The URL can be used to link to this page

no attachmentsREGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING RICHFIELD MUNICIPAL CENTER, COUNCIL CHAMBERS OCTOBER 28, 2014 7:00 PM INTRODUCTORY PROCEEDINGS Call to order 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. Pledge of Allegiance Approval of the minutes of the (1) Special City Council Worksession of October 14, 2014 and (2) Regular City Council Meeting of October 14, 2014. PRESENTATIONS 1. Update on the construction of Richfield Bloomington Honda. 2. Annual meeting with the Arts Commission. 3. Annual Meeting with the Friendship City Commission. 4. Presentation of the United States Fire Administration National Fire Academy title of Executive Fire Officer upon Richfield Fire Chief Wayne Kewitsch. 5. Presentation of the Certificate of Achievement for Financial Reporting Award to Finance Manager Chris Regis. (Council Memo No. 98) 6. . Hats off to hometown hits COUNCIL DISCUSSION AGENDA APPROVAL 7. Approval of the agenda. 8. 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 the approval of the Safe Routes to School Plan. Staff Report No. 183 B. Consideration of the approval of the transfer of funds to close out certain capital project funds. Staff Report No. 184 C. Consideration of the approval of the resolutions to call the Gross Revenue Ice Arena Bonds, Series 1999, and to authorize a $563,213 internal loan to fund the call of the Gross Revenue Ice Arena Bonds, Series 1999. Staff Report No. 185 D. Consideration of the approval of the resolutions approving subdivision of the remnant parcels at 6245 & 6301 Bloomington Avenue and approving first read of transitory ordinances authorizing the sale of land located at 6245 and 6301 Bloomington Avenue South by the City of Richfield. Staff Report No. 186 E. Consideration of the approval of the lease agreement between the City of Richfield and the Minnesota Magicians for use of the space formerly occupied by Hat Trick Hockey to conduct physical training programs. Staff Report No. 187 9. Consideration of items, if any, removed from Consent Calendar PUBLIC HEARINGS 10. Continued public hearing regarding the resolutions pertaining to the annual 77th Street maintenance district assessment process. Staff Report No. 188 11. Public hearing regarding the special assessment roll for CP -41007 (North Richfield Parkway) and consideration of a resolution approving the assessment roll. Staff Report No. 189 PROPOSED ORDINANCES 12. Consideration of a resolution, and first reading of an ordinance establishing a 12 month moratorium on the consideration of new establishments allowing indoor smoking or sampling of tobacco or similar products. Staff Report No. 190 RESOLUTIONS 13. Consideration of the adoption of resolutions supporting the Preliminary Concept #4B design for 66th Street between 1-35W and 16th Avenue and supporting the application of a design variance to reduce right-of-way impact. Staff Report No. 191 14. Consideration of a Resolution Authorizing the City of Richfield to file a HUD Fair Housing Complaint. Staff Report No. 192 OTHER BUSINESS 15. Consideration of a request for the City Council to confirm the appointment of Jay Henthorne as Public Safety Director for the City of Richfield. Staff Report No. 193 16. Consideration of the appointments to City advisory commissions. 17. City Manager's Report Staff Report No. 194 CITY MANAGER'S REPORT CLAIMS AND PAYROLLS 18. Claims and payrolls 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. 19. 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 MINUTES Richfield, Minnesota Special City Council Worksession October 14, 2014 CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order by Mayor Goettel at 5:45 p.m. in the Bartholomew Room. Council Members Debbie Goettel, Mayor; Sue Sandahl; Pat Elliott; Edwina Garcia; and Tom Present: Fitzhenry. Staff Present: Steven L. Devich, City Manager; Mike Eastling, Public Works Director; Jay Henthorne, Acting Public Safety Director/Police Chief; Wayne Kewitsch, Fire Services Director/Fire Chief; Chris Regis, Finance Manager; Kristin Asher, Assistant Public Works Director; Robert Hintgen, Utilities Superintendent; Jeff Pearson, Transportation Engineer; Chris Link, Operations Superintendent; and Cheryl Krumholz, Executive Coordinator. Item # 1 DISCUSSION REGARDING THE 2015 UTIILITY BUDGET (COUNCIL MEMO NO. 93) Public Works Director Eastling reviewed the 2014 revised and 2015 proposed utility division budget and the 2015 proposed street light user fee. Item # 2 DISCUSSION REGARDING INTERSECTIONS ON 66TH STREET (COUNCIL MEMO NO. 93) Transportation Engineer Pearson and Jack Broz, Avenue Design Partners, introduced the topic of intersection control options, including stoplights and roundabouts, along main roadways in Richfield. Acting Police Chief Henthorne and Fire Chief Kewitsch expressed their support for roundabouts related to improved enforcement and reduction in serious accident rates. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned by unanimous consent at 6:55 p.m. Date Approved: October 28, 2014 Debbie Goettel Mayor Cheryl Krumholz Steven L. Devich Executive Coordinator City Manager CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES Richfield, Minnesota Regular Meeting October 14, 2014 CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order by Mayor Goettel at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers. Members Present: Debbie Goettel, Mayor; Sue Sandahl; Pat Elliott; Edwina Garcia; and Tom Fitzhenry. Staff Present: Steven L. Devich, City Manager; Mike Eastling, Public Works Director; Jay Henthorne, Acting Public Safety Director; Karen Barton, Assistant Community Development Director; Chris Regis, Finance Manager; Chris Link, Public Works Operations Superintendent; Melissa Poehlman, City Planner; Mary Tietjen City Attorney; and Cheryl Krumholz, Executive Coordinator. OPEN FORUM None. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Mayor Goettel led the audience in the Pledge of Allegiance. APPROVAL OF MINUTES M/Sandahl, S/Fitzhenry to approve the minutes of the (1) Special City Council Worksession of September 23, 2014 and (2) Regular City Council Meeting of September 23, 2014. Motion carried 5-0. Item #1 COUNCIL DISCUSSION • Hats Off to Hometown Hits Council Members Garcia and Sandahl acknowledged the success of the recent Richfield Tribute to the Arts event. Council Member Garcia announced the following upcoming events: Ribbon cutting ceremony at Savers at the HUB on October 17 Council Meeting Minutes -2- October 14, 2014 • Half Haunted Halloween at Wood Lake Nature Center on October 18 • MN Magicians Face-off Against Breast Cancer on October 25 • Tip -a -Cop at Houlihan's on October 24 Operations Superintendent Link presented information on the snow plow notification process. Item #2 COUNCIL APPROVAL OF AGENDA M/Fitzhenry, S/Garcia to approve the agenda. Motion carried 5-0. Item #3 CONSENT CALENDAR A. Consideration of the approval of the request by St. Nicholas Episcopal Church, 7227 Penn Avenue, for a temporary on -sale intoxicating liquor license for their Fall Fiesta Auction on November 1, 2014 S.R. No. 170 B. Consideration of the approval of the request by the Church of St. Richard, 7540 Penn Avenue, for a temporary on -sale intoxicating liquor license for their Novemberfest event on November 8-9, 2014 S.R. No 171 C. Consideration of the approval of the renewal of the contract with Chief's Towing, Inc. for Public Safety towing services for December 1, 2014 through November 30, 2015 S.R. No. 172 D. Consideration of the approval of the resolutions ap�roving the sale of portions of land at 6314 -17th Avenue, 6320 -17th Avenue and 6408-17t Avenue S.R. No. 173 RESOLUTION NO. 10976 RESOLUTION APPROVING SALE OF LAND LOCATED AT 6314 17th AVENUE SOUTH BY THE CITY OF RICHFIELD This resolution appears as Resolution No. 10976. RESOLUTION NO. 10977 RESOLUTION APPROVING SALE OF LAND LOCATED AT 6320 17th AVENUE SOUTH BY THE CITY OF RICHFIELD This resolution appears as Resolution No. 10977. RESOLUTION NO. 10978 RESOLUTION APPROVING SALE OF LAND LOCATED AT 6408 17th AVENUE SOUTH BY THE CITY OF RICHFIELD This resolution appears as Resolution No. 10978. E. Consideration of the approval of the 2014-2015 contract with the City of Bloomington using federal grant funds to provide services in public health emergency preparedness/bioterrorism and the development of a response system S.R. No. 174 M/Goettel, S/Elliott to approve the Consent Calendar. Council Meeting Minutes -3- Motion carried 5-0. October 14, 2014 Item #4 CONSIDERATION OF ITEMS, IF ANY, REMOVED FROM THE CONSENT CALENDAR None. Item #5 PUBLIC HEARING REGARDING A RESOLUTION GRANTING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A BUILDING ADDITION AND RESTAURANT EXPANSION AND A VARIANCE FOR A REDUCED PARKING SETBACK AT 7514 LYNDALE AVENUE S.R. NO. 175 Council Member Garcia presented Staff Report No. 175. Patti Sterbuck, property owner, was present for questions. M/Fitzhenry, S/Goettel to close the public hearing. Motion carried 5-0. M/Garcia, S/Sandahl that the following resolution be adopted and that it be made part of these minutes: RESOLUTION NO. 10979 RESOLUTION APPROVING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND VARIANCE FOR A TRADITIONAL (CLASS II) RESTAURANT AT 7514 LYNDALE AVENUE Motion carried 5-0. This resolution appears as Resolution No. 10979. Item #6 PUBLIC HEARING AND SECOND READING OF AN ORDINANCE ESTABLISHING A SIX-MONTH MORATORIUM ON CONSIDERATION OF MEDICAL MARIJUANA DISTRIBUTION FACILITIES AND A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE SUMMARY PUBLICATION OF THE ORDINANCE S.R. NO. 176 Council Member Fitzhenry presented Staff Report No. 176. M/Sandahl, S/Elliott to close the public hearing. Motion carried 5-0. M/Fitzhenry, S/Goettel that this constitutes the second reading of Bill No. 2014-6, T distribution facilities, that it be published in the official newspaper and that it be made part of these minutes, and that the following resolution be adopted and that it be made part of these minutes: RESOLUTION NO. 10980 RESOLUTION APPROVING SUMMARY PUBLICATION OF AN ORDINANCE ESTABLISHING A SIX-MONTH MORATORIUM RELATED TO MEDICAL MARIJUANA DISTRIBUTION FACILITIES Council Meeting Minutes -4- October 14, 2014 Motion carried 5-0. This resolution appears as Resolution No. 10980. Item #7 PUBLIC HEARING REGARDING A RESOLUTION ADOPTING THE SPECIAL ASSESSMENT ROLL FOR WEED ELIMINATION FROM PRIVATE PROPERTY AND THE REMOVAL OR ELIMINATION OF PUBLIC HEALTH OR SAFETY HAZARDS FROM PRIVATE PROPERTY S.R. NO. 177 Council Member Sandahl presented Staff Report No. 177. M/Goettel, S/Sandahl to close the public hearing. Motion carried 5-0. M/Sandahl, S/Fitzhenry that the following resolution be adopted and that it be made part of thPRP miniitPs- RESOLUTION NO. 10981 RESOLUTION ADOPTING ASSESSMENT FOR WEED ELIMINATION FROM PRIVATE PROPERTY AND REMOVAL OR ELIMINATION OF PUBLIC HEALTH OR SAFETY HAZARDS FROM PRIVATE PROPERTY. Council Member Elliott stated that there should be a discussion on how to require the property owners at the time the work is done be responsible for payment of the assessment; not the next buyer or owner. He requested the City Attorney review the establishment of an ordinance that puts a lien on the property for payment of the assessment. Finance Manager Regis explained the assessment process. Motion carried 5-0. This resolution appears as Resolution No. 10981. Item #8 PUBLIC HEARING REGARDING A RESOLUTION ADOPTING THE SPECIAL ASSESSMENT ROLL FOR UNPAID FALSE ALARM USER FEES AGAINST PRIVATE PROPERTY S.R. NO. 178 Council Member Elliott presented Staff Report No. 178. M/Goettel, S/Sandahl to close the public hearing. Motion carried 5-0. M/Elliott, S/Goettel that the following resolution be adopted and that it be made part of these minutes: RESOLUTION NO. 10982 RESOLUTION ADOPTING ASSESSMENT FOR UNPAID FALSE ALARM FEES FROM PRIVATE PROPERTY Motion carried 5-0. This resolution appears as Resolution No. 10982. Council Meeting Minutes -5- October 14, 2014 Item #9 CONDUCT AND CONTINUE THE PUBLIC HEARING TO OCTOBER 28, 2014 REGARDING A RESOLUTION PROPOSING TO ASSESS COMMERCIAL PROPERTIES IN THE 77TH STREET ASSESSMENT DISTRICT FOR COSTS INCURRED TO MAINTAIN THE AREA FOR 2013 AND A RESOLUTION PROPOSING A SIMILAR ASSESSMENT PROCESS TO BE IMPLEMENTED FOR 2015 S.R. NO. 179 Council Member Sandahl presented Staff Report No. 179. M/Goettel; S/Sandahl to continue the public hearing to October 28, 2014. Motion carried 5-0. Item #10 PUBLIC HEARING REGARDING A RESOLUTION ADOPTING THE ASSESSMENT FOR REMOVAL OF DISEASED TREES FROM PRIVATE PROPERTY FOR WORK ORDERED FROM JANUARY 1, 2013 THROUGH DECEMBER 31, 2013 S.R. NO. 180 Mayor Goettel presented Staff Report No. 180. Jim Fingerman, 6612 Vincent Avenue, stated he did not believe he should be accountable for the cost of the assessment because he did not own the property at the time the tree was removed. Public Works Director Eastling explained the assessment process. Council Member Elliott requested that 6612 Vincent Avenue be removed from the assessment roll and be further reviewed. M/Goettel, S/Sandahl to close the public hearing. Motion carried 5-0. M/Goettel; S/Elliott that the property at 6612 Vincent Avenue be removed from the assessment roll and considered at the October 28, 2014 City Council meeting and that the 1__ __1_._1__1 _.__111__1 :11__ RESOLUTION NO. 10983 RESOLUTION DECLARING COSTS TO BE ASSESSED AND ORDERING PREPARATION OF PROPOSED ASSESSMENT FOR REMOVAL OF DISEASED TREES FROM PRIVATE PROPERTY FOR THE PERIOD OF JANUARY 1, 2013 TO DECEMBER 31, 2013 Motion carried 5-0. This resolution appears as Resolution No. 10983. Item #11 PUBLIC HEARING REGARDING A RESOLUTION PROPOSING TO ASSESS COMMERCIAL PROPERTIES IN THE LYNDALE/HUB/NICOLLET (LHN) DISTRICT FOR COSTS INCURRED TO MAINTAIN THE AREA FOR 2013 AND A RESOLUTION PROPOSING A SIMILAR ASSESSMENT PROCESS TO BE IMPLEMENTED IN 2015 S.R. NO. 181 Council Meeting Minutes -6- October 14, 2014 Council Member Fitzhenry presented Staff Report No. 181. Dale Woodbeck, 6120 Lyndale Avenue, Lakewinds Co-op, requested this property be removed from the district and not specially assessed because there is a maintenance agreement with the City that provides for these services. M/Goettel, S/Fitzhenry to close the public hearing. Motion carried 5-0. M/Fitzhenry, S/Sandahl that the following resolution be adopted and that it be made part of these minutes - RESOLUTION NO. 10984 RESOLUTION ADOPTING ASSESSMENT FOR LYNDALE/HUB/NICOLLET (LHN) MAINTENANCE FOR THE PERIOD JANUARY 1, 2013 THROUGH DECEMBER 31, 2013 This resolution appears as Resolution No. 10984. RESOLUTION NO. 10985 RESOLUTION ORDERING UNDERTAKING OF CURRENT SERVICE PROJECT LYNDALE/HUB/NICOLLET (LHN) MAINTENANCE JANUARY 1, 2015 THROUGH DECEMBER 31, 2015 This resolution appears as Resolution No. 10985. Motion carried 5-0. Item #12 CONSIDERATION OF A RESOLUTION GRANTING EXTENSION OF LAND USE APPROVALS AT 6330, 6400 AND 6440 LYN DALE AVENUE S. R. NO. 182 Council Member Garcia presented Staff Report No. 182. Colleen Carey, Cornerstone Group President, explained the request for an extension, including the investment components. Council Member Elliott expressed support for the vision of the development but that he had concerns regarding the ability for financing to complete the project. He added concerns about not being provided with updates on the project. Council Member Elliott stated he could support a six-month extension with the public amenities and financing in place. Ms. Carey discussed the status of the public amenities and the Metropolitan Council amended grant agreement being reviewed. She stated Cornerstone is intent on providing what was presented and promised. Council Member Sandahl expressed support for the extension. Mayor Goettel stated these developments take time and that she supported the extension. Assistant Community Development Director Barton stated that Cornerstone made staff aware of the amendment to the grant agreement approximately two months ago. Council Meeting Minutes -7- October 14, 2014 Council Member Fitzhenry supported the extension and requested monthly updates on the project. M/Garcia, S/Sandahl to approve a six-month extension, and authorize staff to provide ai additional six-month extension of Final Development Plans and the associated Conditional Use Avenue, contingent upon substantial completion of the construction of the quasi -public improvements and securing full prosect funding by June 10, 2015 and that the following resolution be adopted and that it be made part of these minutes: RESOLUTION NO. 10986 RESOLUTION GRANTING EXTENSION OF LAND USE APPROVALS AT 6330, 6400 AND 6440 LYN DALE AVENUE Motion carried 5-0. This resolution appears as Resolution No. 10986. Item #13 CITY MANAGER'S REPORT City Manager Devich reported on a recent Xcel Energy Forum he attended. Item #14 CLAIMS AND PAYROLLS M/Fitzhenry, S/Sandahl that the following claims and payrolls be approved: U.S. Bank 10/14/14 A/P Checks: 234876-235386 2,745,421.71 Payroll: 104704-105361 $ 1,139,380.98 TOTAL $ 3,884,802.69 Motion carried 5-0. OPEN FORUM None. ADJOURNMENT The City Council open meeting was adjourned by unanimous consent at 8:26 p.m. Date Approved: October 28, 2014. Debbie Goettel Mayor Cheryl Krumholz Steven L. Devich Executive Coordinator City Manager CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Office of City Manager October 23, 2014 Council Memorandum No. 98 The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council Subject: Presentation of the Certificate of Achievement for Financial Reporting Council Members: The City was recently notified that it's Comprehensive Annual Financial Report (CAFR) for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2013 qualifies for a Certificate of Achievement for Excellence in Financial Reporting from the Government Finance Officers Association (GFOA). The Certificate of Achievement is the highest form of recognition in governmental accounting and financial reporting and its attainment represents a significant accomplishment by the government and its management. When a Certificate of Achievement is awarded to a government, an Award of Financial Reporting Achievement is also given to the individual designated as primarily responsible for having earned the certificate. This is the 30th consecutive year that Richfield has earned the award and 34th award overall. The GFOA, which is responsible for presenting the certification, is a nonprofit, professional association serving 15,000 government finance professionals. The association provides a variety of technical publications in various fields of government finance and represents the public community of Washington, D.C. Richfield's CAFR was judged by an impartial panel to meet the constructive spirit of full disclosure effort to clearly communicate its financial story and motivate potential persons and users to read the financial report. Presentation of the Certificate of Achievement for Financial Reporting Award to Finance Manager Chris Regis is scheduled for the October 28, 2014 City Council meeting. R�spec lly submitted, e n L. D ich City Manager SLD:cak E-mail; Department Directors Finance Manager Assistant City Manager REPORT PREPARED BY: DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR REVIEW: OTHER DEPARTMENT REVIEW: CITY MANAGER REVIEW: ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION: AGENDA SECTION: CONSENT CALENDAR AGENDA ITEM # 8.A. STAFF REPORT NO. 183 CITY COUNCIL MEETING 10/28/2014 Jeff Pearson, Transportation Engineer Mike Eastling, Public Works Director N/A Steven L. Devich Consideration of the approval of the Safe Routes to School Plan. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: The Transportation Commission recommended approval of the attached Richfield Safe Routes to School Plan at the September 3, 2014 meeting. The purpose of the Safe Routes to School (SRTS) Plan is to identify opportunities and priorities to increase walking and biking to schools, and develop an implementation plan for making improvements in these areas. A comprehensive process involving the Richfield School District, the City of Richfield, parents, and residents was begun in late -2012 to develop a plan for the six public schools in Richfield. Through site visits, principal interviews, data gathering, and stakeholder input, a set of recommendations has been developed to address the needs of students walking and biking to school. These improvements involve actions by multiple stakeholders and include both infrastructure and policy changes. Funding and administration for the creation of the plan came from the Statewide Health Improvement Program (SHIP) through Bloomington Public Health. RECOMMENDED ACTION: By motion: Approve the 2014 Richfield Safe Routes to School Plan as recommended by the Transportation Commission. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION: A. HISTORICAL CONTEXT: . The Safe Routes to School Plan is consistent with previous planning efforts completed by the City including: o Comprehensive Plan 0 2009 Safe Routes to School Study Bicycle Master Plan o Complete Streets Policy • Extensive input was gathered as part of the planning effort in order to gather concerns both around individual schools and city-wide. • Besides examining conditions and issues near each school, the plan also makes overall short-term, mid-term, and long-term recommendations for the School District and City to implement. . The plan includes some funding source recommendations to examine further in order to aid in implementation costs. B. POLICIES (resolutions, ordinances, regulations, statutes, exc): The Safe Routes to School Plan is consistent with the City's Comprehensive Plan - Transportation Strategy #1: Improve non -motorized and pedestrian travel in the City (p. 6-2). c. CRITICAL TIMING ISSUES: Having an approved plan will allow staff to coordinate plan suggestions with upcoming road projects. D. FINANCIAL IMPACT: . There is no financial impact to approving the plan. . The City may apply for Federal and State SRTS funding when available to assist in project implementation. E. LEGAL CONSIDERATION: The City Attorney will be available to answer questions. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION(S): The Council may choose to not approve the SRTS plan and direct staff on how to proceed. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING: None ATTACHMENTS: Description Type D 2014 Richfield SRTS Plan Backup Material CITY OF RICHFIELD T d Safe Routes to School F Comprehensive. Plan f. Richfield Safe Routes to School Comprehensive Plan April 2014 Prepared By: PP-= Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. Statewide Health Improvement Program SHIP H E A L T H R E F O R M ME EM CITY OF RICHFIELD Safe Routes to School Comprehensive -Plans' Acknowledgements This Safe Routes to School plan could not have been created without the time, energy, knowledge, and input of the following individuals and agencies: Jeff Pearson, City of Richfield Public Works Michael Schwartz, Richfield Public Schools Jessica Smith, Bloomington Public Health Julie Zamora, Bloomington Public Health Lee Ann Wise, Centennial Elementary School Principal Marta Shahsavand, Richfield Dual Language School Principal Jason Wenschlag, Richfield High School Principal Brian Zambreno, Richfield Middle School Principal Jodi Markworth, Sheridan Hills Elementary School Principal Joey Page, Richfield STEM School Principal Statewide Health SHIP provement M„ Kimey Horn ImProgram H EALTH REFORM `� and Associates, Inc. CITY OF RICHFIELD Safe Routes to School'` Comp Y°ehensive. Plan Table of Contents Executive Summary Introduction ........... Background ............ SIP, �P A r C7H: L Af �l ProjectProcess................................................................................................................................. ExistingConditions Assessment...............................................................................................................2 StudentData........................................................................................................................................3 Infrastructure....................................................................................................................................... 4 CentennialElementary.....................................................................................................................5 Richfield Dual Language and STEM Schools.......................................................................................6 SheridanHills Elementary.................................................................................................................7 RichfieldMiddle School....................................................................................................................8 RichfieldHigh School......................................................................................................................10 Policyand Programming....................................................................................................................11 Challenges and Opportunities................................................................................................................11 Recommendations................................................................................................................................ 12 Short-Term........................................................................................................................................ 13 Mid -Term ........................................................................................................................................... 14 Long-Term......................................................................................................................................... 15 Funding and Implementation................................................................................................................16 Appendix..............................................................................................................................................A-1 Student Travel Tally Results..............................................................................................................A-2 ParentSurvey Results.......................................................................................................................A-3 Resources.........................................................................................................................................A-7 References......................................................................................................................................A-12 Statewide It Health SHIP provement Program C_FJ Kimley-Horn H E A L T H R E F O R M I I and Associates, Inc. CITY OF RICHFIELD _ _ y Safe Routes to School'` ConipY°ehensive. Plan - Executive Summary The purpose of a Safe Routes to School Plan (ARTS) is to identify opportunities and priorities to increase walking and biking to schools, and develop an implementation plan for making improvements in these areas. A comprehensive process involving Richfield School District, City of Richfield, parents, and residents was begun in 2012 to develop a plan for the six public schools in Richfield. Through site visits, principal interviews, data gathering, and stakeholder input, a set of recommendations has been developed to address the needs of students walking and biking to school. These improvements involve actions by multiple stakeholders and include both infrastructure and policy changes. Introduction Walking and biking to school in the United States has decreased dramatically, from over 60 percent in the 1960s to an average of less than 10 percent today. This reduction in active transportation, and corresponding increase in vehicular transportation, negatively affects students' health, vehicle congestion, traffic safety, and environmental quality around schools. Many factors contribute to the reduction in walking and bicycling to school. A survey of parents across the United States was conducted by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention to find out why their children did not walk or bike to school. The most common reasons cited by parents were distance, traffic safety, weather, and crime. Examining the underlying issues for each of these barriers provides an opportunity to understand how they can be addressed. To reverse this decades -long trend of decreased walking and biking, the nationwide Safe Routes to School (SRTS) initiative was created to increase walking and biking to school through the implementation of each of the five "E's": ■ Education —Teaching children to walk and bike safely ■ Encouragement — Developing programs that get children excited about walking or biking to school ■ Enforcement — Having law enforcement support along the designated routes to school ■ Engineering — Identifying infrastructure barriers to walking and biking ■ Evaluation — Measuring the effectiveness of the various components of the SRTS project This Safe Routes to School Plan plays an important function of connecting the roles of the school district and the city in jointly seeking to increase walking and biking to school. It is intended to complement and support the work and planning already completed, while also capturing all the factors that influence choices about transportation. The plan builds on the infrastructure improvements previously identified, but also addresses the other four areas of SRTS including policy and programming. Richfield has already taken a number of significant steps to improve walking and bicycling in the community, including: ■ Safe Routes to School Study (2009) ■ Arterials Study (2009) ■ Bicycle Master Plan (2012) ■ Complete Streets Policy (2013) ■ Bicycle Friendly Assessment (2013) E-1 CITY OF RICHFIELD �T F Safe Routes to School'` ConipY°ehensive. Plan- _ The benefits of a comprehensive SRTS plan are to provide an all-inclusive picture of the needs throughout the school district and community, allowing for programming and prioritization. In addition, it provides the opportunity to address district and city policies and programs related to walking and biking, and having a plan puts the agencies in a favorable position when applying for funding. At the school and neighborhood level, increased walking and biking to school has been shown to improve student health and academic performance, reduce traffic congestion around the school, and thereby also improve air quality and reduce traffic noise. Proiect Process This plan was developed with input from the key SRTS stakeholders in Richfield, including school staff, parents, school district staff, city staff, and students. The initial phases included significant data collection and assembly, along with site observations at each school, discussions with stakeholders, and development of recommendations. Existing Conditions Assessment Site Visits Data Gathering Parent Survey ARTS Working Principal Group Interviews j L i StakeholderI Input I Recommendations ARTS Comprehensive Plan Pedestrian/Bicycle Needs/Opportunities Improvement Priorities Plan Recommendations The following sections present the recommendations of the Comprehensive SRTS Plan to increase walking and biking to schools in Richfield. Some recommendations could be feasibly implemented in the next year, while others may require longer timelines due to policy changes or funding. Each measure has been classified according to the agency that would lead its implementation. E-2 CITY OF RICHFIELD �T rbi,} Safe Routes to "00 Comprehensive. Planjig. City of Richfield Improvements ■ Install No Parking signing to increase visibility at the 12th Avenue/71st Street marked crosswalk ■ Mark 701h Street/Harriet Avenue intersection with high visibility crosswalks ■ Repaint bicycle pavement markings on 75th Street ■ Provide periodic speed enforcement on 701h Street near Richfield Dual Language and STEM Schools ■ Replace sidewalk and construction pedestrian ramps on Elliot Avenue near 71St Street ■ Prioritize snow plowing and removal at schools and on school routes ■ Construct sidewalk on 73rd Street or designate an on -street pedestrian route east of Centennial Elementary ■ Construct sidewalk on 71St Street from Elliot Avenue to 12th Avenue ■ Implement the Bicycle Master Plan, with priority placed on routes that connect to schools ■ Implement the Richfield Sidewalk Plan as identified in the City's Comprehensive Plan ■ Pursue opportunities for bicycle land and sidewalk construction as roadways are repaved or resurfaced Richfield Public Schools Improvements ■ Direct students walking and biking to Centennial Elementary to cross 73rd Street at Bloomington Avenue instead of 16th Avenue ■ Train adult crossing guards to patrol the 70th Street/Elliot Avenue intersection ■ Install bicycle racks on the east side of Sheridan Hills Elementary ■ Install a bicycle rack on the west side of Richfield Middle School ■ Develop a walking/bicycling section of the school district website ■ Designate a SRTS coordinator at the school district level ■ Incorporate walking and bicycling to school into the school district wellness policy ■ Utilize existing high school and middle school clubs to support walking and bicycling activities ■ Replace and improve bicycle racks at all school sites ■ Construct sidewalk connections on Centennial Elementary site ■ Construct a sidewalk connection from 65th Street to the entrance of Sheridan Hills Elementary ■ Reconstruct Sheridan Hills driveway onto 65th Street ■ Introduce walking and bicycling into the physical education curriculum Joint City -District Improvements ■ Continue student travel tallies on at least an annual basis ■ Establish a permanent Richfield Safe Routes Working Group Based on its past planning and active efforts to improve its bicycle and pedestrian facilities, Richfield is well-positioned to implement infrastructure improvements and effect the cultural and policy changes necessary to see long-term shifts in travel behavior. E-3 CITY OF RICHFIELD Safe Routes to School'` CompY°ehensive. Plan Introduction Walking and biking to school in the United States has decreased dramatically, from over 60 percent in the 1960s to an average of less than 10 percent today. This reduction in active transportation, and corresponding increase in vehicular transportation, negatively affects students' health, vehicle congestion, traffic safety, and environmental quality around schools. In Hennepin County, only 24 percent of children age 6 to 17 years get the minimum amount of physical activity recommended by the Centers for Disease Control .1,2 Many factors contribute to the reduction in walking and bicycling to school. A survey of parents across the United States indicated that the most common reasons cited by parents were distance, traffic safety, weather, and crime .3 Examining the underlying issues for each of these barriers provides an opportunity to understand how they can be addressed. To reverse this decades -long trend of decreased walking and biking, the nationwide Safe Routes to School (SRTS) initiative was created to increase walking and biking to school through the implementation of each of the 5 "E's": ■ Education —Teaching children to walk and bike safely ■ Encouragement — Developing programs that get children excited about walking or biking to school ■ Enforcement — Having law enforcement support along the designated routes to school ■ Engineering — Identifying infrastructure barriers to walking and biking ■ Evaluation — Measuring the effectiveness of the various components of the SRTS project Locally, SRTS projects have been initiated and funded through federal transportation funds, as well as the Statewide Health Improvement Program (SHIP). SHIP is dedicated to promote active living in communities throughout Minnesota, with the goal of reducing obesity and preventing disease. The purpose of this Comprehensive Safe Routes to School Plan is to document the existing walking and biking environment in Richfield, identify opportunities and priorities to increase walking and biking to schools, and develop an implementation plan for making the improvements. The comprehensive nature of the plan provides an overall view of the needs and priorities in the city. Background The Richfield SRTS Study completed in 2009 established a strong foundation for improving walking and biking infrastructure at the elementary and middle schools in the city. Since that time, several other walking and biking related plans and studies have been completed and policies enacted in the city and school district, including: ■ Arterials Study (2009) ■ Bicycle Master Plan (2012) ■ Complete Streets Policy (2013) ■ Bicycle Friendly Assessment (2013) This plan is intended to complement and support the work and planning already completed. It builds on the infrastructure improvements previously identified, but also addresses the other four areas of SRTS 1 CITY OF RICHFIELD �T F Safe Routes to School'` ConipY°ehensive. Plan- _ including policy and programming. The benefits of a SRTS plan are to provide a comprehensive overview of the needs throughout a school district or city, allowing for programming and prioritization. In addition, it provides the opportunity to address district and city policies and programs related to walking and biking, and having a plan puts the agencies in a favorable position when applying for funding. At the school and neighborhood level, increased walking and biking to school has been shown to improve student health and academic performance, reduce traffic congestion around the school, and thereby also improve air quality and reduce traffic noise. Project Process This plan was developed with input from the key SRTS stakeholders in Richfield, including school staff, parents, school district staff, city staff, and students. The initial phases included significant data collection and assembly, along with site observations at each school, followed by evaluations, and development of recommendations, and implementation. Stakeholder input was gathered at several key points in the process, as highlighted in the diagram below. Existing Conditions Assessment Site Data Visits Gathering ARTS Working Principal Parent Survey Group Interviews L L _0 ARTS Comprehensive Plan Pedestrian/Bicycle Needs/Opportunities Stakeholder I Plan Input Recommendations Improvement Priorities Existing Conditions Assessment The City of Richfield encompasses seven square miles and has a population of approximately 35,000 residents. It is a first -ring suburb of Minneapolis and much of the city was developed with a grid street network, contributing to a more urban environment compared to other suburbs in the Twin Cities area. 2 CITY OF RICHFIELD Safe Routes to School'` ConipY°ehensive. Plan Student Data The Richfield School District serves nearly 4,300 total students across four elementary schools, one middle school, and one high school. Walk boundaries for each school, which are established by the school district, set the distance within which students are not provided bus transportation. These boundaries for the Richfield School District are generally one mile for elementary schools, and two miles for middle and high school. On a district wide basis, approximately 30 percent of students live within the walk boundary of their school. A more detailed summary for each school, based on 2012-2013 enrollment data, is shown in Table 1. The students that live within the walk boundary represent the greatest opportunities for increasing walking and biking. Table 1. Richfield Students within Walk Zone Boundaries Centennial Elementary 455 33%9% 58/ ° Richfield Dual Language 470 4%19/ ° ° 77/ Richfield STEM 780 12% 10% 77% Sheridan Hills 490 22% 7% 70% Elementary Richfield Middle 1 920 1 35% 12% 1 53% Richfield High _ 1,145 57% 20% 23% School Total 4,260 31% 14% 55% Student travel tallies were conducted for kindergarten through 81h grade classrooms in fall 2012 using the National Center for Safe Routes to School standard forms. The tallies showed that an average of six percent of elementary students and 14 percent of middle school students walked or biked to school. The predominant mode at all sites was School Bus, followed by Family Vehicle. More than 25 percent of all students arrive to or from school by Family Vehicle, which accounts for significant volumes of traffic at each of the school sites. Table 2 shows the average mode results by school. A breakdown of mode for travel to and from school for each site is included in the Appendix. Counts of pedestrians and bicyclists were also conducted as part of the field observations at each site, which are described further in the next section. 3 CITY OF RICHFIELD Safe Routes to School'` ConipY°ehensive. Plan Table 2. Richfield Student Travel Tallies A parent survey, developed by the National Center for Safe Routes to School, was conducted in August and September 2013 with 240 responses. The survey questions are directed at concerns and attitudes related to walking and biking, and parents' perceptions of barriers to walking and biking. As shown in Table 3, the most -cited reasons by parents for not regularly walking or biking to school were distance, followed by traffic concerns (intersection safety, amount of traffic, speed of traffic). The age at which parents said they would allow their child to walk or bike to school without an adult was 5th to 6th grade. In the comments section of the survey, 66th Street and Penn Avenue were specifically mentioned multiple times as being crossing barriers for students walking and biking. A full summary of the survey results is included in the Appendix. Table 3- Issues that Affect Decision to Walk or Bike Issue LU U L a1 `0 O a1 . O i4-1 4-1 Y (6 U� > 4 >- o 73 Uai ~ `- 6 LL7 > O > a aNO ° 41 to ai ai Y U Modes School Walk - WM- SchoolBus... Family � Other Centennial Vehicle 8% 2% 76% 14% 0% 0% Elementary Richfield Dual 2% 1% 65% 31% 1% 0% Language Richfield STEM 5% 1% 64% 28% 1% 1% Sheridan Hills 4 % 0% ° 66/ ° 29/ 1% 0% Elementary Richfield Middle 9% 5% 54% 29% 2% 1% A parent survey, developed by the National Center for Safe Routes to School, was conducted in August and September 2013 with 240 responses. The survey questions are directed at concerns and attitudes related to walking and biking, and parents' perceptions of barriers to walking and biking. As shown in Table 3, the most -cited reasons by parents for not regularly walking or biking to school were distance, followed by traffic concerns (intersection safety, amount of traffic, speed of traffic). The age at which parents said they would allow their child to walk or bike to school without an adult was 5th to 6th grade. In the comments section of the survey, 66th Street and Penn Avenue were specifically mentioned multiple times as being crossing barriers for students walking and biking. A full summary of the survey results is included in the Appendix. Table 3- Issues that Affect Decision to Walk or Bike Issue LU U L a1 `0 O a1 . O i4-1 4-1 Y (6 U� > 4 >- o 73 Uai ~ `- 6 LL7 > O > a aNO ° 41 to ai ai Y U L ° , aJLU .a- E > O 0 (z v C 4- d Ln L 1AaJ O _/ai O a O Ua E _0 4�U m Q Q O U > Percent of U .' . 1' Respondents ®®®®®®® —W Percentages do not total 100% because respondents could select more than one issue. Infrastructure Richfield has an existing network of sidewalk and bicycle facilities that connect many of the key destinations in the city, as shown in Figure 1. However, many of the major east/west roadways and nearly all local roadways do not have sidewalks. City policy is to have sidewalks on both sides of arterial 4 CITY OF RICHFIELD _ _ y Safe Routes to School'` ConipY°ehensive. Plan streets and on one side of collector streets. On local streets, sidewalks may be constructed if needed and supported by residents through the public approval process. The City of Richfield plows all public sidewalks within the city. In addition to a citywide review, observations were conducted during school arrival and dismissal to evaluate the condition of the infrastructure, gather data on existing walking and biking numbers, and also identify the primary walk/bike routes to each school. Centennial Elementary Centennial Elementary School has approximately 460 students in kindergarten through 5th grade. The school day is from 8:40 AM to 3:10 PM. The east side of Bloomington Avenue and a portion of the south side of 73rd Street adjacent to the school have existing sidewalks. However, the sidewalk on 73rd Street ends at the school property line and as a result, students walking to and from the east were generally observed to walk in the roadway or in the grass next to the roadway. Diagonal Blvd, located one to two blocks north of the school, was reconstructed in 2010 to include an off-road trail on the north side of the roadway, as well as on -street bike lanes. All the streets near the school are two-lane roadways. The crash data showed that most of these intersections had zero or one crashes over a 10 - year period. There are not any designated school zones or school crossings near the school. Since the SRTS study in 2009, a bike rack was installed on the school site and stop control was installed on 16th Avenue and 17th Avenue at 73rd Street, and on 16th Avenue, 17th Avenue, and 18th Avenue at 74th Street. Traffic volume data were available for the following roadway segments, which are generally the higher volume streets: ■ Bloomington Avenue S between Diagonal Blvd and 76th Street has 950 vehicles per day ■ Diagonal Blvd between 12th Avenue S and Bloomington Avenue S has 1,450 vehicles per day ■ 76th Street between Bloomington Avenue and Cedar Avenue has 560 vehicles per day ■ Cedar Avenue between 72nd Street and 76th Street has 1,800 vehicles per day 5 CITY OF RICHFIELD Safe Routes to School` Comprehensive. Planjig. Most of the streets around the school are residential in nature, with relatively low traffic volumes. A school staff member patrols the 73rd adI Street/161h Avenue intersection to assist students crossing 73rd Street to walk to the ' M ■ north or to walk to and from family vehicles �. that park and drop off along 16th Avenue. A bike rack is located on the east side of the school, next to door 2, but there is not sidewalk connecting this location to the front entrance of the school. During the observations in November 2012 and May 2013, there were less than five bicycles parked in the rack. Approximately 10 to 25 students were observed walking or biking to school, with the primary route being to/from the east on 73rd Street. This is a relatively small number considering that Centennial has more than 150 students within the walk boundary, the highest percentage of any of the elementary schools in Richfield. The designated bus loading and unloading areas are in the parking lot south of the school and along the east side of Bloomington Avenue. The primary area used for family pick-up/drop-off is on 73rd Street in front of the school and some loading/unloading on 16th Avenue north of the school. The south side of 73rd Street is signed No Parking 8AM-4PM School Days. A summary of the existing conditions at Centennial Elementary are shown in Figure 2. Richfield Dual Language and STEM Schools Richfield Dual Language School and Richfield STEM School are located on the same site, which is bounded by 70th Street, 12th Avenue, 71St Street, and Elliot Avenue. Since the previous SRTS study, this site has been converted from an intermediate school, with students in 3rd to 5th grades, to two separate elementary schools with kindergarten through 5th grades in both buildings. Richfield Dual Language has approximately 460 students and Richfield STEM has approximately 770 students, both with kindergarten through 5th grades. The school day at both schools is from 7:45 AM to 2:10 PM. There are existing sidewalks on the east side of Elliot Avenue next to the school site, the south side of 70th Street, and the west side of 12th Avenue. The sidewalk on Elliot Avenue is in poor condition and ends at 71" Street. As a result, students walking to and from school were generally observed to walk in the roadway or in the grass next to the roadway once leaving the school grounds. Diagonal Blvd, located two blocks south of the school, was reconstructed in 2010 to include an off-road trail on the north side of the roadway, as well as on -street bike lanes. All the streets near the schools are two-lane roadways. The crash data showed that most of these intersections had only zero or one crashes over a 10 -year period. The 70th Street/12th Avenue intersection had 8 crashes from 2003 to 2009, but has had no crashes since the conversion from a traffic signal to all -way stop control. There have been two pedestrian crashes near the school, one at 70th Street/12th Avenue and one midblock on 12th Avenue, however neither crash involved a student. 0 CITY OF RICHFIELD F Safe Routes to School'` ConipY°ehensive. Plan- _ Signed school crossings with high visibility crosswalk markings are located at 70th Street/Elliot Avenue and 70th Street/12th Avenue. School patrols are operated at the 70th Street/12th Avenue, 71st Street/12th Avenue, and 71" Street/Elliot Avenue intersections that assist with crossings. The principal of Richfield Dual Language School reported that the patrols were removed from the 701h Street/Elliot Avenue intersection due to safety concerns for the student patrols, based on the volume and speed of traffic on 70th Street. Traffic volume data were available for the following roadway segments, which are generally the higher volume streets: ■ 70th Street between Chicago Avenue and 12th Avenue has 2,250 vehicles per day ■ 12th Avenue S between 70th Street and Diagonal Blvd/73rd Street has 2,800 vehicles per day The remaining streets around the school are residential streets with relatively low traffic volumes. Two bike racks are located on the south side of the school buildings, one within the Richfield Dual Language playground and one near the south entrance to Richfield STEM. During the observations in November 2012 and May 2013, there were as many as 12 total bicycles parked between the two racks. Approximately 45 total students were observed walking or biking to school, with the primary routes being to/from the east on 70th Street and to/from the west on 71St Street. This is a relatively small number considering that the two schools have a total of more than 110 students within the walk boundary. The designated bus loading and unloading areas are in the parking lot on the north side of the school and along 70th Street. The primary areas used for family pick-up/drop- off were the south parking lot for Richfield Dual Language and 12th Avenue for Richfield STEM. During the site observations of afternoon dismissal, family vehicles were frequently observed parked up to the crosswalk on 12th Avenue at 71St Street, limiting the visibility of both adults and students crossing the street. A summary of the existing conditions at Richfield Dual Language and Richfield STEM are shown in Figure 3. Sheridan Hills Elementary Sheridan Hills Elementary School has approximately 490 students in kindergarten through 5th grade. The school day is from 8:40 AM to 3:10 PM. The east side of Thomas Avenue, south side of 64th Street, and north side of 651h Street have existing sidewalks. However, the sidewalk on Thomas Avenue does not extend north of the school. There is a 7 CITY OF RICHFIELD �T } Safe Routes to "001' Comprehensive. Planjig. trail through Sheridan Park that begins at the 65th Street/Sheridan Avenue intersection and extends west to Vincent Avenue. All the streets near the school are two-lane roadways. The crash data for the intersections around the school showed that most of them had zero or one crashes over a 10 -year period. There are not any designated school zones or school crossings near the school. Since the SRTS study in 2009, a bike rack was installed near the front door of the school, but the rack is removed during the winter months. It was also noted there are no bike racks near the playground, which is used by children outside of school hours. Traffic volume data were available for the following roadway segments, which are generally the higher volume streets: ■ 65th Street between Penn Avenue and Vincent Avenue has 1,200 vehicles per day ■ 64th Street between Penn Avenue and York Avenue has 2,050 vehicles per day Students that would need to cross Penn Avenue or 66th Street to travel to and from school are provided bus transportation, however several students were observed crossing Penn Avenue at the signalized intersection with 65th Street. The remaining roadways around the school generally have low traffic volumes. A school staff member acts as a crossing guard at the 64th Street/Thomas Avenue intersection. Approximately 10 to 15 students were observed walking or biking to school, with the primary routes being east and west on 64th Street or 65th Street. This is a small percentage of the more than 100 students that live within the walk boundary of the school. The designated bus loading and unloading areas are on Thomas Avenue. The primary area used for family pick-up/drop-off is in the parking lot near the front door of the school. The east side of 73rd Street is signed No Parking 8AM-4PM School Days. During the site observations, it was noted that the wide parking lot driveway onto 65th Street can be a barrier for pedestrians. In addition, there are not good sidewalk connections from the sidewalk on 65th Street to the front door of the school, as the existing route requires crossing the parking lot traffic twice. A summary of the existing conditions at Sheridan Hills Elementary are shown in Figure 4. Richfield Middle School Richfield Middle School has approximately 900 students in 6th through 81h grades. The school day is from 8:05 AM to 2:40 PM. W CITY OF RICHFIELD Safe Routes to School Comprehensive. Plania �MWELMIPARr The east side of Oliver Avenue and the south side of 73rd Street have existing sidewalks, there is an off-road trail on the north side of 75th Street, and there is a marked bicycle facility on 75th Street. The on -street markings and crosswalks appeared to have been installed with paint and were in need of repainting to improve their visibility. All the streets adjacent to the school are two-lane roadways. However, 76th Street is located just one block south of the school and 1-35W is about three blocks east of the school, both of which have very high traffic volumes and can be significant barriers to pedestrians and bicyclists. The crash data shows there have been two total crashes at any of the intersections adjacent to the school over the past 10 years. There are not any designated school zones or school crossings near the school. Since the SRTS study in 2009, 75th Street in front of the school was reconstructed and the off-road trail and on -road bicycle facility added. At the same time, the school's parking lot was reconstructed to separate parent pick-up/drop-off traffic from bus traffic and staff parking. A locked bike corral was also constructed at the southeast corner of the school. Traffic volume data were available for the following roadway segments, which are generally the higher volume streets: ■ Humboldt Avenue between 70th Street and 76th Street has 590 vehicles per day During the observations in November 2012 and May 2013, the bike corral was well used and there were as many as 25 bicycles parked in or near the corral. It was noted during both observations that some bikes were locked to the outside fence of the corral and that most of the racks in the corral are the older style bicycle racks. There was -t also demand for bicycle parking at other areas of the school site, with up to five bikes observed parked at the northwest corner of the school, near 74th Street/Thomas Avenue, where there are not bike racks. Approximately 65 students were observed walking or biking to school, with the primary route being to/from the east on 75th Street. I7 CITY OF RICHFIELD Safe Routes to School` Coniprehensive. Plan _ NOMW The designated bus loading and unloading areas are in the parking lot south of the school and along the east side of Oliver Avenue. The primary area used for family pick-up/drop-off is in the parking lot/drive- through west of the main parking lot, with the entrance on 75th Street and exit on Oliver Avenue. The east side of Oliver Avenue is signed No Parking 8AM-4:30PM School Days. A summary of the existing conditions at Centennial Elementary are shown in Figure S. Richfield High School Richfield High School has approximately 1,100 students in 9th through 12th grades. The school day is from 8:10 AM to 2:40 PM. Richfield High School was not included in the 2009 SRTS study because federal SRTS funding can only be used for K-8 schools. The south side of 70th Street and the east side of Harriet Avenue adjacent to the school have existing sidewalks. Many students were observed to walk in the street south of 72nd Street and along the railroad tracks that run north/south along the school. All the streets adjacent to the school are two-lane roadways and except for 70th Street, are residential in nature, with low traffic volumes. The Lyndale Avenue/70th Street, Lyndale Avenue/73rd Street, Harriet Avenue/70th Street, and Harriet Avenue/73rd Street intersections all have high visibility marked crosswalks and are signed as school crossings. The crash data shows that most intersections around the school have zero or one crash over the past 10 years. However, the 70th Street/Harriet Avenue intersection has had 2 bicycle crashes and 1 pedestrian crash, all involving high school students before or after school and there was also a mid -block pedestrian crash on 701h Street east of Harriet Avenue. The 701h Street/Pleasant Avenue intersection has had four crashes over that time period, but none involved pedestrians or bicyclists. Traffic volume data were available for the following roadway segments, which are generally the higher volume streets: 70th Street between Lyndale Avenue and Nicollet Avenue has 3,300 vehicles per day 73rd Street between Lyndale Avenue and Nicollet Avenue has 2,050 vehicles per day The school has bike racks located in the courtyard on the north side of the school building. During the observations in November 2012 and May 2013, there were up to 25 bicycles parked in the racks as well as a few bikes chained to sign posts and fences around the school campus. It was noted that there is one new bike rack on campus, the remainder are an older style rack that has the potential to damage bike tires. Approximately 140 students were observed walking or biking to school, with the primary routes being 701h Street and along the railroad tracks. However, there are over 600 students that live within the walk boundary. 10 CITY OF RICHFIELD F Safe Routes to School'` CompY°ehensive. Plan- _ The designated bus loading and unloading areas are on 701h Street adjacent to the school. The primary area used for family pick-up/drop-off is in the parking lot south of the school, west of the main parking lot. A summary of the existing conditions at Centennial Elementary are shown in Figure 6. Policy and Programming The City of Richfield was awarded SRTS grant funding in 2008, which led to the completion of the Safe Routes to School Study in 2009. A number of the recommendations from that study have already been implemented. A Safe Routes Working Group has been established in Richfield that includes City of Richfield Public Works staff, Richfield School District staff, Bloomington Public Health staff, and a Richfield school principal representative. The role of this group was to share information, identify and discuss challenges and opportunities to walking and biking to schools in Richfield, and discuss the implementation and prioritization of measures to increase walking and biking to school. At the city level, the Complete Streets Policy establishes a framework for consideration and inclusion of all users in transportation projects, including pedestrians, bicyclists, transit riders, motorists, and freight operators. In addition, the city has a sidewalk plan included in the 2008 Comprehensive Plan and a separate Bicycle Master Plan (BMP) that was completed in 2012. The Richfield School District established a Wellness Policy in 2006 that addresses nutrition guidelines, nutrition education, physical activity, and parent education. The policy does not specifically address walking or biking to school, or the role of the district in active transportation to and from school. Several of the individual school sites also have wellness policies or plans, but these generally do not specifically speak to walking and biking to school. A number of localized SRTS activities have also been occurring at the individual school sites, such as participation in International Walk to School Day in the fall and National Bike to School Day in the spring, and hosting of a bike rodeo. The elementary schools also each operate a school patrol to provide for safe crossings immediately next to the school. However, there are not currently district -wide SRTS activities or walking/biking curriculum. Challenges and Opportunities As a community, Richfield has already taken a number of progressive steps to increase the opportunities for walking and biking. The creation of a Bicycle Master Plan and the passage of the Complete Streets Policy are two key measures that lay the groundwork for planning and construction of future infrastructure projects. The City has also led or been a key partner in the construction of several significant trail projects over the past five years, including the off-street trail along 7Sth Street, 76th Street, and Diagonal Boulevard and the future Intercity Regional Trail being built by Three Rivers Park District. Figure 7 shows the full network of planned bicycle and sidewalk infrastructure planned within the city. 11 CITY of RICHFIELD Safe Routes to School Comprehensive. Plania �MWNLV&1FJfflr Through discussions with the SRTS Working Group, interviews with school staff, and feedback from walking/biking assessments conducted in the community, several consistent themes related to infrastructure emerged: The sidewalk and trail networks continue to be expanded across the city, but significant gaps still exist, and connections to destinations are needed Crossings of major roadways are one of the most significant real and perceived obstacles to walking and biking The lack of sidewalk infrastructure is seen as a barrier to walking and biking, particularly for elementary students, even when they live very close to school However, infrastructure alone is not enough to change behaviors. There remain pockets of the community that have not embraced walking and biking, and in some cases even discourage it. At the beginning of this planning process, two elementary schools in Richfield had language in their school handbooks that stated "for safety we encourage all students to ride the bus to school (or get a ride from parents". This language has since been removed from the handbooks, but demonstrates that perceptions and attitudes towards walking and biking are currently a barrier in some school communities. Education and encouragement to these populations will be necessary to begin to see changes in attitudes and behaviors. Concerns about liability also remain a challenge. Encouraging walking and biking to school do not increase the district's or school's liability risk, but continued education of school and district administrators is needed to ensure this is not a barrier to walking and biking to school. The Minnesota Public Health Law Center has resources and training available to help address this issue, including a summary of liability for schools. This document has been included in the Resources section of the Appendix. RPrnmmpnd;itinnc The following sections and the maps shown in Figures 8-13 present recommendations to increase walking and biking to schools in Richfield. The implementation timeline for each recommendation has been identified (short-term, mid-term, long-term, or on-going) as well as identifying the agencies or organizations that would most appropriately take the lead in implementation. The recommendations identified as short-term are generally actions that could be implemented in the next 6 to 12 months, mid-term improvements are generally considered to require 1 to 2 years to implement, and long-term recommendations are expected to require more than 2 years and may also trigger other processes such as policy changes or identification of significant funding sources. Funding of the recommendations is discussed further in the Funding and Implementation section of this report. 12 CITY OF RICHFIELD _ _ y Safe Routes to School'` ConipY°ehensive. Plan - Short -Term ■ Install No Parking signing to increase visibility at the 12th Avenue/71St Street marked crosswalk. Although parking is already prohibited in this area, vehicles were observed to frequently park too close to the crosswalk next to Richfield STEM School, limiting the visibility of pedestrians stepping into the crosswalk. Implementation lead: City of Richfield ■ Direct students walking and biking to Centennial Elementary to cross 73rd Street at Bloomington Avenue instead of 16th Avenue. There are no sidewalks on 16th Avenue or pedestrian accommodations at this intersection. In addition, the current crossing location is within the parent pick-up/drop-off area, which has more potential conflicts with vehicles pulling in and out. Implementation lead: Centennial Elementary ■ Mark 70th Street/Harriet Avenue intersection with high visibility crosswalks. The history of pedestrian and bicycle traffic at the intersection as well as the volume of traffic on 70th Street merit additional measures to increase conspicuity of the crossings. Durable pavement markings may also be considered for this location. Implementation lead: City of Richfield ■ Train adult crossing guards (staff or volunteers) to patrol the 70th Street/Elliot Avenue intersection before and after school. This intersection has higher traffic volumes and speeds and was identified as a concern relative to driver compliance with the school patrols. Adult crossing guards would better be able to provide for safe crossings. Implementation lead: Richfield Public Schools and Dual Language School ■ Install bicycle racks on the east side of Sheridan Hills Elementary. Bicycle parking in this area will better serve students traveling to school from the east, as well as children and families using the playground outside of school hours. Implementation lead: Richfield Public Schools ■ Repaint bicycle pavement markings on 75th Street. The existing pavement markings are faded and need to be repainted to improve visibility. Implementation lead: City of Richfield ■ Prioritize snow plowing at schools and on school routes. A policy that identifies higher pedestrian areas, such as adjacent to schools and along primary routes to schools, will improve the safety and opportunity for walking to school in the winter. Implementation lead: City of Richfield ■ Install a bicycle rack on the west side of Richfield Middle School. The sports Y� i fields on the west side of the school are used by children and adults and observations showed bicycles chained to the fences in this area, indicating a, demand for bicycle parking. Implementation lead: Richfield Public Schools ■ Provide periodic speed enforcement on 70th Street near Richfield Dual Language and STEM Schools. With the roadway width and lack of parking on 70th Street, traffic speeds have been 13 CITY OF RICHFIELD Safe Routes to School ConipY°eherisive. Plan _ identified as a key concern of the adjacent schools. Periodic speed enforcement or traffic calming measures such as dynamic speed feedback signs ("speed wagons") can help slow drivers as well as improve pedestrians' perceptions of safety. Implementation lead: City of Richfield ■ Continue twice -yearly student travel tallies to track changes in walking and biking to school. The travel tallies provide an easy way to measure the progress of the SRTS activities. In addition, having current data will support funding applications. Implementation lead: Richfield Public Schools and Bloomington Public Health ■ Develop a walking/biking section of the school district website. Walking and biking should be treated as equal transportation alternatives to riding the school bus. The webpage should list pedestrian and bicycle safety rules and tips and could also contain the school walk/bike maps. Implementation lead: Richfield Public Schools, with support from Bloomington Public Health Department. Mid -Terri. ■ Designate a SRTS coordinator at the school district level. Individual school sites need support to plan and implement SRTS programs, and coordination of all activities and policies across the district will make the best use of resources and best practices. Implementation lead: Richfield Public Schools ■ Incorporate walking and biking to school into the school district wellness policy. The language of the current policy could be strengthened to encourage walking and biking to school as having health benefits, as well as environmental benefits around the school. Implementation lead: Richfield Public Schools ■ Replace sidewalk on Elliot Avenue near 71St Street and construct pedestrian ramps. The intersection is school patrolled and is marked as a school crossing, however the sidewalk infrastructure does not facilitate pedestrian crossings. Implementation lead: City of Richfield ■ Utilize existing high school and middle school clubs to support walking and biking activities. There are a number of existing clubs or the potential for new clubs that could be used to promote walking and biking, such as a "Green Team" or bike club. The bike club could include teaching students bicycle maintenance and repair, as well as safe riding skills. These clubs, with support from the district, should plan yearly activities for International Walk to School Month in October and National Bike Month in May. High school and middle school students can also support these activities at the elementary school level. Implementation lead —Richfield High School and Richfield Middle School 14 y .:S CITY OF RICHFIELD Safe Routes to School'` ConipY°ehensive. Plan IN�i SCHOOLS ■ Establish a permanent Richfield Safe Routes Working Group. The purpose of the Safe Routes committee would be to provide on-going support and organization for walking and biking activities, as well as maintain communication and coordination among each of the agencies that have a role in walking and biking to school (city, county, school district, etc). The working group could be modeled after the Bike Task Force. Some potential activities that the working group may want to consider are planning of a Walk/Bike to School Day, organizing a family walking/biking even outside the school day. Implementation lead: Bloomington Public Health and Richfield Public Schools Long -Term ■ Replace old and outdated bicycle racks on all school sites. Many of the existing bicycle racks on the school sites are older style racks that provide less secure parking and can potentially damage bicycle wheels. These should be mom systematically replaced over the next five years. A replacement program could be initiated as part of a citywide bicycle parking program. Implementation lead: Richfield Public Schools ■ Construct sidewalk connections on Centennial Elementary site. Direct paved connections from the south and east sides of the school will provide safer and more easily navigable routes during all weather. Implementation lead: Richfield Public Schools ■ Construct sidewalk on 73rd Street or designate an on -street pedestrian route east of Centennial Elementary. A sidewalk gap exists east of the school and this route will connect to the future Intercity Regional Trail. Implementation lead: City of Richfield ■ Construct sidewalk on 71St Street from Elliot Avenue to 12th Avenue. This segment is not identified in the Richfield Sidewalk plan, but represents an existing sidewalk gap next to two school sites with more than 1,000 students. Implementation lead: City of Richfield ■ Construct a sidewalk connection from 65th Street to the entrance of Sheridan Hills Elementary. A sidewalk connection on the east side of the parking lot would eliminate conflicts with vehicles entering and exiting the school parking lot. Implementation lead: Richfield Public Schools ■ Implement the Bicycle Master Plan, with priority placed on routes that connect to schools. This would specifically include the proposed on -street bicycle routes on 70th Street and Sheridan Avenue/Russell Avenue and the off-road trail along the existing railroad alignment. Implementation lead: City of Richfield ■ Implement the Richfield Sidewalk Plan as identified in the City's Comprehensive Plan. Sidewalk segments that are adjacent to or would serve as a route to school should be prioritized, including 64th Street east of Penn Avenue, near Sheridan Hills Elementary, and 73rd Street between 1-35W and Lyndale Avenue, which would provide connections to Richfield High School and Richfield Middle School. Implementation lead: City of Richfield 15 CITY OF RICHFIELD Safe Routes to School` ` Comprehensive. Plan ■ Reconstruct Sheridan Hills driveway onto 65th Street. The existing driveway is very wide and results in a large area x. of potential vehicle/pedestrian conflicts. r Implementation lead: Richfield Publics r; Schools ■ Introduce walking and bicycling education into the physical education curriculum. Walking and bicycling safely are life-long skills for a healthy lifestyle. Students should receive education and training about how to safely walk and w `s bicycle to school, with or without sidewalks, as well as how to safely cross at intersections. Examples of physical education curricula are found in the Resources section of this plan. Implementation lead: Richfield Public Schools ■ Pursue opportunities for bike lane and sidewalk construction as roadways are repaved or resurfaced. The City of Richfield been proactive in seeking opportunities to narrow travel lanes when restriping roadways, which provides a small measure of traffic calming, as well as providing additional space for pedestrians and bicyclist on the shoulder. Opportunities to construct sidewalks or shoulders as part of a larger roadway projects consistent with the Complete Streets Policy should be pursued and coordinated with the citywide maintenance and operation program. Implementation lead: City of Richfield Funding and Implementation Funding for the various recommended projects may come from a variety of sources depending on the type of project and who is implementing it. Some potential funding opportunities that currently exist and may be used to fund these recommendations include, but are not limited to: ■ Blue Cross Blue Shield of Minnesota ■ Mini -grants through the National Center for Safe Routes to School ■ Federal Transportation Enhancement (TE) funds administered through the Metropolitan Council ■ Safe Routes to School funds administered through the Minnesota Department of Transportation Over the past four years, Minnesota Statewide Health Improvement Program (SHIP) funds have been administered by the Minnesota Department of Health through cities and counties around the state in the form of Safe Routes to School grants, Active Living grants, and assistance with preparing grant applications for other programs. These funds may be available in some form in the future, and continued communications between school districts, cities, and counties will help identify opportunities and needs for funding in the future. 16 CITY of RICHFIELD Safe Routes to School` Coniprehensive. Plan _ MOMW No one of the E's of Safe Routes to School will by itself increase walking and biking, which emphasizes the need for cooperation among school, city, county and other agencies in the implementation of the recommendations identified in this plan. The process used to develop this plan is only the start of on- going efforts that will be needed to result in cultural changes and significant increases in walking and biking. 17 ,�fStandlsh-Ave�j � £ Ij I_ II"� 'I—anyhnolla)6uoq y ��._� I uJ r I c ,�—+any-4181 an L anb 18l- ml`m ��a^tl'41�'l a^tl�41t1 o� U, a^y-4111 d . any 4191 a^tl-4191 %a�—any-4191---a, N a^b' 4191 L to N I r a'nyrll�ulWOOBI��SP n V — 0 -6 0 any4151 U a-antl-17Sl any -41S1 D u7 H N m d N Y N a^y47b1,N - d a^tl4141 m d _ n_ 0 U n D - -1 -a^ 11E.1 '? I o o rn rn 1ZL-I -an l41Z1— N al�-41{4--- rn—any4All s 101-1 j �any -4101 any 470E in J I - 113-; I anygo!113 i Oi ~ I I 0 ,oie j � c—a' y:o6eoly3 _ anyofieaiy� I, -� m @ U)I w L a anysngwnl00 -- j d p > � �3ny Ted N c any-puehle� ,I a aAH pWUlljod=+ _ D - I Ils any.415a-an d _ any -475 > Y I I any -415 N N It, a^y.47b- P:pple'Ln `= 0 4�V 41b a Iii �I I any.uolup� I_7dany.uolullS j E I any -pig �Is I , N / any puZ t�� it AV- any.puZ - •any-puZ-j any-puZ v I, -—iny-suanal5 any -sl ana1S - ' N Y 1 0 � AV-16l� any-lsl I I, a 0 7 u t— andlalloa!N - in-any.11aps!el9- ---}- tF--a^y lllps1e19 N N rn'-any.ylquaM.any.yyonn7uaAA Q II ny-,(�ngsllld ---any.Ungsll!d- I and .tingsll!d �-+� L anyqul scald- �� any_iues ald _ 1 a N„aenylueseald o any�ueSe-id aVy.puwg �? u{—any.pueJ�j—any�pue�� S LL -any pueiS t I^ J + N n n r ■ _ Ilny-7aweHil� , � .ire m ati-any.pla�e j� anyplei)JeSI m a y any.6nigs6ny, any�ae u6, I_P l� anyyayPly m any -gay Pltl---I� i a Y �O d o .m anylue/u8� in - —IAV -11 CL anyxeo II lloS— s 1^l of` -dJ- tlU tPva o ayY`lu; dan✓f4� IU_an\y luo bP\-u—3— ny.� .3 Ed 30m w I 1 any-pY'lell� - any.pjee!E9 any-piens)J I -anH3Pl I'wuH—n a�o4Sa e---�-100 4 � l j many-6ulN any, -agwraH j James -Ave U) c any-sawep I 0 .LD anyf— -sawe_anysawep - -0 Y ns any-xou�l anyxou)l _ any-xou�l a I a w � 0 -. y. �1• I 1ny-ue6loq- N .� ` anVpue6ol so -u �an tl W � t e6 pal N N N '� !'o / oIIW, any.uOImON -AV Li W-N—o --- IIOJ anyaa Illy �any.Ian!lo any.uuad n anyuaa la -T any-uaanp-9 —an i uaanC)-^� -IV .11assny `D I �a^y-II ssnb --a^y Ilassnb� any-uepyagg-allny.uepuayg _ any�ueplie c I c N I I I any.sewo4l m Lam-any-sewoylanysewoylF--N N a Y TE2fn - - dn an a � m 'L 0- 4.4 .uo 'n al y l�,—.- y ldS5n� I c a ° I 1 aul y an - uaaul aAV-'I uaaul nI1II —E y1 n m n LIU III any-wngy leM =I�-----Jany-wng4seM �an-sawa __----__�any-wnl _------ g4SeM and n £ ��- _N 6 __ _ � m any P?J-awe9 \ Christian) Park 1 `' Richfield S.T.E.M. School R111 ichfield Dual Language School Q lip �� 71st Stew 71 st-St— . i 7 D ID Wilson Park m ai ¢' < L s N Enrollment: 460 students n ' _ Number in walk zone: 150 students ati . h. r/I J 1 � QQ a a w a r a Centennial Elementary i LJ Sidewalk ..494 Minneapolis - St. Paul International Airport C=" Kimiey-Horn tr ��iT N 0 312.5 625 1,250 Feet Figure 2. Centennial Elementary and Associates, Inc. � -.�r71 n g ry /� Existing Conditions Map Legend — Traffic Signal Washington All -Way Stop Intersection Park -.. Marked School Crossing School Patrolled Intersection ORecommended Pedestrian Improvement Area 4 Signed Pedestrian Crossing 78th -St Bicycle Racks On Street Bicycle Route Off Street Trail y: Sidewalks j j Half Mile Radius r n lie [u C=" Kimiey-Horn tr ��iT N 0 312.5 625 1,250 Feet Figure 2. Centennial Elementary and Associates, Inc. � -.�r71 n g ry /� Existing Conditions Map 65th St Veterans Memorial °' Park n m / a > Q Q- �.. 66th:St �- 67th -St a' > a) >Heredia �Q Park 68th -St- 1f,0 > I 10 69th St U s 69th St t C is' n r Adult crossing guards needed Q L 70th_St- Richfield Dual Language School Richfield S.T.E.M. School ;Q r m a e~� 71 st St t m r 71st St ? a O / l - 1 I I 71st -St Parked vehicles too close to crosswalk Sidewalk on Elliot Ave y Sidewalk gap in poor condition on 71 st St 72nd -St l l 72nd St 73rd St > 73rd:St.;;-__ a: Legend a' r > o N Traffic Signal Q > 4th-St—All-Way Stop Intersection W 10MarkedSchool Crossing L I School Patrolled Intersection ORecommended Pedestrian Improvement Area Richfield Dual Language School 5th-St0 Signed Pedestrian Crossing 7.: Enrollment: 461 students ? 0 Bicycle Racks Number in walk zone: 19 students On Street Bicycle Route Richfield STEM School Enrollment: 772 students — Off Street Trail Number in walk zone: 93 students Sidewalks 4., Q Half Mile Radius PP- _11Kimley-Horn Ir SH � i N 0 312.5 625 1,250 Feet Figure 3. Richfield Dual Language & STEM and Associates, Inc //,\VV Schools Existing Conditions Map zl ger. y it R�T 59th -St � > `59th -St ��.. r: c •f: • Q ¢ Q 'r E 0 0 60th -St i •� ,ji � � ... L � O o Q Q . Q U) iyr ar w 61st -St - ri Q 3 y v 62nd Sty 62nd -St Madisor Heritage. Dr. Q lu t Park y�x E Q rs� 63rd -St "Q No designated O Q 9 w pp3 to I school crossings •, m 64th'�St� ` 64th -St gSheridan Hills'Elementary No bike racks Q near playgroundIlk o > Z > tart ri, 65th;St — —x W 6 Sheridan Park r. > � c °'xua c Wide driveway 65-1/2-S 1 enterance Na s > o 66th:St� South_dale Cir n 67th -St efferso ¢' Legend Park I "f. .L I": : I��—•s � Traffic Signal All -Way Stop Intersection Marked School Crossing _AIL Q > School Patrolled Intersection ORecommended Pedestrian Improvement Area L Of 0 Signed Pedestrian Crossing w '. 69th -St � `x -• �0 Bicycle Racks X On Street Bicycle Route ~ Enrollment: 490 students r�r .!�2 Off Street Trail Number in walk zone: 110 students +" Sidewalks Half Mile Radius C=F1 Kimley-HornN and Associates, Inc. ^9. SH I f . 0 312.5 625 1,250 Feet Figure 4. Sheridan Hills Elementary Existing Map ,�\V Conditions 69th S! ¢ L o r Q r -k > ; =6 Q > o Q o U ' ko 70th St ~ � x U) rt c,; c c 7 -1st St - - + o 711/2 St `�" ..._-' ��` Rk a t Wood Lak Nature Cente �, r•- e 72nd St Q � c 72 -1/2 -St k Adam Pedestrian Bridge � � ,fir � ¢' Hill Park, Q Im 7.3rd-St 73rd -St a) G9 a .' a)N Q z3 . 7 > a No bike racks on g m west side of school Donaldson o > Park _o ?_ c 74th St I �1 - = 74th St Bicycles parked = m -- i Richfield Middle Schoo outside corral , E er�o 0 �1 Park 75th -St d Bicycle route Q> Q pavement markingso need to be repainted th S Legend -I-I t Traffic Signal Ali+ All -Way Stop Intersection Marked School Crossing School Patrolled intersection Southtown-Dr— Recommended Pedestrian Improvement Area t Signed Pedestrian Crossing 0 Bicycle Racks ¢ Y r�� x On Street Bicycle Route Y Off Street Trail Sidewalks Enrollment: 904 students Half Mile Radius Number in walk zone: 317 students - - nr v American.Blvd C=F1 Kimiey-Horn i i % " 0 310 620 1,240 Feet Figure S. Richfield Middle School and Associates, Inc- � S� n g /V Existing Conditions Map E LU Wood Lake Nature Center Oak &0"_B\v 66th St Cn � � N a a _ `x� 67th.St - �`�ho Bob s -PI Q x' 68th -St Ln m > m 69th.St 72 > — m t -a a 69th St u`6 a a -69th St Q ami 3 m Cn History of pedestrian/ o �" > bicycle crashes Bicycle racks in o co need of replacement z i �70th:Stw— , +'' I Q Richfield High School 4.4 �� A sburg 71'st-St ark 71'st-St I °7' Q> Students walk along 75th -St Enrollment: 1,101 students Number in walk zone: 626 students railroad tracks .St Awlm 72nd -St 72nd=St m Q -2 Pleasant -Ln ro m (D > Q Q � c � P Legend c� •f d Pillsbury Ln Traffic Signal JIY All -Way Stop Intersection Marked School Crossing 74th St School Patrolled Intersection m Q> O Recommended Pedestrian Improvement Area �c > 4 Signed Pedestrian Crossing I m` N ❑ Bicycle Racks ? _ Lincoln n a — On Street Bicycle Route 3 + Field —Off Street Trail Sidewalks Half Mile Radius C=F1 Kimley-Harryr 'SSI 1 N 0 312.5 625 1,250 Feet Figure 6. Richfield High School and Associates, Inc. /I\V Existing Conditions Map ;� rs'y-- a '\;. } `vs ■_ 11 ,s r �A.,. >�� ., �'''�l ._� . F�;�•ryr .fir +r._ �i� I LK 44 r r =`, R. 111 t' :`,_ ;►i`. _r. d �qT, _ [xu m �' . moi. ---m '�'- •a 72r1d'St c Improve crossing at *4 t 73rd St/16th Ave S s ? 73rd St--�� I -- yam, a ,z Centennial Elementary"�� + r r Construct sidewalk or stripe I on -road pedestrian area Construct sidewalk connection from bike racks to front door Wilson"• Park A. Enrollment: 460 students Number in walk zone: 150 students "7 Construct sidewalk connection > Q • irr - ':y 5t Legend T z Legend it Traffic Signal All -Way Stop Intersection Marked School Crossing School Patrolled Intersection ORecommended Pedestrian Improvement Area Signed Pedestrian Crossing aBicycle Racks BMP Preferred Future On Street Route BMP Preferred Future Trail Route Future Off Street Trail On Street Bicycle Route Off Street Trail Sidewalks Proposed Sidewalks O Half Mile Radius PP-=11Kimley-Horn N 0 150 300 Feet Figure 8. Centennial Elementary ►= and Associates, lnc �....` :. til I' ,`\1 School Recommendations Map 65th St { Veterans i Memorial I °' Park n m / -66th:St- ' J u� Q I I 67th -St �I > Heredia �� ¢ w v Park fa �U . Q 68th -St. I t Y ' `0 < k > ' 69th -St U t _ 69th St t Implement trained Implement planned C is n r �= adult school patrol bike facility { Install bike racks —70th St - i .x .saz •rse L I - Richfield Dual Language `Scliool 1 - a �, Richfield S.T.E.M. School ¢ a I� Sign No Parking Reconstruct sidewalk P E e, 7-1 st-St i 3 71st -St �( m X61 71st -St Construct sidewalk on 71 st Street a 72nd -St 72nd -St - \�� m a 1 Construct pedestrian ramps �S, r Legend N� Signed Pedestrian Crossing 9 73rd.St _ Traffic Signal r > Marked School Crossing School Patrolled Intersection ' ¢> > ORecommended Pedestrian Improvement Area m74th-St g ¢' wj All -Way Stop Intersection LO Bicycle Racks BMP Preferred Future On Street Route BMP Preferred Future Trail Route Future Off Street Trail Richfield Dual Language School ---75th-St:—On Street Bicycle Route - Enrollment: 461 students Number in walk zone: 19 students 1. Off Street Trail Richfield STEM School —Sidewalks Enrollment: 772 students Proposed Sidewalks Number in walk zone: 93 students [=Half Mile Radius C=F1 Kimiey-Horn Ir SH 1 I N 0 312.5 625 1,250 Feet Figure 9. Richfield Dual Language & STEM and Associates, Inc- //,\VV Recommendations Map } oAr ' F — - Implement planned r4i,: -,� bike facility 3 64th -St II Sheridan Hills Elementary Apr N ) R Install bike racks M Construct sidewalk to 'U ' Q school enterance !Lr c Q Cn � Q a65th;St �' ro > s.. Sheridan ParkWN bla��e- ' wt. 4.•e. r F 66th -St Q Enrollment: 490 students Number in walk zone: 110 students PP _11Kimley-Horn r CN 0 150 300 Feet Figure 10. Sheridan Hills Elementary and Associates, Inc- H I - ' A Recommendations Map '�' fse reilgE . Construct narrower driveway asci r 65 1/2 St Legend Traffic Signal All Way Stop Intersection Marked School Crossing " School Patrolled Intersection Q' O Recommended Pedestrian Improvement Area Signed Pedestrian Crossing � [] Bicycle Racks Qr BMP Preferred Future On Street Route -� BMP Preferred Future Trail Route E 0 Future Off Street Trail �,• On Street Bicycle Route Off Street Trail 5 Sidewalks Proposed Sidewalks Q Half Mile Radius PP _11Kimley-Horn r CN 0 150 300 Feet Figure 10. Sheridan Hills Elementary and Associates, Inc- H I - ' A Recommendations Map I • 73rd•St Q Install bike rack LO ' > Q M 74th -St- E F Don Idson Q Richfield Middle School Replace bike racks Park .. p ■�.:,�. �r Repaint on -street bike markings a . Ef j E Kilt vjNNfr\ ttaE tEE - t' � . ' J •, � 8 F f� F�WF�l4� f � E a � Q c - F• o a� r y f rF va 76th -St _y • i i ,i stir T Y Enrollment: 904 students ��=" Number in walk zone: 317 students C=F1 Kimley-Hornrro �H I f r N 0 150 300 Feet Figure 11. Richfield Middle and Associates, Inc. E.' . School Recommendations Map Legend Traffic Signal All -Way Stop Intersection Marked School Crossing School Patrolled Intersection ORecommended Pedestrian Improvement Area 4> Signed Pedestrian Crossing U Bicycle Racks BMP Preferred Future On Street Route BMP Preferred Future Trail Route Future Off Street Trail On Street Bicycle Route Off Street Trail Sidewalks Proposed Sidewalks O Half Mile Radius C=F1 Kimley-Hornrro �H I f r N 0 150 300 Feet Figure 11. Richfield Middle and Associates, Inc. E.' . School Recommendations Map Repaint crosswalks • ' � rm mF �,: Replace bike racks , 70th St - f 1 Richfield High School a, r, Implement planned bicycle route Ilk - 71 Sty St z i i• � I Implement planned off street trail Inv ��•1'. F -_...ice 3. �+ _ Z 712nd St r . fc Legend "-Signed Pedestrian Crossing Traffic Signal Marked School Crossing School Patrolled Intersection 4 ° a O Recommended Pedestrian Improvement Area All -Way Stop Intersection 0 Bicycle Racks CU BMP Preferred Future On Street Route a— �� BMP Preferred Future Trail Route Future Off Street Trail u..v:' On Street Bicycle Route Off Street Trail Sidewalks Enrollment: 1101 students _ Proposed Sidewalks Number in walk zone: 626 students ' s, Half Mile Radius PP -='1Kimley-Horn I f . N 0 150 300 Feet Figure 12. Richfield High School and Associates, Inc`" Sr I n g g / Recommendations Map ��SlandlslrAveJ — 1 I o a s any-4181-anV418L�- -_ in � roz; y 4!9L anV-4191 �~ /ami -a m a f0 N N Y a'nyL �uIWOO8�06P W Q a V] N H m m fn ' w AV,415m I m w y �o a1 .N a F,�antl-4lSL >. ^' j �' O m m o n U rn I a °a a a rn in n o aAV-41bL— 'o N m c -� It ¢ a m m LL O O [n a [n -anH 1Eb g' m w Im err ®O LZi-I, -a1Z1— J ' _- lLhj ... a^`IVAI-,41{4 w — ^ any 4Abl AOl-I -any -4101 any 4loL m I I I I I , 13 O I anygolll3 I, i vole l c >T o a'ny�o6eolySl LY .Gezlll !---- -� al a_ -.-A -snqwnloo 1 T > 1 c Ill �3nb,Ted V c -any-pueIWO and'puelpod - - w w _ _ CL-any4l5 ¢ t 1 an m 1 H-yl5 m _ m 1b—anV4lb-- - a ;V,�43b m o o c m o fL� 1 �II I Appla'Ln '�'� .. _i v t N am 1 Uco IV 41b� -any.uolupS—I d lany.uolullS Iii O U 11 -AV .puZ--�--� it any-quZ " oe any.puZ �any.pu7 m - 0 ocl 4 —any-suanal5 w � v m c any-suanalS U �j o L11 o o any-1sL I E E o and lalloalN cn-any.11aps!elg_ E `o LA m anH llapsiel9 I _ - m N - 1 _any_y1�o,vquaAA 1 �m = >T a a Iany.4yonnluaM--"---- I�--Iny.,(�ngspld---`�°---any_�Ungsll!d an-tin4sll!d t I I �anyqueseald- � _ �_ _anyyues ald `� _ 6 I II I !Y �a_ny_lueseald- o -o any luesealdd lel Lal y.puw;�-�—N u{----any.pue��j N Ivy n N—any�pue�� J ji any pued�jJ 1 m r--- IanylaweA'{ ny lauiej{ Jany-lawel AV Plall'eEE) ^V-pla14,e9 �N Z9 c � ny.6i�6�yYs ny_lepuRgr--� _ _ anVyapPIV any,gauPIV�--- 1 yl F 1 m m anVlue/uI8--- N U M Y 2 c °' �vl e mN %B. POOUa aVx�dlo�— 6PontfmLJ U O o o 1 acy-uIdn oy4y-�c mal a i y j LLJ j In m in y AV ..MN�eilO—N - - r`— a y.pJeelE) � and-pieng O = m antl-lp IgwnH—� --__ �` - - - o c n III Cl aIo4S a�eq---- o j o a any6ulnll - I -- any, �agwfH .\ James,Ave U) o <UTi any-sawep I ii any p— -sawe_V_ ..r Ian II 9 o any xou�l — /�any-xou�l-/ocL-a an' z9u m c a o H.. v anVue6oq -- 3 $�any-ue6i l-N� a�V�ue6oq co Q any-ue6�oW anHue6ioW I'--- - any.uolnnaN any-uolnnaN—o 1 3 1110 o. �._.anyaa IIID - n aAV.Ian!lo any.uuad _ - I - - _ _ _ in T' uaa la =—anyuaan�-^� -a^Vllassny. �.._.�--1--any-Ilissnb--any,llassnbt j l--anVueppagg L' - - any.ueppayg anV'ueppa4S N —aAV,s qj �a y�any-aewogl -o-Y- N I anysewo41F--N N� —Z aAVuoldn-in�� d y. d. _ _ .� -- _ _<n_ �__ _ .� _ _any uoldn.� _ _ All aulA I1 �._.,.E_ .-. anyluaau!A- - any-luaauiA Eli -- -any-wngy eM-- any-wngyseM n d anVwngyse/A � c s �-Ilj—.a l�al �liol� �m I pbkawe8 b CITY OF RICHFIELD Safe Routes to School'` CompY°ehensive. Plan Appendix A-1 CITY OF RICHFIELD F Safe Routes to School'` ConipY°ehensive. Plan Student Travel Tally Results A-2 Modes To/From School (Fall 2012) FamilyVehicle School Walk Bike School Bus Carpool Other AM PM AM PM AM PM AM PM AM PM AM PM Centennial 7% 9% 2% 2% 73% 78% 18% 11% 0% 0% 0% 0% Elementary Richfield Dual 2% 2% 1% 1% 61% ° 69/ ° 34/ ° 27/ ° 2/ ° 1/ ° 0/ ° 0/ Language Richfield STEM 4% 5% 1% 1% 59% 69% 35% 22% 1% 1% 0% 2% Sheridan Hills 4% 4% 0% 0% 62% 71% 33% 25% 1% 0% 0% 0% Elementary Richfield 7% 11% 5% 5% 59%° 50/ 26/ 32/ 2/ 2/ 1/ 0/ Middle A-2 CITY OF RICHFIELD F Safe Routes to School'` ConipY°ehensive. Plan Parent Survey Results School Number of Survey Responses Centennial Elementary 0 Richfield Dual Language 73 Richfield STEM 156 Sheridan Hills Elementary 1 Richfield Middle School 1 Righfield High School 5 Total 236 Question 1. What is the grade of the child who brought home this survey? Question 2. Is the child who brought home this survey male or female? PK K 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Percent of School (only (children Transit (skateboard, Walk Bike Bus children in from Respondents 0% 12% 15% 20% 22% 6% 22% 0% 1% 0% 0% 0% 1% 1% Question 2. Is the child who brought home this survey male or female? Question 3. How many children do you have in Kindergarten through 8th grade? Male Female Percent of Respondents 41% 59% Question 3. How many children do you have in Kindergarten through 8th grade? Question 6. On most days, how does your child arrive and leave for school? Arrive to School 0 1 2 3 4 5+ Percent of Respondents 2% 46% 41% 10% 1% 0% Question 6. On most days, how does your child arrive and leave for school? Arrive to School A-3 Family Carpool Other Vehicle School (only (children Transit (skateboard, Walk Bike Bus children in from (city bus) scooter, other inline skates, your families) etc.) family) Percent of Respondents 6% 1% 58% 34%1/ 0/ 0/ ° A-3 CITY OF RICHFIELD F Safe Routes to School'` ConipY°ehensive. Plan Question 6 (continued). On most days, how does your child arrive and leave for school? Leave from School Question 7. How long does it normally take your child to get to/from school? Travel Time to Schoo Yes 5-10 11-20 Family 3 4 < 5 minutes 81% Respondents 8 Don't know Percent of Carpool minutes Other 20 minutes Percent of Vehicle (children (skateboard, Respondents Walk Bike School (only from Transit scooter, 25% 12% 7% Bus children in (city bus) other inline skates, your families) etc.) family) Percent of Respondents 6% 1%58/ ° ° 34/ 1% 0% 0% Question 7. How long does it normally take your child to get to/from school? Travel Time to Schoo Travel Time From School Yes 5-10 11-20 More than 3 4 < 5 minutes 81% Respondents 8 Don't know Percent of minutes minutes 20 minutes Percent of Respondents 18/ ° 34/ ° 31/ ° 9% 8% Respondents 20% 25% 12% 7% 16% Travel Time From School Question 8. Has your child asked you for permission to walk or bike to/from school in the last year? Yes 5-10 11-20 More than 3 4 < 5 minutes 81% Respondents 8 Don't know Percent of minutes minutes 20 minutes Percent of Respondents 17/ ° 31/ ° 35/ ° 9% 8% Respondents 20% 25% 12% 7% 16% Question 8. Has your child asked you for permission to walk or bike to/from school in the last year? Question 9. At what grade would you allow your child to walk or bike to/from school without an adult? Yes No Percent of 2 3 4 19% 81% Respondents 8 9+ Question 9. At what grade would you allow your child to walk or bike to/from school without an adult? A-4 PK K 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9+ Percent of Respondents 0% 1% 1% 1% 5% 12% 20% 25% 12% 7% 16% A-4 CITY OF RICHFIELD F Safe Routes to School'` ConipY°ehensive. Plan Question 10. What of the following issues affected your decision to allow, or not allow, your child to walk or bike to/from school? Issue Percent of Respondents Child Already Walks/Bikes 4% Distance 67% Convenience of Driving 13% Time 27% Before/After School Activities 15% Speed of Traffic 56% Amount of Traffic 61% Adults to Walk or Bike With 23% Sidewalks or Pathways 30% Safety of Intersections and Crossings 65% Crossing Guards 13% Violence or Crime 32% Weather or Climate 48% Percentages do not total 10091. because respondents could select more than one issue. Question 11. Would you probably let your child walk or bike to/from school if this problem were changed or improved? Issue Percent of Respondents Child Already Walks/Bikes 5% Distance 39% Convenience of Driving 11% Time 20% Before/After School Activities 16% Speed of Traffic 39% Amount of Traffic 42% Adults to Walk or Bike With 32% Sidewalks or Pathways 26% Safety of Intersections and Crossings 45% Crossing Guards 21% Violence or Crime 31% Weather or Climate 1% Percentages do not total 100% because respondents could select more than one issue. A-5 CITY OF RICHFIELD F Safe Routes to School'` ConipY°ehensive. Plan " Question 12. In your opinion, how much does your child's school encourage or discourage walking and biking to/from school? Question 13. How much fun is walking or biking to/from school for your child? Strongly Encourages Neither Discourages Strongly Not Encourages ° 39/ ° 18/ 2% Discourages Percent of 3% 20% 71% 5% 1% Respondents 2% 3% Respondents School Prefer Question 13. How much fun is walking or biking to/from school for your child? Question 14. How healthy is walking or biking to/from school for your child? Very Fun Fun Neutral Boring Very Not 41/ ° ° 39/ ° 18/ 2% 0% Boring Applicable Percent of 7%34/ ° ° 50/ 4% 2% 3% Respondents School Prefer School through 8 (Some (High Question 14. How healthy is walking or biking to/from school for your child? Question 15. What is the highest grade or year of school you completed? Very Healthy Healthy Neutral Unhealthy Very Unhealthy Percent of 41/ ° ° 39/ ° 18/ 2% 0% Respondents College Graduate Grades 1 Question 15. What is the highest grade or year of school you completed? A-6 College Grades 9 Grade 12 1 to 3 College Graduate Grades 1 thr11 gh or GED Same 4 years or School Prefer School through 8 (Some (High ( college more (Masters not to (Elementary) High school or (College degree or answer graduate) graduate) doctorate) School) technical school) Percent of Respondents 6% 6% 11% 29%40/ ° ° 1/ ° 7/ A-6 CITY OF RICHFIELD F Safe Routes to School'` ConipY°ehensive. Plan Resources 1. National Center for Safe Routes to School, Ongoing Activities guide.saferoutesinfo.org/encouragement/ongoing activities.cfm 2. Two Day Travel Tally, National Center for Safe Routes to School www.saferoutesinfo.org/program-tools/evaluation-student-class-travel-tally 3. Parent Survey, National Center for Safe Routes to School www.saferoutesinfo.org/program-tools/evaluation-parent-survey 4. Minnesota Department of Transportation Safe Routes to School resources and funding opportunities www.dot.state.mn.us/saferoutes/ 5. Minnesota Public Health Law Center legal and liability resources http://Publichealthlawcenter.org/topics/active-living/physical-activity-schools/resources 6. Examples of walking and biking curriculums for elementary and middle school students http://www.dot.state.mn.us/saferoutes/toolkit.htmI/elementary-srts-curricuIum.pdf http://www.dot.state.mn.us/saferoutes/toolkit.htmI/middle-school-bicycle-education.pdf Information and examples of pedestrian and bicycle safety campaigns http://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/local rural/pedcampaign/ http://www.bikesbelong.org/resources/stats-and-research/research/bicycle-safety-campaign- review A-7 00dPublic Health Law Center AT WILLIAM EA TCI IELL COLLEGE of LAW F� a Liability Exposure for Schools Each school day presents new opportunities for students of all ages to practice healthy behaviors. Schools and school districts are improving student and community health through programs tailored to a community's individual needs and resources. Across Minnesota, school districts are updating their policies to include school wellness, Farm to School, Safe Routes to School programs, school gardens, and are entering into facilities use agreements to expand the recreational use of school property. Well-designed policies, led by knowledgeable and supportive staff, can advance student nutrition, increase physical activity, and help develop healthy lifestyles? While school districts are generally subject to liability for their wrongful acts as well the acts of their employees, fortunately, Minnesota law provides some significant protections. What is liability? For purposes of this publication, liability can be defined as legal responsibility for another person's injury or damages. There are numerous provisions within both state and federal law that serve as sources of potential liability for school districts. However, when a school district is considering allowing community use of its facilities for recreational activities, the possibility that someone who is using a school facility might suffer an injury and bring a claim against the district (or its officers, employees, or agents) is arguably the district's most significant liability concern. The standards for holding someone liable differ depending on who or what caused the injury. Typically, for a person to be held liable for someone else's injuries, an injured person must first prove that the accused had a legal responsibility to protect him or her from harm (otherwise known as "duty of care"). Concerns about "liability" can keep schools from implementing policies that would benefit students and community members alike. Public Health Law Center 875 Summit Avenue St. Paul, Minnesota 55105 www.publichealthlawcenter.org 651.290.7506 Then, the injured person has to show that the accused party failed to protect him or her (or "breached" the duty of care) and as a result, was injured in an expected (or "foreseeable") manner.' the general expectation is that one will act reasonably toward others.2 What is considered reasonable, however, depends on the circumstances. Failure to act with as much care as an ordinary, reasonable person in a given situation would is considered negligence.' However, there are situations where a person or entity is held to a higher or lower standard. How are school districts protected from liability, through governmental immunities. Immunities, provided both in state statutes' and court decisions', protect school districts from liability for a variety of claims. Two immunities are particularly relevant when developing policies that promote healthy, active lifestyles. First, school districts are shielded from liability that might arise from discretionary conduct.' Statutory discretionary immunity protects policy-making decisions that require considering factors such as budget, education, resources and safety.' For example, a school district may adopt a policy stating that, due to limited resources and a desire to cultivate independence, students are responsible for getting on the correct bus at the end of the day.' Statutory discretionary immunity protects school districts from having their decisions "second-guessed"by the courts. Discretionary conduct is distinguished from operational -level or "ministerial' conduct. Operational activities that do not involve exercising of discretion, such as following an established plan, are not protected.9 Second, school districts are generally protected from liability when injuries result from the recreational use of school property. Liability Exposure far Schools 1 2 Local governments are generally immune from claims based on the construction, operation, or maintenance of any property owned or leased for park or recreational purposes.10 School districts are also protected against claims arising from the use of school property or school facilities that are made available for public recreational activities." Schools that fail to warn recreational users of known, hidden hazards may still be liable for injuries. 12 Are teachers, coaches and other school personnel protected as well? Yes, school personnel are generally protected as well. "Official immunity" protects individuals from personal liability for discretionary actions taken in the course of their official duties." this is intended to alleviate concerns that the fear of personal liability might deter independent action .14 School districts are also generally required to defend and indemnify their employees if they are sued for something arising out of their employment." However, school personnel are not protected for willful or malicious conduct," intentionally behaving in a way that is likely to cause harm to another person. Additionally, teachers may not be protected for failing to responsibly perform their regular duties. For example, a teacher who allows students to engage in dangerous play during recess may be liable if a child gets injured.'' Public Health Law Center 875 Summit Avenue St. Paul, Minnesota 55105 www.publichealthlawcenter.org 651.290.7506 Liability Exposure far Schools What steps can a school district take to reduce the risk of liability? There are a number of common sense precautions school districts can take to reduce their risk of liability. Some common risk management strategies include: ■ Creating clear policies that are based on a balancing of social, economic, financial and political factors. ■ Preserving a record of the decision-making process. ■ Training staff in regard to their roles in implementing policies. ■ Periodically reviewing policies and procedures, revising when necessary. ■ Eliminating known dangers where possible. ■ Documenting all precautions taken to avoid harm or risk. ■ Developing safety rules and handing them out to all students and parents. Rules should comply with any local rules, any local, state or federal laws, and any national standards. ■ Requiring parents or guardians of students to sign waivers before students participate in recreational activities.18 ■ Forming joint powers or facility use agreements with other public entities or community organizations that specifically outline acceptable uses of school property and facilities. ■ Obtaining liability insurance that covers lawsuits arising from injuries. Last updated: May 2013 Public Health Asom Law Center ow AT WILLIAM MITCHELL CCOLLEHE OF LAW The Publication was prepared by the Public Health Law Center at William Mitchell College of Law, St. Paul, Minnesota, funded by the CDCs Community Transformation Grant initiative and a Robert Wood Johnson Foundation's Active Living Research grant. (#69554). The Public Health Law Center provides information and technical assistance on issues related to public health. The Public Health Law Center does not provide legal representation or advice. This document should not be considered legal advice. For specific legal questions, consult with an attorney. Public Health Law Center 875 Summit Avenue St. Paul, Minnesota 55105 www.publichealthlawcenter.org 651.290.7506 Liability Exposure far Schools 1 4 Endnotes 1 Lubbers v. Anderson, 539 N.W.2d 398,401 (Minn. 1995). 2 See Flom v. Flom, 291 N.W.2d 914, 916 (Minn. 1980); 4 Minn. Prac., Jury Instr. Guides --Civil CIVJIG 25.10 (5th ed. 2010). See Baker v. Amtrak Nat. R.R. Passenger Corp., 588 N.W.2d 749,753 (Minn. Ct. App. 1999). 4 minn. stat. § 466.03 (2012) (local governments); minn. stat. § 3.736 (2012) (state entities). 5 "Common law" is developed through court decisions. 6 There are many protections available to schools and the distinctions between them can be difficult to understand. In an effort to simplify the topic of school liability, we have combined discussion of statutory discretionary immunity for municipalities as per minn. stat. § 466.03, subd. 3 (2012), with discussion of common law and vicarious common law official immunity. Individual situations should be reviewed by an attorney. 7 See J.W ex rel. B.R.W. v 287 Intermediate Dist., 761 NW.2d 896, 902 (Minn. Ct. App. 2009) (including consider- ation of safety issues, financial burdens, and possible legal consequences in decision-making). s Pletan v. Gaines, 494 N.W.2d 38,43-44 (Minn. 1992). 9 Holmquist v. State, 425 N.W.2d 230,232 (Minn. 1988). 10 minn. stat. § 466.03, subd. 6e (2012). 11 minn. stat. § 466.03, subd. 23 (2012). 12 Lishinski v. City of Duluth, 634 N.W.2d 456,459-61 (Minn. Ct. App. 2001). 13 Anderson v. Anoka Hennepin Indep. Sch. Dist. 11, 678 N.W.2d 651, 660 (Minn. 2004). 14 Elwood v. Rice Cnty., 423 N.W.2d 671, 678 (Minn. 1988). 1' minn. stat. § 466.07, subd.1 (2012). 16 Gleason v Metro. Council Transit Operations, 582 N.W.2d 216,220 (Minn. 1998). 11 Fear v. Indep. Sch. Dist. 911,634 N.W.2d 204,21S-16 (Minn. Ct. App. 2001). 113 While waivers are not a guarantee against liability, they may reduce the likelihood of being sued. For more informa- tion, please refer to the Public Health Law Center factsheet on Waivers and Releases, available at http://www.publi- chealthlawcenter. org/resources/minnesota-recreational-use Public Health Law Center 875 Summit Avenue St. Paul, Minnesota 55105 www.publichealthlawcenter.org 651.290.7506 CITY OF RICHFIELD Safe Routes to School` Comprehensive. Planja �V%-WNLw&'FJfflr IMF References 1 Hennepin County Human Services and Public Health Department. SHAPE 2010 Adult Data Book, Survey of the Health of All the Population and the Environment, Minneapolis, Minnesota, March 2011. 2 Hennepin County Human Services and Public Health Department. SHAPE 2010— Child Survey Data Book, Minneapolis, Minnesota, April 2011. 3 U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Barriers to Children Walking to or from School United States 2004, Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report, September 30, 2005. 4 2009 Traffic Volumes Map, Minnesota Department of Transportation Office of Transportation Data and Analysis. A-12 REPORT PREPARED BY: DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR REVIEW: OTHER DEPARTMENT REVIEW: CITY MANAGER REVIEW: ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION: AGENDA SECTION: CONSENT CALENDAR AGENDA ITEM # 8.B. STAFF REPORT NO. 184 CITY COUNCIL MEETING 10/28/2014 Chris Regis, Finance Manager SD None. Steven L. Devich Consideration of the approval of the transfer of funds to close out certain capital project funds. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: The City has two capital project funds where the projects have been completed. The two projects are the 77th Street Concrete project and the Lyndale Avenue Bridge project. The 77th Street Concrete Project work was completed in 2013 and all of the pertinent paperwork was completed in September, 2014 . The project currently has a negative balance of $264,122 and as such, funds must be transferred in to balance the account to zero. The source for those funds will be the Municipal State Aid (MSA) fund. This is a MSA eligible project and the MSA Fund has adequate balance to do so. The second project fund to be closed out is the Lyndale Avenue Bridge Project which was completed in 2009. This project fund has been held open while the Engineering Division has spent a lengthy period of time attempting to gain all eligible state and federal funding available for the project. Through this excellent effort substantial additional funds were recently received and the project is ready to be closed. This project account reflects a positive balance of $580,854, which will be transferred to the MSA Fund which is the most appropriate fund to receive these funds. For the purposes of the Engineering Division and our financial records, these projects should now be closed out. RECOMMENDED ACTION: By Motion: Approve the transfer of funds to close out certain capital project funds. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION: A. HISTORICAL CONTEXT: The Lyndale Avenue Bridge capital project fund was established to account for the reconstruction of the Lyndale Avenue Bridge. The 77th Street Concrete project was established to account for concrete joint repair on 77th Street. B. POLICIES (resolutions, ordinances, regulations, statutes, exc): The City's financial policies do not directly address the closing out of City funds. The City's auditors have recommended that non -budgeted transfers between funds be approved by the City Council. c. CRITICAL TIMING ISSUES: There are no critical timing issues. D. FINANCIAL IMPACT: The following tables reflect the funds to close and the corresponding funding sources or recipients. Fund to Close I Balance I Funding Source Amount 77th Street Concrete (264,122) IMSA Fund 264,122 Fund to Close I Balance I Funding Recipient I Amount Lyndale Avenue Bridge 1580,854 IMSA Fund 1 580,854 LEGAL CONSIDERATION: Consultation with the City Attorney was not necessary. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION(S): . The City Council can choose to approve all, part or none of the proposed fund closings. . City Council can direct staff to seek alternative funding sources to close certain funds. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING: N/A REPORT PREPARED BY: DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR REVIEW: OTHER DEPARTMENT REVIEW: CITY MANAGER REVIEW: ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION: AGENDA SECTION: CONSENT CALENDAR AGENDA ITEM # 8.C. STAFF REPORT NO. 185 CITY COUNCIL MEETING 10/28/2014 Chris Regis, Finance Manager SD None. Steven L. Devich Consideration of the approval of the resolutions to call the Gross Revenue Ice Arena Bonds, Series 1999, and to authorize a $563,213 internal loan to fund the call of the Gross Revenue Ice Arena Bonds, Series 1999. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: The Ice Arena, along with the Swimming Pool and Special Facility operations comprises the City's Recreation Enterprise Fund. At the conclusion of the 2013 audit process, the City's auditors, KDV, recommended reclassifying the Recreation Enterprise Fund operations to a Special Revenue Fund. The basis for this recommendation is the operating revenues generated by the Recreation Enterprise Fund are consistently not covering the operating expenses of the fund. Therefore, the fund is not truly operating as an enterprise fund. As part of the process to reclassify the Recreation Enterprise Fund, the outstanding principal balance plus accrued interest of the Gross Revenue Ice Arena Bonds, Series 1999 (Series 1999 bonds) must first be retired. Governmental accounting principles will not allow governmental funds to record bonded debt within the fund. At the present time the City's Ice Arena operation has an outstanding principal balance of $685,000 for the Series 1999 bonds. In addition, there is accrued interest payable in the amount of $12,333 for a total owed of $697,333. In order to facilitate the retirement of the Series 1999 bonds, staff is recommending the City use the call provision included in the bond documents and authorize an internal loan of $563,213 from the City's Golf Course fund and the utilization of the existing Series 1999 bond reserve of $134,120 to fund the call of the outstanding principal and accrued interest. RECOMMENDED ACTION: By Motion: Approve the attached resolutions to call the Gross Revenue Ice Arena Bonds, Series 1999, and to authorize a $563,213 internal loan to fund the call of the Gross Revenue Ice Arena Bonds, Series 1999. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION: A. HISTORICAL CONTEXT: • The Gross Revenue Ice Arena Bonds, Series 1999, were issued to fund the construction of Rink 2 at the Ice Arena facility. B. POLICIES (resolutions, ordinances, regulations, statutes, exc): • Pursuant to Section 7.12, Subd. 7, of the City Charter, the City Council may make internal loans by resolution. • The bond documents of the Series 1999 bonds include a provision to call the bonds any time after February 1, 2009. C. CRITICAL TIMING ISSUES: • The planned call date is December 5, 2014. • Holders of the bonds will be notified of the City's intention to call the bonds. D. FINANCIAL IMPACT: • The current outstanding principal balance of the Series 1999 bonds is $685,000. The accrued interest outstanding is $12,333 for a total due of $697,333. • Funding to retire the bonds will be provided by the following: Internal Loan $563,213 Existing Bond Reserve $134,120 Total $697,333 • The loan period will be for six years, the same amount of time remaining on the existing bonds. • The interest rate will be established at I%, as compared to an average of 5.23% on the existing bonds. • The loan will be repaid with revenues generated from Ice Arena operations. E. LEGAL CONSIDERATION: • Holders of the Series 1999 bonds have been notified of the City's intention to call the bonds. • Procedures related to City Charter Section 7.12 have been followed and completed. • The City attorney has reviewed the resolutions to call the bonds and to establish an internal loan. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION(S): There are no alternative recommendations. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING: None. ATTACHMENTS: Description Type D Resolution to Call the Bonds Resolution Letter 1) Ice Arena Internal Loan Resolution Resolution Letter CITY OF RICHFIELD RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION PROVIDING FOR THE PREPAYMENT AND REDEMPTION OF THE CITY'S GROSS REVENUE ICE ARENA BONDS, SERIES 1999 BE IT RESOLVED By the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota (the "City"), as follows: 1. The City has previously issued and sold its Gross Revenue Ice Arena Bonds, Series 1999 (the "Bonds"), dated as of May 1, 1999, in the original aggregate principal amount of $1,660,000, of which $685,000 in principal amount is currently outstanding. Bonds maturing on or after February 1, 2010 are subject to call for prior redemption on February 1, 2009 or on any date thereafter at a price of par plus accrued interest. Redemption may be in whole or in part, and if in part, at the option of the City and in such order as the City will determine and within a maturity selected by U.S. Bank National Association (successor -in -interest to Firstar Bank of Minnesota, N.A.), Saint Paul, Minnesota, acting as the registrar for the Bonds (the "Registrar"). Prepayments will be at a price of par plus accrued interest. 2. It is determined that it is in the best interests of the sound financial management of the City that Bonds maturing on February 1, 2017 and thereafter, comprising all of the Bonds subject to redemption, be prepaid and redeemed on December 5, 2014 (or on the first date thereafter for which the Registrar of the Bonds can provide proper notice to the holders of the Bonds), and those Bonds are hereby called for redemption on that date in the aggregate principal amount of $685,000. 3. The Registrar is authorized and directed to mail notice of call for redemption of the Bonds in the form attached hereto as EXHIBIT A to the registered owners of the Bonds to be redeemed at the address shown on the registration books kept by the Registrar. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Richfield this 28"' day of October, 2014. Debbie Goettel, Mayor ATTEST: Nancy Gibbs, City Clerk 451112v1 JAERC145-355 EXHIBIT A NOTICE OF CALL FOR REDEMPTION $1,660,000 CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA GROSS REVENUE ICE ARENA BONDS SERIES 1999 NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that, by order of the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota (the "City"), there have been called for redemption and prepayment on December 5, 2014 all outstanding bonds of the City designated as the Gross Revenue Ice Arena Bonds, Series 1999, dated as of May 1, 1999, having a stated maturity date of February 1 in the years 2017 through 2020, both inclusive, totaling $685,000 in principal amount, and with the following CUSIP numbers: Year of Maturity Amount CUSTP 2017 $315,000 763332 AS2 2020 370,000 763332 AV5 The bonds are being called at a price of par plus accrued interest to December 5, 2014, on which date all interest on said bonds will cease to accrue. Holders of the bonds hereby called for redemption are requested to present their bonds for payment at the main office of U.S. Bank National Association (successor -in -interest to Firstar Bank of Minnesota, N.A.), in the City of Saint Paul, Minnesota, at the following address, on or before December 5, 2014: If by mail: U.S. Bank National Association Corporate Trust Operations, 3"1 Floor P.O. Box 64111 St. Paul, MN 55164-0111 If by hand or overnight: U.S. Bank National Association 60 Livingston Avenue EP-MN-WS3C Bond Drop Window, I" Floor St. Paul, MN 55107 Important Notice: In compliance with the Jobs and Growth Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2003, federal backup withholding tax will be withheld at the applicable backup withholding rate in effect at the time the payment by the redeeming institutions if they are not provided with your social security number or federal employer identification number, properly certified. This requirement is fulfilled by submitting a W-9 Form, which may be obtained at a bank or other financial institution. Dated: . 2014. BY ORDER OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA By /s/ Steven Devich City Manager City of Richfield, Minnesota 451112v1 JAERC145-355 A-1 STATE OF MINNESOTA ) COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) SS. CITY OF RICHFIELD ) I, the undersigned, being the duly qualified and acting City Clerk of the City of Richfield, Minnesota (the "City"), do hereby certify that I have carefully compared the attached and foregoing extract of minutes of a regular meeting of the City Council held on Tuesday, October 28, 2014, with the original thereof on file in my office and the same is a full, true and complete transcript therefrom insofar as the same relates to the prepayment and redemption of the City's Gross Revenue Ice Arena Bonds, Series 1999, issued in the original aggregate principal amount of $1,660,000. WITNESS My hand as City Clerk and the corporate seal of the City this day of 2014. City Clerk City of Richfield, Minnesota (SEAL) 451112v1 JAERC145-355 RESOLUTION NO. AUTHORIZING $563,213 INTERNAL LOAN TO RETIRE THE GROSS REVENUE ICE ARENA BONDS, SERIES 1999 WHEREAS, the City Charter allows for the City Council to make internal loans by resolution; and WHEREAS, the call of the Gross Revenue Ice Arena Bonds, Series 1999, will facilitate the reclassification of the Recreation Enterprise Fund, and WHEREAS, the Gross Revenue Ice Arena Bonds, Series 1999, were issued under Minnesota Statute 471.191, and WHEREAS, the funding for the call of the Gross Revenue Ice Arena Bonds, Series 1999, will be provided by an internal loan from the City's Golf Course Fund, and WHEREAS, repayment of the internal loan will be provided by revenues generated by the Ice Arena operation, and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota as follows: The City Manager is authorized to execute an internal loan from the City's Golf Course Fund to the Ice Arena operation to call the Gross Revenue Ice Arena Bonds, Series 1999. 2. The term of the loan will be six (6) years in the amount of $563,213 at 1 % interest. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this 28th day of October, 2014. Debbie Goettel, Mayor ATTEST: Nancy Gibbs, City Clerk REPORT PREPARED BY: DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR REVIEW: OTHER DEPARTMENT REVIEW: CITY MANAGER REVIEW: ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION: AGENDA SECTION: CONSENT CALENDAR AGENDA ITEM # 8.D. STAFF REPORT NO. 186 CITY COUNCIL MEETING 10/28/2014 Jeff Pearson, Transportation Engineer Mike Eastling, Public Works Director N/A Steven L. Devich Consideration of the approval of the resolutions approving subdivision of the remnant parcels at 6245 & 6301 Bloomington Avenue and approving first read of transitory ordinances authorizing the sale of land located at 6245 and 6301 Bloomington Avenue South by the City of Richfield. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: The City purchased 6245 Bloomington Avenue, 6301 Bloomington Avenue, and 6300 16th Avenue for right-of- way as part of the Richfield Parkway Connection project. The alignment of the new roadway created remnants of 6245 and 6301 Bloomington Ave. that are larger than what the City has determined is necessary for long- term right-of-way needs. The property owners adjacent to these remnant parcels, at 6239 Bloomington Avenue and 6305 Bloomington Avenue, approached the City with an interest in purchasing a portion of these remnants. Property owners at 6239 Bloomington Avenue South and 6305 Bloomington Avenue South have signed purchase agreements for their desired remnant parcels. In addition, the Planning Commission passed the attached required resolution finding that the sale of the remnant parcel is consistent with the Richfield Comprehensive Plan. RECOMMENDED ACTION: By Motion: 1. Approve the attached resolution approving subdivision of the land at 6245 Bloomington Avenue South. 2. Approve the attached resolution approving subdivision of the land at 6301 Bloomington Avenue South. 3. Approve the first reading of a transitory ordinance authorizing the sale of land located at 6245 Bloomington Avenue South by the City of Richfield and schedule the public hearing and second reading for November 25, 2014. 4. Approve the first reading of a transitory ordinance authorizing the sale of land located at 6301 Bloomington Avenue South by the City of Richfield and schedule the public hearing and second reading for November 25, 2014. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION: A. HISTORICAL CONTEXT: . The establishment of Richfield Parkway as a vehicular and greenway corridor extending from the City's northern border is an identified goal of the Comprehensive Plan. . The area has been identified as a future greenway since the adoption of the Cedar Avenue Corridor Master Plan in 2004. . The construction of the Richfield Parkway connection in 2013 between Bloomington Avenue and 17th Avenue (now completely Richfield Parkway) contributed to that goal. . Staff determined that after construction, excess right-of-way exists in this area to facilitate a property sale to adjacent property owners. B. POLICIES (resolutions, ordinances, regulations, statutes, exc): • City Code Section 500.03, Subd. 2, requires that all subdivisions of land in the City must be approved by Council resolution pursuant to the provisions of Minnesota Statutes, Section 462.357 • City Charter Section 13.04, requires that no real property of the City shall be disposed of except by ordinance. . This process provides for public input through a public hearing. c. CRITICAL TIMING ISSUES: Buyers would like to complete sales in 2014. Under Section 3.09 of the City Charter, a transitory ordinance becomes effective 30 days after publication of the second hearing notice. D. FINANCIAL IMPACT: The purchase price for both remnant parcels have been approved by the City Manager. E. LEGAL CONSIDERATION: The City Attorney has reviewed the sale process and the attached documents and will be in attendance at the Council meeting should questions arise. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION(S): . Council may choose to not approve the subdivisions or sales. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING: None ATTACHMENTS: Description Type D 6245 Ordinance Ordinance D 6301 Ordinance Ordinance D 6245 SubDiv Resolution Resolution Letter D 6301 SubDiv Resolution Resolution Letter 1) 6245 Purchase Agreement Contract/Agreement D 6301 Purchase Agreement Contract/Agreement 1) PC Resolution Exhibit ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE AUTHORIZING THE SALE OF LAND LOCATED AT 6245 BLOOMINGTON AVENUE SOUTH BY THE CITY OF RICHFIELD THE CITY OF RICHFIELD DOES ORDAIN: Section 1. Background; findings; authority. 1.01 The City of Richfield ("City") is governed by a home rule charter adopted pursuant to the Constitution of the State of Minnesota and Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 410 (Act). 1.02 The City owns certain property located at 6245 Bloomington Avenue South which is legally described on Exhibit A attached hereto ("Property"); 1.03. The City purchased the Property for public purposes as part of a larger tract, but the portion thereof which is legally described on Exhibit A attached hereto and which is depicted on Exhibit B attached hereto is not required for that public purpose and is not anticipated to be needed in the future for any public purpose; 1.04. The City, as Seller, and Ouneheuane Sengsourichanh and Keo Sengsourichanh, husband and wife, as Purchasers, have entered into a purchase agreement, subject to City Council approval, under which it is proposed that the City sell the Property to the Purchasers for a purchase price of $2,133.80; 1.05. The Property is an uneconomic remnant which the City Director of Public Works has recommended be sold to the Purchasers as provided in said purchase agreement. 1.06. The Purchasers own the real estate adjacent to the Property. 1.07. The Council finds and determines that it is in the best interests of the City to sell the Property to the Purchasers. Section 2. Adoption; effective date; filing. 2.01. The sale of the Property to the Purchasers is hereby approved in accordance with the provisions of the purchase agreement on file with the City Clerk. The Mayor and the City Manager are authorized and directed to execute the purchase agreement, the deed and any other documents recommended by the City Attorney in furtherance of the conveyance of the Property to Purchasers as provided in the purchase agreement. -1- 4475770 RJL RC145-681 2.02. This Ordinance shall take effect after the thirtieth (30'1') day following adoption and publication, exclusive of the day of publication. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this day of 2014. Debbie Goettel, Mayor ATTEST: Nancy Gibbs, City Clerk SEAL -2- 447577x3 RJL RC145-681 EXHIBIT A Le2af Description of Property That part of Lot 14, Block 9, Girard Parkview, as is on file in the office of the County Recorder, Hennepin County, Minnesota, described as follows: Beginning at the northeast corner of Lot 14, Block 9, Girard Parkview; thence South 89 degrees 13 minutes 13 seconds West, assumed bearing along the north line thereof 118.61 feet; thence South 23 degrees 40 minutes 59 seconds East, 12.11 feet; thence North 89 degrees 13 minutes 13 seconds East, 48.09 feet; thence North 79 degrees 35 minutes 57 seconds East, 66.75 feet to the point of beginning. Vs EXHIBIT B Parcel Sketch of Portion of Property To Be Conveyed HIM ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE AUTHORIZING THE SALE OF LAND LOCATED AT 6301 BLOOMINGTON AVENUE SOUTH BY THE CITY OF RICHFIELD THE CITY OF RICHFIELD DOES ORDAIN: Section 1. Background; findings; authority. 1.01 The City of Richfield ("City") is governed by a home rule charter adopted pursuant to the Constitution of the State of Minnesota and Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 410 (Act). 1.02. The City owns certain property located at 6301 Bloomington Avenue South which is legally described in Exhibit A attached hereto and which is depicted in Exhibit B attached hereto ("Property"); 1.03. The City purchased the Property for public purposes as part of a larger tract, but the portion thereof which is legally described on Exhibit A attached hereto and which is depicted on Exhibit B attached hereto is not required for that public purpose and is not anticipated to be needed in the future for any public purpose; 1.04. The City, as Seller, and Craig D. Olsen and Sarah L. Olsen, husband and wife, as Purchasers, have entered into a purchase agreement, subject to City Council approval, under which it is proposed that the City sell the Property to the Purchasers for a purchase price of $1,522.80; 1.05. The Property is an uneconomic remnant which the City Director of Public Works has recommended be sold to the Purchasers as provided in said purchase agreement. 1.06. The Purchasers own the real estate adjacent to the Property. 1.07. The Council finds and determines that it is in the best interests of the City to sell the Property to the Purchasers. Section 2. Adoption; effective date; filing. 2.01. The sale of the Property to the Purchasers is hereby approved in accordance with the provisions of the purchase agreement on file with the City Clerk. The Mayor and the City Manager are authorized and directed to execute the purchase agreement, the deed and any other documents recommended by the City Attorney in furtherance of the conveyance of 1 4475840 RJL RC145-682 the Property to the Purchasers as provided in the purchase agreement. 2.02. This Ordinance shall take effect on the 30t" day following its adoption and publication, exclusive of the day of publication. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this day of 2014. Debbie Goettel, Mayor ATTEST: Nancy Gibbs, City Clerk SEAL 2 4475840 RJL RC145-682 EXHIBIT A Le2af Description of Property That part of Lot 20, Block 10, Girard Parkview, as is on file in the office of the County Recorder, Hennepin County, Minnesota described as follows: Commencing at the southeast corner of Lot 20, Block 10, Girard Parkview; thence South 89 degrees 20 minutes 15 seconds West, assumed bearing along the south line thereof 63.46 feet to the point of beginning; thence North 60 degrees 28 minutes 37 seconds West, 20.84 feet; thence North 89 degrees 40 minutes 14 seconds West, 48.34 feet; thence South 22 degrees 34 minutes 35 seconds West, 12.32 feet to the south line thereof; thence North 89 degrees 20 minutes 15 seconds East, 71.21 feet to the point of beginning. A-1 4475840 RJL RC145-682 EXHIBIT B Parcel Sketh o!#r get B -I 4475840 wtRC!«-: I � � - � o L) � im \ _ — ƒ $ � � n U� § m � 0 - § 2 2 a- §40 f k O G B In di ' . � � � ! \ ■ f � � B -I 4475840 wtRC!«-: RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION APPROVING SUBDIVISION OF LAND LOCATED AT 6245 BLOOMINGTON AVENUE SOUTH AND WAIVING COMPLIANCE WITH MINN. STAT., SECTION 462.358, SUBD. 4b(a) AND SECTION 500 OF THE CITY CODE OF ORDINANCES WITH RESPECT THERETO WHEREAS, the City is the owner in fee simple of the real estate located at 6245 Bloomington Avenue South, in the City of Richfield, which is described in Exhibit A attached hereto ("Property"); WHEREAS, the City purchased the Property for public purposes, but has concluded that the portion of the Property which is legally described on Exhibit B attached hereto and depicted on Exhibit C attached hereto ("Portion") is not required for said public purposes and is not foreseen to be required for public purposes in the future, and wishes to subdivide the Property and convey the Portion to the adjacent owner; WHEREAS, the proposed subdivision is recommended by the City Director of Public Works and the City Director of Community Development; WHEREAS, Section 500.03, Subd. 2, City Code of Ordinances, requires that all subdivisions of land in the City must be approved by Council resolution pursuant to the provisions of Minnesota Statutes, Section 462.357; WHEREAS, Section 500.05, Subd. 1, City Code of Ordinances, provides that no conveyance of land that constitutes a subdivision within the meaning of Section 500 may be filed or recorded, if the land is described in the conveyance by metes and bounds; WHEREAS, Section 500.05, Subd. la, City Code of Ordinances, provides that Section 500.05, Subd. 1, City Code of Ordinances, does not apply to a conveyance if the land described... (g) is an adjustment of a lot line by relocation of a common boundary, where the 1 447480v2 RJL RC145-681 conveyance does not create an additional lot or space sufficient to construct an additional residence thereon; WHEREAS, Section 500.05, Subd. 2, City Code of Ordinances, provides that, in any case in which compliance with Section 500.05, Subd. 1, City Code of Ordinances, will result in an unnecessary hardship, and failure to comply does not interfere with the purpose of the platting regulations of Section 500, the City Council may waive such compliance by adoption of a resolution to that effect, and the conveyance may then be recorded; WHEREAS, Minnesota Statutes, Section 462.358, Subd. 4b(a) provides that in a municipality in which subdivision regulations are in force and have been filed or recorded as provided in Section 462.358, no conveyance of land to which the regulations are applicable shall be filed or recorded, if the land is described in the conveyance by metes and bounds. However, Section 462.358, Subd. 4b(c) provides that the City, as platting authority, may waive compliance with the requirements of Section 462.358, Subd. 4b(a) so that the conveyance may by recorded, if compliance with Subd. 4b(a) will create an unnecessary hardship and failure to comply does not interfere with the purpose of the subdivision regulations; WHEREAS, Minnesota Statutes, Section 272.162, Subd. 1 provides that when a deed or other instrument conveying a parcel of land is presented to the county auditor for transfer or division under Sections 272.12, 272.16, and 272.161, the auditor shall not transfer or divide the land or its net tax capacity in the official records and shall not certify the instrument as provided in Section 272.12, if. (a) the land conveyed is less than a whole parcel as charged in the tax lists; (b) the part conveyed appears within the area of application of municipal subdivision regulations adopted and filed under Section 462.36, Subdivision 1; and (c) the part conveyed is part of or constitutes a subdivision as defined in Section 462.352, Subdivision 12; 2 447480v2 RJL RC145-681 WHEREAS, Minnesota Statutes, Section 462.352, Subd. 12 defines "subdivision" to mean "the separation of an area, parcel or tract of land under single ownership into two or more parcels, tracts, (or) lots, ... except those separations ... (3) resulting from court orders, or the adjustment of a lot line by the relocation of a common boundary; " WHEREAS, the Council finds that the Portion is an uneconomic remnant, that it is in the best interests of the public and the City that the remnant be consolidated with the adjacent property, that such conveyance is simply an adjustment of a common boundary line between two adjacent properties, that it would be an unnecessary hardship for the current owner of the Property and the adjacent owner to whom it is proposed that the Portion be conveyed if subdivision of the Property were denied, and that failure to comply with the provisions of the City's subdivision regulations will not interfere with the purpose of the regulations; WHEREAS, Section 500.27, City Code of Ordinances, requires that whenever a copy of a preliminary or final plat or subdivision is filed with the City for approval, published notice shall be given in the official newspaper of the City of a public hearing to be held not less than ten (10) days thereafter. At such hearing, all persons interested therein may be heard and the City Council may thereafter approve or disapprove the plat or subdivision. Subdivisions, after approval, may be recorded as provided by law; and WHEREAS, a public hearing was held before the Council concerning the proposed subdivision, after due notice in accordance with Section 500.27 of the City Code of Ordinances; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota as follows: 1. Subdivision of the Property, as described in Exhibit A attached hereto, between the Portion which is described in Exhibit B attached hereto and the remainder of the Property, is hereby approved. 3 447480v2 RJL RC145-681 2. Compliance with the provisions of Minnesota Statutes, Section 462.358, Subd. 4b(a) and Section 500 of the City Code of Ordinances is hereby waived with respect to subdivision of the Property described herein. 3. This resolution is intended to satisfy the requirements of Minnesota Statutes, Section 272.162 and Section 462.358, Subd.4b, as well as Section 500 of the City Code of Ordinances. 4. The City Attorney shall file a certified copy of this resolution against the title of the Property at the time of conveyance of the Portion which is described in R'h;h;t R Adopted by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this day of , 2014. Debbie Goettel, Mayor ATTEST: Nancy Gibbs, City Clerk 4 447480v2 RJL RC145-681 EXHIBIT A Legal Description of the Property (Real Estate To Be Subdivided) Lot 14, Block 9, Girard Parkview, according to the plat thereof on file and of record in the office of the County Recorder in and for Hennepin County, Minnesota Property Address; 6245 Bloomington, Avenue. South, Richfield, Minnesota 55423 A-1 44748M RJL RC 145-681 EXHIBIT B Legal Description of Real Estate To Be Conveyed That part of Lot 14, Block 9, Girard Parkview, as is on file in the office of the County Recorder, Hennepin County, Minnesota, described as follows: Beginning at the northeast corner of Lot 14, Block 9, Girard Parkview; thence South 89 degrees 13 minutes 13 seconds West, assumed bearing along the north line thereof 118.61 feet; thence South 23 degrees 40 minutes 59 seconds East, 12.11 feet; thence North 89 degrees 13 minutes 13 seconds East, 48.09 feet; thence North 79 degrees 35 minutes 57 seconds East, 66.75 feet to the point of beginning. B-1 44748M RJL RC 145-681 EXHIBIT C Parcel Sketch Depicting Portion of the Property To Be Conveyed To Adjacent Owner �o r i C/3 r � GAAP VM1 CF w oJ m- o -j w E N 'o °° a sa e a � . 4 �r wQ a ` R} �u �m • C-1 447480v2 RJL RC145-681 RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION APPROVING SUBDIVISION OF LAND LOCATED AT 6301 BLOOMINGTON AVENUE SOUTH AND WAIVING COMPLIANCE WITH MINN. STAT. SECTION 462.358, SUBD. 4b(a)AND SECTION 500 OF THE CITY CODE OF ORDINANCES WITH RESPECT THERETO WHEREAS, the City is the owner in fee simple of the real estate located at 6301 Bloomington Avenue South, in the City of Richfield, which is described in Exhibit A attached hereto ("Property"); WHEREAS, the City purchased the Property for public purposes, but has concluded that the portion of the Property which is legally described on Exhibit B attached hereto and depicted on Exhibit C attached hereto ("Portion") is not required for said public purposes and is not foreseen to be required for public purposes in the future, and wishes to subdivide the Property and convey the Portion to the adjacent owner; WHEREAS, the proposed subdivision is recommended by the City Director of Public Works and the City Director of Community Development; WHEREAS, Section 500.03, Subd. 2, City Code of Ordinances, requires that all subdivisions of land in the City must be approved by Council resolution pursuant to the provisions of Minnesota Statutes, Section 462.357; WHEREAS, Section 500.05, Subd. 1, City Code of Ordinances, provides that no conveyance of land that constitutes a subdivision within the meaning of Section 500 may be filed or recorded, if the land is described in the conveyance by metes and bounds; WHEREAS, Section 500.05, Subd. la, City Code of Ordinances, provides that Section 500.05, Subd. 1, City Code of Ordinances, does not apply to a conveyance if the land described... (g) is an adjustment of a lot line by relocation of a common boundary, where the 1 447528v2 RJL RC145-682 conveyance does not create an additional lot or space sufficient to construct an additional residence thereon; WHEREAS, Section 500.05, Subd. 2, City Code of Ordinances, provides that, in any case in which compliance with Section 500.05, Subd.l, City Code of Ordinances, will result in an unnecessary hardship, and failure to comply does not interfere with the purpose of the platting regulations of Section 500, the City Council may waive such compliance by adoption of a resolution to that effect, and the conveyance may then be recorded; WHEREAS, Minnesota Statutes, Section 462.358, Subd.4b(a) provides that in a municipality in which subdivision regulations are in force and have been filed or recorded as provided in Section 462.358, no conveyance of land to which the regulations are applicable shall be filed or recorded, if the land is described in the conveyance by metes and bounds. However, Section 462.358, Subd. 4b(c) provides that the City, as platting authority, may waive compliance with the requirements of Section 462.358, Subd. 4b(a) so that the conveyance may by recorded, if compliance with Subd. 4b(a) will create an unnecessary hardship and failure to comply does not interfere with the purpose of the subdivision regulations; WHEREAS, Minnesota Statutes, Section 272.162, Subd. 1 provides that when a deed or other instrument conveying a parcel of land is presented to the county auditor for transfer or division under Sections 272.12, 272.16, and 272.161, the auditor shall not transfer or divide the land or its net tax capacity in the official records and shall not certify the instrument as provided in Section 272.12, if. (a) the land conveyed is less than a whole parcel as charged in the tax lists; (b) the part conveyed appears within the area of application of municipal subdivision regulations adopted and filed under Section 462.36, Subdivision 1; and (c) the part conveyed is part of or constitutes a subdivision as defined in Section 462.352, Subdivision 12; 2 447528v2 RJL RC145-682 WHEREAS, Minnesota Statutes, Section 462.352, Subd. 12 defines "subdivision" to mean "the separation of an area, parcel or tract of land under single ownership into two or more parcels, tracts, (or) lots, ... except those separations ... (3) resulting from court orders, or the adjustment of a lot line by the relocation of a common boundary; " WHEREAS, the Council finds that the Portion is an uneconomic remnant, that it is in the best interests of the public and the City that the remnant be consolidated with the adjacent property, that such conveyance is simply an adjustment of a common boundary line between two adjacent properties, that it would be an unnecessary hardship for the current owner of the Property and the adjacent owner to whom it is proposed that the Portion be conveyed if subdivision of the Property were denied, and that failure to comply with the provisions of the City's subdivision regulations and waiver of compliance with the provisions thereof will not interfere with the purpose of the regulations; WHEREAS, Section 500.27, City Code of Ordinances, requires that whenever a copy of a preliminary or final plat or subdivision is filed with the City for approval, published notice shall be given in the official newspaper of the City of a public hearing to be held not less than ten (10) days thereafter. At such hearing, all persons interested therein may be heard and the City Council may thereafter approve or disapprove the plat or subdivision. Subdivisions, after approval, may be recorded as provided by law; and WHEREAS, a public hearing was held before the Council concerning the proposed subdivision, after due notice in accordance with Section 500.27 of the City Code of Ordinances; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota as follows: 3 447528v2 RJL RC145-682 1. Subdivision of the Property, as described in Exhibit A attached hereto, between the Portion which is described in Exhibit B attached hereto and the remainder of the Property, is hereby approved. 2. Compliance with the provisions of Minnesota Statutes, Section 462.358, Subd. 4b(a) and the provisions of Section 500 of the City Code of Ordinances is hereby waived with respect to subdivision of the Property as described herein. 3. This resolution is intended to satisfy the requirements of Minnesota Statutes, Section 272.162 and Section 462.358, Subd.4b, as well as Section 500 of the City Code of Ordinances. 4. The City Attorney shall file a certified copy of this resolution against the title of the Property at the time of conveyance of the Portion which is described in Exhibit B. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this _day of , 2014 Debbie Goettel, Mayor ATTEST: Nancy Gibbs, City Clerk 4 447528v2 RJL RC145-682 EXHIBIT A Legal Description of the Property (Real Estate To Be Subdivided) Lot 20, Block 10, Girard Parkview, according to the plat thereof on file and of record in the office of the County Recorder in and for Hennepin County, Minnesota. Property Address: 6301 Bloomington Avenue South, Richfield, MN 55423 A-1 447528v2 RJL RC145-682 EXHIBIT B Legal Description of Real Estate To Be Conveyed That part of Lot 20, Block 10, Girard Parkview, as is on file in the office of the County Recorder, Hennepin County, Minnesota described as follows: Commencing at the southeast corner of Lot 20, Block 10, Girard Parkview; thence South 89 degrees 20 minutes 15 seconds West, assumed bearing along the south line thereof 63.46 feet to the point of beginning; thence North 60 degrees 28 minutes 37 seconds West, 20.84 feet; thence North 89 degrees 40 minutes 14 seconds West, 48.34 feet; thence South 22 degrees 34 minutes 35 seconds West, 12.32 feet to the south line thereof, thence North 89 degrees 20 minutes 15 seconds East, 71.21 feet to the point of beginning. B-1 447528v2 RJL RC145-682 EXHIBIT C Parcel Sketch De !£§n2 Portion of Property To Be Conveyed to A#1a entOwne C -I 447528v2 wt !«- 2 � . � o e � . E �- �- % Li � 7 ƒ , $ � � I % � � C3GO 3 - u r x / / ( 2 \ _ / q 2_ �. W -A m 2 ■ CL § �:o n o O ) n � aI f � s§� ■& � MMW anNRAV NaLDtON007Ef }7! 4 C -I 447528v2 wt !«- 2 PURCHASE AGREEMENT THIS PURCHASE AGREEMENT (the "Agreement") is made as of this day of , 2014, by and between the City of Richfield, a municipal corporation under the laws of the State of Minnesota ("Seller") and Ouneheuane Sengsourichanh and Keo Sengsourichanh, husband and wife ("Buyer"). RECITALS Seller is the owner of property located at 6245 Bloomington Avenue South, in Richfield Minnesota, Minnesota, which is legally described on the attached Exhibit A ("Property"). The Property is vacant land. No personal property is included in the sale. AGREEMENT 1. Offer/Acceptance for Sale of Property. The Seller agrees to sell to Buyer the Property and Buyer agrees to purchase the same, according to the terms of this Agreement. 2. Purchase Price for Property and Terms. A. PURCHASE PRICE: The total purchase price for the Property is Two Thousand One Hundred Thirty -Three and 80/100ths Dollars ($2,133.80) (the "Purchase Price"). (1): EARNEST MONEY. The sum of Three Hundred and 00/100ths Dollars ($300.00) (the "Earnest Money") shall be paid by Buyer to Seller. (2): BALANCE DUE SELLER. Buyer agrees to pay by check or electronic transfer of funds on the date of closing on the Property (the "Closing Date") the remaining balance of the Purchase Price due to Seller according to the terms of this Agreement. (3): DEED/MARKETABLE TITLE. Subject to performance by Buyer, Seller agrees to execute and deliver a Quit Claim Deed conveying marketable title to the Property to Buyer, subject only to the following exceptions: a. Building and zoning laws, ordinances, state and federal regulations. b. Reservation of minerals or mineral rights to the State of Minnesota, if any. C. Public utility and drainage easements of record. 1 4456190 CBR RC 145-681 (4): DOCUMENTS TO BE DELIVERED AT CLOSING BY SELLER. In addition to the Quit Claim Deed required at paragraph 2B(3) above, Seller shall deliver to Buyer: a. Standard form Affidavit of Seller. b. Certificate that Seller is not a foreign national. C. Well disclosure certification, if required, or, if there is no well on the Property, the Quit Claim Deed given pursuant to paragraph 2B(3) above must include the following statement: "The Seller certifies that Seller does not know of any wells on the described real property." d. Any other documents reasonably required by Buyer's title insurance company or attorney to evidence that title to the Property is marketable and that Seller has complied with the terms of this Agreement. 3. Buyer's Contingencies. Buyer's obligation to buy is contingent upon the following: a. Buyer's determination of marketable title pursuant to paragraph 4 of this Agreement; b. Buyer's determination, in its sole discretion, that the results of any environmental investigation of the Property conducted pursuant to this Agreement are satisfactory to Buyer; Buyer shall have the period provided in paragraph 5 below to remove contingency a., and fifteen (15) days to remove contingency b., provided that these contingencies are solely for the benefit of Buyer and may be waived by Buyer. If Buyer or its attorney gives written notice to Seller that the contingencies at a. and b. are duly satisfied or waived, Buyer and Seller shall proceed to close the transaction as contemplated herein. If one or more of Buyer's or Seller's contingencies is not satisfied, or is not satisfied on time, and is not waived, this Agreement shall thereupon be void at the written option of Buyer and Seller shall return the Earnest Money, if any, to Buyer, and Buyer and Seller shall execute and deliver to each other a termination of this Agreement. As a contingent Agreement, the termination of this Agreement is not required pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Section 559.21, et. seq. 4. Seller's Contingencies. Seller's obligation to sell is contingent upon the following: a. Approval of this Agreement by the Richfield City Council; 2 4456190 CBR RC145-681 b. Approval of the lot split required for this conveyance by the Richfield City Council; and c. Lot combination for tax purposes with Buyer's property lying adjacent to the Property. Seller's contingencies may not be waived. 5. Title Examination/Curing Title Defects. As soon as reasonably possible after execution of this Agreement by both parties, Buyer shall obtain the title evidence determined necessary or desirable by Buyer. The Buyer shall have thirty (30) days from the date it receives such title evidence to raise any objections to title. Objections not made within such time will be deemed waived. The Seller may affect a cure satisfactory to Buyer or may give written notice to Buyer that Seller elects not to cure. The Buyer may then elect to close notwithstanding the uncured objections, or may declare this Agreement null and void and the parties will thereby be released from any further obligation hereunder. 6. Real Estate Taxes and Special Assessments. Real estate taxes payable in the year of closing will be pro -rated between Buyer and Seller to the Closing Date. Seller shall pay all real estate taxes payable in previous years, the entire unpaid balance of special assessments, and all installments of special assessments levied and pending, including special assessment installments payable after the year of closing. If closing occurs prior to the date the amount of real estate taxes due in the year of closing are available from Hennepin County, the current year's taxes will be pro- rated based on the amount due in the prior year. 7. Closing Date. The Closing Date will be on or before , 2014. Delivery of all papers and the closing shall be made by mail or electronic mail, or at the offices of Seller, 6700 Portland Avenue South, Richfield, MN 55423, or at such other location as is mutually agreed upon by the parties. Date. 8. Possession The Seller agrees to deliver possession not later than the Closing 9. Seller Warranties. (a) Mechanics' Liens. Seller warrants that, prior to the closing, Seller shall pay in full all amounts due for labor, materials, machinery, fixtures or tools furnished within the 120 days immediately preceding the closing in connection with construction, alteration or repair of any structure upon or improvement to the Property. (b) Notices. Seller warrants that it has not received any notice from any governmental authority as to violation of any law, ordinance or regulation in connection with the Property. (c) Tenants. Seller warrants that the Property is not now occupied by tenants and was not occupied by tenants at the time Seller first received Buyer's written offer to purchase the Property. 3 4456190 CBR RC145-681 10. Closing Costs/Recording Fees/Deed Tax. The Buyer will pay: (a) the closing fees charged by the title insurance or other closing agent, if any, utilized to close the transaction contemplated by this Agreement; (b) fees for title evidence obtained by Buyer; and (c) the recording fee for the deed transferring title to Buyer. Seller will pay (a) any transfer taxes and Well Disclosure fees required to enable Buyer to record its deed from Seller under this Agreement (b) fees and charges related to the filing of any instrument required to make title marketable. Each party shall pay its own attorney fees. 11. Inspections. From the date of this Agreement to the Closing Date, Buyer, its employees and agents, shall be entitled to enter upon the Property to conduct such surveying, inspections, investigations, soil borings and testing, and drilling, monitoring, sampling and testing of groundwater monitoring wells, as Buyer shall elect; provided, that Seller is given at least 24 hours' notice. 12. Risk of Loss. If there is any loss or damage to the Property between the date hereof and the Closing Date, for any reason, including fire, vandalism, flood, earthquake or act of God, the risk of loss shall be on Seller. If the Property is destroyed or substantially damaged before the closing date, this Agreement shall become null and void, at Buyer's option. At the request of Buyer, Seller agrees to sign a cancellation of Agreement. 13. Default/Remedies. If Buyer defaults in any of the covenants herein, Seller may terminate this Agreement, and on such termination all payments made hereunder shall be retained by Seller as liquidated damages, time being of the essence. This provision shall not deprive either party of the right to enforce specific performance of this Agreement, provided this Agreement has not terminated and action to enforce specific performance is commenced within six months after such right of action arises. In the event Buyer defaults in its performance of the terms of this Agreement and Notice of Cancellation is served upon Buyer pursuant to Minn. Stat. Section 559.21, the termination period shall be thirty (30) days as permitted by Minn. Stat., Section 559.21, Subd. 4. 14. Disclosures Required by Law. The following disclosures/provisions are required by law: a) Wells. Seller certifies that Seller does not know of a well on the Property. b) Storage Tanks. Seller discloses that, to the best of Seller's knowledge, there are no above -ground or underground storage tanks located in, on, or under the Property. c) Septic System. Seller discloses that any sewage generated on the Property will go to a facility permitted by the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency ("MPCA"). d) Statutory Methamphetamine Disclosure Statement. Pursuant to Minn. Stat. § 152.0275, Seller certifies that as of the date hereof no methamphetamine production has occurred on the property. 15. Broker Commission. Each party represents to the other that it has not utilized the services of any real estate broker or agent in connection with this Agreement or the transaction contemplated by this Agreement. Each party agrees to indemnify, defend, and hold harmless the 4 445619v3 CBR RC 145-681 other party against and in respect of any such obligation and liability based in any way upon agreements, arrangements, or understandings made or claimed to have been made by the party with any third person. 16. Notice. Any notice, demand, request or other communication which may or shall be given or served by the parties, shall be deemed to have been given or served on the date the same is personally served upon one of the following indicated recipients for notices or is deposited in the United States Mail, registered or certified, return receipt requested, postage prepaid and addressed as follows: SELLER: Jeff Pearson City of Richfield 1901 East 66th Street Richfield, MN 55423 With Copy to: Kennedy & Graven, Chartered ATTN: Robert Lindall and Catherine B. Rocklitz 470 U.S. Bank Plaza 200 South Sixth Street Minneapolis, MN 55402 BUYER: Ouneheuane Sengsourichanh and Keo Sengsourichanh 6239 Bloomington Ave. So. Richfield, MN 55423 17. Entire Agreement. This Agreement, Exhibits, and other amendments signed by the parties, shall constitute the entire Agreement between Seller and Buyer and supersedes any other written or oral agreements between the parties relating to the Property. This Agreement can be modified only in a writing properly signed on behalf of Seller and Buyer. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned have executed this Agreement on the date and year above. Seller: City of Richfield By: Its Mayor And by: Its City Manager 5 4456190 CBRRC145-681 Buyer: Our elieliane Sengsour'c anh Keo SengsourichanV EXHIBIT A Legal Description of Property That part of Lot 14, Block 9, Girard Parkview, as is on file in the office of the County Recorder, Hennepin County, Minnesota, described as follows: Beginning at the northeast corner of Lot 14, Block 9, Girard Parkview; thence South 89 degrees 13 minutes 13 seconds West, assumed bearing along the north line thereof 118.61 feet; thence South 23 degrees 40 minutes 59 seconds East, 12.11 feet; thence North 89 degrees 13 minutes 13 seconds East, 48.09 feet; thence North 79 degrees 35 minutes 57 seconds East, 66.75 feet to the point of beginning. 6 4456190 CBR RC145-681 PURCHASE AGREEMENT THIS PURCHASE AGREEMENT (the "Agreement") is made as of this day of , 2014, by and between the City of Richfield, a municipal corporation under the laws of the State of Minnesota ("Seller") and Craig D. Olsen and Sarah L. Olsen, husband and wife ("Buyer"). RECITALS Seller is the owner of property located at 6301 Bloomington Avenue South, in Richfield Minnesota, Minnesota, which is legally described on the attached Exhibit A ("Property"). The Property is vacant land. No personal property is included in the sale. AGREEMENT 1. Offer/Acceptance for Sale of Property. The Seller agrees to sell to Buyer the Property and Buyer agrees to purchase the same, according to the terms of this Agreement. 2. Purchase Price for Property and Terms. A. PURCHASE PRICE: The total purchase price for the Property is One Thousand Five Hundred Twenty Two and 80/100ths Dollars ($1,522.80) (the "Purchase Price"). B. TERMS: (1): EARNEST MONEY. The sum of Three Hundred and 00/100ths Dollars ($300.00) (the "Earnest Money") shall be paid by Buyer to Seller. (2): BALANCE DUE SELLER. Buyer agrees to pay by check or electronic transfer of funds on the date of closing on the Property (the "Closing Date") the remaining balance of the Purchase Price due to Seller according to the terms of this Agreement. (3): DEED/MARKETABLE TITLE. Subject to performance by Buyer, Seller agrees to execute and deliver a Quit Claim Deed conveying marketable title to the Property to Buyer, subject only to the following exceptions: a. Building and zoning laws, ordinances, state and federal regulations. b. Reservation of minerals or mineral rights to the State of Minnesota, if any. C. Public utility and drainage easements of record. 1 445695v2 CBR RC 145-682 (4): DOCUMENTS TO BE DELIVERED AT CLOSING BY SELLER. In addition to the Quit Claim Deed required at paragraph 213(3) above, Seller shall deliver to Buyer: a. Standard form Affidavit of Seller. b. Certificate that Seller is not a foreign national. C. Well disclosure certification, if required, or, if there is no well on the Property, the Quit Claim Deed given pursuant to paragraph 213(3) above must include the following statement: "The Seller certifies that Seller does not know of any wells on the described real property." d. Any other documents reasonably required by Buyer's title insurance company or attorney to evidence that title to the Property is marketable and that Seller has complied with the terms of this Agreement. 3. Buyer's Contingencies. Buyer's obligation to buy is contingent upon the following: a. Buyer's determination of marketable title pursuant to paragraph 4 of this Agreement; b. Buyer's determination, in its sole discretion, that the results of any environmental investigation of the Property conducted pursuant to this Agreement are satisfactory to Buyer; Buyer shall have the period provided in paragraph 5 below to remove contingency a., and fifteen (15) days to remove contingency b., provided that these contingencies are solely for the benefit of Buyer and may be waived by Buyer. If Buyer or its attorney gives written notice to Seller that the contingencies at a. and b. are duly satisfied or waived, Buyer and Seller shall proceed to close the transaction as contemplated herein. If one or more of Buyer's or Seller's contingencies is not satisfied, or is not satisfied on time, and is not waived, this Agreement shall thereupon be void at the written option of Buyer and Seller shall return the Earnest Money, if any, to Buyer, and Buyer and Seller shall execute and deliver to each other a termination of this Agreement. As a contingent Agreement, the termination of this Agreement is not required pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Section 559.21, et. seq. 4. Seller's Contingencies. Seller's obligation to sell is contingent upon the following: a. Approval of this Agreement by the Richfield City Council; 2 445695v2 CBR RC 145-682 b. Approval of the lot split required for this conveyance by the Richfield City Council; and c. Lot combination for tax purposes with Buyer's property lying adjacent to the Property. Seller's contingencies may not be waived. 5. Title Examination/Curing Title Defects. As soon as reasonably possible after execution of this Agreement by both parties, Buyer shall obtain the title evidence determined necessary or desirable by Buyer. The Buyer shall have thirty (30) days from the date it receives such title evidence to raise any objections to title. Objections not made within such time will be deemed waived. The Seller may affect a cure satisfactory to Buyer or may give written notice to Buyer that Seller elects not to cure. The Buyer may then elect to close notwithstanding the uncured objections, or may declare this Agreement null and void and the parties will thereby be released from any further obligation hereunder. 6. Real Estate Taxes and Special Assessments. Real estate taxes payable in the year of closing will be pro -rated between Buyer and Seller to the Closing Date. Seller shall pay all real estate taxes payable in previous years, the entire unpaid balance of special assessments, and all installments of special assessments levied and pending, including special assessment installments payable after the year of closing. If closing occurs prior to the date the amount of real estate taxes due in the year of closing are available from Hennepin County, the current year's taxes will be pro- rated based on the amount due in the prior year. 7. Closing Date. The Closing Date will be on or before , 2014. Delivery of all papers and the closing shall be made by mail or electronic mail, or at the offices of Seller, 6700 Portland Avenue South, Richfield, MN 55423, or at such other location as is mutually agreed upon by the parties. Date. 8. Possession The Seller agrees to deliver possession not later than the Closing 9. Seller Warranties. (a) Mechanics' Liens. Seller warrants that, prior to the closing, Seller shall pay in full all amounts due for labor, materials, machinery, fixtures or tools furnished within the 120 days immediately preceding the closing in connection with construction, alteration or repair of any structure upon or improvement to the Property. (b) Notices. Seller warrants that it has not received any notice from any governmental authority as to violation of any law, ordinance or regulation in connection with the Property. (c) Tenants. Seller warrants that the Property is not now occupied by tenants and was not occupied by tenants at the time Seller first received Buyer's written offer to purchase the Property. 3 445695v2 CBR RC 145-682 10. Closing Costs/Recording Fees/Deed Tax. The Buyer will pay: (a) the closing fees charged by the title insurance or other closing agent, if any, utilized to close the transaction contemplated by this Agreement; (b) fees for title evidence obtained by Buyer; and (c) the recording fee for the deed transferring title to Buyer. Seller will pay (a) any transfer taxes and Well Disclosure fees required to enable Buyer to record its deed from Seller under this Agreement (b) fees and charges related to the filing of any instrument required to make title marketable. Each party shall pay its own attorney fees. 11. Inspections. From the date of this Agreement to the Closing Date, Buyer, its employees and agents, shall be entitled to enter upon the Property to conduct such surveying, inspections, investigations, soil borings and testing, and drilling, monitoring, sampling and testing of groundwater monitoring wells, as Buyer shall elect; provided, that Seller is given at least 24 hours' notice. 12. Risk of Loss. If there is any loss or damage to the Property between the date hereof and the Closing Date, for any reason, including fire, vandalism, flood, earthquake or act of God, the risk of loss shall be on Seller. If the Property is destroyed or substantially damaged before the closing date, this Agreement shall become null and void, at Buyer's option. At the request of Buyer, Seller agrees to sign a cancellation of Agreement. 13. Default/Remedies. If Buyer defaults in any of the covenants herein, Seller may terminate this Agreement, and on such termination all payments made hereunder shall be retained by Seller as liquidated damages, time being of the essence. This provision shall not deprive either party of the right to enforce specific performance of this Agreement, provided this Agreement has not terminated and action to enforce specific performance is commenced within six months after such right of action arises. In the event Buyer defaults in its performance of the terms of this Agreement and Notice of Cancellation is served upon Buyer pursuant to Minn. Stat. Section 559.21, the termination period shall be thirty (30) days as permitted by Minn. Stat., Section 559.21, Subd. 4. 14. Disclosures Required by Law. The following disclosures/provisions are required by law: a) Wells. Seller certifies that Seller does not know of a well on the Property. b) Storage Tanks. Seller discloses that, to the best of Seller's knowledge, there are no above -ground or underground storage tanks located in, on, or under the Property. c) Septic System. Seller discloses that any sewage generated on the Property will go to a facility permitted by the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency ("MPCA"). d) Statutory Methamphetamine Disclosure Statement. Pursuant to Minn. Stat. § 152.0275, Seller certifies that as of the date hereof no methamphetamine production has occurred on the property. 15. Broker Commission. Each party represents to the other that it has not utilized the services of any real estate broker or agent in connection with this Agreement or the transaction contemplated by this Agreement. Each party agrees to indemnify, defend, and hold harmless the 4 445695v2 CBR RC145-682 other party against and in respect of any such obligation and liability based in any way upon agreements, arrangements, or understandings made or claimed to have been made by the party with any third person. 16. Notice. Any notice, demand, request or other communication which may or shall be given or served by the parties, shall be deemed to have been given or served on the date the same is personally served upon one of the following indicated recipients for notices or is deposited in the United States Mail, registered or certified, return receipt requested, postage prepaid and addressed as follows: SELLER: Jeff Pearson City of Richfield 1901 East 66th Street Richfield, MN 55423 With Copy to: Kennedy & Graven, Chartered ATTN: Robert Lindall and Catherine B. Rocklitz 470 U.S. Bank Plaza 200 South Sixth Street Minneapolis, MN 55402 BUYER: Craig D. Olsen and Sarah L. Olsen 6305 Bloomington Avenue South Richfield, MN 55423 17. Entire Agreement. This Agreement, Exhibits, and other amendments signed by the parties, shall constitute the entire Agreement between Seller and Buyer and supersedes any other written or oral agreements between the parties relating to the Property. This Agreement can be modified only in a writing properly signed on behalf of Seller and Buyer. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned have executed this Agreement on the date and year above. Seller: City of Richfield By: Its Mayor And by: Its City Manager 445695v2 CBR RC 145-682 Craig D. Olsen arah L. Olsen EXHIBIT A Legal Description of Property That part of Lot 20, Block 10, Girard Parkview, as is on file in the office of the County Recorder, Hennepin County, Minnesota described as follows: Commencing at the southeast corner of Lot 20, Block 10, Girard Parkview; thence South 89 degrees 20 minutes 15 seconds West, assumed bearing along the south line thereof 63.46 feet to the point of beginning; thence North 60 degrees 28 minutes 37 seconds West, 20.84 feet; thence North 89 degrees 40 minutes 14 seconds West, 48.34 feet; thence South 22 degrees 34 minutes 35 seconds West, 12.32 feet to the south line thereof; thence North 89 degrees 20 minutes 15 seconds East, 71.21 feet to the point of beginning. 6 445695v2 CBR RC145-682 RESOLUTION NO. 205 RESOLUTION OF THE RICHFIELD PLANNING COMMISSION FINDING THAT THE SALE OF REMNANT PARCELS RELATED TO THE RICHFIELD PARKWAY CONNECTION PROJECT ARE IN CONFORMANCE WITH THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed the Comprehensive Plan regarding the construction of Richfield Parkway; WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has found that the sale of subdivided portions of the following single family properties to the adjacent landowners as noted would be consistent with the Richfield Comprehensive Plan: Lot 14, Block 9, Girard Parkview (6245 Bloomington Avenue, Sale to 6239 Bloomington Avenue) Lot 20, Block 10, Girard Parkview (6301 Bloomington Avenue, Sale to 6305 Bloomington Avenue) NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the Planning Commission finds that the sale of the above described properties by the City to adjacent landowners is in conformance with the Richfield Comprehensive Plan. Adopted this 22nd day of September, 2014 by the Planning Commission of the City of Richfield, Minnesota, ATTEST: Th mas Rublein, Secretary REPORT PREPARED BY: DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR REVIEW: OTHER DEPARTMENT REVIEW: CITY MANAGER REVIEW: ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION: AGENDA SECTION: CONSENT CALENDAR AGENDA ITEM # 8.E. STAFF REPORT NO. 187 CITY COUNCIL MEETING 10/28/2014 Jim Topitzhofer, Recreation Services Director Jim Topitzhofer, Recreation Services Director None Steven L. Devich Consideration of the approval of the lease agreement between the City of Richfield and the Minnesota Magicians for use of the space formerly occupied by Hat Trick Hockey to conduct physical training programs. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: The Richfield Ice Arena has become the home of Minnesota's newest Tier 2 Junior Hockey Team, the Minnesota Magicians. To accommodate the team, the City has constructed an additional locker room to Rink 1 and the Magicians are renting this space for $4,155 per month. To further accommodate the team, the 1,900 square -foot area of the Arena that was formerly occupied by Hat Trick Hockey (see Exhibit A) will be converted into a training facility for ice sport athletes and made available for lease. Highlights of the Lease Agreement are as follows: . Rent — $500 per month for the first six months of lease term and $1,500 per month for the remaining 36 months of the lease term. . Term — The term of the Lease Agreement shall commence on October 15, 2014, and shall terminate on April 14, 2018. . Use of Leased Premises - The Leased Premises shall be used only for training purposes for individuals and groups including strength conditioning, aerobic conditioning, skill development and other ice sports training activities, and other activities as the City may authorize from time to time. . Taxes — Hennepin County officials have reviewed the attached lease and have determined use of the leased premises are not subject to property taxes because the leased premises will not operate as a training center for the general public such as a private health club. . Utilities - The Team will pay a prorated share of electric and gas utilities for the lease space. Insurance — The Magicians will be required to carry insurance to cover general liability, fire and damage as set forth in Article VIII. RECOMMENDED ACTION: By Motion: Approve the lease agreement between the City of Richfield and the Minnesota Magicians for use of the space formerly occupied by Hat Trick Hockey to conduct physical training programs. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION: 1!2111111111111:113Us]:7[9_11111111DI7►1119W40 At a study session on April 18, 2013, staff presented a proposal to construct a number of building improvements at the Ice Arena including the construction of a dedicated locker room, training area, lobby expansion and exhibit area/classrooms to accommodate the new team and larger crowds. Cost estimates for all these improvements were initially estimated at about $1,961,960 not including parking lot expansion and related storm water retention that would be triggered by building code due to the magnitude of the amount of improvements made to the Arena. When adding the cost of parking lot and storm water retention improvements, it was later concluded that the cost to fund these improvements over a fifteen -year bond term would far exceed the amount of anticipated additional revenue the new improvements would help generate to pay the annual bond payments. As a result, the proposal to proceed with lobby, classroom and training facility expansion was abandoned. City Council approved a contract with Derau Construction Company on November 12, 2013 in the amount of $510,900 to construct an attached locker room to Rink 1 as a stand-alone project. This contract did not include architectural design costs or contingency. The estimated final cost of the new locker room is $625,478 including design cost and contingency. • The Minnesota Magicians played their first home game on September 19, 2013. An ordinance amendment was approved by Council on August 28, 2013 to temporarily allow a properly licensed food establishment to sell 3.2 percent malt liquor beverages at the Richfield Arena for the remainder of the Magician's first season. • State Representative Linda Slocum and Senator Melissa Wicklund sponsored and introduced a bill for special legislation to sell strong beer and wine at the Richfield Arena. The Minnesota State Legislature enacted this bill earlier this year. • The Richfield City Council approved a rental agreement between the City and the Magicians on September 9, 2014, for use of the newly constructed locker room. • The lease with Hat Trick Hockey was terminated on March 31, 2014 by default. The space was offered to the Magicians as a training facility for team players and camps. B. POLICIES (resolutions, ordinances, regulations, statutes, exc): The City Council considers and executes these types of agreements for the City. C. CRITICAL TIMING ISSUES: The Minnesota Magicians have started their second season on September 1, 2014 and are currently renting a training facility elsewhere for the team. Converting the Hat Trick space into a training facility now will greatly benefit the team and will be in place to promote spring and summer camps next year. D. FINANCIAL IMPACT: Hat Trick Hockey rented the leased premises for $1,475 per month. The Magicians will be using the training facility just for the team on a limited basis for the first six months of the term and will pay reduced rent in the amount of $500 per month. During this time the team will develop and promote hockey camps for youth to begin in spring. After six months, the team will begin using the training facility for camps and hence will be charged the full rate of $1,500 per month thereafter. The space requires minimal upgrade to convert from retail to a training facility. The Magicians will supply all the training equipment and the City will provide the installation of skate -tile to protect the floor. The cost of installing skate -tile is approximately $10,000 and will be funded through the Arena operating budget. The Magicians will be responsible for providing any desired signage. LEGAL CONSIDERATION: The City Attorney has reviewed the agreement. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION(S): Reject the agreement and renegotiate with the Minnesota Magicians. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING: Scott Meyer, Co -Owner, Minnesota Magicians. ATTACHMENTS: Description Type d Lease Attachment Contract/Agreement ❑ Magicians Lease Exhibit A Exhibit Kennedy & Graven, Chartered LEASE AGREEMENT Magicians Training Room Lease 10/28/14, Page 1 This lease is made this 28th day of October, 2014, by and between THE CITY OF RICHFIELD ("Landlord") and Minnesota Junior Hockey Group d.b.a. Minnesota Magicians and affiliated Exceed Hockey, Inc. ("Tenant"). Landlord and Tenant, intending to be legally bound, hereby covenant and agree as follow: /_1AIto] 4=1P Leased Premises 1.1 Landlord does hereby lease, demise, and let unto Tenant, and Tenant does hereby hire and take from Landlord, upon the terms and conditions set forth herein (the Lease), the premises shown cross -hatched on Exhibit A attached hereto and incorporated herein, consisting of 1,900 square feet of space (Leased Premises), located on the level of the Richfield Ice Arena Building located at 636 East 66th Street situated in the City of Richfield, Hennepin County, Minnesota (the "Building"). ARTICLE II. Term 2.1. The term of the Lease shall commence on October 15, 2014 (the Commencement Date); and the Lease shall terminate on April 14, 2018. 2.2. If, at the termination of this lease agreement for reasons other than default or breach by Tenant, Landlord decides to lease the Leased Premises to a third party, Tenant shall have the right, for a period of one year after April 14, 2018, to match or exceed any proposed and/or actual lease for the Leased Premises which is acceptable to the Landlord, and if the Tenant elects in writing within 15 days of the date of receipt of the proposed and/or actual Lease, then the parties hereto shall execute such a lease. Rent 3.1 Tenant shall pay to Landlord as the "Base Rent" monthly rent in the amount of $500.00 per month for the first six months of lease term and $1,500.00 per month thereafter. Said Base Rent shall be payable in advance, on or before the first (15th) day of each and every month, commencing on the Commencement Date, and continuing during the Term. ARTICLE IV. Nonpayment 4.1 Except as otherwise expressly provided herein, Tenant covenants and agrees that if at any time it fails to pay any amount required by the Lease, or to obtain, pay for, maintain, or deliver any of the insurance policies herein provided for, or fails to make any other payment or perform any other act required to be made or performed by the Lease, then Landlord, without notice to or demand upon Tenant, without waiving or releasing Tenant from any obligation of Tenant contained in the Lease, and without any obligation to do so, may effect any such insurance coverage and pay premiums therefor and may make any other payment or perform any other act on the part of Tenant to be made and performed as provided in the Lease, in such manner and to such extent as Landlord may deem reasonably desirable, and in exercising such right to pay necessary and incidental costs and expenses. All sums so paid by Landlord and all necessary and any such act by Landlord, together with interest thereon at the maximum rate permitted by law, Magicians Training Room Lease 10/28/14, Page 2 whichever is less, from the date of making of such expenditure by Landlord, shall be payable to Landlord as Additional Rent, and except as otherwise provided for in the Lease, shall be payable on demand or at the option of Landlord may be added to any monthly rental then due or thereafter becoming due under the Lease. Tenant covenants to pay any such sum or sums with interest as aforesaid and Landlord shall have (in addition to any right or remedy of Landlord) the same rights and remedies in the event of nonpayment by Tenant as in the case of default by Tenant in payment of rent. /_1:4 0 [a] 4 *YA Taxes 5.1 In the event that Hennepin County determines that real estate taxes are required by law, Tenant shall pay all real estate taxes and installments of special assessments which shall during the term be laid, assessed, levied or imposed upon or shall become payable and a lien upon, the Leased Premises or any part thereof (the Taxes). Such taxes and special assessments shall be prorated in the first and last years of the Lease based upon the period of occupancy. Tenant shall make such real estate tax payments directly to the appropriate governmental authorities, which have lawfully levied and are authorized to collect such tax. ARTICLE VI. Utilities and Maintenance Expense 6.1. Tenant shall pay its pro rata share of all charges for electricity, light, air conditioning and power with the Leased premises. The charges thereof shall be deemed Additional Rent and payable in accordance with Article V hereof. To the extent that utilities are separately metered or separately charged to Tenant's Premises, they shall not be subject to prorated allocation, but shall remain the obligation of Tenant. /_1A0[a]1401111 Repairs, Maintenance and Alterations 7.1 Tenant shall, during the Term and at Tenant's expense, keep the Leased Premises and appurtenances and every part thereof in good order, condition, and repair, including, without limitation, the maintenance, repair, and replacement, if necessary, of all interior walls, partitions, doors, and windows, including the regular painting thereof. Tenant shall promptly notify Landlord of any necessary maintenance, repairs, or replacements. When used in this provision, the term repairs' shall include replacements or renewals when necessary, and all such repairs made by the Tenant shall be equal in quality and class to the original work. If Tenant does not keep and maintain the Leased Premises as herein provided, Landlord may, but need not, make such repairs and replacements, and Tenant shall pay Landlord, as Additional Rent, the cost thereof forthwith, plus interest at the rate of 10% per annum from the date of making such expenditure by Landlord, upon being billed for the same. All damage or injury to the Leased Premises and to its fixtures, appurtenances, and equipment caused by Tenant moving property in or out of the Leased Premises or by installation, removal of furniture, fixtures, equipment, or other property by Tenant, its agents, contractors, servants, or employees, or resulting from any other cause of any other kind or nature whatsoever due to carelessness, omission, neglect, improper conduct, or other causes of Tenant, its servants, employees, agents, visitors, or licensees, shall be repaired, restored, or replaced promptly by Tenant at its sole cost and expense to the satisfaction of Landlord. If Tenant fails to make such repairs, restorations, or replacements, the same may be made by Landlord and the same shall be at the expense of Tenant and collectible as Additional Rent or otherwise, and shall be paid by Tenant to Landlord within five (5) days after rendition of a bill or statement therefor. Magicians Training Room Lease 10/28/14, Page 3 7.2 Except as otherwise provided herein, no improvements, alterations, or replacements shall be made to the Leased Premises or any portion thereof without the prior written consent of Landlord. 7.3 Notwithstanding any other provision contained herein to the contrary, Landlord shall repair, at its expense, the structural portions of the Building; provided, however, where structural repairs are required to be made by reason of the acts of Tenant, the costs thereof shall be borne by Tenant and payable by Tenant to Landlord upon demand. 7.4 Landlord covenants to Tenant that it will continue to reasonably provide for the removal of snow from the parking lot and sidewalks and for the maintenance and repair work on the building exterior all for the benefit of users of the building, including Tenant. /_1:4 0 [a] 1 :10 111 Insurance 8.1 Landlord shall at all times during the Term keep the Building insured against loss or damage by fire and against those perils included from time to time in the standard form of extended coverage insurance endorsement, including but without limiting the generality of the foregoing, wind storm, hail, explosion, vandalism, riot and civil commotion, damage from vehicles, and smoke damage, and such other coverage as may be deemed necessary by Landlord. 8.2 Tenant shall insure the contents of the Leased Premises owned by Tenant, for the benefit of Tenant, against lose or damage by fire, windstorm, or other casualty for such amount as Tenant may desire. 8.3 Mutual Waiver of Subrogation. Landlord and Lessee hereby waive any and all rights of recovery against each other for any loss or damage to the Leased Premises and/or the Building or the contents contained therein on account of fire or other casualty or for injuries sustained on the Leased Premises and/or the Building, provided such loss or damage is insured under a policy carried by Lessor or Lessee at the time of such loss or damage. The aforesaid policies of insurance shall contain appropriate provisions recognizing this mutual release and waiving all rights of subrogation on behalf of the respective insurance carriers. 8.4. Tenant shall also, as Additional Rent hereunder and at Tenant's sole cost and expense, but for the mutual benefit of Landlord and Tenant, as named insureds, maintain during the Term (a) general public liability insurance against claims for personal injury, death, or property damage occurring upon, in, or about the Leased Premises, and on, in, or about the adjoining lands, such insurance to afford protection to the limit of not less than Five Hundred Thousand and no/100 Dollars ($500,000.00) in respect to injury or death to a single person, and to the limit of not less than one Million and no/100 Dollars ($1,000,000.00) in respect to any one (1) accident and to the limit of not less than Three Hundred Thousand and no/100 Dollars ($300,000.00) in respect to any property damage; and (b) steam boiler insurance on all steam boilers, pressure boilers, or other such apparatus as Landlord may deem necessary to be covered by such insurance and in such amount or amounts as Landlord may from time to time reasonably require. 8.5 All policies of insurance required to be maintained by Tenant shall be written in companies satisfactory to Landlord, and shall be written in such form and shall be distributed in such companies as shall be reasonably acceptable to Landlord. Such policies shall be delivered to Landlord endorsed "premium paid" by the company or agency issuing the same or accompanied Magicians Training Room Lease 10/28/14, Page 4 by another evidence satisfactory to Landlord that the premiums thereon have been paid, not less than (10) days prior to the expiration of any then current policy. ARTICLE IX. Quiet Enjoyment 9.1 Landlord represents and warrants that it is the lawful owner of the Leased Premises; that it has the full right and power to make the Lease; that if and so long as Tenant shall not be in default hereunder, Tenant shall quietly hold, occupy, and enjoy the Leased Premises during all of the Term. ARTICLE X. Destruction by Fire 10.1 If the Building or any portion thereof is damaged or destroyed by fire or other casualty, however or by whomever caused, Landlord shall repair, rebuild, and restore the same with due diligence and dispatch (subject to the approval of the holders of any mortgages on the Building) so that the Building will be restored to at least the same good order and condition as existed prior to damage or destruction. If more than twenty five percent (25%) of the Leased Premises is damaged or destroyed by fire or other casualty, Landlord shall have the option, in its sole discretion, to decline to rebuild. If Landlord so declines, this Lease shall terminate as of the date of such damage or destruction. If Landlord elects to repair the Building, and if such damage in the reasonable opinion of the Landlord renders the entire Leased Premises unfit for Tenant's normal business purposes, and Tenant by reason thereof discontinues business in the Leased Premises, Base Rent and Additional Rent shall be abated for a period during which no part of the Leased Premises is fit for such business purposes and during which time Tenant discontinues business. If such damage renders only part of the Leased Premises unfit for Tenant's normal business purposes, Base Rent shall be apportioned on a square foot of Leased Premises area basis and the proportion thereof applicable to each part of the Leased Premises upon which Tenant discontinues its business operations shall be abated for the period during which such part is not fit for Tenant's normal business purposes and during which Tenant discontinues such business operations. 10.2 Tenant will repair and replace all improvements and betterments placed upon the Leased Premises by it, and such repair and replacement shall be made at its own expense and not at the expense of Landlord. ARTICLE XI. Assignment and Subletting 11.1 Tenant shall not assign or sublease any of its rights under the Lease of any part of the Leased Premises without prior written consent from Landlord, which consent shall not be unreasonably withheld by Landlord. No such assignment or subleasing shall in any event relieve Tenant from any of its obligations contained in the Lease, nor shall any assignment or transfer of the Lease be effective unless the assignee or transferee shall, at the time of such assignment or transfer, assume in writing all the terms, covenants, and conditions of the Lease to be performed thereafter by Tenant and shall agree in writing to be bound thereby. Tenant agrees to pay on behalf of Landlord any and all costs of Landlord, including reasonable attorneys' fees occasioned by such assignment or transfer. ARTICLE XII. Defaults of Tenant 12.1 If during the Term Tenant shall default in fulfilling any of the covenants of the Lease Magicians Training Room Lease 10/28/14, Page 5 (other than the covenants for the payment of Base Rent or Additional Rent), Landlord shall give Tenant notice of any default or of the happening of any contingency referred to in this paragraph, and if at the expiration of twenty (20) days after the service of such notice the default or contingency upon which said notice was based shall continue to exist, or in the case of a default or contingency which cannot with due diligence be cured within a period of twenty (20) days, if Tenant fails to proceed promptly after the service of such notice and with all due diligence to cure the same and thereafter to prosecute the curing of such default with all due diligence, Landlord, at its option, may terminate the Lease, and upon such termination, Tenant will quit and surrender the Leased Premises to Landlord, but Tenant shall remain liable as hereinafter provided. 12.2 If Tenant shall default in the payment of the Base Rent or Additional Rent expressly reserved hereunder, or any part of the same, and such default shall continue for ten (10) days after notice thereof by Landlord, or if the Lease shall expire as provided in Paragraph 12.1 of this Article, Landlord or Landlord's agents and servants may immediately or at any time thereafter re-enter the Leased Premises and remove all persons and any or all property therefrom, either by summary dispossession proceedings or by any suitable action or proceedings at law or by force or otherwise and repossess and enjoy said Leased Premises, together with all additions, alterations and improvements, without reentry and repossession working forfeiture or waiver of the rents to be paid and the covenants to be performed by Tenant during the Term hereof. Upon the expiration of the Term of the Lease by reason of any of the events described in Paragraph 12.1, or in the event of termination of the Lease by summary dispossession proceedings or under any provision of law now or hereafter in force by reason of or based upon or arising out of a default under or a breach of the Lease on the part of Tenant (except where such breach or default is determined by a court of competent jurisdiction to be justified because of Landlord's acts or omissions), or upon Landlord recovering possession of the Leased Premises in the manner or in any of the circumstances whatsoever, whether with or without legal proceedings, by reason of or based upon or arising out of a default under or a breach of the Lease on the part of Tenant, Landlord may, at its option, at any time and from time to time, relet the Leased Premises, or any part thereof, for the account of Tenant or otherwise, and receive and collect the rents therefor, applying the same first to the payment of such expenses as Landlord may have incurred in recovering possession of the Leased Premises, including legal expenses and attorneys, fees, and for putting the same into good order or condition or preparing or altering the same for re -rental and all other expenses, commissions, and charges paid, assumed, or incurred by Landlord in reletting the Leased Premises and then to the fulfillment of the covenants of Tenant hereunder. Any such reletting herein provided for may be for the remainder of the Term of the Lease as originally granted or for a longer or shorter period. In any such case or whether or not the Leased Premises, or any part thereof, is relet, Tenant shall pay to Landlord the Base Rent and the Additional Rent required to be paid by Tenant up to the time of such termination of the Lease, as the case may be, and thereafter, Tenant covenants and agrees, if required by Landlord, to pay to Landlord until the end of the Term of the Lease the equivalent of the amount of all the Base Rent and Additional Rent reserved herein less the net proceeds of reletting, if any. Landlord shall have the election, in place and stead of holding Tenant so liable, forthwith to recover against Tenant, as damages for loss of the bargain and not as penalty, an aggregate sum which at the time of such termination of the Lease for such recovery of possession of the Leased Premises by Landlord, as the case may be, represents the then present worth of the excess, if any, of the aggregate of the Base Rent and Additional Rent payable by Tenant hereunder that would have accrued for the balance of the Term, over the aggregate rental value of the Leased Premises for the balance of such Term. 12.3 The specified remedies to which Landlord may resort under the terms of the Lease are cumulative and are not intended to be exclusive of any other remedies or means of redress to Magicians Training Room Lease 10/28/14, Page 6 which Landlord may be lawfully entitled in case of any breach or threatened breach by Tenant of any provision of the Lease. The failure of Landlord to insist in any one or more cases upon the strict performance of any of the covenants of the Lease or to exercise any option herein contained shall not be construed as a waiver or a relinquishment for the future of such covenant or option. A receipt by Landlord of Base Rent or Additional Rent, with knowledge of breach of any covenant hereof (other than the payment of Base Rent or Additional Rent) shall not be deemed a waiver of such breach, and no waiver by Landlord of any provision of this Lease shall be deemed to have been made unless expressed in writing and signed by Landlord. In addition to other remedies provided in this Lease, Landlord shall be entitled to the restraint by injunction for the violation or attempted or threatened violation of the covenants, conditions, or provisions of the Lease. I'_1:4 0 [a] I *:111 I Attorneys' Fees 13.1 If it is necessary for Landlord to retain the services of an attorney at law to enforce any of the terms, covenants, or provisions hereof, or to collect any sums due hereunder, Tenant shall pay to Landlord upon demand, as Additional Rent hereunder, the reasonable cost of such services. ARTICLE XIV. Removal of Improvements and Fixtures 14.1 Any improvements or fixtures installed by Tenant in the Leased Premises or in the Building, whether used solely in Tenant's business or whether usable in the Leased Premises without regard to such business or otherwise, shall become the property of Landlord upon the termination of the Lease. ARTICLE XV. Condition of Leased Premises at Termination 15.1 At the termination of the Lease by lapse of time or otherwise, Tenant shall return the Leased Premises in as good a condition as when Tenant took possession, excepting only ordinary wear and tear, damage, or destruction as described in Article 10 herein. ARTICLE XVI. Holding Over 16.1 In the absence of any written agreement to the contrary, if Tenant should continue to occupy the Leased Premises following the expiration of the Term of the Lease, Tenant shall so remain as a tenant from month to month and all provisions of the Lease applicable to such tenancy shall remain in full force and effect. During such tenancy, the same Base Rent and the same terms and conditions as prevailed during the last month of the Term demised shall prevail. In any such event, Tenant shall be liable to Landlord for damages which Landlord may incur as a result of such holding over, including but not limited to damages incurred because of loss of a prospective successor tenant. If Tenant is a holdover tenant and if Tenant continues to ' occupy the Leased Premises following the termination of such holdover (by a proper notice as to such month tenancy), then the foregoing provisions of this Article shall apply in the same manner as when Tenant continued in occupancy following the expiration of the Term of the Lease. ARTICLE XVII. Use of Leased Premises 17.1 The Leased Premises shall be used only for training purposes for individuals and groups including strength conditioning, aerobic conditioning, skill development and other ice sports training activities, and such other activities as the Landlord may authorize from time to time. Magicians Training Room Lease 10/28/14, Page 7 Tenant shall not use or occupy the Leased Premises or knowingly permit the Leased Premises to used or occupied contrary to any statute, rule, order, ordinance, requirement, or regulation applicable thereto or in any manner which would violate any certificate of occupancy affecting the same, or which would cause structural injury to the Leased Premises or cause the value or usefulness of the Leased Premises or any part thereof to substantially diminish (reasonable wear and tear excepted) or which would constitute a public or private nuisance or waste. Tenant shall promptly upon discovery of any such use, take all necessary steps to compel the discontinuance of such use. Landlord shall not, during the term of this Lease, permit or allow anyone other than Tenant to use the Building as a location to provide training services during the business hours of Tenant. This limitation shall not prohibit the occasioned sale of hockey related merchandise by local hockey associations during organized events. ARTICLE XVIII. Permits 18.1 Tenant shall maintain in force and effect all permits, licenses, and similar authorizations to use the Leased Premises for the aforesaid purposes required by any governmental authority having jurisdiction over the use thereof. Tenant's failure to maintain such permits, licenses, and similar authorizations shall not relieve Tenant from the performance of its obligations and covenants hereunder (except obligations and covenants as may be prohibited by law), nor from the obligations to pay Base Rent or Additional Rent, as set forth herein. Tenant shall, at Landlord's request, in its capacity as Tenant, and not in its capacity as owner of the land underlying the Building, join with Landlord in executing, acknowledging, and delivering any and all petitions, consents, subordinations, plats, or easement deeds that may be required for the installation of any utilities, public improvements, roads, water lines, sewer lines, storm drainage facilities, subdivision, rezoning, special use, platting, or other similar development of the Leased Premises, which do not affect Tenant's use of the Leased Premises during the Term of the Lease. ARTICLE XIX. Compliance with Law 19.1 Tenant, at its sole expense, shall promptly comply with all laws, ordinances, and requirements of federal, state, county, and municipal authorities relating to Tenant's use and occupation of the Leased Premises, and with any lawful order or direction of any public officer relating to Tenant's use and occupation of the Leased Premises during the Term of the Lease. Nothing herein contained, however, shall prohibit Tenant from appealing from or contesting the validity or legality of such laws, ordinances, requirements, orders, or directions and, notwithstanding the foregoing provisions of this Article, Tenant shall not be deemed to be in default hereunder so long as Tenant diligently prosecutes such appeal or contest. I_1:4 91;131 WAVA Lessor's Access to Premises 20.1 Tenant shall permit Landlord and the authorized representatives of Landlord to enter the Leased Premises at all times during usual business hours for the purpose of inspecting the same and making any necessary repairs to comply with any laws, ordinances rules, regulations, or requirements of any public authority or of the Board of Fire Underwriters or any similar board. Nothing herein shall imply any duty upon the part of Landlord to do any such work which, under any provision of the Lease, Tenant may be required to perform, and the performance thereof by Landlord shall not constitute a waiver of Tenant's default in failing to perform the same. Landlord may, during the progress of any work in the Leased Premises, reasonably keep and store upon the Leased Premises all necessary materials, tools, and equipment. Landlord shall not in any event be liable for inconvenience, annoyance, disturbance, loss of business, or other damage to Tenant Magicians Training Room Lease 10/28/14, Page 8 by reason of making repairs or the performance of any work in the Leased Premises, or on account of bringing materials, supplies, and equipment onto or through the Leased Premises during the course thereof, and the obligations of Tenant under the Lease shall not hereby be affected in any manner whatsoever. Landlord shall, however, in connection with the doing of any such work cause as little inconvenience, annoyance, disturbance, loss of business, or other damage to Tenant as may reasonably be possible in the circumstances. ARTICLE XXI. Indemnity 21.1 Tenant shall indemnify and save harmless Landlord against and from any and all claims by or on behalf of any person or persons, firm or firms, corporation or corporations, arising from the conduct or management of or from any work or thing whatsoever done by Tenant, or any of its agents, contractors, employees, or licensees in, on or about the Leased Premises, and will further indemnify and save Landlord harmless against and from any and all claims arising during the Term of the Lease from any condition of the Leased Premises arising from any breach or default on the part of Tenant in the performance of any covenant or agreement on the part of Tenant to be performed, pursuant to the terms of the Lease, or arising from any act of negligence of Tenant, or any of its agents, contractors, employees, or licensees, or arising from any accident, injury, or damage whatsoever caused to any person, firm, or corporation occurring during the Term of the Lease, in the Leased Premises, and from and against all costs, reasonable attorneys, fees, expenses, and liabilities incurred in or about any such claim or action or proceeding brought thereon; and in case any action or proceeding is brought against Landlord by reason of any such claim, Tenant, upon notice from Landlord, shall resist or defend such action or proceeding by counsel reasonably satisfactory to Landlord. However, nothing in this Lease shall require the Tenant to indemnify and save harmless Landlord from any claim caused by or occasioned by actions of the Landlord, its agents, contractors, employees or licensees. ARTICLE XXII. Estoppel Certificate 22.1 Tenant shall, at any time and from time to time, upon not less than twenty (20) days' prior notice by Landlord, execute, acknowledge, and deliver to Landlord a statement in writing certifying that the Lease is unmodified and in full force and effect (or if there shall have been modifications that the Lease is in full force and effect as modified and stating the modifications) and the dates to which the Base Rent and Additional Rent have been paid in advance, if any, and stating whether or not (to the best knowledge of Tenant) Landlord is in default in the performance of any covenant, agreement, or condition contained in the Lease and, if so, specifying each such default of which Tenant may have knowledge, it being intended that any such statement delivered pursuant to this Article shall be in a form approved by and may be relied upon by any prospective assignee of Landlord's interest in the Lease or any mortgagee of the Leased Premises or any assignee of any mortgage upon the Leased Premises. /_1A9UN4WIM11111 Subordination 23.1 The Lease shall, at landlord's election, be subject and subordinate to the terms and conditions of all mortgages which may now or hereafter encumber the Leased Premises and to all renewals, modifications, consolidations, replacements, and extensions of such mortgages. In confirmation of such subordination, Tenant shall promptly execute any certificate of subordination or other such documents which Landlord or its mortgagees may request. Magicians Training Room Lease 10/28/14, Page 9 ARTICLE XXIV. Signs 24.1 Upon prior written approval by Landlord of design and construction, which approval shall not be unreasonably withheld, Tenant may erect such signs upon the Leased Premises as it may deem desirable, as long as said signs do not exceed in weight the safe carrying capacity of any bearing structure, or violate the laws of the state or ordinances of the municipality in which the Leased Premises is situated. I'_1 ZA I to] 4 WAIXTA Entire agreement 25.1 The Lease contains the entire agreement between the parties, and there are no other terms, obligations, covenants, representations, statements, or conditions, oral or otherwise, of any kind whatsoever. Any agreement hereafter made shall be ineffective to change, modify, discharge, or effect an abandonment of the Lease in whole or in part unless such agreement is in writing and signed by the party against whom enforcement of the change, modification, discharge, or abandonment in sought. I_1 Z4 9 to] I WIVNky/ P Release of Lessor 26.1 If Landlord sells or otherwise transfers all of its interest in the Leased Premises, Landlord shall, without further action by any party, be released and discharged from any further obligation or duty under the Lease, and no claim or demand upon Landlord shall thereafter be made by Tenant arising out of any such prospective obligation or duty of Landlord hereunder. Upon request by Landlord, Tenant shall execute an attornment agreement with Landlord's transferee in form satisfactory to such transferee. /_1:49B@I=W1VXV/II Severability 27.1 If any term, condition, or provision of the Lease or the application thereof to any person or circumstance shall, to any extent, be held to be invalid or unenforceable, the remainder thereof and the application of such terms, provisions, and conditions to persons or circumstances other than those as to whom it shall be held invalid or unenforceable shall not be affected thereby, and the Lease and all the terms, provisions, and conditions hereof shall, in all other respects, continue to be effective and to be complied with to the full extent permitted by law. ARTICLE XXVIII. Short Form Lease 28.1 At the request of either party hereto, a short form lease shall be prepared in form and substance reasonably satisfactory to each of the parties and shall be executed by each of the parties in duplicate, such lease to be filed for record in Hennepin County, Minnesota. /_1:49UN4WIC4 K4 Notices 29.1 Any notice or election herein requested or permitted to be given or served by either party hereto upon the other, shall be deemed given or served in accordance with the provisions of the Lease if delivered to either party hereto and receipt is obtained therefor, or if mailed in a sealed wrapper by United states registered or certified mail, postage prepaid, properly addressed to such other party at the address hereinafter specified. Unless and until changed by notice as herein provided, notices and communications shall be addressed as follows: Magicians Training Room Lease 10/28/14, Page 10 If to Landlord: City of Richfield, 6700 Portland Avenue, Richfield, MN 55423 If to Tenant: Minnesota Magicians and Exceed Hockey, 640 East 66th Street, Richfield, MN 55423 Each such mailed notice or communication shall be deemed to have been given to, or served upon the party to which addressed, on the date the same is deposited in the United states registered or certified mail, postage prepaid, properly addressed in the manner above provided. Each such delivered notice or communication shall be deemed to have been given to, or served upon, the party to whom delivered, upon delivery thereof in the manner above provided. Either party may change the address to which mailed notice is to be sent to it by giving to the other party hereto not less than thirty (30) days, advance written notice thereof. All payments of Base Rent or Additional Rent hereunder shall be made to Landlord at the address above designated, or as may be hereafter designated. ARTICLE XXX. Headings 30.1 The headings incorporated in the Lease are for convenience in reference only and are not a part of the Lease and do not in any way limit or add to the terms and provisions hereof. I_1Z49to] IWICIV/P Binding Effect 31.1 All of the covenants, conditions, and agreements herein contained shall extend to, be binding upon and inure to the benefit of the parties hereto and their respective heirs, successors, and assigns. /_1:49 D@IWICIV/P Landlord's Use of Rented Premises 32.1 Tenant shall grant Landlord the use of the rented premises to accommodate skate related events for up to 11 days per year. Magicians Training Room Lease 10/28/14, Page 11 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this Lease the day and year first above written. LESSOR: CITY OF RICHFIELD, a Minnesota municipal corporation IN Its Mayor, Debbie Goettel And By: Its City Manager, Steven Devich LESSEE: Minnesota Junior Hockey Group d.b.a. Minnesota Magicians and affiliated Exceed Hockey, Inc. M Its Owners, This instrument was drafted by: Kennedy & Graven, Chartered (JBD) 470 Pillsbury Center 200 South Sixth Street Minneapolis, MN 55402 612-337-9219 EXHIBIT A --Ir 4 � d I �� ` ~' "'•aux, � yw, . � �'`�.. - - --- -- \� - -..... _ - N- •P It NNI '��t, • aG. mss:. a>` - ; • � ;at �•�' <� `y� ' ,lam• � Z � 0 1 � 1 �' • ;, ��4 W Fry(. � a� . ,� I �, Y,.. ��,W - ``'��,,.� • -- - , , `4� 17 t � I I - ti i U) r 0-�- )�sr1 7� �I• I - REPORT PREPARED BY: DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR REVIEW: OTHER DEPARTMENT REVIEW: CITY MANAGER REVIEW: ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION: AGENDA SECTION: PUBLIC HEARINGS AGENDA ITEM # 10. STAFF REPORT NO. 188 CITY COUNCIL MEETING 10/28/2014 Chris Link, Operations Superintendent Mike Eastling, Public Works Director N/A Steven L. Devich Continued public hearing regarding the resolutions pertaining to the annual 77th Street maintenance district assessment process. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: Since the 1988, the City has been performing special, high-quality maintenance along the 77th Street redevelopment area between 1-35W and Cedar Avenue. The special maintenance services include irrigation, weeding and mowing of the landscaping on both sides of the 77th Street wall. The maintenance functions, known as current services, are funded through the maintenance assessment on the 77th Street businesses Action on this item was delayed and the the public hearing continued from the October 14 meeting because: . The letters that were sent to property owners included assessment amounts from last year's assessment (higher than this year's assessments). . By continuing the hearing the affected property owners will get proper notice for the correct amounts. Staff is recommending the City Council approve resolutions that: 1. Assess $59,779.82 against the 77th Street properties for work done in 2013. 2. Propose a similar assessment process for 2015. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Continue to conduct and close the public hearing and by motion: 1. Adopt the attached resolution proposing to assess commercial properties in the 77th Street assessment district for costs incurred to maintain that area for 2013. 2. Adopt the attached resolution proposing a similar assessment process to be implemented for 2015. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION: A. HISTORICAL CONTEXT: • City staff has determined actual costs of current services to be assessed for the 2013 maintenance of this area to be $59,779.82, and estimate the cost for 2015 maintenance to be $80,000. • Fluctuations in expenditures for the maintenance of the 77th Street Redevelopment area are caused by a number of factors: o Weather determines water usage and irrigation costs o Street light knockdowns are not foreseeable and very expensive The need to paint streetlights Concrete repair varies from year to year. B. POLICIES (resolutions, ordinances, regulations, statutes, exc): Section 825 of the City Code indicates "current services" mean one or more of the following: o (a) snow, ice, or rubbish removal from sidewalks; o (b) weed elimination from streets or private property; o (c) removal or elimination of public health or safety hazards from private property, excluding any structure included under the provisions of Minnesota Statutes, sections 463.15 to 463.26; o (d) installation or repair of water service lines; o (e) street sprinkling, sweeping, or other dust treatment of streets; o (f) the trimming and care of trees and the removal of unsound trees from any street; o (g) the treatment and removal of insect -infested or diseased trees on private property; o (h) the repair of sidewalks and alleys; o (i) the operation of a street lighting system; 0 0) the maintenance of landscaped areas, decorative parks and other public amenities on or adjacent to street right-of-way; and o (k) snow removal and other maintenance of streets in commercial redevelopment areas. • Resolution No. 7405, adopted in 1988, established a policy for assessing the costs. • Staff has calculated the proper amounts to be assessed against every assessable lot, piece or parcel of land specially benefited. • The City does not assess residential properties for maintenance • The proposed assessment was properly filed with the City Clerk. • The Public Hearing Notice was published in the official newspaper on September 18, 2014 and October 16, 2014 • Notice of the public hearing for the proposed maintenance costs in 2013 was mailed to all owners described on the assessment roll on October 1, 2014 meeting the two-week notification requirement. • A second notice was mailed on October 8, 2014 notifying property owners of correct assessment amounts and the continued public hearing. c. CRITICAL TIMING ISSUES: • On or before September 1 of each year, the City shall list the total unpaid charges for current services against each separate lot or parcel to which they are attributable under section 825 of the City Code. • All unpaid charges against each property must be reported to Hennepin County by November 1 st of each year. D. FINANCIAL IMPACT: • Estimated and actual costs for the 77th Street maintenance services from 2002 - 2013 are: Year Estimate Actual 2002 $80,000 $75,490.39 2003 $80,000 $59,831.07 2004 $80,000 $63,842.79 2005 $80,000 $64,841.54 2006 $80,000 $69,606.52 2007 $80,000 $77,441.46 2008 $80,000 $77,000.01 2009 $80,000 $62,894.55 2010 $80,000 $64,124.81 2011 $80,000 $72,427.48 2012 $80,000 $78,286.45 2013 $80,000 $59,779.82 • City ordinance provides that special assessments for current services may be certified to the County Auditor for collection along with taxes. This certification may provide that the assessments be completely paid in the first year. • No interest will be charged if the entire assessment is paid before November 27th, 2014. After that date, the City has the right to charge interest on the amount assessed in that the City provided the funds for the initial expense. It is recommended that the interest rate be established at five percent (5%). • The estimated maintenance cost for the period January 1, 2015 through December 31, 2015 is $80,000. All commercial properties would be assessed on a square foot basis. All residential properties, plus the two churches in the area, would be exempt from the special assessment levy. E. LEGAL CONSIDERATION: • No legal issues are apparent at this time. The City Attorney will be in attendance at the Council meeting should a legal question arise. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION(S): . Council may make any changes to the assessment roll as deemed necessary after the public hearing by adding the phrase "and has amended such proposed assessment as it deems just." PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING: Affected property owners ATTACHMENTS: Description Type D Resolution adopting assessments for 77th Street Maintenance in Resolution Letter 2013 D Resolution proposing to specially assess for current services in Resolution Letter 2015 D 2013 Assessment Roll Exhibit 1) Copy of letter sent to assessed property owners Exhibit D Copy of 2nd letter sent to property owners Exhibit 1) Graphic displaying 77th Street special assessment district Exhibit RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION ADOPTING ASSESSMENT ON 77TH STREET MAINTENANCE FOR THE PERIOD JANUARY 1, 2013 - DECEMBER 31, 2013 WHEREAS, pursuant to proper notice duly given as required by law, the council has met and passed upon all objections to the proposed assessment for current services related to maintenance of the 77th Street Redevelopment Project, which is approximately bounded east of 1-35W and west of Cedar Avenue. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota as follows: Such proposed assessment roll in the total amount of $59,779.82 is hereby accepted and shall constitute the special assessment against the lands named therein, and each tract of land therein included is hereby found to be benefited by the proposed current services in the amount of assessment levied against it. Such assessment shall be payable before or during 2014 and shall bear interest at the rate of five percent (5%) from the date of adoption of this assessment resolution. The owner of any property so assessed may, at any time prior to certification of the assessment to the County Auditor, pay the whole of the assessment on such property to the City's Finance Division and may, at any time thereafter, pay to the City's Finance Division the entire amount of the assessment remaining unpaid, with interest accrued to December 31 st of the year in which payment is made. Such payment must be made before November 27th or interest will be charged through December 31 st of the succeeding year. The City Clerk shall forthwith transmit a certified duplicate of this assessment roll to the County Auditor to be extended on the proper tax lists of the County and such assessment shall be collected and paid over in the same manner in other municipal taxes. Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota, this 28th day of October 2014. Debbie Goettel, Mayor ATTEST: Nancy Gibbs, City Clerk RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION ORDERING UNDERTAKING OF CURRENT SERVICE PROJECT 77TH STREET PROJECT AREA JANUARY 1, 2015 - DECEMBER 31, 2015 WHEREAS, pursuant to ordinance, the City Council of the City of Richfield did establish a special assessment district and did propose that certain current services be undertaken by the City in the 77th Street Project Area, approximately bounded by I - 35W, 77th Street, 1-494 and Cedar Avenue and that the cost of such services be specially assessed against benefited property; and WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Richfield did also by such resolution set the date of the public hearing on the undertaking of such current service project and the levying of special assessment to bear the cost thereof; and WHEREAS, following due notice, such public hearing was held on October 28tH 2014 at which time all interested parties desiring to be heard were given an opportunity to be heard. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota as follows: 1. That the following examples of current services of the City shall be undertaken by the City within the 77th Street Project Area, which area constitutes the special assessment district with the exception of residential properties, plus the two churches in the area, with the cost of such services to be specially assessed against the benefited property within the district: a. Snow, ice or rubbish removal; b. Weed elimination; c. Elimination or removal of public health or safety hazards from private property, excluding any structure included under the provisions of Minnesota Statutes Section 463.15 to 463.26; d. Street sprinkling or other dust treatment of streets; e. Trimming and care of trees and the removal of unsound trees; f. Repair of sidewalks, crosswalks and other pedestrian walkways; g. Operation of the street lighting system; h. Maintenance of landscaped areas and other public amenities on or adjacent to street right-of-way; i. Snow removal and other maintenance of streets; j. General maintenance, including repairs and replacement. 2. The work to be performed may be by day labor, by City force, by contract or by any combination thereof. 3. The designated period of the project shall be from January 1, 2015 through December 31, 2015. Costs of the project shall be in the manner provided in the Richfield Ordinance Code. Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this 28th day of October, 2014. Debbie Goettel, Mayor ATTEST: Nancy Gibbs, City Clerk 2013 Actual Charges - 77th St Maintenance PID Owner Projected Amount Sq Feet 3302824430019 MSB HOLDINGS -RICHFIELD LLC $1,858.43 114,501 3302824430049 MERIDIAN CROSSINGS LLC $3,208.44 197,677 3302824430050 MERIDIAN CROSSINGS LLC $3,518.20 216,762 3302824440110 VIKING PARTNERS KENSINGTON LLC $753.30 46,412 3302824440112 VIKING PARTNERS KENSINGTON LLC $753.30 46,412 3302824440113 VIKING PARTNERS KENSINGTON LLC $199.88 12,315 3302824440114 VIKING PARTNERS KENSINGTON LLC $17.63 1,086 3302824440115 VIKING PARTNERS KENSINGTON LLC $158.74 9,780 3302824440231 CSM INVESTORS INC $6,085.78 374,955 3302824440232 CSM SHOPS INC $5,330.65 328,430 3302824440233 CITY OF RICHFIELD/LIQUOR $382.72 23,580 3302824440234 CSM SHOPS INC $275.94 17,001 3302824440235 CSM SHOPS INC $194.01 11,953 3302824440236 CSM SHOPS INC $379.91 23,407 3402824330003 WOOD MN RE LLC $1,002.41 61,760 3402824330004 WOOD MN RE LLC $665.09 40,977 3402824330005 LE METTRY PROPERTIES $117.14 7,217 3402824330006 WOOD MN RE LLC $426.96 26,306 3402824330007 THOMAS I WOOD $120.32 7,413 3402824330080 RICHFIELD-BLMGTN HONDA $2,620.90 161,478 3402824330081 RICHFIELD HOTEL ASSOC L P $1,179.57 72,675 3402824330082 RICHFIELD HOTEL ASSOC L P $107.64 6,632 3402824330087 J & R RICHFIELD LLC $792.93 48,854 3402824330088 HPT CW II PROP TRUST $1,697.98 104,615 3402824330150 RICHFIELD SENIOR HOUSING INC $68.25 4,205 3402824330151 RICHFIELD SENIOR HOUSING INC $68.25 4,205 3402824330152 MAIN STREET OFFICE LLC $68.25 4,205 3402824330153 MAIN STREET OFFICE LLC $68.25 4,205 3402824330154 MAIN STREET OFFICE LLC $68.25 4,205 3402824330155 MAIN STREET OFFICE LLC $68.25 4,205 3402824340001 SHERWIN-WILLIAMS DEV CORP $233.01 14,356 3402824340053 TWO S PROPERTIES, INC $1,516.47 93,432 3402824340054 LEIGHTON PARTNERS LLC ATTN CHIEF MANAGER $327.32 20,167 3402824340055 HILMER M HOVELSON $326.79 20,134 3402824340056 VIKING PAINTS $375.92 23,161 3402824340057 VIKING PAINTS, INC $546.37 33,663 3402824340058 WILLIAMS PROPERTIES MN LLC $87.14 5,369 3402824340059 ROBERT A GEORGE $76.25 4,698 3402824340060 KERKER PROPERTIES LLC $163.65 10,083 3402824340061 H & M V PROPERTIES, LLC $163.69 10,085 3402824340065 7700 NICOLLET, LLC $302.80 18,656 3402824340066 REALTY INCOME PROPERTIES 3, LLC $285.89 17,614 3402824340073 CITY OF RICHFIELD ATTN: COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT $663.88 40,903 3402824430005 RALEIGH P NELSON $654.06 40,298 3402824430077 NAILA DEVELOPMENT COMPANY, LLC $377.69 23,270 3402824430078 MENARD INC $6,632.61 408,646 3402824440006 ELSEN BROTHERS INC $236.74 14,586 3402824440007 D B R INC ELSEN BROTHERS INC $373.99 23,042 3402824440023 A G BOGEN CO $473.55 29,176 3402824440024 TBG, LLC $166.14 10,236 3402824440025 GARY WIBERG $165.59 10,202 3402824440027 A G BOGEN $218.68 13,473 3402824440028 RICHFIELD WHEEL ALIGNMENT $166.97 10,287 3402824440029 BLAYLOCK PLUMBING CO $337.84 20,815 3402824440030 RICHFIELD BLOOMINGTON CU $259.01 15,958 3402824440031 DJ & DJ LLC $498.04 30,685 3402824440032 RICHFIELD -BLOOMINGTON CU $595.88 36,713 3502824330006 ASIAN DRCT ORIENTAL MKT INC $364.07 22,431 3502824330007 UNICARE HOMES INC $479.55 29,546 3502824330008 LMMS PROPERTIES, LLC $447.43 27,567 3502824330009 LOIS BERG $407.47 25,105 3502824340002 B & S LAND DEVELOPMENT LLC $403.85 24,882 3502824430006 A G BOGEN $670.17 41,290 3502824430008 PMB HOSPITALITY LLC $758.66 46,742 3502824430073 A G BOGEN $236.53 14,573 3502824430074 A G BOGEN COMPANY $781.65 48,159 3502824430076 A G BOGEN COMPANY $969.83 59,753 3502824440004 MOTEL 6 OPERATING L P #1106 $885.94 54,584 3502824440006 CITY OF RICHFIELD/HRA $533.75 32,885 3502824440007 JERRY E MATHWIG $641.11 39,500 3502824440008 JERRY MATHWIG METRO SALES INC $877.71 54,077 3502824440010 ADLER GRADUATE SCHOOL $2,266.42 139,638 3502824440031 494 BUILDING PARTNERSHIP LLC $541.94 33,390 3502824440032 CLEAR CHANNEL OUTDOOR INCORPORATED $30.40 1,872 $59,779.82 3,683,130 September 29, 2014 Property ID: Property Address: I. NOTICE OF ASSESSMENT HEARING NOTICE OF CONTINUATION OF HEARING ON PROPOSED ASSESSMENT FOR CERTAIN SERVICES OF THE CITY WITHIN THE 77TH STREET PROJECT AREA FROM JANUARY 1, 2013- DECEMBER 31, 2013 NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Richfield City Council will hold a public hearing on the date and at the time and place given below, to pass upon the proposed assessment for the maintenance of the 77th Street Project Area in the City. DATE, TIME AND PLACE OF HEARING: Tuesday, October 14, 2014 at 7:00 p.m. or as soon thereafter as the matter can be reached on the agenda, at Richfield Municipal Center, 6700 Portland Avenue South, Richfield, Minnesota 55423. NATURE OF IMPROVEMENT AND AREA TO BE ASSESSED: From January 1, 2013 through December 31, 2013 the City of Richfield incurred costs for maintenance of the 77th Street area, including such work as landscape maintenance of common properties, including mowing, fertilizing, irrigation repair and other maintenance services. The City proposes to assess the costs for maintenance in the 77th Street project area, which totaled $59,779.82, against the properties that benefited from this work. PROPOSED AMOUNT OF ASSESSMENT: The total amount to be assessed against all properties is $59,779.82. The amount to be assessed against your particular property is $XXXXX. Payment can be made after the assessment is adopted and before November 18, 2014 at the City of Richfield Assessor's office, 6700 Portland Avenue, Richfield, MN 55423. Please make your check payable to the City of Richfield. A copy of the proposed assessment roll is on file for public inspection at the City Clerk's office, 6700 Portland Avenue South, Richfield, Minnesota. THIS IS THE ONLY NOTICE YOU WILL RECEIVE OF THIS ASSESSMENT. NO SEPARATE BILLING WILL OCCUR. PLEASE DO NOT MAIL PAYMENT BEFORE THE ASSESSMENT HEARING ON TUESDAY, OCTOBER 14, 2014. PAYMENT OF ASSESSMENT: You may pay your assessment at any time after the assessment has been adopted by presenting a check to the City Treasurer at the Assessor's office, 6700 Portland Avenue South, Richfield, Minnesota 55423. Unpaid assessments accrue interest at the rate of five percent (5%) per year. The amount of interest payable depends upon when your payment is made, and the following deadlines apply: Payment within 30 days of adopted assessment: The property owner may pay the original principal amount without interest within 30 days from the date the Council adopts the assessment, scheduled for October 14, 2014. If the original principal amount is not paid, the assessment will be charged five percent (5%) interest. Payment on or after November 18, 2014: Assessments are spread over five years. Interest at the rate of five percent (5%) will be charged. Interest is calculated for 17 months on the first year of the assessment and 12 months thereafter. There is a $2.50 surcharge per year over the five year life of the assessment when certified to the property tax. Questions regarding the assessment payment procedure should be directed to Debbie Guiher at 612-861-9710. DEFERRED ASSESSMENTS: Under Minnesota Stat. Secs. 435.193 to 435.195, the Council may, in its discretion, defer the payment of this special assessment for any homestead property owned by a person who meets certain age or disability restrictions and for whom it would be a hardship to make the payments. The policy and procedure for deferment is set forth in City Resolution No. 9531, which may be obtained from the City Clerk. When deferment of the special assessment has been granted and is terminated for any reason provided in law, all amounts accumulated plus applicable interest become due. Any assessed property owner meeting the requirements of the law and the resolution may, within 30 days of the confirmation of the assessment, apply to the City Clerk for the prescribed form for deferral of this special assessment. HEARING PROCEDURE AND OBJECTIONS: The City Council will continue a public hearing on the proposed assessment on the date and time listed. Written and oral objections will be considered at the meeting, but the Council may consider any objection to the amount of a proposed individual assessment at an adjourned meeting upon further notice to the affected property owners, as the Council deems advisable. The Council may adopt the proposed assessment at the same meeting as the hearing. RIGHT TO APPEAL: You have the right to appeal the City Council's adoption of the assessment. To appeal, you must serve notice of an appeal upon the Mayor or City Clerk within 30 days after the adoption of the assessment, and you must also file the notice of appeal with the Hennepin County District Court within ten days after service upon the Mayor or City Clerk. You may not appeal unless you file a written objection, signed by you, with the City Clerk prior to the hearing on Tuesday. October 14, 2014, or present the written objection to the presiding officer at the hearina on Tuesday. October 14. 2014. BY ORDER OF THE CITY COUNCIL THIS 9th DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2014. Questions concerning this assessment amount should be directed to Chris Link, Operations Superintendent, at 612-861-9174. October 8, 2014 Property ID: Property Address: Dear Property Owner/Manager, , Please disregard the previous NOTICE OF ASSESSMENT HEARING notice that was dated September 29, 2014. A corrected Notice of Assessment is attached. You may still attend the Public Hearing scheduled for October 14th, 2014 or a continuation of that hearing scheduled for 7:00 p.m. on October 28th, 2014 at the City of Richfield Regular City Council Meeting. I'm sorry for any inconvenience and if you have any questions contact Chris Link at 612-861- 9174 or clink(o-)-cityofrichfield.ora. Sincerely, Chris Link City of Richfield Public Works Operations Superintendent October 8, 2014 Property ID: Property Address: NOTICE OF ASSESSMENT HEARING [6>tI[yEEi]ffeZi]►N1I►R1_NI[sL[s]0:I1_1V1►[K6101W Zi710>�y:161_IMy*�yf•101►NI FOR CERTAIN SERVICES OF THE CITY WITHIN THE 77TH STREET PROJECT AREA FROM JANUARY 1, 2013- DECEMBER 31, 2013 NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Richfield City Council will hold a public hearing on the date and at the time and place given below, to pass upon the proposed assessment for the maintenance of the 77th Street Project Area in the City. DATE, TIME AND PLACE OF HEARING: Tuesday, October 28, 2014 at 7:00 p.m. or as soon thereafter as the matter can be reached on the agenda, at Richfield Municipal Center, 6700 Portland Avenue South, Richfield, Minnesota 55423. NATURE OF IMPROVEMENT AND AREA TO BE ASSESSED: From January 1, 2013 through December 31, 2013 the City of Richfield incurred costs for maintenance of the 77th Street area, including such work as landscape maintenance of common properties, including mowing, fertilizing, irrigation repair and other maintenance services. The City proposes to assess the costs for maintenance in the 77th Street project area, which totaled $59,779.82, against the properties that benefited from this work. PROPOSED AMOUNT OF ASSESSMENT: The total amount to be assessed against all properties is $59,779.82. The amount to be assessed against your particular property is $XXXXX. Payment can be made after the assessment is adopted and before November 27, 2014 at the City of Richfield Assessor's office, 6700 Portland Avenue, Richfield, MN 55423. Please make your check payable to the City of Richfield. A copy of the proposed assessment roll is on file for public inspection at the City Clerk's office, 6700 Portland Avenue South, Richfield, Minnesota. THIS IS THE ONLY NOTICE YOU WILL RECEIVE OF THIS ASSESSMENT. NO SEPARATE BILLING WILL OCCUR. PLEASE DO NOT MAIL PAYMENT BEFORE THE ASSESSMENT HEARING ON TUESDAY, OCTOBER 28, 2014. Payment within 30 days of adopted assessment: The property owner may pay the original principal amount without interest within 30 days from the date the Council adopts the assessment, scheduled for October 28, 2014. If the original principal amount is not paid, the assessment will be charged five percent (5%) interest. Payment on or after November 27, 2014: Assessments are spread over five years. Interest at the rate of five percent (5%) will be charged. Interest is calculated for 17 months on the first year of the assessment and 12 months thereafter. There is a $2.50 surcharge per year over the five year life of the assessment when certified to the property tax. Questions regarding the assessment payment procedure should be directed to Debbie Guiher at 612-861-9710. DEFERRED ASSESSMENTS: Under Minnesota Stat. Secs. 435.193 to 435.195, the Council may, in its discretion, defer the payment of this special assessment for any homestead property owned by a person who meets certain age or disability restrictions and for whom it would be a hardship to make the payments. The policy and procedure for deferment is set forth in City Resolution No. 9531, which may be obtained from the City Clerk. When deferment of the special assessment has been granted and is terminated for any reason provided in law, all amounts accumulated plus applicable interest become due. Any assessed property owner meeting the requirements of the law and the resolution may, within 30 days of the confirmation of the assessment, apply to the City Clerk for the prescribed form for deferral of this special assessment. HEARING PROCEDURE AND OBJECTIONS: The City Council will continue a public hearing on the proposed assessment on the date and time listed. Written and oral objections will be considered at the meeting, but the Council may consider any objection to the amount of a proposed individual assessment at an adjourned meeting upon further notice to the affected property owners, as the Council deems advisable. The Council may adopt the proposed assessment at the same meeting as the hearing. RIGHT TO APPEAL: You have the right to appeal the City Council's adoption of the assessment. To appeal, you must serve notice of an appeal upon the Mayor or City Clerk within 30 days after the adoption of the assessment, and you must also file the notice of appeal with the Hennepin County District Court within ten days after service upon the Mayor or City Clerk. You may not appeal unless you file a written objection, signed by you, with the City Clerk prior to the hearing on Tuesday. October 28, 2014, or present the written objection to the presiding officer at the hearing on Tuesday, October 28, 2014. BY ORDER OF THE CITY COUNCIL THIS 9th DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2014. Questions concerning this assessment amount should be directed to Chris Link, Operations Superintendent, at 612-861-9174. U ry LU U Z a z LU z 75a W W ry U) Z J u REPORT PREPARED BY: DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR REVIEW: OTHER DEPARTMENT REVIEW: CITY MANAGER REVIEW: ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION: AGENDA SECTION: PUBLIC HEARINGS AGENDA ITEM # 11. STAFF REPORT NO. 189 CITY COUNCIL MEETING 10/28/2014 Jeff Pearson, Transportation Engineer Mike Eastling, Public Works Director N/A Steven L. Devich Public hearing regarding the special assessment roll for CP -41007 (North Richfield Parkway) and consideration of a resolution approving the assessment roll. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: The North Richfield Parkway Project was ordered by City Council on February 12, 2013. The project reconstructed 17th Avenue between 63rd Street and 65th Street to a full parkway cross-section. Construction of the Parkway is substantially complete at this time. A special assessment bond was used for financing the project. The 17th Avenue properties that are being assessed will be conveyed to the HRA for redevelopment purposes. The HRA will be responsible for the assessments until a developer buys the land. The public hearing and adoption of the assessment roll resolution is the last Council action in the Minn. Statute 429 (local improvement) process for special assessments. RECOMMENDED ACTION: By Motion: 1. Conduct and close the public hearing regarding the special assessment roll for CP -41007 (North Richfield Parkway). 2. Adopt the attached resolution approving the assessment roll for the North Richfield Parkway Project. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION: A. HISTORICAL CONTEXT: . The establishment of Richfield Parkway as a vehicular and greenway corridor extending from the City's northern border is an identified goal of the Comprehensive Plan. . The Special Assessment Bonding process was followed for the financing of the Project. Once the properties where purchased by the City, the City promised to convey the properties to the HRA for a nominal amount and the HRA would pay the annual assessment until a developer purchases the parcel. B. POLICIES (resolutions, ordinances, regulations, statutes, exc): . The Replacement of Cedar Avenue by a new Richfield Parkway is identified in the Comprehensive Plan (6-19). • Staff is following the Minn. Statute Section 429 for special assessments. c. CRITICAL TIMING ISSUES: In order to move forward with the special assessment process as planned, City staff would like to convey the property to the HRA in October of 2014. Adoption of the proposed resolutions at this time will keep it on schedule. D. FINANCIAL IMPACT: . The total cost of the project is $3,625,000. . The total cost to be assessed is $780,000 E. LEGAL CONSIDERATION: The City Attorney will be available to answer questions. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION(S): Council may revise the special assessment roll as deemed necessary following the public hearing. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING: None ATTACHMENTS: Description Type D Resolution and Assessment Roll Resolution Letter D Assessment Public Notice Exhibit RESOLUTION NO. CITY OF RICHFIELD RESOLUTION ADOPTING ASSESSMENT FOR IMPROVEMENT NO. CP -41007 (NORTH RICHFIELD PARKWAY) WHEREAS, pursuant to proper notice duly given as required by law, the City Council of the City of Richfield (the "City") has met and heard and passed upon all objections to the proposed assessment for Improvement No. CP -41007 (North Richfield Parkway), the improvement on Richfield Parkway between the center -line of 65`x' Street and the center -line of 63rd Street by total reconstruction (hereinafter, the "Improvement Project"); and WHEREAS, costs have been calculated for the Improvement Project and a proposed assessment roll for the Improvement Project has been submitted to the City Council; and WHEREAS, the total estimated cost for the Improvement Project is $3,625,000 with the total cost to be assessed being $780,000. NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Richfield that: The above -referenced recitals are incorporated herein to this resolution as if fully set forth herein. 2. The proposed assessment roll, a copy of which is attached hereto as EXHIBIT A and made a part hereof as if fully set forth herein, is hereby accepted and adopted and shall constitute the special assessment against the lands named therein, and each tract of land therein included is hereby found to be benefited by the improvement in the amount of the assessment levied against it. 3. Such assessment shall be payable in equal annual installments extending over a period of twenty (20) years, the first of the installments to be payable on or before the first Monday in January 2015, and shall bear interest at the rate of four percent (4.0%) per annum from the date of the adoption of this assessment resolution. To the first installment shall be added interest on the entire assessment from the date of this assessment resolution until December 31, 2014. To each subsequent installment, when due, shall be added interest for one year on all unpaid installments. 4. The owner of any property so assessed may, at any time prior to certification of the assessment to the County Auditor of Hennepin County, Minnesota (the "County Auditor"), pay the whole of the assessment on such property, with interest accrued to the date of payment, to the City, except that no interest shall be charged if the entire assessment is paid within 30 days from the adoption of this assessment resolution. The owner of any property so assessed may at any time thereafter, pay to the County Auditor the entire amount of the assessment remaining unpaid, with interest accrued to December 31 of the year in which such payment is made. Such payment must be made before November 15 or interest will be charged through December 31 of the succeeding year. 5. The City Clerk shall forthwith transmit a certified duplicate of this assessment resolution to the County Auditor to be extended on the property tax lists of Hennepin County. Such assessment shall be collected and paid over in the same manner as other municipal taxes. 450012v1 JAE RC145-632 Adopted by the City Council of the City of Richfield this 28"' day of October, 2014. Debbie Goettel, Mayor ATTEST: Nancy Gibbs, City Clerk 450012v1 JAE RC145-632 EXHIBIT A ASSESSMENT ROLL NAME ADDRESS PID# ASSESSMENT City of Richfield 6314 17th Avenue 2602824110045 $54,734.82 City of Richfield 6320 17th Avenue 2602824110044 $55,669.04 City of Richfield 6326 17th Avenue 2602824110043 $55,669.04 City of Richfield 6332 17th Avenue 2602824110042 $55,669.04 City of Richfield 6338 17th Avenue 2602824110041 $55,669.04 City of Richfield 6344 17th Avenue 2602824110040 $55,669.04 HRA Richfield 6400 17th Avenue 2602824140019 $56,686.44 City of Richfield 6408 17th Avenue 2602824140018 $55,669.04 City of Richfield 6414 17th Avenue 2602824140017 $55,669.04 City of Richfield 6420 17th Avenue 2602824140016 $55,669.04 City of Richfield 6426 17th Avenue 2602824140015 $55,669.04 City of Richfield 6432 17th Avenue 2602824140014 $55,669.04 City of Richfield 6438 17th Avenue 2602824140013 $55,669.04 City of Richfield 6444 17th Avenue 2602824140012 $56,219.33 A-1 450012v1 JAE RC145-632 CITY OF RICHFIELD NOTICE OF HEARING TO BE HELD OCTOBER 28, 2014 ON PROPOSED ASSESSMENT AND CANCELLATION OF HEARING PREVIOUSLY SET FOR OCTOBER 14, 2014 TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN: Notice is hereby given that the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota (the "City") will meet at or after 7:00 p.m. on Tuesday, October 28, 2014, at the City Council Chambers in the Richfield Municipal Center located at 6700 Portland Avenue South in the City, to consider, and possibly adopt, the proposed assessment for Improvement No. CP -41007 (North Richfield Parkway), the improvement on Richfield Parkway between the center -line of 65'h Street and the center -line of 63rd Street by total reconstruction. The hearing previously set for October 14, 2014 is cancelled. Adoption by the City Council of the proposed assessment may occur at the hearing. The following is the area proposed to be assessed: Lot 9, Block 1, Iverson's Second Addition Lot 9, Block 2, Iverson's Second Addition Lot 10, Block 1, Iverson's Second Addition Lot 10, Block 2, Iverson's Second Addition Lot 11, Block 1, Iverson's Second Addition Lot 11, Block 2, Iverson's Second Addition Lot 12, Block 1, Iverson's Second Addition Lot 12, Block 2, Iverson's Second Addition Lot 13, Block 1, Iverson's Second Addition Lot 13, Block 2, Iverson's Second Addition Lot 14, Block 1, Iverson's Second Addition Lot 14, Block 2, Iverson's Second Addition Lot 15, Block 2, Iverson's Second Addition Lot 16, Block 2, Iverson's Second Addition Such assessment is proposed to be payable in equal annual installments extending over a period of twenty years, the first of the installments to be payable on or before the first Monday in January 2015, and will bear interest at the rate of 4.0% per annum from the date of the adoption of the assessment resolution. To the first installment shall be added interest on the entire assessment from the date of the assessment resolution until December 31, 2014. To each subsequent installment when due shall be added interest for one year on all unpaid installments. You may at any time prior to certification of the assessment to the county auditor pay the entire assessment on such property, with interest accrued to the date of payment, to the City. No interest shall be charged if the entire assessment is paid within 30 days from the adoption of this assessment. You may at any time thereafter, pay to the City the entire amount of the assessment remaining unpaid, with interest accrued to December 31 of the year in which such payment is made. Such payment must be made before November 15 or interest will be charged through December 31 of the succeeding year. If you decide not to prepay the assessment before the date given above the rate of interest that will apply is 4.0% per year. The proposed assessment roll is on file for public inspection at the City Clerk's office. The total amount of the proposed assessment is $780,000. Written or oral objections will be considered at the meeting. No appeal to district court may be taken as to the amount of an assessment unless a written objection signed by the affected property owner is filed with the City Clerk prior to the assessment hearing or presented to 4500100 JAE RC145-632 the presiding officer at the hearing. The City Council may upon such notice consider any objection to the amount of a proposed individual assessment at an adjourned meeting upon such further notice to the affected property owners as it deems advisable. Under Minnesota Statutes, Sections 435.193 to 435.195, the City Council may, in its discretion, defer the payment of this special assessment for any homestead property owned by a person 65 years of age or older or retired by virtue of a permanent and total disability for whom it would be a hardship to make the payments. When deferment of the special assessment has been granted and is terminated for any reason provided in that law, all amounts accumulated plus applicable interest become due. Any assessed property owner meeting the requirements of this law may, within 30 days of the confirmation of the assessment, apply to the City Clerk for the prescribed form for such deferral of payment of this special assessment on his or her property. An owner may appeal an assessment to district court pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Section 429.081 by serving notice of the appeal upon the Mayor or City Clerk of the city within 30 days after the adoption of the assessment and filing such notice with the district court within ten days after service upon the Mayor or City Clerk. QUESTIONS: Call Jeff Pearson, Transportation Engineer, at 612-861-9791. HOW TO COMMENT: Attend the hearing and you will be heard or submit written comments. BY ORDER OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA /s/ Nancy Gibbs City Clerk City of Richfield, Minnesota 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. Dated: 4500100 JAE RC145-632 REPORT PREPARED BY: DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR REVIEW: OTHER DEPARTMENT REVIEW: CITY MANAGER REVIEW: ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION: AGENDA SECTION: PROPOSED ORDINANCES AGENDA ITEM # 12. STAFF REPORT NO. 190 CITY COUNCIL MEETING 10/28/2014 Betsy Osborn, Support Services Manager Jay Henthorne, Acting Public Safety Director None Steven L. Devich Consideration of a resolution, and first reading of an ordinance establishing a 12 month moratorium on the consideration of new establishments allowing indoor smoking or sampling of tobacco or similar products. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: The Minnesota Clean Indoor Air Act was enacted to protect employees and the general public from the hazards of secondhand smoke by eliminating smoking in public places, places of employment, public transportation, and at public meetings. "Public place" means "any enclosed, indoor area used by the general public, and includes retail and commercial establishments. The Clean Indoor Air Act, however, allows customers to "sample" tobacco products in certain tobacco retail establishments as defined by statute. The Act allows cities and counties to enact and enforce more stringent measures to protect individuals from secondhand smoke. In other words, cities can prohibit the sampling of tobacco if they wish to do so. The City currently has two establishments that offer sampling of tobacco or e -cigarettes. The City has also received an inquiry regarding an establishment wishing to offer indoor smoking or sampling. Richfield's code does not prohibit sampling of tobacco and, thus, it is allowed under state law. City staff is recommending adoption of a 12 month moratorium on consideration of any additional smoking or sampling establishments so that this issue can be properly studied and, if determined necessary, City Ordinances can be amended. During the moratorium period, no new establishments may allow indoor smoking or sampling. Although the City could legally apply this to existing establishments that offer sampling, staff is recommending that existing business be exempt from the moratorium and future ordinance amendments, if any. RECOMMENDED ACTION: By Motion: Approve the attached resolution and conduct a first reading of an ordinance establishing a 12 month moratorium on consideration of any establishment requesting to allow indoor smoking of sampling of tobacco or similar products. Schedule a second reading of the attached ordinance for November 10, 2014. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION: A. HISTORICAL CONTEXT: The Historical Context is contained in the Executive Summary. B. POLICIES (resolutions, ordinances, regulations, statutes, exc): • State Law allows cities to adopt interim ordinances for the purposes of protecting the planning process and the health, safety and welfare of its citizens. • The Clean Indoor Air Act allows cities to enact more stringent measures than state law to protect individuals from secondhand smoke. C. CRITICAL TIMING ISSUES: • The City received an inquiry about a business wishing to allow indoor smoking or sampling. A moratorium would allow the City to determine whether, as a policy matter, it wishes to further restrict indoor smoking or sampling. • The term of the proposed moratorium is for 12 months, however, the City can repeal the moratorium at an earlier time if studies have been completed and necessary ordinance changes, if any adopted. D. FINANCIAL IMPACT: None E. LEGAL CONSIDERATION: The City Attorney has reviewed the attached Resolution and Ordinance. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION(S): . Do not approve or approve with modificiations, the attached ordinance and resolution. . Approve a moratorium for a different length of time (cannot exceed one year). PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING: None ATTACHMENTS: Description Type A Resolution Establishing a Moratorium on Establishments Allowing ❑ Indoor Smoking or Sampling of Tobacco or Similar Products and Resolution Letter Directing that a Study Be Conducted A Ordinance Establishing a Moratorium on Establishments Allowing ❑ Indoor Smoking or Sampling of Tobacco or Similar Products and Ordinance Directing that a Study Be Conducted CITY OF RICHFIELD STATE OF MINNESOTA RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING A MORATORIUM ON ESTABLISHMENTS ALLOWING INDOOR SMOKING OR SAMPLING OF TOBACCO OR SIMILAR PRODUCTS AND DIRECTING THAT A STUDY BE CONDUCTED WHEREAS, the Minnesota Clean Indoor Air Act ("Act") was enacted to protect employees and the general public from the hazards of secondhand smoke by eliminating smoking in public places; and WHEREAS, the Act allows customers to sample tobacco products in certain tobacco retail establishments as defined by state statute; and WHEREAS, the Act allows cities to enact and enforce more stringent measures to protect individuals from secondhand smoke; and WHEREAS, the City has at least two existing establishments offering sampling of tobacco or related products and has received at least one inquiry about a potential establishment that would allow indoor smoking or sampling; and WHEREAS, the City's ordinances currently do not address or restrict sampling in retail establishments; and WHEREAS, pursuant to its police power, the City has the authority to undertake a study to determine whether or not to adopt any restrictions on indoor smoking or sampling; and WHEREAS, the City may also, pursuant to its general police power and authority under the Act, enact and enforce restrictions on smoking, including sampling, within the City to protect the health, safety and welfare of its residents; and WHEREAS, the City Council has determined a need to undertake a study to determine whether it should adopt such restrictions on smoking or sampling; and WHEREAS, upon completion of the study, the City Council, together with such city commissions as the City Council deems appropriate or as may be required by law, will consider the advisability of amending its ordinances. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA as follows: 1. The City Council finds that it is necessary to conduct a study to determine whether the City should prohibit or restrict smoking or sampling of tobacco or similar products in order to protect the health and welfare of the residents. 2. The study will allow the City to determine the appropriate changes, if any, that should be made to City Ordinances. 3. The City Council finds that there is a need to adopt a City-wide moratorium, while the study referenced in paragraph 1 of this resolution is being conducted. 4. A study is authorized to be conducted by City staff, to be followed by consideration of potential changes to the City's Ordinances by the City Council and such other commissions of the City as required by law or as directed by the City Council. 5. Pending completion of the study and adoption of any amendments to the City's ordinances, the City Council finds that this moratorium should apply to any new retail establishments requesting to allow smoking or sampling of tobacco or similar products. 6. During the period of the moratorium, no approvals, applications, or requests related to new smoking or sampling establishments shall be accepted by the City, nor shall the Planning Commission or City Council consider or grant any such approvals, applications or requests. 7. The moratorium established by this resolution shall apply to any approval, application, or request pending as of the date of this resolution. 8. Unless earlier rescinded by the City Council, the moratorium established under this resolution shall remain in effect until October 28, 2015. 9. This resolution is effective upon adoption. ATTEST: Nancy Gibbs, City Clerk Deborah Goettel, Mayor RAI CITY OF RICHFIELD STATE OF MINNESOTA ORDINANCE NO. A ORDINANCE ESTABLISHING A MORATORIUM ON ESTABLISHMENTS ALLOWING INDOOR SMOKING OR SAMPLING OF TOBACCO OR SIMILAR PRODUCTS AND DIRECTING THAT A STUDY BE CONDUCTED THE CITY OF RICHFIELD DOES ORDAIN: Section 1. Background. 1.01. The Minnesota Clean Indoor Air Act ("Act") was enacted to protect employees and the general public from the hazards of secondhand smoke by eliminating smoking in public places. 1.02. The Act allows customers to sample tobacco products in certain retail establishments as defined by state statute. 1.03. The Act allows cities to enact and enforce more stringent measures to protect individuals from secondhand smoke. 1.04. The City has at least two existing establishments offering sampling of tobacco or related products and has received at least one inquiry about a potential establishment that would allow indoor smoking or sampling. 1.05. The City's ordinances currently do not address or restrict sampling in retail establishments. 1.06. Pursuant to its police power, the City has authority to undertake a study to determine whether or not to adopt any restrictions on indoor smoking or sampling. 1.07. The City may also, pursuant to its general police power and authority under the Act, enact and enforce restrictions on smoking, including sampling, within the City to protect the health, safety and welfare of its residents. 1.08. The City Council has determined a need to undertake a study to determine whether it should adopt such restrictions on smoking or sampling. 1.09. Upon completion of the study, the City Council, together with such city commissions as the City Council deems appropriate or as may be required by law, will consider the advisability of amending its ordinances. Sec. 2. Findings. 2.01. The City Council finds that it is necessary to conduct a study to determine whether the City should prohibit or restrict smoking or sampling of tobacco or similar products in order to protect the health and welfare of the residents. 2.02. The study will allow the City to determine the appropriate changes, if any, that should be made to City Ordinances. 1 2.03. The City Council finds that there is a need to adopt a City-wide moratorium, while the study referenced in paragraph 2.01 is being conducted. Sec. 3. Authorized Study; Moratorium. 3.01. A study is authorized to be conducted by City staff, to be followed by consideration of potential changes to the City's Ordinances by the City Council and such other commissions of the City as required by law or as directed by the City Council. 3.02. Pending completion of the study and adoption of any amendments to the City's ordinances, the City Council finds that this moratorium should apply to any new retail establishments requesting to allow smoking or sampling of tobacco or similar products. 3.03. During the period of the moratorium, no approvals, applications, or requests related to new smoking or sampling establishments shall be accepted by the City, nor shall the Planning Commission or City Council consider or grant any such approvals, applications or requests. 3.04. The moratorium established by this Ordinance shall apply to any approval, application, or request pending as of the effective date of this Ordinance. 3.05. The City Council may approve exceptions to this moratorium for an application if the City Council, in its sole discretion, determines that the approval being sought will not interfere with the purposes for which this moratorium was adopted. Sec. 4. Enforcement. The City may enforce this Ordinance by mandamus, injunction or other appropriate civil remedy in any court of competent jurisdiction. Sec. 5. Term. Unless earlier rescinded by the City Council, the moratorium established under this Ordinance shall remain in effect until October 28, 2015. Sec. 6. Effective Date. This Ordinance is effective as provided by Section 3.09 of the Richfield City Charter. ATTEST: Nancy Gibbs, City Clerk Deborah Goettel, Mayor RAI REPORT PREPARED BY: DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR REVIEW: OTHER DEPARTMENT REVIEW: CITY MANAGER REVIEW: ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION: AGENDA SECTION: RESOLUTIONS AGENDA ITEM # 13. STAFF REPORT NO. 191 CITY COUNCIL MEETING 10/28/2014 Jeff Pearson, Transportation Engineer Mike Eastling, Public Works Director N/A Steven L. Devich Consideration of the adoption of resolutions supporting the Preliminary Concept #413 design for 66th Street between 1-35W and 16th Avenue and supporting the application of a design variance to reduce right-of-way impact. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: The Transportation Commission recommended the "Concept 413" design between 1-35W and 16th Avenue (referred to as "East 66th Street") for the 66th Street reconstruction project at their September 3, 2014 meeting. The concept was then presented at the September 25 Project Open House as the recommended concept for 66th Street between 1-35W and 16th Avenue. The Concept #4B includes the following design elements to address the identified project goals: . Left -turn lanes (Vehicle Safety) . Medians (Vehicle and Pedestrian Safety) . Boulevards (Pedestrian Safety and Maintenance) . Cycle Tracks (Bicycle Safety) . Sidewalks (Pedestrian Safety) Right-of-way impacts are minimal in this section of the corridor since existing ROW width is generally 83- 100'. There are an estimated total of 19 permanent easements required east of 1-35W as part of the Concept #4B design. The three largest impacts are highlighted in the attached graphics and are all commercial properties. Property owners of these parcels have been engaged into the design process to discuss impact mitigation and solutions. One potential method of reducing property impacts is to reduce the required curb reaction distance (shoulder width) of 4 -feet to 2 -feet in the areas with three -lanes. This change will require MnDOT to grant Hennepin County a design variance. Following an analysis during the design phase, Hennepin County will need to apply for the variance is seeking the City's support for the variance in the form of the attached resolution. City staff will present an overview of the following information at the meeting: . Project Process . Project Goals . Concepts Evaluated . Concept #4B Preliminary Layout . Right -of -Way Impacts Possible Design Variance RECOMMENDED ACTION: By Motion: 1. As recommended by the Transportation Commission, adopt a resolution granting approval of County State Aid Highway (CSAH) 53 Preliminary Layout Concept #413 (East of Girard Avenue S) Hennepin County Project No. 1011 (66th Street) 2. Adopt a resolution supporting Hennepin County in seeking a variance from the Minnesota Department of Transportation (MNDOT) for design of curb reaction distance for County State Aid Highway (CSAH) 53 Preliminary Layout #413 (East of Nicollet Avenue S) Hennepin County Project No. 1011 (66th Street) BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION: A. HISTORICAL CONTEXT: Layout Options The Transportation Commission prepared for the preliminary design process in January 2013 by creating a community based Guiding Principles document that is to be used for all upcoming street reconstruction projects. Based on comments and feedback from the first public open house as well as existing approved planning documents such as the Richfield Complete Streets Policy and the Arterial Road Study, the following project goals were developed: o Pedestrian — Improve pedestrian experience both along and across the roadways o Transit — Improve passenger waiting experience, building on pedestrian safety o Recreational Bicycling — Provide space comfortable for recreational bicyclists o Commuter Bicycling — Provide dedicated space for commuter bicyclists o Vehicle Safety — Provide center turn lane to minimize conflicts and narrow lanes to reduce speeds o Environment — Add green boulevards o Maintenance — Add snow storage space Based the the identified project goals, four cross-section concepts were developed for consideration (graphics attached): 1. Center turn -lanes, on -street bike lanes, boulevards, sidewalks 2. Center turn -lanes, on -street bike lanes, boulevards, one sidewalk, one multi -use trail 3. Center turn -lanes, boulevards, one sidewalk, one multi -use trail 4. Center turn -lanes, cycle tracks, boulevards, sidewalks . These four options were presented to the public at the second project open house and based on feedback received; the Commission narrowed the preferred concepts to #2 & #4. . The Commission requested a version of Concept #4 that placed the cycle track facilities behind the boulevard rather than next to the curb. This change (Concept #4B) created additional buffer from vehicles and improved winter maintenance operations for the cycle tracks. . After gathering additional feedback regarding the Concept #2 vs Concept #413 options at community events, the Commission recommended Concept #413 east of 1-35W. . The Commission recommended the addition of center median islands at several locations to improve pedestrian crossings along the corridor. Preliminary locations for those medians are included on the attached layout however the detailed design of these medians are subject to change as the project continues and additional feedback is received. Property Impacts Right-of-way impacts are minimal in this section of the corridor since existing ROW width is generally 83'-100'. There are a total of XX permanent easements required east of 1-35W as part of the Concept #413 design. The largest impacts are highlighted in the attached graphics and are all commercial properties. Property owners of these parcels have been engaged into the design process to discuss impact mitigation and solutions. One possible solution to reduce right-of-way impacts is for the County to seek a design variance for the 3 -lane roadway design east of Nicollet Avenue. If granted, the variance would allow shoulder widths to decrease from 4' to 2' in areas without medians. The 4' of total right-of-way width would significantly reduce impacts to several properties. However, it is important to note that receiving a design variance is not a certainty and will need to be approved through an application process. Public Input Four public open houses were held to present information and gather feedback on the following dates: 0 10/10/2013 0 01/22/2014 0 05/01/2014 0 09/25/2014 The first two open houses included both 66th Street East and Portland Avenue. Summaries of all four open houses including feedback received are attached. In addition to the open houses, the public was encouraged to provide input via the following methods: o The project website o Richfield Connect (Mindmixer) site o Phone calls and direct visits with residents and businesses o Project table at the Farmer's Market Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) In an effort to engage the various stakeholders involved in the 66th Street reconstruction project as well as to gather the technical advice desired by the Transportation Commission, a Technical Advisory Committee was established during the preliminary design process. Staff representatives from MnDOT, Metro Transit, Hennepin County, and Richfield took part in periodic meetings to review layout alternatives and provide input. B. POLICIES (resolutions, ordinances, regulations, statutes, exc): The reconstruction project is consistent with the City Comprehensive Plan (Chapter 6 — Transportation) The Concept #4B Design is consistent with multiple City planning documents including: o Bicycle Master Plan o Street Reconstruction Guiding Principles Document o Complete Streets Policy o Arterial Roads Study o Comprehensive Plan (Chapter 6 — Transportation) c. CRITICAL TIMING ISSUES: . The federal funding requires the project be programmed for 2016 construction. D. FINANCIAL IMPACT: Total estimated project cost is $37,007,000 with the following contributions: o $7,840,000 Federal o $23,439,000 County o $5,728,000 City (includes reconstruction of city utilities and undergrounding of overhead utilities) The following sources are proposed for the City contribution: o Municipal State Aid (gas tax) o Street Reconstruction Bonds o Utilities Fund o Xcel Rate Payers Fee E. LEGAL CONSIDERATION: The City Attorney will be available to answer questions. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION(S): . Council may choose to reject the Concept #4B preliminary design and direct staff on how to proceed. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING: Area residents and business owners ATTACHMENTS: Description Type 1) Concept 413 Resolution Resolution Letter D Design Variance Resolution Resolution Letter 1) Preliminary Layout 413 10-17-14 35W to 16th Ave Exhibit D Concept #413 Cross Section Exhibit 1) Concept #2 Cross Section Exhibit D Concept #4A Cross Section Exhibit I-) Concept #1_#3 Cross Sections Exhibit D ROW Impact NW Lyndale Exhibit D 1401 66th ROW Impacts Exhibit D 1309 66th ROW Impacts Exhibit D Open House #1 Comments Summary Exhibit 1) Open House #2 Comments Summary Exhibit D Open House #3 Summary Exhibit 1) Open House #3 Comments Exhibit D Open House #4 Comments and Summary Exhibit REPORT PREPARED BY: DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR REVIEW: OTHER DEPARTMENT REVIEW: CITY MANAGER REVIEW: ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION: AGENDA SECTION: RESOLUTIONS AGENDA ITEM # 14. STAFF REPORT NO. 192 CITY COUNCIL MEETING 10/28/2014 John Stark, Community Development Director John Stark, Community Development Director No review by another department is necessary. Steven L. Devich Consideration of a Resolution Authorizing the City of Richfield to file a HUD Fair Housing Complaint. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: At a joint Work Session on September 15, 2014 the City Council and Housing and Redevelopment Authority (HRA) heard a presentation from University of Minnesota law professor Myron Orfield regarding his concerns about discrimination resulting from the practices and policies of the Metropolitan Council and the Minnesota Housing Finance Agency (MHFA). Upon hearing the presentation, and based on their knowledge of the impacts of these practices and policies on Richfield in the past, members of the City Council and HRA were in general agreement with Mr. Orfield's concerns. One of the policies in question, the Housing Policy Plan (HPP), has been adopted by the Metropolitan Council in draft form and is due for final consideration in December. The City and HRA submitted our comments and concerns about the draft HPP on September 24 (attached). Included in that submittal was a request that the Met Council respond to these comments by October 20. The Met Council did not specifically respond to our comments. Their staff did provide a very brief summary (attached) of all of the comments which they had received during the comment period. At the September 15 Work Session, the City Council and HRA learned that the Cities of Brooklyn Center and Brooklyn Park, along with several housing advocacy groups, were contemplating making a formal Complaint to the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) regarding the practices and policies that contribute to the concentrations of affordable housing and the racial inequities that may result from those concentrations. At the Work Session, the Council and HRA indicated that they would like to consider similar action to that taken by those communities. Staff recommended, however, delaying that consideration until after Richfield had hade its comments to the Met Council on the HPP and provided the Met Council with an opportunity to respond to those comments. Because Richfield has now made those comments and the Met Council neglected the opportunity to respond to those comments, this issue is now being brought back to the City Council for formal consideration. RECOMMENDED ACTION: As this is a policy issue rather than a technical issue, City staff is not making a specific recommendation. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION: A. HISTORICAL CONTEXT: At the September 15 Work Session, Mr. Orfield presented demographic and economic data which shows the increasing concentrations of poverty in the City of Richfield and the Richfield School District. There is concern that the policies and practices of the Met Council and the MHFA, at best, do not adequately disperse affordable housing throughout the Twin Cities and, at worst, promote the concentration of affordable housing (resulting in concentrations of poverty and concentrations of minority populations). B. POLICIES (resolutions, ordinances, regulations, statutes, exc): • The policies and practices of the Met Council and MHFA are implemented through both regulations and incentives. Regulations include the requirement to submit a comprehensive plan that is consistent with the Met Council's "Systems Statements" which would reflect the HPP. Incentives include the allocation of grants and other discretionary funding to those projects meeting their policy guidance. In both cases, Richfield's local policies and practices are heavily impacted by the policies and practices of the Met Council and MHFA. • The Fair Housing Complaint process has been deemed as the most effective way to challenge these policies and practices by attorneys Michael Allen and Myron Orfield. C. CRITICAL TIMING ISSUES: The attorneys involved in this matter feel that there is a strategic advantage to initiating legal action prior to the Metropolitan Council's consideration of the Final Housing Policy Plan (currently scheduled for December 17, 2014). D. FINANCIAL IMPACT: The attorneys who have been engaged to take this legal action (Michael Allen and Myron Orfield) have agreed to do so without charge. In the event there is a financial settlement or an awarding of attorney's expenses, the lawyers and their firms would be compensated in that manner. E. LEGAL CONSIDERATION: • The City Attorney prepared the attached Resolution after reviewing similar Resolutions adopted by the Cities of Brooklyn Center and Brooklyn Park. • In order to take part in conversations with other potential "complaintants" in a manner that protects attorney-client privilege, the City Manager signed a very basic agreement with the law firm of Relman, Dane and Colfax on September 26, 2014. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION(S): Continue the Consideration of the Attached Resolution in order to pursue additional dialog with the Metropolitan Council or it's staff. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING: At tis time, no additional parties are expected at the meeting. ATTACHMENTS: Description Type D Resolution _ HUD Fair Housing Complaint Resolution Letter 1) HPP Comment Letter Backup Material D HPP Comment Summary Backup Material DRAFT CITY OF RICHFIELD RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE CITY OF RICHFIELD TO FILE A HUD FAIR HOUSING COMPLAINT WHEREAS the Twin Cities region suffers from severe and persistent racial concentrations of poverty; and WHEREAS affordable housing in the Twin Cities region is disproportionately located within Minneapolis, Saint Paul, and the inner -ring suburbs, where there are already large concentrations of low-income and nonwhite families; and WHEREAS this imbalance harms low-income and nonwhite families by restricting their access to the employment prospects, quality education, and other opportunities that define economically diverse, racially integrated communities; and WHEREAS this imbalance also harms the cities and suburbs that contain concentrations of poverty, by reducing their tax base and potentially inducing middle- class flight; and WHEREAS the Minnesota Housing Finance Agency and the Metropolitan Council have helped create and administer a system that intensifies and perpetuates concentrations of poverty by disproportionately allocating Low -Income Housing Tax Credits to areas already containing most of the region's affordable housing; and WHEREAS the Metropolitan Council explicitly prioritizes other sources of affordable housing funding for municipalities that have already constructed many affordable units; and WHEREAS, contrary to the requirements of federal law, the Metropolitan Council has failed to review, examine, or even discuss these problems in its recent Analysis of Impediments; and WHEREAS the federal Fair Housing Act proscribes activities that perpetuate racial segregation in housing, and imposes upon governmental entities receiving federal funding a responsibility to affirmatively further fair housing; and WHEREAS providing fair housing choice is an essential and indispensable component of any strategy to combat the region's persistent racial concentrations of poverty and attendant social problems. 451841v1 MDT RC160-5 1 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City of Richfield is authorized to file a HUD Fair Housing Complaint concerning the activities of the State of Minnesota and its agents; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City of Richfield appoints and retains Myron Orfield and Michael Allen as counsel for the purpose of filing this complaint. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this 28th day of October, 2014. Debbie Goettel, Mayor ATTEST: Nancy Gibbs, City Clerk 451841v1 MDT RC160-5 Housing Policy Plan comments submitted by The City of Richfield • The Housing Policy Plan (HPP) has not been adequately circulated, discussed and vetted. We believe that Met Council staff should be obliged to present the draft plan to individual local policy makers (i.e. City Councils, County Boards, etc.), not solely through very brief regional workshops that were advertised as being primarily for the discussion of the Transportation Policy Plan (with the HPP appearing as an afterthought). • The HPP should not be formally adopted by the Metropolitan Council until the Housing Need Methodology has been devised and approved. This Methodology will be key in determining the practical effects of the HPP. • We strongly encourage the HPP to be amended to add the word "quality" preceding any use of the term "affordable housing" as a need and/or goal. • We believe that any stated housing needs and goals should factor in naturally - occurring affordable housing and account for the preservation and rehabilitation of existing housing units (especially affordable units). Such rehabilitation should count toward meeting the goals. There is an abundance of affordable housing in Richfield. What is lacking, however, isug ality affordable housing. Additionally, we believe the Met Council needs to provide tools and resources to rehabilitate existing housing stock. • It would be impossible for fully developed cities to meet any of the housing needs or goals without substantial redevelopment activities. Since 2006, however, public agencies have lost the most effective tool for redevelopment (that being the use of eminent domain for projects demonstrating public benefit). It is incongruous for the Met Council to expect fully developed cities to undertake redevelopment activities without providing cities with (or at least strongly advocating for) the tools with which to do so. • The most recent affordable housing document that Richfield received from the Metropolitan Council estimates that 29% of our existing housing units are affordable. We believe that this amount should be deemed sufficient for meeting our goals for affordable housing. Policies or practices which require additional affordable housing in Richfield would result in an imbalanced mix of housing that puts Richfield in jeopardy of surpassing the "tipping point," at which concentrations of poverty surpass our ability to provide adequate public services to such households. The annual Housing Performance Score does not provide adequate points for the preexistence of affordable housing nor does it award adequate points for the rehabilitation of existing affordable housing units. As stated, Richfield already has an abundance of affordable housing but is lacking in quality affordable housing. • The continued policy of promoting the construction of new affordable housing in closer proximity to jobs and transit would seem to continue the concentration of affordable housing (and non-white and/or low-income populations) that has occurred in the Metropolitan Region; we are concerned about the impacts to both Richfield and to the region of the resulting concentration of non-white households and households of low/moderate income and view such results to be contrary to the spirit and intent of the Fair Housing Act and the Metropolitan Land Use Planning Act. The continued policy of promoting the construction of new affordable housing in closer proximity to transit is more reasonable in the case of light-rail, bus rapid transit and arterial bus rapid transit because these amenities bring substantial investment with them. We do not believe the policy of locating additional concentrations of affordable housing near local bus service is fair without corresponding investment in the infrastructure and amenities of that local bus service. The HPP removes policies dedicated to reducing concentrations of poverty and segregation which were present in the previous Metropolitan Council Housing Plan; specifically Policies 23 and 35 contained in that Plan. ,�� HOUSING n Thrive MSP POLICY PLAT Key Themes from Public Comments & Council Outreach During its formal public comment period the Council received a total of 78 written or electronic submissions, comprising a wide range of perspectives and hundreds of individual comments. Of these: • 32 came from local governments, including mayors, city managers, and staff • 6 came from counties • 20 came from non-governmental organizations, including advocates and membership groups • 18 came from local residents • 4 came from state agencies Between April and October of 2014, Metropolitan Council staff also attended over 30 various meetings, workshops, and events spanning all seven counties to present the HPP and provide an opportunity for feedback and questions. While these were not "official" public comments, staff noted key themes for suggested changes to the Plan. The Council expresses gratitude to Housing Policy Plan Working Group members that hosted, attended, or helped promote these conversations. While staff is still extracting and compiling the full list of comments, the themes below were highlighted, as these were noted by multiple submitters and at times with opposing views. Staff has also included the full list of commenters as well as those who provided testimony at the public hearing. A full set of comments is available upon request. Please note that the numbering below is for organization and does not reflect priority. Allocation of Affordable Housing Need/Housing Performance Scores 1. Lack of final Need and Scores methodologies made commenting difficult. This comment came primarily from cities, counties, and organizations who then requested to be part of the process of finalizing these. 2. Support for three -band area median income (AMI) structure for calculating/expressing the Need. This change, moving from a single AMI threshold of 60% to three (Need for households at or below 30% of AMI, from 30 to 50% of AMI, and 50% to 80% of AMI) was nearly universally supported, with several responses noting the utility of this breakdown in planning and targeting affordable activities. 3. Support for changes to Housing Performance Score (HPS). Similar to the Need, numerous commenters lamented that revisions were not complete in time for public comment. There was solid support to collaboratively develop a more expansive set of eligible activities. 4. Geographic dispersion of affordable housing and transit. Response to this issue was varied. Comments were received advocating for linkage of housing and transit, while some expressed caution about over - concentration of affordable housing. Others requested that the Council consider a wider range of eligible transportation improvements (e.g. park and rides) when awarding funds, or for funding consideration of other key community amenities (e.g. good schools, job growth) where transit is not existing or planned. Affordable Housin 5. Lack of resources for affordable housing development. This unfortunate reality was referenced in many comments as concerns federal, state and local resources, and related ability to deliver affordable projects, to provide a deep enough subsidy to serve very low income households, or to close financing Last revised October 8, 2014 1 gaps, to name a few. Many commenters called on the Council and other stakeholders to contemplate, determine, dedicate, or otherwise identify new financial resources. 6. Sewer Availability Charge (SAC). While the draft Plan only mentions exploring potential for a SAC credit for affordable housing, this generated a range of responses including not using SAC for any special purposes to increasing the credit's availability to all affordable development to increasing its geographic scope to broadening it to serve small businesses and not just affordable housing. 7. Support for funding of Inclusionary Housing Account. While several commenters cautioned the Council against mandates for inclusionary zoning, support for this account—which would reward cost-saving, high performance projects in cities using local controls to lower development costs—was consistent. 8. How to expand production of affordable housing in suburbs with few opportunities. Whether citing insufficient market demand, lack of transit, unavailability of land, or other factors, several commenters— both at the region's edge and in fully -developed suburbs—described the particular challenge of attracting development interest, aside from any local objections. Further, some suggested that with scarce resources affordable housing priority should go to areas with transit investments only, while others felt not having transit amenities would hamper the ability to attract housing development funds. Housing Market 9. Challenges of redevelopment (e.g. lack of eminent domain, resources, land). Several commenters described legal, financial, and geographic challenges of identifying quality parcels, guiding land for development or redevelopment, locating motivated sellers, and packaging financing. 10. Naturally occurring affordable housing. Comments on this topic ranged from appropriate nomenclature to strategic priority, with several noting the critical role this housing does and can play in the region, with others pointing out logistical and financial challenges in addressing it. Equity. 11. Lack of attention to specific populations (seniors, persons with disabilities). Insufficient attention to addressing these populations' needs was cited by some, while others discussed these as collective public issues that will require innovation, partnership, collaboration, and new fiscal tools. 12. Concentrations of poverty — how to frame, how to address. Concentrations of poverty and concentrations of members of protected classes were often mentioned, both as exist today and as might be created (or alternately, be prevented) through the Plan's policies and other public and private actions. 13. Fair Housing. Comments here focused on state and local roles and responsibilities, with some suggesting legal and regulatory responsibilities for the Council and others requesting Council leadership in research and in developing strategies for improved regional performance. I oral rolPc 14. Local roles: mandates or suggestions? A number of commenters asked for clarification whether "Local Roles" are encouraged/suggested or mandated/required. 15. Housing element of comp plan/housing is not a system/council has no authority. While all commenters cited a Council role in housing, some argued against expansion of this role, creating linkage with statutory systems, or concern that the Plan aims to establish housing as a system. 16. "Consequences" to cities not meeting need, not following comp plan. Several commenters asked for clarification of what consequences, if any, cities would face if unable to meet housing goals. Last revised October 8, 2014 Written comments received COMMENTSCITY City of Anoka Darin Berger City of Apple Valley Bruce Nordquist City of Belle Plaine Chelsea Alger City of Brooklyn Center Curt Boganey City of Brooklyn Park (CD Director) Kim Berggren City of Brooklyn Park (Mayor & City Manager) Mayor Jeffrey Lunde and James Verbrugge City of Burnsville Heather Johnston City of Crystal Anne Norris City of Dayton Bob Derus City of Eagan David Osberg City of Elko New Market Thomas Terry City of Fridley Paul Bolin City of Hampton Laura Chamberlain City of Minneapolis D. Craig Taylor City of Newport Deb Hill City of North Oaks Michael Robertson City of Orono Michael Gaffron City of Plymouth Kelli Slavik City of Prior Lake Frank Boyles City of Ramsey Tim Gladhill City of Richfield Steve Devich, Mayor Debbie Goettel, Suzanne Sandahl City of Robbinsdale Rick Pearson & Marcia Glick City of Rogers Steve Stahmer City of Rosemount Mayor William Droste and City Council City of Roseville Paul Bilotta City of Shakopee Mayor Brad Tabke City of Shoreview Kathleen Castle City of St. Louis Park Michele Schnitker City of St. Mary's Point Laura Chamberlain City of Victoria Laura Chamberlain City of Woodbury Mayor Mary Giuliani Stephens City of Woodbury (staff) COUNTY• Karl Batalden Carver County Gayle Degler Carver County CDA Cindy Monroe Carver County Supplemental Nate Kabat Dakota County Thomas Egan tt Lasre�isdCC9eco6r 8 2014 Kevin Dockry 3 Washington County HRA Barbara Dacy State Representative Diane Loeffler ARC of the Greater Twin Cities Asamblea de Derechos Civiles Asian Pacific Housing Consortium Builders' Association of the Twin Cities Catholic Charities Equity in Place Homes Within Reach CLT Housing Preservation Project Institute for Metropolitan Opportunity Jewish Community Action Local Initiatives Support Corporation (LISC) Metro Cities Metropolitan Consortium of Community Developers (MCCD) MICAH Mid -Minnesota Legal Aid NAACP of St. Paul Ray Becker Tim Brausen Nancy Eder Steve Ficker . Kirt Garrison Tasoulla Hadjiyanni Kay Hong Butch Johnson Cameron Kruse Teresa Lambert Barry LeBlanc Don Matzen Donna Neste Jim Quiring Priscila Barron Sanchez Dale Swanson Jim Swanson Unidentified Commenter at Model Cities event Unidentified Commenter at Model Cities event Steve Piekarski, Gene Martinez Antonia Alvarez Jean Lee Shawn Nelson Jessie Sorenson Owen Duckworth Jeff Washburne, Tim Thompson, Janet Lindbo Tim Thompson Myron Orfield Vic Rosenthal Tina Homstad Patricia Nauman Jim Roth Sue Watlov Phillips Jay Wilkinson Jeffrey Martin Last revised October 8, 2014 4 STATE AGENCIES / ENTITIES Council on Asian Pacific Minnesotans Sai Her Minnesota Department of Health W Kristin Raab Minnesota Housing Finance Agency Margaret Kaplan Minnesota State Council on Disability (MSCOD) Joan Willshire Individuals testifying during the public hearings on the Housing Policy Plan Lamorris Britton — One Family One Community Owen Duckworth —Alliance for Metropolitan Stability Jim Hilbert — NAACP Katherine Kersten — Center of the American Experiment Maleta Kimmons — One Family One Community Tim Lipton — NAACP Jeffrey Martin — NAACP Yusef Mgeni — St Paul resident Ann Mongoven — ISAIAH William Moore—NAACP Patricia Nauman — Metro Cities Lars Negstad — ISAIAH Cheryl Peterson — Guardian Church Sue Watlov Phillips —MICAH Jerry Ransom — St Paul resident Judy Rhein - ISAIAH Nelima Sitati-Munene — Org App Project / NWCC Will Stancil — Institute on Metropolitan Opportunity Joy Marsh Stephens — ISAIAH Tim Thompson — Housing Preservation Project DeAndre Weaver — One Family One Community James Wilkinson —St Paul resident Last revised October 8, 2014 5 REPORT PREPARED BY: DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR REVIEW: OTHER DEPARTMENT REVIEW: CITY MANAGER REVIEW: ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION: AGENDA SECTION: OTHER BUSINESS AGENDA ITEM # 15. STAFF REPORT NO. 193 CITY COUNCIL MEETING 10/28/2014 Steven L. Devich, City Manager SD N/A Steven L. Devich Consideration of a request for the City Council to confirm the appointment of Jay Henthorne as Public Safety Director for the City of Richfield. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: Since former Public Safety Director Todd Sandell retired effective May 31, 2014, Deputy Public Safety Director Jay Henthorne has been serving as Acting Public Safety Director. During that time, Mr. Henthorne has done an excellent job of performing the duties of Public Safety Director. Moreover, Mr. Henthornes relevant progressive work experience, extensive education and training make him very well qualified to assume the position. In October, the City Manager informed the City Council that the position of Public Safety Director would be posted as an internal recruitment. Mr. Henthorne was the only applicant for the position. As a result of this recruitment, and based on Mr. Henthorne's excellent performance in his role as Acting Public Safety Director, he has been selected by the City Manager for appointment to the position of Public Safety Director. Acting Police Chief Jay Henthorne has been serving with the Richfield Police Department since 1990. He has held positions in the Police Department as a Patrol Officer: 1990-1993, School Liaison Officer/Juvenile Detective: 1993-1998, Police Sergeant: 1998-2000, Police Lieutenant: 2000-2012, Deputy Chief: 2012-2014, and is the City's Emergency Management Coordinator: 2004 to the present. Mr. Henthorne holds a Bachelor's Degree in Police Science and a Master's Degree in Public Safety Administration from St. Mary's University of Minnesota. He is a 2001 graduate of the Northwestern School of Police Staff and Command in Evanston, Illinois and the FBI National Academy, Session #245, in Quantico, Virginia. He is a member of several Local, State, and National Police Organizations and Emergency Management Organizations. They are listed as follows: . Member: Minnesota Peace and Police Officers Association . Member: International Chiefs of Police Association . Member: Association of Minnesota Emergency Managers . Member: Metropolitan Emergency Managers Association . Associate Member: Hennepin County Chiefs of Police Association . Member: Minnesota Chiefs of Police Association Member: FBI National Academy Associates Associations RECOMMENDED ACTION: By motion: Confirm the appointment of Jay Henthorne as Public Safety Director for the City of Richfield. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION: A. HISTORICAL CONTEXT: Historical Context contained in Executive Summary. B. POLICIES (resolutions, ordinances, regulations, statutes, exc): According to Richfield City Charter Section 6.02 Powers and Duties of the City Manager, subsection 3, and under Richfield City Code Section 310.01 Subd. 3, Charter authority, appointment or removal of department heads shall be made final only upon a majority vote of the Council. C. CRITICAL TIMING ISSUES: The Public Safety Department has been without a permanent Public Safety Director since the retirement of Todd Sandell. Mr. Henthorne has been serving as Acting Public Safety Director since that time. It is the City Managers intention to get this appointment confirmatin request to the City Council before the end of the month of October to conclude the process. Unfortunately, Mr. Henthorne will attending the out-of-state International Chiefs of Police Conference on October 28th and will not be in attendance at the City Council Meeting. He will be in attendance at the November 10th meeting to be introduced to the public. D. FINANCIAL IMPACT: The 2014 Budget includes the funding necessary to provide for the salary and benefit contributions as negotiated. LEGAL CONSIDERATION: According to Richfield's City Code, the City Council must approve the selection of Mr. Henthorne before he is appointed Public Safety Director. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION(S): The Council may reject the candidate and direct the City Manager to undertake a new selection process. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING: None. REPORT PREPARED BY: DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR REVIEW: OTHER DEPARTMENT REVIEW: CITY MANAGER REVIEW: ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION: AGENDA SECTION: OTHER BUSINESS AGENDA ITEM # 16. STAFF REPORT NO. 194 CITY COUNCIL MEETING 10/28/2014 Cheryl Krumholz, Executive Coordinator SD N/A Steven L. Devich Consideration of the appointments to City advisory commissions. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: In January 2014, the City Council made several appointments to the various City advisory commissions. However, there continue to be some vacancies following these appointments. The City Council continues to accept commission applications and interviews all applicants. Applications were received and a Special City Council Meeting was scheduled for October 28, 2014 to conduct interviews. RECOMMENDED ACTION: By Motion: Approve the appointments to fill vacant terms on the City advisory commissions. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION: A. HISTORICAL CONTEXT: This historical context is fully contained in the Executive Summary. B. POLICIES (resolutions, ordinances, regulations, statutes, exc): The City advisory commissions were established by City ordinance or resolution. Interviews of the applicants are conducted at Special City Council meetings. The required meeting notice is posted in accordance with the open meeting law requirements. C. CRITICAL TIMING ISSUES: Applications were received and interviews were conducted on October 28, 2014. D. FINANCIAL IMPACT: N/A E. LEGAL CONSIDERATION: The October 28, 2014 Special City Council Meeting was posted in accordance with the open meeting law requirements. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION(S): The City Council could defer the appointments to a future City Council Meeting. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING: None. ATTACHMENTS: Description Type D Current vacancy list Backup Material N N O cn W_ 3 Z Q U Q Z O cn cn O U X W E N H Z O 75 _U) O U N H a I-I-coco�U') ti�U')m r r r r r r 0 0 0 0 0 0 r r r r C) CD CD CD N N N N N N N N N N r r r r r r r r r r mcacammca mcacaca mmmmcaca ca ca mm Z O cn cn O U V a_ cn 0 Z W_ R LL N D J U