The URL can be used to link to this page

07-2-08 agendaU CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA TUESDAY, JULY 22, 2008 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 July 8,.2008 and (2) Regular City Council Meeting of July 8, 2008 PRESENTATIONS 1. Introduction of Richfield Firefighter Ed Odendahl 2. Funding recommendation by CHAT II for proposed new Police/Fire/City Hall facility COUNCIL DISCUSSION 3. Council discussion • Hats Off To Hometown Hits • Public Safety's second quarter report on certain Richfield liquor establishments Notes: . AGENDA APPROVAL 4. Council approval of agenda CONSENT CALENDAR 5. Consent Calendar contains several separate items, which are acted upon by the City Council in one motion. Once the Consent Calendar has been approved, the individual items and recommended actions have also been approved. No further Council action is _ necessary. However, any Council Member may request that an item be removed from the Consent Calendar and placed on the regular agenda for Council discussion and action. All items listed on the Consent Calendar are recommended for approval. A. Consideration of approval of first reading of ordinance requiring new single-family homes within 2007 DNL 63-64 and 1996 DNL 65-75 contours to use building materials with Sound Transmission Class of 40 or higher and installation of central air conditioning or mechanical ventilation; also new additions to existing single- family homes within 2007 DNL 63-64 and 1996 DNL 65-75 contours to use building materials meeting Sound Transmission Class of 40 or higher; and new single-family homes in 2007 DNL 60-62 contours to provide central air conditioning or mechanical ventilation; and new multi-family homes in 2007 DNL 60-64 contours provide central air conditioning or mechanical ventilation and scheduling second reading for August 12, 2008 S.R. No. 169 B. Consideration of approval of resolution authorizing acceptance of Mn/DOT Agreement No. 93124 between Mn/DOT and City of Richfield to receive federal funds to perform Safe Routes to School plan S:R. No. 170 C. Consideration of approval of resolution authorizing acceptance of $850 grant funds from Target Corporation for Public Safety/Police towards National Night Out costs and $100 donation from Residential Mortgage Group for Public Safety/Police K-9 unit and Police safety vests S.R. No. 171 D. Consideration of approval of change order No. 2 for removal of asbestos containing materials from project site in amount of $436,164.86 and amendment No. 1 to cooperative construction agreement between City and Mn/DOT for Richfield Lake Improvement Project S.R. No. 172 E. Consideration of approval of plans and authorizing advertisement for bids for replacement of Lyndale Avenue bridge over I-494 project; City Project 42000 S.R. No. 173 F. Consideration of approval of third amendment to cost participation agreement between Hennepin County and City of Richfield to receive additional County funds for 66th Street and Portland Avenue intersection project S.R. No. 174 G. Consideration of approval of preparing preliminary report for 2009 alley paving project S.R. No. 175 H. Consideration of approval of indemnification and hold harmless agreement with BP Products North America, Inc. relating to property at 6545 Portland Avenue S.R. No. 176 I. Consideration of approval of ratifying three change orders to Shafer Contracting for 66th Street and Portland Avenue intersection construction project: • Change Order No. 2 -include relocation of signal interconnection system wiring through intersection for added cost of $30,097; • Change Order No. 3 -include temporary lighting for intersection and purchase of changeable message signs for traffic control use and education for added cost of $68,968.32; and • Change Order No. 4 -underground electrical services at Victoria Manor Apartments, Nilsen Funeral Home, Sinclair Station and apartment building at 6601 Fifth Avenue for added cost of $44,077 S.R. No. 177 J. Consideration of approval of scheduling public. hearing on August 12, 2008 regarding issuance of new on-sale intoxicating and Sunday liquor licenses with optional 2 a.m. closing for Richfield Hotel Associates d/b/a Ramada Inn, 7745 Lyndale Avenue S.R. No. 178 Notes: 6. Consideration of items, if any, removed from Consent Calendar Notes: PROPOSED ORDINANCES 7. Consideration of first reading of ordinance amending Subsections 930.01, 930.03, 930.05, 930.11 and 930.1.3 of Richfield City Code relating to regulation of noise and scheduling second reading for August .12, 2008 Staff Report No. 179 Notes: 8. Consideration of first reading of ordinance amendment to Richfield City Code Section 1325 regulating outdoor storage and parking of recreation vehicles and scheduling second reading for August 12, 2008 Staff Report No. 180 Notes: 9. Consideration of second reading of ordinance amendment to Richfield City Code Section :1320 establishing regulations for storage of oversize vehicles in residential districts and approving resolution authorizing summary publication of ordinance (tabled from May 27, 2008) Staff Report No. 181 Notes: 10. Consideration of second .reading of ordinance amending Richfield City Code Sections 549.09, 549.25(b) and 549.25(c) and repealing Subsection 549.25(f) related to functionality and placement of dynamic signs Staff Report No. 182 Notes: 11. Consideration of second reading of Richfield City Code by repealing Subsection 509.17 and amending Subsections 925.01, Subd. 4(a) related to clear visibility at certain intersections . Staff Report No. 183 . • Notes: OTHER BUSINESS 12. Consideration of supplemental agreement with Shafer Contracting for extending project .limits further east on 66th Street from Oakland to Columbus Avenue for 66th Street/Portland Avenue intersection project Staff Report No. 184 Notes: 13. Consideration of bid minutes/tabulation and award contract to Eureka Construction, Inc. for 6300 block of Lyndale Avenue project in amount of $1,210,948.80 and purchasing construction engineering services from WSB & Associates to provide construction oversight services required to complete the project in amount of $96,956 Staff Report No. 185 Notes: CITY MANAGER'S REPORT 14. City Manager's report • Cancel Regular City Council Meeting of August 26, 2008 • Schedule 2008 Revised/2009 Proposed Budget worksession(s) to - Tuesday, August 19; Wednesday, August 20; Thursday, August 21 or Tuesday, August 26 • Reschedule Regular City Council Meeting of Tuesday September 9, 2008 to Thursday, September 11, 2008 due to primary election Notes: 15. Claims and payrolls Open forum (additional 15 minutes if more time needed after first Open Forum and by majority vote of the City Council) Each speaker is to keep their comment period to three minutes to allow sufi:cient time for others. Comments are to be an opportunity to address the Council on items not on the agenda. Individuals who wish to address the Council must have registered prior to the meeting. _ ~ Notes: 16. Adjournment Auxiliary aids for individuals with disabilities are available upon request. Requests must be made at least 96 hours in advance to the City: Clerk at 612-861-9738. • STAFF REPORT CONSENT 5A 169 AGENDA SECTION: AGENDA ITEM # REPORT # CITY COUNCIL MEETING JULY 22, 2008 REPORT PREPARED BY: CHRISTINE COSTELLO, COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT SPECIALIST NAME, TITLE • INTERIM DEPARTMENT ~( DIRECTOR REVIEW: ~QJ REVIEWED BY CITY MANAGER: ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION: Consideration of a first reading of an ordinance that would .require new single-family homes within the 2007 DNL 63-64 and 1996 DNL 65-75 contours to use building materials with a ' Sound Transmission Class of 40 or higher and the installation of central air conditioning or mechanical ventilation; also new additions to existing single-family homes within the 2007 DNL 63-64 and 1996 DNL 65-75 con#ours to use building materials meeting a Sound Transmission Class of 40 or higher; and new single-family homes in the 2007 DNL 60-62 contours to provide central air conditioning or mechanical ventilation; and new multi-family homes in the 2007 DNL 60-64 contours provide central air conditioning or mechanical ventilation. I. RECOMMENDED ACTION: By Motion: Conduct a first reading of an ordinance that would require new single-family homes within the 2007 DNL 63-64 and 1996 DNL 65-75 contours to use building materials with a Sound Transmission Class of 40 or higher and the installation of central air conditioning or mechanical ventilation; also new additions to existing single-family homes within the 2007 DNL 63-64 and 1996 DNL 65-75 contours to use building materials meeting a Sound Transmission Class of 40 or higher; and new single-family homes, in the 2007 DNL 60-62 contours to provide .central air conditioning or mechanical ventilation; and. new multi-family homes in the 2007 DNL 60-64 contours provide central air conditioning or mechanical ventilation and schedule a second reading for August 12, 2008. 072208-Consent Decree Ordinance II. BACKGROUND In 2005 the Cities of Richfield, Minneapolis, and Eagan were parties to litigation against the Metropolitan Airports Commission (MAC) to ensure that residents receive mitigation from airport noise that they were promised more than ten years previously when the State of Minnesota decided to expand the Minneapolis-St. Paul International Airport (MSP) at its existing site. In October 2007 the lawsuit was settled, and under the terms of the settlement MAC will provide varying degrees of noise mitigation measures to single and multi-family homes. This will provide noise relief to approximately 1,200 homeowners in the community. Additionally, as part of the settlement, all the cities must present to their City Council a draft ordinance for airport noise attenuation by September 1, 2008 as outlined in the settlement's consent decree. The ordinance as required in the consent decree to be considered, would require: • For new single-family homes within the 2007 DNL 63-64 and 1996 DNL 65- 75 contours to use building materials with a Sound Transmission Class of 40 or higher and the installation of central air conditioning or mechanical ventilation; • New additions to existing single-family homes within the 2007 DNL 63-64 and 1996 DNL 65-75 contours to use building materials meeting a Sound Transmission Class of 40 or higher; • New single-family homes in the 2007 DNL 60-62 contours to provide central air conditioning or mechanical ventilation; and • New multi-family homes in the 2007 DNL 60-64 contours provide central air conditioning or mechanical ventilation. On June 24, the City Council, ,Housing and Redevelopment Authority (HRA) and Planning Commission held a worksession regarding the City's requirement per the consent decree. At the worksession concerns about the draft ordinance were discussed. While the consent decree requires this ordinance to be presented to the City Council, the Council is not required to adopt it. III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION A. POLICY • As a community affected by MSP, the Metropolitan Council requires that Richfield include a noise program in our 2008 Comprehensive Plan update. Within six months of approval of the Comprehensive Plan update by the Metropolitan Council, the City Council will have to. adopt a land use ordinance to prevent or mitigate aircraft noise impacts on the community. • Whatever direction the City Council directs staff on an ordinance, staff will also work on an education outreach to property owners, builders, remodelers, and real estate agents regarding the ordinance requirements. • Additional educational outreach will include a handout that any property owner can pick up regarding insulating homes against aircraft noise. It is important that regardless whether homeowners are located in the area to receive noise insulation or not, the option to receive information advising them to know what they can do to insulate their home is useful. B. CRITICAL ISSUES • The City Council is not required to adopt the draft ordinance before them; the Council can direct staff to develop an ordinance that is more suitable for Richfield. The settlement only requires that the Council be presented this ordinance by September 1, 2008. The Council is not required to adopt it. • There are concerns that the attached ordinance requirements for additions would discourage property owners from making improvements to their property. • Home improvement products with an STC rating of 40 or higher can not be purchased from a local home improvement store. They need to be specially ordered, since most products such as windows and doors with an STC of 40 are considered acoustically engineered. • The attached ordinance would increase the staff review time for property owners applying for home improvement permits. Plans would take longer to review since most property owners come to the City with plans already drawn and proposed materials already budgeted for the project. These ordinance requirements for additions especially, would require redrafting of plans and budgets. The additional time and money would discourage many home improvements. C. FINANCIAL • The attached ordinance will increase home improvement costs to property owners, especially for additions, since these are unexpected costs when considering remodeling. D. LEGAL • Legal counsel has reviewed the attached ordinance to ensure that it meets the requirements of the consent decree. • The second reading and public hearing will be held before the City Council on August 12, 2008. E. ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS • There are concerns that increased sound levels from aircraft can interfere with functions at work or disrupt sleep. ALTERNATIVE KECOMMENDATION(S,- ~ • Reject the motion to approve the attached ordinance and direct staff to revise and/or rewrite an ordinance that is more in keeping with the goals of the community. V . ATTACHMENTS ~ • Ordinance • 1996 and 2007 Noise Contour Map ~ VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING ~ • 5A-I BILL NO. AMENDMENT TO RICHFIELD CITY CODE SECTION 507.07, SUBDIVISION 31 SECTION 507.07, SUBDIVISION 111 SECTION 544.29 THE CITY OF RICHFIELD DOES ORDAIN: Section 507.07, Subdivision 31 of the code of the City of Richfield is amended to read as follows: 507.07, Subdivision 31 "Day-Night Average Sound Level (DNL)"-The dav- night average sound level is a measure of the average noise environment over a 24-hour day: It is the 24-hour energy-averaged A-weighted sound level with a 10 decibel penalty applied to nighttime levels which occur between 10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m. 2. Section 507.07 is amended so all subdivisions, starting with "Director", are • renumbered by increasing their subdivision number by one (1). 3. Section 507.7, Subdivision 111 of the code of the City of Richfield is amended to read as follows: 507.07, Subdivision 111. "Sound Transmission Class (STC)" - A single-number rating for describing the degree of sound transmission loss specified for a wall, window, partition or other building element: The higher the STC, the more attenuation the building element will afford. 4. Section 507.07 is amended so all subdivisions, starting with "Stall depth", are renumbered by increasing their subdivision number by one (1). 5. Section 544.29 of the code of the City of Richfield is amended to read as follows: 544.29. Airport Noise Attenuation. Subdivision 1. New single-family dwellings. new additions to existing single-family dwellings, and new multi- family dwellings shall be constructed with materials and in such a manner that aircraft noise is attenuated by the structure to have no adverse impact on health, safety, and general welfare of residents. Subd. 2. Additions to Single-Family Dwellings. An improvement project which expands the habitable area of a dwelling in the 1996 65+ DNL contours and 2007.63-64 DNL contours must use materials with a sound transmission class (STC) rating of at least 40 or higher in order to achieve noise attenuation in the expanded structure. 072208-Consent Decree Ordinance ~~ Subd. 3. New InfilllTeardown/Rebuild Single-Family Dwellings. Construction within the area of 1996 65+ DNL contours and 2007 63-64 DNL contours shall utilize materials with a STC rating of at .least 40 and shall install central air conditioning or mechanical ventilation. Subd. 4. New Single-Family Dwellings. Construction within the 2007 60-62 DNL contours shall install central air conditioning or mechanical ventilation. Subd. 5. New Mutli-Family Dwellings. Construction within the 2007 60-64 DNL contour shall install central air conditioning or mechanical ventilation. Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this day of August, 2008. Debbie Goettel, Mayor ATTEST: n LJ Nancy Gibbs, City Clerk 3 ~ ~ L /~\ ~ W 3 Q C ~ 3 y~ O O U ~ c Z U T 3 V ° Z p U Z~ ~ o `" ~ ~ N ~~ ~ O ~ ~ III }+ O UZ 0 e R `1 f"-'-` F ~~ ® ~ €C~ -' ~ ~. ' C~ ~®~~ , ~' ~ ®~E~f ~~f' i`4~41 '~~~(~T{-~~{H--~~t+-{H~'}1i~{{1 N yE}r~}pF~~p}~~- ~TTT®TTµ~~{ (~T~`iT~I E®~ ~ (~~ ~ g> ®®LWILI.L~~1. LLLLLWJIII.LLLLllL W~llll1W® ~$k~ ~~ ~~~E~ ~ '~ - ~® ~ ~ ~ qLL'~LLj~LL17}llp LLJ1LL1J ~ e e ~ a E a ~Qµ-7~3~{~g}~µ7~~ ®(~7{~~--~~~~~^;' ~ ~ 1 ~3 yil~L~W~p_pW~ ~ U C ?~ LL11LLLl®~ W11JJ1J ~~+T~ OL1L'lll ~ '~ LLLLl:~ I_L:JJ ~ Jl_ ® _ 131jtl 1~~ ~ ~ ~~'~~, • AGENDA SECTION: CONSENT AGENDA ITEM # 5B REPORT # 170 J STAFF REPORT CITY COUNCIL MEETING JULY 22, 2008 REPORT PREPARED BY: NAME, TITLE • DEPARTMENT DIlZECTOR REVIEW: REVIEWED BY CITY MANAGER: TOM FOLEY, TRANSPORTATION ENGINEER ~-- ITEMFOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION: Consideration of Mn/DOT Agreement No. 93124 to receive federal funds to develop a Safe Routes to School Ian. I. RECOMMENDED ACTION: By Motion: Adopt the attached resolution to approve Mn/DOT Agreement No. 93124 between Mn/DOT and the City of Richfield to receive Federal funds to perform a Safe Routes to School plan. II. BACKGROUND The City is proposing a federal aid project to develop a Safe Routes to School plan for both public and private kindergarten through eighth grade schools in Richfield. An agency agreement with the Minnesota Department of Transportation is needed in order to allow Mn/DOT to pass through federal funds to the City of Richfield so that the City can finance the study. III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION A. POLICY • Two of the goals of the updated Comprehensive Plan are to fill gaps in the city's sidewalk network and to improve safety for pedestrians and bicyclists. 0722safero utestoschoo I B. CRITICAL ISSUES ' • • Many school children and their parents are reluctant to walk or bike to school because they are concerned that the. routes are unsafe. C. FINANCIAL • The estimated cost of the Safe Routes to School project is $50,000. • The federal grant will cover 100% (up to $50,000.00) of the cost of the study. D. LEGAL • The City Attorney has reviewed the enclosed. agency agreement. E. ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS. • As a planning study there are no environmental impacts. IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION(S~ • Council may choose to reject the agency agreement. Therefore, the City would not conduct the Safe Routes to School Study. V. ATTACHMENTS • Resolution • ,Agency Agreement #93124 between Mn/DOT and the City of Richfield, SP 157-591-01. VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING • None anticipated. • ~~3~-1 RESOLUTION NO. • RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING ACCEPTANCE OF AGENCY AGREEMENT N0.93124 BETWEEN THE MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION AND THE CITY OF RICHFIELD FOR FEDERAL PARTICIPATION IN THE RICHFIELD SAFE ROUTES TO SCHOOL STUDY. WHEREAS, the City of Richfield is proposing to use $50,000 of federal funds to do a safe routes to school study to improve safety for elementary school children who walk or bike to school in Richfield; and WHEREAS, the project is eligible for the expenditure of federal funds and is identified by the City of Richfield as City Project 41002, and is identified by the Minnesota Department of Transportation records as State Project SP 157-591-01, and is identified in Federal records as Minnesota Project SRTS 2709(070); and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that pursuant to Minnesota Stat. Sec. 161.36, the Commissioner of Transportation be appointed as Agent of the City of Richfield to accept as its agent, federal aid funds which may be made available for eligible transportation related projects. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Mayor. and the City Manager of the. City of Richfield are hereby authorized and directed for and on behalf of the City to execute and • enter into an agreement with the Commissioner of Transportation prescribing he terms and conditions of said federal aid participation as set forth and contained in "Minnesota Department of Transportation Agency Agreement Na 93124," a copy of which said agreement was before the City Council and which is made a part hereof by reference. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this 22"d day of July 2008. Debbie Goettel, Mayor ATTEST: Nancy Gibbs, City Clerk • 0722saferoutestoschool 58-a • Mn/DOT Agreement No. _93124 STATE OF MINNESOTA AGENCY AGREEMENT BETWEEN DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION AND THE CITY OF RICHFIELD FOR FEDERAL PARTICIPATION IN PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING FOR S.P_ i57-591-01; SRTS 2709(070) This agreement is entered into by and between the City of Richfield {City) and the State of Minnesota_acting_through its C-ommissioner of Transportation ("Mn/DOT"), Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes .Section 161.36, the City desires Mn/DOT to act as the City's agent in accepting fedei`al funds on the Cit_v's behalf for the constntction, improvement, or enhancement of transportation financed either in whole or in part by federal funds; hereinafter referred. to as the '`Project' ;and • The City is proposing a federal aid project to develop a Safe Routes to School plan for the following schools in ISD 2.80, St. Peter's, St. Richards, Centennial Elementary, Sheridan Hills Elementary, Mt. Calvary; Partnership Academy, Richfield High, Richfield Inte?rnediate, and Richfield Middle, referred to as the "Preliminary Engineering," and The Preliminary Engineering is eligible for the expenditure of federal aid funds, and is identified . in MnIDOT records as State Project 157-591-01; and in Federal Highway Administration ("FHWA") records as Minnesota Project SRTS 2709(070); and MnlDOT requires that the terms and conditions of this agency be set forth in an agreement. TI-~ PARTIES AGREE AS FOLL:O WS L DUTIES OF CITY A. DESIGNATIOiv7. The City designates Mni`DOT to act as its agent in accepting federal funds in its behalf made available for the Project. B. ~ELIGiBILITY /COSTS. The estimated cost of the Safe Routes to School project is $SO;000AO_ 1. it is antici ated that i - p 00% (up to $0,000.00) of the cost of the Preliminary Engineering is to'be paid from federal funds made available by the FHWA. The (!"~iDOT Agreeme^t No. 93124) cage i 5~3 -3 City will pay any part of the cost or expense of the work that the FHWA does not Pay 2. Any costs incurred by the City prior to authorization of the Federal Funds, will not be eligible for federal participation. 3. Eligible cost and expense, if approved, may consist of the following: a) The cost of developing Safe Routes to School Plan for the following schools in ISD 280: St. Peter's, St. Richards, Centennial Elementary, Sheridan Hills Elementary, Mt. Calvary, Partnership Academy, Richfield High, Richfield Intermediate, and Richfield Middle The plan must address: 1. Public involvement i. Create two SRTS Task Forces, one to include representatives from all District elementary schools and one for all middle schools. The SRTS Task Forces wii: L. guide and direct the study process, 2. help organize public involvement events, 3. review all materials and :provide important feedback to be considered in the development of the plan and in evaluation activities. ii. Host a Community Open House to be held after the data collection phase to provide a final feedback opportunity on the evaluation of existing conditions and the proposed improvements. At this-work session, the documentation of existing conditions, including .information from the evaluations, audits, assessments and surveys, will be presented. input from the community and school will be used to develop a comprehensive list of solutions to overcome the issues that prevent students from walking and bicycling to school. 2. Data Collection and Analysis. i. Collect and analyse data on the following: 1. home addresses of enrolled students, ?_ crash data, 3. traffic counts near each school 4. vehicle speeds near each school. ii. Conduct Walking and Bicycling Audits. Task Force,members will walk the routes near schools during morning arrival and afternoon departure periods to gain an understanding of issues such as missing sidewalks, lack of marked crosswalks or .proper signing. iii. Conduct surveys of parents, children'and teachers seeking input on input on how we ISD 280 can provide safer walking and bicycling routes to encourage walking and biking to school. The surveys will used to measure changes in attitudes and walking/bi.king behaviors over time. 3. Write a SRTS plan withrecommendations for each of the four E's. Using. the information obtiained through-data collection and public outreach. ~ lz/D~' AJreement No. 93124) ~~rt~ ~ ~~ i_ Engineering. Provide,by school, a specific List of operational • and ,physical improvements to the infrastnicture surrounding the schools. The improvements must range from short-term low cost improvements to long-term higher cost improvements. Recommended improvements could include, but are not limited to the construction of missing sidewalk segments and bike lanes, installation or improvement of traffic controls, or modification of streets using traffic-calming measures such as raised crosswalks, center-island narrowing or chokers. ii. Education and Encouragement. An implementation plan that includes educational and promotional components will be prepared to compliment the recommended infrastnicture improvements. Based upon feedback from the Task Forces, the educational component could include the development of SRTS tools for teachers, students and parents_ These could_ include best .practices for increasing safety knowledge for walking and biking to school, educating parents and students about the benefits of these types of travel and finding creative ways to celebrate and encourage the walking and biking to school of District 280 children. iii. Enforcement. Develop a plan that includes the partnership of Wayzata ISD 280 and local law enforcement officials that targets the enforcement of motorists who fail to yield to pedestrians or who exceed speed limits in school zones. The .plan shall also provide recommendations of new laws and enforcement strategies for for existing laws. b) The direct labor charges for City employees for the time. that said employees are performing work pursuant to this agreement. Said labor charges may include the prorate share of "labor additives" applicable to said labor charges. Costs to the City of "labor additives" consisting of holiday pay, vacation, sick leave, retirement, pension, unemployment taxes; compensation and liability insurance, lost time charges and similar costs incidental to labor employment will be reimbursed only.when supported by adequate records. c) The applicable equipment rental. charges for City owned equipment used by the City and mileage charges for employee owned vehicles used by the City on work performed pursuant to this agreement; at rates reflective of the City's actual cost. d) Expenditures for materials; supplies, mechanical data processing and equipment rental, limited to the actual expenditures for the purposes of this agreement. e) The cost incurred by the City to employ outside forces to perform any or all of • the work pursuant to this agreement, subject to the prodisions of section I_D. SUBLETTING. 4. Expenditures for jeneral administration, supervision, maintenance and other (Mn/DOT Agreement No. 9312Il) Page 3 5U'-S overhead or incidental expenses of the City are not .eligible for federal participation. 5. Acceptability of costs under this agreement will be determined in accordance with the cost principles and procedures set forth in the applicable Federal Acquisition Regulations, Contract Cost Principals and Procedures, 48 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 31 which is hereby incorporated by reference and made a part of this agreement. C. STAFFING. 1. 'The City will designate a publicly employed engineer, ("Project Manager"), to be in responsible charge of the Project and to supervise and direct the work performed under any contract let for the Project. If the City elects to use a private consultant for project management services, the City will provide a qualified, fuil- -time public employee of the City, to be in responsible charge of the Project. The services of the City to be performed pursuant to this agreement may not be assigned, sublet, or transfe~ed unless Community is notified in writing by NIn/DOT that. such action is permitted under 23 CFR 1.33 and 23 CFR 535:105 and state law. This written consent will in no way relieve City from its primary responsibility forperformance of the work. 2. During the progress of the `work on the Project, the City authorizes its Project Manager to request in writing specific engineering and/or technical services from Mn/DOT,. pursuant to .Minnesota Statutes Section 1b1.39. Such services rriay be covered by other technical service agreements. if Mn/DOT' furnishes the services requested, and if Mn/DOT requests reimbursement, then the City must promptly pay Mn/DOT to reimburse the state trunk :highway fund for the full cost and expense of furnishing such services. The costs and expenses will include the current Mn/DOT labor additives and overhead rates, subject to adjustment based on actual direct costs that have been verified by audit. Provision of such services will not be .deemed to make 1VInIDOT a principal or co-principal- wiTh respect to the Project. 3. The City will famish the personnel, services, supplies, and equipment necessary to properly supervise, inspect, and document the work for the Project. D. SUBLETTING. The City will prepare request for proposals in accordance with Minnesota law acid applicable Federal laws and regulations. 1. The City will solicit proposals for Project Management after obtaining written .notification from Mn/DOT that the FHWA has authorized .the Project: Ariy Project advertised prior to authorization will not be ~ehgible for federal reimbursement. 2. The City will prepare the request for proposal, which will include all of the federal-aid provisions supplied by Mn/DOT. 3. The City will prepare and publish the proposals. solicitation for the Project as (Mn/DOT Agreement No. 93124) ~' required by state and federal laws. The City will include in the solicitation the . required language for federal-aid contracts as supplied by Mn/DOT. The solicitation will state where the City will receive the sealed proposals. 4. The City may not include other work in the contract for the authorized Project without obtaining prior notification from Mn/DOT that such work is allowed by FHWA. Failure to obtain such notification may result in the loss of some or all of the federal funds for the Project. 5. The City will prepare proposal packages and prepare and distribute any addendums, if needed. 6. The City will receive open, and evaluate proposals 7. After the .proposals are opened, the City will consider the proposals begin negotiations on the price of the Project Management in accordance with the practice commonly known as Quality Based Selection. If the proposal contains a goal far Disadvantaged Business Enterprises, the City will not award the bid until it has received certification of the Disadvantaged Business Enterprise participation from the MnlDOT Equal Employment Opportunity Office. 8. This written consent will in no way relieve the City from its primary responsibility for performance of the work.. Subcontractor ab eements must contain all appropriate terms and conditions of this agreement. E. CONTRACT ADMINISTRATION. 1. The City is responsible for all costs in excess of the amount of federal t~lnds. 2. The City will prepare reports, keep records, and perform work so as to enable Mn/DOT to collect the federal aid sought by the City. The City will retain all records and reports in accordance. with Mn/DOT's record. retention schedule for . federal aid projects. - 3. Upon completion of the Project, the Project Manager will determine whether the `work will be accepted. F. PAYMENTS_ 1. The entire cost of the Project is to be paid from federal funds made available by tl?e FI-IWrA and by nYher fi~ndS provided by tine City. The City will pay any part of the cost or expense of the Project that is not paid by federal funds. 2. The City may request partial payments not more than once each thirty (30) days. The Project Engineer will certify each partial payment. 3. The invoice and supplements thereto, will contain all details that may be necessary for a proper audit. Such details will. consist of at least the following: iMn/DOT Agreement .No. 93124) ?age 5 ~~ (a) A breakdown of labor by individual, classification, dates and hours worked times the. applicable rate to arrive at a total dollar amount for each individual. (b) The labor additive shall be applied to total labor dollars. (c) The equipment charges shall be broken down by type of equipment times the applicable rate and dates used to arrive at total equipment charges. (d) A detailed breakdown of outside services used and supporting invoices and documentation that costs of outside services have been paid. (e) Detail for materials, supplies, and other items with the description, units, and unit prices included in the invoice. If materials or supplies are purchased from an outside source, a copy of that invoice should be included. (f) The invoices will include 100% of eligible charges applicable to the Preliminary Engineering so that the prorata share of federal and City/County participation can be applied to the total costs. • 4. Following certification of the final estimate, the City may request reimbursement for costs eligible for federal funds. The City' request will be made to Mn/DOT and will include a copy of the certified final estimate along with the required records. 5. Reimbursement of costs under this agreement will be based on actual costs. G. LIMITATIONS. 1. The City will comply with all applicable Federal, State, and local laws, ordinances, and regulations. 2. Nondiscrimination. It is the policy of the FH~VA and the State of Minnesota that no person in the United States will, on the grounds of race, color, or national origin, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance (42 U:S.C. 2000d}. Through expansion of the mandate for :nondiscrimination in Title VI and through parallel legislation, e prescribed bases of discrimination include race, color, sex, national origin, age, and disability. Iu addition, the Title VI program has been extended to cover. all programs; activities and services of an entity receiving Federal financial assistance, whether such programs. and activities are Federally assisted or riot. • Even in the absence of prior discriminatory practice or usage, a recipient in administering a program or activity to which this part applies, is expected to take . affirmative action to assure that no .person is excluded from participation in, or is denied the benefits of, the program ar activity on the grounds of race, color, (Mn/DOT Agreement No_ 93124) Paae 6 ~-- 8 national origin, sex, age, or disability. It is the responsibility of the City to carry • • out the above requirements. 3. Workers' Compensation. Any and all employees of the City or other persons while engaged in the performance of any work or services required or permitted by the City under this agreement will not.be considered employees of Mn/DOT, and .any and ail claims that may arise under .the Workers' Compensation Act of Minnesota on behalf of said employees, or other persons while so engaged, will in no way be the' obligation or responsibility of IVin/DOT. The City will require proof of Workers' Compensation Insurance from any contractor and sub- contractor. H. AUDIT. 1. The City will comply with. the Single Audit Act of 1984 and Office of Management and Budget {OMB) circular A-133 including amendments and successors thereto, which are incorporated herein by reference. 2. As provided under Minnesota Statutes Section 16C.0~, subdivision 5, all books, records, documents, and accounting procedures and practices of the City are subject to examination by the United States Government, Mn/DOT, and either the Legislative Auditor or the State Auditor as appropriate, for a minimum of six years. The City will be responsible•for any costs associated with the performance of the audit. i. MAINTENANCE. The City assumes full responsibility for the operation .and maintenance of any facility constructed or improved under this Agreement. In the alternative under separate agreement between the City and International Falls, the City may elect to have International- Falls assume full responsibility for the operation and maintenance of any facility constructed or improved hereunder. J. CLAIMS. The City acknowledges that Mn/DOT is acting only as the City's agent for acceptance and disbursement-of federal funds, and not as a principal or co- principal with respect to the Project. The City will pay any and ail lawful claims arising out of or incidental to the Project including, without limitatior-, claims related to contractor selection (including the solicitation, evaluation, and acceptance or rejection of bids -or proposals), acts or omissions in performing the Project work, and any ultra vires acts. The City will indemnify, defend {to the extent permitted by the Minnesota Attorney. General), and hold Mn/DOT harmless from any claims or costs arising out of or incidental to the Project, ~„ .ng re ~ ~P r y ~' A •n~ a by ~~ mC;T. Tt,o r--,-y, nc.~d• a~onab.., a~torne ~e.,s u~.,urreu i irL i ut. li1L S indemnification obligation extends to any actions .related to the certification of DBE participation, even if such actions are recommended by Mn/DOT. II. DUTIES OF Mn/DOT. A_ ACCEPTANCE. Mn/DOT acce is desi nation as A ent of the Cit for the P g g Y receipt- and, disbursement of federal funds and will act in accordance herewith. --_ _ __ (NL*i/DOT Agreement No. 93124) rage i. ~~~ B. PROJECT ACTIVITIES. • 1. Mn/DOT will make the necessary requests to the FHWA for authorization to use federal funds for the Project, and for reimbursement of eligible costs pursuant to the terms of this agreement. 2. Mn/DOT will provide to the City copies of the required Federal-aid clauses to be included in the proposal solicitation and will provide the required- Federal-aid provisions to be included in the Proposal 3. Mn/DOT will review and certify the DBE participation and notify the City when certification is complete. If certification of DBE participation cannot be obtained, then the City must decide whether to proceed with awarding the contract. Failure to obtain such certification will result in the project becoming ineligible for federal assistance, and the City must make up any shortfall C. PAYMENTS. 1. Mn/DOT will receive the federal funds paid by the FHWA for the Project, pursuant to Minnesota Statutes § 161.36, Subdivision 2. 2. MnIDOT will review and certify each partial pay request. Following certification of the partial estimate, lvln/DOT will reimburse the City, from said federal funds made available to the Project, for each partial .payment request, subject to the availability and limits of those funds. . 3. Upon completion of the Project, the City will prepare a final payment request m accordance with the terms of this agreement. MnIDOT wild review and certify the final payment request with a final audit., 4. No more than 90% of the reimbursement due under this agreement will be paid until completion of the final audit and approval by' MnIDOT's auth©rized representative. 5. If Mn/DOT does not obtain funding from the FH~%A or other funding source, or funding cannot be continued at a sufficient level to allow for the processing of the federal aid reimbursement requests, the City may continue the work with local funds only, until such time as Mn/DOT is .able to process the federal aid reimbursement requests. D. AUTHORITY. MnIDOT may withhold federal funds; if Mn1DOT or the FH~vTJA determines that the Project was not completed in .compliance with federal requirements. - E. INSPECTION. Mn/DOT, the FHWA, or duly authorized representatives of the state and federal government will have the right to audit, evaluate and monitor the work performed under this agreement. The City will'-make available all books, records, and documents pertaining to the work hereunder; for a minimum of seven years following the closing of the construction contract. (hIn/DOT Agreement No. 9312) r..'.,. o ~~i~ III. AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVES. Each authorized representative will have responsibility to administer this agreement and to ensure that all payments due to the other party are paid pursuant to the-terms of this agreement. A. The City's authorized representative is Kristin Asher, Transportation Engineer, City of Richfield, .6700 Portland Avenue; Richfield, MN 55423, 612-86I-9745, or her successor. B. MnIDOT's authorized representative is Kristie Billiar, Minnesota Department of Transportation, Office of Transit, Mail Stop 315, St Paul, MN 55155, phone 651- 366-4164, or her successor. IV. TORT LIA$ILITY. Each party is responsible for its own acts and omissions and the results thereof to the extent authorized by law and will not be responsible for the acts and omissions of any others and the results thereof' The Minnesota Tort Claims Act, Minnesota Statutes Section 3.736, governs Mn/DOT liability. V. ASSIGNMENT. Neither party will assign or transfer any rights or obligations under this agreement without prior written approval of the other party. VI. AMENDMENTS. Any amendments/supplements to this Agreement must be in writing and be executed by the same parties who executed the original agreement, or their successors in office. VII. TERM OF AGREEMENT. This agreement will be effective upon execution by the City and by appropriate State officials, pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Section i6C.05, and will remain in effect for two {2} years from the. effective date or until all obligations set forth in this agreement have been satisfactorily fulfilled, whichever occurs first. VIII. TERMINATION.. This agreement may be terminated by the City or Mn/DOT at any time, with or without cause, upon ninety (90) days written notice to the other party. Such termination will not remove any unfulfilled financial obligations of the City as set forth in this Agreement: In the event of such a termination the City will be entitled to reimbursement for Mn/DOT-approved federally eligible expenses incurred for work satisfactorily performed on the Project to the date of termination subject to the terms of this agreement. • (Mn/DOT Agreement No. 93124) Page 9 ~~~ • IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have caused this Agreement to be duly executed intending to be bound thereby. City DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION City certifies that the appropriate person(s) By: have executed the contract on its behalf as required by applicable resolutions, ordinances, or charter Title: Director. provisions State Aid for Local Transportation Date: By: Date: CO.MIuLISSIONER OF ADMINISTRATION By: Title: By: Date: Title: • (Mn/DOT Agreement Nc_ 93124} aar.o 1 n • AGENDA SECTION: AGENDA ITEM # REPORT # ~~ STAFF REPORT CITY COUNCIL MEETING JULY 22, 2008 • REPORT PREPARED BY: JILL MECKLENBURG, CRIME PREVENTION SPECIALIST NAbIE, 7777,E DEPARTMENT DIIZECTOR ~ - + REVIEW: .SIGNA7Y7 REVIEWED BY CITY ~ .- MANAGER: CONSENT SC 171 ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION: Council approval of a resolution accepting $850 grant funds from Target Corporation and $100 from Residential Mort a e Grou . L RECOMMENDED ACTION: By Motion: Approve the resolution authorizing acceptance of: • Grant funds of $850 from the Target Corporation for Public Safety/Police towards National Night Out costs; and, • Donation of $100 from Residential Mortgage Group for Public Safety/Police K-9 Unit ani Police safety vests. II. BACKGROUND The Target Corporation has an application process on-line for applying for grants. Jill Mecklenburg, Richfield's Civilian Crime Prevention Specialist, submitted an application in May and has now received confirmation that Public Safety. has been awarded a grant in the amount of $850. The check has been received with a designation that the funds be used to assist with costs related to National Night Out. Target has asked staff to appear at their local store to be presented with a "mock check" to commemorate their donation on Wednesday, July 23, 2008. Staff members will attend the presentation. 0722 Resolution to Accept Grant Funds from Target & RMG Donation The Residential Mortgage Group (RMG) has a charitable donation initiative program called "Refer a Friend. Build Your Community." Clients in Richfield select a group to be a beneficiary in conjunction with their loan closing with RMG. Every loan that RMG closes can result m up to $100 donated to a school or police or fire department in their local community. Reid and Summer Ninz selected the police department with no designation for funds, and Matthew and Janis Nelson selected the police department with designation to the K-9 Unit. The total donation is $100. This amount will be divided between the K-9 Unit and Police Safety Vests.. III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION A. POLICY • Minnesota Statute 465.03 requires that 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 donations to departments be received by resolution and passed by more than two- thirds majority of the City Council in accordance with Minnesota Statute 465.03. B. CRITICAL ISSUES • The Target Corporation grant is for use by the Public Safety Department for National Night Out. • The RMG donation will be placed in the K-9 Unit and police vest funds. • All grant funds will be used to support the programs indicated above. C. FINANCIAL • A check in the amount of 850 will be designated for National Night Out. • The RMG donation of $100 will be divided equally ($50 each) between the K-9 Unit and police vest funds D. LEGAL • N/A E. ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS • N/A ALTERNATIVE KECOMMENDATION(S) ~ • Council could decide not to accept the grant money from Target and monetary donation from RMG, and the funds would be returned to the contributors. I V . ATTACHMENTS I • VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT • N/A ~c-i RESOLUTION NO. • RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY/POLICE TO ACCEPT A GRANT OF $850 FROM THE TARGET CORPORATION TO FUND NATIONAL NIGHT OUT AND TO ACCEPT A CHECK FOR $100 FROM THE ~~ RESIDENTIAL MORTGAGE GROUP IN THE NAME OF RESIDENTS AS NAMED IN THE RESOLUTION WHEREAS, Richfield Police has been approved by the Target Corporation in response to an on-line grant application to receive $850 in grant monies; and, WHEREAS, the Target grant monies have been allocated to fund National Night Out; and, WHEREAS, Richfield is scheduled to receive a total of $100 from the Residential Mortgage Group and their charitable donation initiative program called "Refer a friend, Build your Community;" in which RMG donates money in the client's name to schools, police or fire when the loans are closed; and, WHEREAS, the Residential Mortgage Group (RMG) donations are in the names of Janis and Matthew Nelson and Reid and Summer Nimz; and, WHEREAS, the donations from Residential Mortgage Group are designated for Richfield police and the police Canine Unit. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City of Richfield, Public Safety Department will accept funds designated for police programs in accordance to and as listed above. 2008. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this 22nd day of July Debbie Goettel, Mayor ATTEST: Nancy Gibbs, City Clerk • • AGENDA SECTION: CONSENT AGENDA ITEM # SD REPORT # 172 ~i STAFF REPORT -CITY COUNCIL MEETING JULY 22, 2008 • REPORT PREPARED BY: DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR' REVIEW: REVIEWED BY CITY MANAGER: KRISTIN ASHER, CITY ENGINEER NAME, TiTCE SIGNATURE ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION: Consideration of a change order and Amendment No. 1 to the Cooperative Construction Agreement between the City and the Minnesota Departmerif of Transportation for the Richfield Lake Improvement Project. RECOMMENDED ACTION: By Motion: • Authorize Mayor and City Manager to execute an amendment to the Cooperative Construction Agreement between the City and the Minnesota .Department of Transportation for the Richfield. Lake .Improvement Project; and • Approve .Change. Order No. 2 for the removal of asbestos containing materials from the project site. II. BACKGROUND On December 11, 2007 the City Council approved a Cooperative .Construction Agreement between the Minnesota Department of Transportation (Mn/DOT) and the City of Richfield allowing the City to administer Mn/DOT's .portion of the Richfield Lake Improvement Project. During the construction of Pond 6, adjacent to the Lyndale Garden Center property, the contractor encountered asbestos containing material (deleterious materials) that required special hazardous materials testing, handling., hauling, and disposal. 0722RichfieldLake The additional work resulted in a change order of $436,164.86.. State funds will cover $397,865.06 of the additional cost. The remainder will be made up in the • form of a credit from the contractor for excavation of materials not hauled under normal circumstances. The change order will be paid for using State funds via this amendment to the original Cooperative Construction Agreement. III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION A. POLICY • The City has committed to administering the project on behalf of Mn/DOT. B. CRITICAL ISSUES • Negotiations with the contractor and Mn/DOT have postponed payment since March, 2008. • The project is complete and final payment should be made to the contractor. C. FINANCIAL • Change Order No. 2 totals $436,164.86. State funds and contractor credits will cover the cost of the change order. • The original agreement was for $691,721.87. This agreement amendment allows the City to obtain $397,865.06 in State funds for the change order needed on Mn/DOT's portion of the project. • The amended amount received from the State will be $1,089,586.93. • D. LEGAL • The City Attorney has reviewed the agreement and will be available to answer questions. E. ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS • The asbestos containing material handling was observed by two certified inspectors and disposed of as specified in the special .provisions. IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION(S) • Do not authorize the execution of the agreement, postponing payment to the contractor. However, the work has been completed and the final payment amount has been negotiated with the contractor. ATTACHMENTS • Proposed Cooperative Construction Agreement-Amendment No. 1 • Project Map VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING • None ~p~~ • PRE-LETTING STATE OF MINNESOTA AMENDMENT TO .SERVICES DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Mn/DOT SECTION COOPERATIVE CONSTRUCTION AGREEMENT NO. .AGREEMENT 91920 AMENDMENT NO. 1 , S.P. 2782-292 {T.H. 35W=394) State Funds The.S.tate of Minnesota ORIGINAL AMOUNT Department of Transportation, and ENCUMBERED The City of Richfield $1,035,737.51 Re: State cost for additional deleterious material removal work by the .City's contractor at AMENDMENT AMOUNT Richfield Lake adjacent to ENCUMBERED T.H. 35W $53,849.42 TOTAL OBLIGATION $1;089,.586.93 .AMOUNT RECEIVABLE (None) THIS AGREEMENT AMENDMENT is made and entered into by and between .the State of Minnesota, Department of Transportation, hereinafter referred tows the "State" and'the City of~Richfield , Minnesota, acting by .and through its City Council, hereinafter referred to as the ~~City~~ i ~~/ " . 91920-1 WHEREAS, the State-and the City did enter into Agreement No. 91920 dated January 3, 2008 providing for payment by the State to the City of the State's share of the cost of the Richfield Lake Trail construction and other associated construction performed adjacent to Trunk Highway No. 35TrT within the corporate City limits under State Project No. 2782-292 (T.H. 35W=394); and WHEREAS, after the contract construction was underway, it was , determined that the amount of the deleterious material discovered was -far greater than the initial borings estimated; anal WHEREAS, the State and the City desire that Agreement No. 91920 be amended so that the Agreement reflects the, State cost share of the sorting, trucking and disposal of deleterious materials encountered on the project. • IT IS, THEREFORE, MUTUALLY AGREED AS FOLLOWS: , I ARTICLE II, SECTION B., PARAGRAPH 2 OF AGREEMENT N0. 91920 DATED JANUARY 3, 2008, IS~HEREBY AMENDED AND MODIFIED TO READ AS FOLLOWS: 2. $397,865.06 shall be the lump sum amount for the State's cost participation in the sorting, .t rucking and disposal of the deleterious' materials. 50 3 II .91920-1 ARTICLE III, OF AGREEMENT N0. 91920 DATED JANUARY 3,2008, IS HEREBY AMENDED AND MODIFIED TO READ AS FOLLOWS: ARTICLE III - PAYMENT BY THE STATE - It is estimated that the State's share of the costs of the contract construction plus the 8 percent construction engineering cost share and the lump sum amount is the sum of $1,089,586.93 as shown in the attached Amended SCHEDULE "I". .The attached Amended SCHEDULE "I" was prepared using contract bird unit prices and ,the supplemental agreement to the construction .contract for the hauling and disposal of deleterious materials. After the following conditions have been met, the State shall pay to .the. City the State's remaining l~.mp sum amount for the. hauling and disposal of the deleterious"material hown in the Amended SCHEDULE "I": A. Encumbrance by the State of the State's full and complete lump sum cost share as shown in the Amended SCHEDULE "I". B. Execution and approval of this Agreement and the State's. transmittal of it to the City. C. Receipt by the State of a written request from the City for the payment of funds.. Should the City cause the performance of additional contract constructiCll which would o~h.erwise qualify for State cost • participation covered under t1Lis Agreement, but nor whicrl the State 3 ~L..J • 91920-1 has not previously encumbered funds, that additional contract construction is done at the City's own risk. The City, shall notify the State District Engineer's authorized representative in writing of the additional State cost participation construction. Notification shall include an estimate in the amount of additional funds necessary to cover the additional. State cost participation construction including construction engineering costs and the reasor_{s) why the. current amount encumbered. was exceeded. If the .State District Engineer's authorized representative approves the additional State cost participation construction, .the City'-s claim for compensation along with a request for encumbrance of the necessary additional.. funds shall be submitted to the State's Budget Section for review of compliance with Minnesota Statutes Section 16A.15, subdivision 3, but no guarantee is made that the :claim will be approved by the State's Budget Section. If the claim for .compensation and the request for • encumbrance of the necessary additional ,funds are approved. by the State~•'s Budget Section, that action will have-the effect of amending this Agreement so us to include-the State's share of .the .costs of the additional construction.. III EXCEPT AS AMENDED AND MODIFIED HEREIN, ALL OF THE'TERMS AND CONDITIONS SET FORTH IN AGREEMENT N0. 9192'0 DATED JANUARY 3, 2008, SHALL REMAIN IN FULL FORCE AND EFFECT. IV BEFORE THIS AGREEMENT AMENDMENT BECOMES BINDING AND EFFECTIVE,. IT SHALL BE APPROVED AND EXECUTED BY SUCH STATE AND CITY OFFICERS AS THE • a `._-. ~~ • 91920-1 LAW MAY PROVIDE IN ADDITION TO THE COMMISSIONER OF .TRANSPORTATION OR THEIR AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE. V THE STATE'S AUTHORIZED AGENT FOR THE.PURPOSE OF THE ADMINISTRATION OF THIS AGREEMENT IS MARYANNE KELLY-SONNEK, MUNICIPAL AGREEMENTS ENGINEER, OR HER SUCCESSOR. HER CURRENT ADDRESS AND PHONE NUMBER ARE 395 JOHN IRELAND BOULEVARD, MAILSTOP 682, ST. PAUL, MN 55155, (651) 366-4634. THE CITY'S AUTHORIZED AGENT. FOR THE PURPOSES OF THE ADMINISTRATION OF THIS AGREEMENT IS KRISTIN ASHER, ASSISTANT CITY ENGINEER, OR HER SUCCESSOR... HER CURRENT ADDRESS AND PHONE NUMBER ARE 6700 PORTLAND . AVENUE, RICHFIELD,`MN 55423-2599, (612).861-9795._ 5 ~~`~. 91920-1 IN TESTIMONY WHEREOF the parties have executed this Agreement by their authorized officers. STATE ENCUMBRANCE VERIFICATION DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Individual certifies that funds have been encumbered Recommended for approval: as required by Minn. Stat. §§ 16A.15 and 16C.05. By By District Engineer Approved: Date By State Design Engineer MAPS Encumbrance No. Date CITY OF RICHFIELD ~ Approved as to form and execution: By By De le Goette Mayor Contract Management Date July 2 2, 2 0 0 8 Date ~. BY ~+ ,. COMMISSIONER_OF ADMINISTRATION As delegated to Materials Management Division Title nt-ava_n DPVrh~ C:i~~S Manaq~r - - By Date July 22, 2008 Date • ~,~ 5 • c: U H V 0 n U <~ o. ~v ~ ~~ ~~~ c~ ~D-~ 8 m r~ U CITY COUNCIL MEETING JULY 22, 2008 AGENDA SECTION: AGENDA ITEM # REPORT # ~~ STAFF REPORT CONSENT 5E 173 REPORT PREPARED BY: DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR REVIEW: REVIEWED BY CITY MANAGER: ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION: Consideration of approval of plans for the Replacement of the Lyndale Avenue Bridge over 1- 494 -and authorization for staff to advertise for- bids. I. RECOMMENDED ACTION: By Motion: Approve plans and authorize the advertisement for bids for the replacement of the Lyndale Avenue Bridge over I-494 Project, Citv Proiect 42000. IL BACKGROUND For many years the City of Richfield has identified the need to replace the Lyndale Avenue Bridge due to its lack of capacity to handle existing and future traffic volumes and .the absence of left turn lanes to allow cars to enter 1-494. The result has been serious delays for traffic trying to cross the bridge to enter Bloomington or to get on I-494. The City hired WSB to prepare construction plans for the replacement of the Lyndale Avenue Bridge over I-494. The project is designed as a single-point diamond interchange, similar to the. Penn Avenue Bridge: The new bridge will have a span that is wide enough to accommodate the future widening of I-494. Funds for the project will come primarily from Federal Higfiway High Priority Project funds and State of Minnesota Trunk Highway funds. The project is expected to begin construction in September 2008 and be completed by November 2009. THOMAS FOLEY, TRANSPORTATION ENGINEER NAME, TITLE ~- 0722 LyndaleBridgePlanApproval • III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION A. POLICY • Replacement of the Lyndale Avenue Bridge over I-494 has been identified as a need in the City's Comprehensive Plan. B. CRITICAL ISSUES • Plan approval is needed quickly from the Minnesota Department of Transportation and the Federal HighwayAdministration to give the construction contractor adequate time to complete the project by the end of 2009. The advertisement for bids is scheduled to be published in early August. C. FINANCIAL • Federal Highway funds will pay approximately 80% of the construction costs of the project, while Minnesota Trunk Highway funds will pay the remaining 20% of the costs. The project is estimated to cost $24.7 million. • D. LEGAL • .The City Attorney has been involved in the design and right of way ,. acquisition process for this .project. ,- E. ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS • The Lyndale Avenue Bridge has been approved for construction in a project memorandum by the: Federal Highway Administration dated July 20, 2007. IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION(S~ • Council may choose to deny or delay approval of the construction plans. A significant delay could postpone completion of construction of the bridge for one year. V. ATTACHMENTS • Layout sketch of the Lyndale Avenue Bridge over I-494. • Construction plans for the Lyndale Avenue Bridge Project will be available at the July 22, 2008 City Council meeting for review. VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING • None anticipated. I o L- ~y J 9~ -a-a- v ~--~o ° ~ s c w~r~v.,s. e V I !, a ~ a l ~ s •~ i ~.~~ ~ I ~ q~~l ~' E~ 111 a i ~9 ~I ~ I ~ ' ~ a aiI ~ a !~ I 1!I °~ ~ ~. a 1~ ~ G I ~ II o ¢ I u ,' ~,. a ~ ~ I ~~ ~ I~ :4 II F _ ° ~~ ~~ a a a 1 I x ~w 1~----- 4I /lo a a a ~-a ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ t. Wig- o J ~ ~ I- v 8 ~~ I I -----•- - a~ I o.~ *' I ~ C 4 ~li I ~~ a I o ~'~~~.: ..-. ~ 4'~' o~ I C: "I C' ~ ~ ~ s ~ I 7 4 ~il ~- _ ~,~ I I ~ :.~~ ~ I __ * ICJ • ~ F ~ ~° asb e -- I a ~:.... a > . ~ 4 x ~ E _ - f---r _~ : ~- °.. _ .. _. ... if ilb .,1 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~/.~ ~t' ~~ ~' ~ r '+~ tl •'1 '~----- L ~# ,i I ~ a i ~ ~ a o 'C A ~e ru'v- •'F o ~' ~~ ~ ;~ ~~ ~ j ~ . ,~ ,I II,, ,x ~ i~ .8 ~.-~wsa I ----J ~ Q~ I ~ lap > 1 _~ " o a a ~~ ~-- - - 13 A ~ ~ ~~ I I . ~ 1. ~~ a ~ a ~ ~ ,~~• ~ ~ I ~~ i y~ ~~ i~~ ~ I ~ ~! r ~ 1 ~ :1 a ': I 3. C ~+ , ^ ~ I ! 1 ,. V L r--°a ~---4s---.----C- -a-.~ I q ~y .~ i e d (~ ~ ~9 d' I •I 1! ~~ a tl -rx z I ~ i f F a 9 4 ~o~ 8 u I ~ (Iy ~ o b i ~.,i~wr ~ -, 4 - I v ae ..'~ ~ ~ ] ~ ~I ~ ii ° ~ 4 ~ I I ~ ~ ~~~~~ BI g ~ I ~ ~ 11 ~ • AGENDA SECTION: CONSENT AGENDA ITEM # SF REPORT # 174 ~' STAFF REPORT CITY COUNCIL MEETING JULY 22, 2008 U REPORT PREPARED BY: KRISTIN ASxER, CITY ENGINEER AME, TITLE DEPARTMENT DIIZECTOR REVIEW: SIGN TURF REVIEWED BY CITY , :. J ~ ,~..- %, MANAGER: , ' , ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION: Consideration of approval of the Third Amendment to the Cost Participation Agreement .between Hennepin County and the City of Richfield for the reconstruction of 66t" Street and Portland Avenue intersection. I. RECOMMENDED ACTION: By Motion: Approve the Third Amendment to .the Cost Participation. Agreement between Hennepin County and the City of Richfield to receive additional County. funds for the 66t" Street and Portland Avenue intersection project. • II. BACKGROUND At the June 12, 2007 Council Meeting, Council approved the second Cost Participation Agreement amendment with Hennepin County allowing the City to receive up to $4.0 million in Hennepin County Community Works Grant fundsto go toward the 66t" Street and Portland Avenue intersection project. This recommended agreement amendment would amend-the $4.0 million to a new total of $4.21 million from Hennepin County. The additional $210,000 is funded using County State Aid. Highway (CSAH) funds. 0722HCAgreement III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION • A. POLICY • Improvements to the intersection of 66th Street and Portland Avenue are identified in the City's Comprehensive Plan. B. CRITICAL ISSUES • The identified Hennepin County funds have been anticipated as part of the project budget throughout the planning and design and reduce the burden on the City's Municipal State Aid (MSA) funds. C. FINANCIAL Approval of the cost participation agreement amendment will provide the City with the $210,000 in anticipated CSAH funds. needed to complete the intersection project. D. LEGAL • The City Attorney has reviewed the proposed agreement amendment. E. ENVIIZONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS • On September 10, 2007; the Federal Highway Administration • approved the finding of no significant impact for-the 66th and Portland project. IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION(S~ • Do not approve the amendment. This would place an additional financial burden on the City by refusing to use County funds. V. ATTACHMENTS • Third Amendment to Cost Participation Agreement between Hennepin County and the City of Richfield for the reconstruction of 66tH Street and Portland Intersection. VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING • None anticipated. • ~F • Hennepin County Contract No. A060859 THII2D AMENDMENT TO COST PARTICIPATION AGREEMENT FOR THE RECONSTRUCTION OF 66~" STREET AND PORTLAND INTERSECTION This Agreement made and entered into by and between the County of Hennepin, State of Minnesota, hereinafter referred to as the "COUNTY", A-2300 Government Center, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55487, on behalf of the Hennepin County Department of Housing, Community Works and Transit, 417 North Fifth Street, Suite 320, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55401-1362, and the City of Richfield, a Minnesota municipal corporation, hereinafter referred to as the "CITY", 6700 Portland Avenue, Richfield, Minnesota 55423, on behalf of the Richfield Public Works Department. WHEREAS, the parties entered into Contract No. A060859 (the "Agreement") as authorized by Hennepin County Board Resolution No. 06-336; and WHEREAS, the parties entered into Amendment 1 of the Agreement as authorized by Hennepin County Board Resolution No. 07-1-11R1; and WHEREAS, the parties entered into Amendment 2 of the Agreement as authorized by Hennepin County Board Resolution No. 07-8 314; and • WHEREAS, the Agreement between the parties provides for the COUNTY to contribute to the project for the reconstruction of the intersection at 66~' Street and Portland Avenue; and WHEREAS, Amendment 1 to the Agreement increased the COUNTY' S contribution, extended the term, and provided the funds to be used for construction purposes; and WHEREAS, Amendment 2 to the Agreement further increased the COUNTY'S contribution; and WHEREAS, the 2005 Capital Budget allocation of $30,000 in bonding and $180,000 in State Aid funding is identified for participation in the reconstruction of the intersection of CSAH 53 (66~' Street) and CSAH 35 (Portland Avenue) in the City of Richfield; and WHEREAS, the parties wish to further amend the Agreement to include 2005 Capital Budget bonding and State Aid funding totaling $210,000. NOW, THEREFORE, the parties agree to amend Section 1 of the Agreement to read as follows: 1. Term and Cost of the Agreement. The CITY agrees to furnish services described in Section 2 during the period commencing August 1, 2006 and terminating December 31, 2009, • for an amount not to exceed $4,210,000.00. ~~-1 • Except as previously amended and as herein amended, the terms, conditions and provisions of the original Agreement shall remain in fu11 force and effect. THE REMAINDER OF THIS PAGE IS INTENTIONALLY BLANK. • • 2 • ~i COUNTY BOARD APPROVAL CITY, having signed this amendment, and the Hennepin County Board of Commissioners having duly approved this amendment on the day of , 2008 and pursuant to such approval, the proper County officials having signed this amendment, the parties hereto agree to be bound by the provisions herein set forth. COUNTY OF IiENNEPIN ATTEST: By: Deputy/Clerk of the County Board Date: APPROVED AS TO FORM: By: Assistant County Attorney Date: APPROVED AS TO EXECUTION: . By: Assistant County Attorney ' Date: _ By: Chair of Its County Board Date: And: Deputy/Assistant/County Administrator Date: And: Assistant County Administrator, Public Works Date: RECOMMENDED FOR APPROVAL By: Director, Department of Housing, ' Community Works & Transit Date: CITY OF RICHFIELD Bv: - - Its: Mayor , Debbie Goettel And: Its: City Manager, Steven L. Devich • 3 CONSENT 5G 175 STAFF REPORT AGENDA SECTION: AGENDA ITEM REPORT # CITY COUNCIL MEETING JULY 22, 2008 • • REPORT PREPARED BY: DEPARTMENT DIIZECTOR REVIEW: REVIEWED BY CITY MANAGER: TITLE ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION: Consideration of ordering preparation of a preliminary report for the 2009 Alley Paving Project. I. RECOMMENDED ACTION: By Motion: Order the preparation of a preliminary report for the 2009 Alley Pavin Pro'ect. II. BACKGROUND In-1981, the City Council established a policy providing for the improvement of the city's alleys. by concrete paving upon the receipt of petitions. On April 28,.1986, the -City Council held a special study session to review alternative alley paving policies. It was the consensus of the Council to support the alternative which recommended paving all remaining alleys without submittal. of petitions. At the time, it wasalso recommended that alleys with questionable futures (alleys that fell within project areas) be excluded from the final paving project until plans for adjacent projects were finalized. The projects under consideration at the time included the I-35W/Crosstown Reconstruction, Lyndale-Hub-Nicollet redevelopment, and Cedar Avenue. Due to the completion of design and/or construction of the Cedar Point Commons, City Bella, and the I-35W/Crosstown project, the future of the alleys in question is now known.. Today there are five (5) alleys in north Richfield. adjacent to I-35W that are yet to be paved. The 64th Street & Girard Alley Storm Water project, scheduled to be KRISTIN ASxER, CITY ENGINEER 0722alleypavingproj2009 constructed in 2009, will trigger the paving on one of the five alleys and staff is recommending that the Council move forward to have the remaining alleys paved. It has been City policy to assess the adjacent property owners for the cost of the alley paving. Since the alleys are abutting public property (I-35W) the City will be responsible for covering half the cost of the alley project. III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION A. POLICY • It is City policy to pave all alleys with concrete. • It is City policy to assess the adjacent property owner for the cost of the alley paving. B. CRITICAL ISSUES • In 2009, the 64th & Girard Storm Water Projecf will include alley paving, staff recommends completing all remaining .alleys as part of the project to keep overall costs down. C. FINANCIAL • It is anticipated that 50% of the cost will be assessed to adjacent • property owners and 50% towards the general fund. • The total project cost would be determined as part of the preliminary report. D. LEGAL • The City Attorney-will be available to answer questions.. . • Staff is following the Minn. Statute 429 (local improvements) process for the assessment. E. ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS • Paving the alleys will reduce the amount of erosion and. alley degradation runoff into the storm water system. IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION(S~ • The Council can choose not to order the. preliminary report at this time. V. ATTACHMENTS • Project map VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT 1VIEETING • None S~ Ir L J AGENDA SECTION: CONSENT AGENDA ITEM # rjg REPORT # 176 STAFF REPORT CITY COUNCIL MEETING JULY 22, 2008 • REPORT PREPARED BY: CORRINE HEINE, CITY ATTORNEY ~ '' NAME, TITLE REVIEWED BY CITY %/ MANAGER: ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION: Consideration of Indemnification and Hold Harmless Agreement with BP Products North America, Inc., relatin to the ro ert at 6545 Portland Avenue South. I. RECOMMENDED ACTION: By Motion: Approve the Indemnification and Hold Harmless Agreement with BP Products North America, Inc. and authorize the rand City Manager to execute the same. • II. BACKGROUND In January 2006, the City acquired the property at 6545 Portland Avenue from Mooney Properties in connection with the 66t" Street and Portland Avenue intersection improvement project. The property was occupied by a BP Amoco gas station, and the title was conveyed subject to pre-existing restrictions that had been imposed by BP Products North America when it sold the ,property to Mooney Properties. The restrictions on the property included several restrictions relating to the environmental condition of the property, which was the site of a former underground storage tank leak. The restrictions included prohibitions on certain land uses, reporting requirements, and an obligation to indemnify and hold harmless BP Products North America against claims related to the environmental condition of the site. Those restrictions "ran with the land," meaning that they were binding not only on Mooney Properties but any subsequent owner of the land. The City entered into an agreement to sell part of the 6545 Portland Avenue site to the adjacent Morris Nilsen Funeral Chapel. As part of that agreement, the City agreed to try to obtain clarification or release of the restrictions. The City Attorney's 07221 ndem nityagreement office has been successful in obtaining BP Products' agreement to release the • environmental restrictions on the entire site, including the portion that the City will retain for park replacement and also the portion that will be conveyed to Morris Nilsen Funeral Chapel. However, as a condition of that release, BP Products requires that the City enter into a substitute indemnification agreement. III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION A. POLICY • The indemnification agreement is a substitution for an indemnity requirement that already affects the property. The new agreement will not be recorded and will not run with the land. It will only be binding on the City and not subsequent owners. • Signing this agreement will not increase the City's obligations toward BP Products and will remove title restrictions from the property. B. CRITICAL ISSUES • Approving the new agreement will enable the City to obtain release of the environmental restrictions that encumber the property. • The agreement indemnifies BP against claims related to environmental contamination on the property. Remediation at the site has been completed and the risk o~ any future claims is estimated to be minor. C. FINANCIAL • Because the new agreement replaces an existing obligation to indemnify, it does not create any new or additional potential liability for the City. D. LEGAL • The City Attorney prepared the agreement. E. ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS • NA IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION~S~ • None V. ATTACHMENTS • Indemnification and Hold Harmless Agreement VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING . None SN-1 . INDEMNIFICATION AND HOLD HARMLESS AGREEMENT THIS AGREEMENT is entered into as of the ~` day of July , 2008 by the City of Richfield, a municipal corporation ("City") for the benefit of BP Products North America, Inc.; a Maryland corporation, its successors and assigns ("BP"). RECITALS WHEREAS, the City is the owner of tract of land more particularly described on Exhibit A attached hereto ("Property"); and - WHEREAS, the Property is subject to certain restrictions memorialized in a quit claim deed filed as Document No. 4240013 ("Restrictions") running in favor of BP; and WHEREAS, the City has completed remediation of the Property and BP has agreed to release the Property from the Restrictions pursuant to a separate document entitled Release of Restrictions and Covenants executed of even date herewith; and WHEREAS, in consideration for BP's release of the Property from the Restrictions, the City has agreed to indemnify BP against any environmental claims that may result from the release of hazardous substances as provided below. AGREEMENT NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual covenants, BP's agreement to release the Property from the Restrictions, and other valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which is hereby acknowledged; the City acknowledges and agrees as follows: 1. Recitals Incorporated.- The Recitals as set forth above are incorporated into the terms of this Agreement. 2. Definitions. For purposes of this Agreement, the following terms have the meanings assigned to them: a. "Environmental Laws" means any applicable federal, state or local law, regulation or ordinance pertaining to soil, groundwater,. air and water quality, the handling, transportation, storage, treatment, usage or disposal of Hazardous Substances, air emissions and other environmental matters. b. "Hazardous Substances" shall be interpreted to include, but not be limited to, any material, or substance that is defined, regulated or classified under any Environmental Law of other applicable federal, state or local laws and the regulations promulgated - thereunder as (i) a "hazardous substance" pursuant to section 101 of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation .and Liability Act, 42 U.S.C. §9601(14), the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, 33 U.S.C. §1321(14), as now or hereafter amended; (ii) a "hazardous waste" pursuant to section 1004 or section 3001 of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, 42 U.S.C. §§6903(5) 6921, as now or hereafter amended; (iii) toxic pollutant under section 307(a)(1) of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, 33 U.S.C. §1317(a)(1) as now or hereafter amended; (iv) a "hazardous air pollutant" under section 112 of the Clean Air Act, 42 U.S.C. §7412(a)(6), as now or hereafter amended; (v) a "hazardous material" under the Hazardous Materials Transportation Uniform Safety Act of 1990, 49 U.S.C. i §5102(2), as now or hereafter amended; (vi) toxic or hazardous pursuant to regulations promulgated now or hereafter under the aforementioned laws or any state or local counterpart to any of the aforementioned laws; or (vii) presenting a risk to human health or the environment under other applicable federal, state or local laws, ordinances or regulations, as now or as may be passed or promulgated in the future. 5H 2- "Hazardous Substances" shall also mean any substance that after release into the environment or upon exposure, ingestion, inhalation or assimilation, either directly from the environment or directly by ingestion through food chains, will or may reasonably be anticipated to cause death, disease, behavior abnormalities; cancer or genetic abnormalities and specifically includes, but is not limited to, asbestos, polychlorinated biphenyls ("PCBs"), radioactive materials, including radon and naturally occurring radio nuclides, natural gas, natural gas liquids, liquefied natural gas, synthetic gas, oil, petroleum and petroleum-based derivatives and .urea formaldehyde. c. "Requirements" shall mean all requirements of all laws, orders, ordinances, rules and regulations of federal, state, county and municipal authorities, and of any certificate of occupancy or other direction issued pursuant to law by any public officer or officers, which shall relate to the compliance of the Premises with Environmental Laws. 3. Indemnification. The City agrees to indemnify, defend, protect and hold BP harmless against and from any and all damages, losses, liabilities, obligations, penalties, claims, litigation, demands, defenses, judgments, suits, proceedings, costs, disbursements or expenses of any kind or of any nature whatsoever (including, without limitation, attorneys' and experts' fees and disbursements) which may at any time be imposed upon, incurred by or asserted or awarded against BP and arising from or out of any Hazardous Substances on, in, under or affecting all or any portion of the Property including, without limitation, (i) the costs of removal of any and all Hazardous Substances from all or any portion of the Property; (ii) additional costs required to take necessary precautions to protect against the release of Hazardous Substances on, in, under or affecting the Property into the air, any body of water, any other public domain or any surrounding areas; and (iii) compliance, in connection with all or any. portion of the Property, with all applicable Requirements. 4. Representation. The City and BP warrant that the individuals executing this Agreement have the legal capacity and authority to enter into this Agreement. 5. No Recording. The City and BP agree that this Agreement shall not be recorded in the land records of Hennepin County, Minnesota. 6. Governing Law. This Agreement shall be governed and construed in accordance with the laws of the state of Minnesota, without regard to choice of law provisions. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, ~ the undersigned, through their respective and .authorized representatives, hereto set their hands and seals, evidencing their agreement to this Agreement. City of Richfield, a municipal corporation 335932v2 JYI' RC145-582 By Its Mayor By .Its City Manager BP North America, Inc., a Maryland corporation By Its: 2 5N~3 EXHIBIT A PARCEL 1: An undivided one-half interest in and to: That part of the Southwest Quarter of the Northwest Quarter of Section 26, Township 28, Range 24, described as follows:.. Commencing at a point 33 feet North of, and 33 feet East of the Quarter corner on the West side of said Section 26; thence North parallel with and 33 feet East of the west line of said section 26 a distance of 176.12 feet; thence East parallel with the East and West quarter line of said section 26 a distance of 247.3 feet; thence South parallel with the West line of said Section 26 a distance of 176.12 feet to a point 33 feet North of the East and West quarter line through said Section 26, thence West parallel with the East and West quarter line through said Section 26, a distance of 247.3 feet to the point of beginning, Hennepin County, Minnesota. EXCEPT the North 51.1 Z feet of the West 125 feet thereof, and except that part thereof lying East of the West 125 feet thereof. PARCEL 2: An undivided one-half interest in and to: That part of the Southwest Quarter of the Northwest Quarter of section 26, Township 28, Range 24, described as follows: Commencing at a point 33 feet North of, and 33 feet East of the Quarter corner on the West side of said Section ,26; thence North parallel with and 33 feet East of the West line of said Section 26 a distance of 176.12 feet; thence East parallel with the East and West quarter line of paid Section 26 a distance of 247.3 feet; thence South parallel with the West line of said Section 26 a distance of 176.12 feet to a point 33 feet North of the East and West quarter line through said Section 2b; thence West parallel with the East and West quarter line through said Section 26, a distance of 247.3 feet to the point of beginning, Hennepin County, Minnesota. EXCEPT the North 51.12 feet of the West 125 feet thereof, and except that part thereof lying East of the West 125 feet thereof. PARCEL 3: Par 1: The South 151.12 feet of the East 20 feet of the West 145 feet of that part of the Southwest Quarter of the Northwest Quarter of Section 26, Township 28, Range 24, described as follows: Commencing at a point 33 feet North of, and 33 feet East of the Quarter Corner on the West side of said Section 26; thence North parallel with and 33 feet East of the West line of said Section 26 a distance of 176.12 feet; thence East parallel with the East and West Quarter line of said Section 26 a distance of 247.3. feet; thence South parallel with the West line of said Section 26 a distance of 176.12 feet to a point 33 feet North of the East and West Quarter line through said Section 26; thence West parallel with the East and West Quarter line through said Section 26, a distance of 247.3 feet to the point of beginning, Hennepin County, Minnesota. Par II: The South 26.12 feet of the North 51.12 feet of the West 125 feet of that part of the Southwest Quarter of the Northwest Quarter of Section 26, Townshi 28, Range 24, described as follows: Commencing at a point 33 feet North of, and 33 feet east of~the ~arter Corner on the West side of said Section 26; thence North parallel with and 33 feet East oft e West line of said Section 26 a distance 176.12 feet; thence East parallel with the East and West ~uarter line of said Section 26 a distance of 247.3 feet; thence South parallel with the West line of e said Section 26 a distance of 176.12 feet to a point 33 feet North of the East and West Quarter line through said Section 26; thence West parallel with the East and West Quarter line through said Section 26, a distance of 247.3 feet to the point of beginning, Hennepin County, Minnesota. 335932v2 JI'I' RC145-582 • AGENDA SECTION: AGENDA ITEM # REPORT # STAFF REPORT CONSENT 5I 177 CITY COUNCIL MEETING JULY 22, 2008 • REPORT PREPARED BY: KRISTIN ASxER, CITY ENGINEER NAME, TITLE DEPARTMENT DIIZECTOR ~ /f,~ /~~ ,~ REVIEW. ~/ "~J C_ IGNATU i REVIEWED BY CITY MANAGER: 1 l~l~/ ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION: Consideration of ratification of three change orders to Shafer Contracting for the 66th Street and Portland Avenue Intersection Construction Pro'ect. I. RECOMMENDED ACTION: By Motion: Ratify three change orders to Shafer Contracting as approved by staff: • CO#2 - To include the relocation of the signal interconnection system .wiring through the intersection for an added cost of $30,097.00. • CO#3 - To include the temporary lighting for the intersection and the purchase of changeable. message signs for traffic control use and education for an added cost of $68,968.32. • CO#4 - To underground electrical services at Victoria Manor Apartments, Nilsen Funeral .Home, Sinclair Station and apartment building at 6601 5th Avenue for an added cost of $44.077.00. II. BACKGROUND As construction of the 66 Street and Portland Avenue Intersection has progressed, the construction .manager, site observer, engineers, contractors-and City staff have been in constant communication reviewing the progress and making changes when 0722PortlandCO necessary. The change orders. before the Council for consideration were approved by staff prior to receiving Council approval to keep the construction progressing without delays. The change orders are recommended for ratification as approved by staff based on the following: Change Order No. 2 -the north-south signal interconnection along Portland Avenue was not identified in the plans. Shafer Contracting discovered the system in the field .and staff requested that the wires be relocated out of the future circulating lanes of the roundabout. ($30,097.00) Change Order No. 3 - to aid in pedestrian and vehicular traffic and improve the safety near the construction site staff requested temporary lighting for the area once the utility/light poles were removed along 66~" Street. Permanent lighting is included in the original contract and will be installed later in the season.. Staff is also requesting the use of changeable message signs for the operation of the single-lane roundabout phase of the construction. ($68,968.32) Change Order No 4 -due to the undergrounding of the utility lines within the project limits it was necessary to the underground the service lines to four. properties within the construction. ($44,077.00) III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION A. POLICY • Change orders over $25,000 require Council approval. B. CRITICAL ISSUES • These decisions were made as construction progressed and final costs were not available until work was complete. • Delays in making these decisions were not timely due to the construction schedule. C. FINANCIAL • The total construction budget (bid amount) approved by the Council on January 22, 2008 for the intersection project is $2,449,351.74 • The $30,097.00 for CO#2 will be funded using 80% Federal Funds and 20% Municipal State Aid (MSA) Funds. • The $68,968.32 for CO#3 will be funded using 80% Federal Funds and 20% MSA Funds. • The $44,077.00 for CO#4 will be funded using .MSA Funds. D. LEGAL • Staff is adhering to the Federal and State Aid approved procedures when processing -the change orders. • .The City Attorney will be available to answer questions. E. ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS • None. IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION(S~ • Council. may choose not to ratify the staff approved change orders at this time, however the work has been completed and the contractor is expecting payment for these items. V. ATTACHMENTS • Change orders 2, 3 & 4. VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING • .None. • STATE AID FOR LOCAL TRANSPORTATION ~~~ I. May 2008 CHANGE ORDER 2 Page ~ ot2 City/County of Richfield Change Order No. 2 FEDERAL PROJECT NO. STATE PROJECT NO. LOCAL PROJECT NO. CONTRACT NO. STPX 2706 (140) 157-020-19 CP 41450 2745 CONTRACTOR NAME ADDRESS CITY STATE ZIP Shafer Contracting, Inc. PO Box 128 Shafer MN 55074 LOCATION OF WORK: TOTAL CHANGE ORDER AMOUNT City of Richfield, MN $30,097.00 In accordance with the terms of this Contract, you are hereby authorized and instructed to perform the work as altered by the following provisions. The north-south existing interconnect system on Portland Avenue vvas not shown in the plans. The interconnect system needs to be re-routed around the roundabout, with new wire run through from 70th Street to 64t" Street. COST BREAKDOWN Group/ Item No. Description *Fund Cat. Unit Unit Price Quantity Amount Group 1 2104.501 Remove Ri id Steel Conduit Lin Ft $1.55 1,600 $2,480.00 Grou 1 2104.521 Salva a Interconnect Cable Lin Ft $0.45 6,000 $2,700.00 Group 1 2545.521 1.5" Ri id Steel Conduit Lin Ft $8.00 1,100 $8,800.00 Group 1 2550.512 Handhole ~ Each $858.00 4 $3,432.00 Group 1 2565.603 6 PR # 19 Interconnect Lin Ft $2.95 4,300 $12,685.00 Grand Total $30,097.00 *Group/Funding category is required for federal projects. Due to this change, the Contract Time: a. [ ] Is Increased by Working Days b. [X] Is Not.Changed [ ] Is Decreased by Working Days c. [ ] May be revised if work affected the [ ] Is Increased by Calendar Days controlling operation [ ] Is Decreased by Calendar Days Approved by Approved by Project Contractor: Engineer: Print Name: Print Name: Date: Phone: Date:. Phone: Original to Project Engineer; Copy to Contractor • STATE AID FOR LOCAL TRANSPORTATION ~~~ ~- May 2008 CHANGE ORDER 3 Page 1 oft City/County of Richfield Change Order No. 3 FEDERAL PROJECT NO. STATE PROJECT NO. LOCAL PROJECT NO. CONTRACT NO. STPX 2706 (140) 157-020-19 CP 41450 2745 CONTRACTOR NAME ADDRESS CITY STATE ZIP Shafer Contracting, Inc. PO Box 128 Shafer MN 55074 LOCATION OF WORK: TOTAL CHANGE ORDER AMOUNT City of Richfield, MN $68,968.32 In accordance with the terms of this Contract, you are hereby authorized and instructed to perform the work as altered by the following provisions. Due to the lag in time between the existing lights being removed and the new lighting being installed, a temporary light was required to illuminate the roundabout for safety purposes, both pedestrian and vehicular. Changeable message signs are needed on all four legs. They will be in place to alert drivers of traffic control as well as educating drivers after construction is over. COST BREAKDOWN . Group/ Item No, Description *Funtl Ca+ Unit - Unit Price Quantity Amount Group 1 2545.601. Temporary Lighting and Power S~ p $5,830.00 1 $5,830.00 Group 1 2563.602 Portable Changeable Message Each $15,784.58 4 $63,138.32 Sin Grand-Total $68,968.32 *Group/Funding category is required for federal projects. CHANGE IN CONTRACT TIME (check one) Due to this change, the Contract Time: a. [ ] Is Increased by Working Days b. [X] Is Not Changed [ ] Is Decreased by Working Days c. [ ] May be revised if work affected the [ ] Is Increased by Calendar Days controlling operation [ ] Is Decreased by Calendar Days • Approved by Approved by Project Contractor. Engineer: Print Name: Print Name: Date: Phone: Date: Phone: Original to Project Engineer; Copy to Contractor • STATE AID FOR LOCAL TRANSPORTATION ~~`~ ~ May 2008 CHANGE ORDER 4 Page ~ of i City/County of Richfield Change Order No. 4 FEDERAL PROJECT NO. STATE PROJECT NO. LOCAL PROJECT NO. CONTRACT NO. STPX 2706 (140) 157-020-19 CP 41450 2745 CONTRACTOR NAME ADDRESS CITY STATE ZIP Shafer Contracting, Inc. PO Box 128 Shafer MN 55074 LOCATION OF WORK: TOTAL CHANGE ORDER AMOUNT City of Richfield, MN $44,077.00 . In accordance with the terms of this Contract, you are hereby authorized and instructed to perform the work as altered by the following provisions. Due to the undergrounding of Xcel Energy power poles, 4 private services needed to be switched from overhead to underground. COST. BREAKDOWN Group/ .Item No. Description *G~~nrl r7f Unit Unit Price Quantity Amount Group 5 2545.601 Utility Relocations S m $44,077.00 4 $44,077.00 Grand Total $44,077.00 *Group/Funding category is required for federal projects. Due to this change, the Contract Time: a. [ ] Is Increased by Working Days. b. [X] Is Not Changed. [ ] Is Decreased by Working Days c. [ ] ..May be revised if work affected the [ ] Is Increased by Calendar Days controlling operation [' ] Is Decreased by Calendar Days Approved by Approved by _ Project Contractor: Engineer: Print Name: Print Name: Date: Phone: Date: Phone: Original to Project Engineer; Copy to Contractor Once contract has been fully executed, forward a copy to DSAE for funding .review: The State of Minnesota is not a participant in this contract, signing by the District State Aid Engineer is for FUNDING PURPOSES ONLY. Reviewed for compliance with State and Federal Aid Rules/Policy. Eligibility does not guarantee funds will be available. This project is eligible for: _ Federal Funding _ State Aid Funding _ Local funds District State Aid En ineer: Date: ~~ `~ AGENDA SECTION: CONSENT AGENDA ITEM # 5J REPORT # 178 ~~ STAFF REPORT CITY COUNCIL MEETING JULY 22, 2008 REPORT PREPARED BY: BETSY OSBORN, SUPPORT SERVICES DIVISION MANAGER NAME, TITLE • DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR REVIEW: REVIEWED BY CITY MANAGER: ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION: Approve a public hearing for consideration of the issuance of new on-sale intoxicating and Sunday liquor licenses with optional 2 a.m. closing for Richfield Hotel Associates d/b/a Ramada Inn, 7745 L ndale Ave. S. I. .RECOMMENDED ACTION: By Motion: Approve a public hearing to consider the following: • Issuance of new on-sale intoxicating and Sunday liquor licenses with optional tam closing for Richfield Hotel Associates d/b/a Ramada Inn, 7745 Lyndale Ave. S. • Set public hearing for August 12, 2008. II. BACKGROUND Applications for new on-sale intoxicating and Sunday liquor licenses with optional 2 a.m. closing for Richfield Hotel Associates were received by the City on May 7, 2008. III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION A. POLICY • City ordinance provides that the City Council conduct a public hearing to consider all intoxicating liquor license .applications and that a date be set for the public hearing prior to the hearing. 0722 Set PH for Richfield Hotel Associates New Liquor Licenses • The hearing must be scheduled and held before a new license may be considered. • The new process has been initiated. • Holding the public hearing on August 12, 2008 will provide ample time to complete the licensing process. B. CRITICAL ISSUES • N/A C. FINANCIAL • N/A D. LEGAL • N/A E. ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS • N/A IV. ALTERNATNE RECOMMENDATION(S~ • .Reject the applications for new on-sale intoxicating and Sunday liquor licenses with optional 2 a.m. closing for Richfield Hotel Associates. • Schedule the hearing for another date; however, this may delay the licensing process. V. ATTACHMENTS • None VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING • N/A • • ~~ STAFF REPORT AGENDA SECTION: AGENDA ITEM # REPORT # CITY COUNCIL MEETING L~ JULY 22, 2008 REPORT PREPARED BY: CO HEnvE, CITY ATTORNEY ~/ NAME, TI7ZE REVIEWED BY CITY ~ - ~ MANAGER: ,~ PROP. ORDINANCE 179 ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION: Consideration of first reading of an ordinance amending Section 930 of the Richfield City Code; relatin to re ulation of noise RECOMMENDED ACTION: By Motion: • Approve a first reading of an ordinance amending Subsections 930.01, 930.03, 930.05, 930.11 and 930.13 of the Richfield City Code; relating to regulation of noise. • Schedule a second reading for August 12; 2008. II. BACKGROUND City staff recently determined that the City's ordinances regarding maximum noise limits purports, to establish a standard that is more strict than the noise limits established by the Minnesota .Pollution Control Agency rules. State law prohibits cities from adopting noise limitations that are more strict than the state regulations. City staff has proposed an amendment that would bring the City Code into conformance with state law. The existing ordinance also refers to the state rules by an outdated form of citation. The proposed amendment updates the ordinance to the current form of citation. The existing ordinance requires permits for central air conditioning units and authorizes the Public Safety Director to require sound mitigation for units that 0722 First Reading of Noise Ordinance exceed the maximum sound pressure levels of the ordinance. The proposed ordinance expands those requirements to include auxiliary generators and other HVAC equipment. III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION A. POLICY • State law prohibits the City from adopting noise limitations that are more stringent that those established by state rules. • The City desires to protect the peace and quietude of residential neighborhoods from noisy equipment that exceeds state limitations. B. CRITICAL ISSUES • The proposed ordinance conforms the City's noise regulations to those in state law. • The ordinance adopts state regulations by reference rather than repeating the contents of the state rules in the City ordinance. This manner of adopting state rules should assure that the City and state regulations will remain consistent. • The ordinance allows the Public Safety Director to require sound mitigation of air conditioning units, auxiliary generators, and other HVAC equipment that exceeds maximum sound limits. C. FINANCIAL • N/A D. LEGAL • The proposed ordinance will conform City noise limits to state law. E. ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERNS • N/A IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION(S~ • None. V. ATTACHMENTS. • Ordinance. VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING • None I~ /'' BILL NO. AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SUBECTIONS 930.01., 930.03, 930.05, 930.11 AND 930.13 OF THE RICHFIELD CITY CODE; RELATING TO REGULATION OF NOISE THE CITY OF RICHFIELD DOES ORDAIN: Section 1. Subsection 930.01 of the Richfield City Code is amended to read as follows: 930.01. Subd. 3. "Motor vehicle" means (i) any self-propelled vehicle not operated exclusively upon railroad tracks, (ii) any vehicle propelled or drawn by any~self-propelled vehicle, except snowmobiles. Sec. 2. Subsection 930.03 of the Richfield City Code is amended to read as follows: 930.03. Adoption of regulations by reference: The following state .agency regulations are adopted by reference: Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, Noise Pollution Control Section, F nnr.AR ~~a ~p04 and NPC 1~ Minnesota Rules Chapter. 7030, as amended. Sec. 3. Subsection 930.05 of the Richfield City Code is amended to read as follows: 930.05. Receiving land use standards. Subdivision 1. Maximum noise levels by receiving land use district. t For purposes of enforcing maximum noise levels by the receiving land use district as established by state rules, noise levels will be measured at the property line of the receiving use which is closest to the source. Tahla l I 1(1 Inica I imitc h~i RarPivin~ 7nninn ni.,---- -tr~rtc Winn f~ictrirtc pa~jmA NinhttimP ~,grli ictrial (il 7~1{BA 7fl iiRA ranaral C:nmmPrr_ial (C~-~l FF rIRA F.r, r1RA Subd. 2. Exceptions: The annly to the following exceptions to the maximum noise limits established by state rules shall apply: (a) construction activities described in subsection 930.09. (b) situations in which public health and safety require that immediate work be done on any property the performance of which exceeds. the sound . levels permitted for that time of day or for that day. ~-a (c) situations in which the purpose of the sound is to alert persons to an emergency or for the purpose of testing any alarm system. Sec. 4. Subsection 930.11 of the Richfield City Code is amended to read as follows: 930.11. Air circulation devices; auxiliary generators. Subdivision 1. Permit required. No person may permanently install or place any sound emitting air circulation device, auxiliary generator or other heating, ventilation or air circulation mechanical .equipment, axr_Pnt a ~n~inrln ni air r_nnrlitinninn i snit, In any outdoor location without first obtaining a permit for the installation. The requirement for a permit does not apply to a window air conditioning unit or an auxiliary aenerator that is temporarily placed during emergency use. Subd. 2. Sound levels; mitigation required. The sound level produced by any window unit, air circulation device, auxiliary generator anri h~i arni Pxictin~air cirri il_ atin~ or other heating, ventilation or air circulation mechanical device shall be reduced in the manner required by the director of public safety. Such requirements may include, but are-not limited to, placement or installation of fencing landscaping or sound baffling equipment or relocation of the devices if the noise results or contributes to sound levels in excess of those specified in Table I. Sec. 5. Subsection 930.13 of the Richfield City Code is amended to read as follows: 930.13. Motor vehicles. Subdivision 1. General restrictions. No person may operate a motor vehicle or combination of vehicles in such a manner as to exceed the noise limits contained in Pollution Control Agency Rules, F nnraR a Anna Minn. R. 7030.1000-1060, as amended. Sec. 6. This ordinance shall be 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 • • • J STAFF REPORT AGENDA SECTION: AGENDA ITEM # REPORT # CITY COUNCIL MEETING JULY 22, 2008 PROP. ORDINANCE 8 180 REPORT PREPARED BY: REVIEWED BY CITY MANAGER: ra" CITY ATTORNEY ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION: Consideration of first reading of an ordinance regulating outdoor storage and parking of recreational vehicles; amendin Section 1325 of the Richfield Cit Code. L RECOMMENDED ACTION: By Motion: • Approve a first reading of an ordinance regulating outdoor storage and parking of recreational vehicles; amending Section 1325 of the Richfield City Code. • Schedule a second reading for August 12, 2008. r ~ t.J IL BACKGROUND The City Council held a Worksession on November 27, 2007 regarding possible revisions to the City's regulations for outdoor storage and parking of recreational vehicles. At a follow-up meeting on January 22, 2008, the Council directed staff to hold two open houses for the purpose of obtaining: information from the community regarding possible ordinance changes. The open houses were held on Wednesday, May 14, 2008 and Saturday, May 17, 2008 and generated significant community interest. Asa .result of the open houses and .discussions with an organized group of recreational vehicle owners, Council Member Kilian presented a list of proposed changes at the City Council meeting on July 8, 2008. The Council directed staff to prepare an ordinance consistent with Council Member Kilian's proposal. 0722 First Reading of Recreational Vehicles Ordinance III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION A. POLICY • Outdoor storage of recreational vehicles creates potential impacts on neighboring properties. • The City's regulations are intended to achieve a balance that allows reasonable, temporary storage of vehicles incidental to a primary residential use but also maintains the essential residential character of City neighborhoods and minimizes impacts on neighboring properties. B. CRITICAL ISSiIES • The ordinance establishes standards for outdoor storage of recreational vehicles in order to minimize impacts on neighboring properties. • The ordinance establishes requirements related to storage location, size of vehicles, coverings for vehicles, parking surfaces, and other requirements. C. FINANCIAL • N/A D. LEGAL • The City Attorney assisted in the preparation of the proposed ordinance. E. ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERNS • N/A IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION~S~ • Revise the ordinance prior to second reading. • Do not approve first reading of the ordinance. This will result in no changes to the current City regulations. • Table the ordinance for later consideration. V. ATTACHMENTS • Ordinance No VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING • .Interested members of the public • ~~ t CITY OF RICHFIELD . AN .ORDINANCE REGULATING OUTDOOR STORAGE AND PARKING OF RECREATIONAL VEHICLES; AMENDING SECTION 1325 OF THE RICHFIELD CITY CODE THE CITY OF RICHFIELD DOES ORDAIN: Section 1. Section 1325 of the Richfield City Code is amended by adding a new subsection to read as follows: 1325.02. Findings• declaration of nuisance. Subdivision 1. Findings. The outside parking or outside storage of recreational vehicles on or abutting residential district properties if unregulated is found to have a detrimental influence upon the public health safety prosperity good order and general welfare in residential districts. The detrimental impacts include but are not limited to, obstruction of view on streets and private properties• preventing full use of residential streets for residential parkinq• creating a cluttered and unsightly area• creating. overcrowding if the recreational vehicles are used as a residence; creating environmental ~intained or a excessive periods of time• detrimentally impacting the. essential residential character of the neighborhood if the vehicle is stored and not used by the occupants of the principle dwelling for the vehicle's intended purpose as a recreational vehicle• and otherwise adversely affecting residential property values and the character of the neighborhood. Subd. 2. Nuisance. The outside parkinq or outside storage, on or abutting near residential district properties of recreational vehicles and equipment in violation of the standards set forth in this subsection is found to create a nuisance. Sec. 2. Subsection 1325.03 of the Richfield City Code is amended to read as follows: 1325.03. Definitions. Subdivision 1. For purposes of this section, .the following terms have the meanings assigned to them below. Subd. 2. Thp tArm "rarrPatinnal "Recreational vehicles and equipment" means travel trailers, including those which telescope or fold down, chassis mounted campers, scars, motor homes, tent trailers, slip-on campers, converted buses and converted vans that provide temporary human living auarters. A "recreational vehicle" is a vehicle that (a) is not used as the residence of the owner or occupant• (b) is used while engaged in recreational or vacation activities: and (c) is either self-propelled or towed on the highways incidental to the recreational or vacation activities.. • The term includes snowmobiles and snowmobile trailers, boats and boat trailers, and all terrain vehicles and all terrain vehicle trailers and utility trailers. The term /~ does not include manufactured homes or park trailers as those terms are defined • by Minnesota Statutes, section 168.011. 1989=2~ (b.} Subd. 3. "Slip-on campers" are mounted into apick-up truck in the pick- up box, either by bolting through the floor of the pick-up box or by firmly clamping to the side of the pick-up box. Subd. 4. "Utility trailer" means trailarc"~~nihirh fnr tha ni ~ T nca of Chic ~artinn shall moan any motorless vehicle • h^vin~^ r^miinnTr^* ^rit~i of 1(lr 1nnT n~ ~n~~ nr IPC~ any used for carrying property on its own structure while being drawn by a motor vehicle. Sec. 3. Subsection 1325.05 of the Richfield City Code is amended to read as follows: 1325.05. Permitted uses. Subdivision 1. General rule. Recreational vehicles and equipment may be parked or stored in a residential zoning district or in portions of planned unit development districts designated for residential uses as follows: (a) in a fully enclosed structure; (b) on any rear or side yard of a lot except the side yard of a corner lot adjacent to the street provided that it meets the requirements of this subsection; (c) in the front yard of a lot, provided: that the recreational vehicle is parked in an established driveway1 g,3 the vehicle is not closer than 1512_feet to the curb line. of the street abutting the driveway and does not obstruct a public sidewalk and it meets the requirements of this subsection. Subd. 2. Loading. A recreational vehicle may be stored on a lot without regard to the location on the lot for the sole and express purpose of loading and unloading for a period not in excess of 48 hours. Subd. 3. Slide-in pickup campers. Unmounted slide-in pickup campers must be stored no higher than 20 inches above the ground and must be securely supported on at least at four corners by solid support blocks. Subd. 4. Storage. Except as provided_ herein, all recreational vehicles parked or stored outside .must be on wheels or must be securely attached to a wheeled trailer or other wheeled vehicle, with wheels fully inflated. This requirement does not apply to canoes less than 17 feet in length or to slide-in pickup campers that are stored in compliance with subdivision 3 of this subsection. Subd. 5. Covers. All snowmobiles, all terrain vehicles and boats that are parked or stored outside must be covered with a tightly fitted cover designed to keep out rodents and rain. Subd. 6. Licenses. All recreational vehicles parked or stored outside must • display current licenses as required bV applicable law for use in the state of Minnesota. Subd. 7. Location.. All recreational vehicles parked or stored outside must be located at least three feet from any building or other structure, including but not .limited to fences. Subd. 8. Owned by occupant.. All recreational vehicles parked or stored outside must be owned by an occupant of the premises on which the vehicle is parked or stored except as permitted by subdivision 2 of this subsection. The owner of the recreational vehicle must be able to present proof of ownership upon request of.an authorized code enforcement official ~ . Subd. 9. Size limit. No more than one recreational vehicle parked or stored outside on a property may exceed any of the following dimensions: 7.5 feet in width; 7.5 feet in height; 22 feet in length. Subd. 10. Parking surface. A motorized recreational vehicle parked or stored .outside must be located on a parking area constructed with concrete, asphalt concrete pavers brick set in compacted sand or other impervious or semi-impervious material approved by the director of community development. A non-motorized recreational vehicle must be located on either a parking area that meets the requirements for motorized vehicles or on a decorative rock surface. A • decorative rock surface must meet the following criteria: a four-inch base of class five minimum rock commercial grade weed prevention fabric must be installed beneath the rock surface• edging must a installed to contain the rock; and the area must be maintained to prevent weed growth. The parking surface must extend to the maximum width and the maximum length of the vehicle that is parked on the ~surface• no portion of the recreational vehicle may extend beyond the paved or rock surface. Sec. 4. Subsection 1325.07 of the Richfield City Code is amended to read as follows: 1325.07. Prohibited uses. A recreational vehicle (a~ re~reation2l vehicles any or equipment shall not be used as a permanent residence. Sec. 5. Subsection 1325.11 of the Richfield City Code is amended to read as follows: 1325.11. Inoperable Vehicle. The provisions of Subsection 1320.13 shall be • applicable to the parking and storage of recreational vehicles, eXCent ac nrrnii,d,ed. in ~i ihcantinn 1 ~7.r, (17 naranranh (hl and notWlthStanding any Other prOVISIOnS Of this section to -the contrary. Sec. 6. This ordinance is effective in accordance with Section 3.09 of the Richfield City Charter. Adopted the day of , 2008 by the City .Council of the City of .Richfield, Minnesota. Debbie Goettel, Mayor ATTEST: Nancy Gibbs, City Clerk • r ~_J AGENDA SECTION: PROP . ORDINANCES AGENDA ITEM # 9 REPORT # 181 ' STAFF REPORT CITY COUNCIL MEETING JULY 22, 2008 REPORT PREPARED BY: DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR REVIEW: REVIEWED BY CITY MANAGER: ,~ CHARLIE O'BRIEN, CODE COMPLIANCE OFFICER NAME, TITLE ITEM R IL ID RATI N: Second reading of an ordinance amendment establishing regulations for the storage of oversize vehicles in residential districts. I. RECOMMENDED ACTION: By Motion: Conduct the second reading to approve the ordinance amendment establishing regulations for the storage of oversize vehicles in residential districts and approve the resolution authorizing summary publication of the ordinance amendment. (Moved from May 27, 2008) II. BACKGROUND At a Council Worksession in July 2007, staff presented information regarding similar ordinances from other cities and research material on various types and sizes of vehicles, illustrating that regulating storage of vehicles by vehicle weight could allow for the storage of very large vehicles on residential property, while still meeting the weight restrictions of our current ordinance. Staff was instructed, after discussion with Council, to prepare a draft ordinance addressing vehicle storage in residential districts by dimension and stating the • dimensions to be allowed. The first reading of the amendment to the ordinance was conducted on May 13, 2008. Second reading was rescheduled from May 27, 2008 meeting but was 0722 Second Reading of Ordinance Amendment on Storage of Oversize Vehicles removed from that agenda for further review to be presented for consideration at a future City Council meeting. • III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION A. POLICY is ie ity o e section 3 oes not allow: vehicles that are in excess of one ton; a bus designed to carry more than nine passengers; any tractor, truck-tractor, ortruck-trailer to be stored on residential property. This method is problematic for several reasons: • There has been a trend toward larger and larger vehicles being owned by citizens and being kept on residential property m general. The proliferation of larger and larger SUVs and Pickups is obvious. Some vehicles are kept for commercial purposes but many are not. They are still in violation of the ordinance. • There is a trend in business for individuals to be employed by a firm but seldom going to a facility owned by the firm. Service industries commonly ship the items needed by their employees to their homes and provide a vehicle that the individual uses daily for business but stores at his residence. • Staff has difficulty determining the weight of vehicles in a manner that allows for easy enforcement that can be understood easily by citizens as well. • Vehicles can be very large while not being in violation of the current restrictions by weight. For example, a large cube van used for delivery may not be in violation of our weight standard but may have a high impact on surrounding properties. • B. CRITICAL ISSUES • is ie ity co a section oes not allow for vehicles that are in excess of one ton, a bus designed to carry more than nine passengers, or any tractor, truck-tractor, ortruck-trailer to be stored on residential property. C. FINANCTAT" - D. LEGAL E. ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS • TERNATIVE KECOMMENDATION(S) ~ -~T could c~eci~e to ma a no c anges to the current ordinance. This would, however, prohibit residents whose every day vehicle ortruck is over the one-ton limit from parking their vehicle on their property without risk of receiving a violation notice and possible enforcement action while allowing the storage of oversize vehicles on residential properties that did not cross the current regulatory weight threshold to impact surrounding properties. V. ATTACHMENTS • r mance. • Resoution. • VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING ~- I CITY OF RICHFIELD • STATE OF MINNESOTA ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE CITY CODE PERTAINING TO PARKING AND STORAGE OF OVERSIZE VEHICLES IN THE CITY OF RICHFIELD THE CITY OF RICHFIELD DOES ORDAIN: Section 1. ,Subsection 1320.01 of the Richfield City Code is amended to read as follows: Section 1320: Parking: outside storage. 1320.01. Declaration of nuisance. The outside parking or outside storage, on or near residential district properties, of vehicles, materials, supplies or equipment not customarily used or needed for use in connection with the occupancy of residential property for resid.eace residential purposes, is found to create a nuisance and detrimental influence upon the public health, safety, prosperity, good order and general welfare in such district residential districts, including; obstruction of view on streets and on private properties, bringing unhealthful and noisome odors and materials into residential neighborhoods, creating a -cluttered and otherwise unsightly areas, preventing the full use of .residential streets for residential parking, introducing commercial advertising signs into areas where commercial advertising • signs are otherwise prohibited, and otherwise adversely affecting residential property values and neighborhood patterns. Sec. 2. Section 1320 of the Richfield City Code is amended by adding a subdivision to read as follows: 1320.02. Definition: Oversize Vehicle: Anv vehicle whose dimens ana one and one half feet (7.5'1 in heiaht. exclusive of anv additional racks or eauipment_ on a to end includi Sec.. 3. Subsection 1320.03 of the Richfield City Code is amended to read as follows: 1320.03. Unlawful parking. It is unlawful for any person owning, driving or in charge of a vehicle of any of the types hereinafter specified as an Oversize Vehicle to cause or permit such vehicle to be parked or to stand continuously for more than taarn four hours on any residential property or on any public street directly abutting residential districts within the city. This prohibition applies to the following vehicles and other similar vehicles. • (a) Any bus other than a bus converted to an RV as allowed by other sections of the city code. b) Any Oversize /ehicle as defined in this section on anv city street unless a Riaht of Wav C] ' (~- (c) Any tractor, truck-tractor, truck-trailer or any type of trailer defined as an Oversize Vehicle in this section. Sec. 4. Subsection 1320.05 of the Richfield City Code is amended to read as follows: 1320.05. Exceptions. This section does not apply to the following vehicles: cl A private public service as u A vehicle which is actually making a pickup or delivery at the location where it is parked. Parking for any period of time beyond the period of time reasonably necessary to make such pickup or delivery and in excess of the taaca four hour limit shall be unlawful; or • (e) Recreational vehicles and equipment as defined by this code. (f) Oversize or commercial vehicles in non residential areas as allowed elsewhere in this code. Sec. 5. This ordinance will become effective in accordance with Section 3.09 of the City Charter. Adopted this 22nd day of July, 2008. ATTEST: Nancy C. Gibbs, City Clerk Debbie Goettel, Mayor (a) A motor truck, pickup truck or similar vehicle being used by a public utility, moving company, or similar company, which is actually being used to service a residence not belonging to or occupied by the operator of the vehicle; ~l-j RESOLUTION NO. • RESOLUTION APPROVING SUMMARY PUBLICATION OF BILL NO. WHEREAS, the City has adopted the above referenced ordinance; and WHEREAS, the verbatim text of the ordinance is cumbersome, and the expense of publication of the complete text is not justified; and WHEREAS, the following summary clearly informs the public of the intent and effect of the ordinance. 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. AN ORDINANCE RELATING TO ENFORCEMENT OF THE CITY CODE; RELATING TO THE PROHIBITION OF THE STORAGE OF OVERSIZE VEHICLES IN RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS; AMENDING SUBSECTIONS 1320.01 THROUGH 1320.05 OF THE RICHFIELD CITY CODE On July 22, 2008, the Richfield City Council adopted an ordinance designated as Bill No. ,the title of which is stated above. This summary of the ordinance is published pursuant to Section 3.12 of the Richfield City Charter. • The ordinance establishes a definition and dimensions for "Oversize Vehicles" in residential districts based in general upon the size of the vehicle. The ordinance establishes maximum dimensions of twenty-two feet (22') in length; or, seven and one half feet (7.5') in width; or, seven and one half feet (7.5') in height as the maximum allowable dimensions for a vehicle to be allowed to be stored on property within residential districts within the City. Exceeding any one of these dimensions would make the vehicle an "Oversize Vehicle" and prohibit its storage on residential property within the City. The previous language regulating vehicle storage by weight is repealed. This ordinance change does not affect Recreational Vehicles as defined elsewhere in this code. Copies of the ordinance are available for public inspection in the office of the City Clerk during normal business hours or upon request by calling 612-861-9800 of the Public Safety Department. Nancy Gibbs, City Clerk BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the City Clerk is directed to keep a copy of the ordinance in her office at City Hall for public inspection and to post a full copy of the ordinance in a public place in the City for a period of two weeks. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this 22nd day of July, 2008. Debbie Goettel, Mayor ATTEST: Nancy Gibbs, City Clerk • AGENDA SECTION: PROP. ORDINANCES AGENDA ITEM # IO REPORT # 182 STAFF REPORT CITY COUNCIL MEETING JULY 22, 2008 • REPORT PREPARED BY: INTERIM DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR REVIEW: REVIEWED BY CITY MANAGER: MELISSA POEHLMAN, PLANNING & ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION: Second reading of an amendment to the Zoning Ordinance that would relax regulations re ardin d namic si ns. I. RECOMMENDED ACTION: to the functionality and By Motion: Approve a second reading of the attached ordinance amending the Richfield City Code by amending Section 549.09, 549.25(b) and 549.25(c), and by repealing Subsection 549.25(f) related lacement of dynamic signs. II. BACKGROUND On December 11, 2007 the City Council adopted new sign regulations that included rules governing dynamic signs. The Council also asked that staff continue to research the issues of font size, time limits and spacing of dynamic signs. Based on observations in the first half of 2008, continued study and discussion with the business community, staff recommended a number of changes. These changes were discussed at a joint Worksession with the City Council and Planning Commission on June 10, 2008. • A public hearing was held before the Planning Commission on June 23, 2008. Mr. Ken Severson, representing Woodlake Lutheran Church (7525 Oliver Avenue), spoke against the proposed revisions and advised against any time limitations for dynamic signs. The Planning Commission recommended approval of the proposed 072208 - 2nd Reading Sign Ord ZONING ADMINISTRATOR two-minute time limitation, as well as the other recommended changes, by a vote of . 5-4. Disagreement focused on the frequency of change regulation. On July 8, 2008 the City Council conducted a first reading of the proposed ordinance. A revised ordinance reducing the frequency of change to one minute was approved 3-2. III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION A. POLICY • The proposed regulations are based on the following conclusions as reported by SRF Consulting Group and Gerald Wachtel in a report prepared for the City of Minnetonka: o There is a correlation between dynamic displays on signs and the distraction of highway drivers. o An eye movement study showed that dynamic displays may distract drivers by as much as two seconds. The Federal Highway Administration has determined that being distracted for two seconds or more can result in traffic accidents. o Drivers can be distracted by just knowing that a sign has a changing message and may watch a sign waiting for • the next change. o Drivers are distracted by messages that do not tell the full story in one look (i.e. scrolling messages). o Drivers .are more distracted by special effects used to change the message. o Drivers are more distracted by messages that are too small to be clearly seen. • The League of Minnesota reports the following in regard to dynamic signs: o' "The available research on traffic impacts supports significant content-neutral limits or even bans on dynamic signs for safety reasons." o "Studies have described the Zeigarnik effect, a psychological need to see a task through to its end. In ,the case of dynamic signs, a driver's desire to read an entire message before it changes or to complete a scrolling message has been shown to negatively impact drivers' tendencies to maintain a constant speed or remain in a lane." Proposed Regulations: • Font size requirements: Currently the minimum font size allowed on a dynamic sign is related to the speed of the adjacent roadway. • Proposed change: Remove minimum font size requirements. • Reasoning: • There are no minimum font size requirements for other signs. • As the frequency of change is limited, drivers are subjected to only one message. • Formulas used to determine the appropriate font size are complicated. • Representatives of businesses with dynamic signs or interested in dynamic signs indicated that the minimum font size requirement was their first priority for revision. Spacing requirements: Currently a dynamic sign must be located at least 200 feet from any other dynamic sign as measured from property line to property line. • Proposed change: Remove spacing requirements; allow only one dynamic display per site. • Reasoning: ^ Local spacing requirements could interfere with the equal opportunity of businesses to use new technology, resulting in more businesses opting for dynamic signs simply to "beat their neighbor to it." ^ Rather than spacing requirements, sites shall be limited to-one dynamic display. • Time limits: Currently displays may not change more often than once every five minutes. • Proposed change: Reduce frequency of change. On July 8, 2008, the Council voted 3-2 to reduce the frequency to one minute. Reasoning: ^ Studies have shown that there is a correlation between dynamic displays and the distraction of drivers. ^ Without spacing requirements, the frequency of change becomes critical to ensuring that drivers are not subjected to constant motion as they travel down a given street. Traffic%onstruction information: Currently traffic signs are exempt from permitting requirements; however, they are not exempt from the rest of the requirements of the sign code. ^ Proposed change: Exempt sign installed by public officials in performance of official duties related to public safety. ^ Reasoning: ^ Public safety often requires that signs be placed in • the right-of--way, that they be portable and that messages change more frequently than generally allowed. ^ The messages on these types of signs are typically simple, repetitive and displayed in large font. ^ Following discussion with the City Attorney, it has been determined that traffic signs are decidedly different from other signs and can be regulated differently to ensure public safety. B. CRITICAL ISSUES • As studies have shown that there is a correlation between dynamic displays and the distraction of drivers, it is reasonable to regulate their use in the City. • Continued research, observation and discussion has led to the recommended changes that will relax some aspects of dynamic display regulation. • It is important to consider the regulations as a package, rather than as individual regulations. For instance, large spacing requirements may make more frequently changing messages acceptable, but will also prevent many businesses from being able to utilize new technology. • A meeting with dynamic sign owners and interested parties confirms that the business community is in favor of the proposed changes, although they would prefer that the relaxation of the rules go further. C. FINANCIAL • N/A D. LEGAL • At a public hearing held June 23, 2008 the Planning Commission voted to recommend approval of the proposed ordinance (5-4, Karr, Mayo, Peloquin, Van Sickle dissenting). • A first reading was approved by the Council on July 8, 2008. • If adopted, the proposed changes will take effect 30 days after publication in the Sun Current. E. ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS • N/A IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION(S~ • Approve the attached ordinance with revisions. V. ATTACHMENTS • Ordinance VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING • N/A • lC~~ I BILL NO. • AMENDMENT TO RICHFIELD CITY CODE AMEND SUBSECTIONS 549.09, 549.25(b) AND 549.25(c) AND REPEAL SUBSECTION 549.25(f) RELATED TO THE FUNCTIONALITY AND PLACEMENT OF DYNAMIC SIGNS THE CITY OF RICHFIELD DOES ORDAIN: Section 1 Richfield City Code Subsection 509.09 is hereby amended to read as follows: 549.09. Exemptions. The following signs shall not require a permit. These exemptions, however, shall not be construed as relieving the owner of the sign from the responsibility of its erection and maintenance, and its compliance with the provisions of this ordinance or any other law or ordinance regulating the same, unless otherwise noted: a) The changing of a changeable message as defined in Subsection 549.05 or a dynamic display message; b) The changing of the display surface on a painted or printed sign only. • This exemption, .however, shall apply only to poster replacement and/or on- site changes involving sign painting elsewhere than directly on the building; c) Signs six (6) square feet or less in size; d) Window signs; e) Street identification numbers /address signs; f) Bench signs complying with Subsection 805.19, Subd. 4 of the City Code; g) Signs on vehicles when the vehicle is being used in the normal day-to- day operation of that business as described in Subsection 549.05, Subd. 30; and h) Traffic signs and/or signs erected by public officials in performance of official duties for the purpose of traffic control and public safety. Traffic signs are also exempt from-size, setback and dynamic display regulations. Section 2 Richfield City Code Subsection 549.25(b) is amended to read: (b) D rlvn~min rlic~r~h~i mue+ he ~t lo~c+'x(1!1 food frnrr~ env nlhcrrlvnamin ',~;c Only one dynamic display is permitted on any individual site. Section 3 Richfield City Code Subsection 549.25(c) is amended to read as follows: (c) A dynamic display may not change or move more often than once every 60 seconds, except one for which changes are necessary to correct hour-and-minute, date, or temperature information. Time, date or temperature information is considered one dynamic display and may not be included as a component of any other dynamic display. A display of time, 072208 - 2nd Reading Sign Ord to -~. date, or temperature must remain for at least {~~~° ^^~^~ ~*°c 60 seconds before changing to a different display, but the time, date, or temperature information itself may change no more often than once every 3 seconds. Section 4 Richfield City Code Subsection 549.25(f) is hereby repealed upon the effective date of this ordinance, and bynow renumbering all subsequent clauses accordingly. Section 5 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 C, • AGENDA SECTION: AGENDA ITEM # REPORT # ~- STAFF REPORT CITY COUNCIL MEETING JULY 22, 2008 • REPORT PREPARED BY: MELISSA POEHLMAN, PLANNING & ZONING AD INISTRATOR NAME, TITLE INTERIM DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR REVIEW: SI REVIEWED BY CITY MANAGER: , PROP.ORDINANCES 11 183 ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION: Second reading of an ordinance amendment revising the required clear view distance at certain intersections. I. RECOMMENDED ACTION: By Motion: Approve a second reading of the attached ordinance amending the Richfield City Code by repealing Subsection 509.17 and amending Subsections 925.01, Subd. 4(a) related to clear visibility at intersections. II. BACKGROUND The City Code currently regulates traffic visibility at corners at 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. 072208 - 2nd Reading Sight Triangles With the adoption of the stop sign policy eliminating uncontrolled intersections with • the City, it is a good time to review the clear view regulations. The experience of the Public Works and Community Development Departments is that in many instances, a 50-foot sight triangle is excessive in terms of sight lines and also drastically reduces the ability of residents to landscape in their front and side yards (see attached illustrations). Staff conducted a review of sight triangle regulations in nearby suburban communities for comparison: Bloomington: 15 feet along property lines (not curb line) Eagan: 30 feet Edina: 30 feet Hopkins: 30 feet St. Louis Park: 50 feet The proposed changes will reduce the sight triangle to 30 feet for intersections at which there is free-flowing traffic in no more than two directions, rather than just for intersections controlled in all four directions. Additionally, more explicit language is proposed to allow for elements such as wrought iron fences with less than 50 percent opacity to be within the clear zone. These changes were discussed at a Council Worksession held July 8, 2008. III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION • A. POLICY • City regulations are intended to protect and promote public health and safety. • The proposed revisions will continue to do so and have been approved by the Community Development, Public Safety and Public Works Departments. • Regulations governing uncontrolled intersections will remain the same. B. CRITICAL ISSUES • The new stop sign policy will provided a minimum of two-way traffic control at all intersections. This additional control reduced the need fora 50-foot clear zone. • Staff is of the opinion, based on the experience or enforcement of current regulations, that a 50-foot sight triangle is often excessive in terms of visibility needs when vehicles are traveling at appropriate speeds for the conditions. • A 50-foot sight triangle can significantly limit a property owner's ability to landscape and enhance their front and side yards. • 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 of 70th Street and Clinton Avenue. • The Planning Commission voted unanimously to recommend approval of revisions to the sight triangle regulations (6-0). • The Council approved a first reading of the attached ordinance on June 10, 2008. • If approved, the ordinance will take effect 30 days following publication in the Sun Current. E: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS • N/A IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION(S~ • Approve the attached ordinance with modifications. V. ATTACHMENTS • • Ordinance • Sight triangle illustrations • Sample sight triangle illustrations on a 50-foot lot VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING • N/A • 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: • On corner ns or nted or allowed to grow in such a manne height of 30 inches and 10 feet above tr :rsecting streets within a triangular area < :he intersection of the projected curb line: once 30 feet along one curb line, thence c point of beginning on the other curb line innin ." the purposes of this section, chain link, v s than 50 percent opacity shall not be coi ~nals so as to allow freE ing shall be erected, ply to obstruct vision betty butting curb line of the efined as follows: "beg two intersectina streets ce to iron 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 072208 - 2nd Reading Sight Triangles (a) Trees, hedges, billboards or other obstructions which prevent persons from having a clear view of traffic approaching an intersection 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_ ~ l- a- C] 50-foot sight triangle (CURRENTLY APPLIES TO: uncontrolled & 2 way controlled intersections) 30-foot sight triangle (CURRENTLY APPLIES. TO: 4-way controlled intersections) PROPOSED TO APPLY TO: 2-way controlled intersections in addition to 4-way ~~ ~~, RQAD~VAY ;, cxNrs gKiliT-Ow WAY ~~~~ :# r ~~ SCALE 1'-10' • !/- Impact of 50- and 30-foot sight triangles on 50-foot wide residential lot. N 0 10 20 40 60 80 Feet • AGENDA SECTION: AGENDA ITEM # REPORT # ~J OTHER BIISINESS 12 184 STAFF REPORT CITY COUNCIL MEETING JULY 22, 2008 • REPORT PREPARED BY: DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR REVIEW: REVIEWED BY CITY MANAGER: ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION: Consideration of approval of a supplemental agreement with Shafer Contracting for the 66th Street and Portland Avenue Intersection Pro'ect. I. RECOMMENDED ACTION: By Motion: Approve the supplemental agreement with Shafer Contracting for extending the project limits further east on 66t" Street from Oakland Avenue to Columbus Avenue. • II. BACKGROUND The original project limits were developed to accommodate the 2-lane roundabout and extended further east on 66"'" Street to include crosswalk enhancements at Park Avenue. The roadway was shifted north to accommodate the median island for the crosswalk and, to keep project. costs down, the project limits on the south half of the roadway stopped just west of Oakland Avenue. After receiving the bids, staff was informed that there was a surplus in the federal funds available for the project. This allows for extending the limits on the southern half of the east leg to Columbus-Avenue. The extension would cost $215,408.96 and allows for roadway replacement, new curb, sidewalk and the replacement of the - retaining wall at 6601 Oakland Avenue. Mr. Williams, owner of the property at 6601 Oakland, is supportive of the additional work. The additional work requires that a supplemental agreement be processed. 0722PortlandSA KRISTIN ASHER, CITY ENGINEER III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION A. POLICY • All Supplemental Agreements over $25,000 require Council approval. B. CRITICAL ISSUES • The Contractor will need to order materials for the additional work in order to complete the project in a "timely manner. C. FINANCIAL • The $215,408.96 for the supplemental agreement would be funded using 80% federal funds and 20% Municipal State Aid (MSA) funds ($43,100). D. LEGAL • Staff is adhering to Federal and State Aid approved procedures when processing the supplement agreement. • The City Attorney will be available to answer questions. E. ENVIIZONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS • None. N. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION(S~ • The Council may choose not to approve the Supplemental Agreement and direct staff to adhere to the original project limits. V. ATTACHMENTS • Site map indicating proposed project limit changes. • .Supplemental Agreement Form VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING • None. • • • • PARK A ;d t~ rn y a~ ~y O f.{ z w° ~ x ~' N A~ ~ ~ r ~ r 1 ~ M - COLUMBUS AVENUE - ~ tai t=i H ro 0 ro 0 r~ d 0 z H C~ H H O z r H H H z ~ ~ ~ ro ~x H z ~ .. z 0 H x ~~L PARK AVENUE ~ Y y x ~~l ~. CJ~ ~l ~ e~ r~ COLUMBUS AVENUE H x H H H z 0 z H C n H H O z r H H H r~ z ro ~P x H z ~ z 0 H x i~ ~~~ STATE AID FOR LOCAL TRANSPORTATION May 2008 SUPPLEMENTAL' AGREEMENT Page ~ of 3 • City/County of Richfield Supplemental Agreement No. 1 FEDERAL PROJECT NO. STATE PROJECT NO. LOCAL PROJECT NO. CONTRACT NO. STPX 2706 (140) 157-020-19 CP 41450 2745 CONTRACTOR NAME ADDRESS CITY STATE ZIP Shafer Contracting, Inc. PO Box .128 Shafer MN 55074 LOCATION OF WORK: TOTAL SUPPLEMENTAL AGREEMENT AMOUNT Richfield, MN $215,408.96 This Contract is between the Local Government Entity and Contractor as follows: WHEREAS: This contract provides for, among other things, Grading, Surfacing, Concrete Curb and Gutter, Storm Sewer, Sanitary Sewer, Water Main and Signing, and WHEREAS: The City of Richfield is requesting that the limits of the Eastbound lanes on the East Leg of CSAH 53 (66th Street) be extended from Oakland Avenue to Columbus Avenue and, WHEREAS: In order to .construct a sidewalk meeting state aid standards at the parcel south of 66th Street and east of Oakland Avenue a retaining wall is required to be removed and replaced with a new modular block retaining wall and, • .WHEREAS: The plans did. not call for nor have bid .items for; remove retaining wall, modular block retaining wall or Temporary Fence and, WHEREAS: The plans did .include bid items and unit prices for the additional items described .below for the eastbound lanes and will be covered by an increase in quantity of these items at the bid .unit price. NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY MUTUALLY AGREED AND UNDERSTOOD THAT: 1. The contractor shall provide all materials, labor, equipment, traffic control, and mobilization and construct the extension of the eastbound lanes of the east leg of the 66th Street and Portland Avenue Roundabout. 2. The work of this supplemental agreement will be in accordance with the pertinent portions of the plan, the special provisions, the Mn/DOT Standard Specifications, Mn/DOT Standard Plates, the attached twenty-four (24) 11" x 17" revised plan sheets dated 5/9/08 (originally submitted 4/10/08) identified as Plan Sheet Nos. 25R, 73R, 80R, 81 R, 82R, 86AR, 86B, 86C, 86D, 87R, 89R, 90R, 91 R, 92R, 93R, 95R, 107R, 130R, 131. R, 132R, 133R, 134R, 1358 and 136R and the attached special provisions S-88 and S-89 and as directed by the Engineer. • 3. By signing. the Supplemental Agreement No. 1, the Contractor acknowledges receipt of the twenty-four (24) 11" x 17" revised plan sheets (dated 5/9/08) and special provisions that are incorporated into this Supplemental Agreement No. 1 by reference. ~ ~: 3 STATE AID FOR LOCAL TRANSPORTATION May 2008 SUPPLEMENTAL AGREEMENT Page2ots • 4. Contract time will not be revised except as provided under the Contract Provisions of Mn/DOT Specification 1806. C] • 5. The Contractor shall not make claim of any kind or character whatsoever for any cost or expenses which they may have incurred or which they may hereafter incur in performing the work and furnishing the materials required by this Agreement. COST BREAKDOWN Group/*Fund Item No. Description Unit Unit Price Quantity Amount (_a+ Increased Items Grou 1 2104.501 Remove Curb and Gutter Lin Ft $2.50 700 $1,750.00 Group 1 2104:503 Remove Concrete Walk S Ft $0.50 8,421 $4,210.50 Group 1 2104.503 Remove Concrete Driveway. Pavement Sq Ft $0.50 100 $50.00 Group 1 2104.505 Remove Concrete Pavement S Yd $4.00 2,010 $8,040.00 Group 1 2104.505 Remove Bituminous Pavement S Yd $2.00 2,310 $4,620.00' Group 1 2105.50.7 Sub rade Excavation Cu Yd $7.25 2,005 $14,536.25 Grou 1 2105.522 Select GranularBorrow LV Cu Yd $7.25 2,607 $18,900.75 Group 1 2105.525 To soil Borrow CV Cu Yd $0.01 46 $0.46 Group 1 2211.503 A re ate Base CV Class 5 Cu Yd $15.00 520 $7,800.00 Group 1 2357.502 Bituminous Material for Tack Coat Gallon $2.50 240 $600.00 Group 1 2360.501 Type SP 12.5 Wearing Course Mix 3 C Ton $51.75 390 $20,182.50 Group 1 2360.502 Type SP 12.5 Non-Wearing Course Mix 3,B . Ton $46.70 390. $18,213.00 Grou 1 2521.501 4" Concrete Walk. Sq Ft $2.70 8,421 $22,736.70 Group 1 2521.501 4" Concrete Walk Special S Ft $7.15 247 $1,766.05 Group 1 2531.501 Concrete Curb & Gutter Design B624 .Lin Ft .$10.90 700 $7,630.00 Group 1 2531.507 8" Concrete Drivewa Pavement Sq Yd $54.00 100 $5.,400.00 Grou 1 2531.602 Pedestrian Curb Ramp Each $720.00 5 $3,600.00 Grou 1 2531.602 Conc Entrance Nose Des 7113 Each $500.00 2 $1,000.00 Grou 1 2545.511 Li htin Unit T pe A Each $2,850.00 7 $19,950.00 Group 1 2545.515 Li ht Base Desi n S ecial 1 Each $465.00 7 $3,255.00 Group 1 2545.602 Handhole Each $500.00 4 $2,000.00 Su btotal Grou 1 Increased Items $166,241.21 Group 2 2104.501 Remove Sewer Pipe (Storm Lin Ft $10.00 388 .$3,880.00 Group 2 2104.509 Remove Draina a Structure Each $250.00 2 ~ $500.00 Group 2 2503.541 V ~~ RC Pipe Sewer Des 3006 CL Lin Ft $29 166 $4,814.00 Grou 2 2506.516 Castin Assembly Each $500.00 4 $2,000.00 Group 2 2506.501 Const Drainage Structure Des 48- 4020 Lin Ft $275.00 24.61 $6,767.75 Su btotal Grou 2 Increased Items $17,961.75 Negotiated Items Grou 1 2104.501 Remove Retainin Wall Lin Ft $16.00 86 $1,376.00 Group 1 2411.618 Modular Block Retainin Wall Sq Ft $39.90 700 $27,930.00 Group 1 2572.501 Temporary Fence Lin Ft $19.00 100 $1,900.00 Subtotal-Grou 1 Ne otiated Items $31,206.00 GRAND TOTAL $215,408.96 • • 1 ~~ STATE AID FOR LOCAL TRANSPORTATION May 2008 SUPPLEMENTAL AGREEMENT Page 3 of 3 *Group/Funding category is required for federal projects. Approved by Approved by Project Contractor: Engineer: Print Name: Print Name: Date: Phone: Date: Phone: Original to Project Engineer; Copy to Contractor Once contract has been fully executed, forward a copy to DSAE for funding review: The State of Minnesota is not a participant in this contract; signing by the District State Aid Engineer is for FUNDING PURPOSES ONLY. Reviewed for compliance with State and Federal Aid Rules/Policy. Eligibility does not guarantee funds will be available. This project is eligible for: _ Federal Funding State Aid Funding _ Local funds District State Aid Engineer: Date: • C7 AGENDA SECTION: AGENDA ITEM # REPORT # OTHER BIISINESS 13 185 STAFF REPORT CITY COUNCIL MEETING JULY 22, 2008 ~~ U • REPORT PREPARED BY: DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR REVIEW: REVIEWED BY CITY MANAGER: KRISTIN ASxER, CITY ENGINEER ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION: Consideration of the award of contract for the 6300 Block of Lyndale Avenue Project and authorization to hire WSB & Associates to provide construction oversight of the construction. I. .RECOMMENDED ACTION: By Motion: • Accept the bid minutes/tabulation and award contract to Eureka Construction, Inc. in the amount of $1,210,948.80 for the 6300 Block of Lyndale Avenue Project. • Approve the .purchase of construction engineering services from WSB & Associates for $96,956.00 to provide construction oversight services required to complete the project. II. BACKGROUND The City has been coordinating with Mn/DOT regarding the project along Lyndale Avenue including a new storm water pipe to convey additional runoff from the Crosstown Project to Richfield Lake. The project includes the reconstruction of the 6300 block of Lyndale Avenue and construction of a storm water pipe across the Lyndale Garden Center property to the perimeter ponding system around Richfield Lake via easement. The project is currently scheduled to begin in late July 2008 with the City administering the project on behalf of Mn/DOT.. The City will receive funds from the 07226300Lyndale ~; NAME. TITLE State to cover the State's portion of the .project, including construction inspection. Mn/DOT funds the project almost entirely. MSA (gas tax) and utility funds will fund the City's portion for costs associated with sanitary, water and lighting utilities included in the construction. III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION A. POLICY • The City wishes to administer the project in order to control the project details and schedule. B. -CRITICAL ISSUES • The City -has an agreement to Mn/DOT to have the storm water in place to receive storm water runoff from the I-35W/Crosstown Reconstruction. C. FINANCIAL • Six bids were received for the 6300 Block of Lyndale Avenue Project; the low bid was $1,210,948.80. The engineer's estimate was $1,605,213.75, so the project is within the expected budget estimates. • The City will, obtain State funds to pay for the Mn/DOT portion of the project. Based on the. bid Mn/DOT's portion is estimated to be $1,007,132.80. • The City's portion is estimated to be $203,816.00 (sanitary $60,007.00, watermain $63,455.00 and sidewalk /lighting $80,354.00). • WSB Coristruction Engineering is estimated to be $96,956.00 and will be funded by Mn/DOT. 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 ALTERNATIVE KECOMMENDATION(S) ~ • The Council may reject all bids and choose not to construct the improvements at this time. However, the City has an agreement with Mn/DOT to complete the improvements in a timely manner in order to convey additional storm water from the I-35W/Crosstown to Richfield Lake. • The Council may choose not to approve the purchase of engineering services from WSB & Associates for the construction oversight of the 6300 Block of Lyndale Avenue Project. I V . ATTACHMENTS I • Bid minutes and tabulation for 6300 Block of Lyndale Avenue Project • WSB Work Plan for construction inspection services ~ V 1. PRINCIPAL PARTIES 1/XPECTED AT • None anticipated. ~,~-~ CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA • Bid Opening July 15, 2008 . 10:00 a.m. Street & Drainage Improvements - 6300 Block Lyndale Avenue South Bid No. 08-05 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 Street & Drainage Improvements for the 6300 Block of Lyndale Avenue South, as advertised in the official newspaper on June 26 and July 3, 2008 and fhe Construction Bulletin on June 23 and 30, 2008. Present: Nancy Gibbs, City Clerk Kristin Asher; Assistant City Engineer Cheryl Krumholz, City Manager Representative • L_J The following bids were submitted and read aloud: Non- Mn/DOT Addendum Bidder's Name Collusion 21816 #1 Total Base Bid (Bond) Eureka Construction, Inc. Provided Provided Provided $1,210,948.80 Lakeville, MN Geislinger & Sons Provided Provided Provided $1,672,826.64 Watkins, MN l_aTour Construction, Inc. Provided Provided Provided $1,686,859.10 Maple Lake, MN Max Steininger, Inc. .Provided Provided Provided $1,486,290.94 Eagan, MN Northwest Asphalt, Inc. Provided Provided Provided $1,594,322.40 Shakopee, MN Thomas & Sons Construction, Provided Provided Provided $1,386,007.61. Inc. Rogers, MN The City Clerk announced that the bids would be tabulated and considered at the July 22, 2008 City Council Meeting. Nancy Gibbs City Clerk ~~-a • Proposal to .Provide Construction Services for Lyndale Avenue Drainage Improvements Needed to Accommodate Runoff from I35W/Crosstown Right of Way WORK SCOPE This section outlines the work tasks that would be completed for the construction services for the drainage improvements in the Lyndale Avenue. corridor from 63rd Street to 64~' . Street outletting through the Lyndale Garden Center . We have included .all work tasks that we think may be needed to complete the project except for those that we believe are being completed by others. • The following work tasks are anticipated to be completed for. the project. Task 1: Constructiam Project Management ~° WSB & Associates, Inc. will provide the overall project management of the project and will be responsible for all construction administration activities. The Construction Project Manager will. work and coordinate with the City of Richfield and Mn/DOT and hold weekly construction meetings. The-Construction Project Manager will make periodic visits to the site during construction and will be responsible for resolving field problems. The Project Manager will be responsible for preparing and certifying alI monthly pay vouchers, supplemental agreements, and change orders prior to forwarding them to the City of Richfield for processing. All -shop drawings, material and suppliers will be reviewed by WSB for compliance with the plans and specifications. The Project Engineer will provide coordination with the contractor, utility companies, property owners, and project personnel as well as running the weekly construction meetings. Task 2: Construction Observation WSB proposes to assign one lead full-time resident engineer to administer the field construction activities to. assure that the project is constructed in conformity with the plans, 1 City of Richfield Construction Services for i.yndaie Avenue Drainage improvements July 15, 2008 13-3 specifications, and contract provisions. This observer will provide coordination with the contractor, utility companies, property owners, and project personnel, and will also monitor construction operations, coordinate tests, and work on project documentation. WSB would be responsible for the grading and base, bituminous, and concrete inspection, sanitary and watermain system inspection, along with streetscaping and electrical street light inspection. The construction observer's responsibilities on the project would include the following: ^ Perform technical duties such as inspection work to assure compliance with the contract documents. ^ Responsible for resolving field problems and ensure that the solutions are implemented as quickly as possible. ^ Responsible .for assembling all relevant information for: ariy supplemental agreement or change orders that maybe encountered during the course of construction. ^ Ensure that test report records and certificates of compliance have been completed prior to incorporation of materials in the work. ,. Prepare daily and weekly construction diaries, document contract working ^ days along with records consistent with City of Richfield practices. ^ Perform daily reviews and maintain logs of traffic control devices. ^ Measure and compute quantities of all material incorporated in the work. ^ Document changes,in plans and specifications for as-built plan preparation. ^ Perform reviews of temporary and permanent erosion control measures on the project for compliance with applicable permits and specifications. ^ Monitor and document conformance with applicable permits. ^ Prepare partial pay vouchers at regular intervals for City of Richfield approval. • Review and monitor the contractor's schedule to ensure proper field testing of material is in accordance with Mn/DOT's schedule of material control. • Compile and file all completed test results. 2 City of Richfield Construction Services for LyndaIe Avenue Drainage Improvements .July 15, 2008 /3 ~'~ - Coordinate construction activities with the local business and residents, as well as the emergency services. - Coordinate design issues and resolution of construction issues with the design engineer. ^ Coordinate construction activities with Mn/DOT and the City of Richfield. ^ Conduct final inspection and prepare the. final payment voucher and final project documentation. - Coordinate the preparation of as-built drawings. Task 3: Construcfion Surveying oVSB will provide a survey crew to do the construction staking for the project, including • construct limits, grading alignments, and grades for utilities and roadway facilities, signing, .striping, signals, lighting, retaining walls, City sanitary- sewer and watermains, storm sewer, and any.oty er survey needs for the project. ,~ - Perform all construction survey for all project construction. - Provide survey reference points as needed for private utilities. ^ Provide survey cut sheet and other survey reference points to the contractor for construction line and grades. • Document survey as construction progress and provide sum Bey notes and calculation as requested by the resident .engineer. ^ Provide field survey documentation for as-built construction plans. Task 4: Record Drawings WSB would provide a set of record drawings of the project to Mn/DOT and the City of Richfield on 22 x 34 Mylar as part of the contract. Prior to submitting Mylars; a black line • copy of the record drawings will be submitted for review and comments. 3 Ciry of Richfield Construction Services for I,yndale Avenue Drainage improvements __ Iuly 15, 2008 l 3~- ..Schedule WSB proposes the following schedule subject to change based upon approval of the proposal and receiving Notice to Proceed. ^ Notice to Proceed ......................... ...7/22/08 ^ Begin Construction .......................................................................................... 7/28/08 ^ Construction to,be Completed in 65 Working Days l • 4 City of Richfield Construction Services r"or Lyndale Avenue Drainage improvements July 15,.2008 - • • • m w C U 5 ~3 ~ __ I ~ I I gl I g o° to ~ °o, °o , o° ° ~ ~ a o - ~ ~ R o ~ ~ . N ``} ~ ~ ~ E"' V (t1 5 i4 &~4 ~ F ~ `~ N ~ ~ O ~ M a O~ ds U 4 O s Q o Q ~ eC ~ Fr O ~ ~ M ~ ~ ~ ds ., ~ u 4 U 3 a ~ ~ U ~ O ~ 0 O c . c N ~ ~ q ~ . bR O W '.7 ~' C O y ~ y O O O O N w ..~ p ~ a~i d. N 7 N ~ U ~ -- y C/1 ~ ,,. i bA.~ C ~ y ,.. .. __ ,,. . . ..:.. , .. .: .. ~ .:O p ... .. y .v O ~ _ 00 O ~p ~ O N O 00 ~ ~ ~p ~ ~p ~ ~ a~i = ~ ~ ''~ O O O s.. .O ~ ~ .~-w pp ~ Vj O O ~ W a`w ~ M ~ ~ cue V ~ o O O O. (/1 ~ ~O ~ ~ ~ ~ N M h. O aa~ ~ ~ U a H W z ~ z ~ o 0 ~ ~ w ~ ' ' ^~~ z a z o m ~ ~ , ~ c o ~ ~ O E- ~ ~ ~ > > A ~ o ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ o z w ~ F ~' ~ 0 0 0 3 y z ~ Q F r - ~ o ~ F ~ C 5 C ~; U U ~ ~ o ~"~ c al ~ Z F z z O ~ ` c ~ ,; , W U Q U O ~ U ~ 1 - N +'b CQ `J O Z i ~ a m E'~ O v ~- ~I N ~i ~ ~ , y m U '~ C V ,.. Q C U E' g 0 O 0 Y