06-10-08 AgendaCITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
• TUESDAY, JUNE 10, 2008
SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL WORKSESSION
COUNCIL CHAMBERS
6700 PORTLAND AVENUE
5:30 P.M.
AGENDA
Call to order
Roll call
5:30 - 6:15 p. m.
1. Discussion regarding Cedar Point Phase II financing (Council Memo No. 88)
Notes:
Adjournment
*:k*****~lr*~C*~C****YrYc~~iC~c*ic~lr*Ye*Yr*****~F~kYr~k**~it***Ye~YC****~Fie~r*Ye*r~k*******~kYr*Ye~c**~r****~k**YeYt~*~t****~C
SPECIAL CONCURRENT CITY COUNCIL//PLANNING COMMISSION WORKSESSION
COUNCIL CHAMBERS
6700 PORTLAND AVENUE
6:15 P.M.
AGENDA
Call to order
Roll call
6:15- 6:50 q.m.
1. Discussion regarding dynamic signs revisions (Council Memo No. 89)
Notes:
• Adjournment
.7
REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING
COUNCIL CHAMBERS "~
6700 PORTLAND AVENUE
7:00 P.M.
AGENDA
INTRODUCTORY PROCEEDINGS
Call to order
Roll call
Open forum (15 minutes maximum)
Each speaker is to keep their comment period to three minutes to allow sufficient time for
others. Comments are to be an opportunity to address. the Council on items not on the agenda.
Individuals who wish to address the Council must have registered prior to the meeting.
Notes:
Pledge of Allegiance
Approval of minutes of (1) Special City Council Worksession of May 27, 2008; (2) Special
City Council and Planning Commission Worksession of May 27, 2008; and (3) Regular City
Council Meeting of May 27, 2008
PRESENTATIONS
1. Presentation of 2008 Gene and Mary Jacobsen Outstanding Citizen of Year Award to
Edwina Garcia (Council Memo No. 90)
2. Presentation of proclamation designating June 2008 as Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual,
Transgender Pride Celebration Month in Richfield
3. Annual meeting with Human Rights Commission
4. Recognition of 2007 Gold Medal of Excellence in Fundraising Award for Special
Olympics Minnesota presented to Richfield Police for Law Enforcement Torch Run
5. Recognition of Richfield Adopt-A-Park volunteers
6. Presentation and receipt of City of Richfield Comprehensive Annual Financial Report
• for fiscal year ended December 31, 2007 (Council Memo No. 91)
Staff Report No. 138
• Notes:
COUNCIL DISCUSSION
7. Council discussion
• Hats Off To Hometown Hits
• Update on neighborhood property maintenance inspection program
• Update 'on public safety activity related to restaurants
Notes:
AGENDA APPROVAL
8. Council approval of agenda
CONSENT CALENDAR
9. Consent Calendar contains several separate items, which are acted upon by the City
Council in one motion. Once the Consent Calendar has been approved, the individual
• items and recommended actions have also been approved. No further Council. action is
necessary. However, any Council Member may request that an item be removed from
the Consent Calendar and placed on the regular agenda for Council discussion and
action. All items listed on the Consent Calendar are recommended for approval.
A. Consideration of approval of continuing public hearing and second reading of
transitory ordinance to vacate utility easement at 800 66th Street West to June 24,
2008 S.R. No. 139
B. Consideration of approval of resolution authorizing use of credit card by City
employees otherwise authorized to make purchases on behalf of City for 2008 S.R.
No. 140
C. Consideration of approval of resolution authorizing execution of joint cooperation
agreement between City of Richfield and Hennepin County for participation in
Urban Hennepin County Community Development Block Grant Program in fiscal
years 2009-2011 S.R. No. 141.
D. Consideration of approval of resolution authorizing Richfield Public Safety/Police
Department and Fire Services Department to accept monetary donations from
citizens and businesses in Richfield to help cover costs for Safety Day 2008 S.R.
No. 142
E. Consideration of approval of resolution authorizing acceptance of $4,000 donation
from Chorzempa/Kirchner Family to fund Gateway Gardens project at Wood Lake
.Nature Center S.R. No. 143
F. Consideration of approval of recreational facility and amenity dedication proposal
request at Donaldson Park from Metro Babe Ruth Umpires Association S.R. No.
144
Notes:
•
10. Consideration of items, if any, removed from Consent Calendar
Notes:
PUBLIC HEARING
11. Public hearing and consideration of second reading of transitory ordinance authorizing
planning, design and construction of new Police/Fire/City Hall facility and resolution
authorizing summary publication of transitory ordinance
Staff Report No. 145
Notes:
PROPOSED ORDINANCE
12. Consideration of first reading of ordinance amendment to Richfield City Code
repealing Subsection 509.17 and amending Subsection 925.01, Subd. 4(a) related to
clear visibility at intersections and scheduling second reading for June 24, 2008
Staff Report No. 146
Notes:
OTHER BUSINESS
13. Consideration of:
• 'bid minutes/tabulation and award contract to Nodland Construction Company for
73rd Street and First Avenue Storm Sewer Project in amount of $876,407.41; and
• bid minutes /tabulation and award contract to Veit and Company, Inc. for Augsburg
Pond Lift Station in amount of $285,087.01; and
• purchase of construction engineering services from WSB & Associates to provide
construction oversight services required to complete project in amount of $34,943
Staff Report No. 147
• Notes:
14. Consideration of purchase of Advance sweeper/scrubber from Forklifts of Minnesota
for use by garage maintenance division in amount of $39,127 plus tax (tabled from May
27, 2008)
Staff Report No. 148
Notes:
CITY MANAGER'S REPORT
15. City Manager's report
Notes:
16. Claims and payrolls
Open forum (additional 15 minutes if more time needed after first Open Forum and by
majority vote of the City Council)
• Each speaker is to keep their comment period to three minutes to allow sufficient time for
others. Comments are to be an opportunity to address the Council on items not on the agenda.
Individuals who wish to address the Council must have registered prior to the meeting.
Notes:
17. Receive information regarding utility relocation in connection with 66th Street and
Portland Avenue construction project; adjourn. to Closed. Executive Session in
Executive Conference Room to consider possible litigation; reconvene to open session
in Council Chambers for possible further discussion and decision regarding litigation
Staff Report No. 149
Notes:
18. Adjournment of Regular City Council Meeting
Auxiliary aids for individuals with disabilities are available upon request. Requests must be
made at least 96 hours in advance to the City Clerk at 612-861-9738.
•
AGENDA SECTION: pRESENTATIONS
AGENDA ITEM # Ej
REPORT # 13$
STAFF REPORT
CITY COUNCIL MEETING
JuIVE 10, 2008
REPORT PREPARED BY:
CHRIS REGIS, FINANCE MANAGER
NAME, TITZE
•
DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR
REVIEW:
REVIEWED BY CITY
MANAGER:
~' ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION:
Receipt of the City of Richfield Comprehensive Annual Financial Report (CAFR) for the fiscal
ear ended December 31, 2007.
I. RECOMMENDED ACTION:
By Motion: Accept the Comprehensive Annual Financial Report of the
City for the year ended December 31, 2007.
II. BACKGROUND
The City's auditing firm, Mallow, Montague, Karnowski, Radosevich, & Co.,
P.A.(MMKR), has completed the annual audit of the City's financial records for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2007. A representative of MMKR is present tonight
to make a brief presentation on the 2007 financial information and answer
questions.
In addition, the CAFR will be submitted to the State of Minnesota pursuant to State
law and to the Government Finance Officers Association for the Certificate of
Achievement for Excellence in Financial Reporting program.
III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION
A. POLICY
• Action to be taken at the June 10, 2008 City Council meeting is the
official receipt of the December 31, 2007 City of Richfield
Comprehensive Annual Financial Report by the City Council.
0610CAFR
• The City's auditor has performed an audit of the City's financial
records for the year ended December 31, 2007 and prepared reports
• to the City Council concerning legal compliance and internal controls.
B. CRITICAL ISSUES
• Action on this item is requested at the June 10, 2008 City Council
meeting.
C. FINANCIAL
• N/A
D. LEGAL
• The CAFR will be submitted to the State of Minnesota, pursuant to
State law.
E. ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS
• N/A
IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION~S~
• The City Council could ask the auditors for further explanations of their
findings at a future Study Session.
• V. ATTACHMENTS
• None.
VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING
• Bill Lauer, Principal, Malloy, Montague, Karnowski, Radosevich, & Co., P.A.
•
AGENDA SECTION: CONSENT
AGENDA ITEM # 9A
REPORT # 139
STAFF REPORT
CITY COUNCIL MEETING
JUNE 10, 2008
REPORT PREPARED BY:
INTERIM DEPARTMENT
DIRECTOR REVIEW:
REVIEWED BY CITY
MANAGER:
CHRISTINE COSTELLO, COMMUNITY
ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION:
Continue the public hearing and second reading of a Transitory Ordinance to vacate a utility
easement at 800 66th Street West to June 24, 2008.
I. RECOMMENDED ACTION:
By Motion: Continue the second reading and public hearing of a
Transitory Ordinance to vacate a utility easement at 800 66th Street
West to J u ne 24, 2008.
II. BACKGROUND
On April 8, 2008 the City Council approved a first reading of a Transitory Ordinance
to vacate a portion of a utility easement across the previously vacated Graham
Avenue. As is standard procedure for easement vacations, the Hennepin County
Registrar of Deeds and Titles and public utility companies were notified of the
proposed vacation. Xcel Energy, Qwest and Centerpoint Energy have indicated
that they have buried facilities within the vacation area. The petitioner is working
with the utility companies to determine whether or not facilities can be relocated or if
easements can be reserved.
With the indication of buried utilities within the initial proposed vacation easement
area the petitioner revised the easement area so that it did not include the buried
utilities. The revised easement then went back to the utility companies for review of
the revised easement area and we are awaiting comments from the utility
companies on the revision of the easement area.
061008 - 800 W 66th St.
DEVELOPMENT SPECIALIST
III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION
A. POLICY
• An easement for public facilities must be reserved. The applicant is
working to clarify the area in which an easement continues to be
necessary.
B. CRITICAL ISSUES
• A public hearing and second reading of the Transitory Ordinance shall
be held once the extent of all utility easements is determined.
C. FINANCIAL
• N/A
D. LEGAL
• N/A
E. ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS
• N/A
IV. ALTERNATNE RECOMMENDATION~S~
• N/A
V. ATTACHMENTS
• N/A
VI. PRINCIl'AL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING
• N/A
•
AGENDA SECTION: CONSENT
AGENDA ITEM # 9B
REPORT # 140
•
STAFF REPORT
JUNE 10, 2008
•
REPORT PREPARED BY:
DEPARTMENT DIIZECTOR
REVIEW:
CITY COUNCIL MEETING
CHRIS REGIS, FINANCE MANAGER
NaNtE, Tr7zs
I~v l
REVIEWED BY CITY ~ / _
MANAGER: / ` 1/'
ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION:
Consideration of resolution authorizing the use of a credit card by City employees otherwise
authorized to make urchases on behalf of the Cit .
I. RECOMMENDED ACTION:
By Motion: Adopt the attached resolution authorizing the use of a
City. credit card by City employees otherwise authorized to make
purchases on behalf of the Citv.
II. BACKGROUND
The City's auditors, Malloy, Montague, Karnowski, Radosevich, & Co., P.A., as part
of their audit of the City's financial records, internal controls and legal compliance
are recommending that the use of City credit cards by City employees be approved
by the City Council on an annual basis.
In today's business environment, most retail businesses, will no longer allow the
City to purchase on account and will only accept a City check or a City credit card.
Consequently, the use of a City credit card provides efFciency and flexibility for
employees to purchase goods and services on behalf of the City.
The City currently uses the following credit cards:
•
0610Credit Card Use
• Five VISA credit cards issued through the Richfield Bloomington Credit Union
in the name of the City. The cardholders are the following:
• • City Manager
• Public Safety Director
• Public Works Director
• Community Development Director
• Recreation Services Director
• Three British Petroleum (BP) credit cards issued to the City of Richfield
Department of Public Safety. The cardholders are the three police
lieutenants.
• Three Roundy's credit cards issued to the City of Richfield Recreation
Services Department. The Community Center, Wood Lake Nature Center
and the Ice Arena use the cards. The cards when not in use are
maintained in a locked safe.
III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION
A. POLICY
• In accordance with Minnesota Statutes Section 471.382, the City of
Richfield must authorize the use of credit cards by any City employee
otherwise authorized to make a purchase on behalf of the City.
• Further, if a City employee makes or directs a purchase by credit card
• that is not approved by the City Council, the employee could be
personally liable for the amount of the purchase.
• A purchase by credit card must otherwise comply with all statutes,
rules, and City policies applicable to City purchases.
• Finally, the City's auditors recommend that the City authorize the use
of credit cards by City employees on an annual basis.
B. CRITICAL ISSUES
• N/A
C. FINANCIAL
• The holders of City credit cards are responsible for reviewing and
approving all purchases entered: into with the credit card..
D. LEGAL
• The City is required by Minnesota Statute 471.382, to authorize the
use of credit cards by City employees otherwise authorized to make
purchases on behalf of the City.
E. ENVIIZONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS
N/A
IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION~S~
• The City Council could decide to not authorize the use of credit cards by City
employees. However, most retail businesses in today's environment, will no
longer allow the City to purchase on account and will only accept a City
check or a City credit card. The use of City credit cards by employees
provides efficiency and flexibility for employees to purchase goods and
services on behalf of the City.
V. ATTACHMENTS
• Resolution..
VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING
• None.
•
9~-1
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE USE OF CREDIT CARDS BY CITY EMPLOYEES
OTHERWISE AUTHORIZED TO MAKE PURCHASES ON BEHALF OF THE CITY OF
RICHFIELD-FOR THE YEAR 2008
BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Richfield as follows:
That, in accordance with .Minnesota Statutes, Section 471.382, the City Council of
the City of Richfield may authorize the use of a credit card by City employees otherwise
authorized to make a purchase on behalf of the City.
The authorization is subject to modification and revocation at any time by said City
Council, of the City of Richfield, and subject to the following terms and conditions:
If a City employee makes or directs a purchase by credit card that is not approved
by the City Council, the employee can be personally liable for the amount ~of purchase.
The purchases by credit card must comply with all statutes, rules and City of
Richfield policies applicable to City purchases.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that designated City staff is hereby authorized to
use the following City credit cards to make purchases on behalf of the City of Richfield:
• Five VISA credit cards issued through the Richfield Bloomington.. Credit
Union in the name of the City. The cardholders are the following:
• City Manager
• Public Safety Director
• Public Works Director
• Community Development Director
• Recreation Services Director
Three British Petroleum (BP) credit cards issued to the City of Richfield
Department of Public Safety. The cardholders are the following:
• Police Lieutenants (3)
Three Roundy's credit cards issued to the City of Richfield Recreation
Services Department. The credit cards to be maintained by the following:
• Community Center Division
• Wood Lake Nature Center Division
• Ice Arena Operation
Passed. by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this 10th day of June,
2008.
Debbie Goettel, Mayor
ATTEST:
Nancy Gibbs, City Clerk
•
AGENDA SECTION: CONSENT
AGENDA ITEM # 9C
REPORT # 1~+1
STAFF REPORT
CITY COUNCIL MEETING
JUNE 10, 2008
L~
REPORT PREPARED BY:
INTERIM DEPARTMENT
DIRECTOR REVIEW:
REVIEWED BY CITY
MANAGER:
JULIE URBAN, :INTERIM HOUSING
SPECIALIST
ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION:.
Consideration of a resolution authorizing the execution. of a Joint Cooperation Agreement
between the City of Richfield and :Hennepin County for participation in the Urban Hennepin
Count Communit Develo ment Block Grant Pro ram in Fiscal Years 2009-2011.
I. .RECOMMENDED ACTION:
By Motion: Approve the attached resolution authorizing the
execution of Joint Cooperation Agreement between the City of
Richfield and Hennepin County for participation in the Urban
Hennepin County Community Development Block Grant Program in
Fiscal Years 2009-2011.
II: BACKGROUND
.The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) requires Hennepin
County to have an agreement with participating cities in order to qualify as an Urban
County and receive Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) entitlement
funds. The County then allocates a portion of these funds to Richfield.
CDBG funds can be used to provide housing and public services to low-income
.households. In the past, Richfield has used CDBG funds to fund the Deferred Loan
Program, a rehabilitation loan program for low-income homeowners; the New Home
Program, a program to construct new homes for purchase by low-income
households; and four public service agencies providing assistance to low-income
homeowners and renters.
061008 CDBG Joint Agreement
• III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION
A. POLICY
• The Joint Cooperation Agreement (Agreement) ensures the ongoing
opportunity to fund CDBG programs and projects.
• CDBG provides an annual federal funding source for housing and
public service programs for low-income households.
B. CRITICAL ISSUES
• Richfield cannot continue to receive CDBG funds without the
Agreement.
• The County has requested that the Council act and the Agreement be
returned to the County by the end of June so that federal agreements
can be completed in a timely manner.
C. FINANCIAL
• The City received an allocation of $194,693 in 2008. Future funding
amounts will depend on the level of funding authorized by the Federal
Government. Historically, funding levels have declined from year to
year.
• The Housing and Redevelopment Authority (HRA) and public service
• agencies administer the program funding based on agreements
prepared annually with the City.
D. LEGAL
• Legal counsel has previously reviewed the Agreement. The only
change to the Agreement clarifies the automatic renewal clause in
Section III of the proposed Agreement. In the future, the Agreement
will be automatically renewed unless the City notifies Hennepin
County of its desire not to participate in the program.
E. ENVIlZONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS.
' • N/A
IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION(S~
• Do not act on the Joint Agreement and discontinue receiving CDBG funds
from Hennepin County.
V. ATTACHMENTS
• Resolution
• Joint Cooperation Agreement
VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING
• N/A
C-
RESOLUTI~N NO.
i RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE EXECUTION OF A JOINT COOPERATION
AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF RICHFIELD AND HENNEPIN COUNTY FOR
PARTICIPATION IN THE URBAN HENNEPIN COUNTY COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
BLOCK GRANT PROGRAM IN FISCAL YEAR 2009-2011
WHEREAS, the City of Richfield, Minnesota and the County of Hennepin have in
effect a Joint Cooperation Agreement for purposes of qualifying as an Urban County under
the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development Community
Development Block Grant (CDBG) and HOME Investment Partnerships (HOME)
Programs; and
WHEREAS, the City and County wish to execute a new Joint Cooperation
Agreement in order to continue to qualify as an Urban County for purposes of the
Community Development Block Grant and HOME Programs.
.NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that a new Joint Cooperation Agreement
between the City and County be executed effective October 1, 2008 and that the Mayor
and the City Manager be authorized and directed to sign the Agreement on behalf of the
City.
Adopted by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this 10th day of
June, 2008.
Debbie Goettel, Mayor
ATTEST:
Nancy Gibbs, City Clerk
•
061008 CDBG Joint Agreement
~~~~
Contract No. A080541
JOINT COOPERATION AGREEMENT
URBAN HENNEPIN COUNTY
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT PROGRAM
THIS AGREEMENT made and entered into by and between the COUNTY OF HENNEPIN, State of
Minnesota, hereinafter referred to as "COUNTY," A-2400 Government Center, Minneapolis, Minnesota, 55487, and
the cities executing this Master Agreement, each hereinafter respectively referred to as "COOPERATING UNIT,"
said parties to this Agreement each being governmental units of the State of Minnesota, and made pursuant to
Minnesota Statutes, Section 471.59:
WITNESSETH:
COOPERATING UNIT and COUNTY agree that it is desirable and in the interests of their citizens that
COOPERATING UNIT shares its authority to carry out essential community development and housing activities
with COUNTY in order to permit COUNTY to secure and administer Community Development Block Grant and
HOME Investment Partnership funds as an Urban County within the provisions of the Act as herein defined and,
therefore, in consideration of the mutual covenants and promises contained in this Agreement, the parties mutually
agree to the following terms and conditions.
• COOPERATING UNIT acknowledges that by the execution of this Agreement that it understands that it:
1. May not also apply for grants under the State CDBG Program from appropriations for fiscal
years during which it is participating in the Urban County Program; and
2. May not participate in a HOME Consortium except through the Urban County.
I. DEFINITIONS
The definitions contained in 42 USC 5302 of the Act and 24 CFR §570.3 of the Regulations are
incorporated herein by reference and made a part hereof, and the terms defined in this section have the meanings
given them:
A. "Act" means Title I of the Housing and Community Development Act of 1974, as amended, (42 U.S.C.
5301 et seq.).
B. "Activity" means aCDBG-funded activity eligible under Title I of the Housing and Community
Development Act of 1974, as amended. Example: single family rehab activity.
C. "Annual Program" means those combined activities submitted by cooperating units to COUNTY for
CDBG funding as part of the Consolidated Plan.
D. "Consolidated Plan" means the document bearing that title or similarly required statements or
documents submitted to HUD for authorization to expend the annual grant amount and which is
developed by the COUNTY in conjunction with COOPERATING UNITS as part of the Community
Development Block Grant Program.
1
~iG~ 3
E. "Cooperating Unit(s)" means any city or town in Hennepin County that has entered into a cooperation
agreement that is identical to this Agreement, as well as Hennepin County, which is a party to each
Agreement.
F. "HUD" means the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development.
G. "Metropolitan City" means any city located in whole or in part in Hennepin County which is certified by
HUD to have a population of 50,000 or more people.
H. "Program" means the HUD Community Development Block Grant Program as defined under Title I of
the Housing and Community Development Act of 1974, as amended.
I. "Program Income" means gross income received by the recipient or a subrecipient directly generated
from the use of CDBG.
J. "Regulations" means the rules and regulations promulgated pursuant to the Act, including but not
limited to 24 CFR Part 570.
K. "Urban County" means the entitlement jurisdiction within the provisions of the Act and includes the
suburban Hennepin County municipalities which are signatories to this Agreement.
II. PURPOSE
The purpose of this Agreement is to authorize COUNTY and COOPERATING UNIT to cooperate to
undertake, or assist in undertaking, community renewal and lower income housing assistance activities and
• authorizes COUNTY to carry out these and other eligible activities for the benefit of eligible recipients who reside
within the corporate limits of the COOPERATING UNIT which will be funded from annual Community
Development Block Grant and HOME appropriations for the Federal Fiscal Years 2009, 2010 and 2011 and from
any program income generated from the expenditure of such funds.
III. AGREEMENT
The initial term of this Agreement is for a period commencing on October 1, 2008 and terminating no sooner than
the end of the program year covered by the Consolidated Plan, for the basic grant amount for the Fiscal Year 2011, as
authorized by HUD, and for such additional time as may be required for the expenditure of funds granted to the
County for such period. Prior to the end of the initial term and the end of each subsequent qualification period, the
COUNTY, as the lead agency of the URBAN HENNEPIN COUNTY COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK
GRANT PROGRAM, shall provide a written notice to the COOPERATING UNIT of their right not to participate in
a subsequent qualification period. The written notice will provide the COOPERATING UNIT a minimum thirty
(30) day period to submit a written withdrawal. If the COOPERATING UNIT does not submit to the COUNTY a
written withdrawal during the notice period, this Agreement shall be automatically extended for a subsequent three-
year qualifying period.
This Agreement must be amended by written agreement of all parties to incorporate any future changes
necessary to meet the requirements for cooperation agreements set forth in the Urban County Qualification Notice
applicable for the year in which the next qualification of the County is scheduled. Failure by either party to adopt
such an amendment to the Agreement shall automatically terminate the Agreement following the expenditure of all
CDBG and HOME funds allocated for use in the COOPERATING UNIT's jurisdiction.
Notwithstanding any other provision of this Agreement, this Agreement may be terminated at the end of the
program period during which HUD withdraws its designation of the COUNTY as an Urban County under the Act.
ac-~
• This Agreement shall be executed by the appropriate officers of COOPERATING UNIT and COUNTY
pursuant to authority granted them by their respective governing bodies, and a copy of the authorizing resolution and
executed Agreement shall be filed promptly by the COOPERATING UNIT in the Hennepin County Department of
Housing, Community Works and Transit, and in no event shall the Agreement be filed later than June 30, 2008.
COOPERATING UNIT and COUNTY shall take all actions necessary to assure compliance with the
applicant's certifications required by Section 104(b) of the Title I of the Housing and Community Development Act
of 1974, as amended, including Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964; the Fair Housing Act, Section 109 of Title I
of the Housing and Community Development Act of 1974; and other applicable laws.
IV. ACTIVITIES
COOPERATING UNIT agrees that awarded grant funds will be used to undertake and carry out, within the
terms of this Agreement, certain activities eligible for funding under the Act. The COUNTY agrees and will assist
COOPERATING UNIT in the undertaking of such essential activities by providing the services specified in this
Agreement. The parties mutually agree to comply with all applicable requirements of the Act and the Regulations
and other relevant Federal and/or Minnesota statutes or regulations in the use of basic grant amounts. Nothing in
this Article shall be construed to lessen or abrogate the COUNTY's responsibility to assume all obligations of an
applicant under the Act, including the development of the Consolidated Plan, pursuant to 24 CFR Part 91.
COOPERATING UNIT further specifically agrees as follows:
A. COOPERATING UNIT will, in accord with aCOUNTY-established schedule, prepare and provide to
• the COUNTY, in a prescribed form, requests for the use of Community Development Block Grant
Funds consistent with this Agreement, program regulations and the Urban Hennepin County
Consolidated Plan.
B. COOPERATING UNIT acknowledges that, pursuant to 24 CFR §570.501 (b), it is subject to the same
requirements applicable to subrecipients, including the requirement for a written Subrecipient
Agreement set forth in 24 CFR §570.503. The Subrecipient Agreement will cover the implementation
requirements for each activity funded pursuant to this Agreement and shall be duly executed with and in
a form prescribed by the COUNTY.
C. COOPERATING UNIT acknowledges that it is subject to the same subrecipient requirements stated in
paragraph B above in instances where an agency other than itself is undertaking an activity pursuant to
this Agreement on behalf of COOPERATING UNIT. In such instances, a written Third Party
Agreement shall be duly executed between the agency and COOPERATING UNIT in a form prescribed
by COUNTY.
D. COOPERATING UNITS shall expend all funds annually allocated to activities pursuant to this
Agreement within eighteen (18) months of the authorization by HUD to expend the basic grant amount.
1. With each annual program COOPERATING UNITS shall submit to the COUNTY activity
schedules for the completion and expenditure of funds within eighteen (18) months. COUNTY
will institute monitoring measures and provide technical or other assistance to insure activities
are proceeding on schedule.
• 2. Funds for activities not expended within eighteen (18) months may be recaptured at the
discretion of the COUNTY and distributed by COUNTY as provided for in D. 4. Limited
extensions to the expenditure deadlines in this section may be granted by COUNTY upon
~C'~
• written request only where the authorized activity has been initiated and/or is subject to a
binding contract which provides for the expenditure to be completed within a time period
acceptable to COUNTY.
Amendments to an annual program by COOPERATING UNITS may be approved by
COUNTY up to fifteen (15) months after initial funding has been approved only when the new
activity can be completed and funding expended within six (6) months of the amendment
approval. Funds not expended within the six (6) month extension period may be recaptured
and distributed by COUNTY as provided for in D.4.
4. All funds recaptured by COUNTY will be transferred to a separate account for reallocation on
a competitive request for proposal basis at the discretion of the COUNTY where total of such
funds is $100,000 or greater. Amounts less than $ 100,000 shall be allocated by COUNTY to
other existing activities consistent with timeliness requirements and Consolidated Plan goals.
E. COUNTY and COOPERATING UNITS shall expend all program income pursuant to this Agreement
as provided below:
1. Program income from housing rehabilitation activities administered by the COUNTY will be
incorporated into a pool at the discretion of the COUNTY. The pool will be administered by
COUNTY and will be used for housing rehabilitation projects located throughout the entire
Urban County. When possible, COUNTY will give priority to funding housing rehabilitation
projects within the COOPERATING UNIT where the program income was generated. Funds
expended in this manner would be secured by a Repayment Agreement/Mortgage running in
• favor of the COUNTY. Program income generated by certain COOPERATING UNITS that
administer their own housing rehabilitation activities maybe retained by the COOPERATING
UNIT at its discretion; however, such COOPERATING UNITS will be bound by the
conditions of D.2., above. Only COOPERATING UNITS that were administering their own
activities pursuant to the Joint Cooperation Agreement pertaining to the HUD fiscal years
2006-2008 will be eligible to retain their program income.
2. COUNTY reserves the option to recapture program income generated by non-housing
rehabilitation activities if said funds have not been expended within twelve (12) months of
being generated. These funds shall be transferred to a separate account for reallocation on a
competitive request for proposal basis administered by COUNTY or, where the total of such
funds does not exceed $100,000, shall be reallocated by COUNTY to other existing activities
consistent with timeliness requirements and Consolidated Plan goals.
F. COOPERATING UNITS are encouraged to undertake joint activities involving the sharing of funding
when such action furthers the goals of the Consolidated Plan and meets the expenditure goals.
G. If COUNTY is notified by HUD that it has not met the performance standard for the timely expenditure
of funds at 24 CFR 570.902(a) and the COUNTY entitlement grant is reduced by HUD according to its
policy on corrective actions, then the basic grant amount to any COOPERATING UNIT that has not
met its expenditure goal shall be reduced accordingly.
H. COOPERATING UNIT will take actions necessary to assist in accomplishing the community
development program and housing goals, as contained in the Urban Hennepin County Consolidated
• Plan.
q' C' ~
. I. COOPERATING UNIT shall ensure that all activities funded, in part or in full by grant funds received
pursuant to this Agreement, shall be undertaken affirmatively with regard to fair housing, employment
and business opportunities for minorities and women. It shall, in implementing all programs and/or
activities funded by the basic grant amount, comply with all applicable Federal and Minnesota Laws,
statutes, rules and regulations with regard to civil rights, affirmative action and equal employment
opportunities and Administrative Rule issued by the COUNTY.
J. COOPERATING UNIT that does not affirmatively further fair housing within its own jurisdiction or
that impedes action by COUNTY to comply with its fair housing certification shall be prohibited from
receiving CDBG funding for any activities.
K. COOPERATING UNIT shall participate in the citizen participation process, as established by
COUNTY, in compliance with the requirements of the Housing and Community Development Act of
1974, as amended.
L. COOPERATING UNIT shall reimburse COUNTY for any expenditure determined by HUD or
COUNTY to be ineligible.
M. COOPERATING UNIT shall prepare, execute, and cause to be filed all documents protecting the
interests of the parties hereto or any other party of interest as may be designated by the COUNTY.
N. COOPERATING UNIT has adopted and is enforcing:
1. A policy prohibiting the use of excessive force by law enforcement agencies within its
• jurisdiction against any individuals engaged in nonviolent civil rights demonstrations; and
2. A policy of enforcing applicable State and local laws against physically barring entrance to or
exit from a facility or location which is the subject of such nonviolent civil rights
demonstrations within its jurisdiction.
COUNTY further specifically agrees as follows:
A. COUNTY shall prepare and submit to HUD and appropriate reviewing agencies, on an annual basis, all
plans, statements and program documents necessary for receipt of a basic grant amount under the Act.
B. COUNTY shall provide, to the maximum extent feasible, technical assistance and coordinating services
to COOPERATING UNIT in the preparation and submission of a request for funding.
C. COUNTY shall provide ongoing technical assistance to COOPERATING UNIT to aid COUNTY in
fulfilling its responsibility to HUD for accomplishment of the community development program and
housing goals.
D. COUNTY shall, upon official request by COOPERATING UNIT, agree to administer local housing
rehabilitation activities funded pursuant to the Agreement, provided that COUNTY shall receive
Twelve percent (12%) of the allocation by COOPERATING UNIT to the activity as reimbursement for
costs associated with the administration of COOPERATING UNIT activity.
E. COUNTY may, at its discretion and upon official request by COOPERATING UNIT, agree to
administer, for a possible fee, ,other activities funded pursuant to this Agreement on behalf of
COOPERATING UNIT.
~c-~
F. COUNTY may, as necessary for clarification and coordination of program administration, develop and
• implement Administrative Rules consistent with the Act, Regulations, HUD administrative directives,
and administrative requirements of COUNTY.
V. ALLOCATION OF BASIC GRANT AMOUNTS
Basic grant amounts received by the COUNTY under Section 106 of the Act shall be allocated as follows:
A. COUNTY shall retain Thirteen percent (13%) of the annual basic grant amount for the administration of
the program. Included in this administrative amount is funding for annual county-wide Fair Housing
activities.
B. The balance of the basic grant amount shall be made available by COUNTY to COOPERATING
UNITS in accordance with the formula stated in part C and the procedure stated in part D of this section
utilizing data provided by HUD. The allocation is for planning purposes only and is not a guarantee of
funding.
C. Allocation of funding will be based upon a formula using data supplied by HUD that bears the same
ratio to the balance of the basic grant amount as the average of the ratios between:
The population of COOPERATING UNIT and the population of all COOPERATING UNITS.
2. The extent of poverty in COOPERATING UNIT and the extent of poverty in all
COOPERATING UNITS.
• 3. The extent of overcrowded housing by units in COOPERATING UNIT and the extent of
overcrowded housing by units in all COOPERATING UNITS.
4. In determining the average of the above ratios, the ratio involving the extent of poverty shall be
counted twice.
D. Funds will be made available to communities utilizing the formula specified in C of this Section in the
following manner:
All COOPERATING UNITS with aggregate formula percentages of greater than three and one
half percent (3.5%) of the total using the procedure in part C. of this section will receive
funding allocations in accordance with the COUNTY formula allocations.
2. COOPERATING UNITS with aggregate formula percentages of three and one half percent
(3.5%) or less of the total using the procedure in part C. of this section will have their funds
consolidated into a pool for award in a manner determined by COUNTY on a competitive
request for proposal basis. Only the COUNTY and COOPERATING UNITS whose funding
has been pooled will be eligible to compete for these funds.
E. The COUNTY shall develop these ratios based upon data to be furnished by HUD. The COUNTY
assumes no duty to gather such data independently and assumes no liability for any errors in the data
furnished by HUD.
• F. In the event COOPERATING UNIT does not request a funding allocation, or a portion thereof, the
amount not requested shall be made available to other participating communities, in a manner
determined by COUNTY.
°~ c- 8
• VI. METROPOLITAN CITIES
Any metropolitan city executing this Agreement shall defer their entitlement status and become part of
Urban Hennepin County.
This agreement can be voided if the COOPERATING UNIT is advised by HUD, prior to the completion of
the re-qualification process for fiscal years 2009-2011, that it is eligible to become a metropolitan city and the
COOPERATING UNIT elects to take its entitlement status. If the agreement is not voided on the basis of the
COOPERATING UNIT's eligibility as a metropolitan city prior to July 8, 2008, the COOPERATING UNIT must
remain a part of the COUNTY program for the entire three-year period of the COUNTY qualification.
VII. OPINION OF COUNSEL
The undersigned, on behalf of the Hennepin County Attorney, having reviewed this Agreement, hereby
opines that the terms and provisions of the Agreement are fully authorized under State and local law and that the
COOPERATING UNIT has full legal authority to undertake or assist in undertaking essential community
development and housing assistance activities, specifically urban renewal and publicly-assisted housing.
Assistant County Attorney
U
•
~C- ~
• VIII. HENNEPIN COUNTY EXECUTION
The Hennepin County Board of Commissioners having duly approved this Agreement on May 6, 2008, and
pursuant to such approval and the proper County official having signed this Agreement, the COUNTY agrees to be
bound by the provisions herein set forth.
COUNTY OF HENNEPIN, STATE OF MINNESOTA
Rv•
a.~ .
Chair of its County Board
,...a.
Assistant/Deputy/County Administrator
Attest:
Deputy/Clerk of the County Board
RECOMMENDED FOR APPROVAL
Assistant County Administrator -Public Works
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Date:
Assistant County Attorney
Date:
Department, Housing, Community Works and Transit
Date:
APPROVED AS TO EXECUTION:
Assistant County Attorney
Date:
".
~~~ ~~
IX. COOPERATING UNIT EXECUTION
COOPERATING UNIT, having signed this Agreement, and the COOPERATING UNITS governing body
having duly approved this Agreement on , 2008, and pursuant to such approval and the proper city
official having signed this Agreement, COOPERATING UNIT agrees to be bound by the provisions of this Joint
Cooperation Agreement, contract A080541.
CITY OF RICHFIELD
By:
Its Mayor
And:
Its City Manager
ATTEST:
CITY MUST CHECK ONE:
The City is organized pursuant to:
• Plan A Plan B Charter
May 13, 2008
•
AGENDA SECTION: CONSENT
AGENDA ITEM # 9D
REPORT # 14?_
~' STAFF REPORT
JUNE 10, 2008
REPORT PREPARED BY:
NAME, TITLE
•
DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR
REVIEW:
REVIEWED BY CITY
MANAGER:
CITY COUNCIL MEETING
BARRY FRITZ, ACTING DIRECTOR OF
PUBLIC SAFETY-
IGNA
/~.L ~ /~1.1+
ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION:
Consideration of a resolution to accept monetary donations to Safety Day 2008.
I. RECOMMENDED ACTION:
By Motion: Approve the attached resolution to accept monetary
donations from citizens and businesses in Richfield to cover costs
for presenting Safety Day to Fourth Grade_Students on June 10, 2008.
II. BACKGROUND
Each year, the Public Safety Department/Police and the Fire Department conduct a
Safety Day for students entering. the fourth grade in the fall of the year. The Safety
Day is open to all Richfield students and the only requirement is that they will enter
the fourth grade in the fall
Various costs are incurred in preparing for and presenting the full day of safety
training and fun for the participants. Community support is needed both financially
and by participation in order to continue to have'a quality program for fhe youth
attending.
The following donations are included in the resolution:
Richfield Bloomington Credit Union $ 500.00
Laundro Max $ 500.00
Best Buy $ 500.00
Richfield Rotary $1,000.00
0610 Resolution Accepting Donations to Safety Day
Wells Fargo $ 250.00
M&I Bank ~ $ 500.00
American Legion Post #435
Target Gift Card $ 200.00
$ 249.00
Irwin Ketroser $ 100.00
Wal-Mart Grant/Forteiture Fund $1,000.00
Crime Prevention Fund $2,000.00
Moenke Brothers Outdoor, Inc. $ 200.00
Sam's Club 2008 $1,000.00
AAA Mpls. Auto Club Foundation for Safety $ 500.00
Jay Petersen Agency, Inc. $ 30.00
Total Donations $8,529.00
III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION
A. POLICY
• .The State requires that the City approve a resolution accepting the
funds prior to their issuance.
• Minnesota Statute 465.03 requires every acceptance of a grant or
devise of real or personal property on terms prescribed by the donor
be made by resolution of more than two-thirds majority of the City
Council
• The Administrative Services Department issued a memo on
November 9, 2004 requiring that all grants and restricted donation to
departments be received by resolution and by more than two-thirds
majority of the City Council in accordance with Minnesota Statute
465.03.
B. CRITICAL ISSUES
• N/A
C. FINANCIAL
• The amount indicated above does not include a donation from the Fire
Memorial fund in the amount of $430, which is covered by a separate
Staff Report prepared by the Fire Department.
D. LEGAL
• N/A
E. ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS
• N/A
ALTERNATIVE KECOMMENDATION(S) ~
• Council could deny the acceptance of the donations which would result in the
return of such-donations and could have a direct affect on whether the Safety
Day could beheld in 2008.
~V. ATTACHMENTS
• Resolution.
VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT
• None
!1V ~
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING RICHFIELD PUBLIC SAFETY/POLICE DEPARTMENT
AND RICHFIELD FIRE DEPARTMENT TO ACCEPT MONETARY DONATIONS FOR
SAFETY DAY 2008
WHEREAS, the Public Safety Department/Police and the Fire Department have
scheduled a Safety Day which is conducted annually for students entering the fourth grade
in the fall; and,
WHEREAS, a Safety Day has been scheduled for June 10, 2008; and,
WHEREAS, businesses and residents in the community support the City's desire to
bring activities to young people promoting safety; and,
WHEREAS; some .businesses and residents have indicated a desire to make
monetary donations to ensure the Safety Day will be held in 2008; and,
WHEREAS, -those businesses and residents, along with their monetary donations
are as follows: Richfield Bloomington Credit Union $ 500
Laundro Max $ 500
Best Buy $ 500
Richfield Rotary $1,000
Wells Fargo $ 250
M&I Bank $ 500
American Legion Post #435 $ 200
Target Gift Card $ 249
Irwin Ketroser $ 100
Wal-Mart Grant. $1,000
-Crime Prevention Fund $2,000
Moenke Brothers Outdoor, Inc. $ 200
Sam's Club $1,000
AAA - Mpls Auto Club Foundation for Safety $ 500
Jay Petersen Agency, Inc. $ 30
WHEREAS, Minnesota Statute requires every acceptance of a grant or devise of
real or personal property on terms prescribed by the donor be made by resolution of more
than two-thirds majority of the City Council; and,
WHEREAS, the donated funds will be used strictly for the funding of the Safety Day
2008.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Director of Public Safety will
accept the donations, totaling $8,529, in addition to monies to be approved by another
resolution from the Fire Memorial fund, to be used entirely for costs incurred by Safety
Day.
Adopted by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this 10th day of June
2008.
Debbie Goettel, Mayor
ATTEST:
Nancy Gibbs, City Clerk
r~
U
AGENDA SECTION: CONSENT
AGENDA ITEM # 9E
REPORT # 143
STAFF REPORT
CITY COUNCIL MEETING
JUNE 10, 2008
REPORT PREPARED BY:
JIM TOPITZHOFER, RECREATION
SERVICES DIlZECTOR
NAME, Ti7za
•
DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR r
REVIEW: w~
REVIEWED BY CITY r
MANAGER: L~,
ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION:
Consideration of a resolution authorizing acceptance of a donation from the
Chorzempa/Kirchner Family in the amount of $4,000, to help fund the Gateway Gardens
Pro'ect at Wood Lake Nature Center.
I. RECOMMENDED ACTION:
By Motion: Approve the resolution authorizing acceptance of a
donation from the Chorzempa/Kirchner Family in the amount of
$4,000, to help fund the Gateway Gardens Project at Wood Lake
Nature. Center.
II. BACKGROUND
Wood Lake Nature Center is in the process of renovating the entrance to the facility;
the project is known as the Gateway Gardens.
Jan Chorzempa, daughter of Richfield Bank founders Bill and Garnett Kirchner, has
donated $4,000 on behalf of the Kirchner/Chorzempa Family to fund a permanent
sign for the Gateway Gardens project.
•
0610 wood lake donation
• III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION
A. POLICY
• Minnesota Statute 465.03 requires every acceptance of a donation or
devise of real or personal property of more than two-thirds majority of
the City Council.
• Wood Lake Nature Center staff will use the donated funds to purchase
a permanent sign for the Gateway Gardens.
B. CRITICAL ISSUES
• Once the donation is accepted, staff can use the funds to continue
with the Gateway Gardens project.
C. FINANCIAL ~ -
• These funds enable staff to proceed with the project and complete it in
a timely manner.
D. LEGAL
• Minnesota Statute 465.03 requires every acceptance of a donation or
devise of real or personal property of more than two-thirds majority of
• the City Council
A.. ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS
• To reduce the impact on the natural environment, a rain garden has
been incorporated into the Gateway Gardens project.
IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION~S~
• Decline to accept the donation and the contract.
V. ATTACHMENTS
• Resolution
VI. PRINCIl'AL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING
• N/A
q ~'I
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING ACCEPTANCE OF A DONATION FROM THE
CHORZEMPA/KIRCHNER FAMILY IN THE AMOUNT OF $4,000 TO HELP FUND THE
GATEWAY GARDENS PROJECT AT WOOD LAKE NATURE CENTER.
WHEREAS, Minnesota Statute 465.03 reads in part as follows:
Any city, county, school district or town may accept a donation or devise of
real or personal property and maintain such property for the benefit of its citizens in
accordance with the terms prescribed by the donor. Nothing herein shall authorize
such acceptance or use for religious or sectarian purposes. Every acceptance shall
be by resolution of the council-adopted by two-thirds majority of its members,
expressing such terms in full, and
WHEREAS,-the City of Richfield has received donations and donations as
described below:
- _- _ -
DONOR ~ AMOUNT
June 2. 2008.1 Jan Chorzem
000.00
• NOW, ,THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the-City Council of the City of
Richfield, Minnesota, as follows:
That the City Council of the City of Richfield hereby accepts the Cornerstone Group
donation and authorizes the City to administer the funds in accordance with donation
agreements and terms prescribed by donors and to award the project contract to Prairie
Restorations, Inc.
Adopted by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this 10th day of
June, 2008.
Debbie Goettel, Mayor
ATTEST:
Nancy Gibbs, City Clerk
•
•
STAFF REPORT
AGENDA SECTION: CONSENT
AGENDA ITEM # 9F
REPORT # 144
CITY COUNCIL MEETING
JUNE 10, 2008
REPORT PREPARED BY:
JIM TOPITZHOFER, RECREATION SERVICES
DIRECTOR
NAME, TITLE
U
DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR REVIEW:
REVIEWED BY CITY MANAGER:
ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION:
Consideration of a request for a facility dedication at Donaldson Park.
I. RECOMMENDED ACTION:
By Motion: Approve the attached Recreational Facility and Amenity
Dedication Proposal Request from Metro Babe Ruth Umpires
Association.
•
II. BACKGROUND
In response to recent requests to rename recreational facilities to honor the
contributions of two individuals, the Community Services Commission developed
the attached policy to handle such requests. The new policy was adopted by City
Council on March 11, 2008. A formal request was received from Metro Area Babe
Ruth Umpires Association to dedicate Upper Donaldson Field in-honor of the
memory of Gordon Larson. The newly created proposal form is attached.
The initial proposal is requesting authorization to install a dedication plaque on a
modest stone marker outside the third base. line. After talking over alternative
locations for the plaque, the final request is for authorization to install a dedication
plaque to the east dugout building so that it is viewable from the concession stand.
The request conforms to the dedication guidelines set forth in the attached policy.
A concept drawing of the proposed dedication plaque is attached for review and
includes the text that will appear on the plaque.
0610 Donaldson Dedication Proposal
III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION
• A. POLICY
• The Community Services Commission reviewed the attached request
and recommends City Council approval. The request conforms to the
dedication guidelines set forth in the attached policy.
B.~ CRITICAL ISSUES
• If approved, the Metro Area Babe Ruth Umpires Association would
like to conduct a dedication ceremony during their summer 2008
season.
C. FINANCIAL
• The attached policy indicates that the nominating- person(s) of such
dedication requests shall be entirely responsible for all costs
associated with the dedication including application, background
check fees, recognition, and memorial plaque.
D. LEGAL
• None
• E. ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS
• N/A
ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION(S~
• None
IV. ATTACHMENTS
• Recreational Facility and Amenity Dedication Policy
• Richfield Facility Dedication Proposal Form
• Rendering of Proposed Dedication Plaque.
V. PRINCIl'AL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING
• None
•
Final Draft q ~~ ( 03/11/08
•
City of Richfield
Recreation Facility and Amenity Dedication Policy
Purpose: The purpose of this policy is to establish guidelines for dedicating recreational
facilities and amenities including athletic fields, park buildings, and other recreational
structures located in the City of Richfield in honor of an individual or organization. The
City of Richfield does not accept requests to permanently rename a park, recreational
facility or amenity in honor of an individual or organization, but as an alternative offers
the following guidelines to dedicate such facilities to the memory of an individual or
organization by granting the installation of a dedication plaque onsite of such facilities.
Nomination Criteria: Nominations for dedicating City of Richfield facilities or
amenities in the memory of an individual or organization shall be based on one or more
of the following criteria:
1. In honor of organizations or individuals (living or deceased) who have made a
significant contribution, financial or otherwise, to the City of Richfield or who
have played a leading role in advancing the City of Richfield as a good place to
• live, work or recreate..
2. In honor of a person, place or event that played a significant role in the history of
the City of Richfield.
The individual or organization for which the dedication is sought shall be deemed to be
of good general character and should not be associated with unlawful or unseemly
activities.
Dedication Guidelines: The dedication of City recreational facilities via this policy shall
be limited to significant facilities or amenities, including but not limited to buildings,
rooms in buildings, athletic fields, ponds, bridges, playgrounds, and trails. The dedication
of minor amenities such as water fountains and benches are not part of this policy and
will be addressed by the Recreational Services Department. Fundraising projects
conducted by the Friends of Wood Lake that benefit the Wood Lake Nature Center are
exempt from this policy.
The dedication of City facilities or amenities shall normally be limited to no more than
two per year to maintain the stature of the facility dedication honor. Any undedicated
City recreational facility may be nominated for dedication using the criteria of this policy.
The nominating person(s) shall be entirely responsible for all costs associated with the
dedication including application and background check fees, recognition, and memorial
• plaques. The size, style, text and location of the memorial plaque shall be subject to
review and approval of the Recreation Services Director and the Nominating Committee.
~i
h
i
i
ty or amen
ty to t
e
A~~lication ProcessProcess: The process for dedicating a recreational facil
memory of an individual shall be:
1. The nominating person(s) shall request a City of Richfield Recreational Facility
Dedication Nomination form from the Recreation Services Department office.
Nominations for deceased individuals will not be accepted until after asix-month
time period from the date the individual passed away.
2. A fully completed City of Richfield Recreational Facility Dedication Nomination
form shall be submitted to the Recreation Services Director and the Nominating
Committee along with the specified application fee.
3. The completed application will be reviewed by Nominating Committee
(consisting of assigned members of the Community Services Commission) for
completeness, accuracy and adherence to policy guidelines.
4. All individuals nominated shall be subject to a criminal background check.
5. If the nomination is rejected based on the above review, the nominating person
designated on the application will be notified in writing.
6. Nominations that pass the above review will. be forwarded to the Community
Services Commission for review at their next regularly scheduled meeting.
7. Within 60 days of the Community Services Commission meeting at which the
application is received, a recommendation will be made. If rejected by the
Community Services Commission, the nominating person designated on the
application will be notified by City staff in writing.
• 8. If approved, the recommendation will be forwarded to the City Council for final
review and approval or denial.
9. Nominating parties will be notified in writing of the City Council's actions within
two weeks of the meeting at which action is taken.
10. The City Council shall have the authority to override this policy when they deem
doing so to be in the best interest of the City.
Revocation•
Recreational facility dedications may be revoked by the Community Services
Commission should information later come to light that runs counter to the substance and
spirit of this policy.
•
LJ
•
By signing below...
~~
Richfield Facility Dedi~cafior~
PROPOSAL FORM
ague as a dedication to en r~tlivitiua g
i ouncil. Please. frlf ouf the #drm .ba_in:,, v
dY must be appru~re~: by the
of their deasia~
1 understand that I, or the group I represent, will take full responsibility for the cost of purchase and instatiation of this;
plaque and any other costs associated with the dedication, I understand that this plaque wil! be donated to. ar~o
become property of, the City of Richfield
1 understand that the approval of this dedication may be subject to a criminal backgrcaund check of the honoree and that
a fastility dedication may be revoked by the City at a later date should information .later come to light that runs counter to
the substance and spirit of the dedication polic~.~.
~ru~>:. as ~' p
~~~~
NLrJ~E FURWARD THIS FORIN TO JOHN EVANS AT THE RICHFIELD COMtv~JNm, CENT'Er~.
~~ ~`, $Y FAX: ~ ~3(,. ~'1( PHANI
~ Ctartjrrrtrnrty Center 6t2-861-3388 jhvarrr~tyofripht`tQd: ; ,
3 Nico~et Ave _ <_. ~9 612-86'1-395
Riielcf N 5 423
Richfield Community Center 7000 Nicollet Avenue, Richfield, MN 55423
Phone: 612-861-9395 Fax: 612-861-9388 E-Mail jevans(a~Cityofrichfield.org
Gordy Larson began his
st~'ted out as a Little League c
Ri~th Baseball Program. 1979
1982 Gordy expanded the Senio
teams to provide an opportunity
Commissioner for Babe Ruth.
Committee for several yeazs. Hi
Babe Ruth events. His name
Minnesota as well as azound the
He brought numerous
prgmoting bpth Babe Ruth bas
The kids were always f
fragile health did not keep him
many of the youth baseball pla;
Gordy helped to start a
in Richfield summer baseball in 1975. He
In 1978 he became a coach in the Richfield Babe
v Gordy become President of Richfield Babe Ruth. ~
Babe Ruth (17 to 19 yeaz olds) from one team to two
~r more kids to play ball. He became State
-rdy. served on the National Babe Ruth Tournament
traveled throughout the country helping to run National
synonymous with Babe Ruth Baseball throughout
Jnited States.
and district tournaments to be played in Richfield,
and pur community.
and foremost in his mind. He was totally selfless. His
n his goal of improving and providing programs for as
in Richfield and the state of Minnesota.
baseball program, the Cal Ripkin League, in the state
of Minnesota. It was Gordy's id a to form an umpire's group, Metro Babe Ruth
Umpires, to officiate Richfield B be Ruth baseball games. This group has been doing so
for'tast 18 yeazs. He and his ifelong partner Lois traveled about the state bringing
goodwill in the name of Babe
In 2006, the yeaz Gordy d ed, he was posthumously inducted into the National
Babe Ruth Baseball Hall of Fam . An honor he richly deserved.
With his passing, the
of Richfield lost a true and devoted friend. Gordy
~~
•
was a mentor to many and a frie to all.
qr--4
Gordy Larson began his involvement in Richfield summer baseball in 1975. He
stated out as a Little League coach. In 1978 he became a coach in the Richfield Babe
Ruth Baseball Program. 1979 saw Gordy become president of Richfield Babe Ruth. In
19'82 Gordy expanded the Senior Babe Ruth (17 to 19 year olds) from one team to two
teams to provide an opportunity for more kids to play ball. He became State
Commissioner for Babe Ruth. Gerdy. served- on the National Babe Ruth Tournament
Committee for several years. He traveled throughout the country helping to run National
$abe Ruth events. His name was synonymous with Babe Ruth Baseball throughout
Miruiesota as well as azound the United States.
He brought numerous state and district tournaments to be played in Richf eld,
promoting bpth Babe Ruth baseball and pur community.
The kids were always first and foremost in his mind. He was totally selfless. His
• fragile health did not keep him from his -goal of improving and providing programs for as
many of the youth baseball. players in Richfield and the state of Minnesota.
Gordy helped to start a new baseball program, the, Cal Ripkin League, in the state
of Minnesota. It was Gordy's idea to form an umpire's group, Metro Babe Ruth
Umpires, to officiate Richfield Babe Ruth baseball games. This group has been .doing so
foz~'!'ast 18 yeazs. He and his lifelong partner Lois traveled about the state bringing
goodwill in the name of Babe Ruth.
In 2006, the yeaz Gordy died, he was posthumously inducted into the National
~abE Ruth Baseball riaii of Farne. r`in honor he richly deserved.
With his passing; the youth of Richfield lost a true and devoted friend. Gordy
was a mentor to many and afriend -to all,
~~~
• Donaldson Park
Ci-~ of ~~~Fi9~~
~ O
This Facility Dedicated July 19, 2008 is Memory of
• CiORDON J. LAR80N
Member Minnesota Babe Ruth Baseball Hall of Fame
Gordy gave generously of his time and effort to promote the growth
of Babe Ruth Baseball is the City of Richfield aad the State of
Minnesota.
~~L.fa-c..,.~ ~--o
Gordy worked to give all youth an opportunity aad a play ~eball.~
He was a mentor and a friend to all.
Donors
The Family of Gordy Larson Rod and Mary Keith
Metro Babe Ruth Umpire Association
• ~~
_ '' (Plaque Size 30"z40")
•
AGENDA SECTION: PUBLIC HEARING
AGENDA ITEM # 11
REPORT # jl~g
STAFF REPORT
CITY COUNCIL MEETING
JUNE 10, 2008
REPORT PREPARED BY:
PAM DMYTRENKO, ASSISTANT TO
THE CITY MANAGER
NAME, TITLE
DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR
REVIEW:
REVIEWED BY CITY
MANAGER:
ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION:.
Public hearing and second reading regarding the transitory ordinance authorizing the planning,
desi nand construction of a new Police/Fire/Cit Hall facilit .
I. RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Conduct and close the public hearing and by motion:.
• Approve second reading of the attached transitory ordinance
authorizing the planning, design and construction of a new
Police/Fire/City Hall Facility.
• Approve resolution for summary publication of the transitory
ordinance.
•
II. BACKGROUND
In 2004, the City Council appointed a citizen taskforce (CHAT I) to research the
feasibility of remodeling the existing facility versus building a new one. After a
through analysis and research, the CHAT I group determined that building a new
facility was the best option. Lack of space, technology challenges, significant
maintenance costs, and failure to meet ADA regulations were a few of the reasons
the group cited for recommending a new facility.
In August 2005, the City Council appointed a second citizen taskforce (CHAT II).
CHAT II was charged with determining site location, developing preliminary site
plans, and analyzing feasibility.
0610CityHall 2nd read
CHAT II explored numerous sites and determined that the site of the current
• Police/Fire/City Hall facility at 6700 Portland Avenue was the optimum site upon
which to build the new facility.
Through a request for proposal process, Wold Architects was hired to work with
CHAT II to analyze space needs, develop preliminary site plans and building
design, and assist with cost estimates.
During the fall of 2008, preliminary design and cost estimates were completed and
two open. houses were held in December. The feedback received at the open
houses was shared with the Council during a workession on December 11, 2007.
At its annual goal-setting session in January 2008, the City Council discussed the
new Police/Fire/City Hall project and incorporated it as one of the City's 2008
capital projects.
Two additional public open houses were held on May 1 and 3, 2008 to provide
more opportunity for public feedback on the project.
Wold Architects has provided all of the services set forth under its contract with the
City and the City has fully expended its not.to exceed limit of $75,000. In order to
proceed with the planning, design and construction of a new facility, a public
hearing is required by the City Charter.
III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION
A. POLICY
• Pursuant to Section 8.04 of the City Charter, the project will require
approval of a transitory ordinance because the estimated project cost
exceeds $500,000.
B. CRITICAL ISSUES
• The existing facility is old, outdated and inadequate to accommodate
City staff and services. Issues with the current facility include lack of
space (community meeting space, storage space and lobby waiting
area), inadequate security, rusted pipes with asbestos; mold
concerns, outdated electrical equipment, and failure to meet ADA
compliance regulations.
• According to an April 2003 report prepared by Tushie Montgomery
Architects, the cost to remodel the current facility versus building new
was determined to be greater. The risk of unanticipated costs is
higher for remodeling because the extent of deterioration can be
difficult to accurately assess prior to renovation.
• .The current state of the construction business and interest rates
indicates that it is more favorable to build now than to delay. The
longer the construction of the new facility is delayed, the more it will
cost.
• The current state of City Hall indicates that there is not a no-cost
option. A decision to remain in the current facility will require the
expenditure of significant funds to correct current, ongoing problems
• as well as to plan for other anticipated needs/problems.
C. FINANCIAL
• Estimated total project cost of the new facility, at 87,507 square feet,
is $21,650,000.
• Financing for the new facility is expected to come from the issuance of
General Obligation Capital Improvement bonds or Voted General
Obligation bonds. The term of both types of bonds would be 20 years.
• Estimated taxpayer impacts would vary depending on the taxable
market value of properties. For example, it is estimated taxes would
increase for a home valued at $250,000 by $136.04/year.
D. LEGAL
• Pursuant to Section 8.04 of the City Charter, the project will require
approval of a transitory ordinance because the estimated project cost
exceeds $500,000.
• Pursuant to Section 8.05 of the City Charter, notice of the public
hearing was published twice in the Sun Current fourteen days prior to
the hearing. Publication dates were May 29, 2008 and June 5, 2008.
• The City Attorney has reviewed the procedure for this .capital
improvement and finds that it complies with the City Charter.
• The City Attorney has reviewed the resolution for summary
publication.
E. ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS
• Any new facility will incorporate sustainability features as determined
through acost/benefit analysis.
IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION~S~
• Council may choose to take no action at this time or defer action to a later
date. Any deferment will impact the scheduling of future Council actions
. required under the City Charter and, ultimately, the construction of the
project.
V. ATTACHMENTS
• Proposed Transitory Ordinance.
• Resolution for Summary Publication.
VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING
• Wold Architect Representatives
• City Hall Task Force members (CHAT II)
•
l l- l
BILL NO.
Transitory Ordinanc~o:
AN ORDINANCE APPROVING A CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT
PROJECT .FOR CONSTRUCTION OF A POLICE/FIRE/CITY
HALL PURSUANT TO RICHFIELD CITY CHARTER SECTION
8.04
THE CITY OF RICHFIELD DOES ORDAIN:
Section 1. Background; findings.
1.01. Section 8.04 of the Richfield City Charter requires that any capital improvement on
City-owned property that has an estimated cost exceeding $500,000.00 or expenditures for
design or engineering costs exceeding $75,000.00 must be approved by ordinance after a
public hearing.
1.02. It is proposed that the City Council approve a capital improvement project for the
improvement of .property at the southwest comer of .the intersection of 67 Street. and
Portland Avenue, the current site of the existing Police/Fire/City Hall.
1.03. The capital improvement protJect consists of the design, engineering and construction
of a new Police/Fire/City Hall Facility~~and related improvements, including, but not limited. to
parking and utilities connections (the, City Hall Project)..
1.04. The estimated construction cost of the capital improvement, excluding preliminary
design costs, is in excess of $500,000. The preliminary. estimates for total .construction cost
is $21,650,000.00.
1.05. A public hearing was held on June 10, 2008 after due notice as required by Section
• 8.05 of the Richfield City Charter.
1.06. The Council finds and determines that it is in the best interests of the City. and its
inhabitants that the City Hall Project be approved..
Sec. 2. Approval; effective date.
2.01. The City Hall ProJJ'ect is approved, and planning, design and construction of the .City
Hall. Project mayproceed according to the procedures required by law.
2.02. The purpose of this Ordinance is to comply with the requirements of Section 8.04 of the.
Richfield City Charter. This Ordinance shall not be construed to require that the City proceed
with the City Hall Project; nor does it vest any rights in the City Hall Project to any mdividuai
or entity. This Ordinance shall not be construed to pre-approve any contracts for the desiggn
or construction of .the City Hall ProJ'ect, and the City Council specifically reserves to itself. the
authority to approve any such contracts. The City Council. reserves 'the right to abandon the
City -Hall Project or to modify elements of the City -Hall Project, if .the .Council deems
abandonment or modification to be in the public interest.
2.03. This ordinance is effective 30 days following its publication.
Adopted by the City of Richfield this 1 Oth day of June, 2008.
De ie oette , ayor
ATTEST:.
•
ancy i s, ity er
~' ~
RESOLUTION NO.
• RESOLUTION APPROVING SUMMARY PUBLICATION OF A
TRANSITORY ORDINANCE APPROVING A CAPITAL
IMPROVEMENT PROJECT FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A
POLICE/FIRE/CITY HALL, .PURSUANT TO RICHFIELD CITY
CHARTER SECTION 8.04
WHEREAS, the City has adopted the above referenced ordinance to the Richfield
City Code; and
WHEREAS, the verbatim text of the amendment is cumbersome, and the expense
of publication of the complete text is not justified.
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Richfield
that the following summary is hereby approved for official. publication:
SUMMARY PUBLICATION
BILL NO. 2008 -
TRANSITORY ORDINANCE APPROVING A CAPITAL
IMPROVEMENT PROJECT FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A
POLICE/FIRE/CITY HALL, PURSUANT TO RICHFIELD CITY
.CHARTER SECTION 8.04
This summary of the ordinance is published pursuant to Section 3.12 of the
Richfield City Charter.
The ordinance authorizes a capital improvement project consisting of the design,
engineering and construction of a police/fire/city hall facility. The preliminary estimate for
total construction cost is $21,650,000.00.
Copies of the ordinance are available for public inspection in the Administrative
Services Department during normal business hours or upon request by calling Assistant to
the City Manager Pam Dmytrenko (612-861-9708).
Adopted by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this 10th day of June
2008.
Debbie Goettel, Mayor
ATTEST: -
Nancy Gibbs, City Clerk
n
U
.7
AGENDA SECTION: p.ROP. ORDINANCE
AGENDA ITEM # 12
REPORT # 146
~~- STAFF REPORT
CITY COUNCIL MEETING
JUNE 10, 2008
REPORT PREPARED BY:
INTERIM DEPARTMENT
DIRECTOR REVIEW:
REVIEWED BY CITY
MANAGER:
MELISSA POEHLMAN, PLANNING &
ZONING ADMINISTRATOR
ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION:
First reading of an ordinance amendment reducing the required clear view distance at
intersections.
I. RECOMMENDED ACTION:
By Motion: Approve first reading of the attached ordinance amending
the Richfield City Code by repealing Subsection 509.17 and amending
Subsection 925.01, Subd. 4(a) related to clear visibility at
intersections.
•
II. BACKGROUND
The City Code currently regulates traffic visibility. at corners as follows (also see
attached illustrations):
• Intersections not controlled in all directions: Nothing shall be erected,
placed, planted or allowed to grow in such a manner as to obstruct vision
between the height of 30 inches and 10 feet above the abutting curb line of
the intersecting streets within a triangular area beginning at the intersection
of the projected curb lines, extending 50 feet along each curb line, thence
connecting.
• Intersections controlled in all directions (stop signs or traffic signals):
Same as above but for the distance along each curb is decreased to 30 feet.
061008 - 1st Read sight triangles
With the adoption of the stop sign policy eliminating uncontrolled intersections within
• the City, it is the opinion of staff that the 50-foot requirement should be reduced to
30 feet. The recently-adopted policy will provide for some control at every
intersection in the City, thereby reducing the need for such extensive clear zones.
The proposed ordinance revision would require the maintenance of a clear "sight
triangle" extending 30 feet along each curb.
Staff conducted a review of sight triangle regulations in nearby suburban
communities for comparison:
BlooPnington: 15 feet along property lines (not curb line)
Eagan: 30 feet
Edina: 30 feet
Hopkins: 30 feet
St. Louis Park: 50 feet
III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION
A. POLICY
• City regulations are intended to protect and promote public health and
safety.
• The proposed ordinance revisions will continue to do so.
• B. CRITICAL ISSUES
• The new stop sign policy will provide a minimum of two-way traffic
control at all intersections. This additional control reduces the need
fora 50-foot clear zone.
• Staff is of the opinion, based on the experience of enforcement of
current regulations, that a 50-foot sight triangle is excessive in terms
of visibility needs.
• A 50-foot sight triangle can significantly limit a property owner's ability
to landscape and enhance their property.
• The revised ordinance will allow the City to require a larger clear zone
if it is determined to be necessary in order to protect public safety.
C. FINANCIAL.
• N/A
D. LEGAL
• A public hearing was held before the Planning Commission on May
28, 2008.
• One resident shared concerns related to public utility boxes/vaults,
campaign signs and solid fences within sight triangles and a specific
• concern about the intersection at 70th Street and Clinton Avenue.
• The Planning Commission voted unanimously to recommend approval
of the attached Ordinance.
• A second reading is scheduled for June 24, 2008.
• If a second reading is approved, the Ordinance will take effect 30 days
• following publication in the Sun Current.
E. ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS
• N/A
IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION(S~
• Deny a first reading of the attached Ordinance.
V. ATTACI-IlVIENTS
• Ordinance
• .Sight triangle illustrations
VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING
• N/A
•
a-1
BILL NO.
• AMENDMENT TO RICHFIELD CITY CODE
REPEAL SUBSECTION 509.17 AND AMEND SUBSECTION
925.01, SUBD. 4(a) OF THE CITY CODE RELATED TO CLEAR
VISIBILITY AT INTERSECTIONS
THE CITY OF RICHFIELD DOES ORDAIN:
Section 1 Richfield City Code Subsection 509.17 is hereby repealed upon the effective
date of this Ordinance.
Section 2 Subsection 925.01, Subdivision 4(a) of the Richfield City Code is amended
to read as follows:
Subd. 4. Public nuisances affecting peace and safety. The following are
declared to be nuisances affecting peace and safety:
(a) ~ Trees, hedges, billboards or other obstructions which prevent persons
from having a clear view of traffic approaching an intersectlon from cross
streets in sufficient time to bring a motor vehicle drawn at a reasonable
speed to a full stop before the intersection is reached. In general, on corr
to
•
In
area as defined as follows: "beginning at the intersectlon or the prolectea
to
Section 3 This Ordinance is effective in accordance with Section 3.09 of the Richfield
.City Charter.
Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this day of
2008.
Debbie Goettel, Mayor
ATTEST:
Nancy Gibbs, City Clerk
•
061008 - 1st Read sight triangles
50-foot sight triangle
(uncontrolled
intersections)
30-foot sight triangle
• (4-way controlled
intersections)
PROPOSED
REGULATION FOR ALL .
INTERSECTIONS
~ a-~.
a~w~~r;,
~~~ ~ ~
~~:
i-1. y ~ ' .. ..~...w~ -
.:
t.
::> ' ~,
a
~~:
`'
RvA~wA~r
~t~~`
~.__
.
~ .
~
F116WT~ WAY
'. ` ~ ~ -'- ~- - '~-fT la~... ~....~
~ ~~~
` ,~
F
t
BCAkf P-2G
•
•
STAFF REPORT
CITY COUNCIL MEETING
JUNE 10, 2008
•
•
REPORT PREPARED BY:
DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR
REVIEW:
REVIEWED BY CITY
MANAGER:
AGENDA SECTION: Q~jt BIISINESS
AGENDA ITEM # 13
REPORT # 147
TITLE
ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION:
Consideration of award of contract for both the 73~d Street and 1St Avenue Storm Sewer
Improvement Project and the Augsburg Pond Lift Station and authorization to hire WSB &
Associates to provide construction oversight of the Lift Station construction.
I. RECOMMENDED ACTION:
By Motion:
• Accept the bid minutes/tabulation and award contract to
Nodland Construction Company in the amount of $876,407.41
for the 73rd Street and 1St Avenue Storm Sewer Project.
• Accept the bid minutes/tabulation and award contract to Veit
and Company, Inc. in the amount of $285,087.01 for the
Augsburg Pond Lift Station.
• Approve the purchase of construction engineering services
from WSB & Associates to provide construction oversight
services required to complete the project.
IL BACKGROUND
There has been a history of flooding at the 73 Street and 1St Avenue intersection;
needed improvements were identified in-1988. The proposed design includes a
new storm sewer system that exceeds 100-year storm protection, prevents more
than 6" of water from building up in the intersection during rain events, and removes
the intersection from the Norby's Pond watershed and Minnehaha Creek Watershed
0610Augsburg&73&1 st
KRISTIN ASxER, CITY ENGINEER
District. The proposed. storm sewer design provides infrastructure to convey the
water up 1St Avenue, across 72"d Street to Augsburg Park and into Augsburg Pond
(Project Map attached). A lift station is included in the design to give Augsburg
Pond an outlet to Wood Lake.
III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION
A. POLICY
• The 73~d Street and 1St Avenue Storm Sewer Project is identified as a high
priority by the City Council in the City's Comprehensive Surface Water
Management Plan.
• Council approval is required for expenditures over $25,000.
B. CRITICAL ISSUES
• The funding for the projects will be provided by he 2006 Storm Utility
Bond sale proceeds and must be spent down by October 2008 to avoid
arbitrage.
• WSB and Associates serves as the City'sstorm water engineer and has
been involved with the planning .and design of these projects.
C. FINANCIAL
• Nine bids were received for the 73~d Street & 1St Avenue Project; the .low
• bid was $876,407.41. The engineer's estimate was $1,225,552.00, so
the project is within the expectedbudget estimates.
• Eight bids were. received forthe Augsburg Pond Lift Station; the low bid
was $285,087.01... The engineer's estimate was $419,091.50, so the
project is within the expected budget estimates.
• The total estimated cost for the construction administration is $34,943 to
be paid on an hourly basis.
• The projects will be funded by the City's Storm Sewer Utility.
D. LEGAL
• The City Attorney will be available to answer questions.
• WSB & Associates is included in the City's engineering consultant pool
and this work would be completed as a work order.
E. ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS
• None.
IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION(S~
• The Council may .reject all bids and choose not to construct the
improvements at this time; however, the City is obligated to spend down
the 2006 Storm Utility Bond proceeds prior to October 2008 to avoid
arbitrage.
• The Council may choose not to approve the purchase of engineering
• services from WSB & Associates for the construction oversight of the lift
station construction.
V. ATTACHMENTS
• Bid minutes and tabulation for 73~d Street and 1St Avenue Storm Sewer
Project
• Bid minutes and tabulation for Augsburg Pond Lift Station Project
• Project Layout
• WSB Work Plan for construction inspection services.
VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING
• None anticipated.
•
•
~~-'~
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
U
Bid Opening
June 2, 2008
1:00 p.m.
73rd St. & 1st Ave. Stormwater Project
Bid No. 08-06
Pursuant to requirements of Resolution No. 1015, a meeting of the Administrative Staff
was called by Nancy Gibbs, City Clerk, who announced that the purpose of the meeting
was to receive, open and read aloud, bids for the 73rd St. & 1st Ave. Stormwater
Project, as advertised in the official newspaper on May 15 & 22, 2008.
Present: Nancy Gibbs, .City Clerk
Cheryl Krumholz, City Manager Representative
Derick Anderson, Civil Engineer
•
U
The following bids were submitted and read aloud:
Contractor Bid Security
(5%) Addendum
No. 1 Grand Total Bid
Burschville Construction, Inc. Provided Received $1,100,163.15
GL Contracting, Inc. Provided Received $1,019,659.51
Kuechle Underground, Inc. Provided Received $923,564.00
Lametti and Sons, Inc. Provided Received $1,243,711.00
Minger Construction, Inc. Provided Received $1,084,083.78
Nodland Construction Co. Provided Received $876,407.41
Northdale Construction Co.,
Inc. Provided Received $953,896.58
Northwest Asphalt, Inc. Provided Received $926,382.42
S.R. Weidema Provided Received $965,426.30
The City Clerk announced that the bids would be tabulated and considered at the
June 10, 2008 City Council Meeting.
Nancy Gibbs City Clerk
3-d--
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
•
Bid Opening
June 2, 2008
1:15 p.m.
Augsburg Pond Lift Station
Bid No. 08-07
Pursuant to requirements of Resolution No. 1015, a meeting of the Administrative Staff
was called by Nancy Gibbs, City Clerk, who announced that the purpose of the meeting
was to receive, open and read aloud, bids for the Augsburg Pond Lift Station, as
advertised in the official newspaper on May 15 & 22, 2008.
Present: Nancy Gibbs, City Clerk
Cheryl Krumholz, City Manager Representative
Derick Anderson, Civil Engineer
•
•
The following .bids were submitted and read aloud:
Contractor Bid (5%) rity Grand Total Bid
Burschville Construction, Inc. Provided $326,986.76
G.F. Jedlicki, fnc. Provided $337,649.00
Kuechle Underground, Inc. Provided $288,141.81
Lametti and Sons, Inc. Provided $441,723.00
Minger Construction, Inc. Provided $307,837.05
Northdale Construction Co. Provided $313,726.26
Penn Contracting, Inc. Provided $420,391.00
Veit & Company, Inc. Provided $285,087.01
The City Clerk announced that the bids would be tabulated and considered at the
June 10, 2008 City Council Meeting.
Nancy Gibbs City Clerk
!3-~
Proposed Lift Station
New 42" Storm Sewer
Legend
Existing Storm Sewer
Proposed- Storm Sewer
73rd Street & 1st Avenue
Drainage Improvement Project
'- ~.sB City of Richfield, MN
~A~~~,,,~. Proposed Improvements
0
N
W ~ E
125 250
O Feet
/ WSB l ~ ° ~f
&assnc- Infrastructure ^ Engineering a Planning ^ Construction 701 Xenia Avenue South
Suite 300
Minneapolis, MN 55416
Tel: 763 541-4800
Fax: 763 541-1700
June 3, 2008
Ms. Kristin Asher
City of Richfield
6700 Portland Avenue
Richfield, MN 55423
Re: Augsburg Pond Lift Station
Construction Services
City Project No. 53003
WSB Project No. 1532-19
Dear Ms. Asher:
As requested we have developed a work plan and fee to provide construction phase engineering services for
the Augsburg Pond Lift Station.
The tasks associated with the construction phase engineering services of this project are outlined below.
Task 1-Pre-construction-conference
This task will include preparation for and conducting the Pre-Construction Conference, preparing and
distributing the meeting minutes, and review and comment on-the contractor's preliminary construction
schedule.
Task 2 -Contract administration
The major responsibility of this task will be to support the field activities and to react to field conditions as
they are encountered so that modifications, adjustments, and/or corrections can be made, as necessary, to
meet the overall goals for the project. Anticipated activities include reviewing a detailed construction
schedule based on the approved preliminary schedule; monitoring of submittals and correspondence using a
document tracking system; reviewing progress schedule updates; responding to Request(s) for Information
(RFIs); identifying potential :change .orders; recommending potential change orders for, approval by the. City,.
as needed; providing final inspection; reviewing monthly applications for payment; and attending monthly
progress meetings/site visits.
Task 3 -Shop drawing and Equipment O&M Manual review
This task will involve receiving and logging all contractor submittals required by the contract documents;
reviewing and providing comments or approval of submittals as appropriate; returning submittals marked
with appropriate comments to the City, the contractor, and the construction observer; and maintaining files of
all submittals as received and as returned.
Task 4 -Construction staking
Construction staking will be provided at the lift station site and along the forcemain route for the contractor
to use as a reference for construction.
• Task 5 -Soils testing
WSB & Associates, Inc. will coordinate necessary soils and materials testing with the City's Geotechnical
Testing firm.. The scope of services proposed herein does not include performance of the soils and materials
testing services..
C: (Documents and SettingslKAsherlLocal SettingslTemporarylnternet FilesIOLK421LTR-Prop -kosher-060308.doc
y
Ms. Kristin Asher ..~
June 3, 2008 ~ ~J "' J
Page 2
Task 6 -Construction observation
WSB will provide construction observation to monitor construction and installation of the improvements.
We have estimated half-time construction observation over a period of 10 weeks, which is the time we
anticipate it will take to construct the lift station and storm sewer. Estimated time for the construction
observer is assumed to be 200 hours total.
Task 7 -Record drawing preparation
WSB will provide record drawings to the City based on the contractor's marked up record drawings. The
record drawings shall be included in the electronically formatted drawings using AutoCAD. ]n addition, two
hard copies of the record drawings will be submitted to the City for future-use.
SCHEDULE
It is the City's intent to have the project complete and operational by October 1, 2008. In order to meet this
construction completion date the following schedule is anticipated:
Council Accept Bids and Award Project....: .................:::............:...........:...... June 10, 2008
Preconstruction Meeting ...........: ..:......:..::.................:....:.:............................. June 23, 2008
Begin Construction ................::.....:......................:..............................._.......... June 30, 2008
Substantial Completion ..........: .........................:.:...:.............:..:.....::........ September 1, 2008
Final Construction Complete ........................................:.-..:.::....:.................October 1, 2008
PROPOSED FEE
• We propose to complete the tasks outlined above on an hourly basis with an estimated of $34,943. We will
review our progress monthly and will not exceed this amount without your prior approval:
We appreciate the opportunity to provide you with this scope of services and fee and look forward to
working with you on the construction phase portion of this project. If you have any questions, please contact
me at 763-512-5240.
Sincerely,
WSB & Associates, Inc.
Kevin F. Newman, PE
Project Manager
cc: Pete Willenbring, WSB & Associates, Ina
ACCEPTED BY:
Kristin Asher Date
City of Richfield
C: (Documents and SettingslKAsherlLocal SettingslTemporary Internet Files10LK421LTR-Prop - kosher-060308.doc
f
~J
~' STAFF REPORT
148
AGENDA SECTION: OTHER BIISINESS
AGENDA ITEM #
REPORT #
14
CITY COUNCIL MEETING
JUNE 10, 2008
•
REPORT PREPARED BY:
DEPARTMENT DIItECTOR
REVIEW:
REVIEWED BY CITY
MANAGER:
MARK L. HALL, FLEET BL PARK
SUPERVISOR
ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION:
Consideration of the purchase of a new sweeper/scrubber for use by the Garage Maintenance
Division.
I. RECOMMENDED ACTION:
By Motion: Approve the purchase of an Advance sweeper/scrubber
from Forklifts of Minnesota for $39,127.00 lus tax.
II. BACKGROUND
The new City Maintenance Facility will have approximately 72,000-sq. ft. of floor
space that will need to be swept and scrubbed on a regular basis. Our• street
sweepers cannot be used because they are too large and will not fit into the.
basement areas or the tuck under areas of the main shop. Also,-they are not
capable of washing the floor, only sweeping it.
At the Council's May 27, 2008 meeting, the Council tabled action on the purchase of
this machine until staff determined the costs to rent or lease this machine in
comparison to purchasing it.
• The City has the option to lease this machine instead of purchasing it. Fora 36-
month lease at $1,190.24 /month, the total cost would be $42,848.64 plus a $1.00
buyout. A 48- month lease would be $919.09 /month-for a total cost of $44,116.32
plus a $1.00 buyout. A 60-month lease would be $756.32 for a total cost of
061008sweeperscrubber
•
$45,379..20 plus a $1.00 buyout (See attachment). These machines are not
available for long term rental.
Purchase has been coordinated through the State of Minnesota Cooperative
Purchasing Program. Under this program, the State of Minnesota solicits bids from
a variety of dealers for specific motor pool equipment. The low bidder for the type
of equipment required is then awarded a contract to supply equipment to the
participating members of the Cooperative Purchasing Program at the low bid price.
The City of Richfield participates in this program. The low bid for the sweeper is
$39,127.00 from Forklifts of Minnesota.
Staff recommends purchasing the sweeper rather than leasing because of lower
overall cost.
III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION
A. POLICY
• The City of Richfield participates in the Minnesota State Cooperative
Purchasing Program
B. CRITICAL ISSUES
• Approval at the June 10; 2008 Council meeting will facilitate timely
delivery of the sweeper/scrubber.
•
C. FINANCIAL.
• Funding for this machine will be from the Furniture, Furnishings &
Equipment funding of the building project.
D. LEGAL
• When the purchase price of materials, merchandise, equipment, or
construction exceeds $25,000.00, authority to purchase shall be
submitted to the City Council for consideration.
E. ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS
• N/A
ALTERNATIVE KECOMMENDATION(S) ~
• Council may delay approval to a later meeting. Delayed approval, however,
will result in delayed delivery.
• Council may decide to lease machine, at an overall higher cost, which would
spread payments over a specified period of time. .
TTACHMENTS I
• Lease advertisement from Forklifts of Minnesota, Inc.
I V 1. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING I
• None
•
i
r'
----
_
i
06toin NEW labor-saving equipment r, fight away and day for the
equipment as it is being used.
Use the monthly tabor savings to make the monthly lease payments. You avoid the caprtoJ
approval process! - t
Preserve cash or other needs!
f ~
Established budget allocations are preserved and cash may be kept available for
operational and emergency needs
7
~ Stay within budget,
Leasing spreads payments our over severs! budget periods.
~ Lease payments can come out of operation, not capital budgets.
1
j Uwn the Equipment for $1.00 of the end o f the lease.
' '• Typically, municipalities ore unable to sign anon-rnnrefnble contract. That is whyAdvonce Leasing provides a municr`pa! addendum
~ with a "Non-Appro~hriations"clause. This important document provides the terms and conditions that o(lows the entity io
terminate the tease without penalty if funding for any subsequent year of the lease cannot 6e appropriated. _..__3
Typically Who's Eligible?~
i
i States * Counties ~ Public Universities and Colleges ~ Cities ~ Villages
Public School Districts ~ Towns ~ Townships ~ 1/o/unteer Fire Departments
* IRS Section 103 entities are typiplly eligible. Please consult your local governance for eligibility.
Get NEW Advance. labor saving equipment now and make no payments for 9D Days!'r
Term Multiplier Term Multiplier
24 .04583 36 .03176
documentation fee ($90 in PA} is due
This Advance Leasing special o f fer is goad from April l through June 30!
100 Prairie. Center Drive • Eden Prairie, MilenesQta 55344 • {888 384-5245
_ _,
!_'
- - .Quotation Nt55AN
rH~ io~cuFr. FORKLIFTS OF MINNESOTA, INC. Fi'iRKU1=t-
• I'O Box 20028 • SOF Wesc 78rh Sr • Bloomington, MN 55420
(9521887-5400 • FAX (952) 581-3030 • www.forkiifrsofrnn.cam
n, Sind IS49"
~M~MOV~ IAdvance
yrs,r.e
Lease Information
Lease payment does not include freight and taxes
$1.00 Purchase Options -Finance Leases
36 month dollar buy-out ,_ _ $ 1,190.24
48 month dollar buy-out ~ $ 919.09
60 month dollar buy-out ___ $ _,_ _ 756.32
Fair Market Value Lease O bons
FMV lease payments teased on tote! equipment value: $48,907.00 _ _ _
month FMV ~ $ 1,039.21
month -FMV - $ 891.31.
__.__-......______ -_ .__ _._..- _._.- _.. _--.._-- ~T^..---._ ... __-___.__.____
.month FMV.. ___.. _.. _ - . $ 745.37
tease rates subject to change.
A..~L~ Jl 97'L'G AA\/
•
~•
yS,3?9 ZO
/1 Jl
1 J
~~ STAFF REPORT
AGENDA SECTION:
AGENDA ITEM #
REPORT #
CITY COUNCIL MEETING
JUNE 10, 2008
OTHER BUSINESS
17
149
REPORT PREPARED BY: CORR,~iE HEINE, CITY ATTORNEY
' NAME, T/7ZE
REVIEWED BY CITY
MANAGER: ,N~~ v!~
ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION:
Receive information regarding utility relocation in connection with 66th Street and Portland
Avenue construction ro'ect and consider ossible liti ation.
L RECOMMENDED ACTION:
By Motion:
• Adjourn to Closed Executive Session to receive legal advice
concerning litigation to require utility relocation and to provide
direction.
In reconvened open session, if necessary,
By Motion:
• Authorize the City Attorney to commence litigation.
II. BACKGROUND .
The City has approved a project for the reconstruction of the intersection of 66th
Street. and Portland Avenue and has awarded a contract to Shafer Contracting; Inc.
to perform that work. City staff and consulting engineers have kept.affected utility
companies informed. about needed utility relocations throughout the development
and implementation of the project plans. Shafer Contracting, Inc. has reported,
however, that the utility companies are not performing the utility relocation in a
timely manner and that continued delays by the utility companies may result in
project delays and claims for additional costs. Delays could result in the project not
being completed during the 2008 construction season.
City staff has consulted with the City Attorney regarding potential litigation to force
the utility companies to perform in a timely manner. The City Attorney wishes to
meet with the Council in Closed Executive Session to discuss the risks, strategies
0610closed
and potential outcomes of such litigation. Following the Closed Session, the
Council may be asked to authorize the City Attorney to commence litigation.
III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION
A. POLICY
• It is in the public interest for the 66th Street and Portland Avenue
project to be completed in a timely manner without undue cost or
delay.
B. CRITICAL ISSUES
• Decays by the utility companies in relocating utilities could delay the
project, which could result in claims by the contractor for additional
costs.
• A delay in the project completion date, especially a delay until the
2009 construction season, would have an adverse impact on the
traveling public through a major intersection.
C. FINANCIAL
• Project delays could result in claims by the contractor.
• The City Attorney will provide an estimate of possible legal costs
during the Council discussion.
•
D. LEGAL
• The City Attorney has advised staff that absolute confidentiality is
necessary in order to discuss the legal issues, risks, and strategies of
litigation. Public disclosure of the City Attorney's discussion with the
~ Council could provide an advantage to the opponents in the litigation
that would be contrary to the public interest.
E. ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS
• None.
~w. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION(S)
• None.
VI. ATTACHMENTS
• The City Council packet will include a confidential memo from the City
Attorney; that attachment will not be included in the public packet because it
is classifed as not public data under the Minnesota Government Data
Practices Act.
V~I. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING I -
• None.