02-24-09 AgendaCITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 24, 2009
SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL WORKSESSON
CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS
6700 PORTLAND AVENUE
5:30 P.M.
AGENDA
Call to order
Roll call
5:30 p.m. - 6:1.0 p.m.
1. Discussion regarding current City of Richfield gas and electric franchise fees, proposed
street light service fee and proposed boulevard tree service fee (Council Memo No. 26)
Notes:
6:10 p.m. - 6:30 p.m.
2. Discussion regarding transitory ordinance providing expenditure of funds from Special
Revenue Fund for certain recreational capital improvements (Council Memo No. 27)
Notes:
6:30 p.m. - 6:50 p.m.
3. Discussion regarding Property Excellence Task Force (Council Memo No. 28)
Notes:
Adjournment
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 February 10, 2009; (2)
Special City Council Meeting of February 10, 2009; and (3) Regular City Council Meeting
of February 10, 2009
PRESENTATION
1. Recognition of Richfield Centennial. babies
COUNCIL DISCUSSION
2. Council discussion
• Hats Off to Hometown Hits
Notes:
AGENDA APPROVAL
3. Council approval of agenda
CONSENT CALENDAR
4. 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 incorporating aircraft impact
overlay district for all new single and multi-family construction in all residential
zoning districts within 2007 60± DNL noise contours and scheduling public hearing
and second reading for March 10, 2009 S.R. No. 46
B. Consideration of approval of resolution authorizing contract for purchase of services
between City of Richfield and Hennepin County for Sentencing to Services work
crews in amount of $41,200 for 2009 and $42,436 for 2010 S.R. No. 47
C. Consideration of approval of resolution authorizing 2009 social service funding
recommendations in total amount of $92,507 and authorizing City Manager to
executive agreements for service with those funded agencies S.R. No. 48
D. Consideration of approval of purchase of four unmarked Public Safety vehicles from
Car/Truck City for $33,130, Nelson Auto Center for $18,670.97 and Denny Hecker
Automall for $20,680, plus license fees S. R. No. 49
Notes:
5. Consideration of items, if any, removed from Consent Calendar
Notes:
PROPOSED ORDINANCE
6. Consideration of second reading of ordinance amendment to Richfield City Code
1202.07 subd. 3(b) requiring only on-sale intoxicating liquor licensed establishments to
have total market value, including land and buildings, of at least $600,000 as license
eligibility requirement
Staff Report No. 50
Notes:
RESOLUTIONS
7. Consideration of resolution regarding request by Velmeir Companies for Penn Avenue
development moratorium exception for property at 6528 Penn Avenue
Staff Report No. 51
Notes:
8. Consideration of resolution approving amendment to 2008-2009 labor agreement with 9-
1-1 Dispatchers Law Enforcement Labor Services Local 225
Staff Report No. 52
Notes:
9. Consideration. of resolution approving amendment to 2008-2009 labor agreement with
Police Supervisors Law Enforcement Labor Services Local 162
Staff Report No. 53
Notes:
PUBLIC HEARINGS
10. Public hearing and second reading of transitory ordinances regarding vacation of
highway easements within property at 1901 66th Street East; Public Works Maintenance
Facility
Staff Report No. 54
Notes:
11. Public hearing regarding resolution ordering plans and specifications for 2009 alley
paving project and resolution declaring official intent of City of Richfield to reimburse
certain expenditures from proceeds of bonds to be issued by City
Staff Report No. 55
Notes:
OTHER BUSINESS
12. Consideration of authorization to proceed with creation of development agreement
between City of Richfield and LaNel/Susee relating to public financing provided by City,
road construction and property acquisition for proposed redevelopment of Cedar Point
Phase II housing area and appraisal for acquisition of right-of-way for future Richfield
Parkway between 63rd and 65th Streets along 17th Avenue
Staff Report No. 56
Notes:
CITY MANAGER'S REPORT
13. City Manager's report
Notes:
14. Claims and payrolls
Open forum (additional 15 minutes if more time needed after first Open Forum and by
majority vote of the City Council)
Each speaker is to keep their comment period to three minutes to allow sufficient time for
others. Comments are to be an opportunity to address the Council on items not on the agenda.
Individuals who wish to address the Council must have registered prior to the meeting.
Notes:
15. Adjournment
Auxiliary aids for individuals with disabilities are available upon request. Requests must be
made at least 96 hours in advance to the City Clerk at 612-861-9738.
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Office of City Manager
February 19, 2009
Council Memorandum No. 26
The Honorable Mayor
and
Members of the City Council
Subject: Service Fees and Franchise Fees
(Worksession Agenda Item No. 1 )
Council Members:
At the January 23, 2009 City Council Goal Setting Session, City staff reviewed Service
Fees and Franchise Fees as options for addressing the 2009 budget gap. City staff is
now seeking guidance on what, if any, fees the City Council may want to consider
further. This item is on the February 24 Special Council Work Session for discussion.
Based on guidance from the City Council, City staff will prepare draft proposals for the
City Council to consider at a future City Council meeting. In addition, this guidance will
assist staff in the preparation of the 2009 Revised and 2010 Proposed Budgets.
In summary, the following options can be considered:
1. Street Light Service Fee
The City Council could consider re-instituting a street light service fee. For
example, the City could collect $316,620 to recover the electric charges at a cost
of $6.15 per quarter for single family property.
2. Boulevard Tree Service Fee
The 2009 Forestry Division Budget is $518,210. The City Council recently
approved an expenditure of $62,000 for winter tree removal. Only property on
blocks with treed boulevards would be charged a fee.
3. Franchise Fees
The 2009 Franchise Fees have been designated for street maintenance
($710,000) and new boulevard trees ($20,000). Franchise Fee fund balance was
used to fund the 2009 winter tree removal at a cost of $62,000. Franchise Fees
can be increased to cover some street light or boulevard tree costs.
ub
~.
Hager
SLD:cak
Attachment
Email: Department Directors
Assistant to the City Manager
i
•
';~,n
///////////////////////////////////////
,~ o
N ~
a
o w
0
v
L
O
tD
t7
N
N
N
tD
N
T
r
Ti
0
N
0
I A
0
o
0
m
`_D
Xerxes Ave
S~
~~
i~.~ ~~
r
_.;, rF
,:, ~
<~-
~~~~nr.Lyndale Ave ~~~~ ~.:_~;I
• f ~i
^ ~ ~ ~;a, I~~~ ~ r'''
"~ ~I I I't.~ ~ 7 f 1 1 "
_ _.
Nicollet Ave ~ J
~ ___
m
__
Portland Ave
~~'
_ I i
v ~ ®Cn
_~ a> ~ r.
~ ~ ~` ~'
~ ~
^
-- dry ~:-~ _r ,,, ,
Cedar Ave ~~ 4 ~"
<~r -_~`~
T T
~~ ~ ~~~ II II m
u, ~ m
~ ~ ~
z ~ A n n ~ m ~
o x n m c c o o O m r
~ c x ~
v ~ o o r ~ N ~ ? .~ D G~
In O O m x v -i m O r ~ 2
cn = A A .Zl ~ ~ -~
m ~ ~ m ~ O D
O I I I I N I I ~ .. D
ITI ~> m
O O II T N II T T~
w y r ~ ~ D (] (n :r. - y
N O II N ~ n '~ ~
o ~, ~ m
w ~ ~
~~~
•1
0
,~ o
~,. cn
-~ _~
~ N
p
W
o
m
0
m
Q
v
v
0
`m'
n
m
m
N
0
°o
0
Q
O
Ll O L'l ~ _.
O !p rl
T
7 _ ,I
_ - _ _ Cede
_ - ~
m_
•. ~
- _
CD
~D
^
D
N
~D
~-r~
r ~
rr
'iiniuiiiinininiiiauniaiiiian~-
'iuniuunnnininiiuinnuinni,~.~-
i
•
.•.
q~
••
//////////////////////////11///////1///
„4 ,st };+'Kn 4 , - - iix ~ S J .,,4'~ ..A ,.1: ~ 'S' # '~`^Q ~ 4
_ x
v
.. n. - s. .. ,w. ~ ~ ~
•
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Office of City Manager
February 18, 2009
Council Memorandum No. 27
The Honorable Mayor
and
Members of the City Council
Subject: Discussion regarding Transitory Ordinance Providing Expenditure of Funds
from Special Revenue Fund for Certain Recreational Capital Improvements
(Worksession Agenda Item No. 2)
Council Members:
At the City Council meeting. on February 10, 2009, City Council removed from the
agenda the first reading of the transitory ordinance providing for the expenditure of
Special Revenue Funds for certain capital improvement projects. The item was
postponed to discuss at a Special Council Work Session on February 24, 2009. The
staff report for this item (Staff Report #39) is attached for reference.
City Council briefly discussed recreational capital improvement items at their goal
setting workshop on January 23,.2009, giving staff direction to postpone some of the
projects in the plan to a later date. There was Council discussion concerning moving
forward with all the recreation capital projects in a time of significant City budget and
service reductions. The greatest concern with that such an action may send a
conflicting message about City spending to residents. The Council also discussed
retaining the Lincoln Athletic Complex project in the plan pending approvals.
Jim. Topitzhofer, Recreation Services Director, discussed the Capital Improvement
Budget at the Community Services Commission on February 17, 2009, and passed
along the above Council discussion information to them. His report is also attached.
The Community Services Commission is generally supportive of postponing some the
projects including the skate board facility, Veterans Monument Sign, and some of the
major parks maintenance projects.
Jim Topitzhofer will be present at the Council Work Session on February 24 to further
di~cu~s the recreation projects that are included in this year's transitory ordinance.
subm
Manager
SLD:cak
Attachment
E-mail: Department Directors
Assistant to the City Manager
~~- STAFF REPORT
AGENDA SECTION:
AGENDA ITEM #
REPORT #
CITY COUNCIL MEETING
FEBRUARY 10, 2009
PROP. ORDINANCE
39
REPORT PREPARED BY:
DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR REVIEW:
REVIEWED BY CITY ^
MANAGER:
NAME, TITLE
ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION:
First reading of transitory ordinance providing funding for certain capital improvements from
the S ecial Revenue Fund.
~~ I. RECOMMENDED ACTION: ~~
By Motion: Approve first reading of the transitory ordinance providing
for the expenditure of funds from the Special Revenue Fund for
certain capital improvements and schedule public hearing and
second reading for March 10, 2009.
II. BACKGROUND
• At the December 9, 2008 City Council meeting, the City Council authorized
$450,000 of Special Revenue Funds for improvements to several City capital
improvements in 2009.
• Included in the $450,000 are:
• $103,800 Outdoor Pool renpvation loan repayment
• $100,000 for Major Park maintenance projects
• $25,000 for Ice Arena Parking Lot Reconstruction
• $126,200 Lincoln Field and other ballfield improvements
• $70,000 Type 1 Skate Park
• $25,000 Veterans Park Monument Sign
• In addition, the 2009 Capital Improvement Budget also provides for expenditures for
all types of funds contained in the budget .including municipal state aid, user fees,
federal grants and state grants.
• Authorization by ordinance is not required for expenditures other than Special
Revenues.
CHRIS REGIS, FINANCE MANAGER
0210transitoryOrd
III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION
A. POLICY
• City Charter Section 7.12, Subd. 2 requires that Special Revenue Funds
used for capital improvements must be authorized by ordinance.
• This process provides for public input through a public hearing.
B. CRITICAL ISSUES
• Under Section 3.09 of the City Charter, a transitory ordinance becomes
effective 30 days after publication of the second. hearing notice.
• The ordinance requirements must be completed early enough in 2008 so that
the capital projects. can be initiated on a timely basis, completed and the
funds expended.
• In order for the timely start of the projects under consideration in the Capital
Improvement Budget, it is suggested that the first reading of the transitory
ordinance take place on February 10 and a public hearing and second
reading be completed at the March 10, 2009 City Council meeting.
C. FINANCIAL
• While the total 2009 Capital Improvements Budget (CIB) includes total
budgeted expenditures of $33,642,530 the portion of .CIB concerning
proposed funding from the Special Revenue fund is $ 450,000.
Outdoor Pool Renovation Loan Repayment 103,800
Park Maintenance 100,000
Ice Arena Parking Lot Reconstruction 25,000
Lincoln Field and other ballfied improvements. 126,200
Type 1 Skate Park 70,000
Veteran's Park Monument Sign 25,000
A transitory ordinance is necessary to finalize these appropriations
pursuant to City Charter.
The source of Special Revenue funds is municipal liquor profits.
- D. LEGAL
• The City Charter requires that a transitory ordinance be used to authorize the
expenditure of Special Revenue funds.
IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION(S~
• The City Council could postpone the first reading of the transitory ordinance to a
future City Council meeting.
• The City Council could decide to authorize none or only a portion of the
expenditures identified from special revenue in the CIB.
V. ATTACHMENTS
• An ordinance providing for the expenditure of money from the Special Revenue
Fund for certain capital improvements.
VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING
• None
BILL NO.
TRANSITORY ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE PROVIDING FOR THE EXPENDITURE OF MONEY FROM
THE SPECIAL REVENUE FUND FOR CERTAIN CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS
CITY OF RICHFIELD DOES ORDAIN:
Section 1: It is found and determined to be necessary and expedient for the City to expend
money from the Special Revenue Fund for the making of capital improvements listed in
Section 2 hereof, for which the City would be authorized to issue general obligation bonds.
Section 2: The capital improvements and amounts of expenditures for such improvements
which are authorized to be paid from the Special Revenue Fund under Section 7.12,
Subdivision 2 of the City Charter, are as follows:
Outdoor Pool Renovation Loan Repayment $ 103,800
Park Maintenance $ 100,000
Ice Arena Parking Lot Reconstruction $ 25,000
Lincoln Field and Ballfield Improvements $ 126,200
Type 1 Skate Park $ 70,000
Veterans Park Monument Sign $ 25,000
Section 3: The expenditures herein authorized shall be made pursuant to such contracts as
are authorized from time to time by Council action.
Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield this 10th day of February, 2009.
Debbie Goettel, Mayor
ATTEST:
Nancy Gibbs, City Clerk
ICHFIELD COMMUNITY SERVICES COMMISSION
~ EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Meeting Date: February 17, 2009
Agenda Item Agenda Section
Recreation Services Ca ital Im rovement Plan Discussion Items
Attachments Contact
None Jim To itzhofer
During the first few months of each year, the Community Services Commission reviews a portion of the
City's Capital Improvement Plan that includes significant recreation projects such as the outdoor pool,
athletic complexes, play equipment,. and other major recreation projects. A list of the recreation projects
within the current Capital Improvement Plan is provided below. These types of projects are funded
through proceeds of the four liquor stores owned and operated by the City. The amount of funding allotted
each year for recreation is $450,000.
Capitallmprovement 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013
Outdoor Pool Renovation -103,800 103,800 103;800 103,800
Park Maintenance Roofs, Courts, Trails 100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000
Lincoln Field and Other Improvements 126,200 46,200 81,200 119,200 80,000
Ice Arena Parkin Lot Reconstruction 25,000
T e One Skate Park 70,000
Veterans Park Monument Sin 25,000
Mini-Golf Facilit and Do Park 200,000
Main Rink Bleachers 63,600
Arena Bathroom Partitions/Sinks 50,000
Wood Lake Carpet 20,000
Communit Center Boiler 15,000
Communit Center Car et 12,000
Wood Lake Parkin Lot 136,400
Amphitheater 15,000
Re lace Outdoor Li htin at Taft 150,000 100,000
Total $450,000 $450,000 $450,000 $450,000 $450,000
The City Council held their annual goal setting workshop on January 23, 2009. Most of the Council's -
discussion that day was centered on the City's reduction of local government aid as a result of the State of
Minnesota's budget deficit. As City Council, the City Manager and Department Heads discussed plans to
reduce the City's budget in 2009 and 2010, the group also discussed the Capital Improvement Budget.
Because the City will soon undergo a significant budget reduction that will result in `the elimination of City
jobs and some City services, the Council directed staff to hold off on some of the capital improvement
projects planned for 2009 and 2010 with exception to the Lincoln Athletic Complex, and to adjust the
Capital Improvement Plan accordingly. The Council's main reason for the delay of some of the upcoming
capital improvement projects, is that they want to be sensitive to public's potential misconception of City
spending during this time of budget and service reductions.
one of the more visible projects that the Commission has been discussing lately is the type-one skate
-park. This project was scheduled to begin this year with funding in the amount of $70,000. This project
and others will be the basis of our discussion as we assemble a Capital Improvement Plan
recommendation for City Council.
Recommended Action: Review and discuss the existing recreation projects in the Capital Improvement
Plan.
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Office of City Manager
February 19, 2009
Council Memorandum No.28
_The Honorable Mayor
and
Members of the City Council
Subject: Property Excellence Task Force
(Worksession Agenda Item No. 3 )
Council Members:
In late 2008, then Council Member Bill. Kilian suggested that the City forma "Property
Excellence Task Force" to identify ways to improve the way property in the City is
maintained. He also presented a list of objectives for the Task Force (attached). The
Task Force would consist of Richfield residents who submit applications.
Twenty-eight applications for the Task Force were received. The City Council should
determine the size of the Task Force and select them from the pool of applicants.
Because there are now two new Council Members, discussion and review of the
proposal made by Mr. Kilian is scheduled for the February 24 2009 Special City Council
Work{g~ssion so the City Council may make any changes they deem appropriate.
ubm
_"~~,._"
SLD:cak
Attachment
E-mail: Department Directors
Assistant to the City Manager
~- ~.~~ ~°
Taskforce Proposal
Taskforce for Property Excellence
Goal: Identify ways to improve the way property is maintained; including
residential, commercial, and city owned.
• Identify measurable expectations.
• Identify metrics to show progress in meeting resident's expectations.
• Identify a tool kit to apply to different issues, including both carrot and stick
approaches.
• Concentrate on working within current ordinances.
• Determine cost of various tools.
• City will support the taskforce by assigning someone from Publics Works
and sharing complaint data.
• Nine member taskforce, try to get a mix of people representing different
constituencies, low and high density housing, commercial, and city.
• Taskforce will meet at least monthly, keep attendance, and provide the
City Council with a yearend report.
• City Council to determine the fate of the taskforce
Rill Kilian 1 ~/~R/~MR
AGENDA SECTION: CONSENT
AGENDA ITEM # 4A
REPORT # 46
J STAFF REPORT
CITY COUNCIL MEETING
FEBRUARY 24, 2009
REPORT PREPARED BY:
CHRISTINE COSTELLO, COMMUNITY
DEVELOPMENT SPECIALIST
NAME, TITLE
DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR
REVIEW:
REVIEWED BY CITY
MANAGER:
ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION:
Consideration of a first reading of an ordinance that would incorporate an aircraft impact
overlay district imposing standards on construction of all new residential dwellings and
recommending construction standards on the remodeling or expansion of existing residential
dwellings within the 2007 60+ DNL noise contours and schedule a second reading and public
hearing.
I. RECOMMENDED ACTION:
By Motion:
1. Conduct a first reading of an ordinance that would incorporate an
aircraft impact .overlay district imposing standards on construction
of all new residential dwellings and recommending construction
standards on the remodeling or expansion of existing residential
dwellings within the 2007 60+ DNL noise contours.
2. Call for a public hearing and second reading to be held on March
10, 2009.
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.
022409 -.1St Rdg Airport Runway Overlay Ordinance
In October 2007 the lawsuit was settled, and under the terms of the settlement MAC
is providing varying degrees of noise mitigation measures to single and multi-family
homes. The settlement provided for noise relief to approximately 1,200
homeowners in the community. Additionally, as part of the settlement, all of the
affected cities were required to formally consider a draft ordinance (prepared by the
MAC) for airport noise attenuation by September 1, 2008 as outlined in the
settlement's Consent Decree.
In July 2008 the Planning Commission and City Council held hearings regarding the
proposed ordinance. The City Council voted to reject the proposed ordinance and
directed staff to rewrite an ordinance that is specific to the needs and goals of the
community.
Since that time, staff has been developing a draft ordinance that would reflect
Richfield's needs. A number of similar ordinances from jurisdictions around the
country were reviewed. In reviewing these ordinances it was found that a majority
required the property owner to have a home tested for noise attenuation, which is
an expensive undertaking.
The City Council had expressed that they do not want to put undue burden on a
homeowner nor prevent the rehabilitation or expansion of existing homes by
creating an onerous set of requirements. Frequently, homeowners have prepared
and designed a remodeling project before they approach the City for building
permits to begin the work. A requirement by the City to meet noise attenuation
requirements would likely result in a need for the homeowner to redesign their
project at increased costs for labor and material; which may be a deterrent for
homeowners to make such improvements. The City of Richfield has always
promoted the rehabilitation of existing homes in an effort to encourage families to
stay in our community. Therefore, it is recommended that the requirements in the
proposed Airport Impact Overlay District would serve only as guidelines for
homeowners who are planning to remodel or ex and their home.
However, for new construction it is much easier to include noise attenuation
measures, since most of these projects will be brought to the City's attention before
construction plans or work would begin. Additionally,. modern building standards
are much more conducive to adaptation for noise attenuation than is the remodeling
of homes built decades ago. In the proposed ordinance, new single and multi-
family construction would be required to use building materials that have a Sound
Transmission Class (STC) rating. of 40 (which is the noise attenuation of products
used by the MAC for current and previous noise mitigation programs). New
residential dwellings would also be required to have central air conditioning and
mechanical ventilation, which further attenuate the noise.
If adopted, staff would make a concerted marketing effort to notify builders,
contractors, homeowners, and real estate agents in the area regarding the
ordinance for new construction and the guidelines for rehabilitation or expansion of
existing residential structures. Marketing efforts would include the development of a
handout, promotion on the City's website, at the Remodeling Fair and at the
upcoming Realtor Workshop. The building permit forms would also be altered to
reflect this new ordinance.
Of the communities involved in the lawsuit, the City of Minneapolis has passed an
ordinance that is similar to the attached draft ordinance and the City of Eagan has
decided not to develop an ordinance because much of the impacted area is either
undevelopable or contains very recently constructed homes.
III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION
A. POLICY
• .The Metropolitan Council requires that Richfield address airport noise
impacts in our 2008 Comprehensive Plan update. Staff is in the process
of determining whether the adoption of the proposed ordinance would
fulfill this requirement. If not, staff would then prepare a Comprehensive
Plan amendment to meet the Metropolitan Council's concerns.
• Staff will develop an education outreach program to inform property
owners, builders, remodelers, and real estate agents about the ordinance
requirements.
• Educational outreach will include a handout of the guidelines for property
owners who are considering a remodel their properties within the 2007
60+ DNL noise contours.
B. CRITICAL ISSUES
• The proposed ordinance provides guidelines for homeowners to remodel
or expand their home with materials and practices which lessen the
adverse impact of airport noise without being a deterrent to making such
improvements.
• Any new residential structure in the community that is impacted by the
noise contours will be required to mitigate the structure for noise.
C. FINANCIAL
• N/A
D. LEGAL
• NOTIFICATION: A public hearing is scheduled to take place before
the Planning Commission on February 23, 2009. Notification of the
hearing was provided in accordance with City and State requirements.
• If approved at the City Council's second reading (scheduled for March
10), these amendments will take effect 30 days following publication in
the Sun Current Newspaper.
E. ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS
• N/A
IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION(S~
• Recommend approval of the proposed ordinance with additional changes.
• Recommend denial of the proposed ordinance.
V. ATTACHMENTS
• Proposed Ordinance
• .Map of City with 2007 60+ DNL contours
VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING
- N/A
4A I
BILL NO.
AMENDMENT TO RICHFIELD CITY CODE
ADOPTION OF NEW SECTION 541; AND
AMENDMENT TO SECTION 512.13 OF THE CITY CODE RELATED
TO AIRPORT IMPACT OVERLAY ORDINANCE
THE CITY OF RICHFIELD DOES ORDAIN:
Section 1 Subsection 512.01, Subdivision 1 of the Richfield City Code is
amended to read as follows:
512.01. Zoning districts. Subdivision 1. Establishment of districts. In order
to carry out the purposes and provisions of this code, the city is hereby divided into
the following zoning districts:
Residential Districts
Single Family Residential R
_ ....
.Low Density Single Family Residential R-1
Two Famil Residential
y ...........................................~............ MR-1
; .............
Multi-Family Residential MR-2
Hi h Densit Multi Famil Residential
............................................y.............................-....................y...................................................................... MR-3
:.....................
Commercial Districts _
Service Office S-O
Nei hborhood Business
................................_9.................................................................................................................................................................................................... C-1
o......................................................<
General Commercial C-2
Mixed-Use Districts
Mixed-Use Regional MU-R
Mixed-Use Communit
................................ ........... y............................. MU-C .
..............
Mixed-Use Nei hborhood MU-N
Industrial Districts
Industrial
................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... I
e......................................................
Planned Unit Development Districts
Planned Residential PR
Planned Two Family Residential PMR-1
Planned Multi-Famil Residential
.......................................................... y ~.............................................................. PMR
................................................
Planned Nei hborhood Commercial
....................................................................................~............................................................................................................................................... PC-1
e.......................................................
Planned General Commercial PC-2
Overlay Districts
Airport y Impact Overlay District AR-
Safet AIO-1
Airport Impact Overlay District II AIO-2
Noise
022409 - 1S' Rdg Airport Runway Overlay Ordinance
yA ~-
Sec. 2. Subsection 512.01, Subdivision 2 of the Richfield City Code is amended to
read as follows:
Subd. 2. District boundaries. The location and boundaries of the zoning districts
established in this code other than overlay districts, are set forth in "Appendix 1" to
this code which delineates the legal descriptions of land within each zoning district.
Appendix 1 is on file and open to public inspection .during regular city office hours in
the Office of Community Development. The location and boundaries of the airport
impact overlay districts are identified in section 541 of this code.
Sec. 3. Subsection 512.13, Subdivision 1 is amended to read as follows:
512.13. Airport y im act overlay districts. Subdivision 1. Purpose and intent.
Two overlay districts are established in the city to address unique land use
situations related to the proximity of the Minneapolis-St. Paul International Airport
(Wold-Chamberlain Field) ("MSP Airport"). The airport impact overlay districts are
established to protect the public health safety order convenience, prosperity and
general welfare and to promote the appropriate use of land in the vicinity of the
MSP Airport.
Subd. 1 a. Airport Impact Overlay District I (Safety)("AIO-I). The Airport
y Impact Overlay District I Safet is established to implement the 2004
Minneapolis-St. Paul International .Airport (Wold-Chamberlain Field) Zoning
Ordinance (hereinafter 2004 MSP Zoning Ordinance). T-r,,~ nn~o4- ~"o°zA~i~
~(-`~ (lC."2 + 4o r~roncrlon+ ~eii+hin ro c~ ~+~ +ho ~i++i '+f Dinhficlrl ror.~ ~I~±+inir ~±r~rl
f r
Nwv~~.. ~~........~.~, ....... ~~, ........., ........,..._..__,
„r„ ner;+" .,n~ eG^or;! ,.,o!f~ro M„.~ The AIO-1 District is intended to promote the
~r-••v -°-- u--'-'-
most appropriate use of land by preventing the creation or establishment of A+r~e~r~
u~,~ certain uses subject to the 2004 MSP Zoning Ordinance and Minnesota
Statutes-
Subd. 1 b. The Airport Impact Overlay District II (Noise) ("A1O-II") is intended
to reduce the impact of airport noise on residential land uses by establishing
standards for noise attenuation in new construction and by establishing guidelines
for noise attenuation in the rehabilitation or remodeling of existing residential land
uses.
Subd 1 c The regulations for airport impact overlay districts are set forth at
section 541 of this code.
Sec. 4. Subsection 512.13, Subdivisions 2 and 3 of the Richfield City Code are
hereby repealed.
~ A ~3
Sec. 5. Chapter 5 of the Richfield City Code is amended by adding a new Section
541 as follows:
Section 541 - Zonina: Airport Impact Overlay Districts
541 01 Airport Impact Overlay Districts; .Applicability. Subdivision 1.
Subsections 541.05 through 541.15 relate to Airport Impact Overlay District
(Safety) "AIO-I."
Subd. 2. Subsections 541.75 and 541.77 relate to Airport Impact Overlay
District II (Noise) "AIO-II."
541.05. Definitions. The following words and terms when used in this section
shall have the following meanings unless the context clearly indicates otherwise:.
a) "2004 MSP Zoning Ordinance" -The restated and amended Minneapolis - St.
Paul International Airport (Wold -Chamberlain Field) Zoning Ordinance adopted
by the Wold -Chamberlain Field Joint Airport Zoning Board on April 29, 2004
which became effective on the Effective Date, the terms of which are
incorporated herein by reference.
b) "Above-ground fuel tank" - A container, vessel or other enclosure designed to
contain or dispense fuel that is located above the ground surface, that is not
contained within a building or structure and that is not part of or connected to a
boat, motor vehicle or rail car.
c) "Airport hazard" -Any structure, tree or use of land that obstructs the airspace
required for, or is otherwise hazardous to, the flight of aircraft in landing or taking
off at the Airport; and any use of land that is hazardous to persons or property
because of its proximity to the Airport.
d) "Airspace surfaces" -The surfaces established in Section IV.A of the 2004 MSP
Zoning Ordinance.
e) "Airspace zones" -The land use zones established in Section IV.A of the 2004
MSP Zoning Ordinance.
f) "Board of adjustment" -The body established in Section XII.A of the 2004 MSP
Zoning Ordinance.
g) "Consent Decree" -The Consent Decree signed on October 17, 2007 by Judge
Stephen C. Aldrich of the Minnesota District Court 4t" Judicial District in the
action entitled City of Minneapolis et al v. Metropolitan Airports Commission et
al., a true and correct copy of which is on file in the office of the Community
Development Director of the City of Richfield.
h) "d BA" - a unit of sound pressure level weighted by use of the A metering
characteristics and weighting as specified in the American National Standards
~-~
Institute specifications for sound level meters (ANSI S1.4-1983), which is hereby
incorporated by reference. "dBA" is also referred to as an A-weighted decibel.
i) "Day-Night Average Sound Level (DNL)"-The day-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.
j) "Established residential neighborhood in a built-up urban area" -The areas
identified in the 2004 MSP Zoning Ordinance and listed in Exhibit B -Legal
Description of Established Residential Neighborhoods and shown on Exhibit C -
Map of Established Residential Neighborhoods in Built-up Urban Areas and
pursuant to the criteria noted in the 2004 MSP Zoning Ordinance.
k) "Low density residential structure" - Asingle-family ortwo-family home.
I) "Low density residential lot" -Asingle lot located- in an area which is zoned for
single-family or two-family residences and in which the predominant land use is
such type of residences.
m) "Noise Contours" -Lines or "footprints" of noise level usually drawn around a
noise source (such as an airport, industrial plant or highway). The lines are
generally drawn in 5-decibel increments so that they resemble elevation
contours found in topographic maps.
n) "Safety zones" -The land use zones established in Section V.A of the 2004
MSP Zoning Ordinance.
o) "Sound attenuation" -The reduction in sound level which occurs between the
source and receiver by means of construction methods and materials.
p) "Sound Transmission Class (STC)" - Asingle-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 as defined by the Metropolitan Council's Builders Guide.
541.07. Airport Impact Overlay District I (Safety); district boundaries. The
Airport Impact Overlay District I (Safety) shall apply to all land within the City of
Richfield designated as Safety Zone B and Safety Zone C in the 2004. MSP Zoning
Ordinance.
541.09. General Restrictions. All permitted, accessory, conditional and interim
uses allowed in the underlying zoning district are allowed in the Airport Impact
Overlay District with the exception of the following prohibited uses.
a) Within the portion of the AIO-I District designated as Safety Zone B as
contained in Section V Land Use Safety Zoning of the 2004 MSP Zoning
Ordinance and shown on MSP Zoning Map Safety Zones -Plate SZ-20, the
following uses are prohibited unless a variance permitting the use is granted
by the Board of Adjustment established by the 2004 MSP Zoning Ordinance:
~A-
(1) Amphitheaters;
(2) Campgrounds;
(3) Churches;
(4) Fuel storage tank farms;
(5) Above-ground fuel tanks;
(6) Gasoline stations;
(7) Hospitals;
(8) Nursing homes;
(9) Residential uses (including low, medium and high density residential
uses);
(10) Schools;
(11) Stadiums;
(12) Theaters;
(13) Trailer courts;
(14) Ponds or other uses that might attract waterfowl or other birds such as
putrescible waste disposal operations, wastewater treatment facilities
and associated settling ponds, and dredge spoil containment areas;
provided, however, the prohibition on ponds or other uses that might
attract waterfowl or other birds shall not apply to acres below an
elevation of eight hundred (800) feet above mean sea level along the
Bluff of the Minnesota River.
b) Within the portion of the AIO-I District designated as Safety Zone C as
contained in Section V Land Use Safety Zoning of the 2004 MSP Zoning
Ordinance and shown on MSP Zoning Map Safety Zones -Plates SZ-13,
SZ-14, SZ-15 and SZ-20 no land use shall violate the height restrictions
imposed by the 2004 MSP Zoning Ordinance and described in Subsection
512.13 Subd. 4 of this code.
541.11.. Height. Except as necessary and incidental to Airport operations, no new
structure shall be constructed or established; no existing structure shall be altered,
changed, rebuilt, repaired or replaced; and no tree shall be allowed to grow or be
altered, repaired, replaced or replanted in any way so as to project above .any
Airspace Surface as shown on MSP Zoning Map Airspace Zones -Plates A-13, A-
14, A-15, A-19 and A-20.
541.13.. Exemptions. The following regulations shall apply to an "established
residential neighborhood in a built-up area" as defined in 2004 MSP Zoning
Ordinance:
a) A low density residential structure or isolated low density residential lot as
defined in 2004 MSP Zoning Ordinance which existed in an "established
residential neighborhood in a built-up area" on or before January 1, 1978,
and all other land uses with existed in an established residential
neighborhood in a built-up area on or before June 30, 1979, shall be subject
to the height restrictions of Subdivision 4, but shall not be subject to the
Safety Zone B restrictions of Subdivision 3. In addition, such structure, lot or
use shall be deemed a conforming use that shall not be prohibited under the
2004 MSPZoning Ordinance.
~n~~
b) In Safety Zone B in an established residential neighborhood in a built-up
urban area or in an area immediately adjacent to such a neighborhood,
existing low, medium and high density residential uses may be improved and
expanded, and new low, medium and high density residential uses may be
developed, all subject to the height restrictions of Subdivision 4 and all other
provisions of this code.
541.15. 2004 MSP Zoning Ordinance use variances. Within the A1O-I District,
variance to allow uses listed as prohibited in the A1O-I District that are granted by
the Board of Adjustment as contained in the 2004 MSP Zoning Ordinance may only
be established in the City of Richfield to the extent that they comply with all of
provisions of this code. A use. not allowed in the underlying zoning district shall not
be established under any circumstances.
541.17 to 541.73 [reserved for future use]
541.75. Airport. Impact Overlay District I (Safety): findings; district
boundaries. Subdivision 1. Findings. The City finds that noise generated by
aircraft over flights has adverse impacts on residential uses of property, especially
on properties located within noise contours having a DNL decibel level of 60 or
higher. The adverse impacts of aircraft noise can be reduced in new construction
through the use of construction materials that have a sound transmission
classification of 40 or higher. In the case of rehabilitation, remodeling or additions
to existing residential dwelling units, the benefits of using construction materials with
an STC rating of 40 or higher will depend upon the particulars of the project and in
the city's determination should be left to the individual property owner to determine.
Subd. 2. District boundaries. The provisions of subsections 541.75 and
541.77 shall apply to all lots or parcels of record within the City of Richfield having
an underlying zoning designation of Single Family Residential (R), Low Density
Single Family Residential (R-1), Two Family Residential (MR-1), Multi-Family
Residential (MR-2), and High Density Multi-Family Residential (MR-3) and located
within or touched by the 2007 60-64 DNL contours as shown at Appendix A of the
Consent Decree, which contour map is incorporated into this ordinance by
reference:
541.77. Noise Attenuation. It is in the best interest of the City and of current and
future residents thaf the integrity of all residential structures which have received a
5dB or; other sound insulation package from the Metropolitan Airports Commission
be maintained subject to the following:
Subd. 2. Noise Attenuation Required -Any new single-family or multi-family
construction on property located within the 60+ DNL Contours, or any infill
construction or rebuilding of residential structures after tearing down the original
structure, which takes place within blocks or between structures that have received
noise attenuation pursuant to the Consent Decree or pursuant to previous noise
mitigation programs of the Metropolitan Airports Commission, shall utilize building.
materials with a sound transmission class (STC) rating of at least forty (40) and
`--t ~1 r /
shall include installation of central air conditioning and mechanical ventilation
throughout the habitable areas of the structure.
Subd. 3. Requirements within the 2007 60-62 Contours. All construction of
new single family homes located in blocks or between structures that have received
noise attenuation pursuant to the Consent Decree that are in the 60 to 62 DNL
contours as defined in the Consent Decree must include installation of central air
conditioning and mechanical ventilation throughout the habitable portion of the
structure.
Subd. 4. Requirement for Multi-Family Homes in the 2007 60-64 Contour.
All construction of new multiple family homes in blocks that have received noise
attenuation pursuant to the Consent Decree or which are between structures which
have received noise attenuation pursuant to the Consent Decree or pursuant to
previous noise mitigation programs of the Metropolitan Airports Commission must
include installation of central air conditioning or mechanical ventilation throughout
the habitable portions of the structure.
Subd. 5. Noise Attenuation Recommended but not required. For
construction of a habitable addition to a dwelling unit that expands the habitable
area of a dwelling unit which had previously received 5dB sound insulation package
from the Metropolitan Airports Commission pursuant to the Consent Decree or
pursuant to previous noise mitigation program of the Metropolitan Airports
Commission, the property owner is encouraged to consider (i) the inclusion of
central air conditioning and mechanical ventilation for the expanded area and (ii)
utilization of materials with a sound transmission class (STC) rating of at least forty
(40) in order to achieve similar noise attenuation in the expansion of the structure as
existed in the principal structure prior to the expansion.
Sec. 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 10th day of March 2009.
Debbie Goettel, Mayor
ATTEST:
Nancy Gibbs, City Clerk
i- v
z
•~
O
N~
\V
•-
I.f
/~/~
\Y
N
L
C
O
U
.O
Z
Z
1~
T
0
0
N
ava3~
418E
43LL
439E
NOI~JNIWOOlB
U1S L
wbL
41£ L
41ZL
41 LL
U10 L
lOlll3
O`JVOIHO
snewmq„(.~
~O"
ONb'IY,VO <
UNVl12jCw
41b
O1NI111
we
PAZ
n31S
75L
13TOOIN
ll3aslvle
ao 3M
Aane$llld
1N VSV3ld
ONVa~J
3lVUNAI
HOIaUIV
1NVAaH
XVdl00
1NOdn0
NOSa3W3
1NOW3ad
aavalo
laloewnH
oNlnal
S3WHf
XONN
NV'JOl
Nvoaow
NO1M3N
a3nll0
NN3d
N33n0
ll3SSna
NvUla3HS
SVWOHI
Nolan
1N30NIn
NanHHSVM
S3Xa3X
478E
®®~
®®~~
~~~
~~~
®®®
®®~
~~
~o
~~
~~~
~~
~~
~~
~~ ~
~~
~~
~~
~~
~~
~~
~~
~~
419 L
NOlONIWOOlB
41SL
4mL
41EL
43Z L
41 LL
4l0 L
lOlll3
OOVOIHO
Sf1HWnl00
Nava
ONVlNVO
UNVIlaOd
41S
41b
Nolnino
PEE
puZ
SN 3n31S
3sL
13llOOIN
ll3aslvle
HlaOMLN3M
AaneSll Id
iNVSV3ld
aNda~
i3laavH
Ul3ljab'~J
3lVUNAI
HOIaUIH
1N VA a8
Xvdl00
1NOdnU
NOS a3 W3
1NOW3ad
aavalo
® ®
U
(B °t'
~ ~ ~ ~
C
~
®
® G1
~ _
C
as c ~ ~ Q ~
a~ a m ~
® _
iO
Z
tq
~
~ ~ N ~ ~
o ~ ~ = ~
O
3
J+ aB ~ Q`
® Q ~
LL tU
E ~' ~-' ,` ~
C C
ca
® ~ (!~ i
O i N ~i ~ ~'
® ~ CV ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ d ~
~
I ~ ~
~
~ C ..~
0
N . f
f~
'T ~~
I I <'~" @~
®
n io ~ m ~ io <o (o r r _ n ~ r r n ~ n -
AGENDA SECTION: (;pNSFNT
AGENDA ITEM # 4R
REPORT # 47
~' STAFF REPORT
CITY COUNCIL MEETING
FEBRUARY 24, 2009
REPORT PREPARED BY:
RANDY HUGHES, OPERATIONS
SUPERINTENDENT
NAME, TITLE
DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR
REVIEW:
REVIEWED BY CITY
MANAGER:
i
ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION:
Consideration of approval of Contract No. A082359 for purchase of services between the City
of Richfield and Hennepin County for Sentencing to Service (STS) work crews.
I. RECOMMENDED ACTION:
By Motion: Approve the contract for purchase of services between
the City of Richfield and Hennepin County for Sentencing to Service
(STS) work crews in the amount of $41,200 for the year 2009, and
$42,436 for 2010.
II. BACKGROUND
Hennepin County Community Corrections operates the Sentencing to Service
(STS) general work program, which utilizes offenders who are working off court-
ordered obligations for low level offenses. The City of Richfield has utilized these
forces for many years to help clean up after the Fourth of July celebration and to
help with occasional labor intensive projects. In 2003, STS crews helped with the
extensive storm cleanup and did an excellent job. In 2004, the City contracted with
Hennepin County to have a crew work two days a week for eight months for
$20,000. They were very helpful and did many projects that the reduced number of
full-time staff would not have been able to accomplish. (See attached sheet.)
In 2007 the City contracted with STS for a work crew for 4 days a week for 6
months during the summer and 2 days a week for 6 months during winter for
0210STS
$48,000.00. The 2008 contract was a renewal of the 2007 contract with no
increases.
The STS contract for 2009 and- 2010 is for one work crew one day per week from
January 1 to April 30 and one work crew four days per week from May 1 to
October 31.
III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION
A. POLICY
• City policy has been to encourage mutually beneficial joint
agreements with other agencies.
B. CRITICAL ISSUES
• This partnership has worked very well in the past.
• Many other cities participate successfully in this program including
Bloomington, St. Louis Park, Minneapolis, St. Paul, Mn/DOT and
Three Rivers Park District.
C. FINANCIAL
• The average work crew is eight people plus a crew leader. The net
cost to the City is less than $4.80 per hour for each worker.
• Funding for STS is from the Street Maintenance ($16,480), Park
Maintenance ($16,480), Storm Sewer ($8,240) and Sanitary Sewer
($8,240) Budgets, line item 6315.
• The budgets reflect a higher amount than will be needed for this
expenditure.. Budgets will be revised in May to reflect the reduced
number of hours.
D. LEGAL
• When the purchase of materials, merchandise, equipment or
construction exceeds $25,000, authority to purchase shall be
submitted to the City Council for consideration.
• The City Attorney has reviewed the resolution and contract.
E. ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS
• None
ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION~S~
• Council may choose to not approve the contract however. STS crews
provide an excellent service at a very inexpensive cost that could not be
obtained elsewhere.
ATTACHMENTS ~
• Resolution
• Listing of examples of Sentencing to Service work projects.
• Contract No. A082359
I Vl. PRINCIPAL PARTIES ~;XPECTED AT MEETING I
• i~one_
~T ~' 1
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE CITY OF RICHFIELD TO ENTER INTO HENNEPIN
COUNTY CONTRACT NO. A082359 WITH THE COUNTY OF HENNEPIN, STATE OF
MINNESOTA FOR SENTENCING TO SERVICE (STS) PROGRAM SERVICES
THROUGH DECEMBER 31, 2010.
WHEREAS, Hennepin County Community Corrections operates the Sentencing to
Service (STS) general work program, which utilizes offenders who are working off court-
ordered obligations for low level offenses; and
WHEREAS, Many other cities participate successfully in this program including
Bloomington, St. Louis Park, Minneapolis, St. Paul, Mn/DOT and Three Rivers Park
District; and
WHEREAS, The City of Richfield has utilized these forces for many years to help
clean up after the Fourth of July celebration and to help with occasional labor intensive
projects that helps reduce the number of full-time staff needed to accomplish these tasks;
and
WHEREAS, STS crews provide an excellent service at a very inexpensive cost that
could not be obtained elsewhere.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Richfield Mayor and City
Manager are hereby authorized and directed for and on behalf of the City of Richfield to
execute and enter into Contract No. A082359 between the City of Richfield and the County
of Hennepin, State of Minnesota for Sentencing to Service Program Services through
December 31, 2010.
Adopted by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this 24th day of
February, 2009.
Debbie Goettel, Mayor
ATTEST:
Nancy Gibbs, City Clerk
~-a -~.
TASKS FOR "SENTENCING TO SERVICE"
• Maintain City-owned vacant lots on 18th Ave.
• Weed control along curb lines
• Picking up trash along freeway fences and on minor arterial roads
• Washing and cleaning City equipment
• Clean garage stalls
• Trimming along freeway fences
• Weed control around ball field fences
• Clean tennis courts
• Clean tot lots and park trash pickup
• Weed whip parks and freeway fences
• Sweep slabs under bleachers
• Clean and wash park buildings
• 4t" of July setup and cleanup
• Half-Marathon setup and cleanup
• Cattail Days setup and cleanup
• Clean Ice Arena
• Shovel gate boards
• Restore and paint picnic tables
• Paint park buildings
• Shovel snow at bus stops and fire hydrants
• Shovel debris out of catch basins
• Clean under bridge decks
• Paint Garage building
• Cleanup trash around storm water ponds
• H U B garbage
• Wood chipping along 77t" street wall
• Rebuild retaining walls
~[~3~3
Contract No: A082359
SERVICES AGREEMENT
SENTENCING TO SERVICE PROGRAM
WITH GOVERNMENTAL UNIT
This Agreement is between the COUNTY OF HENNEPIN, STATE OF MINNESOTA
(the "COUNTY") A-2300 Government Center, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55487, on behalf of the
Hennepin County Department of Community Corrections and Rehabilitation, C-2300
Government Center, 300 South Sixth Street, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55487 ("DEPARTMENT")
and the CITY OF RICHFIELD, 6700 Portland Avenue South, Richfield, Minnesota 55423 (the
"CITY").
WHEREAS, the COUNTY operates the Sentencing to Service Program (STS Program)
which offers offenders an opportunity to learn construction and other marketable skills; and
WHEREAS, the CITY wishes to purchase the services. of the STS Program;
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual undertakings and agreements
hereinafter set forth, the COUNTY, on behalf of the DEPARTMENT, and the CITY agree as
follows:
TERM AND COST OF THE AGREEMENT
This Agreement shall be in effect from January 1, 2009 through December 31, 2010,
unless terminated earlier in accordance with the Default and Cancellation provisions of
this Agreement.
The total cost of this Agreement, including all reimbursable expenses, shall not exceed:
A. Forty-One Thousand, Two Hundred Dollars ($41,200.00) for the period January
1, 2009 to December 31, 2009, and
B. Forty-Two Thousand, Four Hundred and Thirty-Six Dollars ($42,436.00) for the
period January 1, 2010 to December 31, 2010.
2. SERVICES TO BE PROVIDED
The CITY wishes to utilize the services of the STS Program participants to perform labor
intensive forestry, park maintenance and utility maintenance related projects (the
"Work").
The DEPARTMENT agrees to the following with respect to the Work requested:
A. Provide one (1) work crew one (1) day per week for the period of January 1, 2009
through April 30, 2009. Provide one (1) work crew four (4) days per week for the
period of May 1, 2009 through October 31, 2009. Provide one (1) work crew one
(1) day per week for the period of November 1, 2009 to December 31, 2009.
(STS Form/Governmental Unit-Revised 12/08)
Page 1 of 6
~B-~
Provide one (1) work crew one (1) day per week for the period of January 1, 2010
through April 30, 2010. Provide one (1) work crew four (4) days per week for the
period of May 1, 2010 through October 31, 2010. Provide one (1) work crew one
(1) day per week for the period of November 1, 2010 to December 31, 2010.
Provide work crews for a minimum of six (6) hours per day, excluding paid
breaks. A work crew will consist of a minimum of eight (8) participants per day,
excluding the crew leader.
B. Provide COUNTY employed crew leader who will be responsible for
transportation, instruction and supervision of the STS Program work crew.
C. Provide required personal safety equipment and clothing needed for specific
work.
D. Provide basic construction tools and equipment needed for specific work.
E. Train each STS Program work crew in necessary safety principles and techniques.
F. Provide quarterly reports to the CITY that show the number of days worked and
total hours of service received.
G. Assume-all medical liability for the STS Program participants.
H. STS Program participants are not employees of the CITY.
3. RESPONSIBILITIES OF THE CITY
The CITY agrees to the following:
A. Obtain all necessary permits or licenses or special authority for all Work.
B. Assign all work and coordinate material purchases and delivery for projects to be
performed.
4. COST AND PAYMENT FOR SERVICES
A. The CITY shall pay the COUNTY:
1. Forty-One Thousand, Two Hundred Dollars ($41,200.00) in 2009 for the
services described in this Agreement, and
2. Forty-Two Thousand, Four Hundred and Thirty-Six Dollars ($42,436.00)
in 2010 for the services described in this Agreement.
3. The above-mentioned annual amounts comprise a price per crew of
$317.00 in 2009 and $326.50 in 2010.
(STS Form/Governmental Unit-Revised 12/08)
Page 2 of 6
~~ J~
B. Payment for services performed by the COUNTY shall be paid by the CITY
within thirty (30) days from the date of invoice. The COUNTY will invoice for
services on a quarterly basis reflecting the cost for the crews provided for the
preceding quarter. If this Agreement is terminated early under the Default and
Cancellation provisions of this Agreement, the COUNTY shall be entitled to
payment for the services actually provided up to the time of termination.
5. INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR
Nothing is intended or should be construed as creating or establishing the relationship of
co-partners between the parties or as constituting either party as the agent, representative,
or employee of the other party for any purpose. Each party is and shall remain an
independent contractor for all services performed under this Agreement. Each party shall
secure at its own expense all personnel required in performing services under this
Agreement. Any personnel or other persons engaged in the performance of any work or
services required by a party will have no contractual relationship with the other party and
will not be considered employees of the other party.
6. INDEMNIFICATION
Each party agrees that it will be responsible and agrees to defend, indemnify, and hold
harmless the other party, its officials, officers, agents, and employees for its own errors,
acts and omissions and the results thereof to the extent authorized by the law and shall
not be responsible for the errors, acts and omissions of the other party and the results
thereof. Notwithstanding anything to the contrary in this Section 6, the COUNTY shall
have no liability to the CITY for any cause under or related to this Agreement for any
consequential, special, incidental, punitive, or indirect damages (including without
limitation loss of profit, revenue, business opportunity or business advantage), whether
based upon a claim or action of tort, contract, warranty, negligence, strict liability,
contribution or any other legal theory or cause of action. Each party's liability shall be
governed by and limited in accordance with Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 466.
7. DATA PRACTICES
Both parties shall abide by the provisions of the Minnesota Government Data Practices
Act, Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13 (MGDPA), and all other applicable state and federal
laws, rules, regulations and orders relating to data privacy and confidentiality.
8. SUBCONTRACTING AND ASSIGNMENTS
Neither party shall assign, subcontract, transfer or pledge this Agreement, in whole or in
part, without the prior written consent of the other party.
9. MERGER AND MODIFICATION
A. It is understood and agreed that the entire Agreement between the parties is
contained herein and that this Agreement supersedes all oral agreements and
negotiations between the parties relating to the subject matter. All items that are
(STS Form/Governmental Unit-Revised 12/08)
Page 3 of 6
~g-(~
referenced or that are attached are incorporated and made a part of this
Agreement.
B. Any alterations, variations, modifications, or waivers of provisions of this
Agreement shall only be valid when they have been reduced to writing as an
amendment to this Agreement signed by the parties.
10. DEFAULT AND CANCELLATION
A. If either party fails to perform any of the provisions of this Agreement or so fails
to administer the work as to endanger the performance of the Agreement, it shall
be in default. Unless the default is excused by the nondefaulting party, the
nondefaulting party may upon written notice immediately cancel this Agreement
in its entirety. Additionally, failure of the CITY to comply with the terms of this
Agreement shall be just cause for the COUNTY to immediately cease providing
services under this Agreement until the CITY's compliance.
B. The above remedies shall be in addition to any other right or remedy available to
the parties under this Agreement, law, statute, rule and/or equity.
C. Either party's failure to insist upon strict performance of any provision or to
exercise any right under this Agreement shall not be deemed a relinquishment or
waiver of the same, unless consented to in writing. Such consent shall not
constitute a general waiver or relinquishment throughout the entire term of the
Agreement.
D. This Agreement may be cancelled with or without cause by either party upon
thirty (30) days written notice.
11. CONTRACT ADMINISTRATION
In order to coordinate the services of the CITY with the activities of the Hennepin
County Department of Community Corrections and Rehabilitation, so as to accomplish
the purposes of this Agreement, John Ekholm, Acting Sentencing to Service Program
Manager, or his successor (Contract Administrator), shall manage this Agreement on
behalf of the COUNTY and serve as liaison between the COUNTY and the CITY.
12. NOTICES
Any notice or demand which must be given or made by a party under this Agreement or
any statute or ordinance shall be in writing, and shall be sent registered or certified mail.
Notices to the COUNTY shall be sent to the County Administrator with a copy to the
originating DEPARTMENT at the address given in the opening paragraph of the
Agreement. Notice to the CITY shall be sent to the address stated in the opening
paragraph of the Agreement.
(STS Form/Governmental Unit-Revised 12/08)
Page 4 of 6
rJ'
13. MINNESOTA LAWS GOVERN
The Laws of the State of Minnesota shall govern all questions and interpretations
concerning the validity and construction of this Agreement and the legal relations
between the parties and their performance.. The appropriate venue and jurisdiction for
any litigation will be those courts located within the County of Hennepin, State of
Minnesota. Litigation, however, in the federal courts involving the parties will be in the
appropriate federal court within the State of Minnesota. If any provision of this
Agreement is held invalid, illegal or unenforceable, the remaining provisions will not be
affected.
THIS PORTION OF PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
(STS Form/Governmental Unit-Revised 12/08)
Page 5 of 6
~-~ - 8
COUNTY BOARD AUTHORIZATION
Reviewed by the County COUNTY OF HENNEPIN
Attorney's Office STATE OF MINNESOTA
By:
Chair of Its County Board
Date:
ATTEST:
Deputy/Clerk of County Board
Date:
And:
Assistant/Deputy/County Administrator
Date:
CITY OF RICHFIELD
The CITY warrants that the person who executed
this Agreement is authorized to do so as required by
applicable articles, bylaws, resolutions or
ordinances.*
By:
Debbie Goettel
Its: Mayor
Date:
And:
Steven L. Devich
Its: Cit~anager
Date:
* The City shall submit applicable documentation (articles, bylaws, resolutions or ordinances)
that confirms the signatory's delegation of authority. This documentation shall be submitted at
the time the Agreement is returned to the County.
(STS Form/Governmental Unit-Revised 12/08)
Page 6 of 6
AGENDA SECTION: CONSENT
AGENDA ITEM # 4C
REPORT # 48
~- STAFF REPORT
CITY COUNCIL MEETING
FEBRUARY 24, 2009
REPORT PREPARED BY:
KAREN BARYON, COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
ASSISTANT DIRECTOR
NAME, TITLE
DEPARTMENT DIIZECTOR REVIEW:
REVIEWED BY CITY MANAGER:
ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION:
Consideration of a resolution approving the 2009 Social Service agency funding
recommendations and authorizing the City Manager to execute agreements for service with
those a encies funded b the Cit .
I. RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Approve the resolution providing funding allocations as
recommended for certain human service agencies in total amount of
$92,507 for 2009.
II. BACKGROUND
The City of Richfield allocates funds on an annual basis to social service agencies
serving the Richfield community. To assist in the allocation process, the City
Council formed a committee, the Richfield Community Human Services Planning
Council (RCHSPC), to review and recommend distribution of these funds.
The RCHSPC established the following priority areas for funding consideration: 1)
services for vulnerable senior residents; 2) services for individuals, families, teens
and/or children at risk; and 3) housing support services for low-income persons and
persons at risk.
An announcement was made soliciting funding proposals for service in the Richfield
Sun. Applications were sent to prospective agencies.
022409 Soc Ser Funds
The Grant Review Committee met on October 27 and- December 1 to review
proposals from the applicant agencies and to make recommendations for funding.
The following is a history of the City of Richfield Social Service grant awards.
Or anization 2005 2006 2007 2008
Senior Communit Services 9,070 9,070 9,070 11,500
Cornerstone 13,500 13,500 15,000 15,000
Storefront 30,000 30,000 28,000 28,000
Famil & Children's Services 10;000 8,000 8,000
VEAP 15,000 15,000 15,000 15,000
Richfield READY 2,500 2,500 2,500 2,500
M I RA 10,000 9,285
Church of New Life
Loaves & Fishes 3,000 3,000
Bethan Covenant Church 7,285
CAPSH 5,000
Assum tion Church 8,000
RCC Communi Dialo ue 500
Oak Grove Church 7,000
HRA-Kids at Home 5,000
House of Pra er 10,000
RF Schools/ Au sbur Libra 1,500
TOTAL $93,570 $93,570 $93,570 $96,570
At the January 13, 2009 City Council meeting, the RCHSPC recommended funding in the
amount of $99,470 to be allocated for 2009. Due to city-wide budget shortfalls, the City
Council directed the RCHSPC to reduce the allocation by 7%.
Subsequently, the RCHSPC met on February 9, 2009. and revised their recommendation
to reflect the 7% reduction as follows (see Attachment 2, page 1, for service descriptions):
Or anization 2009 Recommendation
Senior Community
Services $11,160
Cornerstone $13,950
Storefront $26,040
Family & Children's
Services $7,440
VEAP $15,810
Richfield READY $2,325
M I RA $9, 737
Church of New Life $2,325
Loaves & .Fishes $3,720
Bethany Covenant
Church NA
CAPSH NA
Assum tion Church NA
-RCC Community
Dialo ue NA
Oak Grove Church NA
HRA-Kids at Home NA
House of Pra er NA
RF Schools/ Augsburg
Libra NA
TOTAL $92,507
III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION
A. POLICY
• All funding recommendations meet the priorities established for 2009
(see Attachment 1 page 1 "Guidelines and Instructions for 2009 Funding
Assistance" and Attachment 1 page 2 "2009 Application for Funding
Assistance").
• Agencies recommended for funding have met review criteria in the areas
of service need and program management (see Attachment 1 .page 1
"Guidelines and Instructions for 2009 Funding Assistance" and see
Attachment 1 page 2 "2009 Application for Funding Assistance").
• Agencies recommended for funding have. stated service outcomes and
have established methods for evaluating service results.
Agencies recommended for funding are receptive fo collaboration and
several. participate in Hennepin South Services Collaborative (HSSC)
and_the Richfield Community Council
B. CRITICAL ISSUES
• Services are to be provided in calendar year 2009
C. FINANCIAL
• Recommendations are based on the unallocated portion ($99,470-
, Human Services-Programs), less 7%, of the 2009 Other Agencies
Division Budget, 10105. A City Council/Administration 2009 allocation
of $25,720 of this budget is designated for the HSSC for research,
planning and coordination functions.
D. LEGAL
• Agencies awarded funding will be required to sign a service
agreement.
IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION~S~
• Recommendations regarding funding are advisory. Final determination is.
subject to Council approval. Council has the discretion to revise amounts.
V. ATTACHMENTS
• Resolution
• Guidelines and Instructions for 2009 Funding Assistance
• 2009 Application for Funding Assistance
• Draft Minutes of 12/1/08 RCHSPC Meeting
• 2008 RCHSPC Members
VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING
• N/A
~c-~
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION APPROVING THE 2009 SOCIAL SERVICE AGENCY FUNDING
RECOMMENDATIONS AND AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE
AGREEMENTS FOR SERVICE WITH THOSE AGENCIES FUNDED BY THE CITY
WHEREAS, a review committee has been formed comprised of the Richfield
Community Human Services Planning Council (RGHSPC) members to serve as the review
and recommending group for City Social Service Funds; and
WHEREAS, this committee reviewed applications from human service agencies for
City Social. Service Funds.
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Richfield
that the funds be allocated as follows:
Organization Recommendation
Cornerstone -Criminal Justice Intervention $13,950
Family & Children's Service -School Success $7,440
Senior Community Services -Senior Outreach Program $11,160
The Storefront Group =Youth Counseling Program $26,040
Volunteers Enlisted to Assist People (NEAP) $15,810
Richfield R.E.A.D.Y. Scholarship Program $2,325
MIRA -Programs, Information & Referral Services $9,737
Loaves and Fishes $3,720
Church of New Life - Kidz Adventure Club $2,325
TOTAL $92,507
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Manager be authorized to execute
contractual agreements with the. above-named agencies summarizing services to be
provided to Richfield residents.
Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this 24th day of
February; 2009.
Debbie Goettel, Mayor
Nancy Gibbs, City Clerk
t ~'
ATTACHMENT 1
CITY OF RICHFIELD
GUIDELINES AND INSTRUCTIONS FOR
2009 FUNDING ASSISTANCE
The Richfield Community Human Services Planning Council (RCHSPC) is responsible
for setting priorities for City of Richfield Social Service funding and for making
recommendations for grant awards. Each year the RCHSPC examines the City Social
Service Funding process to determine funding parameters and priority goals for the
purpose of making the best use of funds.
Fundina Parameters
• Any non-profit organization is eligible to apply.
• Projects must serve Richfield residents.
• Because of limited funds, requests made should not cover all expenses of a
proposed service.
Priority Goals
Projects must address at least one of the following priorities:
Services for vulnerable senior residents
Services for individuals, families, teens and/or children at risk
Housing support services for low-income persons and persons at risk
Award Criteria
Priority will be given to proposals that meet the following criteria:
• Demonstrated need of the proposed service for the targeted population.
• Collaboration with other service providers.
• Participation in the Richfield Community Council and Hennepin South Services
.Collaborative and its related activities.
• Efforts to serve cultural/ethnic/racial populations and low-income persons.
• Demonstrated value to the community.
• Does not duplicate services to Richfield residents.
Com leted a lications must be submitted b October 13, 2008
CITY OF RICHFIELD
GUIDELINES AND INSTRUCTIONS
FOR 2009 FUNDING ASSISTANCE
Page 2
PLEASE DON'T
~c 3 FORGET THESE
INSTRUCTIONS
APPLICATION INSTRUCTIONS
The attached Application for Funding Assistance must be used in your request for
funds. Proposals MUST:
• Use the 2009 Application Questions.
• Include agency and program name and address, and contact person name, title,
phone #, fax # and Email address as applicable.
• Be typewritten, printed on both sides and include page numbers. PLEASE
SUBMIT PROPOSALS WITH 2-SIDED PRINTING
• Include the questions along with the responses.
• Be as brief, clear and concise as possible.
• NOT include expensive binding, brochures, letters of support or materials not asked
for in the application.
• NOTE: Make sure you are using the updated 2009 Instructions and
Application Questions.
Submit 1 original plus 11 hard copies and 1 email copy (TOTAL 13 COPIES) of
completed application by October 13, 2008 to:
Kathy Farris
Human Services Planner/Coordinator
City of Richfield
6700 Portland Avenue
Richfield, MN 55423
KfarrisCa~cityofrichfield.org.
The. RCHSPC will review applications for social service funds at its October 27 meeting.
Applicants may be asked to respond in writing to additional questions. The RCHSPC
will determine 2009 funding recommendations no later. than mid December 2008. The
Richfield City Council will approve grant awards at its January 13, 2009 City Council
meeting.
Agencies awarded social services grants will be required to sign a service agreement
for calendar year 2009 and submit semi-annual reports on service outcomes.
Organizations- are encouraged to contact Kathy Farris at 612-861-9754,
Kfarris(c~cityofrichfield.org with any questions and for assistance in completing
grant applications.
Com leted a lications must be submitted b October 13, 2008
~c~-~
CITY OF RICHFIELD
2009 APPLICATION FOR SOCIAL SERVICE FUNDING ASSISTANCE
PROPOSAL HEADING
1. Agency name, address, contact person, and phone/fax/email
2. Amount of request
3. Name of proposed service
4. Brief description of service
5. Identify priority area(s) you are addressing:
a) Services for vulnerable senior residents
b) Services for individuals, families, teens and/or children at risk
c) Housing support services for low-income persons and persons at risk
ADMINISTRATION
1. Provide a mission statement for your agency.
2. Provide verification of your organization's non-profit legal status.
3. Indicate your total agency budget for 2009.
4. Indicate your proposed project budget for 2009. Itemize proposed expenses and
describe as applicable. Indicate both proposed City funds and other funds to
support the project.
PROGRAM
1. Demonstrate the need for the proposed service.
2. Describe service to be funded. Include:
a) Brief statement depicting what the service is and how service is provided
b) Target population(s); estimated number of unduplicated individuals you plan to
serve
c) Admission criteria and process
d) How clients are involved in the planning process for service
e) Desired client outcomes and methods of evaluating and measuring client
progress (use attached "Proposed Outcome/Evaluation Methods" form)
3. Describe efforts to outreach to target population, including immigrant and low-
income individuals.
4. If city funds were reduced or not available after 2009, how you would continue to
provide the service.
COLLABORATION EFFORTS ,
1. Are you a partner in the Richfield Community Council, Hennepin South Services
Collaborative or the Children's Mental Health Collaborative? If so, briefly describe
your involvement.
2. Describe your efforts to collaborate with other agencies including your involvement
in developing and participating in these collaborations.
Organizations are encouraged to contact Kathy Farris at 612-861-9754,
KFarrisC~cityofrichfield.orp with any questions and for assistance in completing
grant applications.
Com leted a lications must be submitted b October 13, 2008
07
O
O
N
N
N
~ O
~ t
..+
O O
a~
a~ c
c O
~~
~ ~
~ ~
~ ca
w
~a
~ ~
~ O
~ ~
O ~
~ ~
_~ ~
~ O
t ~
V O
~a
O
U
C
N
._
cC
L
O
c~
.Q
Q
Q
O N
~ i
~ ~
Z Q
C
O
i
a
V
c
O
U
d
N
d
s
L
.~
W
__
C
V
3
L
.~
w
O
C
O
Q.
'i
V
N
d
.~
00
O
O
t
a
,-
O
O N
sZ
O
O L
Q
V
~ ~
~ L
O ~
N N
~
~
d
t
d =
~
E
3
~ O
.i
~ O
O ~
I
y
°'
o
~ o
~ ~
~ o
~ `o
U O O
~ ~ >
~ O
~ ~ ~ ~
N
O ~ ~ ,~
Q ~ U O
O ~m`~~
~ U ~
~ -6 N
Q
~ "- N Q ~
O °' 3 ~' ~'
~
to o°
°
UY •~ ~
G1 N
~~ ~.~
~ ~ ~"a
O i
O
~ O ~ ~ ~ o
O L ~ ~ to N
c~- ~~
= v ~ ~ ~
~
~ U ~ O
~ ,
L ~ O
~ V +: cn ~ cB
~ •- ~
~ ~ •~ ~ ~
w
~
~ ~
~
~ ~ ~
+
+ U
O
~ `n
+~+
~
3 ~ ~ ~
~
.i~
~ ~
~ ~ U ~ p
O
L ~ Y ~
N
C
~ ~ .
M
d I Oa
O v ~ a~ ~ m
~~~ °-~~~
~ O ~ t'
O to o~~~
M
r
L
O
O
v
m
~_
E
m
N
c~
G
N
O
tC
V
J
W
2
U_
LO
r
U
W
U
Z
Q
H
_~
Q
Z
Z
W
U
N>
I.L
W
J
Q
U
Z
O
>_
D
U
Z
,W
~../
Q
W
2
H
Z
`_~
1~
Q
Z
W
U
W
O
O
N
J_
U
Z
O
C~
_Z
Z
Z
Q
J
a
N
W
U
W
N
Z
Q
2
H
Z
D
J
W_
LL
2
UN_
1.1.
~C-~,~
y
=
~
~+
Rf
O ~
O =
d
N
0
m ~
N
M
N
Ef} O
~
07
M
~-
Ef-} O
d'
~
I~
Efl I~
M
I~
O
Ef> O
N
~
M
EA ~
N
M
N
E{} O
CO
~
~
~
Ef} O
ti'
O
M
N
Ef} O
~
00
~
~
fA ti
O
~
N
O
6F?
U
~
C
(B
_~
O
L
Q U
~ fB
~
.~-
~
(n
cn
fn p
`~ ~ Q' ~
O O
~ ~ O
`- ca
L
U U M
N ~~ Q
O
O ~ ~ p 0
U ~ ,
-_
~
~ .
~ ,_ ~
~, ~
p
(B O
~~
U
L
, O
~ U
~ N
~ N~
~ CO O~ ~
~
~ ~ ~
' L p
O _~
U ~ Ln C
~ U ~~ ~~ c04 ~ p Q ~
L
O N
p ~ ~ ~ L ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
~ ~ W L >1 i lV
p ~ ~ _ ^^``
~ W
U Q n~
V/ ~ ~ y~.
~ p N
- N
(B
~ C
~ '
O ~
L (a _
~ U
N L
] ~
Q O L ~ ~
-1r
~
a ~
~ o p ~
o ~ p ~
~ o C
o ~ C
o ~
~ ~
~ o
ca ~ ~ U c o a~ ~' ~ ~ o c ~ ~ c~ ~
~
p p j J ~ O U~ ~ _> N O
0 . > U >
L ~ ~ o p ~ ~
o
~ ~ O ~ c~=
U ~ ~
y--~ ~ ~ C oy
r
~ U c ,~
L ~ ~ ~
~
Q
'
~ ~
O p
(~ L
~ L _C
Q O
~ Q
Q~
n ~
`~
n ~ Q ~
C ~ ~
~ p U~ U N U~ C O Q
~ U
~ ~ (B O (B
~~ ~
U C ~ > U~ >> n~^~` ~ ~
W
~ L p L
~ C ~
N ^~,
n
W -F+
~ ~ ~
~ ~ ^,
4U/ p ~ L W ~
~ ~
~
~ O ^ `
lU/
~ ^~`
n
W
L 1
L
~ U O
~ ~
L
O N
~ ~ •~ '
~ ~ ~
O i •
~ ~ C
U ~ O
(B
~ N ~
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ N
C ~ O ~
_ ~ Ca N U O
O "p ~ O p, C L N
~ p O S p O ,+-.
O L "p N U a
~
N ~ ~
Q ~' ~
~ O ~ U ~
~ ~ cn
_ O ~ ~ c6 U
L ~ U
U
V
'~ _
O
O O O
~
U U O N
N
~, ~ U
(0 ~~ ~ (0 U ~
.-
p m N
U ~~
O O "U ~>
~
~ ~ .
~ ~ O
~
~ ~ N Q
~ ~ ~ O
~ C O
U ~ N~
N C to N
~ (/)
(n U N O ~ j ~ ~ i ~ > (n i ~ > -p U . cn U fB N
,~
~ ~
i
~ U (0 O L 3
L~ .~ >, O
N
Q ~ U N
O
C~ O O
L
N ~ cn
U > to
L L N ca
C U
.
N ~, C O Q- L
-
_ R ~._,
~ Q O~ N O U O
_ ~ ~'
w+
Q. ~
N O N
L (n O
~ O ~ L ~
~ C
U
E cn
~~ ~ , ~ -O ~ to
O ~ O (A
(~ N N N to N _Q N
~ ~
C p~ p U O~~ O N O p O~ ~ U 0 0
~ ..
~ ~ U ~ p
d~~cL o
~
~ L
d > c d Q ~ `
° U
o dd
a c
n. ~ u
i
Q
U ~ U
N u N O O ~ ~ ~
Y ~ '~ ~ ~ v ~ ~
_ ~
L
I Q
O
` ~ ~~ O ~ ~
~ J -
~
~ ~
U o ~ ~ ~
~ a~ ~ ~
Q ~~
~ C7
~ ~
~ _~ I a ~ ~ ~ .v ~ ~ ~
a ~ ~
~ Z V ~ O U
( o N ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ W
° ~ ~ a~ ~ UO ~
~ ~~
~,
V ~
~ ~ c
i N °~cn
>, ~ ' ~ ~ a
N ~ i L ~
~ ~ ~ p J
=
~ L O
~ > ~~
L ~ O
~ ~ Q L
~ ~ j _
`+- L
'~ O O O
~ C H p
~ ~~
~ O Q
H
Q UQ _p
U ~ ~Cn _
~~ (0
~ ~~ v~cn ~
~U >~ O
N
H
Z
W
2
U
Q
F-
H
Q
i. _(... f~ ~~
DRAFT ~` 0
ATTACHMENT 3
RICHFIELD COMMUNITY HUMAN SERVICES
PLANNING COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES
December 1, 2008
Present: Anthony Bradford; Joan Helmberger; Joan Kraft; Jeanette Lofstrom; Jo Romer
(chair); Sarah Till; Kathy Farris (staff)
Approval of October 27, 2008 Meeting Minutes
The minutes were approved.
Recommendations for 2009 Funding Assistance
Responses from Church of New Life and MIRA were reviewed, and there was a suggestion to
take another look at the programs that have received the highest awards over the years. It was
determined that grant criteria be redefined for 2010. It was agreed that basic needs were in
high demand and to focus on this area for this year's grants. The following recommendations
were approved by consensus:
A enc -Pro ram 2009 Recomme ndations
Church of New Life - "Kidz Adventure Club" 2,500
Cornerstone -Communit Services Pro ram 15,000
Family & Children's Service -School Success 8,000
MIRA -Pro ram, Information & Referral Servic es 10,470
Loaves & Fishes 4,000
Richfield R. E.A. D. Y. -Scholarship Program 2,500
Senior Communit Services -Senior Outreach Pro ram 12,000
The Storefront Group -Youth Counselin Pro ram 28,000
Volunteers Enlisted to Assist People (NEAP) 17,000
TOTAL $99,470
2009 Meeting Schedule
The following schedule was approved for 2009:
Location: Richfield City Hall, 6700 Portland Avenue South, Heredia Room
Time: 4th Monday of Every Month, 5:30 - 6:30 p.m. -unless otherwise noted
Date Potential agenda items
1/26 No meeting
2/23 No meeting
3/23 Brainstorm Social Service funding criteria for 2010; review demographics.
4/27 Determination of grant priorities; grant application materials approved
5/25 No meeting -Memorial Day
6/22 Speaker: representative from schools re: needs of students/families
7/27 No meeting
8/24 No meeting
9/28 Panel: three grant recipients e.g., Storefront, NEAP, Cornerstone
10/26 2010 Social Service Grant Proposal Review/Recommendations
11/23 If needed -Continue 2009 Social Service Grant Recommendations
12/28 No meeting
DRAFT
Other
`C ~- ._
Kathy announced her resignation as Human Services Coordinator with the City of Richfield. Jo
thanked Kathy for her work on the RCHSPC and all wished her well in the future.
Next Meeting
The next RCHSPC meeting is scheduled for Monday, March 23, 5:30 - 6:30 p.m., in the
Heredia Room.
Recording Secretary
Kathy Farris
~, -
~(~ ATTACHMENT 4
City of Richfield
Richfield Community Human Services Planning Council
2008 Membership
Name Representation Address Phone Email
Anthony Human Rights 6321 2"a Ave. So. 612-618-0321 Anthonylbradford(c~hotmail.com
Bradford Commission-Alternate Richfield, MN 55423
Beth Fagin Richfield Community
Council 6425 Nicollet Ave. S.
Richfield, MN 55423 612-798-8174 BfaginCa~storefront.org
Joan HRA 6914 Park Ave. S. 612-869-8057 Joanhelmberger(a~Vahoo.com
Helmberger Richfield, MN 55423
Jeff Karr Planning Commission-
Alt
t 7120-12th Ave. S. Jkarr1 ,Fairview.org
erna
e Richfield, MN 55423
Joan Kraft Human Rights 6621 Sheridan Ave. S. 612-861-4091 ioan kraft(a~cbca.com
Commission Richfield, MN 55423
Jeanette League of Women 7325 5th Ave. So. 612-869-3772 jelofstrom(c~msn.com
Lofstrom Voters Richfield, MN 55423
Catherine Planning Commission 6636 Thomas Ave S 612-861-2409 capeloquin(a~yahoo.com
Peloquin Richfield, MN 55423
Jo Romer Advisory Board on 7405 Aldrich Ave. S. 612-869-5087 JromermnCa~~juno.com
(chair) Health Richfield, MN 55423
Sarah Till Community Services 6733 Russell Ave. So. 612-866-5910 sctill~gmail.com
Commission Richfield, MN 55423
"'~asan City Council Liaison 6633 Thomas Ave. S. 612-866-2683 Suerosenberq(c~comcast.net
Isenberg Richfield, MN 55423
Lynda Gault Richfield Public 7001 Harriet Ave. S. 612-798-6000 Lynda.gualt(cr~.richfield.k12.mn.us
Schools Liaison Richfield, MN 55423
Daryl HSSC Liaison 9801 Penn Ave. S. 952-922-5999 Daryl.coppoletti(a~hsscmn.orq
Coppoletti Bloomington, MN 55431
For RCHSPC use only.
2/08
AGENDA SECTION: CONSENT
AGENDA ITEM # 4D
REPORT # 49
STAFF REPORT
CITY COUNCIL MEETING
FEBRUARY 24, 2009
REPORT PREPARED BY:
DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR
REVIEW:
REVIEWED BY CITY
MANAGER:
MARK HALL, FLEET AND PARK
MAINTENANCE SUPERVISOR
NAME, 777ZE
C"
1.~
ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION:
Consideration of the purchase of four unmarked Public Safety vehicles.
I. RECOMMENDED ACTION:
By Motion: Approve a purchase order for-four unmarked Public
Safety vehicles to Car/Truck City for $33,130.00, Nelson Auto Center
for $18,670.97, and Denny Hecker Automall for $20,680.00 plus
license fees.
II. BACKGROUND
Unit 9890 (1998 Ford Taurus), Unit 9903 (1999 Ford Crown Victoria), Unit 2112 and
Unit 2115 (both 2001 Dodge Intrepids) are all Public Safety vehicles that are fully
depreciated and scheduled for replacement in 2009. At the present time, these cars
have an average of 35,000 miles on them and vary in age from eight to eleven
years old.- These unmarked sedans are driven by the Detectives in Public Safety
and are often used in emergency response situations. The replacement cars are
two Chevrolet Impala Sedans, one Dodge Charger, and a Dodge Durango. The old
sedans will be driven by the Inspections and Engineering Divisions for day to day
inspection needs.
III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION
022409unmarked squads
A. POLICY
• These three dealers are included in the Minnesota State Cooperative
Purchasing Program.
• The City of Richfield participates in the Minnesota State Cooperative
Purchasing Program.
B. CRITICAL ISSUES
• Approval at the February 24, 2009 Council meeting will facilitate
delivery of the new detective cars.
C. FINANCIAL
• The approved 2009 budget contains $80,000 for this purchase..
• At the December 1, 2008 Special City Council Meeting a resolution
was passed awarding the sale of General Obligation Capital Notes,
Series 20086 in the par amount of $515,000.
• The issuance of the General Obligation Capital Notes, Series 20086
provides the funding for the purchase of the four vehicles.
D. LEGAL
• When the purchase of materials, merchandise, equipment, or
construction exceeds $25,000, authority to purchase shall be
submitted to the City Council for consideration
IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION(S~
• Council may delay approval, to a later meeting. Delayed approval, however,
will result in delayed delivery.
• No action by Council on this purchase will eventually compromise safety for
police officers driving old detective cars.
V. ATTACHMENTS
• 20086 Capital Note-Equipment Purchases
VI. PRINCII'AL PARTIES EXPECTED. AT MEETING
• None
yo -I
20086 G.O. Capital Notes
.Equipment Purchases
Epected
Estimated Useful
Description Cost Life/Years
1 -One Ton Truck 45,000 8
2 -Mowers 26,000 8
1 -Skid Steer Loader 34,000 10
1 -One Ton Truck 47,000 8
1 -Brush Chipper 70,000 9
1 -Ice Resurfacer 115,000 10
4 -Mid-Size Sedans 80,000 6
1 -Sports Utility Vehicle 28,000 5
5 -Full-Size Police Squads 135,000 3
1 -Records Archival System Scanners 6,050 5
2 -Network Servers 11,980 3
Fiber Optic Network Construction 104,000 15
702,030
Funding
Tax Levy 136,502
G.O. Capital Notes 498,000
- Cash on Hand 67,528
702,030
AGENDA SECTION: PRO _ O TN N
AGENDA ITEM # (~
REPORT # 50
STAFF REPORT
CITY COUNCIL MEETING
FEBRUARY 24, 2009
REPORT PREPARED BY:
BETSY OSBORN, SUPPORT SERVICES
MANAGER
NAME, TITLE
DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR
REVIEW: ~ ~AA.f .2~
REVIEWED BY CITY
MANAGER:
ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION:
Consideration of the second reading of an ordinance amendment to Richfield City Code
1202.07 subd 3. (b) that would require that only on-sale intoxicating liquor licensed
establishments must have a total market value, including land and buildings, of at least
$600,000 as a license eligibility requirement. On-sale Wine and 3.2 malt .liquor licensed
establishments would not have to meet this reauirement.
I. RECOMMENDED ACTION:
By Motion: Conduct the second reading of and approve an ordinance
amendment to Richfield City Code 1202.07 subd. 3 (b):
1. Requiring that only on-sale intoxicating liquor licensed
establishments must have a total market value, including land
and buildings, of at least $600,000 as a license eligibility
requirement.
2. On-sale Wine and 3.2 malt liquor licensed establishments would
not have to meet this requirement.
II. BACKGROUND
First reading of the subject ordinance amendment was held at the Council meeting
held on February 10, 2009.
0224 Second Reading Ordinance Amendment Requiring Market Value on On-Sale Intoxicating Liquor
In 2004, the City undertook a merger of individual City code sections for on-sale
intoxicating liquor, wine and 3.2 malt liquor so that all sections were contained in
one specific area of the code. Prior to that time, a requirement was in place within
the on-sale intoxicating liquor code that stated that on-sale intoxicating liquor
licensed establishments must have a total market value, including land and
buildings, of at least $600,000 as a license eligibility requirement.
When the merger of the three individual codes occurred and it became one code
section, that $600,000 land and building value requirement also was required of on-
sale wine and 3.2 malt liquor licensees. It was never the City's intention to expect
those establishments selling wine/3.2 malt liquor to meet that same requirement but
was overlooked at the time that the individual codes were merged into one.
This, then, is the second reading of the amendment to the current code Section
1202.07, subd 3(b) that clarifies and corrects the City's intent concerning this issue.
III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION
A. POLICY
The City embraces small businesses within the business community
and never intended for this requirement to be in place for those
businesses selling on-sale wine/3.2 malt liquor, but rather was
intended for on-sale intoxicating liquor licensed establishments only.
This would mean that the City is more business friendly for those
smaller establishments that want to offer wine or 3.2 malt liquor to
customers along with their meals.
B. CRITICAL ISSUES
• The privilege of having an on-sale intoxicating liquor license brings
with it even more responsibility and the need for more oversight by the
City. Setting limits on building and land value minimums is one way
that the City can be assured owners are committed to being
responsible business owners and that they take this privilege and its
responsibilities more seriously.
C. FINANCIAL
N/A
D. LEGAL
• The City Attorney has reviewed this ordinance amendment and
approves of the change in the ordinance.
E. ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS
• N/A
IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION(S~
• The Council could decide not to approve the first reading of an amended
ordinance which would mean that on-sale wine/3.2 malt liquor licensed
establishments would need to meet the building and land value minimums as
currently contained in the ordinance.
V. ATTACHMENTS
• Ordinance Amendment No. to City Code 1202.07, subd 3(b)
VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING
• None
~~~
BILL NO.
AMENDMENT TO SECTION 1202.07 OF THE ORDINANCE
CODE OF THE CITY OF RICHFIELD
THE CITY OF RICHFIELD DOES ORDAIN:
Section 1. Subsection 1202.07 Subdivision 3, paragraph b of the ordinance code of the
City of Richfield entitled "Restaurants" is hereby amended:
Subd.3. Specific entities. b) Restaurants. An on-sale intoxicating liquor license
may not be granted to a restaurant which does not have a total market value, including
land and buildings, of at least $600.000.
Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this 24th day of February,
2009.
Debbie Goettel, Mayor
ATTEST:
Nancy Gibbs, City Clerk
AGENDA SECTION: RF. O .DTTONS
AGENDA ITEM #
REPORT # 51
STAFF REPORT
CITY COUNCIL MEETING
FEBRUARY 24, 2009
REPORT PREPARED BY:
JOHN STARK, COMMUNITY
DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR
NAME, TITLE
DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR
REVIEW:
REVIEWED BY CITY
MANAGER:
SIGNATURE
ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION:
Consideration of a resolution denying a request by the Velmeir Companies for a Moratorium
Exception for the property located at 6528 Penn Avenue.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
By Motion: Adopt a resolution denying a request by the Velmeir
Companies for a Moratorium Exception for the property located at
6528 Penn Avenue.
II. BACKGROUND
On February 10, 2009, the City Council held a public hearing to consider a request
by the Velmeir Companies for a Moratorium Exception for the property located at
6528 Penn Avenue (see attached staff report).
Public testimony was provided by two Residents opposing the granting of a
moratorium exception and by one who supported the exception. The property
owner and legal counsel for the applicant both spoke in favor of granting the
exception. The general consensus among the City Council was that the proposed
use (a CVS pharmacy/store) was appropriate, but there was insufficient cause to
grant an exception to the moratorium for two reasons:
1) The actions that necessitated the moratorium (Comprehensive Plan Update,
creation of Design Guidelines, adoption of a new Zoning District and
Rezoning the property) will be completed by the end of April and can then be
022409 CVS resolution
applied to the proposal -thus, there is a question as to whether the
exception is necessary rather than waiting for the moratorium to be
terminated;
2) The proposed development was considered inconsistent with the spirit and
intent of the Penn Corridor Design Guidelines.
Based on those concerns, and on advisement from the City Attorney, the City
Council voted (3-2) to direct staff to draft a resolution to deny a request by the
Velmeir Companies for a Moratorium Exception for the property located at 6528
Penn Avenue to be considered at the February 24, 2009 City Council meeting.
Since that time, representatives of Velmeir have met with staff and have proposed a
new site plan (attached), which, while not completely consistent with the Design
Guidelines or proposed zoning, represents an effort to better reflect the spirit and
intent of the zoning and the Design Guidelines.
The proposed development is subject to the adopted Design Guidelines, even if the
development proceeds under the existing C-2 zoning regulations. Approving an
exception would allow Velmeir and CVS to proceed with their applications, but the
earliest that those applications could be considered by the Council is April 14, 2009.
By that date, the comprehensive plan amendment may be final and, unless the-
Council requires additional review to the proposed zoning changes, the zoning
changes will have been adopted but not yet be final. The City Attorney has advised
that, although the City Council could grandfather the CVS development from the
new zoning requirements, it could also require that the development comply with the
new requirements, if the zoning amendments are approved before the CVS.
applications receive final approval. On that basis, the Council could determine that
the requested exemption will not interfere with the purpose of the moratorium. The
staff has prepared an alternate resolution_ to grant the exemption request.
Finally,, recent discussions with Velmeir representatives have raised. the possibility
that Velmeir may agree to table the exemption request. Velmeir is expected to
attend the Council meeting and will be able to address that alternative at that time.
III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION
A. POLICY
• The Velmeir Companies have requested a Moratorium Exception for
the property located at 6528 Penn Avenue.
• On February 10, 2009 the City Council voted (3-2) to direct staff to
draft a resolution to deny a request by the Velmeir Companies for a
Moratorium Exception for the property located at 6528. Penn Avenue.
• The requested resolution is attached-for consideration.
B. CRITICAL ISSUES
• Representatives of Velmeir have proposed a new site plan (attached),
which, while not. completely consistent with the Design Guidelines or
proposed zoning, represents an effort to better reflect the spirit and
intent of the zoning and those guidelines.
The Council must approve or deny the exemption request within 60
days of January 27, 2009, although if additional time is needed, the
council may extend the decision period an additional 60 days upon
notice to the applicant.
C. FINANCIAL
• N/A
D. LEGAL
• If the City Council denies the requested exemption, it must provide a
written statement of reasons for denial and provide the written
statement to the applicant at the time of denial,.
• The City Attorney has advised that, so long as the new zoning
regulations are adopted prior to final approval of development
applications for the property, the City Council may require the
development to comply with the new zoning regulations.
E. ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS
• N/A.
IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION~S~ '
• Adopt a resolution granting the exemption on the ground that the
development will not interfere with the purpose of the moratorium, due to the
anticipated schedule for consideration of the zoning ordinance. The Council
should be advised that this assumes that there will be no significant delays in
the adoption of the new zoning requirements.
• Adopt a motion tabling further consideration of the request to the March 10,
2009 Council meeting. That date is within the 60 days required for a Council
decision.
V. ATTACHMENTS
• Resolution denying the exception to the moratorium
• Alternate resolution granting the exception to the moratorium.
• Staff Report related to this item from the February 10, 2009 City Council
Meeting
• Revised site plan provided by the applicants
VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING
• Representatives of Velmeir Companies.
~-i
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION DENYING REQUEST FOR EXCEPTION TO
MORATORIUM
WHEREAS, on September 11, 2008, the Richfield City Council established aone-
year moratorium on development within the Penn Avenue Corridor, defined as that area
lying along Penn Avenue between Highway 62 to the North and 68th Street to the
South, and Queen Avenue to the West and Oliver Avenue to the East; and
WHEREAS, the purposes of the moratorium were to prevent piecemeal
development within the Penn Avenue Corridor based upon zoning standards that are
inconsistent with stated comprehensive plan goals for the Corridor, and to enable the City
to undertake studies to determine the appropriate. land use and development standards
that should apply to properties in the Corridor and to determine the appropriate
changes, if any that should be made to the City's official land use controls; and
WHEREAS, the moratorium prohibits the issuance of various land use approvals,
including conditional use permits, variances and also prohibits the issuance of building
permits for the construction of new buildings; and
WHEREAS, since the enactment of the moratorium, the City has submitted to the
Metropolitan Council for review and approval, an amendment to the City's comprehensive
land use guide plan that designates the Penn Corridor for a mix of retail and commercial
uses in a higher density than is the case in the previous comprehensive plan designation;
and
WHEREAS, on October 28, 2008 the City Council approved design guidelines for
the Penn Avenue Corridor that includes such design features as front yard setbacks of
less than 12 feet, side yard setbacks of less than 30 feet, direct building access to
pedestrian areas and covered awning entrances ;and
WHEREAS, the City staff have prepared proposed amendments to the zoning code
to implement the comprehensive guide plan and design guidelines, and those zoning
amendments are expected to be presented to the City Council for first reading on March
10, 2009; and
WHEREAS, the moratorium allowed property owners to request that the approval
of exceptions from the moratorium; and
WHEREAS, CVS Pharmacies and Velmeir Companies ("Applicants") have
requested an exemption from the moratorium and approval of a conditional use permit for
a freestanding retail pharmacy at the corner of 66t" Street and Penn Avenue, which has an
address for tax purposes of 6528 Penn Avenue South (the "Property"); and
CAH-255107v 1
RC 160-5
~ -a
WHEREAS, the City Council conducted a public hearing on the request for
exemption on February 10, 2009; and
WHEREAS, subsequent to the public hearing Applicants submitted an alternate
proposal for the redevelopment of the Property, which would require the subdivision of the
Property and the approval of a conditional use permit, as well as an exemption from the
moratorium.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA as follows:
The City Council makes the following findings:
a. The .Property is located at the northwest corner of 66th Street and Penn
Avenue South and is improved with a strip mall and associated parking. The
zoning of the site is General Commercial C-2. The property is guided
Regional Commercial under the existing comprehensive land use guide plan
and Mixed Use under the proposed amendment that is pending final
approval before the Metropolitan Council.
b. The Applicants' initial development proposal and its alternative proposal both
contemplate that the southerly portion of the existing strip mall would be
demolished and the southerly ,195 feet (approximate) of the Property would
be redeveloped with the construction of a CVS Pharmacy store,
approximately 12,900 square feet in size, and new parking and landscaping.
c. The Applicants' initial proposal contemplated that the pharmacy portion
would not be subdivided from the remainder of the Property. However, that
proposal would require the entire Property to be reviewed as part of the
conditional use permit process, and the Applicants have submitted no
information relative to the remainder of the Property. If the requested
exemption were approved, the initial proposal would require a conditional
use permit (application submitted but incomplete), as well as several
variances, including a variance from the required setback for drive-through
windows from residential properties, and .required trash enclosure. The
initial proposal is not consistent with the approved design guidelines for the
Corridor, particularly with respect to building setback from Penn Avenue and
other design features intended to promote apedestrian-friendly, downtown
environment. One of the requirements for issuance of a conditional use
permit is compliance with adopted design guidelines.
d. The Applicants' alternative proposal contemplates that the pharmacy site will
be subdivided from the remainder of the Property. No subdivision
application has been submitted. The conditional use permit application that
has been submitted would still require submission of several items in order
c.ax-ZSSIO~~I
RC 160-5
~ -3
to be complete for further consideration. If the requested exemption were
approved, the alternate proposal would require a conditional use permit
(application submitted but incomplete), as well as several variances,
including a variance from the required setback for drive-through windows
from residential properties, required parking stalls, parking setback from the
remainder of the Property, and required trash enclosure. The alternative
proposal is not consistent with the approved design guidelines for the
Corridor, particularly with respect to building setback from Penn Avenue and
other design features intended to promote apedestrian-friendly, downtown
environment.
e. As a result of the moratorium study, several changes to the zoning code are
under consideration that would affect development of the Property. Those
are expected to be presented to the City Council on March 10, 2009. If
there are no significant changes, the zoning amendments could be adopted
on March 24, 2009 and would be effective by the end of April. Under the
proposed zoning changes, the Property would be rezoned to Mixed Use
Community and placed in the Penn Avenue Overlay District.
If the exemption is not granted, the Applicants would be required to comply
with the new zoning requirements. If the proposed zoning amendments are
adopted .substantially as currently drafted, the Applicants' initial proposal
would not meet setback requirements from the streets or adjacent residential
properties, would exceed maximum impervious surface requirements, and
would not satisfy minimum building coverage. Although limited time has
been available to review the alternate proposal, it would appear to have
similar issues as the initial proposal.
g. Granting an exception to the moratorium as proposed by the Applicants
would. be directly contrary to the purpose of the moratorium, which was to
preserve the status quo while the City put in place new regulations to guide
future development for the corridor.
h. The Applicants have not shown that they would be unable to make a
reasonable use of the Property if they were required to develop the Property
in compliance with the adopted design guidelines. The Applicants have
identified concerns with the topography of the site, with respect to setback
requirements, and topographic issues are often the basis for variances, if an
undue hardship is shown. The Applicants would have the opportunity to
request variances from the proposed ordinance changes, if the regulations
resulted in a hardship. It bears noting that the Applicants have not shown
that they could develop the site as proposed under the current zoning
regulations, because a number of variances would be required.
The Applicants have not shown that the moratorium will result in any delay
that, by itself, would jeopardize their proposed development. The proposed
cax-assio~~i
RC160-5
n-~I
zoning changes could be adopted and in effect by the end of April 2009. In
comparison, if the Applicants' request for an exception to the moratorium
were granted and the Applicants were able to file all information necessary
to complete their applications (either the initial proposal or the alternatie
proposal) appropriate applications on February 25, 2009 (which the
Applicants have not indicated they are prepared to do), the normal
processing of the conditional use applications and variances would result in
final approval no earlier than April 24, 2009. That does not include
processing of a subdivision approval, which would require review by
Hennepin County in addition to the city staff, planning commission and city
council. Moreover, because the Applicants' proposal requires a conditional
use permit and variances, it is not certain that the development would or
could be approved under either the initial proposal or the alternate proposal.
j. The Applicant's proposal is distinguishable in all material respects from the
previous moratorium exception granted by the City Council. The previous
exception allowed a tenant to move from one existing building within the
moratorium area to another existing building within the moratorium area.
That proposal did not involve any material alteration of existing structural
exteriors, as compared to this application, which involves redevelopment of
one of the largest parcels of land in the moratorium study area, including
demolition of a portion of an existing strip mall and the construction of a new
freestanding building. The property and business owners for the previously
granted exception agreed to comply with the approved design guidelines, so
that their development did not frustrate the purpose of the moratorium.
k. Although the Applicants have made conclusory statements to the effect that
compliance with the proposed zoning amendments would damage their
business model, the Applicants have not explained how or why they would
be unable to make a reasonable use of the pharmacy site under the
proposed zoning regulations. CVS Pharmacies has constructed zero-lot line
buildings in other parts of the Twin Cities, which is inconsistent with their
assertion of damage to their business model.
5. The City Council finds that granting the exception to the moratorium as requested
by the Applicants will interfere with the purposes for which the moratorium was adopted,
and the application is therefore denied.
6. The Applicants' request for a conditional use permit is also denied, on the grounds
that the conditional use permit is prohibited by the moratorium in effect.
7. The Applicants are not prohibited from requesting an exception again for a modified
development that in the judgment of the Council will not interfere with the purposes of the
moratorium.
Call-asslo~~l
RC 160-5
~~~
Debbie Goettel, Mayor
Attest:
Nancy C. Gibbs, City Clerk
[insert map]
cax-assio~~i
RC 160-s
"1- lv
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION GRANTING REQUEST FOR EXCEPTION TO
MORATORIUM
WHEREAS, on September 11, 2008, the Richfield City Council established aone-
year moratorium on development within the Penn Avenue Corridor, defined as that area
lying along Penn Avenue between Highway 62 to the North and .68th Street. to the
South, and Queen Avenue to the West and Oliver Avenue to the East; and
WHEREAS, the purposes of the moratorium were to prevent piecemeal
development within the Penn Avenue Corridor based upon zoning standards that are
inconsistent with stated comprehensive plan goals for the Corridor, and to enable the City
to undertake studies to determine the appropriate land use and development standards
that should apply to properties in the Corridor and to determine the appropriate
changes, if any that should be made to the City's official land use controls; and
WHEREAS, the moratorium prohibits the issuance of various land use approvals,
including conditional use permits, variances. and also prohibits the issuance of building
permits for the construction of new buildings; and
WHEREAS, since the enactment of the moratorium, the City has submitted to the
Metropolitan Council for review and approval, an amendment to the City's comprehensive
land use guide plan that designates the Penn Corridor for a mix of retail and commercial
uses in a higher density than is the case in the previous comprehensive plan designation;
and
WHEREAS, on October 28, 2008 the City Council approved design guidelines for
the Penn Avenue Corridor that includes such design features as front yard setbacks of
less than 12 feet, side yard setbacks of less than 30 feet, direct building access to
pedestrian areas and covered awning entrances ;and
WHEREAS, the City staff have prepared proposed amendments to the zoning code
to implement the comprehensive guide plan and design guidelines, and those zoning
amendments are expected to be presented to the City Council for first reading on March
10, 2009; and
WHEREAS, the moratorium. allowed property owners to request that the approval
of exceptions from the moratorium; and
WHEREAS, CVS Pharmacies and. Velmeir Companies ("Applicants") have-
requested an exemption from the moratorium and approval of a conditional use permit for
a freestanding retail pharmacy at the comer of 66"' Street and Penn Avenue, which has an
address for tax purposes of 6528 Penn Avenue South (the "Property"); and
WHEREAS, the City Council conducted a public hearing on the .request for
cnx-ZSSio~~i
RC160-5
~-~
exemption on February 10, 2009; and
WHEREAS, subsequent to the public hearing Applicants submitted an alternate
proposal for the redevelopment of the Property, which would. require the subdivision of the
Property and the approval of a conditional use permit, as well as an exemption from the
moratorium.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA as follows:
The City Council makes the following findings:
a. The Property is located at the northwest corner of 66"' Street and Penn
Avenue South and is improved with a strip mall and associated parking. The
zoning of the site is General Commercial C-2. The properly is guided
Regional Commercial under the existing comprehensive land use guide plan
and Mixed Use under the proposed amendment that is pending final
approval before the Metropolitan Council. The proposed retail use is
consistent with either guide plan designation from the standpoint of overall
use, and minor inconsistencies are. expected to be addressed as part of the
normal review process.
b. The Applicants' initial development proposal and its alternative proposal both
contemplate that -the southerly portion of the existing strip mall would be
demolished and the southerly 195 (approximate) feet of .the Property would
be redeveloped with the construction of a CVS Pharmacy store,
approximately 12,900 square feet in size, and new parking and landscaping.
c. The Applicants' initial proposal contemplated that the pharmacy portion
would not be subdivided from the remainder of the Property. However, that
proposal would require .the entire Property, to be reviewed as part of the
conditional use permit process, and the Applicants have submitted no
information relative to the remainder of the Property. If the requested
exemption were approved, the initial proposal would. require a conditional
use permit .(application submitted but incomplete), as well as several
variances, including a variance from the required setback for drive-through
windows from residential properties, and required trash enclosure.. Under
subsection 534.13 of the zoning code, the property is required to comply
with the adopted design guidelines for the Corridor.
d. The Applicants' alternative .proposal contemplates that the pharmacy site will
be subdivided from the remainder of the Property. No subdivision
application has been submitted. The conditional use permit application that
has been submitted would still require submission of several items in order
to be complete for further consideration. If the requested exemption were
approved, the alternate proposal would require a conditional use permit
cAx-ZSSio~~i
RC160-s
~-8
(application submitted but incomplete), as well as several variances,
including a variance from the required setback for drive-through windows
from residential properties, required parking stalls, parking setback from the
remainder of the Property, and required trash enclosure.. Under subsection
534.13 of the zoning code, the property is required to comply with the
adopted design guidelines for the Corridor.
e. As a result of the moratorium study, several changes to the zoning code are
under consideration that would affect development of the Property. Those
are expected to be presented to the City Council on March 10, 2009. If
there are no significant changes, the zoning amendments could be adopted
on March 24, 2009 and would be effective by the end of April. Under the
proposed zoning changes, the Property would be rezoned to Mixed Use
- Community and, placed in the Penn Avenue Overlay District.
f. The granting of an exemption will not interfere with the purpose of the
moratorium, for the following reasons:
The development must obtain a conditional use permit under the C-2
zoning. One of the requirements of the C=2 zoning is consistency
with the comprehensive plan, and the amendment to the
comprehensive plan is expected to be final and in effect before this
development could receive final approval. If so, this development will
be required to comply with the newly amended comprehensive plan.
ii. The development must comply with the adopted design guidelines for
the Penn Avenue Corridor, whether the development proceeds under
the current C-2 zoning or the proposed MU-C zoning. Those
guidelines were a key outcome of the moratorium, and the
compliance with the guidelines protects against interference with the
purpose of the moratorium.
iii. The Applicants' development applications are not complete, and it is
possible and--even likely-that the proposed zoning ordinance will be
adopted before the Applicant receives final approvals for subdivision,
conditional use permit, and variances. Allowing the Applicants to
submit applications and to begin the processing of those applications
prior to the expiration of the moratorium does not automatically
exempt the applications from the new zoning ordinance
requirements. The Council is not required to grandfather existing
applications from the effects of the new zoning ordinance and may
make that determination at the time that the zoning ordinance is
finally adopted. In granting an exemption from the moratorium, the
Council is allowing the application process. to begin, but the
Applicants proceed at their own risk that, if the zoning ordinance is
amended before their applications are approved by the Council, the
c.~x-ZSSio~~i
RC160-s
~-~
Applicants may be .required to comply with the new zoning
requirements. ~ "
2. The City Council finds that granting the. exception to the moratorium as requested
by the Applicants will not interfere ,with the purposes for which the moratorium was
adopted, due to the timing .of the request for. exemption and the expected adoption of the
new zoning regulations; and the application for an exemption from the moratorium is
therefore granted.
3. The Applicants are hereby put on notice that the granting of an exemption does not
entitle their applications to an exemption from the- application of the pending
comprehensive land use guide plan amendment or the pending zoning code amendments.
Debbie Goettel, Mayor
Attest:
Nancy C. Gibbs, City Clerk
cAx-2ssio~~i
RC160-5
~1-i~
AGENDA SECTION: PUBLIC HEARINGS
AGENDA ITEM # 9
REPORT # 41
0
STAFF REPORT
CITY COUNCIL MEETING
FEBRUARY 10, 2009
REPORT PREPARED BY:
DEPARTMENT DIlZECTOR
REVIEW:
REVIEWED BY CITY
MANAGER.
70HN STARK, COMMUNITY
DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR
NAME, TITLE
ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION:
Consideration of a request to except the Velmeir Company from the Penn Avenue Moratorium
for their proposed CVS development at 6528 Penn Avenue.
I. RECOMMENDED ACTION:
By Motion:
1. Conduct and close a public hearing to solicit comments
regarding a request for an exception from the development -
moratorium enacted on September 11, 2008 to allow
consideration of a conditional use perrnit application at 6528
Penn Avenue; and
2. Deny a request for an exception from the development
moratorium enacted on September 11, 2008 to allow
consideration of a candi#ional use permit application at 6528
Penn Avenue with a finding that the proposed plans do not meet
the intent of the approved Penn Avenue Corridor Design
Guidelines, existing zoning requirements or draft zoning
requirements for a new Penn Avenue Overlay District.
l
II. BACKGROUND
Attorney Peter Coyle (on behalf of Velmeir Companies, their client CVS Pharmacies
and the owners of 6528 Penn Avenue) has applied for an exception to the
021009 CVS Exception
'1- [ ~
development moratorium currently in effect along Penn Avenue. Velmeir, CVS and
the properly owners ("the applicants") wish to apply for a Conditional Use Permit
(CUP) to allow construction of a new freestanding CVS Pharmacy. In order to apply
for the CUP, they must first be granted an exception from the development
moratorium. .
The development moratorium that is in place in the Penn Corridor was adopted by
the City Council on September 11, 2008. The purpose of that moratorium was to
allow time for the completion of a number of guidelines and regulations related to
the Penn Avenue Corridor - specifically, a comprehensive plan amendment,
creation of design guidelines and a rezoning of the area. The moratorium is in
effect until no later than September 11, 2009; although the expressed policy is that
the moratorium would be terminated upon the adoption of the new- policies .and
guidelines. The status of each of these is as follows:
Comprehensive Plan Amendment: Approved by the City Council on July 8, 2008.
Submitted to the Metropolitan Council for their review on December 30, 2008,
pending their review and approval (anticipated by the end of March).
Design Guidelines:. Approved by the City Council on October 28, 2008.
Rezoning: Currently being drafted by staff with the intent that they be present for a
first reading at the March 10, 2009 City Council meeting. -
~ - Rational criteria for granting an exception to the moratorium would be that either:
a) the project being proposed is minor in nature in that it does not alter the existing
land-use or physical environment of the corridor, or;
b) the proposed development- represents an attempt to meet the new regulations
and guidelines (that have been passed or are contemplated).
Staff is of the opinion that neither of these criteria is met by the .proposal under
consideration.
The proposed CVS development would represent a major alteration of the physical
environment of the Penn Corridor. It would replace existing in-line shopping center
space with 12,900 square feet of stand-alone retail space that is different in scale
(height, traffic demarid, drive-thru space, etc.) and design.
The applicants had first provided staff with a proposed site plan in December-2007.
Since that time,.the applicants have met with staff on numerous occasions and were
provided with the adopted design guidelines, as wel( as information ,regarding the
rezoning that is being contemplated. They also met with members of the local
business community to discuss the vision for the area. Yet, upon being informed
about the vision for Penn Avenue, the applicants have chosen to make no
substantive changes to their plan in an attempt to reflect that vision.
~ In the absence of a moratorium, the development proposal does not meet several
~`- requirements of the current zoning- (C-2) and would need at least four variances
(parking, distance of drive-thru to residential property, location of refuse collection
items and setbacks for signage).
~'/~
The proposal also does not meet the adopted design guidelines in the following
manner:
• Building setbacks are too large. The Guidelines call for setbacks to
- remain relatively small with zero front and side setbacks being
encouraged. Door Yard frontages are guided to allow the front set
back to be no more than 6 to 12 feet, and the side-yard setback 0-15%
of the lot width; - _
• - Yard- and Street-wall are to be pedestrian-only zones;
• -Rain gardens should be built on-site to treat storm water;
• Bike racks should be included in the site plan;
• Shrubs should be used sparingly in the .pedestrian amenity zone; and
• - Cantilevered roof shelter over entrance,. relating to entry opening;
• Fabric awning material in colors compatible with historic building style
(the plans-state aluminum awnings to be installed);
_ Finally, staff will be proposing that the City Council rezone the property to Mixed- ,
Use Commercial with specific Penn Avenue Corridor Overlay modifications, at the
March 10 City Council meeting. As currently envisioned, the proposal does not
meet these proposed requirements in the following ways: insufficient building
coverage, excessive front yard setback, insufficient pervious area, location of public
entrance, location of parking areas and drive aisles, .and insufficient window space
and placement. ~~ -
In conducting research of other recently approved CVS locations (particularly a
proposed CVS located at the 4400 block of France Avenue in Minneapolis), staff
has concluded that CVS has made design/layout concessions in the -past which are
consistent with those which are contemplated in the vision, guidelines and
requirements of the Penn Corridor Revitalization Area.
Asa-matter of precedence, an exception to the moratorium was previously granted
by the City Council on October 28, 2008 for Mother Duck-Learning Center. In the
case of that moratorium exception, the proposed use was one that already existed
in the area and was going into an existing building in the Corridor., Furthermore the
property owners demonstrated a commitment to follow the Penn Corridor Design
Guidelines (which were then at the stage of being proposed, but not yet adopted).
Therefore both of the aforementioned criteria for granting an exception were met.
The use be%ng proposed is consistent with the vision, design guidelines and both
the current and proposed zoning for the site. Th.e site layout and building design
and materials, however, differ greatly from those which have been envisioned
through the Penn Corridor Revitalization planning process. Staff is confident,
however, that the applicants could make changes to their site plan that (while not
necessarily meeting eve aspect of the design guidelines and zoning) will
demonstrate an attempt to reflect the spirit and intent of the Penn Corridor Vision.
The property located at the northwest corner of Penn Avenue and 66th Street West
~- is a shopping center with multiple addresses. The address listed in the City's
database is 6534 Penn Avenue. The address listed on Hennepin County's website -
- is 6528 Penn Avenue. Both addresses are valid. This staff report uses Hennepin
`~ - f ~
County's address so that it can be associated-with a Property Identification (PID}
Number.
III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION
A. POLICY
• The City Council adopted. a development moratorium for the Penn
Avenue Corridor on September 11, 2008.
• Unless terminated earlier by action of the City Council, the
development moratorium will be in place until September 11, 2009.
• Velmeir Companies has proposed a development at 6528 Penn
Avenue that would not. be allowed under the terms of the development
moratorium..
• Velmeir Companies is seeking an Exception from the development
moratorium in order to seek a CUP for their proposed development.
• Even if the moratorium exception were granted; the proposal would be
- subject to consideration of a CUP, the Penn Corridor Design
Guidelines and, most likely, a number of variances.
B. CRITICAL ISSUES
• Staff has concluded that the site plan included in the proposal is not
consistent with the Penn Corridor Design Guidelines.
• It would be difficult to evaluate a conditional use permit if the
exception were to be granted because the CUP findings would require
the proposal to be consistent with both the Comprehensive Plan and
the Zoning Ordinance -both of which are in a state of being revised.
C. FINANCIAL
• N/A
D. LEGAL
• N/A
E. ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS
• N/A
~ IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION(S) ~
• Continue consideration of this item to allow the applicant to resubmit a
revised site plan which is more reflective of the Penn Corridor Design
Guidelines and with current and/or proposed~zoning.
• Approve an exception to the moratorium and allow the applicant to proceed
-with required land. use approvals (including a CUP and any variances they
would require}. -
~ V. ATTACHMENTS ~
•. Appf~cants'request for a moratorium exception.
• Applicants' proposed site plan, landscape plan and elevations.
~ V 1. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING
Jon Lennander, Project Manager, Velmeir Companies.
Peter Coyle (of Larkman Hoffman), applicant's legal council.
~1_ ~ `~
~
~ ~
~ ~ ~
~
~
~g
5 '£
~~ ~~~'S e, 4`~{'
~f§i~~'~~ 1;' e
j lgji
elFi~~g~ps 4s ' I I I I
~ I ~ i I
I i
~ 933
~t~
~~~~ _~
=
} i ~~ I ~'
V I I I ~ (
jil'
I ~ i
"'
Sz ~
~ ~
e~
J
~
~ ~ u ~ ~ Q rt t~tl• g
~ x~~~~i~?~$it _ -s~z ~ I ~ ~ ( ~=i9 ~.?
~
~ ~ ?wi 1 i ~ i i ~ I _ f
~ ~ ~~ ~
~
{~ z "''~~`~~~~~ ~ elal I I I I I I I I I ~~? ~~ °
-
~ d-I ! ~ I l l i l l l l l
F
~n~~nb NN~d
_~ I
1
i
om .
T
J
I-
W . -
~ ~
W
~J ~
D
~ I-
~ _ -_----
~ ~ t~
,
~
W ~ ~ ~.
_
~ r;
,
H ` ~ ~
Q
_V all
J
a z
a
Q -
~ ~, .. _
'~
~:
~°.
~ ~ - f
`~ ~
}:,v a~ St ti k ~, q
~
Tt W, \ s
'~ f l~i ~ E J 3
g
ib ~e'~~w ~.~r ~~1
i i
7
i
C
C
C
AGENDA SECTION: RESOLUTIONS
AGENDA ITEM # 8
REPORT # 52
STAFF REPORT
CITY COUNCIL MEETING
FEBRUARY 24, 2009
REPORT PREPARED BY:
PAM DMYTRENKO, ASSISTANT TO
THE CITY MANAGER/HR MANAGER
NAME, TITLE
DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR
REVIEW:
REVIEWED BY CITY
MANAGER:
ITEM~FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION:
Consideration of a resolution approving an amendment to the 2008-2009 labor agreement with
the 911 Dis atchers LELS Local 225.
I. RECOMMENDED ACTION:
By Motion: Adopt the resolution designating an increase in the City's
contribution toward health and dental insurance premiums and a 3%
salary increase, effective March 29, 2009, for the 911 Dispatchers
LELS Local 225.
II. BACKGROUND
City staff has completed labor negotiations with the 911 Dispa#chers LELS Local
225 (Union) for the contract re-openers (Article 17 -Insurance and Article 18 -
Salary) of its 2008-2009 contract, subject to Council approval. The Union consists
of 9 positions: 6 full-time employees and 3 part-time employees.
During the course of negotiations, City staff made the Union aware of the severe
financial constraints the City is facing in 2009 and beyond, and sought a delay in
implementation of across-the-board wage increases for the first quarter of the year.
The City is seeking the same-delay for the other bargaining units, as well as for
General Services and Management employees.
0224 Dispatchers contract
The tentatively approved settlement represents the following changes:
Wages
A 3% across-the-board wage increase, effective March 29, 2009.
Insurance
A $50 increase to the Employer health insurance contribution which provides full
coverage for single Employee, -$780 per month for Employee plus spouse or
Employee plus child(ren) coverage and $830 per month for Employee plus family.
coverage.
A $2 increase to the Employer contribution for Employee single dental insurance
coverage from $32 per month to $34 per month.
III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION
A. POLICY
• The City has met and negotiated in good faith with the Union and its
representatives and is bound- under the terms of the Public Employer's
Labor Relations Act to .meet and bargain over the terms and
conditions of employment.
• The proposed settlement for the re-opener provisions is identical in
health and dental insurance provisions provided to non-union City
employees. The City has a long history of providing the same level of
health and dental insurance benefits to all .eligible City employees.
• The wage increase. represents the same increase proposed for non-
union City employees prior to the temporary suspension of the
proposed increase. The Union has agreed to an effective date of
March 29, 2009 as long as the other bargaining groups within the City
also adopt the same wage terms. There are two tentative union
settlements on the February 24, 2009 Council agenda. If both receive
Council approval, three of the City's five bargaining units would be
settled for 2009.
• The wage settlement and health insurance increase is well within the
range for. other comparable bargaining groups in similar metro cities:
Although the City is facing significant budget challenges for 2009, a
survey of Stanton 5 cities indicates that those cities are providing an
average wage adjustment of approximately 3.02% for its employees.
The City has a long history of trying to remain as close to the middle
as possible of the Stanton 5 cities in terms of wages and benefits.
B. CRITICAL ISSUES
• In order to allow the City's accounting personnel the ability to modify
payroll records in a timely manner for 2009 benefits, it is
recommended that the City Council act on February 24, 2009 to adopt
the attached resolution providing for contract changes. The health
insurance benefits are effective January 1, 2009 and the 3% wage
increase will become effective March 29, 2009, as long as all the
City's bargaining units also accept the same wage terms..
C. FINANCIAL,
• Up to a maximum $50 per month increase in the City's contribution
towards the employee's health insurance coverage.
• Up to a maximum $2 per month increase in the City's contribution
towards single dental insurance coverage.
• A 3% wage increase effective March 29, 2009. Delaying a wage
increase for all City employees until March 29, 2009 will save the City
at least $100,000 for 2009.
D. LEGAL
• If the terms of this agreement are not approved, further negotiation
and/or mediation will be necessary.
• -Under the terms of this agreement, if the City's other bargaining units
-do-not agree to the same wage terms, the Union has the right to
renegotiate with the City.
E. ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS
• NA
IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION(S~
• Do not approve the terms of this agreement and prepare for further
negotiation and/or mediation.
• Defer discussion to another date.
V. ATTACHMENTS
• Resolution
VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING
• ^ None.
~fl
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION DESIGNATING CITY'S CONTRIBUTION
TOWARDS HEALTH AND DENTAL INSURANCE PREMIUMS
AND SALARY INCREASE
FOR EMPLOYEES COVERED BY THE
LAW ENFORCEMENT LABOR SERVICES LOCAL 225
WHEREAS, the City of Richfield and Law Enforcement Labor Services Local 225
signed a bargaining agreement covering a two year period. from January 1, 2008 through
December 31, 2009; and
WHEREAS, the labor agreement covers all terms and conditions of employment
including the City contribution for health insurance benefits and salary schedule; and
WHEREAS, Article 25 of the labor agreement provides for either party to amend the
provisions in Article 17, Insurance and Article 18, Salary; and
WHEREAS, the City has historically provided the same salary increase and level of
health insurance contribution to all eligible City employees, both union and non-union; and
WHEREAS, the City desires to maintain such a position of equity; and
WHEREAS, the City Council is required to determine, by resolution, the City's
contribution toward the premium for employee group insurance coverage and salary
increases.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City shall contribute a maximum of
$780 per month for employee plus spouse or employee plus child(ren) health insurance
coverage, and $830 per month for family health insurance, and in any event, said
contributions shall not exceed the cost of single coverage for employees selecting that option.
Such contributions shall be for coverage effective January 1, 2009; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City shall.contribute amaximum of $34 per
month for employee single dental insurance. Such contribution shall be for coverage
effective January 1, 2009; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City shall implement a salary schedule,
effective March 29, 2009, which provides a 3% increase in wages, unless the other.
bargaining units do not accept the same terms, in which case the Union reserves the right to
renegotiate.
Adopted by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this 24th day of
February 2009.
Debbie Goettel, Mayor
ATTEST:
Nancy Gibbs, City Clerk
AGENDA SECTION: RESOLUTIONS
AGENDA ITEM # 9
REPORT # S3
D
STAFF REPORT
CITY COUNCIL MEETING
FESRUaRY 24, 2009
REPORT PREPARED BY:
DEPARTMENT yDIRECTOR j ;~
REVIEW: IJ
REVIEWED BY CITY
MANAGER:
PAM DMYTRENKO, ASSISTANT TO
THE CITY MANAGER/HR MANAGER
NAME, TITLE
ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION:
Consideration of a resolution approving an amendment to the 2008-2009 labor agreement with
the Police Su ervisors LELS Local 162.
I. RECOMMENDED ACTION:
By .Motion: Adopt the resolution designating an increase in the City's
contribution toward health and dental insurance premiums and a 3%
salary increase, effective March 29, 2009, for the Police Supervisors
LELS Local 162.
II. BACKGROUND
City staff has completed labor negotiations with the Police Supervisors LELS Local
162 (Union) for the contract re-openers (Article 17 -Insurance and Article 24 -
Salary) of its 2008-2009 contract, subject to Council approval. The Union includes
11 Police Supervisory positions: 8 Sergeants and 3 Lieutenants.
During the course of negotiations, City staff made the Union aware of the severe
financial constraints the City is facing in 2009 and beyond, and sought a delay in
implementation of across-the-board wage increases for the first quarter of the year.
The City is seeking the same delay for the other bargaining units, as well as for
General Services and Management employees.
0210 Police Supervisors contract
The tentatively approved settlement represents the following changes:
Wages
A 3% across-the-board wage increase, effective March 29, 2009.
Insurance
A $50 increase. to the Employer health insurance contribution which provides full
coverage for single Employee, $780 per month for Employee plus spouse or
Employee plus child(ren) coverage and $830 per month for Employee plus family
coverage.-
A $2 increase to the Employer contribution for Employee single dental insurance
coverage from $32 per month to $34 per month.
III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION
1~. hOLICY
• The City has met and negotiated in good faith with the Union and its
representatives and is bound under the terms of the Public Employer's
Labor Relations Act to meet. and bargain over the terms and
conditions of employment.
• The proposed settlement for the re-opener provisions is identical in
health and dental insurance provisions provided to non-union City
employees. The City has a long history of providing the same level of
health and dental insurance benefits to all eligible City employees..
• The wage increase represents the same increase proposed for non-
union City employees prior to the temporary suspension of the
proposed increase. The Union has agreed to an effective date of
March 29, 2009 as long as the other bargaining groups within the City
also adopt the same wage terms. There are two tentative union
settlements on the February 24, 2009 Council agenda. If both receive
Council approval, three of the City's five bargaining units would be
settled for 2009.
• .The wage settlement and health insurance increase is well within the
range for other comparable bargaining groups in similar metro cities.
Although the City is facing significant budget challenges for 2009, a
survey of Stanton 5 cities indicates that those cities are providing an
average wage adjustment of approximately 3.02% for its employees.
The City has a long history of trying to remain as close to the middle
as possible of the Stanton 5 cities in terms of wages and benefits.
B. CRITICAL ISSUES
• In order to allow the City's accounting personnel the ability to modify
payroll records. in a timely manner for 2009 benefits, it is
recommended that the City Council act on February 24, 2009 to adopt
the attached resolution providing for contract changes. The health
insurance benefits are effective January 1, 2009 and the 3% wage
increase will become effective March 29, 2009, as long as all the
City's bargaining units also accept the same wage terms.
C. FINANCIAL
• Up to a maximum $50 per month increase in the City's contribution
towards the employee's health insurance coverage.
• Up to a maximum $2 per month increase in the City's contribution
towards single dental insurance coverage.
• A 3% wage increase effective March 29, 2009. Delaying a wage
increase for all City employees until March 29, 2009 will save the City
at least $100,000 for 2009.
D. LEGAL
• -If the terms of this agreement are not approved, further negotiation
and/or mediation will be necessary.
• Under the terms of this agreement, if the City's other bargaining units
do not agree to the same wage terms,-the Union has the right to
renegotiate with the City.
E. ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS
• NA
IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION~S~
• Do not approve the terms of this agreement and prepare for further
negotiation and/or mediation.
• Defer discussion to another date.
V. ATTACHMENTS
• Resolution
VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING
• None.
~~
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION DESIGNATING CITY'S CONTRIBUTION
TOWARDS HEALTH AND DENTAL INSURANCE PREMIUMS
AND SALARY INCREASE
FOR EMPLOYEES COVERED BY"THE
LAW ENFORCEMENT LABOR SERVICES LOCAL 162
WHEREAS, the City of Richfield and Law Enforcement Labor Services Local 162
signed a bargaining agreement covering a two year period from January 1, 2008 through
December 31, 2009; and
WHEREAS, the labor agreement covers all terms and conditions of employment
including the City contribution for health insurance benefits and salary schedule; and
WHEREAS, Article 26 of the labor agreement provides for either party to amend the
provisions in Article 17, Insurance and Article 24, Wages; and
WHEREAS, the City has historically provided the same salary increase and level of
health insurance contribution to all eligible City employees, both union and non-union; and
WHEREAS, the City desires to maintain such a position of equity; and
WHEREAS, the City Council is required to determine, by resolution, the City's
contribution toward the premium for employee group insurance coverage and salary
increases.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City shall contribute a maximum of
$780 per month for employee plus spouse or employee plus child(ren) health insurance
coverage, and $830 per month for family health insurance, and in any event, said
contributions shall not exceed the cost of single coverage for employees selecting that option.
Such contributions shall be for coverage effective January 1, 2009; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City shall contribute a maximum of $34 per
month for employee single dental insurance. Such contribution shall be for coverage
effective January 1, 2009; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City shall implement a salary schedule,
effective- March 29, 2009, which provides a 3% increase in wages, unless, the other
bargaining, units do not accept the same terms, in which case the Union reserves the right to
renegotiate.
Adopted by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this 24th day of
February 2009.
Debbie Goettel, Mayor
ATTEST:
Nancy Gibbs, City Clerk
AGENDA SECTION: pDBLIC HEARINGS
AGENDA ITEM # jQ
REPORT # 54
~~ STAFF REPORT
CITY COUNCIL MEETING
FEBRUARY 24, 2009
REPORT PREPARED BY:
MELISSA POEHLMAN, CITY
PLANNER
NAME,
DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR
REVIEW:
REVIEWED BY CITY
MANAGER:
ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION:
Public hearing and second reading regarding the vacation of highway easements within
property located at 1901 66th Street East (Public Works Maintenance Facilit ).
L RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Conduct and close a public hearing and by motion:
1. Approve second reading of the attached Transitory Ordinance
vacating the highway easement at 1901 66th Street East, as
described in Certificate of Title No. 1201996;
2. Approve second reading of the attached Transitory Ordinance
vacating the highway easement at 1901 66th Street East, as
described in Certificate of Title No. 1184055.
II. BACKGROUND
The City is in the process of platting the property on which the new City
Maintenance Facility sits. In order to do so, the highway easements indicated on
the attached site plans must first be vacated.
III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION
A. POLICY
• The Council may by ordinance vacate a street, alley, public grounds or
apart thereof, on its own motion or upon the petition of the owners of
022409 - 2nd Reading - 190166th E Vacation
half of the land abutting on the street, alley, public grounds or part
thereof to be vacated.
• No vacation may be made unless it appears in the interest of the
public to do so.
• The Hennepin County Registrar of Deeds. and Titles and public utility
companies were notified of the proposed vacation. Centerpoint
Energy, Qwest and Comcast have notified the City that they do not
have facilities within the vacation area. Xcel Energy has not
responded.
• All necessary easements for existing utility lines will be dedicated in
the plat of the maintenance facility property. There is no need to
reserve utility easements as part of this proceeding.
B. CRITICAL ISSUES
• There is no public need for a highway easement over this property.
C. FINANCIAL
• N/A
D. LEGAL
• Notice of this public hearing was published and mailed in accordance
_ with City and State requirements.
• The City Attorney has prepared the attached Transitory Ordinances.
E. ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS
• N/A
IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION(S~
• N/A
V. ATTACHMENTS
• Transitory Ordinance vacating property described by Certificate of Title No.
1201996.
• Transitory Ordinance vacating property described in Certificate of Title No.
1184055.
• Plat
VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING
• Corrine Heine, City Attorney
l~-~
BILL NO.
TRANSITORY ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE VACATING HIGHWAY EASEMENT
THE CITY OF RICHFIELD DOES ORDAIN:
Section 1: The land described on Certificate of Title No. 1201996, files of the
Hennepin County Registrar of Titles is owned in fee title by the City of Richfield (the
"Property") and is depicted on the attached Exhibit A.
Sec. 2. The Property is subject to easements in favor of the State of Minnesota
for highway purposes as evidenced by easement recorded December 17, 1962 as
Document No. 713364 and. Final Certificate recorded January 15, 1965 as Document
No. 797648, which instruments are memorialized on Certificate of Title No. 1201996.
The Easements encumber the westerly 15 feet of the Property.
Sec. 3. The predecessor in title to the City was the State of Minnesota. The
State conveyed its interest in the Property to the City by Deed Document No. 4379388,
for "public purposes." The City's intended use at the time of conveyance and the
current use of the Property is a City maintenance facility. The Property has been
improved with a building that houses the offices and equipment of the public works
department.
Sec. 3: There is no public need for a highway easement over the Property.
Sec. 4: There are existing utility lines within a portion of the Property. However,
the Property is part of a proposed plat, and all necessary easements for existing utility
lines will be dedicated in the plat. -There is no need to reserve utility easements as part
of this proceeding.
Sec. 5: Upon the effective date of this Ordinance, those portions of the
easements created by Document No. 713364 and Document No. 797648 that
encumber the Property are vacated.
Sec. 6. The City of Richfield held the first reading on , 2009 and
second reading on 2009. Legal notice was published in the City's
official newspaper as required by ordinance.
Sec. 7: This ordinance shall become effective 30 days after publication of the
ordinance.
1 ~ ~Z
Sec. 8: The City Clerk is directed to prepare a certificate of completion of
vacation proceedings and to record the vacation in the office of the Hennepin County
Registrar of Titles.
Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this , 2009.
Debbie Goettel, Mayor
ATTEST:
Nancy Gibbs, City Clerk
1 O --?~
EXHIBIT A
Sketch of Vacated Area
i ~ k; I~
} ns ~,
l
"
~ i
7
' C
_J~ L
~. _~. ,
...a. _ _... '
~ ~ C=U.T. ,, !4 G. FI s..r sIrn Y
~ ...._. _
~ ~« f
~.
.
r .YYT RYYJ.2J..~..~
~p y~',y
~ ~ [~.-. ~~m;~ w 1 .
~
~ ~ `'-~
.S4 ~ ]l .1+ •' q v1. .'! s,r.. s, T 2+ ~' FV r_~
.~ i ; I yyf+'
t ~F'
' ~
I s,
I ~ ~ I
,.y I
I I ~ ______ _~___ ~~~~~
__„„_________
f F
j ~+r-
fr
f
~ ~ -____
.....-.~. . _219::{~__i ____:
~ i
,., ~
~
i
f~
n
- I t
i ~ I
r
~4
'
~
~ r
~ ~ ~ ~4r
~ ~ r
T
c
i
-
~ jjj~ II14
l
~
I
1
1 i
I
~! I ~
~ ~ 1 { ~ r:
j -. -: ~ I
i µ~ ~; ~ s
~ ~ za
' I~ F ~:
i t -~
f ~ I
' i I y-"
{ ~~
E ' il
1
' 7f i C~ ~
-'t----~---------~
~ ~'~ f
~ I ~ .'I
it
R i I ~ rrd WrgT -.
1 I 'S _
Y ; E ---- -- - ---~ i ~ ~Y,1
2' ! 1 ~ $' ef~yvu
I r ~ '-I ~ - - N~GCSdTSS lltrdT-- -I-~--- "`~
~'
a
.%
1 ~. '
rr~ _
'~}
9 ~~
'} i
a `- ii
i ~~
I i
ii
1 I
1! ~~--__
~K; ,+._
~'!
,a z ~ ~
I
2 ~4
}~
t ~ ~r
s i. ~ y ~,
< ~
7 ~ ~'
1 F tip`
•`i ~ rt
~ ki
f ~ 1
f ~f
3 _ :. =J.~nru
a. xr/9Ye°
r. JAA04
! care . a .mnr^t
:'` rj )
.s 1
'x '
~`~ !
~~Y
a
~{.
d
}. ~;r
,~ ;,
~~ w~
A~F~
if`
1
o~~
~'.alc e. r..s
io-~-
BILL NO.
TRANSITORY ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE VACATING HIGHWAY EASEMENT
THE CITY OF RICHFIELD DOES ORDAIN:
Section 1: The land described on Certificate of Title No. 1184055, files of the
Hennepin County Registrar of Titles is owned in fee title by the City of Richfield (the
"Property") and is depicted on the attached Exhibit A.
Sec.. 2. The Property is subject to an easement in favor of the State of
Minnesota for highway purposes as evidenced by Final Certificate recorded January 15,
1965 as Document No. 797648, which instrument is memorialized on Certificate of Title
No. 1184055. The Easement encumbers the entirety of the Property.
Sec. 3. The State has quitclaimed and conveyed all of its interest in the Property
to the City by Deed Document No. 4379387, and the Property is in use as a City
maintenance facility and has been improved with a building that houses the offices and
equipment of the public works department.
Sec. 3: There is no public need for a highway easement over the Property.
Sec. 4: There are existing utility lines within a portion of the Property. However,
the Property is part of a proposed plat, and all necessary easements for existing utility
lines will be dedicated in the plat. There is no need to reserve utility easements as part
of thisproceeding.
Sec. 5: Upon the effective date of this Ordinance, that portion of the Easement
created by Document No. 797648 which is encumbers the Property is vacated
Sec. 6. The City of Richfield held the first reading on , 2009 and
second reading on 2009. Legal notice was published in the City's
official newspaper as required by ordinance.
Sec. 7: This ordinance shall become effective 30 days after publication of the
ordinance.
Sec. 8: The City Clerk is directed to prepare a certificate of completion of
vacation proceedings and to record the vacation in the office of the Hennepin County
Registrar of Titles.
Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this , 2009.
,.---
C~ .s.-S
Debbie Goettel, Mayor
ATTEST:
Nancy Gibbs, City Clerk
~~r~
EXHIBIT A
Sketch of Easement Area Being Vacated
~ ~I TM
I
t:. °~
~~
i~
I g
rj
~_ y
~f
~'
~ ~~
g ~
~ I
~) I
i ~ ~
~ ~ ~.
0 ~; *'~.
~~~. ~~
R~
"d'
is 1 r7j'r~
e+ ~'`
..~,.. .
t
~ _~. ~ ~r`
~~: i. ~yc.: {
i ~~ti"•6 rk
J'-'
~ ~_ : ~
"~~~
H l~ -7
uar M, emu, xwk at ua ]wko~•.«. ,..._
PM1]'r3'C nR,x
__..-S O'o1txT .St____
t w
' m „ ~
X 4 ]i ]3
I ~ ~ 2 (
,~ ~ ~ ~ j I
.I
-s~----------------------------~_ -_:~ ~- ~,
C~~,iR nv/F. fS. F.N. !4L.. 77i 1'1 ~
.. Im e41 ~
iul
- I___
aA,i _Dt?6i=~i L6~
n.~~r a ... a y ~ S ::V=.
.% - i .. xf B 3~
~t`._ 1 _uyu N ICi i qii
j b a ]ts»• w
o, brae- ;1
Cr-y,,.u o '. c vr'ie. __' N~ a ~~I
~_ °~`~,::, rya"~~>°f~ - ~~ ~s.~.! b
~~ n:^. . ~'~. lx I j
~~~-
~:'•3
.
U, a ~~ n,,,?' ',fit i SF'~p! A~ I ~ ~ .
} `~ 8 aRQ 5i i7~Yq~i i ~ 4~P'w6„o'i~Y ~ j"I~ ~~ ~ I ~ J
i' 8 ;y~n a ,, t„~, ,,m ~ j
't 'J.'J. q. ~ I 1
37 ~ ~ ' R I I
a9 ~ i a I
~ m ~' $ ~
z K
N¢ ' ~ i
,_'z
(N6 i I S. ;?OTIs
~ Y f$ E pVF'
~ ' ~ I
1
~ ~ ~ ~
41 ! ~ ~
~ .. i i I
zw :.e~o,~a,., i
+ ,
;} ~~~- w ~ I i a
' 4 ~ 1 1
~ c ; ~ (~
i{ ~ 0 t :A t ~ 9
~ eA.o __ __ __ _.7,-A
.31 ; ; ~
;~ ~
x i I
' i i I
r `----_s---' ~ I f
i_.. _
i~......
EH I ~ ~ g
==~ 7~d3i *}a $ ~ ~~7~ ~ z~~ ~ja~3 ~= 3g a g } ' ~ }8Sx ~+ x a
:'s ~ }" d 1 ~~ i sa 2 ~ . ~.]~'ys.~~j} ~~~ a E~ao~ s a~9t ~ i$ E}E a P9 ~ 2v' t;i~ ¢-
a=: s~~ 1 Q3 Ei ~ ~ ~.~E 8~~x ~ ~gx es~sy}}rd Cr~y~a~ } sq~d aie E~?"4~i7~~~ fr3~~~~s g3~ k ~
y~ 1.. ~ ~ 3 9~ ~ } kexg} 2 F~,,~~xi 3' x ~ ~afs'$ y{a ~ ,~'S ~ ~~4& 4 ~~
~~~$~~~~ Kt ?~»~~~~~~eA~,g~~~a id~~X4~'ylf~as~g~3~~~%3.7 ~x~~9sssvK} ~ ~~~z~l&~3~~~t~ga ~?~ A ~ =x
~'3 } =games ~z $3 yy x:~~sd33d~3ss~ d ~$~i?':~€"~3Ed R,„a^9r9w~s ? [x!A ;a~ ~, ~ ~~,Afps'iga~g~~'s~~az ~~g.i'zg d }s
i~ $ M~a a ~ ai S k~ 4L3 43 ~ 8 3Y 3 ~ ~ 3 m
g q}i~3 ~} $ :s g} axyirs~4Y§x $z sa+rs~ ~~ x 3E}~s~4~ }3~SS i3g Y i aa3 a}?a'~~ z f;? },~ _.
d~saa% ~ 3 t y x$ zI ~a~ ~£ xx~~ $4'a~$3~ -3~gs4q's ~° rzy~ ?~a3 ~'~ -E~~ S 3 7? n bz Y~} ~ ~ ~~
° A gi 39. $°fisa ~,~iw 4. 9 d A.' ~ ; ia5 3~ 3 =0. } @ } ~ 4 ~ ? 3s si 4
t.~ 8 ~~ ~. 3~g ~~e y3np8 Fyx$ i 3~1}..}'; a €~A}s5 4 _ Y£s4axg.i~ 3~ ears ~$ xz9 ~x ~9 ~}i~~i, ~~
°n$} ~ i x q} S Y 3 ~ 1' 9 3+333 o sa. ~ 4 ~ ~3°
ze. s,s ~ ~~ s ~ As x~ S,s aaE'3da $ e 9;a}~: } g• $~4sY v $ ;0 3 ~~ erA 9 a' . g»
Y'~ Y s83 ~^ 5~ Sa 3a, z}i`'S ~ ~ s" ~ 3_ a x 9 S37 x ;s3
s}sxtiss3 ~ s .~ a~. s;' r ' :~}g d%x33~a3x: r~ ay s€sx @8~ §°?;i!~, Y3" 3 x~Rg x~}' ab
_~° 3 € ~ 3 Y fr z3 s F3 }3 S&}? E. = £§s %s s Qi
3 a s°s as; s 3 ,~ s.~
x~ ~ ~~Y. a°_ a~i ai.i¢F~ $3 e~ ~ $ ~ 3s $g~sAi_ g3 $ } dg~ 33~ ,ag $ a' zs ~ s~¢.x~aQ yY
°d t x 93 ~ eai3as;aa ~saoz x ; ~ ~ia~ %a +a~q' Y E $a a~°s Es q §~s 3 sz s 3
~,.~,y ~ . }, s ,~a°'s x 3 ~ ~ aA $', a~ii}.i $ s3 a k Spa. Y is ~':g~r~3 j tppp ~ a
SgY• ~ 4, y 't } ~3 ~ 34 ~1s~ 9s ~~ ~sx. n q $` a~€~ - ~ Za Saba s
g ~~ls~~i z p~ ~4~~ za~a~~:~ ~~f 8g}~9g'~~rszq~~a#~~~~~ 3}3s~s}£~as m~?~~g} #'sE~FZa;A~ ~a9
et.ea 3 R.. i i ?s- s s } 3~ ~4 Es s; 3 } 3 ~ ~ s~' ~ aA
M-s z3E x e s z~aa? ~ 3?S ~~9As2~. ~ ;~ ~.xs }.. A sa} ~ ~',%}x s d? } y~ 'stir ;~'
y"xs ~ ztt 3YR~~ s ~ ~ ~' $ $g $g3?fi3 a ' a- 3~ ~ a~§}'~ ~ ~SZ ~ ~E$A x k
Sis3t~}F$ $3 ~s }i; ~a~'Ty9 ~E is x~ S~~i }~L ~E~ Y},9 ~A.~a ;e3fi Y~55asE E`4:E~9 s~3£~a-~% $59 =:~
"~¢ ~ag?~ ~'h,' ~.%~~.xE ~,`~3 i~ ~ g .~Y a%¢g ~' ~ t 3s 3 .~ Y ~T~s$$ 3$i $3s~ fi;isx ~3
a Y sP~ }~} P} a 3$7 t -SSE' x.: ¢ i s 7a" 3s ~~x_}Y a ~3 -zi p4
~akp ~ $v ,~ d' ~_ as a Ssg ~;~$3g A ~ 'z? ; °Ez ~ i~ s a3aa g33 a4E~~3 7 r5
} } x y cvT~3 y ~4`E ~';~szsd- x~ s s_ s~'}'} p Ez}gs s~i;$ Y31r>t3s.A 533$ % 9
y~~3}~s~a ~ ~}~i~}^g.~Y~q~$ 3%' x3g~a~4Y~g~9gz~x~g~~ S~R as QA tt' ~~ l~ Y ;d's~t1 g
g f gg9 g dg ~? 9Y~ryy t3s x ~q3'Y :f~~ ~9 a3 .i~ ~isj ~ ~8s Q
?P a •. i s i~ b~~k ~ 9 3` 9•i s" 0. s '~;~ t.s 48y3a~Ay~ '~; •3~ bg ~~$
gs E•';:z~ _• - ? En ~x~i l..,x- ?s:_ 3~} ~3,z3: ~g 3.
° a
4 §x- a' Y
x ~ ~ , ~ ~ , I ~ ~ f3~ t I ~~ ~ sisa3 I ~ ~ ~ ~I ~~ ~ ~
~ ~ .~ ~ ! I d ~ s I ~ } ~ Is X39 i i a. °y n
~ 3 x o ~ ~ 'E ~RF ~ ~ -~ ! ga.-j; ~ zA~ ~ i° j=
~° k ~ sf #" $ y
-~ v ~ ~ ~ g;1 ; ~eao _ '' ~ y$ trJ
3 n
`' ~ I a:~ a ~ °sas ~ ~° I I ~ x~
Y }
x ~; ~ _ ~~ ~
~ a ",; aqf _
a Y ~ ~ ~' I zy39~ ~'( ,~~ ~ 9 4~ F`~
3" °~ j ids. gs I ;? ( J
:n
S
j
i
V
S
A
AGENDA SECTION: PDBLIC HEARINGS
AGENDA ITEM # 11
REPORT # 55
STAFF REPORT
CITY COUNCIL MEETING
FEBRUaRY 24, 2009
REPORT PREPARED BY:
DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR
REVIEW: '
REVIEWED BY CITY
MANAGER:
KRISTIN ASxER, CITY ENGINEER
NAME, TITLE
ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION:
Public hearing and consideration of a resolution ordering plans and specifications for the.
project and a reimbursement resolution for the proposed 2009 Alley Paving Project.
I.
costs for
roposed 2009 Alley Paving Pro
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 was also 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 construction of the Cedar Point
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Conduct and close the public hearing and by Motion:
1. Approve the attached resolution ordering plans~and
.specification for the 2009 Alley Paving Project; and
2. Approve the attached resolution authorizing City staff to incur
0224AlIeyPH
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 64t" Street & Girard Alley Storm Water project, scheduled to be
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.
On July 22, 2008, the City Council ordered the preparation of a preliminary report
for the 2009 Alley Paving Project.
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.
Total project cost is estimated at $214,000 making the assessable portion $107,000
(half). The total assessable frontage is 2,612 feet = $41/assessable foot. The
estimated assessment for 50' lot = $2050; 75' lot = $3075. Residents have the
option of prepaying the assessment within 30 days after the City Council adopts the
assessment role after the project is completed. Otherwise, the assessment will be
added to the property taxes over a 20 year period with an interest rate yet to be
determined (N7%). Fora 50' lot the assessment is estimated to be $102.50/year +
interest. Fora 75" lot the annual assessment is estimate to be $153.75 + interest.
A public meeting for affected residents to discuss the project details and ask
questions was held on Monday, January 26, 2009. Residents were also mailed a
legal notice announcing the public hearing to be held on February 24, 2009 as part
of the regular Council meeting. Residents were given the opportunity to submit
comments early to be included as part of this packet and to be considered as part of
the public hearing (comments attached)..
At the close of the public hearing the Council is asked to consider the proposed
2009 Alley Paving Project and direct staff, by resolution, on whether or not to
proceed with the plan and specification preparation.
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 64t" & Girard Storm Water Project will include alley
paving, staff recommends completing all remaining alleys as part of
one single project.
C. FINANCIAL
• The estimated cost of the improvements is $213,180
• It is anticipated that 50% of the cost will be assessed to adjacent
property owners and 50% is budgeted to come from a capital project
fund.
• The estimated annual assessment fora 20 year period is:
o $102.50/year + N7% interest (50' lot)
o $153.75/year + N7% interest (75' lot)
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~
• Do not order the Alley Paving Projecf at this time.
• The Council could decide just to proceed with the paving of the alley on the
6400 block of Girard Avenue as part of the storm water improvement project.
- V. ATTACHMENTS
• Resolution ordering the preparation of plans and specifications.
• Reimbursement Resolution
• Written Comments Received
• Project Map
VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING
• Alley Paving Area Residents
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION ORDERING THE PREPARATION OF PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS
FOR TI1E 2009 ALLEY PAVING PROJECT
WHEREAS, a resolution of the City Council adopted the 13th day of January, 2009
fixed a date for a council hearing on the proposed 2009 Alley Paving Project, with
reference to the improvement of the following alleys by concrete paving:
Alley between From To
35W and Emerson Ave. 65th St. 390' S of 65th St.
35W and Emerson Ave. 65th St. 64th St.
35W and Girard Ave. 65th St. 455' S of 65th St.
35W and Girard Ave. 65th St. 64th St.
35W and Girard Ave. 64th St. 63rd St.
WHEREAS, ten days' mailed notice and two weeks' published notice of the hearing
was given, .and the hearing- was held thereon the 24th day of February, 2009, at
which all persons desiring to be heard were given the opportunity to be heard
thereon,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Richfield,
Minnesota, as follows:
1. Such improvement is necessary, cost-effective, and feasible as detailed in the
feasibility report.
2. Such improvement is hereby ordered as proposed in the council resolution
adopted the 13th day of January, 2009.
3. Such improvement has no relationship to the comprehensive municipal plan.
4. Kristin Asher is hereby designated as the engineer for this improvement. The
engineer shall prepare plans and specifications for the making of such improvement.
5. The City Council declares its ofFcial intent to reimburse itself for the costs of the
improvement from the proceeds of tax exempt bonds.
Adopted by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this 24th day of
February, 2009.
Debbie Goettel, Mayor
ATTEST:
Nancy Gibbs, City Clerk
~~f
RESOLUTION 09 -
DECLARING THE OFFICIAL INTENT OF THE
CITY OF RICHFIELD TO REIMBURSE
CERTAIN EXPENDITURES FROM THE PROCEEDS
OF BONDS TO BE ISSUED BY THE CITY
WHEREAS, the Internal Revenue Service has issued Treas. Reg. § 1.150-2 (the
"Reimbursement Regulations") providing that proceeds of tax-exempt bonds used to
reimburse prior expenditures will not be deemed spent unless certain requirements are met;
and
WHEREAS, the City of Richfield expects to incur certain expenditures that may be
financed temporarily from sources other than bonds, and reimbursed from the proceeds of
tax-exempt bonds;
WHEREAS,. the City has determined to make this declaration of official intent
("Declaration") to reimburse certain costs .from proceeds of bonds. in accordance with the
Reimbursement Regulations.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
RICHFIELD. AS FOLLOWS:
1. The City proposes to undertake the 2009 Alley Paving Project (the "Project").
2. The City reasonably expects to reimburse the expenditures made for certain
costs of the Project from the proceeds of bonds in an estimated maximum principal amount
of $260,000. All reimbursed expenditures will be capital expenditures, costs of issuance of
the bonds, or other expenditures eligible for reimbursement. under Section 1.150-2(d)(3) of
the Reimbursement Regulations.
3. This Declaration has been made not later than 60 days after payment of any
original expenditure to be subject to a reimbursement allocation with respect to the
proceeds of bonds, except for the following expenditures: (a) costs of issuance of bonds;
(b) costs in an amount not in excess of $100,000 or 5 percent of the proceeds of an issue; or
(c) "preliminary expenditures" up to an amount not. in excess of 20 percent of the aggregate
issue .price of the issue or issues- that finance or are reasonably expected by the City to
finance the project for which. the preliminary expenditures were incurred. The term
"preliminary expenditures" includes architectural, engineering, surveying, bond issuance, and
similar costs- that are incurred prior to commencement of acquisition, construction or
rehabilitation of a project, other than land acquisition, site preparation, and similar costs
incident to commencement of construction.
4. This Declaration. is an expression of the reasonable expectations of the City
based on the facts and circumstances known to the City as of the date hereof. The
anticipated original expenditures for the Project and the principal amount of the bonds
described in paragraph 2 are consistent with the City's budgetary and financial
circumstances. No sources other than proceeds of bonds to be issued by the City are, or
i~-~
are reasonably expected to be, reserved, allocated on a long-term basis, or otherwise set
aside pursuant to the City's. budget or financial policies to pay such Project expenditures.
5. This Declaration is intended to constitute a declaration of official intent for
purposes of the Reimbursement Regulations.
Adopted by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this 24th day of
February, 2009.
Debbie Goettel, Mayor
ATTEST:
Nancy Gibbs, City Clerk
~ ~-~
2009 Alley Paving Public Hearing
Written Comments Received
Char Grell
6520 Emerson Avenue South
Now is not the time to pave if it means taxes go up. Financially, we're all
struggling to pay what we need to now - a tax increase will not help! While I
understand the "want" to pave, there is not "need" to do so at this time. Let's
revisit this issue one the economy settles.
Mary Jane Schroeder
6516 Emerson
I support the project.
From: Alice A Anderson <aiiceanderson@mac.com>
Subject: 2009 Alley Paving /Drainage
Date: February 2, 2009 12:25:47 PM CST
Tra: KAsher@ciityofrichfield.org
In response to the meeting on Juanuary 26th 1 am in support of both MN DOT Drain project and the Alley paving
project. I have also talked to my neighbor next door on the south, Don Carlson, and he is also in suppport of the
projects.
As we also dicussed at the January 26th meeting, 1) I am concerned about the drain on the east side of the alley
behind my garage. It is washing away around the frame work and I am afraid that there could be danger to pets or
children when spring comes and it can potentially wash more. Could someone check this when the snow is gone? (or
whenever}
2) You and I also discussed the flooding that has been happening on Girard when we have had hard rains.. In the
middle of the block where there are small drains on either side of the street, the water pools and floods to a depth that
cars are not able to drive through. At my address (6339) during one of the rains last summer, the water covered half of
my front yard.. This flooding has occurred in the past but it seems to be more often in the last 2-3 years.. Will the work
MN DOT will be doing also have an impoact on this problem?
Thanks for your attention to these problems...
Alice Anderson
6339 Girard Avenue So
i. c~
~
¢ ~
a
-
o
~ -0
~ 8259
i
o N ~
~ o ~ ~ bZS9
C a Q i
~
~
I
~~I ' OZ59
~-
J _J 3 i
9659
c
a ~ Z6S9
0 1 8059
m
~
w b059
OOS9
bbb9
W ~ 9£b9
J H '~
\
J (~ \ osb9
Q W ,
~
Q ~ bZb9u
~
W OZb9
O I.i -p ~ 96b9
O
~ N
t ~
v J ~~
Z6b9
\ 80b9
Q I bOb9
~
0 OOb9
N
s
., ,h
H
M
6537
££S9
6ZS9
I
i
SZS9
;aa~3S 4399
SOS9
60S9
;aa~;S 43S9
bbb9
bbb9
££b9
6Zb9
L6b9
S6b9
60b9
SOb9
lOb9
SbE9
£bE9
6£E9
L££9
£££9
6£E9
SZ£9
66£9
S6E9
60£9
50£9
60£9
;aa~3S 43b9
~i
;aa~3S p~£9
m
c
d
a
L
C7
AGENDA SECTION: pTARR BIIST .SS
AGENDA ITEM # 7 7
REPORT # 56
~~ STAFF REPORT
CITY COUNCIL MEETING
FEBRUARY 24, 2009
KAREN BARYON, COMMUNITY
REPORT PREPARED BY: DEVELOPMENT ASSISTANT
DIRECTOR
NAME. TIT/,R
DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR
REVIEW:
REVIEWED BY CITY
MANAGER:
ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION:
Consideration of authorization to proceed with the creation of a Development Agreement
between the City and LaNel/Susee relating to the public financing provided by the City, road
construction, and property acquisition for the proposed redevelopment of the Cedar Point
Phase I I Housing Area and an appraisal for the acquisition of right-of-way for the future
Richfield Parkway between 63rd and 65th Streets along 17th Avenue.
I. RECOMMENDED ACTION:
By Motion:
1. Direct staff to proceed with an appraisal for the acquisition of
right-of-way for the construction of the future Richfield Parkway
between 63rd and 65th Streets along 17th, Avenue; and
2. Direct staff to proceed with the drafting of a Development Agreement
between the City and LaNel/Susee relating to the public financing
provided by the City, road construction, and property acquisition for
the proposed redevelopment of the Cedar Point Phase II Housing
Area upon receipt of payment of 25% of the outstanding balances
owed and the deposit of $5000 in an administrative escrow with the
City by LaNel/Susee; and
3. Convey support to the Housing and Redevelopment Authority
beginning negotiations for the drafting of a Contract for Private
Development with LaNel/Susee for the proposed redevelopment of
the Cedar Point Phase II Housing -Area.
022409 Cedar Point II Proposed Redevelopment
II. BACKGROUND
The Cedar Point Phase II area is located between 63rd and 65th Streets and
between 16th and 17th Avenues (directly west of the Cedar Point retail
development). This area is in the low frequency noise impact area and has been
identified by policymakers as a high priority for redevelopment.
At the January 14, 2008 meeting of the Housing and Redevelopment Authority
(HRA), the HRA directed staff to work with Susee/LaNel (Developer) for the
development of a senior housing project on the site.
Over the past year, staff has been working with the Developers, city financial
advisors, and the city attorney to attempt to structure a development plan that
would meet the needs and requirements of all parties involved. During this
process, the redevelopment of 17th Avenue between 63rd and 65th Streets into
Richfield Parkway was discussed as a part of the overall development and
financing plan.
At the February 10, 2009 City Council meeting, the Council directed staff to obtain a
proposal for an appraisal for the potential acquisition of right-of-way for the
construction of Richfield Parkway along 17th Avenue between 63rd and 65th
Streets.
Staff secured a proposal from Patchkin, Messener & Dodd for the appraisal in the
amount of $14,500 for a preliminary appraisal (for financial/contractual purposes)
and $20,300 for a comprehensive market value appraisal (for condemnation
purposes).
The proposal considers two scenarios under each of the appraisals: 1) for the
acquisition of right-of-way assuming the homes have not been acquired by the
Developer; and 2) for the acquisition of right-of-way from the Developer after the
homes have been purchased by the Developer and the properties cleared.
The preliminary appraisal would provide an estimate of the market value for the
right-of-way that can be used to assist with financial/contractual negotiations. The
comprehensive market value appraisal would require construction plans of the
proposed road improvement project, individual parcel sketches identifying the area
to be acquired (ROW), staking of the new right-of-way limits, and contacts to
arrange inspections. of -each of the homes to provide the legal requirements to begin
the condemnation process.
Because of the City's purpose for obtaining this appraisal, and due to the complexity
of and costs associated with the comprehensive market value appraisal, staff is
recommending the City proceed with the preliminary appraisal at this point.
Staff is also seeking Council approval to begin drafting a Development Agreement
between the City and LaNel/Susee relating to the public financing provided by the
City, road construction, and property acquisition for the proposed redevelopment of
the Cedar Point Phase II Housing Area, and to convey support to the HRA to begin
negotiations for the drafting of a Contract for Private Development with the
Developers.
The City/HRA has incurred approximately $19,000 throughout this process to date
and there is likelihood that additional significant costs will be incurred. The
Developer has paid a portion of the costs and has agreed to pay the remainder of
the outstanding balance (approximately $15,000 to date) at proscribed times (see
attached letter). Staff is recommending Council require the Developer to pay 25%
of the outstanding balances to date and deposit an additional $5,000 with the City to
be used to pay future costs associated with the drafting of the contract for Private
Development incurred by the City/HRA before any additional work commences.
III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION
A. POLICY
• The City has identified a Low Frequency Noise Impact area in the
northeast corner of Richfield where the negative impacts of low frequency
noise will exceed the tolerances of existing housing.
• All available Federal, State and County funding for property acquisition in
this area has been expended.
• Redevelopment planning efforts have identified the Cedar Point Phase II
area as ideal for multi-family senior housing.
B. CRITICAL ISSUES
• Since the TIF District in which the proposed project is located was
established in 2005, each year that passes further diminishes the
available tax increment generated by the district.
• The City's financial analyst., Ehlers & Associates, Inc. has participated in
these development planning discussions.
• HRA legal counsel has participated in the negotiating and drafting of the
development and financing alternatives in conjunction with City staff and
the Developer.
C. FINANCIAL
• The City and HRA have incurred significant expenses associated with the
development and financial planning associated with this project.
• In order to proceed with the drafting of a Contract for Private
Development, staff is recommending the Developer be required to pay
25% of the outstanding invoices to date and to escrow $5,000 with the
City to cover development-related expenses incurred by the City/HRA.
• The Developer has agreed to pay administrative costs (see attached
letter).
• The cost to conduct a preliminary appraisal would be $14,500.
• The cost to conduct a comprehensive market value appraisal for
condemnation proceedings would be $20,300.
• Construction plans for the proposed road improvement project, individual
parcel sketches identifying the area to be acquired (ROW), and staking of
the new right-of-way limits would be needed in order to conduct the
market value appraisal at an added, separate cost to the City.
D. LEGAL
• HRA legal counsel has participated in the negotiating and drafting of the
proposed public financing in cooperation with City staff and the
Developer.
E. ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS
• N/A
IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION(S~
• Do not direct staff to obtain the appraisal and/or to begin drafting the
Contract for Private Development.
• Direct staff to obtain one or more additional proposals.
V. ATTACHMENTS
• Proposal for Appraisal from Patchkin, Messner, & Dodd
• Letter of payment agreement from the City to the Developer
VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING
• Representatives of the Developer
~~-~
Karen Barton
From: Jason Messner [messner@pmdadvisors.com]
Sent: Wednesday, February 18, 2009 10:22 AM
To: Karen Barton
Subject: RE: Request for Proposal
Karen,
Page 1 of 2
As we discussed, there are two options for appraising the 14 properties affected by the acquisition of 25 feet of
right-of-way along 17th Avenue. I would suggest initially preparing a preliminary appraisal in which damages
would be estimated assuming 1}the developer has acquired the properties, demolished the homes and the land
is valued for high density residential use, both before and after the taking, and 2) each of the individual homes are
appraised separately, both before and after the taking. This preliminary appraisal would address damages under
both scenarios, -but would not include inspections of each home and be based an certain assumptions regarding
potential impacts to these properties, i.e. loss of trees, need for retaining walls, need to reconstruct driveways,
sidewalks, etc. The cost of the preliminary appraisal, addressing both scenarios would be $14,500 and could be
completed in 7 to 8 weeks from receiving authorization to proceed.
Alternatively, if the City desires to obtain market value appraisals of each affected property for use to initiate
condemnation proceedings, I would require construction plans of the proposed road improvement project,
individual parcel sketches identifying the area to be acquired, including any temporary easements, staking of the
new right-of-way limits, and contacts to arrange inspections of each home. The cost of these fourteen appraisals
would be $20,300 or $1,450 per parcel and could be completed in about 10 weeks from receiving authorization to
proceed and the requested information.
If you have any questions, or require further information, feel free to call me at your convenience.
____ . _. Jason L. Messner
messner~a7,pmdadvisors.com
Patchin 1dlessner & Dodd
Sunset Pond Executive Offices
13967 West Preserve Boulevard
Burnsville, MN 55337
(952) 895-1205
1 a - ,~.
Corr~munity Development Department
December 5, 2008 A
~`~
zA
~~
~. ~ ~ ~M ~
~
:
~
~
a6
Mr. Greg Bronk
LaNel Financial Group
4601 Excelsior Blvd
MAYOR
DEBBIE GOETI~EL .
St Louis Park, MN 55416
CITY COUNCIL RE: Reimbursement of HRA incurred expenses related to proposed Cedar Point II
BILL KILIAN redevelopment project
SUSAN ROSENBE:RG
SUZANNE M. SANDAHI_ Dear Greg:
FRED L. WROGE, JR.
CITY MANAGER This letter is to confirm your conversation yesterday with John Stark, Community
STEVEN L. DEVICH Development Director for the Gity, regarding the above-referenced issue.
LaNel Financial Group has agreed that payment of the outstanding expenses incurred
by the Richfield HRA related to the proposed Cedar Point 11 redevelopment will be
made as follows:
® 25% of the outstanding debt, currently $14,502.40, will be paid when the HRA
takes action on the proposed public financing for the project;
0 25% will be paid when the City Council takes action on the proposed public
financing; and
e The balance, including any additional expenses incurred in the interim, will be
paid in full at the execution of the Contract for Private Development between
LaNel and the Richfield HRA.
If you have questions or concerns, please contact me at 612-861-9777 or at
kbarton(a~cityofrichfield.ora .
Since
Karen Barto;~'
Community~C~ envelopment Ma
Enc.
cc: John Stark
Myrt Link
7hc.~ t,!r~hcu'i Norn.etuia~rz
6700 PORTLAND AVENUE, RICHFIELD, MINNESOI~A 55423 612.861.9760 FAX: 612.861.8974
www.cityofrirhfieid.on7 API 6C]UAI. pPPOFiIUNI'IY EMPI.OYfR