/2029 - - 8,663.75 8,663.75 - 02/01/2030 - 155,000.00 2.550% 8,663.75 163,663.75 172,327.50 08/01/2030 - - 6,687 50 6,687.50 - 02/01/2031 160,000.00 2.600% 6,687.50 166,687.50 173,375.00 08/01/2031 - 4,607.50 4,607.50 - 02/01/2032 165,000.00 2.700% 4,607.50 169,607.50 174,215.00 08/01/2032 - 2,380.00 2,380.00 - 02/01/2033 170,000.00 2.800% 2,380.00 _172,380.00 174,760.00 Total $2,770,000.00 - $685,258.25 $3,455,258.25 - Yield Statistics Bond Year Dollars $30,372.97 Average Life 10.965 Years Average Coupon 2.2561449% Net Interest Cost(NIC) 2.3655843% True Interest Cost(TIC) 2.3577457% Bond Yield for Arbitrage Purposes 2.2302414% - -- - - - _ All Inclusive Cost(AIC) 2.4983312% IRS Farm 0030 Net Interest Cost 2.2561449° Weighted Average Maturity 10.965 Years Ser 2013 GO StormSwr Rev I SINGLE PURPOSE I 1/16/2013 I 1:11 PM 0 EHLERS tLA41E05 tN t uatlfl RiNANUI- Page 2 AGENDA SECTION: CONSENT AGENDA ITEM# 3D REPORT# 29 STAFF REPORT RICHFIELD CITY COUNCIL MEETING FEBRUARY 12, 2013 REPORT PREPARED BY: WAYNE KEWITSCH,FIRE CHIEF NAME,TITLE DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR ❑ REVIEW: ��1 " SIG IA 'RE REVIEWED BY CITY , MANAGER: dir` ; f ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION: Council approval of resolution authorizing the City to execute membership in the Houston- Galveston Area Council cooperative purchasing consortium. I. RECOMMENDED ACTION: By Motion: Approve the attached resolution authorizing the City to enter into an Interlocal Contract for Cooperative Purchasing with the Houston-Galveston Area Council. II. BACKGROUND The Houston-Galveston Council is a regional council of governments operating in Texas. Over 30 years ago, they developed a cooperative purchasing organization, HGACBuy for government entities. The HGACBuy Program specializes in high ticket, capital intensive products and services that require technical, detailed specifications and extensive professional skills to evaluate bid responses. All products offered through HGACBuy have been awarded by virtue of a public competitive process. There are no annual membership dues required to purchase through HGACBuy. Each purchase made through the cooperative will be brought to the City Council or City Manager for approval, as appropriate, based on the contract amount. 021213 Resolution to enter into Interlocal Contract- HGACBuy III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION A. POLICY • The Fire Department purchases equipment items on an ongoing basis that have significant cost; a primary example being fire apparatus. HGACBuy has done significant work to negotiate better pricing on these items than what the Fire Department can obtain through the City's competitive bidding process or through the current state purchasing contract. • HGACBuy requires cities that wish to join the organization to adopt a resolution approving their Interlocal Contract for Cooperative Purchasing. • It is the policy of the City to explore purchasing options that are compliant with State statute, City purchasing policy and lead to monetary savings for the City. B. CRITICAL TIMING ISSUES • By joining HGACBuy, the Fire Department will be able to research pricing advantages on equipment scheduled to be purchased in 2013 and subsequent years. C. FINANCIAL • It is expected that the Fire Department will be able to receive better pricing on equipment that is scheduled to be purchased than is available through the existing state cooperative purchasing contract. • Some items requiring purchase are not available through the existing state purchasing contract that, but are available through HGACBuy.. D. LEGAL • The Agreement documents have been reviewed and approved by the City Attorney. • Minnesota Statute 471.345, Subd. 15(b) allows cities to purchase equipment and supplies through cooperative purchasing agencies that use competitive bidding processes, like HGACBuy. State law requires that the city consider the availability, price and quality of supplies, materials or equipment available through the state's cooperative purchasing venture before purchasing any item over $25,000 through another source. E. ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS • N/A IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION(S) • Council could decline to enter into this contract in which case the Fire Department would not be able to take part in advantageous pricing that has been negotiated by HGACBuy. V. ATTACHMENTS • Resolution. • Interlocal Contract for Cooperative Purchasing. VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING • None —I RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION TO EXECUTE THE INTERLOCAL CONTRACT FOR COOPERATIVE PURCHASING BETWEEN THE CITY OF RICHFIELD AND THE HOUSTON- GALVESTON AREA COUNCIL (HGACBUY) WHEREAS, Minnesota Statutes, Section 471.345, authorizes Minnesota cities sto participate in cooperative purchasing alliances for the purchase of supplies, materials and equipment; and WHEREAS, the City of Richfield wishes to take advantage of cooperative purchasing opportunities where possible; and, WHEREAS, the Richfield Fire Department is scheduled to purchase items currently covered by this Agreement; and, WHEREAS, the Houston-Galveston Area Council has established a cooperative purchasing program known as HGACBuy which is open to participating government entities; and, WHEREAS, in order to participate in HGACBuy,.the City Council must approve an Interlocal Contract for Cooperative Purchasing. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Richfield as follows: 1. The Interlocal Contract for Cooperative Purchasing is hereby approved. 2. The City Manager is authorized to execute the Interlocal Contract for Cooperative Purchasing. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this 12th day of February 2013. Debbie Goettel, Mayor ATTEST: Nancy Gibbs, City Clerk #IGACBuy rrrr s-tA+er PuP011150 10 SOUurrc INTERLOCAL CONTRACT ILC FOR COOPERATIVE PURCHASING No.: Permanent Number assigned by H-GAC THIS INTERLOCAL CONTRACT("Contract"),made and entered into pursuant to the Texas Interlocal Cooperation A.ct,Chapter 791,Texas Government Code(the"Act"),by and between the Houston-Galveston Area Council,hereinafter referred to as"H-GAC," having its principal place of business at 3555 Timmons Lane, Suite 120,Houston,Texas 77027,and * City of Richfield , a local government, a state agency, or a non-profit corporation created and operated to provide one or more governmental functions and services,hereinafter referred to as "End User,"having its principal place of business at*6700 Portland Avenue, Richfield, MN 55423 WITNESSETH WHEREAS,H-GAC is a regional planning commission and political subdivision of the State of Texas operating under Chapter 391, Texas Local Government Code;and WHEREAS, pursuant to the Act, II-GAC is authorized to contract with eligible entities to perform governmental functions and services,including the purchase of goods and services; and WHEREAS,in reliance on such authority,H-GAC has instituted a cooperative purchasing program under which it contracts with eligible entities under the Act;and WHEREAS,End User has represented that it is an eligible entity under the Act,that its governing body has authorized this Contract on *Feb 12, 2013 (Date),and that it desires to contract with H-GAC on the terms set forth below; NOW,THEREFORE,H-GAC and the End User do hereby agree as follows: ARTICLE 1: LEGAL AUTHORITY The End User represents and warrants to 11-GAC that(1)it is eligible to contract with H-GAC under the Act because it is one of the following: a local government,as defined in the Act(a county,a municipality,a special district,or other political subdivision of the State of Texas or any other state),or a combination of two or more of those entities,a state agency(an agency of the State of Texas as defined in Section 771.002 of the Texas Government Code,or a similar agency of another state),or a non-profit corporation created and operated to provide one or more governmental functions and services,and(2)it possesses adequate legal authority to enter into this Contract. ARTICLE 2: APPLICABLE LAWS H-GAC and the End User agree to conduct all activitiesunder this Contract in accordance with all applicable rules,regulations,and ordinances and laws in effect or promulgated during the term of this Contract. ARTICLE 3: WHOLE AGREEMENT This Contract and any attachments,as provided herein,constitute the complete contract between the parties hereto,and supersede any and all oral and written agreements between the parties relating to matters herein. ARTICLE ear of the End User,which began* 01,ICLE 4: PERFORMANCE PERIOD year g Jan 01 2013 The period of this Contract shall be for the balance of the fiscal and ends* Dec 31, 2013 . This Contract shall thereafter automatically be renewed annually for each succeeding fiscal year, provided that such renewal shall not have the effect of extending the period in which the End User may make any payment due an H- GAC contractor beyond the fiscal year in which such obligation was incurred under this Contract. ARTICLE 5: SCOPE OF SERVICES The End User appoints H-GAC its true and lawful purchasing agent for the purchase of certain products and services through the H- GAC Cooperative Purchasing Program. End User will access the Program through HGACBuy.com and by submission of any duly executed purchase order, in the form prescribed by H-GAC to a contractor having a valid contract with H-GAC. All purchases hereunder shall be in accordance with specifications and contract terms and pricing established by H-GAC. Ownership (title) to products purchased through H-GAC shall transfer directly from the contractor to the End User. (over) ARTICLE 6: PAYMENTS H-GAC will confirm each order and issue notice to contractor to proceed.Upon delivery of goods or services purchased, and presentation of a properly documented invoice,the End User shall promptly,and in any case within thirty(30)days,pay H-GAC's contractor the full amount of the invoice.All payments for goods or services will be made from current revenues available to the paying party. In no event shall H GAC have any financial liability to the End User for any goods or services End User procures from an H- GAC contractor. ARTICLE 7: CHANGES AND AMENDMENTS This Contract may be amended only by a written amendment executed by both parties, except that any alterations, additions, or deletions to the terms of this Contract which are required by changes in Federal and State law or regulations are automatically incorporated into this Contract without written amendment hereto and shall become effective on the date designated by such law or regulation. H-GAC reserves the right to make changes in the scope of products and services offered through the H-GAC Cooperative Purchasing Program to be performed hereunder. ARTICLE 8: TERMINATION PROCEDURES H-GAC or the End User may cancel this Contract at any time upon thirty(30)days written notice by certified mail to the other party to this Contract. The obligations of the End User,including its obligation to pay H-GACs contractor for all costs incurred under this Contract prior to such notice shall survive such cancellation, as well as any other obligation incurred under this Contract, until performed or discharged by the End User. ARTICLE 9: SEVERABILITY All parties agree that should any provision of this Contract be determined to be invalid or unenforceable, such determination shall not affect:any other term of this Contract,which shall continue in full force and effect. ARTICLE 10: FORCE MAJEURE To the extent that either party to this Contract shall be wholly or partially prevented from the performance within the term specified of any obligation or duty placed on such party by reason of or through strikes,stoppage of labor,riot,fire,flood,acts of war,insurrection, accident,order of any court,act of God,or specific cause reasonably beyond the party's control and not attributable to its neglect or nonfeasance,in such event,the time for the performance of such obligation or duty shall be suspended until such disability to perform is removed;provided,however, force majeure shall not excuse an obligaion solely to pay funds. Determination of force majeure shall rest solely with H-GAC. ARTICLE 11: VENUE Disputes between procuring party and Vendor are to be resolved in accord with the law and venue rules of the State of purchase. THIS INSTRUMENT HAS BEEN EXECUTED IN TWO ORIGINALS BY THE PARTIES HERETO AS FOLLOWS: City of Richfield Houston-Galveston Area Council Name of End User(local government,agency,or non-profit corporation) 3555 Timmons Lane,Suite 120,Houston,TX 77027 * 6700 Portland Ave. By: Mailing Address Executive Director * Richfield MN 55423 City State ZIP Code Attest: Manager *By: Signature of chief elected or appointed official Date: * Steve Devich, City Manager Typed Name&Title of Signatory Date *Denotes required fields rev.03/11 *Request for Information To expedite service,please complete the following blanks relevant to your agency's administrative/elective ' personnel and return the completed form to H-GAC, Cooperative Purchasing Program.P.O.Box 22777, Houston. TX 77227-2777. Name of End User Agency • City of Richfield County Name : Hennepin (Municipality/ County l District l etc.) Mailing Address : 6700 Portland Ave., Richfield, MN 55423 (Street Address/P.O. Box) (City) (State) (ZIP Code) • 612 861'9700 612 86129749 Main Telephone Number (..--��,.,- FAX Number: �� Physical Address • (Street Address, ifdifferent from mailing address) (City) (State) (ZIP Code) Web Site Address: . www.cityofrichfield.org Steve Devich City Manager Authorized Official: Title: (City manager/Executive Director/ etc.) Ph No.: (6112);861-9700 Mailing Address: 6700 Portland Ave. (Street Address/P.O. Box) E-Mail Address :sdevich @cityofrichfield.org Richfield MN 55423 (City) (State) (ZIP Code) Chris Regis Finance Director Official Contact: Title: (Purchasing Agent/Auditor etc.) Ph No (612)861-9749 Mailing Address: 6700 Portland Ave. Fx No.: (612)861=9749 „ (Street Address/P.O. Box) Email Address : rregic(n r.itynfrirhfialri nrg Richfield MN 55423 (City) (State) (ZIP Code) Official Contact: Wayne Kewitsch Title: Fire Chief (Public Works Director/Police Chief etc.) Ph No • ,'612-243-4501 Mailing Address: 6700 Portland Ave. Fx No.• 612-243-4516 (Street Address/P.O. Box) Email Address •wkewitsch @cityofrichfield.org Richfield MN 55423 (City) (State) (ZIP Code) Official Contact: Title: (EMS Director/Fire Chief etc.) Ph No.: Mailing Address: Fx No.• (Street Address/P.O. Box) Email Address • (City) (State) (ZIP Code) AGENDA SECTION: CONSENT AGENDA ITEM# 3E REPORT# 30 STAFF REPORT RICHFIELD CITY COUNCIL MEETING FEBRUARY 12, 2013 • REPORT PREPARED BY: JIM TOPITZHOFER, RECREATION SERVICES DIRECTOR NAME,TITLE DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR REVIEW: Ld+ 1 UU it zh ..-e SIGN, RE REVIEWED BY CITY MANAGER: r'' ; � 1,.� - ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION: Consideration of a resolution showing City Council support for a community band shell and to authorize the Richfield Foundation to submit a formal funding request to potential sponsors to help fund a band shell project. I. RECOMMENDED ACTION: By Motion: Approve the resolution showing City Council support for a community band shell and authorize the Richfield Foundation to submit a formal funding request to potential sponsors to help fund a band shell project. II. BACKGROUND Excelsior Group completed a capital campaign feasibility study and presented findings to the Community Services Commission at their last meeting (see attached report). Key findings of the report include: 1) Widespread support exists for the Richfield parks system in general, including the concept of building a band shell. 2) Concerns were expressed about how well-utilized the band shell would be. 3) Respondents perceived proposed cost of the project ($1,000,000) is high. 4) Concerns were expressed about the ability to raise needed funds from the community. 5) Airport noise did not appear to be a significant concern 0212 Band Shell Resolution With regards to the giving capacity of the community, the study concluded that it would be feasible for the Committee to raise $250,000 to $300,000 for a band shell. Added with a $250,000 contribution from the City (which is included in the City's current Capital Improvement Plan), the study suggests the scope of the project should not exceed $550,000. The Excelsior Group was informed by the potential major sponsor that they would consider participating at the level of$75,000, significantly less than originally discussed. A letter of inquiry was sent to the potential major sponsor to help fund a band shell. The potential sponsor is in the process of selecting which funding requests to further consider. A resolution of support is needed to include in the formal funding request at the time of submittal which is expected at the end of February. The formal funding request will not indicate a site for the band shell because a site has not been finalized at this point. III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION A. POLICY • The attached resolution serves as an official notice that the City will support the construction of a band shell and authorize a capital campaign to raise external funds for the project with Richfield Foundation acting as fiscal sponsor. • The current City Capital Improvement Plan has a band shell listed with the accumulative amount of$250,000, for years 2014, 2015 and 2016. This plan is reviewed every year by City Council and is subject to change. Projects in the Capital Improvement Plan are considered for formal approval as part of budgeting process during the year prior to the project's scheduled construction. In the case of the community band shell, formal approval of capital funding would occur at the end of this year. B. CRITICAL TIMING ISSUES • The deadline to submit a formal funding request to the identified potential funding sponsor is approaching at the end of February. C. FINANCIAL • The estimated project scope is $550,000 or less depending upon the success of a capital fundraising campaign. • Proposed funding sources include $250,000 from the City's special revenue fund and up to $300,000 from an external fund raising campaign. • Annual operating costs, based upon a 20-concert summer series and not including rental operations, are estimated to exceed the currently budgeted amount by about $2,000 as follows: Costs: Performer Stipends $4,500 Staffing $750 Electric Utilities $1,500 Maintenance and Repair $1,500 Advertising $2,000 Total Annual Concert Cost $10,250 Sources of Funds RBCU Sponsorship $2,500 Current Operating Budget $5,770 Annual Deficit $1,980 Total Funding Sources $10,250 An annual operating deficit could be alleviated by solicitation of an additional sponsor or by increasing the Recreation Services Department's annual budget from the General Fund. The proposed annual operating budget does not include rental operations. Rental revenues would be priced to exceed all staffing and related costs to conduct rental at the Band Shell. • Richfield Foundation has agreed to act as a fiscal sponsor for a band shell capital campaign. D. LEGAL • None E. ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS • Environmental impact of a band shell will be taken into consideration in the selection criteria upon final selection of a site. IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION(S) • None V. ATTACHMENTS • Council Resolution • Capital Campaign Feasibility Study by Excelsior Group, Inc. VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING • N/A RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE RICHFIELD FOUNDATION TO SUBMIT A FORMAL FUNDING REQUEST TO POTENTIAL SPONSORS AND DECLARING SUPPORT OF CONSTRUCTING A BAND SHELL ON A YET-TO-BE DETERMINED PARK SITE WHEREAS, the City of Richfield has adopted the Richfield 2020 Visions Strategic Plan and the 2008 Revised Parks Master Plan, which both include recommendations to construct a band shell on park property; and WHEREAS, City Council was presented general information about the benefits and costs of band shell facilities at their study session on June 28, 2011 and directed staff to continue planning a Band Shell project; and WHEREAS, a Band Shell Committee has been established by the Community Services Commission, with committee members actively planning a potential project since August 11, 2011; and WHEREAS, the City of Richfield has conducted a public meeting on December 18, 2012, introducing the idea of a community band shell; and WHEREAS, a capital campaign feasibility study was conducted by Excelsior Group, Inc., finding that there was widespread support for the Richfield parks system in general, including the concept of building a band shell; and WHEREAS, a potential funding sponsor has invited Richfield to submit a funding request for a band shell and the Richfield Foundation adopted a resolution on January 15, 2013 to act as fiscal sponsor for a band shell capital campaign; and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Richfield City Council does hereby authorize the Richfield Foundation to act as fiscal sponsor to submit a formal funding request to potential sponsors and declare support in constructing a band shell on a yet-to- be determined park site. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this 12th day of February, 2013. Debbie Goettel, Mayor ATTEST: Nancy Gibbs, City Clerk 3 Richfield Band Shell Committee Capital Campaign Feasibility Study Report Prepared by Kimberly Snyder and Kelly Rowan January 2013 -C-ONFfEtENTIA:L-- GRP EXCELSIOR BAY RC)UP, tic STRATEGIC FUNDRAISING AND MANAGEMENT COUNSEL TABLE OF CONTENTS Executive Summary 3 Introduction 4 Methodology 4 Findings 5-6 Indicated Gifts 6 ESTIMATED Gift Total 7 Recommendations 7-8 Appendix A: Case for Support 9-10 Appendix B: List of Individuals interviewed 11 Appendix C: Letter of Invitation to Participate in Feasibility Study 12 Appendix D: Interview Questionnaire 13 2 Confidential Report Prepared for Richfield Band Shell Committee EXECUTIVE SUMMARY KEY FINDINGS A total of 21 personal interviews were completed between November 1, 2012 and December 31, 2012. The feedback gathered from these interviews was consistent across most questions and revealed the following perceptions regarding the concept of building a band shell in Richfield: • Many interviewees are supportive of the idea of building a band shell,but want to ensure it will be well-utilized,particularly given the availability of band shells in neighboring communities. • Most think the cost seems quite high, and emphasized that Richfield is not a"showy" city that needs an extravagant band shell. They would like something the city can be proud of but want to be conservative with resources. • Several interviewees raised questions about whether Cornerstone Development might build a band shell or pavilion at the Lyndale Gardens site. If this is built, they wonder why the City would embark on this campaign for something additional. ESTIMATED GIFT TOTAL The feasibility study tested a fundraising goal of$1 million. Gift indications ($121,600) from those interviewed suggest the committee may be able to raise$250,000-$300,000 from the community with pledges spanning a five year time period. RECOMMENDATIONS If the committee decides to proceed with the campaign,we recommend thoroughly addressing the concerns that have surfaced in the feasibility study interviews.These recommendations are explained more thoroughly on pages seven and eight of this report. 1) Use of the facility. In order for the community to support this initiative, the committee will need to determine the best way to tangibly demonstrate that the facility will be well- utilized. 2) Lyndale Gardens initiative. Since there has been confusion about the possibility that Cornerstone Development may build a band shell at the Lyndale Gardens site,we recommend looking into this as soon as possible,in order to communicate with clarity and confidence moving forward. 3) Community Support. Indicated gifts totaled$121,600,which suggests that between $250,000 and$300,000 could be raised from the Richfield community to support the band shell. 4) Financing and sustainability. It will be important to identify the sources of funding for the band shell's construction, specifically how the contribution from the City is funded and what that means to the resident taxes. We recommend that the case statement and budget clearly state the details of the City's financing and fully address how the ongoing costs to maintain the band shell will be covered. 3 Confidential Report Prepared for Richfield Band Shell Committee 3E- 5 INTRODUCTION As the demographics and market preferences of the Richfield community change, the City has made significant investments in its park system over the years to meet the needs of the community with these facilities. The City is being intentional in addressing the needs of an aging and increasingly diverse population and recognizing the need to work together to provide inclusive amenities that will provide opportunities to build connections and a vibrant, sustainable community into the future. The addition of a band shell aligns remarkably well with the goals and guidelines laid out in the City's Parks System Master Plan, and will contribute to meeting the diverse needs of Richfield's residents.The idea is now germinating into reality as the Richfield City Council has given authority to the Band Shell Committee to proceed with a feasibility study to determine the extent of interest in the community for raising money to supplement what the City is able to appropriate toward the project from park funds. Building this amenity will be an investment in the future well-being of the Richfield community, impacting the health of the City's residents and the continued attractiveness and viability of the City. The feasibility study was conducted in order to gather objective, factual information regarding the level of community support for plans to build a band shell in Richfield. The study was designed to elicit honest feedback from those interviewed regarding the concept of building a band shell here. This report presents the opinions of those interviewed and summarizes the themes and concerns that were surfaced. It also offers an analysis of the information collected and estimates a range for an attainable campaign goal. METHODOLOGY Prior to beginning the feasibility interviews,a case for philanthropic support was developed by the Chair of the Band Shell Committee and the consultants.' Each participant in the study was sent the case statement in advance of their interview and asked to come prepared to comment on what they perceived to be its strengths and weaknesses. A total of 21 personal interviews were completed between November 1, 2012 and December 31, 2012. Total feasibility interview invitees—63 Declined to participate— 8 Agreed to be interviewed—21 1 Please see Appendix A to review the case for support used in the feasibility interviews. 4 Confidential Report Prepared for Richfield Band Shell Committee KEY FINDINGS The feedback gathered from these interviews was consistent across most questions and revealed the following perceptions regarding the concept of building a band shell in Richfield: 1. There was widespread support for the Richfield parks in general, including for the concept of building a band shell. The vast majority of those with whom we spoke view the parks system as an important factor contributing to the community's vitality.They expressed their high regard for the responsiveness of the parks system to the changing needs of Richfield residents, and see them being well-utilized.They recognize the value adding an amenity like the band shell would bring by offering another community gathering place to get outside,make connections, and enjoy the arts. Following is a quote from an interviewee that reflects this sentiment: `Our parks are essential to a healthy restyle. Events can bring together hundreds of people. I always loved the parks growing up and they still get used in so many different ways." One interviewee wondered whether we could get a sense of whether most businesses in Richfield consider the parks in general, and the addition of amenities like a band shell, as having a significant impact on their businesses. 2) We heard concerns about how well-utilized the band shell would be. While most interviewees were generally supportive of the concept of building the band shell, the most consistent concern we heard was regarding how much the facility would be used, especially in light of other band shells available for use in the vicinity. One interviewee asked the following question: `Do we have any verbal commitments from schools, churches, and other groups that they would use this band shell, or is it all speculation?" Another interviewee provided this insight from his perspective with the school district: `Assuming that[the band shell]would be outdoors, the weather would make it unreliable to use during the schoolyear. So we probably wouldn't make much use of it during the year." 3) Scale of the project. Most interviewees think the cost seems quite high,and emphasized that Richfield is not a"showy" city that needs an extravagant band shell: They would like something the city can be proud of but want to be conservative with resources. We heard the following quotes to punctuate this point: `I do talk to my neighbors about[the band shell]occasionally.My sense is that we're not ready for something big and grandiose, but rather for maybe 100 people or so." 'We are not a fancy community, but there will likely be good support for something modest." 5 Confidential Report Prepared for Richfield Band Shell Committee 3��7 4) Financing and Sustainability. Many interviewees voiced concerns about the ability of the committee to raise the needed funds from the community.They also wanted to be sure that the City is thinking through the ongoing costs of maintaining the band shell, as illustrated in the following quote: `From a pragmatic standpoint, there is a big djerence between raising one time funds verses ongoing costs. Who is going to pay for it when it gets worn out and run down?" 5) Additional concerns. There were several additional concerns that we heard. These were only brought up once or twice, but we would still like to make note of them here. a. While a few interviewees mentioned the possibility of noise from air traffic overhead being distracting, this did not seem to be a significant concern. b. Two interviewees wanted to be sure the city considers the need for greater law enforcement to ensure the parks are safe. c. Two interviewees mentioned that we may encounter concerns from bird- watchers about disrupting the wildlife habitat at the band shell site. INDICATED GIFTS Number of Amount Indicated Total Interviewees 1 $75,000 $75,000 1 $15,000 $15,000 1 $10,000 $10,000 1 $7,500 $7,500 1 $5,000 $5,000 1 $4,800 $4,800 1 $1,900 !' $1;900 1 $1,000 $1,000 2 $500 $1,000 1 $300 $300 1 $100 $100 3 minimal 6 Will not contribute - TOTAL $121,600 6 Confidential Report Prepared for Richfield Band Shell Committee 3G _g ESTIMATED GIFT TOTAL Conventional wisdom advises that 35 to 45 percent of the campaign goal should be identified in the feasibility interviews. Given that this project does not have a large number of donors with strong giving histories,we estimated that the indicated gift total of$121,600 might represent a slightly higher percent of the goal,which suggests the possibility of raising approximately$250,000-$300,000. Indicated Gift Amount Estimated Gifts 45% Estimated Gifts 50% $121,600 $270,222.22 $243,200 RECOMMENDATIONS If the committee decides to proceed with the campaign,we recommend thoroughly addressing the concerns that have surfaced in the feasibility study interviews: 1) Use of the facility. In order for the community to support this initiative, the committee will need to determine the best way to tangibly demonstrate that the facility will be well-utilized. More than half of those interviewed expressed concern that the band shell might not be utilized often enough to warrant the expense of its construction. Since this was the most consistent concern that was voiced,it will be important to determine the scope and scale of potential use, and to provide tangible evidence to the community. In addition to gathering comparable data from band shells in surrounding communities,we recommend investigating key questions to provide a more complete picture of how the facility will be used, to include: a. How long did it take for neighboring band shells to ramp up to their current usage? b. How will the band shell's programming be determined? How will the City ensure offerings are appealing to diverse audiences? c. How will performers be invited? How will offerings be promoted to the community, and to surrounding communities? In order to gain the community's input and investment in the project throughout this process, we recommend that the committee consider hosting town hall-style forums where these questions could be discussed. The committee could also explore the possibility of conducting a community survey in order to gauge potential use by schools, churches, and other groups. 2) Lyndale Gardens initiative. Since there has been confusion about the possibility that Cornerstone Development may build a band shell at the Lyndale Gardens site,we recommend looking into this as soon as possible,in order to communicate with clarity and confidence moving forward. 7 Confidential Report Prepared for Richfield Band Shell Committee 3- 9 If there are,in fact,plans to build a comparable facility at the Lyndale Gardens site,we recommend not moving forward with these capital campaign efforts until the committee can determine how this additional band shell will meet community needs that the Lyndale Gardens initiative will not be able to meet. It is important to take into consideration the ways the Lyndale Gardens project may negatively impact the level of community support for an additional band shell facility. 3) Community Support. Indicated gifts totaled$121,600,which suggests that between$250,000 and$300,000 could be raised from the Richfield community to support the band shell. Since many residents expressed concern about building an extravagant band shell,it will be important to demonstrate that the committee has heard them and is being responsive.We recommend developing a design for the structure that meets the needs of the community while being consistent with these sentiments. When we consider the total amount of the indicated gifts, combined with the community investment funds from the city,we estimate that plans should reflect a structure costing $500,000 - $550,000. If the committee decides to pursue a goal of$1 million,we recommend developing plans to reflect both fundraising goals. Construction should not begin until 80% of the goal has been committed and 50% of the pledges have been paid. 4) Financing and sustainability. It will be important to identify the sources of funding for the band shell's construction, specifically how the contribution from the City is funded and what that means to the resident taxes. We recommend that the case statement and budget clearly state the details of the City's financing and fully address how the ongoing costs to maintain the band shell will be covered. The committee should explore and share findings regarding options for bringing in longer-term earned income for the facility, and / or other revenue streams to fund ongoing staffing and maintenance costs. 8 Confidential Report Prepared for Richfield Band Shell Committee APPENDIX A: Feasibility Study Case for Support City of Richfield A case for a Richfield Band Shell Public arenas, amphitheaters, and local band shells, are all focal points in the life of communities, and performances bring forms of art that instill life into its citizens. Richfield has dreamed of an amphitheater since the idea was planted into its long range plan when Steve Quam was mayor. The idea is now germinating into reality as the Richfield City Council gave authority to the Band Shell Committee to proceed with a feasibility study to determine the extent of interest there is in the community for raising money to supplement what the City is able to appropriate toward the project from park funds. The addition of a band shell aligns remarkably well with the goals and guidelines laid out in the City's Parks System Master Plan, and will contribute to meeting the diverse needs of Richfield's residents. Building this amenity will be an investment in the future well-being of our community, impacting the health of our residents and the continued attractiveness and viability of the City. The City has made significant investments in our park system over the years, and has done well to meet the needs of the community with these facilities. The demographics and market preferences of our community are changing, and the City is being intentional in addressing the needs of our aging and increasingly diverse population. It is critical that we work together to provide inclusive amenities that will provide opportunities to bring people together to build community connections and a vibrant, sustainable community into the future. The Band Shell Committee has explored all the options available for a site for the band shell and has recommended it be constructed in Veterans Memorial Park east of the ice arena on 66th street where there is ample parking, a beautiful site adjoining the lake and plenty of room for all the adjoining amenities that one can envision going along with a concert in the park. The present site in Augsburg Park where concerts have been held is not serving the needs of the public and needs to be replaced. Community Benefits of a Band Shell: • Helps improve quality of life that attracts tax-paying businesses and residents. • Helps boost local economies by attracting visitors from outside the community. • Helps aid nearby businesses from increased foot traffic. • Helps strengthen the appeal and cultural vitality of the community. • Helps increase surrounding property values. • Helps offer residents a chance to socialize with one another. • Helps create a sense of place and social fabric in the community and preserve cultural meaning and heritage. Potential Uses: 9 Confidential Report Prepared for Richfield Band Shell Committee J Ii • Richfield Summer Series of Concerts in the Park • Richfield Symphonic Band • School and church concerts • Outdoor Theater • Picnics • Outdoor church services • Weddings, graduations and other ceremonies Size and Seating: • Stage size: Up to 50 foot frontage and 35 foot depth • Seating Capacity: Minimum 300 The City is limited in the amount it can spend on a band shell. With increasing pressure being put on it to provide adequate funding for its basic needs, it is looking for help from the community. There are people and organizations who are interested in seeing the City of Richfield make available to its citizens and neighbors the benefits that can be received through a strong and vital support of the arts in the form of a band shell. The Committee is recommending to the City Council that it set its sights on raising one million dollars for the band shell,that$250,000 come from the City and $750,000 be raised from private contributions. The Committee feels this is possible. The Excelsior Bay Group LLC has been hired to conduct a feasibility study to provide guidance to the City of Richfield and other contributors who are interested in the project. Through a series of one-on-one confidential interviews,this study will help in determining what can realistically be expected to be accomplished with a community fund raising drive. The interviews will require 45 —60 minutes of your time to complete and will be conducted in person, by either Ms. Kelly Rowan or Ms. Kim Snyder between now and the end of the year. Thank you for your consideration of our request. We hope you will take part in the feasibility study, as we would appreciate your objective and expert advice regarding how we can best serve our community's needs. Either Ms. Rowan or Ms. Snyder will be in contact shortly to follow-up and schedule your interview, should you be willing to participate. David J. Butler Chair of the Band Shell Committee Ph. 612-798-0402 10 Confidential Report Prepared for Richfield Band Shell Committee 3a- APPENDIX B: List of Individuals Interviewed Susan Bass Roberts (Best Buy) Sandy Belkengren Ellen Butler Tim Carter Gerry Charnitz Rod Johnson(First National Bank of the Lakes) William(Bill) Hillger Marty Kirsch Sally Knutson (Crystal Care) Steve Larson Greg Mangold Patty Peterson David Reinert Stacy Severson(Minnesota School of Business) Robert Slotterback Elizabeth St. Angelo John Stark John Swanson(Michael Development) Andre Thibault(Richfield Bloomington Credit Union) Gertrude Ulrich Nola Wagner 11 Confidential Report Prepared for Richfield Band Shell Committee 3aWI3 APPENDIX C: Letter of Invitation to Participate in Feasibility Study November 2012 Name Address City, State Zip Dear Name, The City of Richfield is in the process of fulfilling a dream it has had for a number of years to build a band shell in Veterans Memorial Park. If certain conditions can be met, the City Council has agreed it will appropriate $250,000 from park funds for its construction. The Council appointed a Band Shell Committee to investigate and recommend a site and to determine the feasibility of raising additional funds. The committee has now recommended to the Council that the band shell be constructed in Veterans Memorial Park east of the Ice Arena on 66th Street and that with an additional $750,000, to be raised through a community fund drive, a band shell suitable for Richfield can be constructed for one million dollars. The Band Shell Committee has hired the firm of the Excelsior Bay Group to conduct a feasibility study to determine the level of interest there is in the community for a fund drive to help pay for the construction. You have been selected as one to be interviewed by the Excelsior Bay Group as part of the study. You will be asked your opinion about the merits of building a band shell and your interest in supporting the project, as well as your feelings about the ability of the community to raise the necessary funds. You will be receiving a phone call asking for a time to hold the interview at a location of your choice. We welcome your participation. The preliminary case statement for the project is enclosed for your review. The City Council has asked the Band Shell Committee to hold a public hearing on November 29, 2012, 7:00 p.m. at the Richfield Community Center to get input about the project, and we hope you will attend. Band shells can be at the center of the arts in a community. We think a band shell will help build an exciting summer season of concerts in the park, children's programs, and many other forms of artistic performances that will bring a new vitality to the City. Sincerely, Debbie Goettel Mayor, City of Richfield 12 Confidential Report Prepared for Richfield Band Shell Committee APPENDIX D: Interview Questionnaire 1) Please tell me about your connection to the Richfield area. (What brought you here? How long have you lived/worked in community? What aspects of living/working in the area do you most value?) 2) Do you (your family or employees) use the Richfield parks?( If so, what do you use most and why?) 3) From your perspective,why is important to have community parks in general, and with amenities like a band shell in particular? (Community gathering spot, part of a healthy community, opportunities for revenue generation, etc.) 4) Do you support the concept of building a band shell in Veterans Park? ❑ Yes (What are the key elements/aspects/functions you would like to see included in the building?) ❑ No (Why not?) 5) The Committee is seeking to assess the level of philanthropic support for building the band shell. The support indicated in this feasibility study will help determine the function and scale of a new band shell. If the Committee chooses to move forward with a capital campaign,would you personally consider making a gift? At what level would you envision making this gift? (What would motivate you to make a campaign gift? Are there any factors that might cause you to reduce or increase your contribution? What kind of payment options would be of the most interest to you? Would you be willing to get involved with the campaign's implementation?) 6) Are there any other observations or advice you would like to share regarding the success of this effort? Can you recommend anyone else who might be a potential contributor/or someone we should talk with in the feasibility phase? 13 Confidential Report Prepared for Richfield Band Shell Committee AGENDA SECTION: CONSENT AGENDA ITEM# 3F REPORT# 31 STAFF REPORT RICHFIELD CITY COUNCIL MEETING .. _ FEBRUARY 12, 2013 REPORT PREPARED BY: JIM TOPITZHOFER, RECREATION SERVICES DIRECTOR NAME,TITLE DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR REVIEW: El -----411- --/ ty;fill c re r- / SIGNAT[(7 .Eg/7 17 - 41111 1 REVIEWED BY CITY MANAGER: J ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION: Consideration of a resolution authorizing acceptance of grants and donations received by the Richfield Recreation Services Department and to authorize the city to administer the funds in accordance with grant agreements and terms prescribed by donors. I. RECOMMENDED ACTION: By Motion: Approve the resolution authorizing acceptance of grants and donations received by the Richfield Recreation Services Department and to authorize the city to administer the funds in accordance with grant agreements and terms prescribed by donors. II. BACKGROUND The Richfield Recreation Services Department received several donations this year from various individuals and organizations to fund different events and projects as follows: 1) Richfield Bloomington Credit Union sponsored the expansion of the summer concerts program including stipends for five kid's concert performers in the amount of$2,000. 2) The City received a grant from Prevention Minnesota of Blue Cross Blue Shield in the amount of$10,000 to support an open streets event on Penn Avenue. 0212 Rec Services Grant Acceptance 3) The City received a grant in amount of$10,000 from Prevention Minnesota of Blue Cross Blue Shield to help purchase play equipment for Roosevelt that was specifically designed to offer kids a more physically challenged play experience. 4) The Chorzempa Family Fund Prairie donated funds in the amount of $3,000 to purchase an indoor prairie exhibit for Wood Lake Nature Center and new outdoor trail direction signs. III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION A. POLICY • Minnesota Statute 465.03 requires every acceptance of a grant or devise of real or personal property of more two-thirds majority of the City Council. • The Administrative Services Department issued a memo on November 9, 2004 requiring that all grants and restricted donations to departments be received by resolution and by more than two-thirds majority of the City Council in accordance with Minnesota Statute 465.03. B. CRITICAL TIMING ISSUES • None C. FINANCIAL • All of the donations listed were given without obligation to provide any additional matching funds. D. LEGAL • Minnesota Statute 465.03 requires every acceptance of a grant or devise of real or personal property of more two-thirds majority of the City Council. E. ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS • None IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION(S) • None V. ATTACHMENTS • Council Resolution VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING N/A 3F- ) RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING ACCEPTANCE OF GRANTS RECEIVED BY THE CITY OF RICHFIELD-RECREATION SERVICES DEPARTMENT AND TO AUTHORIZE THE CITY TO ADMINISTER THE FUNDS IN ACCORDANCE WITH GRANT AGREEMENTS AND TERMS PRESCRIBED BY DONORS WHEREAS, Minnesota Statute 465.03 reads in part as follows: Any city, county, school district or town may accept a grant or devise of real or personal property and maintain such property for the benefit of its citizens in accordance with the terms prescribed by the donor. Nothing herein shall authorize such acceptance or use for religious or sectarian purposes. Every acceptance shall be by resolution of the council adopted by two-thirds majority of its members, expressing such terms in full, and WHEREAS, the City of Richfield has received grants and donations as described below: DATE DONOR PURPOSE AMOUNT May 2012 Rfld Bloomington Credit Union Concerts in the Park $2,000 June 2012 Blue Cross Blue Shield Open Streets Event $10,000 June 2012 Blue Cross Blue Shield Roosevelt Play Equipment $10,000 November 2012 Chorzempa Family Fund Wood Lake Exhibits $3,000 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota, as follows: That the City Council of the City of Richfield hereby accepts the grants and donations as listed above, received in 2012, and authorizes the City to administer the funds in accordance with grant agreements and terms prescribed by donors. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this 12th day of February, 2013. Debbie Goettel, Mayor ATTEST: Nancy Gibbs, City Clerk AGENDA SECTION: CONSENT AGENDA ITEM# 3G REPORT# 32 STAFF REPORT RICHFIELD CITY COUNCIL MEETING FEBRUARY 12, 2013 REPORT PREPARED BY: JEFF PEARSON, TRANSPORTATION ENGINEER NAME,TITLE DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR Er REVIEW: i1 SIGNATURE l REVIEWED BY CITY ; •/ MANAGER: ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION: Consideration of modifications to the Transportation Commission's Bylaws to include a non- voting liaison from the resident Bicycle Advisory Group as recommended by the Transportation Commission. I. RECOMMENDED ACTION: By Motion: Approve modifications to the Transportation Commission's Bylaws as recommended by the Transportation Commission. II. BACKGROUND do.Town Initiative After receiving significant feedback from residents interested in further discussion and participation with bicycle related issues in the City of Richfield, do.Town staff began hosting meetings in 2012. do.Town staff attended the September 5, 2012 Transportation Commission meeting to get feedback on the formal organization of a Bicycle Advisory Group and how it might have representation at Commission meetings. Organization of a Bicycle Advisory Group is consistent with recommendations in the approved Richfield Bicycle Master Plan. Organization and Liaison Options At tho November 7, 2012 meeting, the Transportation Commission recommended that the Bicycle Advisory Group (B.A.G.) be organized independent of any City sanctioned Advisory 021213TransComBylaws Commission or Committee. Two options were discussed for representation at Commission meetings: 1) A Transportation Commission member liaison to the Bicycle Advisory Group 2) A Bicycle Advisory Group liaison to the Transportation Commission The Transportation Commission recommended option #2 as it resulted in less time burden on Commission members and is consistent with the liaison positions for the Planning Commission and Community Services Commission. Revision to Bylaws The Transportation Commission Bylaws were modified in 2008 to state that the Planning Commission's and Community Services Commission's liaisons were officially non-voting positions. The modifications currently recommended by the Transportation Commission would establish a non-voting liaison position from the B.A.G.. Because the B.A.G. is not an official advisory organization to the City Council, the Bylaws include the following provisions: • If the B.A.G. fails to meet regularly for more than four months; or • If regular membership and/or attendance drops below six members; then • The liaison position would be recommended for termination by the City Council. The Bicycle Advisory Group liaison will be required to provide meeting summary and attendance information to the Transportation Commission as requested. III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION A. POLICY • The City, as a policy, uses advisory commissions as a vehicle to obtain public involvement in City decision-making. B. CRITICAL TIMING ISSUES . • The B.A.G. has begun regular meetings. C. FINANCIAL • Approval of the Bylaw modifications would have no financial impact to the City. D. LEGAL • The City Attorney will be available to answer any questions. E. ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS • None IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION(S) • Council can choose to not alter the Bylaws of the Transportation • Commission. V. ATTACHMENTS • Draft Transportation Commission Bylaws as modified February 12, 2013 VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING • . do.Town and Bicycle Advisory Group representatives 3 - DRAFT February 12, 2013 BYLAWS AND RULES OF PROCEDURE OF THE RICHFIELD TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA The following Bylaws and Rules of procedure are adopted by the City's Transportation Commission to facilitate the performance of its duties and functions as authorized by the City Council. PART I. RESPONSIBILITIES Section 1. Commission Responsiblities The Commission will be responsible for making recommendations to the Council on transportation planning including: • Encouraging citizen involvement in the Commission's work; • Reviewing policy plans on the state, regional or city level; • Conducting transportation studies; and, • Overseeing the planning of transportation projects. The Commission will be charged to recommend transportation capital improvements and prepare reports to Council on other related topics that the Council refers to the Commission. PART II. MEETINGS Section 1. Regular Meetings Regular meetings of the Transportation Commission shall be on the second Wednesday of each month commencing at 7:00 P.M. in the Council Chambers of the City Hall and the meeting day may be adjusted for the convenience of the members. Section 2. Special Meetings Special meetings of the Transportation Commission can be called by the Chairperson and one member or by three members of the Commission or at the request of the City Council. Notice, designating the time and place of the meetings, shall be given to all members not less than twenty-four (24) hours in advance thereof. Section 3. Open Meeting Law All meetings of the Transportation Commission must be noticed and held in compliance with the Minnesota Open Meeting Law. Section 4. Deadline for Hearing Items The Transportation Commission will accept all requests to be heard before it, no later than ten (10) working days preceding the regular Transportation Commission meeting. Section 5. Quorum -1- DRAFT February 12, 2013 Six members of the Transportation Commission shall constitute a quorum for the transaction of business. No action shall be taken in the absence of a quorum with the exception that the Transportation Commission members present may take testimony for use at a later meeting at which a quorum is present, and may adjourn a meeting to a later time without further notice. Section 6. Votinq At all meetings of the Transportation Commission, each member attending shall be entitled to cast one vote. Voting shall be by voice. An affirmative vote of a majority of members present or four members, whichever is greater, shall be necessary for the passage of any matter before the Transportation Commission, except as otherwise provided in these Bylaws. The council liaisons to the Commission are ex-officio and do not cast a vote. Section 7. Proceedings a) Format of Meeting At a regular meeting of the Transportation Commission, the following format shall be followed in conducting the business of the meeting. 1) City staff will note the attendance 2) Review and Approve Agenda 3) Approval of Minutes 3) Regular Business and Public Hearing Items 4) Updates 5) Future Agenda Items 6) Upcoming Meetings 7) Other Business 8) Adjournment b) Public Hearing The purpose of a hearing is to collect information and facts in order for the Commission to develop a recommendation for the City Council. At a public hearing the following procedure shall be followed for each case for which a public hearing is held: 1) Chair shall state the issue to be heard. 2) Chair shall call upon the City staff to present the staff report. 3) Members of the Transportation Commission shall be allowed to question the staff report proposal. 4) Interested persons may address the Commission, giving relevant information regarding the proposal before the Commission. -2- DRAFT February 12, 2013 a) All questions or statements by Richfield staff personnel, Transportation Commission members, applicants or interested citizens will be directed through the Chair. b) All who wish to speak will be heard, but only in accordance with the above procedure and after recognition by the Chair. c) No individual may speak longer than five (5) minutes, except through previous arrangement with the Chair, or by vote of the Commission. d) The spokesperson for a group will be allowed ten (10) minutes. e) In addition to the statements by individual or groups, there will be a period, not to exceed thirty(30) minutes, during which the public may question the City's staff members present, the applicant or their representatives or any member of the Transportation Commission. Questions must be directed through the Chair. 6) The hearing shall be closed. Interested persons shall not be heard again unless the hearing is reopened by a majority vote of the Commission. 7) The Commission shall discuss and clarify the item before it, and take action on it. 8) Any decision of the Commission on the merits of any question before it shall be embodied in the form of a motion, resolution, or report, and referred to the City Council or city staff for action. c) Rules of Procedure At all regular meetings of the Transportation Commission where formal action is required on a matter before the Commission, the meetings shall be governed by the latest printed edition of"Sturgis Standard Code of Parliamentary Procedure." At general meetings of the Transportation Commission no formal parliamentary procedure shall govern the conduct of the proceedings unless found to be necessary such as when a formal motion is before the Commission. I PART III. ORGANIZATION Section 1. Membership The Commission will consist of 11 members. The City Council will appoint eleven members. The Community Services Commission and Planning Commission will each appoint one member from their respective commissions to serve as liaisons to their respective commissions. The liaisons from the other commissions will serve -3- 3 U� Lfi DRAFT February 12, 2013 The liaisons from the other commissions will serve as non-voting members of the Transportation Commission. (Effective January 31, 2009) To be eligible for appointment, a person must be a resident or owner/manager of a business in Richfield and must have an interest in diverse transportation or environmental issues. It is desirable that each Council Ward be represented by three residents or owner/managers of businesses. The Richfield Bicycle Advisory Group (B.A.G.) will appoint one member to serve as a non-voting liaison to the Transportation Commission with the following provisions: • If the B.A.G. fails to meet regularly for more than four months; or • If regular membership and/or attendance drops below six members; then • The liaison position be recommended for termination by the City Council. The Bicycle Advisory Group liaison will be required to provide meeting summary and attendance information to the Transportation Commission as requested. Section 2. Term of Membership The Council shall appoint three members to an initial term of two years, three members to an initial term of three years, and three members to an initial term of four years. All subsequent Council appointments shall be for a term of three years, except when filling a vacancy in an unexpired term. The Community Services Commission and Planning Commission and Bicycle Advisory Group shall establish the length of the term for their respective appointees at the time of the appointment, but the term may not exceed the remaining term of the appointee's membership on the appointing commission. . Section 3. Removal, Vacancy. Members serve at the pleasure of the appointing authority and may be removed at any time. When a vacancy occurs, the appointing authority shall appoint a person to fill the unexpired term of the vacated seat. A seat on the Commission is deemed vacated upon any of the following: (a) death; (b) failure to attend three (3) consecutive regular meetings of the Commission without an excused absence; (c) removal of legal residence in the City; (d) resignation in writing presented to the Mayor; (e) removal by the appointing authority; or (f) election or appointment to a public office. An absence is excused if a member provides advance notice to the city staff or the Chair that the member cannot attend a meeting. Section 4. Council Liaisons. In addition to the designated number of members to serve on the Commission, each January, the City Council shall designate a Council Member as liaison and a second Council Member as alternative liaison to this Commission. -4- 12 6- 5" DRAFT February 12, 2013 Section 5. Election of Officers At the first regular meeting in April of each year, the Commission shall hold an organizational meeting and elect from its membership a Chairperson, and Vice-chairperson. Each member shall cast a ballot for the member he/she wishes to be elected Chairperson. If no one receives a majority of all the members of the Commission, balloting shall continue until one member receives majority support. Vice-chairperson shall be elected from the remaining members by the same procedure. If the Chairperson resigns from office before the next regular organization meeting, the Vice-chairperson shall automatically become acting Chairperson. In any instance where an officer of the Commission resigns or retires from office, a new officer shall be elected to the vacated position at the next regular meeting of the Commission. If the Chairperson and Vice-chairperson are absent from a meeting, the Commission shall elect a temporary Chairperson by voice vote. Section 6. Tenure The Chairperson, and Vice-chairperson shall take office immediately following their election and hold office until their successors are elected and assume office. Election of officers will occur annually at the April meeting of the Commission. Section 7. Duties of Officers The duties and powers of the officers of the Transportation Commission shall be as follows: a) Chairperson 1) Presides over all meetings of the Commission. 2) Appoints sub-Commissions and performs such other duties as may be ordered by the Commission. 3) Signs documents of the Commission. 4) Sees that all actions of the Commission are properly taken. 5) Calls special meetings of the Commission in accordance with these Bylaws. 6) Works with appropriate city staff in organizing agendas of all general Transportation Commission meetings. b) Vice-chairperson Performs all of the duties and responsibilities of the Chairperson in his/her absence. -5- DRAFT February 12, 2013 c) City Public Works Staff 1) Keeps the minutes of the meetings of the Commission in an appropriate minute book. 2) Maintains all minutes of the Commission as well as other official documents of the Commission DART IV. MISCELLANEOUS - Deleted:1i Section 1. Suspension of Rules The Commission may suspend any of these Rules by a 2/3 vote of those members present. Section 2. Amendments These Rules may be amended at any regular meeting by a 2/3 majority of the members of the Commission, provided that the amendment was presented and written into the minutes of a previous meeting. Section 3. Review The contents of these Bylaws and Rules of procedure should be comprehensively reviewed, evaluated, and modified where necessary, at the organization meeting held in April of each year. Adopted this 12th day of February, 2013 by the City Council of the City of Richfield. Mayor Debbie Goettel City of Richfield \\R:\Transp Commission\Organization\By-laws\Bylaws 02-12-13REV.doc -6- • AGENDA SECTION: CONSENT AGENDA ITEM# 3H REPORT# 33 imddi STAFF REPORT RICHFIELD CITY COUNCIL-MEETING- ___ -__- -_-- FEBRUARY 12, 2013 REPORT PREPARED BY: MARK HALL, PUBLIC WORKS OPERATIONS MANAGER NAME, TITLE DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR /i ((_____ REVIEW: SIGNATU REVIEWED BY CITY , t , M Ei . , ANAGER:. ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDSUV'Es.RATION: Consideration of the purchase of four Ford Interceptor I I. RECOMMENDED ACTION: By Motion: Approve purchase orders to Nelson Auto Center in the sum of $105,647.28, plus tax and licenses for four new Ford Interceptor SUV's. II. BACKGROUND Four Public Safety Department squad cars are scheduled to be replaced in 2013. A replacement schedule has been established for purchasing new vehicles for the Public Safety Department as described below. Replacement Schedule Squad cars are replaced every three years due to: • Average mileage of 75,000 miles • • Excessive engine idle time over the three year life The squads that are replaced are rotated into administrative vehicles for the City's inspection, engineering, and forestry divisions. The old administrative vehicles are then sold at the Hennepin County auction. Additional Cost The more traditional squad cars are being replaced with SUVs because the newer squads do not have adequate room for equipment and staff. Each SUV is approximately $2,000 additional per vehicle. 0212013squads III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION A. POLICY • • The City of Richfield participates in the Minnesota State Cooperative Purchasing Program which allows the City to purchase goods, certain services and utilities from contracts established by the Materials Management Division. • Nelson Auto Center currently has the State contract on Ford patrol vehicles. • As stated above, the four vehicles to be replaced are fully depreciated and scheduled to be replaced. B. CRITICAL TIMING ISSUES • Approval at the February 12, 2013 Council Meeting will facilitate delivery of the new squad cars. C. FINANCIAL • $145,000 has been budgeted in the 2012R-2013P Central Garage Budget (61000-7500). • Upon delivery of the vehicles, additional charges (transfer of police equipment such as radios and logo applications) will be deducted from the remaining funds budgeted for this purchase. D. LEGAL • When the purchase of materials, merchandise, equipment, or construction exceeds $50,000, authority to purchase shall be submitted to the City Council for consideration. E. ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS • None IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION(S) • Council may delay approval to a later meeting. Delayed approval, however,will result in delayed delivery. • No action by Council on this purchase will eventually compromise safety for police officers driving old squad cars. V. ATTACHMENTS • None VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING • None AGENDA SECTION: PUB. HEARING AGENDA ITEM# 5 • REPORT# 34 STAFF REPORT RICHFIELD CITY COUNCIL MEETING FEBRUARY 12, 2013 REPORT PREPARED BY: JEFF PEARSON, TRANSPORTATION ENGINEER NAME,TITLE DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR 7 �� REVIEW: • ir SIGNATURE f REVIEWED BY CITY n MANAGER: / • ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION: Public hearing on Improvement Project No. CP-41007 (North Richfield Parkway) and consideration of a resolution receiving the feasibility report and ordering the project and preparation of plans. I. RECOMMENDED ACTION: By Motion: 1. Conduct and close the public hearing regarding the Improvement Project No. CP-41007 (North Richfield Parkway) 2. Approve Resolution Receiving Feasibility Report, Ordering Richfield Parkway Improvement Project and Preparation of Plans. II. BACKGROUND Feasibility Report Consistent with direction given by the Council approved resolution at the January 22, 2013 City Council meeting, a feasibility report for the Richfield Parkway Improvement Project was prepared by the City Engineer and is attached. As stated in the resolution the report provides information regarding the following: • • Whether the proposed improvement is: necessary, cost-effective, and feasible • Whether it should be made as proposed or in connection with some other improvement 021213Richfield Parkwayl mprovements • The estimated cost of the improvement as recommended • The description of methodology used to calculate individual assessments for affected parcels Ordering of Improvement The Richfield Parkway Improvement Project involves the reconstruction of 17th Avenue between 63rd Street and 65th Street to a full parkway cross section. Upon order to proceed by the City Council, the preliminary design of the Parkway would begin in 2013. This preliminary design phase would include public involvement and coordination with the Three Rivers Park Regional Trail. Construction would occur in 2014 to allow for sufficient time for right-of-way acquisitions and for the Regional Trail construction to occur with the project. Purchase Agreement Contingency The purchase agreements signed by the residents on the 6300 and 6400 blocks of 17th Avenue South are contingent upon the City Council ordering the Richfield Parkway Improvement Project. Upon approval of the attached resolution, staff and consultants will begin the property closing process with those residents. III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION A. POLICY • A petition requesting the improvement of Richfield Parkway between the center-line of 65th Street and the center-line of 63rd Street was presented and declared to be adequate by the resolution adopted on January 22, 2013. • The City Council also ordered the preparation of the feasibility report at the January 22, 2013 meeting. B. CRITICAL TIMING ISSUES • Offers contingent on the City Council ordering the Richfield Parkway Improvement project have been made to the property owners. • Properties with signed offer agreements will begin the closing process after City Council adoption of the resolution ordering the project. C. FINANCIAL • Funding for the Improvements, including roadway construction and purchase of the 17th Avenue parcels, will primarily be provided through a Special Assessment Bond in the amount of$2,998,000. • Additional funding will be provided by Hennepin County using Community Works Funds in the amount of$627,000 (see attached Appendix A for Sources and Uses). D. LEGAL • The City attorneys have overseen the assessment process and will be available to answer any questions. E. ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS • None IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION(S) • The Council may choose to delay or to not order the improvement project. • Choosing not to order the project by March 31, 2013 would nullify the purchase agreements with the properties on 17th Avenue V. ATTACHMENTS • Resolution Receiving Feasibility Report, Ordering Richfield Parkway Improvement Project and Preparation of Plans. • Feasibility Report • Appendix A: Sources and Uses • Appendix B: Richfield Parkway Construction Cost Schedule • Appendix C: Map • May 22, 2012 Staff Report Package Authorizing City Staff to Incur Costs for the Reconstruction of Richfield Parkway Phase II (includes May 8, 2012 Worksession Presentation) • May 24, 2012 Public Meeting Presentation • June 26, 2012 Staff Report Package Authorizing Staff to Hire a Consultant to Perform Appraisal and Begin Acquisition Services for the 13 properties • January 7, 2013 HRA Staff Report Package approving the 17th Ave Special Assessment Bond Process • January 22, 2013 Staff Report Package declaring adequacy of petition and ordering preparation of feasibility report (no minutes available yet) VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING • 17th Avenue residents - i RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION RECEIVING FEASIBILITY REPORT, ORDERING IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. CP-41007 AND ORDERING THE PREPARATION OF PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS WHEREAS, a certain petition, requesting the improvement of Richfield Parkway/17th Avenue between 65th Street and 63rd Street by total reconstruction, was duly presented to the council on January 22, 2013; and WHEREAS, pursuant to resolution of the council adopted January 22, 2013, the city engineer has prepared a report regarding the improvement, proposed Improvement No. CP-41007 (North Richfield Parkway); and WHEREAS, the report provides information regarding whether the proposed improvement is necessary, cost-effective, and feasible; whether it should best be made as proposed or in connection with some other improvement; and the estimated cost of the improvement as recommended; and WHEREAS, by resolution adopted January 22, 2013, the city council fixed a date for a public hearing on Improvement No. CP-41007 (North Richfield Parkway); and WHEREAS, ten days' mailed notice and two weeks' published notice of the hearing was given, and the hearing was held thereon on the 12th day of February, 2013, at which all persons desiring to be heard were given an opportunity to be heard thereon; and WHEREAS, information was made available at the hearing concerning the estimate of the total amount to be assessed and the methodology to be used to calculate the individual assessments for affected parcels. NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota: 1. The improvement is necessary, cost-effective, and feasible as detailed in the feasibility report. 2. The improvement is hereby ordered as described in the feasibility report. 3. The proposed improvement to Richfield Parkway/17th Avenue is expressly contemplated in the City's Comprehensive Plan, and the project has no additional relationship to the comprehensive plan. 4. The city engineer is hereby designated as the engineer for this improvement, and WSB Engineering is designated as the consulting engineer. The engineer and consulting engineer shall prepare plans and specifications for the making of such improvement.' Adopted by the council this 12th day of February, 2013. Debbie Goettel, Mayor ATTEST: Nancy Gibbs, City Clerk 9s3 Feasibility Report on Improvement Project Richfield Parkway City of Richfield, MN January 2013 Description of proposed improvement project: City Project No. 41007 (Richfield Parkway) provides for the reconstruction of Richfield Parkway (17th Avenue) from 65tn Street to 63rd Street. The Project is the remaining piece of the replacement roadway for the loss of Cedar Avenue and will serve as the main access to Cedar Point Commons. The Project includes the reconstruction of an urban street complete with bituminous paving, B-618 curb and gutter and storm sewer. The Project will also include new sidewalks and a multi-purpose trail. The Project also includes the purchase of 14 homes along the Parkway to provide adequate Right-of-Way for the new roadway and future redevelopment. Need for the proposed improvement: Richfield Parkway is necessary to replace the Cedar Avenue roadway that was severed with the expansion of the airport and subsequent completion of TH77/66th Street interchange. In addition to serving as a replacement roadway for Cedar Avenue, this two block segment of Richfield Parkway is instrumental for NE Richfield because it will provide the connection to the following: • Cedar Point Commons • Taft Park and Taft Lake • Future Cedar Point II Housing Redevelopment • Richfield Parkway Roundabout • Three Rivers Park Intercity Regional Trail The remnant property will facilitate redevelopment of the next phase of Cedar Point Commons and will act as a main access connection to the Commons and 66th Street. Cost Effectiveness When completed, the improved section of Richfield Parkway is expected to handle an increase of approximately 3000 users through a variety of transportation modes. The project meets several key Cost Effectiveness criterions including: • Continuation of the system • Maximization of population served • Multi-modal connectivity to employment centers, residential areas, recreational facilities, and regional transportation options Furthermore, completing the Richfield Parkway Improvements as Phase II of the adjoining Richfield Parkway Connection Project will allow for coordinated design and construction staging while still maintaining access to the commercial and office development along the corridor. 4filrn Feasibility The Richfield Parkway Improvement Project is feasible and can best be accomplished with the purchase of the homes along the Parkway (17th Avenue). Estimated cost of the proposed improvement: The construction cost of the proposed improvement is $3.945 million based on an engineer's estimate. Funding for the project will include: Hennepin County $ 627,000 Three Rivers Park District $ 320,000 Special Assessment Bond $ 2,998,000 Total $ 3,945,000 Assessment amount and methodology The par amount of the bonds to be issued is $3,120,000. The amount to be assessed will be 25% of the par value of the bonds which will be $780,000. The assessment will be assessed over a twenty (20) year period. I hereby certify that this plan, specification or report was prepared by me or under my direct supervision and that I am a duly Licensed Professional Engineer under the laws of the State of Minnesota 2 // /J Date: Ze9f3 Kristin A s eP.- Reg. No. 42679 r � APPENDIX A Richfield Parkway Sources and Uses Estimate Estimated Uses 17th Avenue ROW $2,600,000 ROW Services $100,000 Parkway Construction (63rd-65th) $400,000 TRPD Trail $100,000 Engineering/Legal/Admin $125,000 Contingency 20% $620,000 Total Uses $3,945,000 Estimated Sources TRPD Capital $120,000 TRPD ROW $200,000 Hennepin County Community Works $627,000 Specail Assessment Bond $2,998,000 Total Sources $3,945,000 APPENDIX B RICHFIELD PARKWAY . 65th Street to S. of 63rd Street CITY ITEM UNIT UNIT PRICE QUANTITY ESTIMATED COST;, MOBILIZATION LUMP SUM $17,500.00 1.00 $17,500.00 REMOVALS LUMP SUM $15,550.00 1 $15,550.00 SAWING BITUMINOUS PAVEMENT(FULL DEPTH) LIN FT $2.00 350 $700.00 COMMON EXCAVATION CU YD $7.00 2764 $19,348.00 SUBGRADE EXCAVATION CU YD $8.00 1806 $14,448.00 SELECT GRANULAR BORROW(CV) CU YD $12.00 1806 $21,672.00 AGGREGATE BASE(CV)CLASS 5 CU YD $20.00 754. $15,080.00 TYPE SP 12.5 WEARING COURSE MIX(3,C) TON $65.00 906 $58,890.00 TYPE SP 12.5 NON WEAR COURSE MIX(3,B) TON $60.00 658 $39,480.00 STORM SEWER SYSTEM* LUMP SUM $14,340.00 1 $14,340.00 ADJUST GATE VALVE&BOX EACH $300.00 2 $600.00 RECONSTRUCT MANHOLES EACH $1,000.00 4 $4,000.00 4"CONCRE 1E WALK SQ FT $2.50 100 $250.00 CONCRETE CURB&GUTTER DESIGN B618 LIN FT $10.00 4250 $42,500.00 TRUNCATED DOMES SQ FT $26.00 20 $520.00 TRAFFIC CONTROL LUMP SUM $20,000.00 1.00 $20,000.00 SIGNS LUMP SUM $2,500.00 1.0 $2,500.00 TURF ESTABLISHMENT LUMP SUM $2,500.00 1.0 $2,500.00 l STRIPING LUMP SUM $2,000.00 1 $2,000.00 c'' LANDSCAPING AND IRRIGATION SQ FT $3.00 8370 $25,110.00 20%CONTINGENCY $63,397.60 ITEMIZED SUBTOTAL I I I I $380,385.60 25%ENGINEERING/LEGAL/ADMINISTRATION $95,096.40 TOTAL CONSTRUCTION COSTS I I I I $475,482.00 * INCLUDES: 4 CATCH BASINS AT A HEIGHT OF 5 FEET EACH, 4 - CASTINGS 1 -')) 1 / ' .11 1 bi „FL ' ---'" PALKVAY) -y'----' -- / f ,4, 1-- - 7- --rr._J U _, ..�J W O h , .∎ - ,.1 - v w 50 50 55.13 j 61.13 50 50 50 50 _ 50 50 60 60 60 61.13 60 H e WI I((f 50 50 61.13 46.13 49.5 49.5 49.5 49.5 49.5 49.5 49.5 49.5 49.5 49.5 60 s0 60 60 so 1 58. W A w � A A w a ` Future Regional Trail w W w ` w W N _W �w �N N V, A VI N a A � , (n N� N � C O� w of [T CO ' P r V N �, o p 0 � o' 8� �0 �°‘ W �� w Connection to MPLS ,,m V V u t- "....,„-`._..... (Funded for 2014) ELI 50 50 61.4 46.46 49.5 49.5 49.5 49.5 49.5 49.5 49.5 49.5 49.5 49.5 _60"�- 60 d '')\\/ EO GO 60 58.4 60 E1.46 60 60 60 HE\\TQ WIN " Future Redevelopment Area \� 1 6TH AV 75 75 75 75 `� 75 75 75 75 75 76.6 75 75 75 75 70 75 75 7� 11 1 co / 76 7 o r+ -'m 'O V O°l �� ? 02 w u N .P� ? (A" W W W W W v V u CO �v ~� �� .._.� �w co N cri 1VER O l°% SECOND ADDN4 1 75 75 575.65 i 1 -_ - ,843 Ny l ° 11V5R cfN'S SEC ND A©bprj --- N i 5 75 75 75 75 75 75 - --- - 5 5 75 5 -i _"� C: '- 3 ■ 9 • .. ._ .. _. .. .`«,.._ -_ .. _. ... .. - .. 75 75 751410 7717 ---R a a _ _ .. _ . ............:marBMWIJC.es s._!C.•A 2. .°.- I `r■Iais rVtTLYAT - :k 759.14 337.99 75 y 7.3 ■ • -z Richfield Parkway Project Area 24.46 Future Richfield Future Regional Trail j Parkway Connection N )11� Connection to Bloomington 7 (Funded) (Funded for 2013) fil 0 i c, 5:3 rAll till. Al III ■41111,11111111 Lin] Po Us 0 Legend L �° ORequired Parcels - Parkway W -5 14.5 -- Future Richfield Pkwy CO m Lo - Richfield Pkwy 'ss7 1.5- Richfield Pkwy 16ft ROW -' ,.--S0° Path: I:\GIS\Public Works\Staff\Jeff\Projects\Richfield Parkway\Parcels Map Lot& Block.mxd m AGENDA SECTION: CONSENT AGENDA ITEM# 5 C REPORT# 91 STAFF REPORT RICHFIELD CITY COUNCIL MEETING MAY 22, 2012 REPORT PREPARED BY: KRISTIN ASHER, CITY ENGINEER NAME,TITLE DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR �/ REVIEW: ( +! REVIEWED BY CITY �►� IvimEfirm MANAGER: / ' ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION: Consideration of the attached reimbursement resolution to incur costs for the potential reconstruction of Richfield Parkway Phase II (63`d to 65th Streets). I. RECOMMENDED ACTION: By Motion: Adopt the attached resolution authorizing City staff to incur costs for the reconstruction of Richfield Parkway Phase II (from 63rd Street to 65th Street). II. BACKGROUND At the May 8, 2012 City Council Worksession the Council asked staff to pursue a Special Assessment Project for Richfield Parkway as outlined in the staff presentation (attached). The attached reimbursement resolution is the first step in that process. Richfield Parkway North Connection Consistent with the Capital Improvement Plan and with both the City's Comprehensive Plan and Surface Water Management Plan, the City Council has approved the 25 mph Curve Alternative as the future alignment for the Richfield Parkway North Connection between 17th Avenue and Bloomington Avenue. The North Connection is a replacement roadway connection for the old Cedar Avenue and Taft Lake Frontage Road that will be removed with the upcoming Taft/Legion Improvement Project. The Richfield Parkway North Connection is expected to be constructed in spring 2013. 05222012RichParkRes Richfield Parkway Phase II (63`d to 65th) In order to include the Richfield Parkway Phase II (63`d to 65th) in the 2013 construction with the North Connection, the development of the project and purchase of 13 homes must occur in a timely manner. Special Assessment Bonds Staff is recommending the City Council move forward with a Special Assessment Bond to finance the purchase of the homes. At a minimum, 25% of the bond amount would be assessed to the adjacent property owner(anticipated Housing and Redevelopment Authority), the remainder would be assessed citywide. Staff will pursue the Resident Driven Option requiring a petition from the neighbors to trigger the assessment of the project. Reimbursement Resolution Upon adoption of the attached Reimbursement Resolution, the Council may authorize certain expenditures (such as appraisals and engineering costs) for the Richfield Parkway Phase II project. Expenditures will then be eligible for reimbursement in anticipation of approval of an issuance of a special assessment bond. The approval of the resolution does not commit the City to bond for the project. Neighborhood Meeting A neighborhood meeting is scheduled with the residents identified as a total acquisition in Phase II. That meeting will be held on Thursday, May 24, 2012 at 6:30 p.m. at the Richfield Public Works building. III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION A. POLICY • Replacement of Cedar Avenue by a new Richfield Parkway is identified in the Comprehensive Plan (6-19) • The proposed Richfield Parkway would provide a secondary access to Cedar Point Commons as required in the developer's agreement. B. CRITICAL TIMING ISSUES • In order to include Richfield Parkway Phase II in with the 2013 construction of the North Connection, staff needs to begin working on the acquisition of the necessary properties. C. FINANCIAL • Total Estimated Uses $3,1 65,000 • Estimated Sources: Three Rivers Park District $ 320,000 Hennepin County $ 627,000 Total Estimated Sources $ 947,000 Estimated Funding Gap $2,218,000 • Estimated Special Assessment Bond Sale $2,283,000 (includes origination fees, etc) • The attached resolution establishes an estimated maximum principal amount of$2,500,000 for the Special Assessment Bond. D. LEGAL • The City Attorney will be present to answer any questions. E. ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS • None. IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATIONS) • The City Council may choose to not adopt the resolution at this time and direct staff on how to proceed. V. ATTACHMENTS • Resolution • Graphic of Richfield Parkway Phase II (63`d to 65th) • Proposed Special Assessment Bond Graphic • Worksession Presentation VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING • None RESOLUTION NO. DECLARING THE OFFICIAL INTENT OF THE CITY OF RICHFIELD TO REIMBURSE CERTAIN EXPENDITURES FROM THE PROCEEDS OF BONDS TO BE ISSUED BY THE CITY WITH RESPECT TO RICHFIELD PARKWAY 2012 IMPROVEMENT AND STREET RECONSTRUCTION PROJECT WHEREAS, the Internal Revenue Service has issued Treas. Reg. § 1.150-2 (the "Reimbursement Regulations") providing that proceeds of tax-exempt bonds used to reimburse prior expenditures will not be deemed spent unless certain requirements are met; and WHEREAS, the City of Richfield, Minnesota (the "City") expects to incur certain expenditures that may be financed temporarily from sources other than bonds, and reimbursed from the proceeds of tax-exempt bonds; and WHEREAS, the City has determined to make this declaration of official intent (the "Declaration") to reimburse certain costs from proceeds of bonds in accordance with the Reimbursement Regulations. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA AS FOLLOWS: 1. The City proposes to undertake the Richfield Parkway 2012 Improvement and Street Reconstruction Project within the City(the "Project"). 2. The City reasonably expects to reimburse the expenditures made for certain costs of the Project from the proceeds of bonds in an estimated maximum principal amount of$2,500,000. All reimbursed expenditures will be capital expenditures, costs of issuance of. the bonds, or other expenditures eligible for reimbursement under Section 1.150-2(d)(3) of the Reimbursement Regulations. 3. This Declaration has been made not later than 60 days after payment of any original expenditure to be subject to a reimbursement allocation with respect to the proceeds of bonds, except for the following expenditures: (a) costs of issuance of bonds; (b) costs in an amount not in excess of$100,000 or 5 percent of the proceeds of an issue; or (c) "preliminary expenditures" up to an amount not in excess of 20 percent of the aggregate issue price of the issue or issues that finance or are reasonably expected by the City to finance the Project for which the preliminary expenditures were incurred. The term "preliminary expenditures" includes architectural, engineering, surveying, bond issuance, and similar costs that are incurred prior to commencement of acquisition, construction or rehabilitation of a project, other than land acquisition, site preparation, and similar costs incident to commencement of construction. 4. This Declaration is an expression of the reasonable expectations of the City based on the facts and circumstances known to the City as of the date hereof. The anticipated original expenditures for the Project and the principal amount of the bonds described in paragraph 2 are consistent with the City's budgetary and financial 05222012RichParkRes circumstances. No sources other than proceeds of bonds to be issued by the City are, or are reasonably expected to be, reserved, allocated on a long-term basis, or otherwise set aside pursuant to the City's budget or financial policies to pay such Project expenditures. 5. This Declaration is intended to constitute a declaration of official intent for purposes of the Reimbursement Regulations. The foregoing resolution was moved by Councilmember and seconded by Councilmember The following voted in the affirmative: The following voted against: Councilmember was absent. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota, this 22nd day of May, 2012. Debbie Goettel, Mayor ATTEST: Nancy Gibbs, City Clerk c-c.) X , RICHFIELD PARKWAY ...,... .. , . „..,.. _ . . . • ... . ... ..D - , . _ . _ :i• • r a T1 , . 5 1 I it .,.. , .,..t. .,.,„.. ; rij -4 I ilk LI k ..,F, i .... A......1 •Etr..-w A" . -.. ...:.; ';',„11 _ ,F -. ' -; - ' - • ■• "1. k k, Future Regional Trail _.. . .4 I. i , , I . 111 11.14 1 Connection to MPLS vel ■ Future Redevelopment Area II ik, ,. _ ._&.1 II (hi Pi (Funded) . , ' - , ... _ IG.-----.....- ,... • , - 111. , -• ..,, la I . ,Ir ',4 I ' r I . ' joir-'4'''''' •Lt* -1 - 4f. `;', A - 4' —. q,:,41 ' _, '..-I 1 E , , . ',I,JJ'i°- ,. .., — 1111 . Future Regional Trail -- ' " '-•- ' ., - F7,"f•-, tA ' ' ' Connection to Bloomington , p (Funded) .•V-?_. Richfield Parkway Proje.04ct Area 5 . r., -_-:= 4__ •,• m ..... ,11 ,1_-_,,Z.-..7E1'N:6,-1'4..0.,.1.... Future Richfield Parkw Connection .• - 14 (Funded) //d -- (--- ';,-- ',-- — ,, 4E: 1.--..t_ '...i' i'..-4,,,a.. ,,,5-?.. .^.7.;-:...•, ..,..g,,,.. :' t.,.._.., - -.: - • ' - ':-.,. -''' i -.,- -' -----1,,r'-*,--r--;.,.. 1,1 -..- ' 4,,qc.4713 'if., -71-tr..- •'.'. , ' ' . - ., ,,,,, . :: ",... :,-1'' -:- : ---- i --- -- --1--= '1'1' i,- ..--- -: -E--,..- -., - _-_-: ,--,' , 1 4 x • .,,..,,,''''''' ,,,...,,,•••:•,:, , : ;.,-• .4',,'7,,, , ,.. •L: „,- ''..`=" 1._ -- ,,,-,...1 -4-, --22,-.".:' L-t---- .-,-,2'[_:-: '''''..._---,.• C-7.'-..-116,1i.'':;;. .,' 7'19,==.1,----' I-.;.-.Z.--.---;-7.11.',?'4.1 --".. ` _ ..,......or,"''''...'- ' I" .t_7,' ..'A 1 .''.,. '`..-.i;•• .. • 1,-%:Ve,.:'" I r-' ••.. .... .7:' '' ...-7 r. -.,_,... ,=-,I,- o.:,....: AA,' c,..„-i .......,. .,:r.„.. „. i . . , -.4-?,_ ...,,1 , c.,-. ' 1 , . :.c.' ' • ---,,,---• ' %,‘, .--., ":".1411 "" ir,'"'''-'-' "' '.-1111811g1tu---ra.eliam--= ---;... ,. ..,.__ ' .-tZ, -- ,4.-''Zi,'"--- -: "t.:4''--*f.' 1,1L-,1! 1-3 .4I \ _ _ '' .:.',"'•Fkl'; - ', , . ,Vi'4", ••• - '':,- ':',.-, 1 ' — •,„ 1 i I III .,- ' ' 1 .i ,,,',., l' ._ •1. ., 1 , ,, ,, . . . ..,-. Willkal.,. , ,,...1. , ,,A1'' •-- c--)-----.'-"Lfr.5.f.'..''1,-,_,-'4-- L-'-'7.- 'A-1".' -71-2.), ": 1,0;7, _--2''''''''''''' -.-....• ' •,- i',„,:-2.4.',1 ; •••-_-• , ''''-- '-' - . '',..... '-•, ',14-'-'-',', - _ 1:-**1 ''' ;I, , 't '‘flt&i• , =Q.4__J- 1 . • . . .,1 , -•...,•• ■ , , . \ f ' • - '''' '1'11. .■ik. .„ i ' I:-,'',•,,,, ---7,1 ----;' c---7 1-', 1*- .. I 1..., ' 1'•'v.1 04z NI qa ,-, ‘ - - --.” tio.: ---- .11,-_......,— NI .. . . i 1-7' '' '•'. ,-- -r•-' ' - .--'-------------\......__ - . ••■•`: t I ' 1 msim • .--'--- — . "i', ^ -—.. -- " - ---- '""‘" Legend ___ __ I I , • r 11_ Required Parcels-Connection ,' Ir; ' 1,t' ;', ,.... .„..;,...„.,.--------......,_,,,,,,,...,.,.... -----, -,..—a---,------,_•—m.4,----,----_-_,i.:„...--„,--j,,,.,=,..-L.,_„:,._::,:,r,‘,:.:,...,===....---. _ . ,,,, .. 1 j Required Parcels- Parkway i ininiairmirdiffim i ' I iiifklItirigirinissitawitiffleamfinctittsumniiintamsa . - ,. ... , , . -": -', , ,., . ,•- • . . -. _ _______________.-- X L.C. Proposed Special Assessment Bond Est. Bond Sale (to cover gap): $2,283,000 HRA Assessment: $600,000 (N25% of Gap) HRA Annual Payment: $45,330 Citywide Debt: $1 ,658,000 Estimated Annual Property Tax Increase EMV $125k: $5.40 EMV $200k: $9.86 EMV $150k: $6.89 EMV $275k: $14.32 .prouclly Saving Richfield* PUBLIC WORKS ,_ "---- 5 3 Legion Lake Elements City Council Worksession --= • Grit Chambers May 8, 2012 y •1 • Storm Water Reuse r) �' -Irrigation 1. Taft-Legion Project Update ;; -Infiltration 2. Richfield Parkway Phase II(63rd to 65th) '` • Wetland Buffers 3. Three Rivers Park District Intercity Regional Trail Master Plan " ! •q•p,—,..... „. PiS.�4a -.�---� .pwM9MOro+W- Taft Lake Elements Taft-Legion Project Timeline � . ; • Flocculation Treatment • April 26th-Minnehaha Creek Watershed \ser System District(MCWD)Completed Plan 2' • Storm Water Reuse Amendment Process iiI -Infiltration • Summer 2012 ` li • PW Storage Area •Approval of Cooperative Agreement , • Frontage Road Removal •Order Final Design of Project ir • Purchase 3 homes at 63rd/Bloomington r - . , • • Richfield Parkway North Connection • Winter 2012-Advertise Project - • Spring 2013-Construction Begins z Fzip . ,.....,. ,0.,J...a,. Saturday Morning Tour Taft— Legion Project Who: MCWD Board of Managers Estimated Uses: Tan Lake Storm Water Elements S'B00.000 What: Taft Lake Tour North Connecton ROW 5600.000 North Connection Road Construction 5500.1100 Review of Project Features ROW Services $26,006 Engineering•LeganAdoon 5225.000 When: 10:20 a.m. Co„hngency20'v 5300.600 Saturday,May 12th Total Uses 59,845,000 Estimated Sources: Where: Meet in the Parking Lot off of City(P.tunkipal State Aid) SI,145,000 Bloomington Avenue a9nnehaha Creek WD 52700.000 Total Sources $9,845.000 The tour should last about 1/2 hour. J arru• Funding Gap $0 ,,,"...,,, Mk Ellk 1 5 -1 ›iLi,), Richfield Parkway—Phase I Richfield Parkway North Connection (North Connection • 2010 Technical Advisory Committee tlAtT .y • • City—Public Works,Community Development,Recreation g > > ii IN ■ • Hennepin County n ). • Metro Transit .,,;, � '''''-2500 ADT, ,<-,p.t:1 • Three Rivers Park District * `, a —_i • WSB&Associates lips,„ --- • Open Houses—11/17/10&1/19/11 4' t a' • March 2,2011 Transportation Commission Final •~ 5 a' Recommendation "' r• =900 ADT- +2000 ADT • March 10,2011 Open House • March 22,2011 Council Approval a IN Richfield Parkway— Phase II Phase II Estimated Funding Status (63rd Street to 65th Street) � 1 ry i '+,-1. i rr •14 homes needed Estimated uses 7.1 •y,,.;' ;'1{ •HRA purchased 6420 17'^ son, ,roe oes s •9� f" ro,, riauk, . S<00.000 �• _ TO FUt'�, 9,0:..0U1 0:..0U1 T7! % ftP a C - OLn)0-SOmo :12:.000 f.s >t•r .c saDe--wv x�, v.et•xW fl '? Tom uses $3.166.000 Si Estimated Sour . R tr P n "Y 000 1 - - .Ry rs o1 Ws, $200.003 4.f y I 6 ota Saurcea 196i,D00 l7 . _ ,1i w.. FunJ nO GaM f2.,S<.0 1T:t •VroM •sraW$eMp Mid., 2* ftadi Proposed Special Assessment Bond Special Assessment Options Est. Bond Sale(to cover gap): $2,283,000 Opt 1: Council Driven Opt 2: Resident Driven • Council ordered • Residents petition(35%) HRA Assessment: $600,000(-25%of Gap) • 4/5 vote • 3/5 vote HRA Annual Payment:$45,330 • Negotiate after the • Advance negotiation project is ordered . Costs identified before Citywide Debt: $1,658,000 • Higher condemnation Estimated Annual Property Tax Increase potential project is ordered EMV$125k: $5.40 EMV$200k: $9.86 • Limited condemnation EMV$150k: $6.89 EMV$275k: $14.32 potential M 2 5 ► -1 2012 Project Timeline Policy Direction May/June Resolution—Feasibility Study Open House 1. Does the Council want to move forward Obtain Appraisals with Richfield Parkway Phase II ? July/August Obtain Petitions/Order Project Execute Purchase Agreements Resolution—Public Hearing 2. If so, should staff proceed with Special September Hold Public Hearing Begin Purchasing Homes Assessment Bond funding scenario? Begin Condemnation Process Winter 2012 Advertise for Bids Spring 2013 Award Construction Contract/Begin Work Intercity Regional Trail Master Plan Intercity Regional Trail Master Plan • Three Rivers Park District • Transportation Commission recommended • Kelly Grissman,Senior Manager of Planning approval of the Master Plan • Stephen Shurson,Landscape Architect • City Council consideration on May 22nd 3 -f Legion Lake Elements �` -_® r Public Meeting • Grit Chambers May 24, 2012 ' ` '" • Storm Water Reuse ;; ,.,r�/. ■�,∎,.•� k —Irrigation 1. Taft—Legion Project �.,� �' ��_� —Infiltration 2. Richfield Parkway North Connection .iJ °."-so-- - • Wetland Buffers 3. Richfield Parkway Phase II (63rd to 65th) i °• 40 A i. • Taft Lake Elements Estimated Project Timeline • Flocculation Treatment • April 26th- Minnehaha Creek Watershed if_ System District(MCWD) Completed Plan 2 • Storm Water Reuse Amendment Process rte - -Infiltration • Summer 2012 :1'ji,� ., k'3 • PW Storage Area •Approval of Cooperative Agreement • t',_ t .a° • Order Final Design of Project ni • Frontage Road Removal �rjrYgntur'' • Purchase 3 homes at 63rd/Bloomington • Richfield Parkway North .i,1 j 7i • •;nn • Winter 2012—Advertise Project 'Iv Connection .. t',-. f, ` • Spring 2013-Construction Begins �...,-4,a a• 9i � Richfield Parkway- Phase I Richfield Parkway North Connection (North Connection • 2010 Technical Advisory Committee 4L.+1600ADT .• City-Public Works,Community Development Recreation Y N• Hennepin County• Metro Transit e,•, _u ""'2500 ADT II • Three Rivers Park District \"' — t- • WSB&Associates w•+ s^^ :, �l' • Open Houses—11/17/10& 1/19/11 • March 2, 2011 Transportation Commission Final 3 Recommendation soo nor +2000 ADT • March 10, 2011 Open House sR • March 22,2011 Council Approval :-. �,,,Jam• if • i ! 1 Richfield Parkway— Phase II Special Assessment Bond I_ (63rd Street to 65th Street) i , g ,),1 ; , •14 homes needed • Residents petition � ,a .- ..� 1 1� •HRA purchased 6420 17. • Requires a 3/5 City Council vote x• �� .44Z„..-j y�1,'lr.r � .ik� �.i s� F- zg ma , ''. g) .1...)•,'•',511140,5,. J ner....�. AW III 2 • 5 .aD AGENDA SECTION: OTHER BUS. AGENDA ITEM# 12 REPORT# 115 irdill STAFF REPORT RICHFIELD CITY COUNCIL MEETING JUNE 26, 2012 REPORT PREPARED BY: JEFF PEARSON,TRANSPORTATION ENGINEER . f TELE DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR Er" A11101"_ REVIEW: ;/ �= V r REVIEWED BY CITY re tkA MANAGER: ...I k..... - ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION: Consideration to hire a consultant to perform appraisals and preliminary acquisition services for 13 residential properties along 17 Avenue from 63rd Street to 65th Street. y I. RECOMMENDED ACTION: By Motion: Authorize staff to hire a consultant to perform appraisal and begin acquisition services for the 13 residential properties on 17th Avenue between 63rd Street and 65th Street needed for the construction of Richfield Parkway. II. BACKGROUND Consistent with City Council discussion at the May 8, 2012 worksession, staff is working towards the acquisition of the residential parcels needed for construction of Richfield Parkway between 65th Street and 63rd Street in conjunction with the Richfield Parkway North Connection. The connection is included with the Taft Lake Regional Water Quality Improvement Project which is expected to begin in 2013. Acquisition Process Acquisition of the thirteen residential parcels is proposed to be completed in part through a Special Assessment Bond. It is anticipated that draft purchase agreements would be negotiated contingent on a commitment from the residents to sign a petition in support of the project, resulting in City Council action to order the . project. If the City Council does not order the project, the City would not purchase the homes. 06262012RichParkAppraisals Staff is asking for permission to hire a consultant to complete the initial phases of the acquisitions, including obtaining appraisals and negotiating purchase agreements. Relocation services will not be included in this phase and will be brought back to the City Council for consideration if the project is ordered for construction. Public Information Meeting A neighborhood meeting was held on May 24, 2012 to review the proposed process with residents. There was general consensus among the 17th Avenue homeowners present at the meeting to continue with the proposed process. Homeowners not present at the meeting have been contacted about the proposed project and process. Current Schedule July/August 2012 • Selection of consultant. • Obtain appraisals September/October 2012 • Obtain Petitions and Order Project • Execute Purchase Agreements • Resolution—Public Hearing October/November 2012 ▪ Hold Public Hearing • Begin Purchasing Homes • Begin Condemnation Process Fal WVinter 2012 • Final Design 2013 • Award Construction Contract/Begin Work III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION A. POLICY • The replacement of Cedar Avenue with Richfield Parkway is identified in the City's Comprehensive Plan (Transportation). B. CRITICAL TIMING IssUEs • The project must be ordered this fall to allow for 2013 construction. C. FINANCIAL • The anticipated scope of work is not expected to exceed $50,000. • If the project is ordered, the consultant services would be paid for using the special assessment bond proceeds. • In the event the project does not move forward, the proposed work would be funded using other City Funds. D. LEGAL • The City Attorney will be available to answer questions. E. ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS • None IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION(S) • The Council may choose not to authorize the services of a consultant at this time and direct staff on how to proceed. V. ATTACHMENTS • May 8, 2012 City Council Worksession Presentation. • Enlarged Project Area Map VI. PRINCIPAL PART mS EXPECTED AT MEETING • Neighborhood residents. • —a3 G , L,- .j- E AFT K l tilt,. j.. m, A -y try } }.0a2 8.t -v,.<r t rst v6,,t,€4,,.�x 'F q _tL 5 Sx VG� h-T=v-�r' ,'n`1�� fit �f �� fw�:. 2f ;. C 4• - 1 -3 S ,4- Lf 1. �.. Ti 3°�ID w .: ---=---ity Council W6f k1 dsion _ May .-1 8, •2012 1. Taft — Legion Project Update 2. Richfield Parkway Phase II (63rd to 65th) 3. Three Rivers Park District Intercity Regional Trail Master Plan •Fr,udh,-RWA.. t .. /11.114MTEI 1 3 g jam.. k 5 t .s. + i i -`f'= S" .,.._ ,,,:" ?r itflo,,,*:E. .-`Z - 'r}' .i ..alt:1,,:t-'7�O&.*y .: ,5'_t -= '. s_ `�-, t :1 6, z .;4: ,z a .7777-- 4 ..e. a� z �: i s -�4+ 9f M1:T tt Car -hers I • Storm.Water Reuse` _ " i� i 1111,11 I.1k, - Irrigation ym.r•4w-" ..W -- -- -- Infiltration Steciwalt • Wetland Buffers = \ 1 I . - - ''''.‘":_:...--;,,,Z.,413,4 _+:10.X., ,=,-*J.; -..,:` y 14.044,147r:'",.: 1#,Iligri'L::10AVCkW1.01t4:.*;':`■;'. --7,::,■,:;.f"-,47;,-MilOny ^.., -4'>:',,,,' .11,CIVA:UAAM?km„,,- .."A i"., :e■igkOv ef:!:?..A:.:*;'=`,4'..A4i>: ..,:.4...gi.:::::::.•.t4Fik'40, t:-- :`70 'CM6111VVI--14.:.w_'- '4'V.-1:, '0,,i3OLVATAUctiiP4- _ . • :.; .:3 ,1r...7.. .. :i-.: . ":::::.:',17?.1.'••-."-...-:-..'-:', "_ ..., •'I, :..( CI:V....T`''FicicculatiorvTreatment - - - • ,,'''' ---:'System'- - -- . 2 , • Storm Water Reuse -- Infiltration - . [ • PW Storage Area - • Frontage Road Removal • Richfield Parkway North , .. I Connection - , . . _ .pusidly serving Richfield. ,--- - 114:I•ti ,y ,q V-T,•;itig:Wviji*,:rigiT.04;441.3t-. 4.2 - V .:1,,7144,..1„. ,,..,,,,7.1;i .,!•:,7...: ,"PtItit;;A:IirsD' 4.fr ra--:',,:;&:',:.. . ir,,-.-_, -: • '__,-5-152f4.-,:.:,i :,;--,;-. -4.--s,.....gl, . Vetws,r"s ,0,1,;•:'"4- :,,,,tg-ii:,' s''' .;;; -.., ,tly -s.' ,,r,; q:,- idgi% ' • q -,i r„, - ., ,_ FE 1 1119a,A.,,,,,,,,,:, Jr L'44.,0:.g,:-..:.rt,F45.1>M140.4'..V!,.C.V."'T'. ,,-..,; .,. 4-1:2,;,-so",,-.:v,,--,:.-:;:acx,: -..4:;';:71%!-5`.5- ;,''';] `7Aritil'26#.1.:i=9Mtn-rtehaha:Sreek?.:VVatersheock.------:-.'... - - . - . .,- '''':---:=---,,.- ..-,-_ ...,--,_-.,,,:;:-,,..,....,:_____,:.(--, ..,...:,..i..,..-_.:-. District(MCWD) Completed Plan.- --.. - --- . . . . ., - . Amendment Process . • Summer 2012 • Approval of Cooperative Agreement • Order Final Design of Project • Purchase 3 homes at 63rd/Bloomington • Winter 2012 —Advertise Project • Spring 2013 — Construction Begins .picudy serving Richtlekf. -Al us-4,,n, 2 Ia 5auday�, o � sur r � _ K - Who. MCWD Board of Managers What: Taft Lake Tour Review of Project Features When: 10:20 a.m. Saturday, May 12th Where: Meet in the Parking Lot off of Bloomington Avenue The tour should last about / hour. t „ Jo :FIE •K .t'-' i ' F£..0.. �.4 2?� •b x3'4- 4 : ,2 -.<. .. s * ._ ...,E -R: nn.a �r H Estimated Uses: Taft Lake Storm Water Elements 81,800,000 North Connection ROW $600,000 North Connection Road Construction $900,000 ROW Services $20,000 Engineering/Legal/Admin $225,000 Contingency 20%_ $300,000 Total Uses $3,845,000 Estimated Sources: City(Municipal State Aid) $1,145,000 Minnehaha Creek WO_ $2,700,000 Total Sources $3,845,000 Funding Gap $0 ,p,„by Serving Rich • t_ XI 444 •.. 3 5--gtP 1P4 :' aser` kirt � � .r ( arRrahted ,* _ k 2010 Technical Advisory Committee • City_'-Public Works, Community Development,Recreation • Hennepin County • Metro Transit • Three Rivers Park District • WSB&Associates • Open Houses — 11/17/10 & 1/19/11 • March 2, 2011 Transportation Commission Final Recommendation • March 10, 2011 Open House • March 22, 2011 Council Approval ,p, ys„„�Richfield. P' SIAM.4 - r t i xiis�..A.-mss,. y�, PJ , .L_`a. �Y- �r afi _: 1- P. 4i :. } Y � �K,a-,tea S.. .s '~: K3 4ril 4. 'yyt s r t . ... c3n .-'�r- .' a"-'�,a�..�'.�»fik7tte':°.�. )Yid'"- ', ' uY:e;`.'�?�`;;.<_.u';',as.FUd .�tz',"-s.:. l ,'7,,Y-:':‘.'12121,171'''.'S '.'�Y Y Yl s .+y l _ '''!(_ "'''' _ N Y tx a j t e ,, - . •a? fir _ "�`� °�. S _r lb { " 2 d Wit.' + J « ..' <. ,. Z - ' i t -• t -�- apt-4,=''...i.''' `j _ •t { • " i r' f'a: , 442000 AD - Z 3 4 5 -?.T) )-‹. _ f -ra a` �y i tit ' h a-s'i`tf'+, i•`w:K5J,1S� ' Richfield *ark ra .t tease � T-.-_,:,Lr-fc:A.,:-.Ayo.ocfplyCgt: til-p...., ..r„f:-.:g..-, -1-4.,,.,_,,,I,if,:,,..,4:.,:-.-ri.,#-:.7a,--.4.---afig 5= Y A ..+43 a'° isnl W 14 h - • •omes needed • ' •HRA purchased 64201.7"* - , f i tp Rldnww.rill t" 1_ 1 _ }R - • 71-1"F7.7:4 R " - 3{r i ,i 3t,, Y-:r s�'i'' . ..g 'A ir."r-� tees .L.Q.y vwfi, , 3 "y. ' .sow 144 4 l•41;,t n'r��,p. ssn '' t� i -�vcY '4.4!:I'=j er' �tt_3'' c.,.i.:yt qt 1 se4ti- E{sy � qg �. � � jJ $y, :-I.t c .�-a h - b 34,. tii�.icix a. ..a,t '�. °r, G" .?`%v.%• Estimated Uses: x 17th Avenue ROW $1,950,000 ROW Services $100,000 Parkway Construction(63rd-65th) $400,000 TRPD Path $100,000 Engineering/Legal/Admin $125,000 Contingency 20% $490,000 Total Uses $3,166,000 Estimated Sources: -TRPD Capital $120,000 TRPD Right of Way $200,000 Hennepin County Community Works $627,000 Total Sources $947,000 Funding Gap 82,218.000 ,ptardlyt�Rktdeld• MR 5 I '(( Propasea pec al�Ass . ` r en Band Est:. Bond Sale-(to covr ap) ;$2,283,000 HRA Assessment: $600,000 (N25% of Gap) HRA Annual Payment: $45,330 Citywide $1,658,000 ted Debt: Estimated Annual Properly Tax Increase EMV$125k: $5.40 ua EMV$200k: $9.86 EMV $150k: $6.89 EMV$275k: $14.32 .,,,,,„„,y J nimbi& I. ,;.I•LTT .n 5; • x44,44- yt.r,,mac- 0 y.. f U f 2 � - -_-. „,_ es, fit -� iY aKn•z^x.`. �w'h�i'` S s.� « t+ a -i.-A ' -- 3 r� °vv` , h31'7. , c'`.,k . ..- Opt 1 Council_'Driven Opt 2. Resident Driven • Council ordered Residents petition (35%) • 4/5 vote 3/5 vote • Negotiate after the • negotiation project is ordered . Costs Advance identified before • Higher condemnation project is potential • Limited condemnation • potential 6 • P <. .... . :,.:,, I...:1.:.-:.:::7-.=:-,,--7,:,•:'i7.. :-..i.',"4.t.';_?.-384,W01-'1/47r '+''''11 TE*4-$41-v"'-"‘;'``‘'''' .....; '.. 221P1170 v 01 ..-„,...5-:.!„,,,t,,,i:. ' . r- ' -*--;,- at --b. e Study 'ReSolUtion ast. r t rtt Open House . .. . Obtain Appraisals . July/August Obtain Petitions/Order Project Execute Purchase Agreements Resolution— Public Hearing September Hold Public Hearing Begin Purchasing Homes Begin Condemnation Process Winter 2012 Advertise for Bids Spring 2013 Award Construction Contract/Begin Work .pteudy girding Richelskle ■__ ' - PII11414 LT ''''''-.''''-- ,44p.--, -Aire:-,•,--''' !'":1•a-i-14-qq‘‘'''.-:...4;c400.4, .;,,,. -.:-.;: -.,,-.-•..,:,.',,,-:.,:-,,_,-..,:.;:ef,..„,-.T.-„Tf,-,,,,,,,.,„-,i,4,,,,,,,,t,--,s,c..7,-,,-- :- _.,,,•14,:---.41----,z A,p--,,Aw.lwri,i4-74.11.4*,,, ....,..-,., ..,.,---,43.,,,,.-„4:.;,,,,sipi: ...,--- .;:,..4 Tz, „,,f,x-,,, g-A. 1,,,t Atravv:...i:•,-;;;,..0,1*,..s- g. --,.'.-..-. .if.,....,•,'zN, IST;!--1.i.i.if*-6, •-•:".-e-i-lv-.&,.,4:1,!:.,, ,-,.,,-.„„tip_ n_. ,-, •kg.:41,41:4,.% .-.,,,--(---4r--?4?-sq.pwrgtrt-mq,_;,,,,„;,.4,„.,..-,,,c-,--•„.;,,,,,,,,.:,.,,,,,,,...i.,-,,,,,,,m,.: - '•., _..:_. , ,,.,-..._,- ,-:-;.7.....,:.. .i.,,-....,,,-:..„-..,---,;.'i,;:z-:.,,..-.-:.-.-,-,-..-‘,,_,r--,.:,,,Tr-2 .-7-. .,-.'- . . . . --• '-- ' . d .. 1 Does the k auncil-Wantto.nl pveforw,af . . with Richfield Parkway Phase II ? 2. If so, should staff proceed with Special Assessment Bond funding scenario? .vioudy saving Rkmeld• -Al ,1111471,11-5 7 J "s 3C) 4y t Ye,,'t`b t 'a i �- a;' r+�s ,ft''��y �3FS"��G"- '`#�J �'' 4 2 ' ..ta� 1 c 6'1'"''S'' F1 interc� y l edict a T ay��, I latterq ?Ia ; • Three 'Rivers Park District • Kelly Grissman, Senior Manager of Planning • Stephen Shurson, Landscape Architect .t TIEHMI r r 4r - .-i=�.. Y-.,a�F k e' *' .".�`_�i.1 ,�.{'t��+A'' gam! Y- {zr �4}1 t. '.1 r Yi d' 0 K i .V y 1;4;1.1!P,i F'1 # f 0.0 fF S 1 _: �,nteret y R g o i a .$ ` ett* 4 r ? en r . i., a r' .x;, �g„. ;PI 44;:,- .:� ',,:;;;:',4,4 ++c`rYr ` t".wk��.��e{4'tK��'z `� c.a. :�S<.!?:..3xc .+. _-A +4 ,r T$ t x€£ +"'r iT"J.' : F • Transportation Commission recommended approval of the Master Plan • City Council consideration on May 22nd qoxiosminglikhodr .t .. 'J11 E 8 I -3I ' F r 9: Rr'i • ■ Aq• • fCl - - r i �`{Y'i �Y �i 1�?+i'+`!y, S 1 t s�-?a�r �F-=�1r1,� -- • ■ 1 3x# ai ' : s. ry` { off J� I. l2 i 1 ! 11/i ; ' r f I _ tom. 1: F iS� � i1 i . ;,."-24.',--:-_-,-,..r.. Z) 5", I \ p • — 1 -;1""'X' C r _ - - r•t , I sd k i f I 1 Fy ��:r/:.','#;:i"s V' x y' r,),.."-,;:',.,c,r r1�� , }w _ r r e i�/i' /�� x'43,� j } ��f i'',7,"-.; � \V ^r' !. �, • N t a).F-11, Q ? �t5r icy u> 1 z `,s, rf+t`' 43 �t',j3 f y N` iz -f w a�Sro'l �"-ea nj. „� 4 i �js znet y O J r i+tvs - � s� AGENDA ITEM#: 1 REPORT#: 1 MIA" STAFF REPORT RICHFIELD HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY MEETING JANUARY 7, 2013 REPORT PREPARED BY: JEFF PEARSON, TRANSPORTATION ENGINEER NAME,TITLE REPORT PRESENTER: KAREN BARTON, COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT ASSISTANT DIRECTOR NAME,TITLE DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR REVIEW: Er �� /41 SIB TURF 712 t REVIEWED BY EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR: / z A Aii Ae.;.fir..... . .l 1, • ITEM FOR HRA CONSIDERATION: Consideration of approval for 17th Avenue Special Assessment Bond process. I. RECOMMENDED ACTION: By Motion: Approve the process to obtain twelve properties on 17th Avenue between 65t" Street and 63rd Street including the costs of the property assessments for pending. II. BACKGROUND City staff is currently acquiring purchase agreements and a signed petition from residents on 17th Avenue. It would ask the City Council to consider ordering the construction of Richfield Parkway (along the current alignment of 17th Avenue) including the purchase of the remaining twelve residential properties on 17th Avenue from 65th Street to 53rd Street. Guidance for this process was given to staff members at the May 8, 2012 work session with formal direction given at the May 22, 2012 City Council Meeting. Initial meetings with the property owners began shortly thereafter. HRA 01072013AssessmentBond 32 Cedar Corridor Redevelopment Area The purchase of these properties and construction of the Parkway is consistent with plans for the Cedar Corridor Redevelopment Area (see attachment). The Cedar Corridor Redevelopment Area was established in response to the Minnesota State Legislature's 1996 decision to expand the Minneapolis-St. Paul International Airport (MSP) at its present site rather than build a new airport. More specifically the area addressed noise concerns stemming from the construction of the new MSP runway 17-35 along the Cedar Avenue corridor. Properties east of 17th Avenue were purchased with the first phase of roadwork and commercial development known as Richfield Parkway and Cedar Point Commons. Phase II of the road construction and redevelopment, which includes the two blocks of 17th Avenue, was delayed due to declining market conditions and financing difficulties. Taft-Legion Stormwater Improvements On October 9, 2012 the City Council approved a cooperative agreement with the Minnehaha Creek-Watershed Management District to complete improvements to the stormwater treatment at Taft and Legion Lakes in Richfield. One of the items within that project is the construction of the Richfield Parkway North Connection. This road will connect Bloomington Avenue to Richfield Parkway (17th Ave) with construction programmed for 2013. Upon learning of this project, there was considerable resistance from residents on 17th Avenue concerning the impacts of increased traffic (expected to more than double) and construction. Many of the residents complained that they were expecting their properties to be purchased years ago as part of the redevelopment. A Possible Solution In response to neighborhood frustration and concerns, the possibility of completing the Richfield Parkway Phase II project emerged (and purchasing the properties along 17th Avenue) through the use of a Special Assessment Bond. This process would have several attractive results. It would: • Allow for the completion of the full Richfield Parkway cross section from 66th Street to Bloomington Avenue (much as it was envisioned in the Cedar Corridor Redevelopment Area Plans). • Complete the purchase of the remaining residential properties on 17th Avenue eliminating a significant hurdle to future redevelopment. • Provide relief to residents on 17th Avenue who are frustrated with unknown future traffic and redevelopment issues. Once purchased by the City, the properties would be conveyed to the HRA for nominal amount. The HRA would be responsible for the annual assessment until a developer purchases the parcels. Project and Assessment Costs The total bonded project cost would be approximately $3,000,000 of which 25% would be assessed to the properties on the west side of 17th Avenue. The resulting annual assessment to the HRA would be approximately$50,000 to 3q $70,000 depending on interest rates and bond structure. Additionally, taxes for the first year would not be included in the bond and would amount to approximately$25,000. Demolition costs will be included in the bond total. Costs for mowing of the parcels would be covered by Public Works. III. BASIS OF RECOMVIENDATION A. POLICY • It is expected that the HRA, the City and the future developer will negotiate the eventual cost participation for the bond payments (HRA and City portions) when the redevelopment takes place. • Minnesota Statutes Chapter 429 gives cities authority to levy special assessments. • Special assessments have three distinct requirements: o The City uses the levy to finance, or partially finance, a particular public improvement program. o The City levies the charge only against those particular parcels of property that receive some special benefit from the program. o The amount of the charge bears a direct relationship to the value of the benefits the property receives. B. CRITICAL TIMING ISSUES • Under current purchase agreements, the City Council must decide by March 26, 2013 whether to order the project and assessment. C. FINANCIAL • The property taxes for the first year amount to approximately $25,000. • Total annual assessment cost to the HRA amounts to approximately$50,000 to $70,000. D. LEGAL • The HRA attorney has reviewed the Special Assessment Bond process. IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATIONS) • Do not approve the Special Assessment Bond process which would halt the purchase of the 17th Avenue properties and prevent construction of that section of Richfield Parkway. V. ATTACHMENTS • Cedar Corridor Redevelopment Area Map • Required Parcels Map • Richfield Parkway Presentation Slides VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING • 17th Avenue Residents - >< --- '-. • ' ' 1 ,.T:: (7-_ ' :,‘i .-, .,; , • _ . . ._ _-- - . - - WM LE EL 62nd NM mom arm mem mmi Num mot .1•11•0 —11. N..= 1 mi wiml En mmol ..01. El:- I . NE Nam mals. NNE ......... 1 Num min IIIM 1,91:1 INME mum as= •Im. so 63rd I oroM,n w i l NMME Iin l — —,I--_' ."N=mN=m.wBl1m'IoMM"1s.1•1I 1 wmM=1M1111.o1M1 61EM-.M N-1 1 1 ! m 64th a Mi — -- .= M MA r -r_ ... .... . - 6 1 _ J____ LIE m 5th i p• ri_ v -- .i. • . • .... ..._ in . „__ 0 . UTE I= ED -I I ------' I- 66th . I __ .1 .5 1 I• i_ pm -___ a -- , .... -: 1.4 P' - ...... . - - . ... .... _ -- r , sid- . ... r,,,,,- . ... ...1 ._. 1 -- ... - 0.1 .. ... , I. .. . -5 N. . row - In 12 - 67th III mom pm MI NM -- MEI - _ _ ME MIMI MI NUN MIN m IIIIMI , ______, II NM UM , IN= l• MN MIMI , RIM NM 01111111 , ME i am no ii. .... •••• .. __ I 68th ismi =no _ mum 1 um im nms1 loom Imm IN . am mi.. ,_ _ =Ns Ems I ism ..... Ism Imo . mos Nu — — mom mil mum =am — 69th imum sim Nma .um Nois Elm NI — I mem NMI MEM 'IN_ .... mu. no me 1 .rj---t - , J.- - , , .1 -- =I. ___ •n al,w„,,, 70th ow. Igi ii = mmi =Op ■4 - _e ■ A — -- WIF ■ AP\ MN NM MINN .11 MN MOM ---' MI t‘' Faille" 71 st Num NZ um si= E a is EN ER m ma I. gm min A 111 MINN',MO MI_ I NMI 1 ...= m=i• .- - 1--I-1---....1-n.--I - -• ANN =Mml um MII NE num mom 111 mi im Num Em INN MI .., =■ we ---r------ Area Redevelopment -11 am ...._, Noli rum mum ....1 imam 72nd ,___tealr w ar m Al ru -a -- .,,, -__ _- AI- N ......imi r;I: immi Nom Imil. rd, __L__—_, — ...._ _____ n _....-, CI.C.■ ••••■• Jm.....mmoi _ _____ o u rce: City of Richfield, 11/7/08 0 0.05 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 _ :Milec \GIS\Conini0nityDeveloprnelt\S-taiN■./ellssc.\Projects\CedarT'oint - ' - -- IMMIIMINIMMIMOMMMIIMIIIMIIIIMIMIMMIMMIIMMIIIIIMMIIIIIIIIMIIMMIMIIMMIIMIMIIIMIIIMMIIIIIMIWIIIIII i� RICHFIELD PARKWAY '+' , �.I'��D��A °:':I 6i�li r'4 a '3 ,r "�.'T 4':'*GdC� a''''t s rm.,N 'dl� •S.' 1• `','.y.�a _rra'9..% i - 'T 1 '# y Y Nook,�w R i .'. .....ri ':..:..n., t ' 4:F.'.S tl ^S„ • F'.•r F1' L' / a ��• ., „_ ",-,' ._ ...Y:saL: .... r':-'i> �� MC fix:' 7: 0,,,:..,.; 17••t�e <,. E t"'��`P 2^'��t • _ �� roa '�� .aric dl�m s f a. +}r a z ! x g.^. '.• ,-:. , w;,:� }�.�r.i' I'ij�ni � � ny_ _+� r y ��.• }gt;_�:, 11 1,', 0'Tr r I• „ n��i_.,s. �. .'�,� . r�''rC 'z_ - ': t p 1 111 v i•% a 1 f., i,• r. Q # > Lli. . ,: , R u(•, It a -� .1 &s r i ,y, I � q� 1, ,gyp ��, � w„w'' t�j a iI� R F a ;rt �.`' a�. ,r��g t �{rill Y Y'.,•.. I 1 ,� .�...� ,r-.. .�,.\+R.( M+ ''� :"� R%j t �R " r".,'� 3S.Y�.. y� I.®.. .. _ .... f�--- 4. pT :' ?w � �Y �.e�'� .ae �i ��£::., 1:::' afk d .: � I 1 '1kr' 1...':. ,_;ua .�.. '+ •� f,..1. fi 1 0tl. I 1 _III t'5._. �..: ,>:,9w'" er.i:l"}'.' .:.:LM' 'Iii�QQr , t� IT r Future Regil Trail ;1'_I�iu kr� ' ; '( r}•rr I ♦ '4r3��4.�..Y� :i �i-T l � i � % �� , 7.-•. \ � .._� e y x,' t..�� ,�� 1i -_ ,� , '4. ,.' ( ■ �,iu `r r '�'F+t��<� ((r Connection MPLS F �' 1�� X a i s 9 Y Ifil f,k d A I I 'l'` i : 1 �, ;I , �' P '' (Funde 2014) 11 .4 ! t '' + c,: ! Future Redevelopment 'S r n(!F ,,, , ,.,(,,,....c4 + 1 q.,na n. �., is p w '” CI' A�:' Ar r `S s .. sr�'-�`-�'�'ladr d. --. Y t'I YYr ' ,p� w-+, b. ,•..' a&.: b .,.' .a: n.rr.... ti,r :.> @..✓ .:.. '77'r . . : .. '";e.. .X.. '.''B• '+S1T n '•,' ,}g ;r rTw" f,;t y' ''', 1( l R R" :;� T } K =nwt n•b.'s• ,. ,�. ...,y, �t i-1;x ;V:2'iy t ,ut-:.: C+°., j �m + 1� yp• I.•7.�. `. 14; r�,. ■..�"!�' �,- >rls... d�'��q:^�!Lw'Z'�...tt i �"� .. � �..,. ,t J .•9i z S %F ki:-. r' , { RC i!" ±,.. ! 1, n:i du x- 'd. qy�� L r 1 � I 1 f� ayN. '1'41 ;k4.til ay l: `+.r<.i 48 a _.. s`r,' �Ksit `:,/ t - -- y. {,,� `^",r r.d,..ye , \ ,,, s >..� '+t:s' '' ` rI» i.. r 4 , jmF u a; • Mme. .: Future Regional Trail . .. �_ :._.. �_ � t ' '. i' Connection to Bloomington `. . rmi d,,sr ° � ' 'w4 o y ' r! (Funded) Richfield Parkway Pro�ectArea C s '. ( r •' .y.,-FF x r' . .,,.M'' .'''' k + iii `s_x, ', 1 a' 'N, la,�, .R I1._I�ti.F1,1 -M .t.■•.r.rr3+.. , Future Richfield yx;z? .,y r M :. .. C�aCN� lVd :s:?I I�. AA31nISid1. ;► to hfield .• w �, :;;;.,,...,7.,.77,7,7„._;,.. Parkway Connection ,;y: �("` �,r,.41 - a..-.. �.y •yate-. te, a ,°"'r.r 1d� [ra m "1 n.js nit ! " �` ("', acry ,7 ''tF1, -' ".�F° �y . ,4� i - ' ".,. r 'u�°'-T a :¢ w" �, k4 (Funded for 2013) '�► ej'•:_ ;.... r' y..N+ +qv .,.. R •' 7 .¢, . -S•j •4F?: •l' - `4?� - ti p R�' ; s ::;`!+'L-:,e+• ...,,s'';;; L rr r .,: ; •l z. .,"."F r� ` c4ro' ,,,,, i i-, 4,-, t',: q 1 :.. . .�,-.;� •:. ,L!"" _7 ,'w s y�,_.••L i, F �. :1l +""'K \ .,1 t } -. y r z,q M1 f ;,!•,,•.7.:. . Q!. w' +�: K a ,,:.� i.�,'. /.,.. i �..s.,s F��ab.# ,l "'wit �. } '''�S ��}r f`-,-F �flf '� �' ��l✓ 1j'.fl� .� ! x1 I d ti „�"1+ ,.,41";`,.,:f — l•..: : a ,�nry � r1 •-.yr fir' ✓•” ,.. " fir x. ~ .._Ili:• ,- ,�' g ,, al i �` .r• ':.$;:''''' °, m'1L w 4�': „' �' -✓'" ,Ir 'N ,�' w •' _ :$!".444.: 11�`� , k�:i q.:: ,,, ,:i.` o \-',.a+ ;5",5 -,ti _ .,�)!h".fi,k � �W:'�1:�1'. � Sl j 4 47' f} i n .,�, n.4 -Fib _ uC S` �- rt b" _ —.'ti..�a_ 'l{'i+v 9.- i,.�.'t �i fi!r " �.: 7 F pl ' _ � �. .SAS. � 1g',: ' I• S .r� ,,�.,.1� i ii 1 �1 ..11 i 1 - -<.. .I; °, r-t -.:1.: .. r. 11M ti I`!1 1 "° . 9��. 1 ,..1 .1 1 M.'tq I > ,. �" n,t y mp,, I� �a`_�„i.., y . ' -‘.':,.;..„. .-'.7i,,,, ..,,,'A 1 �+�y_F' .r '"Lli ``! .M4K-p^�3'� rs,*�ry 1 • 1 1 4Fr ,+x '<< �; s.,+}� 'R 1 1 t NON 1 I � '` 4 1 "1 1 'II(r{ i w k �'. f bra z l`..nR,: ," f ,, .4.' 5 '2s LF r j�K'g p t 5'■ c r V � I : 4 _� {, Legend -.rt°'v "r`0.4, y ?'.ar F ..�. i t 4 .k.1 , 4 jr F. ,. °i'.ir,..ek�.. hp, , F. ee.e �yt�-- K,.. , L A i..'' t ..ikrt 7M.Mi', Y . , ` . `": Q Required Parcels- Connection e' -, NJ Required Parcels Parkway• 2012 Project Tim el � ne ( REVISED ) J May — Sept. Resolution — Feasibility Study Open House Obtain Appraisals Oct. - Dec. Obtain Petitions / Order Project Execute Purchase Agreements Resolution — Public Hearing Jan. — March `13 Hold Public Hearing Begin Purchasing Homes Fall 2013 - Advertise for Bids D Spring 2014 Award Construction Contract / Begin Work .proudly Saving Richfield* 711M PUBLIC WORKS • AGENDA SECTION: RESOLUTIONS AGENDA ITEM# 6 REPORT# 21 • Milidll STAFF REPORT RICHFIELD CITY COUNCIL MEETING JANUARY 22, 2013 REPORT PREPARED BY: JEFF PEARSON,TRANSPORTATION ENGINEER NAME,TITLE DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR , / / REVIEW: a Ar . SIGNATURE It REVIEWED BY CITY MANAGER: ■ Al i 'y / ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION: Consideration of a Resolution declaring adequacy of petition and ordering preparation of feasibility report. -- I. RECOMMENDED ACTION: By Motion: 1. Adopt the attached Resolution declaring adequacy of the Richfield Parkway improvement petition and preparation of feasibility report. • 2. Schedule a Public Hearing for February 12, 2013 II. BACKGROUND City staff obtained the attached signed petition from residents on 17th Avenue that asks the City Council to consider ordering the construction of Richfield Parkway (along the current alignment of 17th Avenue). This includes the purchase of the remaining twelve residential properties on 17th Avenue from 65th Street to 63rd Street. The petition contains signatures from nine of the twelve property owners (75%). At the time this report was being prepared, two additional residents had verbally agreed to purchase-offers on their properties. However, those offers had yet to be revised and presented to them in time for the parties to be included on the petition. Discussion with the final unsigned property owner is continuing. I 01222013RichfieldParkwayPetition i I Guidance for this process was given to staff members at the May 8, 2012 work session with formal direction given at the May 22, 2012 City Council Meeting. Initial meetings with the property owners began shortly thereafter. Taft-Legion Stormwater Improvements Neighborhood Impact On October 9, 2012 the City Council approved a cooperative agreement with the Minnehaha Creek Watershed Management District to complete improvements to the stormwater treatment at Taft and Legion Lakes in Richfield. One of the items within that project is the construction of the Richfield Parkway North Connection, a road that will connect Bloomington Avenue to Richfield Parkway (17th Ave). When this project was initially presented to the public at an open house in January 2011, there was considerable resistance from residents on 17th Avenue due to the impacts of increased traffic and construction. Many of the residents complained that they expected their properties to be purchased years ago as part of the redevelopment. Special Assessment Solution In response to neighborhood frustration and concerns, the possibility emerged of completing the Richfield Parkway Phase II project (and purchasing the properties along 17th Avenue)through the use of a special assessment. This process would have several attractive results. It would: • Allow for the completion of the full Richfield Parkway cross section from 66th Street to Bloomington Avenue, similar to the Cedar Corridor Redevelopment Area Plans. • • Complete the purchase of the remaining residential properties on 17th Avenue eliminating a significant hurdle to future redevelopment. • Provide relief to residents on 17th Avenue who are frustrated with unknown future traffic and redevelopment issues. Once purchased by the City, the properties would be conveyed to the HRA for a nominal amount and the HRA would pay the annual assessment until a developer purchases the parcels. Resident Driven Process During initial discussion regarding the possibility of the special assessment project, City Council members made it clear that it must be a resident-driven process with considerable support from the property owners on 17th Avenue. With this direction, staff and consultants used the following steps in obtaining signatures: 1. Met with residents at a neighborhood meeting in May 2012 to present: an overview of the process, gauge initial response from property owners, and gather contact information to proceed with appraisals. 2. Obtained appraisals for the twelve properties along 17th Avenue. 3. Put together purchase offers based on appraised values as well as relocation costs and other required items. 4. Presented the offers to the property owners and obtained purchase agreements and petition signatures as they were accepted. 5. Revised purchase agreement dates and conditions as discussed, and verbally agreed to, with specific property owners. City staff and the consultant are continuing discussions with the sole property owner who has not come to a signed or verbal agreement. III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION A. POLICY • Minnesota Statutes Chapter 429 gives cities authority to levy special assessments. • If the special assessment is initiated by petition it must have the signatures of the owners of at least 35 percent in frontage of the property bordering the proposed improvements. B. CRITICAL TIMING ISSUES • The purchase agreements as currently written are contingent on the City Council ordering the project by March 2013. C. FINANCIAL • There is no financial impact by adopting the attached resolution and ordering the feasibility report. • The proposed funding is identified on the attached uses and sources sheet. D. LEGAL • The City Attorney has reviewed the attached resolution and will be available for questions. • E. ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS • None. IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATIONS) • Council may choose not to adopt the attached resolution which would delay the special assessment process. V. ATTACHMENTS • Resolution Declaring Adequacy of Petition and Ordering Preparation of Feasibility Report • Petition for improvement from 17th Avenue Property Owners • Funding Uses and Sources VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING • • 17th Avenue Residents • t4 �- �1 RESOLUTION NO. RESOULTION DECLARING ADEQUACY OF PETITION AND ORDERING PREPARATION OF FEASIBILITY REPORT BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota: 1. A certain petition requesting the improvement of Richfield Parkway between the center-line of 65th Street and the center-line of 63rd Street by the abutting residents, filed with the council January 22, 2013, is hereby declared to be signed by the required percentage of owners of property affected thereby. This declaration is made in conformity to Minn. Stat. §429.035. 2. The petition for proposed Improvement No.CP-41007 (North Richfield Parkway) is hereby referred to the City Engineer. The City Engineer is to prepare a feasibility report no later than January 30, 2013, reporting in a preliminary way as to whether the proposed improvement is: necessary, cost- effective, and feasible; whether it should best be made as proposed or in connection with some other improvement; the estimated cost of the improvement as recommended; and a description of the methodology used to calculate individual assessments for affected parcels. The City Engineer is directed to post a copy of the feasibility report on the City website for public 'review as soon as the report is available. The City Council will formally receive the feasibility report at its regular meeting on February 12, 2012. 3. The council will consider the improvement of Richfield Parkway as described above in accordance with the report and the assessment of abutting property for all or a portion of the cost of the improvement pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 429 at the estimated total cost as determined in the feasibility report. • 4. A public hearing shall be held on such proposed improvement on February 12, 2013, in the council chambers of the Richfield Municipal Center at 7:00 p.m. and the clerk shall give mailed and published notice of such hearing and improvement as required by law. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this 22nd day of January, 2013. • Debbie Goettel, Mayor Nancy Gibbs, City Clerk 411495v1 CAHRC145-624 1 Od- i Petition For Local Improvement City of Richfield, Minnesota November 6th, 2012. To the City Council of Richfield, Minnesota: We, the undersigned, owners of not less than 35 percent in frontage of the real property abutting on 17th Avenue South, between the center-line of 65th Street and the center-line of 63rd Street, hereby petition that such street be improved by total reconstruction pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 429. Signature of Owner(s) Description of Property 1. 6314 17th Avenue So, Richfield 6314 17th Avenue So, Richfield 2. 6320 17th Avenue So, Richfield ,q 6320 17th Avenue So, Richfield 'c_� .+ 74 4. .° c A,,; 17th Avenue So, Richfield 3 y. . ', �-� 6326 17th Avenue So, Richfield 4, •�►.. i i Jr".:41 - ' ' .. .:,. 6332 17th Avenue So Richfield ` .C. ` 6332 17th Avenue So, Richfield 5. ;,, ,.411 Z-ne . ..' -)(i.-1-7.(414.,27.4. 6338 17th Avenue So Richfield ' , 6338 17th Avenue So, Richfield 6. �'r( '' /t 6344 17th Avenue So, Richfield . '}, 6344 17th Avenue So, Richfield 7. ,/e,-,,. _ "' , ) . -. 6408 17th Avenue So, Richfield 6408 17th Avenue So, Richfield 8. 6414 17th Avenue So, Richfield 6414 17th Avenue So, Richfield :• ., g• 6426 17th Avenue So, Richfield ,J 6426 17th Avenue So, Richfield _--�- %`'�::-u. 6432 17th Avenue So, Richfield 14 v)-(.c-. C')0&i, --.--- 6432 17th Avenue So, Richfield D: 11. -• = :, �__, -=-•-- =•-"7 6438 17th Avenue So, Richfield 6438 17th Avenue So, Richfield 12. r::� - .f%- ,, 6444 17th Avenue So, Richfield ,)d di-it -it-QJ-/ �4-,1"' 6444 17th Avenue So, Richfield 413906v CAHRCI45-624 . (..P>< Richfield Parkway North Funding Uses/Sources Estimated Uses: 17th Avenue ROW $2,600,000 * ROW Services $100,000 Parkway Construction(63rd-65th) $400,000 TRPD Path $100,000 Engineering/Legal/Admin $125,000 Contingency 20% $620,000 Total Uses $3,945,000 Estimated Sources: TRPD Capital $120,000 TRPD Right of Way $200,000 Hennepin County Community Works $627,000 Total Sources $947,000 Funding Gap $2,998,000 Special Assessment Bond $2,998,000 *Estimate based on appraissals of 12 homes+differential housing payment, $200k for previously purchased homes, $10K*14 for demolition,$5k*12 for relocation. • 3 AGENDA SECTION: RESOLUTIONS AGENDA ITEM# 6 REPORT# 35 STAFF REPORT RICHFIELD CITY COUNCIL MEETING FEBRUARY 12, 2013 REPORT PREPARED BY: JEFF PEARSON, TRANSPORTATION ENGINEER NAME; TITLE DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR REVIEW: �� SIGNAI URI, iff REVIEWED BY CITY A ' MANAGER: ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION: Consideration of a resolution approving agreements for the purchase of certain properties located on 17th Avenue for the Richfield Parkway Improvement Project I. RECOMMENDED ACTION: By Motion: Approve a resolution approving agreements for the purchase of certain properties located on 17th Avenue for the Richfield Parkway Improvement Project II. BACKGROUND The Richfield Parkway Improvement Project requires additional right of way for construction of the full parkway section. Twelve single-family homes will need to be acquired. Appraisal reports were prepared for all 12 properties. The City public works staff and the right of way consultant have successfully negotiated purchase agreements with 10 of the 12 property owners. All of the agreements are contingent on City Council approval of the improvement project (Agenda Item 5) and approval of the purchase agreements. The purchase agreements for three properties (6320, 6408, and 6426 17th Avenue) are also contingent on mortgagee approval of the purchase price. The negotiated purchase prices are all equal to the value as appraised by the City's independent appraisers. The purchase price amounts for each property are listed in 02121317thAvenueHomes the attached resolution. The total of the purchase prices for the 10 properties is $1,607,000. Negotiations continue with the remaining two property owners, and the City staff will bring those proposed purchases back to the City Council for consideration at a future date. III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION A. POLICY • The City has identified the need to acquire 12 properties in connection with the Richfield Parkway Improvement Project. • Property acquisition procedures set forth by the Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisitions Policies Act of 1970 are being followed. B. CRITICAL TIMING ISSUES • Offers contingent on the City Council ordering the Richfield Parkway project have been made to the property owners. • Properties with signed offer agreements will begin the closing process after City Council approval of the attached resolution and ordering of the project. C. FINANCIAL • Funding for the Improvements including roadway construction and purchase of the 17th Avenue parcels will primarily be provided through a Special Assessment Bond in the amount of$2,998,000. • Additional funding will be provided by Hennepin County using Community Works Funds in the amount of$627,000. • See Appendix A in previous Staff Report for Sources and Uses D. LEGAL • The City attorneys have overseen the property acquisition process and will be available to answer any questions. E. ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS • None IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION(S) • If the Council does not approve the previous agenda item and order the improvement of Richfield Parkway, the Council should either table this item or reject the purchase agreements. • If the Council orders the improvement, the Council may choose to delay approval, or not approve, the purchase agreements. However, some property owners have indicated that they would like to be acquired as soon as possible, and delay or disapproval could affect the timing or viability of the project. V. ATTACHMENTS • Resolution approving agreements for the purchase of certain properties located on 17th Avenue for the Richfield Parkway Improvement Project. • See attachments for Staff Report titled "Richfield Parkway Improvements" VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING • 17th Avenue residents RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION APPROVING AGREEMENTS FOR THE PURCHASE OF CERTAIN PROPERTIES LOCATED ON 17TH AVENUE FOR THE RICHFIELD PARKWAY IMPROVEMENT PROJECT WHEREAS, the City of Richfield has undertaken an improvement project, No. CP 410007 (North Richfield Parkway Improvement Project)(the "Project"), which involves the reconstruction of Richfield Parkway / 17th Avenue between 63rd Street and 65th Street; and, WHEREAS, in order to construct the Project, the City Council has determined that it is reasonably necessary to purchase certain real properties located adjacent to 17th Avenue, all in the City of Richfield, Hennepin County, Minnesota; and WHEREAS, the City has obtained appraisals of the properties from qualified independent professional appraisers; and WHEREAS, the City staff and consulting right of way agent have negotiated purchase agreements for the purchase of several properties. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota as follows: 1. The City Council hereby approves the purchase agreements as described in the attached Exhibit A. 2. The Mayor and City Manager are to execute the purchase agreements for said properties and to take all other actions necessary to effectuate the transfer contemplated by the purchase agreements. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this 12th day of February, 2013. Debbie Goettel, Mayor ATTEST: Nancy Gibbs, City Clerk li - d'` . EXHIBIT A Seller(s) Property address Purchase Price Phillip and Susan Emery 6320 17th Avenue $160,000.00 Layne Rosin 6326 17th Avenue $145,000.00 Andrew and Patricia Hartle 6332 17th Avenue $175,000.00 Roseanne Lindberg 6338 17th Avenue $155,000.00 Charles Peterson 6344 17th Avenue $145,000.00 Teresa Coria Rosales 6408 17th Avenue $170,000.00 Champawattee Beni 6426 17th Avenue $145,000.00 William and Donna Dillan 6432 17th Avenue $175,000.00 Adam Gaertner 6438 17th Avenue $180,000.00 Brian and LouAnn Johnson 6444 17th Avenue $157.00.000 AGENDA SECTION: OTHER BUS. AGENDA ITEM# 7 REPORT# 36 MIAIIII STAFF REPORT RICHFIELD CITY COUNCIL MEETING FEBRUARY 12, 2013 JOHN STARK, COMMUNITY REPORT PREPARED BY: DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR& KRISTIN ASHER, CITY ENGINEER NAME,TITLE DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR REVIEW: ® An iggPfl REVIEWED BY CITY Ef/ ' 4 . MANAGER: fr , ./ ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION: Consideration of an Agreement with Hennepin County for the awarding and use of County funding for costs associated with Richfield Parkway. I. RECOMMENDED ACTION: By Motion: Approve an Agreement with Hennepin County for the awarding and use of County funding for costs associated with Richfield Parkway. II. BACKGROUND Hennepin County has been an important partner in the development of the Cedar Point development area and its associated public infrastructure from the beginning of the project. Hennepin County funding helped with both the acquisition of homes and with the construction of the roundabout. In addition to $127,000 in previous County funding that was encumbered but never spent, the Hennepin County Board of Commissioners has approved $250,000 from both its 2012 and 2013 Capital Budgets towards costs associated with Richfield Parkway. Specifically, these funds totaling $627,000 must be used for: appraisals, property acquisitions, relocation expenses, environmental remediation and demolitions. 02122013 Hennepin Co Richfield Parkway Funding Agreement III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION A. POLICY • The City Council has approved the construction of Richfield Parkway between 63rd and 66th Streets. • The City Council has directed staff to seek outside funding to assist with project costs. B. CRITICAL TIMING ISSUES • Based on the status of negotiations with homeowners and the ongoing process for securing additional City funding, the funds governed by this Agreement may be needed soon. • The Hennepin County Board must formally consider this Agreement prior to its execution; they are scheduled to do so at their April 9, 2013 meeting. C. FINANCIAL • The Cost Participation Agreement does not include any specific requirement for the City of Richfield to utilize any of its own additional funding for project costs. D. LEGAL • Hennepin County legal staff has reviewed the Agreement. E. ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS • Funding associated with this Agreement may be used for "hazardous materials abatement." IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION(S) • None. V. ATTACHMENTS • Cost Participation Agreement VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING • None. Hennepin County Contract No. A120444 COST PARTICIPATION AGREEMENT FOR RICHFIELD PARKWAY This Agreement made and entered into by and between the County of Hennepin, a public body corporate and politic under the laws of the State of Minnesota, hereinafter referred to as the "COUNTY",A-2300 Government Center, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55487, on behalf of the Hennepin County Department of Housing, Community Works and Transit, 701 Fourth Avenue South, Suite 400,Minneapolis, Minnesota 55415-1843, and the City of Richfield, a Minnesota municipal corporation,hereinafter referred to as the"CITY", 6700 Portland Avenue South, Richfield, Minnesota 55423. WHEREAS, Richfield Parkway is a planned replacement roadway providing a parkway amenity to northeast Richfield and a direct connection from south Minneapolis to Cedar Point Commons (the"Project"); and WHEREAS,the CITY and COUNTY have worked cooperatively in concept level development of the Project; and WHEREAS, the COUNTY has designated funds for the Project in the 2012 and 2013 Capital Budget; and WHEREAS,the COUNTY wishes to contract with the CITY for completion of the Project; and WHEREAS, the COUNTY has the authority to contribute to the Project pursuant to Minn. Stat. Ch. 163 and §§ 471.85, 471.59 and other applicable law. NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual undertakings and agreements hereafter set forth, the COUNTY and the CITY agree as follows: 1. Term and Cost of the Agreement. The CITY agrees to furnish the public improvements described in Section 2 during the period commencing when the COUNTY signs this Agreement and terminating December 31, 2015, for an amount not to exceed $627,000.00. The COUNTY agrees to reimburse the CITY for such public improvements up to $627,000.00 as further set forth in this Agreement. 2. Services to be Provided. The CITY shall use all funds received under this Agreement as detailed in Attachment A. The CITY shall be solely responsible for securing all additional funds needed for completion of the Project. The CITY will be responsible for all phases of the Project-related improvements. 3. Payment for Services. Payment for services shall be made directly to the CITY after completion of the services upon the presentation of a claim in the manner provided by law governing the COUNTY'S payment of claims and/or invoices. The CITY shall submit invoices for services rendered on forms which may be furnished by the COUNTY. Payment shall be made within forty-five (45)days from receipt of the invoice. 4. Independent Contractor. The CITY shall select the means, method, and manner of completing the Project. Nothing is intended or should be construed in any manner as creating or establishing the relationship of a partnership or joint venture between the parties hereto or as constituting the CITY as the agent, representative, or employee of the COUNTY for any purpose or in any manner whatsoever. The CITY is to be and shall remain an independent contractor with respect to all work or services performed under this Agreement. The CITY represents that it has or will secure at its own expense all personnel required in completing the Project. Any and all personnel of the CITY or other persons while engaged in the performance of any work or services required by the CITY under this Agreement shall have no contractual relationship with the COUNTY, and shall not be considered employees of the COUNTY. Any and all claims that may or might arise under the Minnesota Unemployment Insurance Law or the Workers' Compensation Act of the State of Minnesota on behalf of said personnel, arising out of employment or alleged employment, including,without limitation, claims of discrimination against the CITY, its officers, agents, contractors, or employees shall in no way be the responsibility of the COUNTY. The CITY shall defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the COUNTY, its officials, officers, agents,volunteers, and employees from any and all such claims irrespective of any determination of any pertinent tribunal, agency, board, commission, or court. Such personnel or other persons shall neither require nor be entitled to any compensation, rights, or benefits of any kind whatsoever from the COUNTY, including, without limitation,tenure rights, medical and hospital care, sick and vacation leave, Workers' Compensation, Unemployment Insurance, disability, severance pay, and retirement benefits. 5. Data Privacy. The CITY, its officers, agents, owners,partners, employees, volunteers and subcontractors agree to abide by the provisions of the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act, Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, and all other applicable state and federal laws, rules, regulations and orders relating to data privacy or confidentiality, and as any of the same may be amended. The CITY agrees to defend, indemnify and hold harmless the COUNTY, its officials, officers, agents, employees, and volunteers from any claims resulting from the CITY's officers', agents', owners',partners', employees',volunteers', assignees' or subcontractors' unlawful disclosure and/or use of such protected data. The terms of this paragraph shall survive the cancellation or termination of this Agreement. 6. Records—Availability/Access. Subject to the requirements of Minnesota Statutes Section 16C.05, Subd. 5 (as may be amended),the CITY agrees that the County,the State Auditor,the Legislative Auditor or any of their duly authorized representatives, at any time during normal business hours, and as often as they may reasonably deem necessary, shall have access to and the right to examine, audit, excerpt, and transcribe any books, documents,papers, records, etc.,which are pertinent to the accounting practices and procedures of the CITY and involve transactions relating to this Agreement. Such materials shall be maintained and such access and rights shall be in force and effect during the period of the contract and for six(6) years after its termination or cancellation. 7. Liability. It is further understood that neither the COUNTY, nor its elected officials, 2 - 3 officers, agents and employees, either in their individual or official capacity, shall be responsible or liable in any manner to the CITY for any claims, demands,judgments, fines,penalties, expenses, actions or causes of actions of any kind or character arising out of or by reason of negligent performance of the herein described work by the CITY, or arising out of the negligence of any contractor under the contract let by the CITY for the performance of said work; and the CITY agrees to defend, save and keep said COUNTY, its elected officials, officers, agents and employees harmless from all claims, demands,judgments, fines,penalties, expense, action or causes of actions and expenses (including, without limitation, reasonable attorneys' fees,witness fees, and disbursements incurred in the defense thereof) arising out of negligent performance by the CITY, its officers, agents or employees. 8. Merger and Modification. a. It is understood and agreed that the entire Agreement between the parties is contained herein and that this Agreement supersedes all oral agreements and negotiations between the parties relating to the subject matter hereof. All items referred to in this Agreement are incorporated or attached and are deemed to be part of this Agreement. b. Any alterations,variations, modifications, or waivers of provisions of this Agreement shall only be valid when they have been reduced to writing as an amendment to this Agreement signed by the parties hereto. c. Notwithstanding anything to the contrary, if this Agreement is cancelled by the COUNTY for any reason other than a material default by the CITY after notice and a 90 day opportunity to cure,the COUNTY shall be obligated to reimburse the CITY for all Project-related expenditures (up to the $627,000.00 not to exceed amount in Section 1) made in reliance on this Agreement. 9. Default and Cancellation. a. If the CITY fails to perform any of the provisions of this Agreement or so fails to administer the work as to endanger the performance of the Agreement,this shall constitute a default. Unless the CITY's default is excused by the COUNTY,the COUNTY may upon written notice immediately cancel this Agreement in its entirety. Additionally, failure to comply with the terms of this Agreement shall be just cause for the COUNTY for delaying payment until the CITY's compliance. b. The COUNTY's failure to insist upon strict performance of any provision or to exercise any right under this Agreement shall not be deemed a relinquishment or waiver of the same,unless consented to in writing. Such consent shall not constitute a general waiver or relinquishment throughout the entire term of the Agreement. 3 c. This Agreement may be canceled with or without cause by either party upon thirty(30) days' written notice. 10. Contract Administration. In order to coordinate the work or services of the CITY with the activities of the Hennepin County Department of Housing, Community Works and Transit so as to accomplish the purposes of this contract,Andrew Gillett, or his successor, shall manage this contract on behalf of the COUNTY and serve as liaison between the COUNTY and the CITY. John Stark, or his successor, shall be the contact person for the CITY. 11. Notices. Any notice or demand which must be given or made by a party hereto under the terms of this Agreement or any statute or ordinance shall be in writing, and shall be sent registered or certified mail. Notices to the COUNTY shall be sent to the County Administrator with a copy to the originating Department at the address given in the opening paragraph of the Agreement. Notice to the CITY shall be sent to the Assistant Executive Director at the address stated in the opening paragraph of the Agreement. THIS PORTION OF PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK 4 COUNTY BOARD APPROVAL CITY,having signed this Agreement, and the Hennepin County Board of Commissioners having duly approved this Agreement on the day of ,2013 and pursuant to such approval,the proper County officials having signed this Agreement,the parties hereto agree to be bound by the provisions herein set forth. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ATTEST: By: By: Deputy Clerk of the County Board Chair of Its County Board Date: Date: APPROVED AS TO FORM: And: Assistant/Deputy/County Administrator By: Date: Assistant County Attorney Date: And: Assistant County Administrator, Public Works Date: APPROVED AS TO EXECUTION: RECOMMENDED FOR APPROVAL By: By: Assistant County Attorney Director,Department of Housing, Date: Community Works &Transit Date: CITY OF RICHFIELD By: Its: Mayor 5 ATTACHMENT A Eligible Activities CITY OF RICHFIELD RICHFIELD PARKWAY Item Property Appraisals Property Acquisition Relocation Expenses Hazardous Materials Abatement Building Demolition Total Cost Not To Exceed $627,000.00 6